InSite Safe Injections Site Closure

[Bananaz]

Really bananaz? You find this entertaining? All the suffering in the world at the hands of people like Hutton and their il conceived povs, Utterly clueless unchallengable mindset.
Holy jeebus, he couldn't even answer one question I asked

I apologize, I get a kick out of it when people fight on threads. Sorry....but it gave me a good laugh for the day and no in reality it's not funny at all.

If you were to read any of my posts in this thread then you would realize that I am also a recovering addict, I have never stuck a needle in my arm but it was bad enough that's for sure.

[Pookybear]

Yes Bananaz, that is right, ALL THE SUFFERING in the world is at the hands of people like me, people who DON'T belive we should pour billions of OUR dollars into a tiny fraction of the population who have f*&%ed up their own lives, are NOT contributors to society or it's greater good, are nothing but a social and finacial drain on our nation. People like me who DON'T believe we should be constantly running around picking up the pieces and wiping the a$$e$ of people who made repeated choices that have led to there own demise. People like me who believe that the millions/billions spent on the hopeless could be better spent on worthwhile social programs that actually make a differance in the world. Oh well I can live with that, for it will be the PEOPLE like 'whatthe' that will be the death of this great nation.

You are not the only one that feels that way. We had a crack/flop house in our neighbourhood for over a year. After having to live with that around I lost the little empathy I had for people that chose to try a drug they know is so addictive. These people would knock your Grandmother down to get a few bucks for their chosen habit. I really don't believe we need to do more by suppling them with a safe place to do drugs they stole from honest people to get.

[deadscape]

Yes, I'd much rather have random needles found in our parks and beaches. Leave them to their own, it won't affect us until we step on something. This is a reactive approach to a problem that exists. What proactive measures can anyone else think of other than to empower some sort of control on the situation?

Sure it's not the best solution, but it's more effect than NO solution. If you want to see something change, then get out there and kick your elected representative's *bleep* for allowing so many cuts to social services, thereby allowing more people to slip through the cracks and left with nothing but desperation and few alternatives to climb back out.

[Homeownertoo]

Yes, I'd much rather have random needles found in our parks and beaches. Leave them to their own, it won't affect us until we step on something. This is a reactive approach to a problem that exists. What proactive measures can anyone else think of other than to empower some sort of control on the situation?

Sure it's not the best solution, but it's more effect than NO solution. If you want to see something change, then get out there and kick your elected representative's *bleep* for allowing so many cuts to social services, thereby allowing more people to slip through the cracks and left with nothing but desperation and few alternatives to climb back out.

Whoa! It's one thing to claim that Insite, while not the best solution, is better than nothing and thus deserves to be supported. That at least is debatable. But the DTES drug problem, or Canada's drug problem, or whatever you want to call it, has little or nothing to do with alleged social services cuts, which in fact are much more heavily supported by tax dollars than they ever were before this drug problem began 30-40 years ago.

Taxpayers are not to blame for people allowing themselves to descend into desperation, and so there are limits to what we can or should provide to help them, though you erroneously make it sound as if the answers are just another well-funded program away. Those limits to taxpayer intervention, I suggest, are indicated when, as others have noted, the wider community requires protection from the drug-use fallout.

Insite may be the least-worst solution to a specific problem but it is far from a desirable course of action. I don't pretend to have any answers, though I'd be surprised if there are not better solutions.

[Bagotricks]

Yes Bananaz, that is right, ALL THE SUFFERING in the world is at the hands of people like me, people who DON'T belive we should pour billions of OUR dollars into a tiny fraction of the population who have f*&%ed up their own lives, are NOT contributors to society or it's greater good, are nothing but a social and finacial drain on our nation. People like me who DON'T believe we should be constantly running around picking up the pieces and wiping the a$$e$ of people who made repeated choices that have led to there own demise. People like me who believe that the millions/billions spent on the hopeless could be better spent on worthwhile social programs that actually make a differance in the world. Oh well I can live with that, for it will be the PEOPLE like 'whatthe' that will be the death of this great nation.

