sda2.jpg

October 2, 2010

Iggy - Heroin for everyone

...and your weed for free

The Liberals would like to see Vancouver's Insite safe-injection sites replicated across the country - a notion briefly entertained by Quebec's Health Minister but never pursued.

Posted by lance at October 2, 2010 12:01 AM
Comments

At the risk of being labeled a spelling nazi, I think the word you are trying for in the title is "heroin". "Heroine" changes the meaning somewhat.

Posted by: BDFT at October 1, 2010 10:46 PM

Heh, thanks. I was watching Calgary vs. Mtl. Nik Lewis scored so naturally I thought the feminine.

Posted by: lance at October 1, 2010 10:49 PM

34-20 in the 3rd for the leading western heros Lance.. but I can still picture that dead horse photo & cough. ;(

Posted by: marc in calgary at October 1, 2010 10:59 PM

Hmmm, what better way to have your population totally reliant on the state. Hook everyone on hard drugs and the government can be the dealer. Chemical servitude at its finest!

Posted by: KillJoy at October 1, 2010 10:59 PM

Safe injection sites: reduce spread of diseases, and therefore health costs. Increase chances of an addict accepting counselling. Gets at least some overt drug use off the street/out of the alleys.

I can see why you'd be against it - because... goddamn it... it's socialist or something!

(As for legalized pot, well, I suppose you like govt mandated morality after all.)

Posted by: Nathan at October 1, 2010 11:31 PM

Harm reduction doesn't work. Europe isn't screwed up for nothing.
Surely someone is tired of Ignatieff's posturing by now, right?

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at October 1, 2010 11:40 PM

No Nathan, I'm against it because I pay for the junkie to get their fix.

Posted by: lance at October 1, 2010 11:48 PM

Nathan @11:31 - "Safe injection sites: reduce spread of diseases, and therefore health costs. Increase chances of an addict accepting counselling."

I want stats.

Posted by: Black Mamba at October 1, 2010 11:51 PM

@Nathan: What, you're not going to use the argument that if I only pay for the junkie to get his fix, then at least he won't be breaking into my house to steal my stuff to sell it to get his fix...right?

I mean, it's not their fault, honestly. Instead of me having to bother my insurance company afterwards, I should be able to leave my doors unlocked, maybe put up a selection list at the front door so any random involuntary substance dependent (sorry, 'junkie' is SO neocon speech) can pick and choose from the most choice items, right?

/sarc

Tell you what..you first.

Posted by: Karthanon at October 2, 2010 12:02 AM

Michael Ignatieff is not the "Liberal leader"; Michael Ignatieff is many things, some worthwhile, but "leader" is not one of them

Posted by: John Lewis at October 2, 2010 12:14 AM

@ Nathan...
A properly mandated penal colony: could also reduce the spread of diseases, and therefore health costs.
It could force the addict to accept counselling as part of any parole, and would get at least some overt drug use off the street/out of the alleys.

I can see why you'd be against it, but most of those forced off, would eventually thank the state for its "tough love" approach and finaly be rid of their curse!

(As for legalized pot), some of us prefer our pot illegal, we need some excitement in our lives ya know!

Posted by: William in Ajax at October 2, 2010 12:46 AM

Give addicts all the drugs they want for free at injection sites. Do away with needles, use “jet injection”. A lot of them will overdose... problem solved!!

Crime will also be reduced since addicts won't have to steal stuff to pawn to buy their next expensive illegal fix.

Making things illegal only ensures that organized crime gets richer.

Posted by: John Galt at October 2, 2010 12:56 AM

Well.....we still had impaired driving during prohibition.....ending prohibition reduced the incidence of poisoning from methanol poisoning.
Legalizing pot would just shift organized crime to other enterprise....bootleggers shifted to narcotics, pot, prostitution, protection and numbers.....

It is a strange world in which we live....we used to think the air was clean and sex was dirty....now the loons want to ban tobacco and legalize MJ....as well as outlawing firearms so that only the outlaws have arms.

[.....A properly mandated penal colony: could also reduce the spread of diseases, and therefore health costs......]

Yeah and eliminate a lot of crime as well as dry up demand....

