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?
Headache Cough Sore throat Constipation, gas, stomach pain Dry mouth Sore tongue and/or gums Postnasal drip Tightness in the chest
It IS physiologically addictive.
However it is plain the withdrawal symptoms for heroine are much more powerful.
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?
Marijuana is illegal because it was a threat to a man who owned a pulp based paper company a long time ago, and when hemp based paper emerged as a cheaper product he campaigned for it's illegality by spreading lies and propoganda.
Marijuana is illegal because it was a threat to a man who owned a pulp based paper company a long time ago, and when hemp based paper emerged as a cheaper product he campaigned for it's illegality by spreading lies and propoganda.
Marijuana is illegal because it was a threat to a man who owned a pulp based paper company a long time ago, and when hemp based paper emerged as a cheaper product he campaigned for it's illegality by spreading lies and propoganda.
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?
Blues already answered it, however even if we are to assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that weed wasn't made illegal for selfish corporate reasons, I think it's important to remember that legality or illegality is not a good measure of how harmful a substance is. Here in the UK, they keep changing the class of drugs to tinker with conviction rates. Does it mean that drugs are getting stronger or weaker? Of course not.
In the same vein, alcohol causes more deaths per year than any other drug. However it's very easily available and completely legal to those aged 18 and above.
My point is that if we are going to prohibit the use of drugs on the basis of the damage they cause, we should start with tobacco and alcohol. Even heroin in comparison is a minor problem.
However as we all can see from the remarkable failure that was prohibition these policies do not work, therefore all drugs should be legalised.
by spending the money on InSite, the government is trying to clean these people of drugs right? because the drug industry get a few hundred billion dollars, and none of that money contributes to the Gross domestic product of the country, because it is bought in an underground economy. By cleaning the people, the government is treating the "sickness" at the root.
True, however those are two different parts of the world, and two completely different mentalities. What's the similarity between Thailand and Canada?
Ahh the old ''it's a different culture argument''. I suppose it's not implausible, but ti falls flat on its face when you consider Norway and Sweden, two very similar cultures, have completely different policies on drugs, and yet have identical usage rates.
Ahh the old ''it's a different culture argument''. I suppose it's not implausible, but ti falls flat on its face when you consider Norway and Sweden, two very similar cultures, have completely different policies on drugs, and yet have identical usage rates.
Usage rates can only be affected if enough drug runners are dealt with. Not the users. If the users are given more resources and less harsh punishments then in unison, they could create a heavily diminished market for drugs.
See that's the problem. Countries have tried that and failed. Mexico with the aid of the US has been trying to deal with drug runners, and has ended up with a bloody drug war on its hands leaving over 500 policemen dead and no noticable change to drug rates.
