Safe Injection Sites: Informal Poll
The real 'debaters' of this forum haven't even arrived yet. And it's why I haven't lost interest in the subject yet.
[INDENT]'..tolerance when fog rolls in clouds unfold your selfless wings feathers that float from arabesque pillows I sold to be consumed by the snow white cold if only the plaster could hold withstand the flam[url="http://bit.ly/foT0XQ"]e[/url] then this fountain torch would know no shame and be outstripped only by the sun that burns with the glory and honor of your..'[/INDENT]
I ended up voting no.
While they are doing good work to improve the lives of people, I just can't help but feel that the money being spent on this program could be spent on helping people through rehabilitation centers rather than being lenient on a habit which is extremely bad for your health.
I don't want this to spin into another smoking thing, where we spend billions of dollars on people who continue a habit which has been proven thousands of times over to cause extreme harm to yourself in dozens of ways and harm to those around you via second hand smoke.
If we wanted to make a real dent in this problem and it's causes we would be investing more money into the area than we already are via this program, to make real changes a reality through the creation of rehab centers and other forms of homes which provide actual support to people with problems like addicition. Overcoming the addiction is by far more important than trying to fight the symptoms from having the addiction, and I don't think that this system is going to be direct enough.
While they are doing good work to improve the lives of people, I just can't help but feel that the money being spent on this program could be spent on helping people through rehabilitation centers rather than being lenient on a habit which is extremely bad for your health.
I don't want this to spin into another smoking thing, where we spend billions of dollars on people who continue a habit which has been proven thousands of times over to cause extreme harm to yourself in dozens of ways and harm to those around you via second hand smoke.
If we wanted to make a real dent in this problem and it's causes we would be investing more money into the area than we already are via this program, to make real changes a reality through the creation of rehab centers and other forms of homes which provide actual support to people with problems like addicition. Overcoming the addiction is by far more important than trying to fight the symptoms from having the addiction, and I don't think that this system is going to be direct enough.
Before you can get them into rehab, you have to have a point of contact, where you can talk to them, assess their needs and work out an approach that might work for each individual. Apart from reducing the amount of infections like Hepatits, HIV etc, such schemes as this do provide a point of first contact.
Are such schemes going to work in isolation? Of course not, they have to be implimented in parallel with other schemes, with the end target being to get the user off whatever they are addicted to.
By having such centres you also have more chance of reducing the chances of innocent people comming into contact with the discarded paraphanalia associated with injecting drugs. Unfortunately the chances of kids, stumbling on used needles etc., is a real threat, by centralising the usage points that threat can be reduced.
Are such schemes going to work in isolation? Of course not, they have to be implimented in parallel with other schemes, with the end target being to get the user off whatever they are addicted to.
By having such centres you also have more chance of reducing the chances of innocent people comming into contact with the discarded paraphanalia associated with injecting drugs. Unfortunately the chances of kids, stumbling on used needles etc., is a real threat, by centralising the usage points that threat can be reduced.
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
I voted yes, though it took me a while. As a former idiot (and make no mistake, we're all idiots if you start messing around with this) I have lost almost 75% of my original gang to the needle. That includes AIDS, Hepatitis, and all the other fantastic things you're getting while you think you're "closer to divinity." Make no mistake: Whether you smoke it or inject it, heroin will make you feel closer to the universe than anything you've ever experienced. Then you die lying in yer own filth. Cool, eh? Cross that border.
However, I have recently come to understand that drug addiction is a disease, pretty much like alcoholism. What gets to me is the endless self-pitying attitude that junkies have, and I will never accept their argument. There is NO person, in 2008, who doesn't understand the consequences of sticking that needle in your arm. There might have been a bit of misunderstanding during the first parts of the last century, due to lack of knowledge, but after we joined the "Information Age" you are basically useless if you start shooting up.
But hey! They are here, and as long as they are here the humane thing to do is to treat them like human beings, because they are/were. Clean needles and free methadone can save us all, for the time being. Up here on The Reef we currently have over 300 free treatment spaces, unused but paid for by our taxes, which are standing empty. My sympathy is wearing pretty thin....