Posted by: sasquatch at October 2, 2010 1:35 AM

How about free Timmy injection sites for the rest of us?

Posted by: foobert at October 2, 2010 2:10 AM

No Nathan, I'm against it because I pay for the junkie to get their fix.

No cheers lance, you're against it because like all right whingers, you're a hypocrite.

Posted by: phil at October 2, 2010 7:10 AM

If all you drug users want to kill yourselves , fill your boots. But, when you need health care, don't ask me to pay for it. When you can't hold a job, don't ask me to pay for your UI and welfare. When your family falls apart, don't ask me to pay for the support of your children. I don't want to live in a socialist paradise, but since we do the state does have a right to create these type of measures to protect itself from the cost of supporting a society of junkies.

Posted by: minuteman at October 2, 2010 8:12 AM

Exactly the level of debate I was expecting. Junkies should just go off and die, etc. Not one penny of my hard-earned (state-subsidized) income!

Anyway, not that any of you actually pay attention to boring things like statistics - why would you when you have the echo chamber? - but:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc052939

Posted by: Nathan at October 2, 2010 8:29 AM

My thoughts exactly Minuteman.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at October 2, 2010 8:51 AM

Drug use will increase if made easier, just like abortions increased when made legal, STDs increased when sex outside of marriage was normalized, etc.

Do we want more drug users, draining the country's limited $?

Of course. It's the 'progressive' thing to do. And all you fascists with jobs, normal families, and drug-free lives just shut up and pay for it. All you'll do with any extra income you keep is support the little fascists you're raising and contribute to the economic stability of the country by buying material goods.

My fix is my right! Now pay for it. How dare you say that if I make my choice to be a druggie, the consequences should fall on my head alone? Where's your compaaaaaassssion!!!!!

Posted by: ann at October 2, 2010 9:32 AM

Safe injection sites don't stop the spread of desease, junkies shoot up numerous times a day and the 9 to 5 social justice crowd only provide a service during their cushy working day. After dark and before sunset it's back to those dark allies and sharing needles with your buds. What a load of lies, leftwing fluffy bunny nonsensical balony. I'm so sick of the social justice crowd and their retarded demented ideas and policies.

Posted by: Rose at October 2, 2010 9:32 AM

Well I'm all in favour of injection sites..as long as we purify the heroin first. That makes them very, very happy..once, cuts down on disease and drug use. Also if we had property rights it would cut down on the soft drug user as they wandered around looking for stuff to steal.
I'm adaptable.

Posted by: Speedy at October 2, 2010 9:44 AM

Was it in Saskatoon where the needle injection site quadrupled needle release and all parameters to judge success worsened?

Posted by: grok at October 2, 2010 9:44 AM

Nathan the link is the work of people trying to justify their jobs. I see very little data and a stab at making it scientific. Instead of what was presented, how many people stopped using for reasons other than death? What is the effectiveness of the program? NADA,

Posted by: Speedy at October 2, 2010 9:53 AM

Not surprized it's another desparate Liberal vote buying scheme.

You have to be drugged out to vote Liberal in the first place.

Posted by: rockyt at October 2, 2010 9:57 AM

a good lot of the junkies live in the riding of Hot Cross Hedy.

Posted by: cal2 at October 2, 2010 10:09 AM

Well this in part explains the stupidity of Lieberals. I can just see Pablo Holland and Heddy getting into Ujals supply and shooting up so they can be just as powerful as Iggula.

Posted by: bartinsky at October 2, 2010 10:09 AM

Wow. Iggy really isn't that smart if he thinks these sites really help. The incidences of HIV, crime, etc. all go up when these sites open. It also helps the drug pushers know where their addicts are.

There has been no real statistical proof that they work except that the number of people needed goes up as do the union dues paid.

Is anyone helped to get off the drugs or is this just an extension of the free needles? You know, keep them hooked and hire more people to look after them.

Pitiful!

Posted by: Fiumara at October 2, 2010 10:35 AM

I don't want free weed or heroin and don't want to pay for anyone else's habits, good or bad. However, if I could line up for a free and steady supply of high quality yarn, I could see my way to changing my mind.

