[SunriseChampion]

And here we are again. Government hacks forcing their harm reduction strategies onto neighbourhoods, without any real consultation with the local residents.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...gs-but-lets-increase-honesty-too-dimanno.html

Why not deal with the issue of why there are so many drug addicts downtown, i.e. the shelter/homeless industry's utter concentration downtown east, instead of servicing them. Move the shelter beds into smaller groups across the city, and have a small harm reduction service in each one, not just for safe injections, but whatever self-harming predilections people have.

No idea what you're talking about. I'll bet my bollocks to a barn dance that there are easily as many addicts in Rosedale and Forest Hill as there are downtown east. Private school coke heads and tweakers aplenty, believe you me. Addiction doesn't have a specific address, but thanks for perpetuating an ignorant misunderstanding of a serious condition.

A good first step in addressing the causes of addiction would be to stop stigmatising and generalising and to actually learn a little about what the many faces of addiction look like.

 

[DanforthGuy]

It's worked in Europe in reducing deaths and the spread of disease.

In Portugal decriminalization of drugs has led to decreased rates of addicts, deaths, and spread of disease. It's by no means a "cure", but decriminalization and supervised injection sites do work.

 

[rbt]

It's worked in Europe in reducing deaths and the spread of disease.

In Portugal decriminalization of drugs has led to decreased rates of addicts, deaths, and spread of disease. It's by no means a "cure", but decriminalization and supervised injection sites do work.

They defunded criminal enforcement and moved the funding into treatment and rehab.

Just decriminalizing and decreasing income taxes by a %age point probably won't change much.

 

[SunriseChampion]

It's worked in Europe in reducing deaths and the spread of disease.

In Portugal decriminalization of drugs has led to decreased rates of addicts, deaths, and spread of disease. It's by no means a "cure", but decriminalization and supervised injection sites do work.

Why confuse the issue with facts though?

 

[Admiral Beez]

No idea what you're talking about.

Then why not ask? We can all learn from each other's POV. It's a discussion forum after all.

I'll bet my bollocks to a barn dance that there are easily as many addicts in Rosedale and Forest Hill as there are downtown east. Private school coke heads and tweakers aplenty, believe you me. Addiction doesn't have a specific address,

Yes, but they're not getting injection sites. I'd feel the problem was better a shared societal burden if supports for those in need were positioned throughout the city. The downtrodden follow the services, not the other way round.

A good first step in addressing the causes of addiction would be to stop stigmatising and generalising and to actually learn a little about what the many faces of addiction look like.

The faces of addiction I see every day downtown east are those broken souls shaking uncontrollably on street corners. These folks need help, but does facilitating their addiction assist them in dealing with its causes? If it helps, then put a small injection site in every homeless centre and drop-in, as opposed to these larger injection depots.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Well, we can agree that putting safe injection sites in the neighbourhoods where they are needed is a good idea. I don't see why this would preclude the indeed small, three room sites that are proposed for existing health centres in neighbourhoods with high incidence of drug injection by the poor. I don't need a safe injection site, personally.....I can safely get high at home. Then again, I have a full time job and a home. (I don't inject, for the record, but used to be a meth and alcohol addict and had a full time job and a home when I was).
Facilitating their addiction through the provision of safe injection sites doesn't in and of itself assist addicts in addressing the cause of their addiction but it does provide a level of personal and public safety that having people injecting in the streets does not. That's not to say that the best way to deal with the cause of someone's addiction can't be helped through these sites. The best way to start to deal with the causes of someone's addiction is to learn what that cause is. Health professionals are best equipped to do this....and then have the capacity to provide further help as needed.

 

[TrickyRicky]

A new decentralized homeless shelter is opening near me so I'm sympathetic to the NIMBY reflex. From a social policy perspective we could probably agree that shelter services and even safe injection sites have real social merit. While perhaps exaggerated, the fact is that any facility has local impacts and these impacts are not distributed across the city, some one, some group, some merchant, some property owner is going to get disproportionately impacted. A social activist or advocate can say the greater good is being served and local interests should take a back-seat and they would be right, except they are not the ones hosing down the excrement early on a Monday morning.