However, I have recently come to understand that drug addiction is a disease, pretty much like alcoholism.
What gets to me is the endless self-pitying attitude that junkies have, and I will never accept their argument. There is NO person, in 2008, who doesn't understand the consequences of sticking that needle in your arm. There might have been a bit of misunderstanding during the first parts of the last century, due to lack of knowledge, but after we joined the "Information Age" you are basically useless if you start shooting up.But hey! They are here, and as long as they are here the humane thing to do is to treat them like human beings, because they are/were. Clean needles and free methadone can save us all, for the time being. Up here on The Reef we currently have over 300 free treatment spaces, unused but paid for by our taxes, which are standing empty. My sympathy is wearing pretty thin....
I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
-
Lady Dragonfly
- Posts: 1384
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:12 pm
- Location: Dreamworld
- Contact:
I doubt it'll surprise anyone to know I voted no. I don't believe in social palliatives.galraen wrote:I doubt it'll surprise anyone to know I voted yes
Moonbiter wrote:
Pretty much agree.What gets to me is the endless self-pitying attitude that junkies have, and I will never accept their argument. There is NO person, in 2008, who doesn't understand the consequences of sticking that needle in your arm.
Can't blame you.Up here on The Reef we currently have over 300 free treatment spaces, unused but paid for by our taxes, which are standing empty. My sympathy is wearing pretty thin....
Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-- Euripides
-- Euripides
Voted yes, because I have nothing against the idea in principle. But I could be convinced either way if I was shown some facts about the effectiveness and economy related to it.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
Yes, with the caveat that well administrated rehab resources are also a part of the site. While I can't condone or approve of state funded assistance in substance abuse, I can support self help options being made available to those who would seek it. That being said, I have not seen this type of center work well here in Texas. The typical cenario is that those who are actually concerned about clean needles are also concerned about keeping their recreational use of street drugs well hidden from the general public. They tend to limit the number of people who are aware of their substance abuse to a bare minimum. Namely their supplier, SO, and one or two VERY close friends.
On the other hand the VAST majority of addicts I see in my practice as a nurse have long since past the point where IV hygiene is of great concern. Infact, they seem to show up in the ER at the end of the month when the public assistance money has run out to be admitted for their 'pancreatitis' for which they get IV morphine, Demerol, or Dilaudid mixed with phenargan to tide them over until the first of the month when they get their next check and can purchase more potent street drugs. They tend to already be infected with at least one or more strains of hepatitis, TB, and often HIV. Many of these same people are in complete denial of the dangers they present to others in their pursuit of their addiction. I could go further into this, but it is off topic, so I will stick to the issue.
I honestly believe that "Clean Needle" sites will not impact the heavy user who is already living the highest risk lifestyle. They will of course pop in when they need a new needle or two, but then they will continue to share needles on the street with whomever they are shooting up with. Many of the people in this category are also in municipal rehab programs wherein they receive prescriptions at no cost to them for methadone, which they take concurrently or in between 'fixes' of street narcotics.
Those who care most about needle hygene are probably still too self concious about keeping their activities secret, that they would not risk being seen in or near such a facility.
Truly the only persons that this type of center might actually serve ,as far as I can see, are those persons who:
1. Have not yet become infected.
2. Those who have, but are still in their right mind enough not to want to risk infecting others.
3. The third and last demographic that might take advantage of these centers are those users who want to 'get clean'
IE: pregnant women, people who are only recently addicted and not yet infected but who want to turn things around while they still can or those persons who no longer can function without the drug but honestly want help in breaking their addiction. And lastly those who are curious enough to want to try it, but don't want the risk of becoming infected, .
Regardless, these programs do nothing more than supply abusers with the required paraphernalia and unless treatment is offered along side it, they will not do much to impact the epidemic of infectious blood born deseases among the addicted population.
