Supreme Court of Canada rules to let injection clinics stay open

[KeyMaster45]

So help populate one country causing problems, starvation, suffering, theft, crimes and more problems world wide?

Dude, lay off the damn overpopulation issue. Canada's birth rates are declining, and the only reason we can substain our population is due to the large influx of immigrants. To say that we should let people die just because we have too many of them alreay is ridiculous. Besides, the 1500 people (people, mind you. Not just statistics as you no doubt consider them) who would've died of overdoses if not for the clinic are an incredibly small portion of that 7.1 billion.
You're not edgy, you're not cool, you're just ignorant.

It's actually quite a valid counter argument, one that requires lots of thought. We can focus all we want on the lives the clinic will save, but what are the repercussions of those lives saved? It's not a guarantee that every time an addict overdoses and survives they'll change their ways. They may continue right along their current path of self-destruction and continue to contribute to many negative aspects of society.

The argument may be a rather cold and calculating one, but it's one worth considering none the less.

 

[4173]

Everything seems to indicate that Insite has increased the use of detox and addiction treatment.

Since not all addicts OD immediately, cutting down on HIV etc. does save some money. Lessens the abuse happening in public, if that matters to a person.


Of course, these things are somewhat disputed (what isn't: vaccines, 9/11, JFK etc.)

 

[KaiserKnight]

To quote you:
"To me it seems a far better solution than callously letting them kill themselves in private, based on some misguided idea that "they deserve it"."

I have to disagree with that, let people die. Why? 7.1+ billion people on a planet that is struggling to replenish itself on a planet that holds only 3.9 billion so that it can replenish itself properly. Too many people, death will help the economy, medicine and food world wide.

Where are you getting a figure like 3.9 billion people as a proper threshold for the amount of people that the Earth is able to hold? Who's to say that we don't have the resources to comfortably hold 7 billion people or more, provided we were able to manage them effectively? If 3.9 billion is considered the "magic number" by the scientific community at large, then that's different.

Its a rough estimate that yes scientist came up with when we reach the thought of number of 7 billion.

Post a specific reference to an article, then. If you're going to argue using scientific data, you have to post the source of that data (or at least who said it, in a quote).

Still looking for the main article.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-world-population-surpass-billion.html
http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/howmanypeoplecan152

If we can make everyone eat barely anything and polution nonexistant we can increase how many people can live on earth, though it won't be comfortable or living just suffering and barely getting by.

 

[KaiserKnight]

So help populate one country causing problems, starvation, suffering, theft, crimes and more problems world wide?

Dude, lay off the damn overpopulation issue. Canada's birth rates are declining, and the only reason we can substain our population is due to the large influx of immigrants. To say that we should let people die just because we have too many of them alreay is ridiculous. Besides, the 1500 people (people, mind you. Not just statistics as you no doubt consider them) who would've died of overdoses if not for the clinic are an incredibly small portion of that 7.1 billion.
You're not edgy, you're not cool, you're just ignorant.

It's actually quite a valid counter argument, one that requires lots of thought. We can focus all we want on the lives the clinic will save, but what are the repercussions of those lives saved? It's not a guarantee that every time an addict overdoses and survives they'll change their ways. They may continue right along their current path of self-destruction and continue to contribute to many negative aspects of society.

The argument may be a rather cold and calculating one, but it's one worth considering none the less.

True, we are saving lives but at times with the type of people is it really worth saving? Is that a real strong reason to let people live when they will continue doing that over and over again, what about when their body adapts and needs more and more to even feel a small rush? The body won't be able to handle it and they will die without said rush or if they go too long without it they can die from a bad withdraw.

 

[StrixMaxima]

While I like it in principle (providing for the needy is always good, as a political stance), I do think that injecting drugs is one of the stupidest things you can ever do. Why would anyone consider injecting the first shot is beyond me.

I think we should let Darwin do his job.

 

[Davih]

I'm lost

sterilized water in which to mix their drug

I'm not an expert at drugs, but since when did you mix your drugs with water? Sound's like they are watering down the drugs to reduce their addiction. So its a form of rehab?

If so, then it's a good thing that it is open. It's helping people. The people that overdose there would've overdosed somewhere without medical help on stand-by so I really am not seeing the problem.

 

[Gasaraki]

To quote you:
"To me it seems a far better solution than callously letting them kill themselves in private, based on some misguided idea that "they deserve it"."

I have to disagree with that, let people die. Why? 7.1+ billion people on a planet that is struggling to replenish itself on a planet that holds only 3.9 billion so that it can replenish itself properly. Too many people, death will help the economy, medicine and food world wide.

Overpopulation is pretty much the opposite of our problems in Canada.

So help populate one country causing problems, starvation, suffering, theft, crimes and more problems world wide?

Dude, lay off the damn overpopulation issue. Canada's birth rates are declining, and the only reason we can substain our population is due to the large influx of immigrants. To say that we should let people die just because we have too many of them alreay is ridiculous. Besides, the 1500 people (people, mind you. Not just statistics as you no doubt consider them) who would've died of overdoses if not for the clinic are an incredibly small portion of that 7.1 billion.
You're not edgy, you're not cool, you're just ignorant.

