This is a building in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver where intravenous drug users can go and inject drugs in a safe/clean environment and be referred to drug treatment programs. Use of intravenous drugs (heroine,morphine, etc.) on the property is legal.
Since InSite's creation, HIV/AIDS infection rates have dropped dramatically in Vancouver, this is likely due to the fact that the organization supplies not only a safe place to inject drugs, but also sterile needles for use outside the facility.
There have been more than 600 drug overdoses there since it's start up in 2006 but no deaths as the facility has an army of medical personnel.
Through frequent visits drug users are pushed towards all sorts of programs for rehabilitation.
Is it right?
Are we just enabling addicts, removing the horror stories of living on the streets of Vancouver and giving them a warm place to use their drugs? They say you have to hit rock bottom before you can get clean, is that possible when going to InSite?
$1.8 million was spent on this program last year. But is it right to pick who dies? Food banks are still understocked, are we saving drug addicts rather than the starving working man?
Or is it so hard to get some of these users off drugs it is better for us to give them an opportunity to live with the disease that is drug use.
And yes, drug addiction is a disease. Being that prolonged use of heroine alters brain chemistry it can be classified as a disease. But they bring it upon themselves don't they?
I think that if you need help it's a great place to go. But, also, I feel that if you get addicted in the first place and don't know that something is wrong with that, and then you overdose and die in some back ally, I don't feel any sympathy. If it works, then sure, 1.8 mil is worth it, but if no one accepts the help that they offer then it's a waste.
I think that if you need help it's a great place to go. But, also, I feel that if you get addicted in the first place and don't know that something is wrong with that, and then you overdose and die in some back ally, I don't feel any sympathy. If it works, then sure, 1.8 mil is worth it, but if no one accepts the help that they offer then it's a waste.
1/3 of the people who used their service last year are now in some sort of drug treatment program.
Problem is 2/3 aren't...and it's those 2/3 I'm worried about.
They continue to safely and legally inject drugs and don't accept help, are we just enabling them?
There isn't much information out there as it is relatively recent and studies take a long time. But we don't know how many drug users are even using the service or how often they are.
Drug users could still contract HIV as they aren't going to be walking 20 blocks to InSite whenever they want a fix.
My question is do they have to pay for these drugs? If not this could definitely start becoming a trend as drug users would love to get there hands on it, however maybe they should start doing requirements such as after you've been doing this for 1 year for continued use of the facility you have to go into rehab for at least a month. And so on...
maybe they should start doing requirements such as after you've been doing this for 1 year for continued use of the facility you have to go into rehab for at least a month. And so on...
I'm not sure how effective that would be. Once their being given the choice between one and the other, their likely to pick the easy way out, and jump on the streets where they'll die from said diseases.
That would also encourage relapse as well, making rehab pointless.
not necessarily, it could be like nicotine addiction and wean them off slowly.
Nicotine and heroin are two very different drugs. One can produce near lethal withdrawals and physical dependence, and the other is just a really bad habit/semi-addiction that can be kicked without forceful rehab.
Their effects are quite different.
could over time reduce each dosage of the drug, secret enforced rehab?
I think they bring their own drugs . . . not sure though.
My question is do they have to pay for these drugs? If not this could definitely start becoming a trend as drug users would love to get there hands on it, however maybe they should start doing requirements such as after you've been doing this for 1 year for continued use of the facility you have to go into rehab for at least a month. And so on...
Drugs are not provided.
could over time reduce each dosage of the drug, secret enforced rehab?
And the injection is not done FOR them, so you couldn't reduce what they're taking without their knowledge. But their needles are sterlized and all that jazz.
In my opinion, they should just arrest everyone who goes there since there obviosly drug addicts... If your stupid enough to take drugs, I don't think the program will help. And your correct, there are thousands of more worthy causes then drug addicts, the money should go to somone who was just unlucky, like the homeless, hungry, and sick. But since its the addict's fualt they are addicted, they don't deserve anything...
I think it's a great idea... if HIV/AIDS infections have dropped and they give them referrals to rehab facilities. This tells me that drug use is starting to become more widely "accepted" and that people are finally starting to do something about it. About the food banks... sometimes you have to make those decisions. If it were me, I would see if that certain city had more drug users or more people who are starving before I build either facility.
Nicotine and heroin are two very different drugs. One can produce near lethal withdrawals and physical dependence, and the other is just a really bad habit/semi-addiction that can be kicked without forceful rehab.
Having had many family members who've died of lung cancer due to smoking, I find this statement quite ignorant indeed. Nicotine does not cause 'semi addiction'. It's actually more addictive than heroin, and does cause physical dependence.
The only reason people like you don't see that is because it's a legal drug. The term 'addict' isn't often used to describe addiction to legal substances, eg., we don't call it alcohol addiction, we call it alcoholism and someone who is addicted to nicotine is simply called a 'smoker'.
If we treated all drugs in a similar way, by legalising them, the negative effects on them could be controlled.
As for this specific example of soft drug policy, I don't think it's going far enough. It's only dealing with one part of a very large problem, although things like this are a step in the right direction.
Having had many family members who've died of lung cancer due to smoking, I find this statement quite ignorant indeed. Nicotine does not cause 'semi addiction'. It's actually more addictive than heroin, and does cause physical dependence.
It can be kicked without needing rehab, and without a near 100% chance of relapse.
It can be kicked without needing rehab, and without a near 100% chance of relapse.
That's only due to the availability of substitutes. Nicotine patches are a hell of a lot easier to get hold of than a syringe methadone. You can't get locked up for buying it either.
It's addictive in the same way marijuana is.
And in what way is that exactly? Addiction rates are higher for tobacco products than any other illicit drug. I can't really see how you can compare it to weed, a mild hallucinogenic.
there are thousands of more worthy causes then drug addicts, the money should go to somone who was just unlucky, like the homeless, hungry, and sick.
A drug addict brings their drug problems on themselves, but so do many of those you listed.
The obese, the homeless, anyone sick with lung cancer due to smoking. Many of their problems can be attributed to their own weaknesses just like the drug addicts.
Is it different because the drug addict got into the situation by illegal means?
It's addictive in the same way marijuana is.
Marijuana is not physiologically addictive or psychologically addictive.
Nicotine is.
The only reason people like you don't see that is because it's a legal drug.
However, heroine addiction is much worse because the withdrawal symptoms are greater.
As previously stated, it is impossible to get off heroine without a drug treatment program, this isn't the case for tobacco.
Addiction rates are higher for tobacco products than any other illicit drug.
It certainly helps that you're going away for quite a while if you're caught with any amount of it, doesn't it?
Marijuana is not physiologically addictive or psychologically addictive.
Nicotine is.
Then explain to me why one is extremely illegal under some jurisdictions and you wouldn't even get fined if you had 5 pounds of it?
And I don't think it's physiologically addictive. Every time I've seen someone try to quit they didn't have any physical symptoms. Psychologically? Sure, some were pretty bad.
