GameBanshee Forums

At the moment I'm writing a short paper about the Safe Injection Site in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Out of curiosity, and because I'd like to test a hypothesis, I'd like to conduct an informal and *very unscientific* poll here
If you want to end up arguing the pros and cons of the issue I don't mind, but right now what I'm really interested in is whether or not you agree with the existence of safe injection sites.

To give you more perspective, [url="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060824.winsitedisc0825/BNStory/specialComment/?pageRequested=all"]Here[/url] is a debate on the subject.

To provide a sense of what you are getting into, here's a clip from the link above, the article itself is a bit old, but I picked it because it offers quite a comprehensive overview:

"Vancouver's safe-injection site was the subject of controversy even before its doors opened three years ago in the city's troubled Downtown Eastside.

Supporters of the site, known as Insite, argue that its presence has significantly reduced the number of users sharing needles and shooting up in public. It provides a safe place for addicts to inject drugs, with clean needles, and provides counselling on-site.

Scientific, peer-reviewed studies of Insite users have found that the rate of addicts seeking to quit their habit has gone up, while there is no evidence that the facility has increased drug use.

But that hasn't stopped the controversy surrounding Insite, where roughly 600 addicts shoot up daily. Those who oppose it argue that the site simply condones drug use without offering any tangible solutions to the city's problems."








By the way, I deliberately kept the question to a "Yes" or "No" without providing a third, more neutral option
I'd also appreciate it if you could elaborate as to why you voted as you did in this thread, thanks!

Hm. What kind of care, social security as well as health, can the poor and homeless expect in Canada? Are these safe injection sites (I almost wrote surrender sites) the last of the last resort, or are enough doors left open for these people to a better life? I understand the need for supervision, but I'm not passing judgment until I understand what the government is already doing for these people. If it is a great deal already, then I would be for the idea. If it is barely nothing at all, then the money would for the time being be better spend on facilitating (I meant this as detoxing etc, couldn't come up with the right word) and rehabilitating addicts.

Bring me up to Speed, DW.

OK... I'm trying not to influence peoples' perceptions here, but Vancouver's Downtown Eastside has been described as the "poorest postal code in the country." I have been through there a lot, and I can tell you it is utterly squalid. People in the area tend to fall through the usual cracks and they might not necessarily have access (real or imagined) to the nation's social safety nets.
Yes, Canada does have good universal healthcare, and we do have a welfare system. However, proponents of Insite argue that addicts are unlikely to seek those services, while also arguing that a fairly high percentage of people who enter the Safe Injection Site do end up, in fact, seeking rehabilitation by virtue of exposure.

If you want more info, since I'm trying to avoid too heavy a prejudice, I'd also suggest you run some Google searches

I voted yes but I am assuming the drug is legal in Canada. If the drug is illegal then obviously thats counterproductive to have legal areas to inject it. In that case they should have safe areas of methadone injection.

Claudius wrote:I voted yes but I am assuming the drug is legal in Canada. If the drug is illegal then obviously thats counterproductive to have legal areas to inject it. In that case they should have safe areas of methadone injection.

The drugs that are brought into the safe injection site by users are not legal in Canada. However, the site has been operating under an exemption to drug laws.

I voted yes because I believe that safe-injection sites are part of a good policy towards treatment. They give addicts a chance to seek treatment while preventing the dangers of buying drugs (that might be laced with whatever) on the street.

Essentially, its a pragmatic part of a way to help get drugs off the streets and have less people using them. Its just too bad the Canadian government is so opposed to them.

You're not influencing the poll by providing more information, DW. Background information is just as important.

I voted no. I'm not against the idea, but it seems to me there are a lot of baser things that Canada can do to improve their lives. This makes me sound like I know better what to do with junkies than Canada does, but that's not true. I assume that, for now at least, this money can be better spend on other, perhaps simpler things to a greater effect. And if that's not a certainty it should at the very least be explored further.

Can't say I do - but the whole issue is a very loaded, extremely complex and pretty much unsolvable problem due to human nature.

But the jist of it - no, I do not.

Personally - while cynical and cold hearted it may sound - but I personally do think, based on my own life experience, that addition is basically a choice.

Xandax wrote:I personally do think, based on my own life experience, that addition is basically a choice.

Indeed. I, for one, have been math-free for almost a year and a half now!

Terrible attempts at humor aside - thank you, DW, for broaching this subject to those of us unfamiliar with Canadian politics! Although I'm fairly certain that I disagree, in basic principle, with the idea of having specific zones where elsewhere-illegal narcotic substances become condonable, (if only because of the blatant hypocrisy), I've got to give a hats-off to Vancouver's government for actually attempting, in any fashion, to address the issue.

Xandax wrote: Personally - while cynical and cold hearted it may sound - but I personally do think, based on my own life experience, that addition is basically a choice.

Ever been addicted to anything?
Why would anyone choose to be addicted?
How do you reconcile your belief that addiction is a choice, with various accounts of addicts who wish to quit and seek out rehabilitation?

I voted yes because I don't believe that shooting up H huddled up in a doorway on East Hastings is beneficial to anyone.

I'm a little bothered that the general trend of supporters who have posted their thoughts on internet forums in the past have been supporting it more as a "well, if they get the drug, they can live normal lives", rather than considering drug use, something which has many health problems assosiated it which have been proven many ways, a key issue to be targeted.

I am also bothered a bit that since this is only one site and the program is supposed to be a gateway into a new way of controlling drug abuse, that the studies would not be as unbiased as I would like in either way. I've heard that HIV rates are both up and down in the area. I've also heard all sorts of crime statistics. Also, there has been economic concerns, that local investment of the area is dropping off. I guess you can say that I am a little skittish supporting a project which is so politically entangled enough to consider it a basis for an extension of that program.