On the other hand the VAST majority of addicts I see in my practice as a nurse have long since past the point where IV hygiene is of great concern. Infact, they seem to show up in the ER at the end of the month when the public assistance money has run out to be admitted for their 'pancreatitis' for which they get IV morphine, Demerol, or Dilaudid mixed with phenargan to tide them over until the first of the month when they get their next check and can purchase more potent street drugs. They tend to already be infected with at least one or more strains of hepatitis, TB, and often HIV. Many of these same people are in complete denial of the dangers they present to others in their pursuit of their addiction. I could go further into this, but it is off topic, so I will stick to the issue.
I honestly believe that "Clean Needle" sites will not impact the heavy user who is already living the highest risk lifestyle. They will of course pop in when they need a new needle or two, but then they will continue to share needles on the street with whomever they are shooting up with. Many of the people in this category are also in municipal rehab programs wherein they receive prescriptions at no cost to them for methadone, which they take concurrently or in between 'fixes' of street narcotics.
Those who care most about needle hygene are probably still too self concious about keeping their activities secret, that they would not risk being seen in or near such a facility.
Truly the only persons that this type of center might actually serve ,as far as I can see, are those persons who:
1. Have not yet become infected.
2. Those who have, but are still in their right mind enough not to want to risk infecting others.
3. The third and last demographic that might take advantage of these centers are those users who want to 'get clean'
IE: pregnant women, people who are only recently addicted and not yet infected but who want to turn things around while they still can or those persons who no longer can function without the drug but honestly want help in breaking their addiction. And lastly those who are curious enough to want to try it, but don't want the risk of becoming infected, .
Regardless, these programs do nothing more than supply abusers with the required paraphernalia and unless treatment is offered along side it, they will not do much to impact the epidemic of infectious blood born deseases among the addicted population.
Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)
The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
I don't mind paying taxes if a majority of people in the society decide that is what they want to do with their limited resources.
But if I am deciding what to do with my personal income I have for charitable causes there are many other worthwhile things to do with my limited resources. So basicly I accept that being in a society I have to accept both giving and receiving from the society if I want to participate. But pretty much the number one worry in my life is not making cozy places to do drugs. Which is cruel, but that is not my intention really. At the same time I have respect for people who want to spend their resources because I do think it is a compassionate thing. But I have other causes that are nearer to my heart that I would prefer to spend my money on.
Summary: paying taxes is indeed part of the deal in participating in society. But charity is not an obligation...and if it is only done out of obligation then it is not really generosity. I guess I am feeling more generous to other causes.
But if I am deciding what to do with my personal income I have for charitable causes there are many other worthwhile things to do with my limited resources. So basicly I accept that being in a society I have to accept both giving and receiving from the society if I want to participate. But pretty much the number one worry in my life is not making cozy places to do drugs. Which is cruel, but that is not my intention really. At the same time I have respect for people who want to spend their resources because I do think it is a compassionate thing. But I have other causes that are nearer to my heart that I would prefer to spend my money on.
Summary: paying taxes is indeed part of the deal in participating in society. But charity is not an obligation...and if it is only done out of obligation then it is not really generosity. I guess I am feeling more generous to other causes.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
-
Bloodstalker
- Posts: 15512
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Hell if I know
- Contact:
Voted no. I do not believe that addiction is a disease. Addiction is not something that you contract through contact with an infected person, it isn't airborne or transferable in any way. The only way possible to become an addict is to at one point to make a conscious and determined decision to inject a foriegn chemical into your body. The person must also make the conscious and determined decision to do so the next time, until it does indeed become something that they have very little choice about. But to get to the point where you are an addict, you have to have first made the choice to assume all the risks that go along with shooting up. And in this day and age, I believe the same thing as Moonbiter in so far as there is very little possibility of someone not knowing the risks involved with drug use.
No one may choose to be an addict, but you choose to put yourself at risk. You also can choose not to be an addict simply by not taking the risk of using drugs. That fact that anyone can choose not to use drugs and never become an addict is what makes me discount the idea that addiction is a disease. Smallpox, Bubonic Plague, TB, Polio, and on down the line do not offer that initial choice. Even HIV, which many people tend to think of as a disease that you can avoid by lifestyle choices, is tranferabble via other channels besides sexual contact. You cannot avoid the risk of a disease with 100% certainty the way you can the risk of addiction.