Posted by: Kathryn at October 2, 2010 11:00 AM

Why should junkie's get free heroin, an illegal drug, when alcoholics who are addicted to a legal drug that raises tax dollars, have to buy their alcohol and drink it in the alleys? Lets promote "safe-drinking sites"

Posted by: Alan at October 2, 2010 11:08 AM

To you liberals here .. You can call being anti drug use by government 'enforcing morality", but consider what has happened to our society since we have allowed liberalism to lower the bar in the name of idiotic human rights over the past forty years.

We have a degenerated society of young and youngish people who are completely desensitized to violence, sex and pornography.

We have an educational system (and parents) that is so permissive and weak that the student's and are running the place and they are learning little of value. I

Iggy's ideas try to convince any remaining skeptics that it REALLY IS OKAY to do hard drugs .... because nanny is looking out for you.

In order to have a functioning civil society, there has to be some morality. The church and family pressure used to provide that role, but not any more.

Who will do it? No one hates government and their petty rules more than I do, but in this case, they are the only force available to keep hard drugs taboo.

Finally, I am no hypocrite. I don't care if hard drug losers die on the streets, that is their their "freedom to choose". That too is a human right, but rights come with responsibilities.

And the health care cost thing? That is a part of the government owns your body spin-off of socialism. Let them pay until it collapses ... which it is now doing anyway.

Posted by: Abe Froman at October 2, 2010 11:11 AM

phil/nathan


I smoked, and that was probably before you were born. I'm against this sort of thing because of the "cost", which is much higher than those administering it would have you believe (btw; I'm against abortions for the same reason, I don't want to pay for it). As far as statistics go, take a coarse in that field and getback to me.


Now as to drug use, my daughter said best, when using drugs (crack) you don't think the same way. Try grasping what my daughter was trying to tell me!!!!

Posted by: GYM at October 2, 2010 11:14 AM

Sure we should provide safe injection sites and free drugs...as long as it is at a closed facility where the addicts at least have a chance of being helped. Addicts off the street, safer communities, less police man hours required.

or

Let addicts accept the consequences of bad choices. They'll still end up in a government institution - hospital morgue or jail. Addicts off the street (eventually), unsafe communities and lots of police man hours required.

The existing harm reduction strategy only prolongs addicts suffering. Perhaps the reason it is favored is because it's expensive and requires many, many union employees. Another plus is that the addicts are kept addicted so their government enablers maintain a steady client base. The last thing a government run program wants is to actually fix a problem - they want to maximize secure employment opportunities.

Posted by: LC Bennett at October 2, 2010 11:33 AM

Nathan,

By your writing, you appear to have the opinion that the government should make drugs easier to obtain, but guns more difficult to obtain.

My opinion is that the government has no business in either.

It is liberals and progressives who are more likely to restrict individual freedom, not conservatives.

phil,

Hypocrite does not mean someone with whom you disagree.

Posted by: SDH at October 2, 2010 1:13 PM

I had an interesting wrangle with some no-lobes at a music forum on this very topic some time ago, so rather than waste valuable time on morons like Nathan and phil, let's just copy-paste:

"1) is the general consensus here that the use of addictive drugs is NOT in fact a 'disease', never mind a treatable one with the desired outcome being CESSATION of drug use, but in fact simply a lifestyle choice? If so, is that the message you would like sent to law enforcement, mental health professionals, social workers, and government in general? Seems to me we were just getting over the idea of it being a crime - and where I live it isn't, not for users. Are we now to discard that recently-acquired wisdom and tell the powers that be 'Hey, we just want to do it, and f*ck YOU if you don't like it'? That should go over well...

2) supposing we can get our society to the point where these drugs are legalized, by which I mean the distribution and use is no longer illegal in any respect: is the proposal that we ask our governments to oversee distribution, taxation etc? After all, these drugs cannot be created in the climate of, say, Northern Europe or North America where they are most in demand. So in brief: are we expecting a huge infrastructure to be put in place that oversees the manufacture and distribution of these drugs simply because our society has x percentage of addicts? Just wondering. Because FYI I don't want penny one of my tax money spent on abetting this particular lifestyle choice; I don't want to see crack/smack/meth stores or crack/smack/meth ad campaigns on TV touting the coolness of addiction where kids can see it. Wanna bet I'm not alone?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that beyond mere illegality which is transitory or rarely enforced, there exists a lot of widespread disapproval of the use of these kinds of drugs because of things like the obvious unavoidable aesthetic issues around the means of ingestion, comorbidity problems (anxiety, depressive, PTSD, antisocial and mood disorders etc, some lasting years after cessation of use) that will remain untreated due to being masked/self-medicated by these drugs - why the f*ck are people taking them in the first place after all? - overdose, and so on.

