• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"Safe" Injection and "Reduced" Harm good for society? Don't think so

I will preface this with the statement that, on purely philosophical grounds, I support the right of adults to put whatever drugs they want into their body, up to and including Heroin, Fentanyl and Meth. Your body is your property and you should have the right to destroy your property if you want to. However, that can't work in a universal health care system because you have to take some of my property to allow you to continually attempt to destroy yours. My wife works in harm reduction and probably saves a life or two on every shift. I know something of the cost and problems associated with harm reduction, especially when dealing with the chronically unhoused. As a result my views on harm reduction are complicated and a at little at odds with my libertarian leanings.

The problem with suggesting the Darwin option is that it is incredibly hypocritical. How many of us wouldn't be alive if we were left to our natural healing abilities? I understand the frustration of throwing money at a seemingly unsolvable problem but you could also say that about the almost 30 percent of Canadians who are now considered obese. The way I see it the problem with harm reduction isn't the harm reduction, it is that nothing is done to actually solve the problem of increased addiction. I think most people would be on board attempting to help these people if they thought there was a reasonable chance of them getting clean and rejoining society. I think to many people, keeping these people alive seems less humane than letting them die. I don't know anyone who would let a dog live in the condition many of these people are in. For most people, it isn't that they don't care, it's that they don't want there tax dollars going to something that seems to make things worse rather than better. However, there are a lot of people who would gladly give up some of their money to keep these individuals alive, even if that's all that gets accomplished. That is why I approve of Harm Reduction as a charitable cause but not a governmental program.

Where the government is concerned, I think they need to focus on treatment. The reason for this is two fold. First, as government is charged with healthcare, and addiction treatment is healthcare, the resources are controlled primarily by the province. The second is that only the Government has the authority to deny a person liberty. For many, if not most, of these people, if they are in a situation where getting drugs is a possibility, they will do the drugs. And while they are on the drugs, or attempting to get drugs, they can be a danger to society. By the time people are shooting up in the street and sleeping where ever they took their last hit, they are not capable of deciding not to do drugs. They are more like children in their level of impulse control than a rational adult. The government (probably provincial with federal laws) needs to be able to remove these people from their situations and clean them up against their will. Get them clean (if possible) and part of a regular treatment routine and then transition them a locked institution to gradually more "free" situations like various levels of supported living. In many cases, part of recovering from addiction is relearning how to be an adult. In some cases, thee people have never learned how to be one, especially if their addictions started early. We don't let children decide important things in their lives for a reason, they haven't developed the necessary tools to make those decisions. In hard core addicts, they may have the tools but all or most of them are broken.

Now before anyone accuses me of saying we should sweep up all the junkies and put them in an institution, I am not. I think this could be a sentence for criminal behavior. Instead of throwing them in jail where a) drugs are easy for them to get, b) doesn't typically keep them long, and c) isn't focused on defeating the addiction that put them there in the first place; we need an alternative stream where addicts are sentenced to forced treatment. Maybe some individuals don't need in patient treatment and they could be sentenced to day patient status? I don't know the how the specifics would work but I think it should be fairly flexible to allow for a more tailored approach. The important thing is that the force of law is behind it. For example, if a person get sentenced to day patient status and doesn't show up, it could be like a parole violation and they be sentenced to a more restricted form of treatment. The benefit is the addict gets treatment instead of incarceration where their recovery isn't a priority.

If we had a robust system of voluntary, and forced, treatment available, I would be more willing support a governmental safe injection site, or harm reduction funded through taxes. As it stands, it makes the problem worse. Less dead addicts means greater demand for products, which in turn feeds the organized crime elements who supply it. It also leads to an increase in homelessness, open air drug markets and all the crime associated with the above. Show me there is a path to a reduction in rates of addiction, show me there is hope for these people and I won't feel as negatively to tax money keeping them alive and prolonging their suffering.

That is a lot of words to say I support harm reduction as a concept but I think the government should focus on providing a way out given the finite amount of money available. Harm reduction without treatment is less like a bandaid and more like constantly reopening a cut to make sure it stays clean and doesn't get infected. You prevent the infection but your never actually heal the wound.
 
you cannot have 'safe sites' without the follow up ...
100%
... In typical Canadian fashion, we cherry pick the one progressive and cheap policy without implementing the accompanying policies that make that one progressive policy effective. 🤦‍♂️
And anyone hazard to guess which is likely cheaper & (relatively) easier to set up and maintain: safe injection sites, or a range of residential & out-patient treatment/support services?
 