I am not drinking PBR and hearing outdated music that no one really cares about. You are a bit idiotic thinking I am trying to be those things.

eh

Also you are being closed minded thinking of only your country.
It's a clinic in Canada. What does that have to do with the rest of the world?
Look at the rest of the world and see what needs to change quickly
What, sperm production? Should we sterilize everyone?

also you saying starting at a small point is meaningless. So we shouldn't start cleaning up roads or making land to grow crops or make jobs since it will only help on a small scale?

I don't see anyone cleaning roads by picking up a piece of trash and walking away, leaving everyone to litter some more without consequence. And I sincerely doubt that anyone's gonna mourn for the loss of a discarded cigarette. Maybe put a bit more thought into your analogies?

 

[KeyMaster45]

True, we are saving lives but at times with the type of people is it really worth saving? Is that a real strong reason to let people live when they will continue doing that over and over again, what about when their body adapts and needs more and more to even feel a small rush? The body won't be able to handle it and they will die without said rush or if they go too long without it they can die from a bad withdraw.

This is a matter of personal opinion, but I think any life is worth at least trying to save. That's what I think these clinics accomplish. The addicts may continue to destroy themselves, but they'd be doing that anyway without the clinic's help. Everyone is worth saving, but not everyone can be saved. The choice to continue killing themselves remains firmly in their hands when they visit a clinic, and who are we to stop them? The mindset of an addict is a deeply disturbing one, I speak from the experience my own sister's abuse of drugs. Reason and logic are often lost on them, they may never have the chance to reach that "ah hah!" moment that gets them off drugs. The best you can offer addicts is a chance before it's too late. Treat them like human beings and take care of them so they might one day reach that turning point.

Everyone deserves a chance and I think the clinics offer that chance.

 

[DracoSuave]

To quote you:
"To me it seems a far better solution than callously letting them kill themselves in private, based on some misguided idea that "they deserve it"."

I have to disagree with that, let people die. Why? 7.1+ billion people on a planet that is struggling to replenish itself on a planet that holds only 3.9 billion so that it can replenish itself properly. Too many people, death will help the economy, medicine and food world wide.

Problem.

The diseases that kill them spread from them to people who do not share their habit.

Result: Allowing them to 'die in private' actually has a negative impact on the health of non-addicts.

Conclusion: The needs of the many outweigh the "darwinist" vindictiveness of the few.

I'm not an expert at drugs, but since when did you mix your drugs with water? Sound's like they are watering down the drugs to reduce their addiction. So its a form of rehab?

Heroin comes in powder form. You cannot inject a dry powder into the blood stream. It must be mixed with water in order for it to be injectable.

 

[face_head_mouth]

True, we are saving lives but at times with the type of people is it really worth saving? Is that a real strong reason to let people live when they will continue doing that over and over again, what about when their body adapts and needs more and more to even feel a small rush? The body won't be able to handle it and they will die without said rush or if they go too long without it they can die from a bad withdraw.

This is a matter of personal opinion, but I think any life is worth at least trying to save. That's what I think these clinics accomplish. The addicts may continue to destroy themselves, but they'd be doing that anyway without the clinic's help. Everyone is worth saving, but not everyone can be saved. The choice to continue killing themselves remains firmly in their hands when they visit a clinic, and who are we to stop them? The mindset of an addict is a deeply disturbing one, I speak from the experience my own sister's abuse of drugs. Reason and logic are often lost on them, they may never have the chance to reach that "ah hah!" moment that gets them off drugs. The best you can offer addicts is a chance before it's too late. Treat them like human beings and take care of them so they might one day reach that turning point.

Everyone deserves a chance and I think the clinics offer that chance.

I've had a few friends who were on heroin or cocaine that managed to turn their lives around (one went on to become a lawyer, for instance), so I feel the same way. I've also had at least one friend die. That's part of why I can't help but be emotionally invested in so-called "lost causes".

 

[RandV80]

If nothing else, I suppose the facility helps to keep those people centred around that area. I've been to Vancouver, and in that part of town (once, sure as hell not twice), and judging by what I've seen of the people there, hard to give a shit if they go kill themselves, I was just happy I didn't get stabbed on my one walk down that street.

To be fair, while the DTES can easily mimic a zombie apocalypse of homeless people, rampant violent crime is not one of the issues there.

Anyways this really makes me proud as a Canadian, that we can have a Supreme Court that does its job without following 'party lines', and a acting government that is mature enough to accept the decision without a lot of fuss. Chances are if this happened in the States the Supreme Court decision would probably come down to a matter of how many Republican judges there are vs Democrat Judges, and whichever side lost the decision would be hanging over everyone's head for years as another polarizing topic dividing the populace.

 

[RandV80]

Double post...

 

[Knife]

I'm lost

sterilized water in which to mix their drug

I'm not an expert at drugs, but since when did you mix your drugs with water? Sound's like they are watering down the drugs to reduce their addiction. So its a form of rehab?

