3 ms·

"A harm reduction approach with drugs would drastically reduce" NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic

"A harm reduction approach with drugs would drastically reduce" NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic is a thriving cesspool, worse than it ever was. The data used to validate 'harm reduction' doesn't even help them: they talk about 'avoided deaths form overdose' as though someone od'ing in an alley would have died fro their od and not had access to ambulances. It's not really that much more dangerous to shoot up 'in an alley' than in a clinic, surprisingly - you'll eventually have access to an ambulance either way and most OD's are not 'instant death' anyhow. It's the practice/behaviour that kills, the OD is the instance. The most obvious benefit is that users can get access to clean up programs etc. but there doesn't seem to be evidence that is materially working. Vancouver has an entire industry of drug related 'harm reduction' approaches - and yet, the problems continue to thrive. It would seem those policies haven't made a dent, and there might be better ways to spend that money to solve the problem.

Scoundreller 8y ago
> NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic is a thriving cesspool, worse than it ever was. Expecting one program at one location to stop the entire problem is expecting a lot. The real question that needs to be answered is: Is it better to have the program or not? Other than space and a few staff, it can't be expensive to operate, especially when scaled out. > The most obvious benefit is that users can get access to clean up programs etc. but there doesn't seem to be evidence that is materially working. Indeed, the OnSite program is available in the same location. What better place to reach users than a program they'll come to everyday. There's plenty of evidence that opiate dependence treatment works, and is cost-effective: reduced HIV infections (it's not necessarily the opiates themselves that kill you), reduced property crime, reduced deaths from overdose. > Vancouver has an entire industry of drug related 'harm reduction' approaches - and yet, the problems continue to thrive. It would seem those policies haven't made a dent, and there might be better ways to spend that money to solve the problem. But would the problem be worse without the current programs? "We've spent all this money on health care and people are still dying, shutdown the hospitals!" Anyways, I'd argue any worsening is triggered by the new availability of potent and cheap opioids that people can't dilute properly.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Expecting one program at one location to stop the entire problem is expecting a lot. " Nobody is expecting insite to 'solve the problem'. But - it has to provide some material result - and it does not. Moreover, there are a flurry of such programs in the neighbourhood, and entire 'self harm industry' of services etc. - and they don't seem to be working. "There's plenty of evidence that opiate dependence treatment works" Not arguing with that. The point is, 'insite' doesn't seem to be effectively doing that given the costs - and the negative attribute of supporting/normalizing drug activity. "But would the problem be worse without the current programs?" Time for a different approach. The absolute worst part of the 'soft on drugs' approach is that police aren't willing to do go after people doing bad stuff right in the open. That part of Vancouver is an open-air drug bazar and it has to stop. While it may be rational to decriminalize drugs - it's equally rational to implement the actual law in meaningful ways. It would be rational to have police walking up and down that street all day, making sure nothing illegal is happening - taking a fairly heavy hand. 'Breaking up the critical mass' of bad behaviour, breaking up social networks - this should be the first thing the police should do. So many people get involved (or get re-involved) because it's easy to score, it's easy to hook up with the community. Not allowing geographic critical masses or social critical masses to form should be #1 on the agenda. Of course, drugs will 'always be available' but it's a game of Supply and Demand - and if you can put pressure on the supply so social and economic costs raise - then you can get less people involved in the game. If anyone is caught in public, high on a hard drug - they should immediately have their name in a DB - and if caught twice, they should basically have mandatory counselling or they should go off to a clinic. It's absurd that Canadians have to pay the massive price for easy and free hospital care for people who chose (and it is a choice in the end) to do self destructive things. This way, there's no fear of jail or whatever for hardcore druggies, and frankly 'those who can handle their drugs' and be functional or whatever, probably won't face scrutiny - they can have loved one's and family members intervene. But many will be priced out, and many will get caught up into clinics which is a better investment. 'Harm Reduction' is far too close to 'turn a blind eye and hope that some will come into programs' and it's just not working. That area of Vancouver could be cleaned up in a heartbeat if the city actually wanted to. The bazar would be dispersed and minimized even if only because of that. Edit: 'harm reduction' policies are actually the opposite of 'harm reduction' - it's basically 'harm enablement' - it's just the stupid opposite of 'arbitrary tough on drugs i.e. 0 strikes - you go to jail forever'. Also - it's widely known that organized crime have control of import shipping docs, it's absurd there isn't a hugely heavy hand on that, with tons of real law enforcement inspections. That this could knowingly exist implies a total failure of law enforcement.