You know, just riffing...I like to see people rationalize having their personal THING accepted by the greater society. It's interesting!"

And on the matter of conservatives being the hypocrites - go tell that to the Makah who had their traditional whaling shut down by ecotards. go tell it to teh wind farmers who are being attacked by ecotards over the bird and bat deaths their machiens cause.

The liberasl outcome is *always* head-up-ass hypocrisy. "The whirling constellation of utter confusion that passes for consciousness with these people" as I put it on that same forum.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at October 2, 2010 1:16 PM

One more from the vaults - this is especially for you phil and Nathan, read and learn, kiddies:

"I for one am sick of this self-righteous leftist 'I have the Truth' pose; it's especially galling because when I was a dumb kid I used to behave like that, and long ago made the stunning discovery that people mature enough to admit they DON'T have all the answers found it really annoying and were embarrassed for me. Now it's not only common but de rigeur for grown adults to shriek their 'truth' in the face of anyone who'll spare the time to listen, and moreoever, expect you to agree; in fact if you don't agree, you're a 'Fascist', a 'Christian rightist neocon', a 'gun nut', 'ignorant trailer trash'. The death of dialog and the imposition of a guilt-based system of psychic repression requiring nothing less than absolute conformity and obedience.

How the hell did we ever let 'give peace a chance' come to this? Where successful people are reviled, 'property is theft', and people feel they have the right to tell each other what kind of car to drive?

This constant, insistent intrusion into our private lives by complete strangers - how the HELL did we let it happen?"

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at October 2, 2010 1:26 PM

How to make a socialist/statist Gordian knot:
1) Prohibition
2) Unionize government bureaucracies
3) Monopolize medicine with government

Remove consequences & subsidize poor decisions long enough and there will be no adults left.

Posted by: Ron at October 2, 2010 3:39 PM

What if there was a take-the-consequences deal with drugs and guns? i.e. - buy what you want, shoot what you want, great; but kill or injure someone with a gun due to criminal activity or negligence and hello prison, big time; buy what you want, shoot/smoke/drink and swallow what you want, but if you find yourself dying in the gutter you'd better have faith in the kindness of strangers.

That's consistent, lefties, yes?


Nathan: Cancelled my afternoon, shot the cat, read the nightmarishly-written little article you provided, shot up to cope with the pain, started writing a point-by-point response, stopped to consider Kate's bandwidth and decided "scr@w it".

Basically, a bunch of Vancouver free-needle-site-habitue junkies filled in a questionnaire (and of course you can always trust junkies to be honest with the authorities about their habits).

Money quote: "Our findings provide reassurance that supervised injection facilities... are unlikely to result in reduced use of addiction-treatment services."

That's the best you go? Really?

I won't hold my breath waiting on a response.

Posted by: Black Mamba at October 2, 2010 4:13 PM

Tony Curtis is struggled against drug and alcohol abuse as starring roles became fewer, but then bounced back in film and television as a character actor."Some Like It Hot and Sweet Smell of Success."

OLD FASHION WAY IN USA: relatioship of success and being HOT and too many women involved and divorce and using drug and alchol abuse???!!!
=================

Jamie Lee Curtis , the daughter of film stars Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh, made her film debut starring as a bookish suburban teen stalked in John Carpenter's landmark horror thriller, "Halloween" (1978),played an important role…
-------------

Actor Tony Curtis died at his Las Vegas-area home Wednesday, at age 85. The Hollywood star-turned-painter was hospitalized this summer after suffering breathing problems during an exhibition of his artwork in Henderson, Nev. He had battled a near-fatal bout of pneumonia in late 2006 and also underwent heart bypass surgery in 1994. Some of his best known roles were in classic Hollywood fare