I also wonder if this money could not have been more appropriately placed into rehabilitation programs and studies rather than into this project. While I do think it is improving lives I do not think it is providing a solution to a problem so much as trying to treat one of the symptoms. Therefore, in true Canadian fashion, I'm going to abstain from voting. Ta!

(I kid, I just haven't thought of how to vote yet -- when do you want the votes in by?)

I have a fair few thoughts but, being late as it is, I decided to just toss out the worry-wart part of me and wander away.

Also, it would be great if our politicians could restrict acting like kindergarteners to yelling at each other in the House of Commons.

Vicsun wrote:Ever been addicted to anything?
Why would anyone choose to be addicted?
How do you reconcile your belief that addiction is a choice, with various accounts of addicts who wish to quit and seek out rehabilitation?

I voted yes because I don't believe that shooting up H huddled up in a doorway on East Hastings is beneficial to anyone.

I'm close to having a gambling problem, which I'm keeping in check - mostly because I'm cheap and know that if I don't control it, it could create problems for me. I discovered that I had this when I "suddenly" lost a thousand dollars (luckily - out of winnings, so I ended up on top) in one siting when gambling.
And well, truth be told - I'm sure some people would label me as borderline alcoholic at one time, which I've rid myself off as well and gotten under control. Kicking back some 30-50 units of alcohol 3 times a week is not healthy by any means. But we did it because we were "young and it was cool".

Whether or not those things qualify in the eyes of others I care very little about. I had "habits" I didn't want - so I took the choice and quit them - or at least I learned how to control them so they didn't control me.

And yes - I know it sounds "cold hearted" and cynical and frankly - I don't mind and I don't care - because shooting up "H" in a controlled environment is hardly beneficial to anybody either. It is symptom treatment and not cause treatment.

People have problems each and every day - and it is a choice how you deal with those problems. Whether it is using drugs or what else, or it is coping in a more harmless manner, it is a choice. It is a voluntarily act of indulging your desires and to sooth the physical effects.

Some people just don't have the strength to say no, but then I don't think they should get easier and safer access to the factors which keep them weak, cause that will still keep them weak and addicted.

Popular opinion or not, people are responsible for their own actions and their own choices. And if I had any direct say in this, I'd surely not want my tax money to go to such things.

Xandax wrote:Some people just don't have the strength to say no, but then I don't think they should get easier and safer access to the factors which keep them weak, cause that will still keep them weak and addicted.

Aye. But there are other ways to resolve their addiction other than outright removing it (let me correct myself in advance - you didn't say that, I'm just making a general point). I think safe injection sites aren't in line with that thought. The idea here is that a group of people can be controlled and monitored while causing no problems to the rest of society, as they'll get their fix one way or another. From there the general idea is to help them further. Unfortunately I don't think Canada is doing enough to help them beyond that, so the point of safe injection sites in this case is moot.

I voted yes , but there are conditions. As it sits right now, there is I believe only on site counsilling available to those who use it. Nothing wrong with that, but more followup is needed. This pilot project is only the tip of a theoretical spear for dealing with drug abuse. If the political will can be found it COULD be a starting point for helping people get off drugs. What it is at the moment is little more than a warm place to shoot up with a clean needle. So I guess no to it's current form, but a big yes to what it has the potential to be.

Voted yes. There are many, many nuances involved, but at the most basic level, I don't see any advantage to forcing addicts to shoot up in filthy, dangerous conditions. Safe injection sites are to my way of thinking simply more human and humane.

Well, it appeared to be more difficult to choose 'yes' or 'no' for me than I first thought.
Ok, I chose 'No', but when I was ready to klick on it first time, I remembered that I'm an addict too... Well, truth be told, all of us on GB are addicts... Computer games, y'know. I thought, what if, for some purpose, all computer/video games suddenly become illegal. And then, some place in your city appears, where you can freely play them without thinking of how to get 'em, without fear of being accused by someone. Allright, of course these are different things, games are not lethal and you can't be infected by them, but they ARE addictive so I think drugs and games are partially the same thing.
But that is only a side thoughts, sorry if it looks like crap to you all.Anyway, as I said, I chose 'No', 'cause I totally aggree with Xandax that it's one's choice if he wants to become an addict or not. And another reason I chose 'No' is that I think that addicted people are dangerous, because they're desperate for their source of satisfaction (of course I mean drugs here... and alcohol...I've seen my lot of this danger with my own eyes. And no, I'm not talking about myself. In fact, I have never EVER drank alcohol, smoked, or used drugs. There's a good reason to it, believe me). I say, better invest money and try to heal these people than let them slip deeper and deeper...

Thanks a lot for the replies so far everyone
The eleven votes so far are actually breaking down as I had suspected they might. Clearly, as I said, there is nothing at all scientific about this, and I'm not sure what the results would be if I conducted the same survey in Vancouver, but even so, it's nice to have even some indication.

@Kaer,
In terms of getting the votes in, I don't have a pressing deadline, as such. Basically, I have to hand the paper in electronically at midnight PST tomorrow. The reason I posted the poll, though, was to confirm that opinion on the matter is indeed relatively mixed, even if there seems to be a majority slant in the one direction. I had considered, in true debate format, arguing against my actual feelings on the matter. However, for reasons I won't elaborate on yet, that is proving impossible, so I want to be certain there is at least a reasonable amount of divide in opinion.

I doubt it'll surprise anyone to know I voted yes, I've stated my opnion on the subject several times. As my sig used to say, prohibition only benefits criminals. Any step to bring drug users out of the dark and into a place where they can be helped and receive positive assistance to quit has to be better than hiding our heads in the sand whilst Mafia types get rich because of it.

I think we had a thread discussing legalization of drugs and alcohol.......not particularly interested in debating that one again.