I really don't believe we need to do more by suppling them with a safe place to do drugs they stole from honest people to get.

What do you call a bar or pub?

Why do they have to steal to pay a dealer 500 dollars a day? Why do drugs cost so much?

[steven lloyd]

Taxpayers are not to blame for people allowing themselves to descend into desperation, and so there are limits to what we can or should provide to help them, though you erroneously make it sound as if the answers are just another well-funded program away. Those limits to taxpayer intervention, I suggest, are indicated when, as others have noted, the wider community requires protection from the drug-use fallout.

If the wider community requires protection from the “drug-use fallout” I would suggest they start looking at the bigger picture and discontinue pursuing the same old tried and failed policies of conservatism and prohibition. In-Site is just a small step but it has already made a positive impact (as noted by multiple posters who have provided links and statistics). Or, we can continue to take the punitive approach and flog away uselessly at trying to change marginalized individuals without making any change to the conditions that create marginalization. Yes, let’s just keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. Taxpayers are not to blame for people allowing themselves to descend into desperation, but a complacent and ignorant electorate is to blame for maintaining political status quo.

By the way, for your information homey, in Corrections we employ a cognitive-behavioural approach to intervention. As you likely know (since you seem to think you know everything about everything else), a cognitive-behavioural approach relies on and emphasizes personal responsibility in choice of thinking and behaviour. At the same time, however, we are not so naive as to assume people are not a product of their environments (I know you know about this social-psychology stuff too; of course you would) and that placing people right back into the same situation without new and lasting supports most often inevitably leads to the same results.

Now we can just continue to place the blame solely on the individual. Why not? It would not be completely underserved. However, the one thing we do know for sure is that if we continue to take that route and perpetuate the status quo we will continue to get the same results. Thinking it could be otherwise is the very definition of insanity. So if anyone out there ever gets tired of hitting their head against a wall over this issue they might want to start considering that we start to take and continue to pursue a different approach.

[deadscape]

Cheers to that, Lloyd. Nicely said.

[hutton]

Well said Lloyd, a different approach is what is needed. All I have been getting at is that in my opinion the 'Safe Site' approach (although producing minimal results in one or two areas) is not the ansewer and does nothing to address the problem. This money (used to fund these sites) could be better spent. If something doesnt work, keep trying till you find something that does. I just think these 'Safe Sites' are a waste of time and taxpayers money. I am not saying that these people don't need/deserve our help but there must be SOME accountability on the individual.

[Homeownertoo]

Thanks for the unnecessary lesson in social-service philosophy. Yes, I have heard it all before but if it makes you feel good to continue your fantasy that such approaches have all the answers, go right on making that case.

You claim that your "'cognitive-behavioural approach' relies on and emphasizes personal responsibility in choice of thinking and behaviour." But in reality you rely on a model that locates blame almost exclusively in social conditions and looks there for solutions, when the record demonstrates it is almost always to be found in acceptance of personal responsibility and action. No addict ever got off his drug by adjusting his 'environment' or conditions of 'marginalization'. He got off when he hit bottom and/or decided to stop, and most addicts who have quit have done so on their own. Environment is but a minor factor and intervention is at best an aid to that personal process.

BTW, I am dealing with one such person now, a brother, and am painfully aware that there is nothing for him until he reaches that point. Interestingly, the fact that he did escape that 'environment' you talk about enables him to deny his problems as he is no longer one of 'those'. So much for that excuse.

Unfortunately, the narrowly focused approach to crime and social problems you outline, and which has been in ascendant for 30-40 years, doesn't have all the answers and has many failures to answer for. I would suggest you start looking at the bigger picture and discontinue pursuing the same old tried and failed policies of the social-intervention approach, because, as you say, "the one thing we do know for sure is that if we continue to take that route and perpetuate the status quo we will continue to get the same results. Thinking it could be otherwise is the very definition of insanity."

Legalization is a whole other issue. As a conservative who believes liberty is the best guidepost for an open society, my natural inclination is to legalize, but I also suspect that would open another can of worms that advocates never acknowledge let alone address.

