InSite Safe Injections Site Closure

[WhatThe]

The simple fact is that not everyone (addicts) can or will be saved. We have to start looking at this from an acceptable losses point of view. In a sense like war losses, lives will be lost in a battle but in the campaign it is acceptable because the object is to win the war and that can't be done without people dying
( do not equate to "war on drugs")
give every possible resource to those that are willing to stop using and to those that are not just provide it to them. No more black market or at the least greatly reduced, less police/court time spent on prosecuting possesion and theft, and reduced health care costs as insite has shown.
We can't win against human nature so really the best we can do is manage the negative aspects.

[deadscape]

The fact the system is not a detriment to the addiction cycle sets up a poor start. My ex, after months of dealing with addiction, finally wanted to go into rehab. Problem number one: waitlists. That's a given for any institution. Problem number two: a thirty-day sobriety cycle necessary prior to getting into the program.

If they are calling for help and recieve this news, the likelihood of reaching the sobriety goal is virtually impossible. There is in intermediate assistance to reaching those thirty days, which viewed from the sober end of the stick looked like an eternity for her. The wait was obscene in my mind. Given her date, she continued to use (and disappear) until the cutoff. Needless to say, it didn't work; the result of this rule was what I viewed as another failure of the system.

[Bagotricks]

All peer reviwed data, studies and reports have *all* concluded that Insite saves lives, stops the spread of disease and saves money.

And increase the number of addicts.

You can state "I dont agree on a moral grounds" but as I said *all* data shows the opposite is the reality of the situation.

Heroin is fully availible anywhere downtown Vancouver, Insite doesnt have to encourage anyone. If people want to use drugs, they will. You'd think after living under prohibition your whole life you might notice that.

[Bananaz]

I feel sorry for addicts but then I don't. I was also hooked on drugs but managed to get clean on my own. I realize there are wait lists a mile long for people to get into rehab, but hell if you want to get clean, you will find a way. And it doesn't always require treatment. I mean of course that can help to deal with other issues that may have caused the drug use. But bottom line, you have to want to get clean first and if it's something you really want for yourself you WILL find a way!

Plus I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be willing to help you out.

[deadscape]

It's nice to think that there are 'other people out there' willing to help. I thought this two until I was thrown into the situation. The only support out there for my ex came from Narcotics Anonymous and her church. Tragically, they both let her down due to a lack of process, and indifference, respectively.

Mental health would have made a difference, but that system's glutted as well. I saw where her hopelessness was coming from and offered and found as much help as was available but I couldn't find a strong enough system to support her. There is very little help for addictions and mental health, as the two problems go virtually hand-in-hand.

Agreed, the willpower has to be there, but what willpower can be developed when there's no way to build up any self-esteem. Without that, there's no leverage to move past the problem. How can you break free of an addiction when the neuroprocesses have been damaged and rewired? The victim mentality went on and eventually took control of her. I lost her to the streets.

I have some friends who's son has ended up on the downtown Eastside, and they're extremely thankful for the Portland Hotel Society (procurers of InSite) as it provides care for the addicted and downtrodden. If it wasn't for the society, their son would most likely be unreachable. Knowing he's there, they know he has a chance to get help, he's monitored and they can contact him. That was more than I had as I dealt with my ex, and am glad the family has found respite in this system that the government's constantly trying to dismantle.

[Al Czervic]

This is an economic argument for me. Is it cheaper to run this site than deal with the health problems down the road? If yes, then keep it. If not, we need to decide if the costs are worth the benefit.

I am not a health researcher however if the cost per drug user at Insite is roughly $ 13,000 per year per user whereas drug costs alone to treat HIV is somewhere around $ 25,000-$ 30,000 not including the labour of healthcare professionals on the surface it would appear that Insite offers value to taxpayers.

[dogspoiler]

Where does the money go? It costs less than one dollar for a syringe, sterile water, alcohol swab, and a band aid. So why does it cost $13,000 a year per junkie?

[hutton]

nThese safe injection sites are complete BS and a total waste of time. I shouldn't have to pay for some meth/crack head to have a CLEAN AND SAFE place to perform his illegal habit, why do I have to fund that. ALL that money could be going to education, medical research, or a bunch of other worth while funding. The odds of a meth/crackhead going clean are 1 in a 1 000 000. They are such a drain on society we should not be pro-longing there life. And if we do continue to fund SAFE SITES then the users should have to do something in order to use them, like community service, get them cleaning up their own meeses or the parks or sides of the highways/roads.
Funding these sites is a crock, where is the return on the invest ment?????? Tax payers, in that case, can start funding my habit and have a case of beer delivered to my house on a daily basis.