To me, calling an addiction a disease is an enabler. It takes responsibility out of the individuals hands. His choices no longer matter. The only people who ever quit are the ones who acknowledge that they do have the ultimate say in what choice they make. Those people struggle constantly with their addictions, but they understand that is something they have to deal with and choose, as hard as it may be, to stop. I've known people like this, and I've know people who were addicts and didn't quit. In some cases I have noticed a distinct belief that nothing they do will help at all. One person I knew, who eventually died from their addiction, refused to even try to get help because "There's nothing anyone can do about it." Statements like that are eerily similar to the thinking some people develop when diagnosed with cancer or some other potentially fatal disease.A lot of people diagnosed with those types of things simply refuse treatment because they think that the disease they have is terminal and untreatable anyway. Some people refuse chemotherapy because they refuse to put themselves through the process because it makes no sense to them to go through that when they are going to die anyway. I can see how an addict could in many cases use the same thinking. What's the use, after all, of trying to quit and going through the pain that comes with quitting, when you're just going to go back to using anyway? When you throw around terms like disease and start applying them to everything under the sun, which I think we do now, you can wind up, intentionally or not, promoting a level of fatalism about people's problems and addictions that many people fall back on to deal with a major disease like cancer. You can cause some people, who might actually seek help if they thought it would do any good, to simply accept the end result of their addiction as unavoidable.
This has been longwinded, and slightly off topic, but it's what I was thinking when I voted. I simply don't see how providing a safe place to shoot up does anything but project a certain level of acceptance. To me, it's basically admitting that yes, you are an addict, and yes, we know you are going to use drugs. We know you can't help it, and we are even circumventing the laws to make an allowance for that fact. Even when you are offering counceling or attempting to promote treatement, it still to me sends a conflicting message.
No one may choose to be an addict, but you choose to put yourself at risk. You also can choose not to be an addict simply by not taking the risk of using drugs. That fact that anyone can choose not to use drugs and never become an addict is what makes me discount the idea that addiction is a disease. Smallpox, Bubonic Plague, TB, Polio, and on down the line do not offer that initial choice. Even HIV, which many people tend to think of as a disease that you can avoid by lifestyle choices, is tranferabble via other channels besides sexual contact. You cannot avoid the risk of a disease with 100% certainty the way you can the risk of addiction.
To me, calling an addiction a disease is an enabler. It takes responsibility out of the individuals hands. His choices no longer matter. The only people who ever quit are the ones who acknowledge that they do have the ultimate say in what choice they make. Those people struggle constantly with their addictions, but they understand that is something they have to deal with and choose, as hard as it may be, to stop. I've known people like this, and I've know people who were addicts and didn't quit. In some cases I have noticed a distinct belief that nothing they do will help at all. One person I knew, who eventually died from their addiction, refused to even try to get help because "There's nothing anyone can do about it." Statements like that are eerily similar to the thinking some people develop when diagnosed with cancer or some other potentially fatal disease.A lot of people diagnosed with those types of things simply refuse treatment because they think that the disease they have is terminal and untreatable anyway. Some people refuse chemotherapy because they refuse to put themselves through the process because it makes no sense to them to go through that when they are going to die anyway. I can see how an addict could in many cases use the same thinking. What's the use, after all, of trying to quit and going through the pain that comes with quitting, when you're just going to go back to using anyway? When you throw around terms like disease and start applying them to everything under the sun, which I think we do now, you can wind up, intentionally or not, promoting a level of fatalism about people's problems and addictions that many people fall back on to deal with a major disease like cancer. You can cause some people, who might actually seek help if they thought it would do any good, to simply accept the end result of their addiction as unavoidable.
This has been longwinded, and slightly off topic, but it's what I was thinking when I voted. I simply don't see how providing a safe place to shoot up does anything but project a certain level of acceptance. To me, it's basically admitting that yes, you are an addict, and yes, we know you are going to use drugs. We know you can't help it, and we are even circumventing the laws to make an allowance for that fact. Even when you are offering counceling or attempting to promote treatement, it still to me sends a conflicting message.