In the central city, frankly, I think we can handle these facilities because there is now so much interest and investment flowing in. But make no mistake, there is a neutron grenade effect to the vitality of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A social activist or advocate can say the greater good is being served and local interests should take a back-seat and they would be right, except they are not the ones hosing down the excrement early on a Monday morning.

That's what happening in Victoria now, a city that's taken its social conscious so high that they're unable to deal with a tent city in their public parks.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ad-as-hell-over-massive-tent-city-in-victoria

“The poverty industry in Victoria hearkens back to the evil corporations of 40 years ago; they’re strong, they’re effective, they silence you,” she said.

 

[Skeezix]

Good.

Ontario agrees to fund Toronto safe-injection sites
Kelly Grant, The Globe and Mail, 9 January 2017

 

[Migos]

Government will pay to get a drug addict a clean syringe and a nurse but won't pay for somebody's life-saving medication. That makes perfect sense. Oh, and your sex change is covered too but not your ride to the hospital in the ambulance.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Government will pay to get a drug addict a clean syringe and a nurse but won't pay for somebody's life-saving medication. That makes perfect sense. Oh, and your sex change is covered too but not your ride to the hospital in the ambulance.

The former collectively cost a few million, the latter (universal pharmacare) is a multi-billion endeavour (and we already have drug benefits for low-income individuals - not universal coverage of all drugs - but in the age of blockbuster, hundred thousand dollar per course meds, be careful what you wish for). Also guess what - someone ODing get to use the ER, and it is phenomenally costly. plus if they catch HIV, the anti-retrovirals are a few 10K per person per year for life; for Hep C, the new curative meds are 100K+ per person per course.

That's before getting into the other jist - which is the value of preventing the spread of communicable diseases.

AoD

 

[kbdid]

Government will pay to get a drug addict a clean syringe and a nurse but won't pay for somebody's life-saving medication. That makes perfect sense. Oh, and your sex change is covered too but not your ride to the hospital in the ambulance.

Someone's been reading that stupid meme about paying for drug addicts needles while cutting off diabetic test strips (which is mostly horsesh*t, no one's cutting insulin-dependent diabetics off from adequate test strips if they're on ODB). Hint - don't believe Facebook memes.

I am glad the province agreed to fund - the sites are already places people are getting treatment and with the wave of fentanyl ODs that are expected to rise the announcement is timely.

 

[jje1000]

Province to reduce this program:

The Ford government has tabled omnibus legislation that will ban supervised consumption sites near schools or child care centres and force municipalities to ask the province for permission to approach the federal government for the same services.

On Monday, the government tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, which codifies a ban on supervised consumption sites as part of a broader bill introducing changes related to auto theft and sex offenders.

The bill will close 10 supervised consumption sites in Ontario, including five in Toronto.

It will also require municipalities to seek permission from the province if they want to participate in federal programs, including an exception to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that allows towns or cities to operate supervised consumption sites.

The measure means that the provincial government can now involve itself in an area where it was previously sidelined. Instead of a city going straight to the federal government, the new law would mean cities have to ask the province for permission, thereby involving the province in a process that was previously out of its scope.

Asked what criteria cities would need to meet to be allowed to apply for the federal exemption, the health minister said no new sites would open.

“I want to be very clear: there will be no further safe injection sites in the province of Ontario under our government,” she said.

As part of its plan to ban supervised consumption sites and close 10 of those operating in Ontario, the province has announced the creation of 19 intensive addiction recovery facilities, named HART Hubs.

Ontario tables law banning supervised consumption sites, saying there will be no more | Globalnews.ca

The Ontario government tabled an omnibus bill Monday that includes a ban on provincially funded supervised consumption sites and a de facto ban on sites approved by the feds.

globalnews.ca

Whatever it may be, I think that the concept of safe injection sites needs to be revisited to ensure that they are not simply managing the symptoms of an addiction crisis.