Scoundreller 8y ago

> NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic is a thriving cesspool, worse than it ever was. Expecting one program at one location to stop the entire problem is expecting a lot. The real question that needs to be answered is: Is it better to have the program or not? Other than space and a few staff, it can't be expensive to operate, especially when scaled out. > The most obvious benefit is that users can get access to clean up programs etc. but there doesn't seem to be evidence that is materially working. Indeed, the OnSite program is available in the same location. What better place to reach users than a program they'll come to everyday. There's plenty of evidence that opiate dependence treatment works, and is cost-effective: reduced HIV infections (it's not necessarily the opiates themselves that kill you), reduced property crime, reduced deaths from overdose. > Vancouver has an entire industry of drug related 'harm reduction' approaches - and yet, the problems continue to thrive. It would seem those policies haven't made a dent, and there might be better ways to spend that money to solve the problem. But would the problem be worse without the current programs? "We've spent all this money on health care and people are still dying, shutdown the hospitals!" Anyways, I'd argue any worsening is triggered by the new availability of potent and cheap opioids that people can't dilute properly.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Expecting one program at one location to stop the entire problem is expecting a lot. " Nobody is expecting insite to 'solve the problem'. But - it has to provide some material result - and it does not. Moreover, there are a flurry of such programs in the neighbourhood, and entire 'self harm industry' of services etc. - and they don't seem to be working. "There's plenty of evidence that opiate dependence treatment works" Not arguing with that. The point is, 'insite' doesn't seem to be effectively doing that given the costs - and the negative attribute of supporting/normalizing drug activity. "But would the problem be worse without the current programs?" Time for a different approach. The absolute worst part of the 'soft on drugs' approach is that police aren't willing to do go after people doing bad stuff right in the open. That part of Vancouver is an open-air drug bazar and it has to stop. While it may be rational to decriminalize drugs - it's equally rational to implement the actual law in meaningful ways. It would be rational to have police walking up and down that street all day, making sure nothing illegal is happening - taking a fairly heavy hand. 'Breaking up the critical mass' of bad behaviour, breaking up social networks - this should be the first thing the police should do. So many people get involved (or get re-involved) because it's easy to score, it's easy to hook up with the community. Not allowing geographic critical masses or social critical masses to form should be #1 on the agenda. Of course, drugs will 'always be available' but it's a game of Supply and Demand - and if you can put pressure on the supply so social and economic costs raise - then you can get less people involved in the game. If anyone is caught in public, high on a hard drug - they should immediately have their name in a DB - and if caught twice, they should basically have mandatory counselling or they should go off to a clinic. It's absurd that Canadians have to pay the massive price for easy and free hospital care for people who chose (and it is a choice in the end) to do self destructive things. This way, there's no fear of jail or whatever for hardcore druggies, and frankly 'those who can handle their drugs' and be functional or whatever, probably won't face scrutiny - they can have loved one's and family members intervene. But many will be priced out, and many will get caught up into clinics which is a better investment. 'Harm Reduction' is far too close to 'turn a blind eye and hope that some will come into programs' and it's just not working. That area of Vancouver could be cleaned up in a heartbeat if the city actually wanted to. The bazar would be dispersed and minimized even if only because of that. Edit: 'harm reduction' policies are actually the opposite of 'harm reduction' - it's basically 'harm enablement' - it's just the stupid opposite of 'arbitrary tough on drugs i.e. 0 strikes - you go to jail forever'. Also - it's widely known that organized crime have control of import shipping docs, it's absurd there isn't a hugely heavy hand on that, with tons of real law enforcement inspections. That this could knowingly exist implies a total failure of law enforcement.