Lord of Lurkers
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
Wow!
great responses everyone! I really appreciate this, especially to those of you who voted "No." Not because of where I happen to stand, or not stand, on the issue (I think most people who know me here should be able to guess my position ) but because those who are lobbying against Insite here have come up with a lot of truly pathetic arguments. The arguments I have seen in this thread are far better
great responses everyone! I really appreciate this, especially to those of you who voted "No." Not because of where I happen to stand, or not stand, on the issue (I think most people who know me here should be able to guess my position
) but because those who are lobbying against Insite here have come up with a lot of truly pathetic arguments. The arguments I have seen in this thread are far better Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
Wish I had time to participate in this discussion, especially since I know have a collaboration with a world leading substance abuse research lab...sadly I have no time right now, but one quick word: to say that substance dependency and/or substance abuse it not a disease, is like saying colon cancer is only caused by bad diet. Just like the old nature-nurture question, it is not that simple. Developing a substance addiction is a complex, multifactorial phenomena determined by many factors: genetic background, biological characteristics, social situation and internal motivation.
Oh, and I haven't voted yet, will do that when I have time to motivate my vote.
Oh, and I haven't voted yet, will do that when I have time to motivate my vote.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
So, after posting my response, I decided to do some more research on this personally. While I did find some papers which did [url="http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/171/7/731.pdf"]support claims[/url] mentioned in the linked article at the beginning of the thread, many papers have come [url="http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php"]under fire[/url].
I'm not too knowledgeable on these sorts of things (which is kind of sad) but can't rehab centers also be improved to provide better reception for continual drug users? A fair amount of money has been sunk into this program, could not services have been improved to increase reception of these centers to high risk or new drug users so that they feel safer in their use of such centers to get on their way to being clean?Before you can get them into rehab, you have to have a point of contact, where you can talk to them, assess their needs and work out an approach that might work for each individual. Apart from reducing the amount of infections like Hepatits, HIV etc, such schemes as this do provide a point of first contact.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
Tell me about it, I'm sitting here trying to get the damn paper written by tomorrow night, and I haven't the energy to vote either. OK, plus I don't want to skew results eitherC Elegans wrote: Oh, and I haven't voted yet, will do that when I have time to motivate my vote.
Ugh... this schedule is just punishing.. I'll be pleased when the residency part of my program is over *sigh*
Incidentally,
here's another article that gives some decent info:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/20 ... 01-cp.html
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
Bloodstalker wrote:Voted no. I do not believe that addiction is a disease. ..<snip>...
To me, calling an addiction a disease is an enabler. It takes responsibility out of the individuals hands.
I could not agree more, and my only regret is that I forgot to say that in my reply
Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)
The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
-
Bloodstalker
- Posts: 15512
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Hell if I know
- Contact:
I don't disagree that there are a ton of factors that can account for how likely a person may be to actually become addicted. But with addiction, unlike colon cancer, anyone can make a single conscious decision that can remove the risk of addiction completely. I just don't believe it's quite the same thing. You can't choose not to get colon cancer, all you can do is try to limit certain risks.C Elegans wrote: to say that substance dependency and/or substance abuse it not a disease, is like saying colon cancer is only caused by bad diet. Just like the old nature-nurture question, it is not that simple. Developing a substance addiction is a complex, multifactorial phenomena determined by many factors: genetic background, biological characteristics, social situation and internal motivation.