He won his first serious recognition as a skilled dramatic actor in Sweet Smell of Success (1957) with co-star Burt Lancaster. The following year he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor in another drama, The Defiant Ones (1958). Curtis then gave what many believe was his best acting, in a completely different role, the comedy Some Like it Hot (1959). Years active 1948–2010

====================
HIS Spouse WOW....!!!
Janet Leigh (1951–62)
(divorced)
Christine Kaufmann (1963–67)
(divorced)
Leslie Allen (1968–82)
(divorced)
Andria Savio (1983–92)
(divorced)
Lisa Deutsch (1993–94)
(divorced)
Jill Vandenberg (1998–2010)
(his death)

======
NOW again:
Lindsy Lohan

Posted by: stop drug & alchol at October 2, 2010 4:26 PM

nathan:

Please visit http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/09/videos-mcdonalds-quarter-pounder-for-men-burgers-heroin-pineapple-australia.html#continued

Watch the second video "Break the habit". Then explain to me, when the same people who are agitating to shut down fast food joints, ban salt and trans-fats, and institute an "obesity tax" turn around and promote "safe injection sites", my head shouldn't explode at the incredible hypocrisy and/or stupidity of it all.

Oh, about the head-exploding thing? Never mind; the 10:10 people are gonna take care of that.

Posted by: KevinB at October 2, 2010 5:27 PM

Nathan writes for the......drum roll.....Toronto Star,nuff said.

Posted by: wallyj at October 2, 2010 6:39 PM

Oh great first the libs pandered to the terrorists to get their vote , then it was the criminals remember that one now its the addicts
can this political party stoop any lower. My guess is yes they can.

Posted by: STaylor at October 2, 2010 7:35 PM

Mamba (4:13pm) I'd agree with that in a heartbeat.

I'd even go along with the safe injection sites Nathan and phil support if they'd support Castle Doctrine in Canada, specifically one like Oklahoma's (no obligation to retreat or call law enforcement before you act. It covers your home, work and vehicle and you may assume anyone breaking in intends to do you bodily harm).

How about that?

Posted by: SDH at October 2, 2010 9:09 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with SDH. I have long contended that drugs,all drugs not just pot,should be legal. If I want to smoke a joint,or burn a gram,so be it. However,if I rob you to buy those drugs,then I should be dealt with as a criminal,not a victim of society.

An example of our failure to hold people to account;one segment of the Canadian population has the highest rate of addiction,abuse,and the resulting crime that follows. This is also the segment of society that has been given the most hugs instead of a figurative smack upside the head.

It is very similar to scolding a child who knows that the scolding is the worst that he/she will face. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked for hundreds of years,there is no reason to think it will work this year or the next.

Posted by: wallyj at October 2, 2010 9:39 PM

"Exactly the level of debate I was expecting. Junkies should just go off and die, etc. Not one penny of my hard-earned (state-subsidized) income!"

I visited your "blog" (sound of crickets chirping), and note your state your industry as "Non Profit". Now who is flush with state-subsidized income, one wonders?

philtroll @ 7:10am, as usual, may be relied upon to come up with a stupid comment. Because a "hypocrite" is anybody who disagrees with you, right?

If one wishes to kick an addiction, they must have the desire to succeed. In this case, drug rehab programs will assist, as will other support group programs that don't provide free substances for them to use. The most successful addiction support group of them all, AA, does not (as I recall) offer cocktails at the end of every session. Common sense indicates that offering the substance the members are hooked on might not be a great strategy in curing them of their need of same.

There ARE harsher drug rehab programs in prisons, I suppose, and for the habitual junkies who rob/steal to provide their fix, this is a good place to keep 'em, so they aren't preying on society. Too bad if bleeding hearts like nathan/phil can't figure that out. But then, I suppose they are petitioning to have a "safe" injection site built next door to their living space, right? That'd be consistent with the holier-than-thou attitude, anyway.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Posted by: mhb at October 3, 2010 1:23 PM

Liberal policy: Its okay to excuse drug use and prostitution in society as long as the government gets a cut.

Repeat the following:
They are not drug users by choice, they are victims.
They are not human slaves, they are sex workers by trade.

Posted by: gimbol at October 4, 2010 7:29 AM
Site
Meter