[WhatThe]

^^ sorry there Hutton , your lack of understanding of the issue is crystal clear. The conservative rhetoric is the very reason we are in this position, because others believe this as well.

[Al Czervic]

nThese safe injection sites are complete BS and a total waste of time. I shouldn't have to pay for some meth/crack head to have a CLEAN AND SAFE place to perform his illegal habit, why do I have to fund that. ALL that money could be going to education, medical research, or a bunch of other worth while funding. The odds of a meth/crackhead going clean are 1 in a 1 000 000. They are such a drain on society we should not be pro-longing there life. And if we do continue to fund SAFE SITES then the users should have to do something in order to use them, like community service, get them cleaning up their own meeses or the parks or sides of the highways/roads.
Funding these sites is a crock, where is the return on the invest ment?????? Tax payers, in that case, can start funding my habit and have a case of beer delivered to my house on a daily basis.

As I mentioned in my other post….if it costs roughly $ 13,000 a year for a crackhead to shoot up safely at Insite and thus the crackhead is theoretically prevented from acquiring “HIV” than the cost to taxpayers like you is again, $ 13,000 a year.


If we didn’t have Insite and the same crack addict picks up a used syringe and acquires HIV than as a taxpayer you will be paying for HIV/AIDS treatment. Drug costs alone estimated around $ 25,000 - $ 30,000 per year not including the labor costs of health care professionals.

You are likely correct that most crack addicts will likely not recover, however it seems relatively clear that Insite not only saves the taxpayer money, it also helps prevents HIV and as such provides more opportunities for recovery.

I don’t personally like the idea of Insite either but it does appear to provide value for tax dollars and other societal benefits as well.

I also wanted to add that I used to share similar sentiments to you until I took some time to look into the costs and realized that indeed it appears that Insite does indeed save the taxpayer money. If we are saving money AND preventing the spread of a disease like HIV it is hard to argue against that.

[WhatThe]

If Al can be converted then anythings possible. A little rib your way there Al. It makes me happy that people can change there minds on such a contentious issue. In all seriousness though thefacts do speak for themselves. I've read that costs can be as high as $80,000 when some of these guys are picked up and taken to the hospital a dozen times a year.
Being a pilot project we can only see a partial indication, if every community had one with a more robustly funded and expanded mandate, we could really help put a dent in the issue.

[Bananaz]

That's just way too much money to spend on an addict that will probably end up killing themselves in the end due to drug use.

[Glacier]

I am not a health researcher however if the cost per drug user at Insite is roughly $ 13,000 per year per user whereas drug costs alone to treat HIV is somewhere around $ 25,000-$ 30,000 not including the labour of healthcare professionals on the surface it would appear that Insite offers value to taxpayers.

This by no means says that InSite saves money. More numbers need to be provided to properly quantify any savings.

Let's say we spend $13,000 per year for 1000 drug users in the DTES; we know that only a fraction of these users would have developed AIDS. Let's assume 100 of drug users in the DTES are saved from getting AIDS as a result of InSite.

Cost of InSite = $1,000*$13,0000= $13,000,000
Cost without InSite = $100*30,000=$3,000,000

[WhatThe]

It's not a fraction Glacier. I can't link you the stats cause I don't remember where I read it though it's probably fairly easy to find.
In DTES AIDs and Hep C is rampant. 25% and 40% respectively.
It's not just about money, it's also public health. Every year health providers are accidently stuck with needles, spread by prostitution and brought home to families, etc.
Blood born disease is evryones problem not just addicts.

I think Bananaz you are missing the big picture. We spend a 100 times that combating drugs to no avail and still pay for the street addicts problems. Insite is a pilot project to find ways to help beyond status quo which obviously is not working.

[hutton]

If we didn’t have Insite and the same crack addict picks up a used syringe and acquires HIV than as a taxpayer you will be paying for HIV/AIDS treatment. Drug costs alone estimated around $ 25,000 - $ 30,000 per year not including the labor costs of health care professionals.

Why would we give crackheads who contract aids treatment for it, it is no different than denying a smoker a lung transplant to treat cancer or a kidney transplant for a alcholic. Let them die of there own self induced illness. People who do not contribute to society should not benefit from society. It's all about choices people, and yes crackheads do/did have choices.