Genetic backgrounds and biological characteristics will never come into play if someone doesn't use drugs. Internal motivation and social situations still require a choice to be made one way or another when it comes to initially using drugs. I still see choice as the determining factor. The internal and social factors are only factors that figure into an individual making that choice. At least as I understand what you are talking about, which it is very possible I don't. For every social circumstance where someone chooses to use drigs, someone else doesn't. The same for internal motivations, which I think you are referring to things like dealing with problems, depression, or so on. If you aren't, then I am misunderstanding things, which is no real surprise
Maybe it's my interpretation of what a disease is. I tend to think of a disease as some type of illness that at best a person has a small amount of control over. I use myself as an example. I smoke. I've smoked for years. I hear all this about social pressures and everything else about why people smoke, but I smoked my first cigarette because I wanted to. I coughed like crazy, my eyes watered, and I overlooked that and smoked again. I am now officially addicted to smoking. There was a point when I knew on some level I was becoming addicted and could likely have stopped relativly easily at that point. I didn't. I don't think I have a disease, it's just a direct result of choices I made.
On the other hand, I know that alcoholism runs in my family. I believe I am genetically at higher risk to become an alcoholic than some other people. I limit my drinking consciously because of that. I refuse to drink a drop if there is any chance that I might be drinking due to any problem or anything else I might be going through. I stop drinking if I think that I have reached the point where I am just doing it to fit into a social setting where everyone else is getting progressivly more wasted. In fact, I drink very little at all anymore.
Sigh....Maybe I am just old and crusty. I just tend to think that people seem to want to give up more and more of their own responsibilty for actions they take that put them in bad situations. Everywhere I look everyone has an excuse for everything from bad parenting to bad career choices to everything else. I just think people do a lot better when they assume responsibilities for things that are within their control.
Lord of Lurkers
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
I believe this is the key point in our disagreement. I've had discussions about drug abuse, responsibility, guilt, choice and the definition of disease with many people, and I do think it is quite common that people in general conceptualise "disease" and something that is outside the individual's control and not something that is partly of fully self-inflicted. However, in medicine, the definition of the term "disease" has nothing at all to do with questions of responsibility, choice or whether or not it is self-inflicted or not. The ethical and moral part is totally unrelated to the disease concept. Disease is defined as "a deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs". Additional critera that are not necessary but often used include identification of biomarkers specifically associated with that disease and the existence of a disease process with distinguishable stages.Bloodstalker wrote: Maybe it's my interpretation of what a disease is. I tend to think of a disease as some type of illness that at best a person has a small amount of control over.
Substance dependency and abuse is classified as a disease by WHO and by the international medical science and health care community. Is has no relation at all to the question of how much responsibility or control a person with substance dependency has over his or her dependency and the consequences of that dependency. Substance abuse fulfils the critera for being a disease, and it even fulfils more of the additional critera than for instance schizophrenia or Alzheimer's disease since more is know about the mechanisms that cause the disorder.
Ok, that was the easy part, disease definition, and I'm sorry for that sidetrack. The difficult part is related to the ethical part: what is the most efficient treatment for this disease that involves choices and requires the individual to take some responsibility themselves? A disease that can be treated by swallowing a pill is so much easier to deal with than a disease that requires compliance, motivation, impulse control and other personal resources in the patient. Exactly the same resources that become severly compromised by having a substance abuse disorder. The sad fact is that all existing treatment of substance abuse to date, is relatively unsuccessful. My vote in DW:s poll is NO, and the background for this is that the characteristics of the context and patients in question, appear to be more in line with situations where previous such experiments have not been successful. I can however easily image other contexts where free, safe injection sites would actually be more helpful than not having them, but - more about that later.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Ok, finally my response to DW:s actual questions.
I voted no, because I presumed that the socioeconomic, demographic and cultural characteristics of the population of patients in questions, would be more similar to the populations in western Europe where similar interventions have been unsuccessful, than to the populations where these invententions have been successful. Maybe I am wrong in this assumption, and if so, my vote would be different since it is completely based on scientific studies of the effects of free syringes programs in different populations during different circumstances. From what I have seen so far, the effect of free syringe programs is good in developing areas with a high HIV incidence, such as poor parts of South America and the US, but not so good in richer areas where HIV incidence is lower, such as Switzerland. Switzerland was among the first European countries to start syringe exchange programs, and the HIV transmission rate among injecting drug users have been stable for many years now. There is no evidence that drug use increase or decrease following introduction of syringe exchange programs, but there is evidence that HIV transmission decrease significatly. The most consistently successful results have been achieved during the periods when HIV transmission among IV drug users has been explosive, such as is now the case in some regions of Asia and poor areas in Eastern Europe. In the US, the syringe exchange programs have clearly been both efficient in decreasing HIV transmission and turned out to be cost-effective. However, the US has the highest incidence of HIV and STDs of all western countries, so it's important to know how close the Vancouver population in questions resembles the US populations in HIV prevalence and transmission patterns.