..... However, that can't work in a universal health care system....

I think it was in the National Post recently that I saw an article talking about Catholic Hospitals being forced to supply euthanasia/murder/assisted-suicide (depending on your philosophical bent) and not being allowed to opt out because they were taking public money. After they had been forcibly nationalized. And were not allowed to offer private care according to their beliefs and the beliefs of the majority of their clientele.

One size fits all.

Money, and property, grant you freedom right enough.
 
My wife works in harm reduction and probably saves a life or two on every shift.

Hats off to her.

I don't know the answers and solutions about drug addiction, because I'm not an expert, and have never seen a harm reduction centre.

Except to say the un-controlled shooting galleries near 999 were scary AF.

Anything these days has to be an improvement.
 
We, as a society, need to look at our many solutions and ideas we come up with for tackling problems.

We need to deal in facts not fiction nor fantasy.

While idea A may not work (how we originally handled addiction issues many years ago), and we rush to idea B, and decide come hell or high water it will succeed! Even if the facts or the truth says otherwise.

In Savory's holistic management decision making, part of the process is to carefully make your decision (similar to COA selection) and then implement it and assume youy are wrong. You then monitor very closely to see the first signs your plan is going off the rails. Ideally have a back up plan or 20.

Decision-Monitor-Continue or Make new decision (depending on whether its effective or not).

We need to treat addictions the same way.

I also believe we need to have different tactics for treating and assisting with overcoming addictions (not all narcotics and alcohol react the same to people).

Beyond that immediate scope of the problem, we have to look at society as a whole, mental health, economics and social attitudes all play a role in addictions
 
I think it was in the National Post recently that I saw an article talking about Catholic Hospitals being forced to supply euthanasia/murder/assisted-suicide (depending on your philosophical bent) and not being allowed to opt out because they were taking public money. After they had been forcibly nationalized. And were not allowed to offer private care according to their beliefs and the beliefs of the majority of their clientele.

One size fits all.

Money, and property, grant you freedom right enough.
So we forced them to nationalize, and gave them public money to do it & as a result of it.

We then say you have to offer services that are inconsistent with their beliefs, because we pump them public money?



Seems a bit unfair in the grand scheme of things...
 
So we forced them to nationalize, and gave them public money to do it & as a result of it.

We then say you have to offer services that are inconsistent with their beliefs, because we pump them public money?



Seems a bit unfair in the grand scheme of things...
sorta ties in with the comments over in cabinet shuffle
 
incidentally, there is a report on the net of an significant increase in marijuana poisoning cases in areas where legalisation has occurred, including Canada. People tend to avoid the legal shops after a while in favour of the unlicensed provider who has a stronger product
 
You are absolutely correct. And perhaps we shouldn't be so cavalier about their potential harm but we had pot more or less contained with the ability to regulate it as the drug that it is and we willingly (or at least our p.m. did for the votes and to be cool and perhaps to mess up our country just a little more) let it loose without constraint.
I'm not advocating for marijuana at all (don't smoke it, don't care for it, but have smoked it & didn't mind how relaxed my mind was after...)

You're right, we did let it loose without constraint.

Has it affected society all that much though, one way or the other?



(When I click on a thread it brings me to the final page & I tend to read the threads backwards. It's a bit of an adventure sometimes, not gonna lie, but also keeps me fairly current on where the thread is at... my apologies if my question above isn't consistent with the spirit of your post. It is meant as an objective question.)


EDIT - completely disregard this post, you literally posted the answer as I posted the question 😅🥂
 
incidentally, there is a report on the net of an significant increase in marijuana poisoning cases in areas where legalisation has occurred, including Canada. People tend to avoid the legal shops after a while in favour of the unlicensed provider who has a stronger product
Post the link please
 
incidentally, there is a report on the net of an significant increase in marijuana poisoning cases in areas where legalisation has occurred, including Canada. People tend to avoid the legal shops after a while in favour of the unlicensed provider who has a stronger product

And then there's...

Mental health effects​

In some people, cannabis use increases the risk of developing mental illnesses such as psychosis or schizophrenia, especially those who:

  • start using cannabis at a young age
  • use cannabis frequently (daily or almost every day)
  • have a personal or family history of psychosis and/or schizophrenia
Learn more about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia.

 
Back
Top