BTW, I never condemned insite; in fact, I stated quite the opposite, but I guess since my praise was not without limit, I guess I deserved to be corrected.

[deadscape]

No addict ever got off his drug by adjusting his 'environment' or conditions of 'marginalization'. He got off when he hit bottom and/or decided to stop, and most addicts who have quit have done so on their own.
Is hitting rock bottom not an environment and condition?

I would suggest you start looking at the bigger picture and discontinue pursuing the same old tried and failed policies of the social-intervention approach, because, as you say, "the one thing we do know for sure is that if we continue to take that route and perpetuate the status quo we will continue to get the same results. Thinking it could be otherwise is the very definition of insanity."

Agreed. The status quo is one big block of mistakes being corrected by more mistakes. A new approach is needed, but that won't happen while under the regime of a faulty economy that measures wellbeing in dollar signs.

Legalization is a whole other issue. As a conservative who believes liberty is the best guidepost for an open society, my natural inclination is to legalize, but I also suspect that would open another can of worms that advocates never acknowledge let alone address.

This is a new approach that our governing bodies have shied away from. There is a fear of stepping on our American compatriots' ideology of war. (Everything's a war, nothing's a solution.) Legalization and taking the reigns of an economy ruled by the underworld is a huge step to taking control of something where there currently is none.

[deadscape]

Thanks for the unnecessary lesson in social-service philosophy. Yes, I have heard it all before but if it makes you feel good to continue your fantasy that such approaches have all the answers, go right on making that case.

You claim that your "'cognitive-behavioural approach' relies on and emphasizes personal responsibility in choice of thinking and behaviour." But in reality you rely on a model that locates blame almost exclusively in social conditions and looks there for solutions, when the record demonstrates it is almost always to be found in acceptance of personal responsibility and action. No addict ever got off his drug by adjusting his 'environment' or conditions of 'marginalization'. He got off when he hit bottom and/or decided to stop, and most addicts who have quit have done so on their own. Environment is but a minor factor and intervention is at best an aid to that personal process.

BTW, I am dealing with one such person now, a brother, and am painfully aware that there is nothing for him until he reaches that point. Interestingly, the fact that he did escape that 'environment' you talk about enables him to deny his problems as he is no longer one of 'those'. So much for that excuse.

Unfortunately, the narrowly focused approach to crime and social problems you outline, and which has been in ascendant for 30-40 years, doesn't have all the answers and has many failures to answer for. I would suggest you start looking at the bigger picture and discontinue pursuing the same old tried and failed policies of the social-intervention approach, because, as you say, "the one thing we do know for sure is that if we continue to take that route and perpetuate the status quo we will continue to get the same results. Thinking it could be otherwise is the very definition of insanity."

Legalization is a whole other issue. As a conservative who believes liberty is the best guidepost for an open society, my natural inclination is to legalize, but I also suspect that would open another can of worms that advocates never acknowledge let alone address.

BTW, I never condemned insite; in fact, I stated quite the opposite, but I guess since my praise was not without limit, I guess I deserved to be corrected.

[Homeownertoo]

No addict ever got off his drug by adjusting his 'environment' or conditions of 'marginalization'. He got off when he hit bottom and/or decided to stop, and most addicts who have quit have done so on their own.
Is hitting rock bottom not an environment and condition?

No

[steven lloyd]

No addict ever got off his drug by adjusting his 'environment' or conditions of 'marginalization'. He got off when he hit bottom and/or decided to stop, and most addicts who have quit have done so on their own.
Is hitting rock bottom not an environment and condition?

You are correct deadscape. That (“hitting rock bottom”) might be one condition that could lead one addict to seek change - such as noted by this poster:

BTW, I am dealing with one such person now, a brother, and am painfully aware that there is nothing for him until he reaches that point.

Fortunately, this poster is quite erroneous and incorrect in presuming or suggesting it (“hitting rock bottom”) is a necessary condition for entering a cycle of change.