I voted no, because I presumed that the socioeconomic, demographic and cultural characteristics of the population of patients in questions, would be more similar to the populations in western Europe where similar interventions have been unsuccessful, than to the populations where these invententions have been successful. Maybe I am wrong in this assumption, and if so, my vote would be different since it is completely based on scientific studies of the effects of free syringes programs in different populations during different circumstances. From what I have seen so far, the effect of free syringe programs is good in developing areas with a high HIV incidence, such as poor parts of South America and the US, but not so good in richer areas where HIV incidence is lower, such as Switzerland. Switzerland was among the first European countries to start syringe exchange programs, and the HIV transmission rate among injecting drug users have been stable for many years now. There is no evidence that drug use increase or decrease following introduction of syringe exchange programs, but there is evidence that HIV transmission decrease significatly. The most consistently successful results have been achieved during the periods when HIV transmission among IV drug users has been explosive, such as is now the case in some regions of Asia and poor areas in Eastern Europe. In the US, the syringe exchange programs have clearly been both efficient in decreasing HIV transmission and turned out to be cost-effective. However, the US has the highest incidence of HIV and STDs of all western countries, so it's important to know how close the Vancouver population in questions resembles the US populations in HIV prevalence and transmission patterns.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I just had lunch with an old friend who's a social worker working for the city, specifically with street people. She told me that the reason the city shut down all of the three injection sites, was that only a very few addicts actually used them. The interesting part was that when they finally shut down the last one, there was a big cry of outrage from various special-interest organizations. The city then asked them if they wanted to take over and run the sites with part funding from the city treasury, which of course the wouldn't.
My opinion of this is that the should have kept one open. The current socialist administration has seriously downsized possibilities for treatment, while granting the addicts more liberties. This has led to the junkies virtually taking over our big cities. It's a nightmarish scenario where they close institutions, underpay customs officials, police and health care workers, and grant junkies special rights that no other citizen has. It has reached the point where a shop owner can't ask the police to remove an addict begging in his doorway, cuz that's discrimination.
They are now rambling about giving away free heroin on prescriptions. Talk about "enabling!" They won't give out Methadone or Subutex, but heroin is okay.... I'm personally at a loss as to what to do. It seems that every solution that really helps is deemed un-pc and fascistoid.
My opinion of this is that the should have kept one open. The current socialist administration has seriously downsized possibilities for treatment, while granting the addicts more liberties. This has led to the junkies virtually taking over our big cities. It's a nightmarish scenario where they close institutions, underpay customs officials, police and health care workers, and grant junkies special rights that no other citizen has. It has reached the point where a shop owner can't ask the police to remove an addict begging in his doorway, cuz that's discrimination.
They are now rambling about giving away free heroin on prescriptions.
Talk about "enabling!" They won't give out Methadone or Subutex, but heroin is okay.... I'm personally at a loss as to what to do. It seems that every solution that really helps is deemed un-pc and fascistoid.I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
-
BlueSky
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:10 pm
- Location: middle of 10 acres of woods in Ky.
- Contact:
A vote in the "yes" for me.
Even if it only causes one person to seek help to curb their addiction.
By the way celebrated 14 years sober 11-5....
speaking from experience.....you cannot do it for the courts, for your loved ones, for (insert anything here)......you can only make that decision for yourself..and until that conscious choice is made, nothing productive happens.
Even if it only causes one person to seek help to curb their addiction.
By the way celebrated 14 years sober 11-5....
speaking from experience.....you cannot do it for the courts, for your loved ones, for (insert anything here)......you can only make that decision for yourself..and until that conscious choice is made, nothing productive happens.
I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death"-anon