If so, then it's a good thing that it is open. It's helping people. The people that overdose there would've overdosed somewhere without medical help on stand-by so I really am not seeing the problem.

Drugs like cocaine and heroin come in the form of a powder, in order to inject them into the bloodstream you have to mix them with water (and sometimes other materials in order to dissolve the drug with water) because syringes aren't that good at pushing powders, thay are good at pushing liquids. Ever saw a movie with drug addicts putting their drugs in a spoon and boiling it? That's when they add the water and whatever else necessary. The water as well as the syringe might be infected with some disease. Those clinics provide clean water and syringes for the addicts to use.
Whether its a good or a bad thing is open for discussion.

Edit: Damn ninjas.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Yes, this is an excellent idea, although to be honest you could just give out clean needles and water amps etc at needle exchanges. Spoons are a good idea too. Of course IMHO opinion the best thing to do would be to let people buy diamorphine amps, adulterated drugs are the biggest problem. Depending on how it is stored and processed diamorphine can be pretty cheap, some of the European mainland programs cost about £10 a gram and that will easily keep someone happy for days. UK govt diamorphine is closer to £40 a gram because of all the rules over the storage type and stuff. Each dose has to be put into a sterile dry amp, usually of a much smaller dosage than is necessary, meaning a huge increase in cost.
Pure diamorphine amps lessens the health risks substantially. No toxic adulterants, it's pure so it doesn't matter if you hit an artery or miss altogether as it can be done intramuscular as well which also saves veins and the circulatory system. Really the only problems you have are overdose (chances of which are also lessened due to coming in measured amps) and long term liver damage as would happen with any sort of long term chemical use.

 

[DEAD34345]

Wow, this forum is very left leaning.

Not that I think that's a bad thing (I'm pretty much a leftist myself), it's just really obvious on this particular thread. Anyway, I'm all for these clinics, for pretty much the same reasons as the OP and others have stated.

 

[cathou]

I don't understand people that say : hey let them die, they are stupid and not worth saving. There's millions of reason that make them start drug abuse, and maybe if you were suffering on the street, alone and miserable you might have taken that first shot. It too easy to judge them and once your addicted it's not that easy to get out of that.

In those clinic they are at least in a controlled environnement, and OD is very easy on heroin because you never know the purity of the stuff. Preventing aids help everyone and not just the addicted, and it less abandon seringe out in a park, where a kid could get hurt by it...

 

[Knife]

Problem.

The diseases that kill them spread from them to people who do not share their habit.

Result: Allowing them to 'die in private' actually has a negative impact on the health of non-addicts.

Conclusion: The needs of the many outweigh the "darwinist" vindictiveness of the few.

I don't see any good reason to save addicts who OD, its fine to give them clean supplies - it only helps the general public, but why the hell are they giving medical help to overdosed addicts instead of letting them die? They'll wake up tomorrow, use more drugs and possibly harm more people. Why waste resources which could be used to help other people on those who actively seek their own death (and that's what drugs do - poison you).

 

[Richardplex]

To quote you:
"To me it seems a far better solution than callously letting them kill themselves in private, based on some misguided idea that "they deserve it"."

I have to disagree with that, let people die. Why? 7.1+ billion people on a planet that is struggling to replenish itself on a planet that holds only 3.9 billion so that it can replenish itself properly. Too many people, death will help the economy, medicine and food world wide.

Problem.

The diseases that kill them spread from them to people who do not share their habit.

Result: Allowing them to 'die in private' actually has a negative impact on the health of non-addicts.

Conclusion: The needs of the many outweigh the "darwinist" vindictiveness of the few.

What this guy said, it's the flaw in the overpopulation point.

Really, Canada is pretty cool place with non-idiotic people by large, so letting Canadians die off is illogical.

Really it's LEDC's people that need to go. Their exponential growth from having too many children is causing too many long term problems. Limiting number of children to say 2, 3 tops would also be more helpful long term - despite all the horror stories about it, China's one child policy had some very significant positive effects. Limiting population growth averted what would of escalated to a very serious crisis, crippling China's growth in high education areas being one of the effects. Quality of life increased for the single children as all the parents resources, be it money, time, education, weren't spread to multiple children, and just the one child. Unfortunately most countries wouldn't have the benefits to enforce this though.

Applying that to MEDCs would have little negative effect. Since by large most of us (at least, I hope most of us) don't care if our last name continues on, so there wouldn't be that issue with female children (not to belittle that horrible issue, just that it isn't that relevant for my point). The way China introduced that form that one had to aquire permission to have children might stop people like these from having children if implemented correctly.

But I digress; the most efficient and logical way to deal with the population problem is to deal with the LEDCs. They are responsible for most of the population problems, take up room and don't contribute to the world anywhere near as much.

Yes I'm cold and harsh and probably a bit pretentious against LEDCs, but I go for quality of life over sanctity of life - Without the future there is no reason for the present to exist.

 

[Jodah]

On the one hand I think that, if they choose to do drugs, they should live with all the risks including dieing from OD.

On the other hand I like the idea that they are slowing the spread of diseases like aids and hepatitis.