[steven lloyd]

Thanks for the unnecessary lesson in social-service philosophy. Yes, I have heard it all before but if it makes you feel good to continue your fantasy that such approaches have all the answers, go right on making that case. You claim that your "'cognitive-behavioural approach' relies on and emphasizes personal responsibility in choice of thinking and behaviour." But in reality you rely on a model that locates blame almost exclusively in social conditions and looks there for solutions, when the record demonstrates it is almost always to be found in acceptance of personal responsibility and action.

Wow !!! I just don’t know how to respond to this or where to even begin. I had never assumed you to be one who would have such difficulty with reading comprehension – and some of the suppositions you make, not only about what you think I am saying but also where you think we are as a society in addressing these issues, ... wow ! I may have completely overestimated you homey.

No addict ever got off his drug by adjusting his 'environment' or conditions of 'marginalization'. He got off when he hit bottom and/or decided to stop, and most addicts who have quit have done so on their own. Environment is but a minor factor and intervention is at best an aid to that personal process. ... Unfortunately, the narrowly focused approach to crime and social problems you outline, and which has been in ascendant for 30-40 years, doesn't have all the answers and has many failures to answer for. I would suggest you start looking at the bigger picture and discontinue pursuing the same old tried and failed policies of the social-intervention approach, because, as you say, "the one thing we do know for sure is that if we continue to take that route and perpetuate the status quo we will continue to get the same results. Thinking it could be otherwise is the very definition of insanity."

Ironically, it was just this afternoon that while in attendance at a Community Priorities meeting with the local RCMP brass I was reminded that as members of a larger community we have a choice. One choice we have is to take your approach and place all blame and responsibility on the individual. We can then wait for the individual to have their own personal epiphany (if indeed they ever do) and in the meantime pay collectively for whatever carnage they create. Or, we can just start arresting more people, building more jails and start locking everybody up ( let’s “get tough on crime” ) but we’ll pay for that as well - both in costs to build, staff and maintain these new additional prisons, and by dealing with increased recidivism that has been shown to be correlated with increased rates of incarceration (never mind the fact our under-resourced criminal justice system can’t keep up with the current demand in this province).

On the other hand, we can work collectively with others to create change by changing both the environment, and the person’s response to the environment. As one example, one program I was involved with delivering used cognitive behavioural methods to help chronic welfare recipients who were offenders and addicts change thinking and set goals for change. Taking into account their backgrounds of disempowerment and marginalization (instead of dismissing it is an excuse) we provided support to assist them through steps of change – both in meeting the resistance to change and in overcoming obstacles. At the end of the first year we had already saved the taxpayers of this province more than what the program cost to deliver by moving people from welfare dependence to self-sustaining independence and measured up to five years later our results were still positive. This didn’t also take into account whatever benefits were realized by increased tax revenue (from working people) and decreased crime.

It’s important to realize that while people were given support in meeting their environments on new terms, emphasis on personal responsibility in creating and maintaining change constantly remained a critical component. Programs like this across the province were just starting to produce real significant results when Campbell came into power and thought your approach would work better and he decided to place new restrictions on welfare eligibility, reduce benefits and kick a whole bunch of people to the street. Very emotionally satisfying for some people I’m sure, however, as a social policy it failed miserably and even Campbell had to eventually admit (very quietly) that he made a mistake.

No matter what ideology you ascribe to personally homey, the bottom line is that interventions based on involvement with the offenders (or addicts) and the environment have been shown to actually work, while interventions based on blaming and punishing have consistently been shown to fail miserably. I don’t care what you think. I know from direct experience working in the field and with other community service providers (including child protection, welfare, alcohol and drug, mental health and forensic, the Courts, Crown and police) what works and what doesn’t. However, I know you just want to be right and will either breeze past significant points or perhaps just ignore the points being made altogether. I can appreciate that in a world of fragile self-justification, it takes a great deal of courage to challenge one's long-held perception of truth.

[ILBT uh-huh]

I've heard it said that democracy is the worst form of government-except for all the others.
Maybe the same principle applies to insite. Just a thought. Your comments?