B.C. injection site risks offending world

E-llusion

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
Location
ALASKA
OTTAWA - The federal government concluded that the risk of offending the international community by keeping open Vancouver's supervised injection site for drug addicts had more serious consequences than closing the facility over the objections of the B.C. government, according to internal documents obtained by The Vancouver Sun.

One Health Canada document, which describes and evaluates the risks associated with both options, also warned that refusal to extend Insite's licence would simply result in the opening of an illegal facility doing the same thing.

With considerable risks inherent with either choice, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government -- asked to extend the permit by up to five years -- found a middle ground in August by extending the facility's permit only until the end of this year.

The government also refused to renew the $1.5-million in research funding provided by the former Liberal government when it opened for a three-year trial in 2003. The Harper government has criticized "harm reduction" measures such as the Insite program, which focuses on reducing the risk of overdoses and HIV infection rates among hardcore addicts.

The facility provides clean needles, a safe place to shoot up, a referral service for addicts seeking treatment and staff available in the event of an overdose.

The April 26, 2006, analysis lists seven risks facing the government if it extends the permit allowing the Insite facility to operate, and six risks if the government denies the application.

Each risk is given a "likelihood rating" and a separate "consequence rating" from one to five. Both numbers are multiplied to indicate the overall risk rating.

"Negative reaction/criticism from the international community" was given a likelihood ranking of five, the highest score, and a consequence rating of three, for a total score of 15 -- the second highest of the nine identified risks in extending Insite's permit.

The highest ranking, with a score of 20, related to the expected demand for renewed research funding for Insite if the permit is extended, along with additional demands for research funds for other injection sites that might appear elsewhere in Canada.

Risks cited in the report included "negative reaction/criticism from domestic stakeholders such as the police," which got a total score of five.

Among the risks associated with killing Insite, Health Canada expressed its greatest concern that the government would lose access to evidence that could be used for "decisions on programs of this nature in the future." That received the highest possible score of 25.

The federal budget last week committed $64-million over two years to fund a renewed National Anti-Drug Strategy, which already receives $385-million a year. The new money will be used to combat illicit drug production, use and dependency, and will not be used for harm reduction initiatives.

Researchers with the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/ AIDS have criticized the Harper government, accusing it of taking an "ideological" U.S.-style war on drugs approach rather than consider evidence that suggests Insite is effective.

The head of the United Nations' drug control agency, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), criticized the government earlier this month for "encouraging illicit trafficking" by allowing Insite to operate legally.

The INCB and U.S. President George W. Bush's administration have led the international battle against harm reduction initiatives.

-----------------------------
B.C. injection site risks offending world
Peter O'Neil, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, March 26, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cea28869-f4df-4a0e-9f59-6aec8f4ad5b1&k=72741
 
Only when the Conservatives came to power did I see it coming. Harper has got to go people.

Look at the fool. He thinks having a hair out of place has a 'risk rating' of 20 for f sakes. The guy is whacko.

As far as I'm concerned he offends me, and many of my fellow Canadians. He is the greatest risk we have of offending the world.

He doesn't seem to realize Canada's place in the world. To lead by example. True multiculturalism and freedom for all. He's an example of what not to do.

If you want all the BS in the U.S. to come here keep voting for captain lipstick (in pictures it appears as if the man[using the term loosely] wears lipstick)

I think I've probably made my point LOL
 
Last edited:
Crazeee said:
The INCB and U.S. President George W. Bush's administration have led the international battle against harm reduction initiatives.
Click to expand...

i knew his name was gonna pop up for something asshole like this, even in an article about canada.
 
They are worried about the "international community"? When did they U.S. constitute the entire international community?
 
Harper is only worried about offending his good bum buddy bush. He could care less about what the rest of the world thinks. In fact he's much more of a threat of offending the international community then any safe injection site is. Perhaps he's afraid Bush will stop using that KY warming gel that he loves so much when he's taking it up the ass from georgie?

That right winged nut job cunt of a prime minister has got to go before he fuck's up canada even more then he already has. He's just a northern version of the worst element's of the republican party. If it was left up to him all junkies or even anyone suspected of using drug's would be thrown in jail.

Harper is not only a nut job but he's also stupid as hell which makes for a dangerous combination. He makes bush look like albert einstein. Our civil rights will go down the drain if he manages to get in again.
 
sigh..i can't believe my fellow Canadians voted for this asshole. Once again we're stepping backwards instead of leaping forward.
 
texastoker said:
sigh..i can't believe my fellow Canadians voted for this asshole. Once again we're stepping backwards instead of leaping forward.
Click to expand...
I didn't. I was going to vote for the Marijuana Party, but I got baked and forgot about voting.
 
This has to be the lamest excuse for closing up a project that was only doing good for the whole community and the addicts.

Terrible news :(
 
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to help some junkie get his fix. If some charity or non-profit organization wanted to create such a place, that's fine, but the government shouldn't be funding this stuff.

I believe drugs are a privacy issue: you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your body, and the government should have nothing, negative or positive, to do with it.
 
i still find it funny that despite the obvious cash benefits of mass legalisation and the long term allowance for more policy enforcers it provides, they still want to wage all out war against it. i wonder if bush cries himself to sleep some nights over the phrase "cocaine is one hell of a drug."

harm minimisation prevents death, death prevents statistics from being favourable, lack of favour... leads to the dark side.
 
Kkool said:
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to help some junkie get his fix. If some charity or non-profit organization wanted to create such a place, that's fine, but the government shouldn't be funding this stuff.

I believe drugs are a privacy issue: you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your body, and the government should have nothing, negative or positive, to do with it.
Click to expand...


Instead of spending over 300$ million on enforcing drug laws, which oviously doesnt work. At least half of that can go to harm reduction initiatives.
 
risk of looking like a retard to the citizens of canada: likelihood of 10 and a consequence rating of 10 a risk factor of 100.

Man ive been to the streets of BC, its really sad. some nice people are down there, they used to be athletes and academics. all Harper is doing is letting these former heroes die.

no one is providing the heroin or cocaine...they are just preventing users from dying in an alley. for fucks sake. we all know this wont be renewed.

NDP for me. 9mmcensor how could you not vote against the tories man! no matter how high i was i wouldnt allow myself to not vote against them.

man i used to be proud i was Canadian. I dont even put the flag on my backpack when traveling anymore. with us in Afghanistan and this retard in charge im ashamed and afraid to be associated with him.
 
awe and i was planning on moving to Canada one day... Canada was once a major leader in harm minimisation, I hope the winds haven't changed :(
 
PartyBoy911 said:
Instead of spending over 300$ million on enforcing drug laws, which oviously doesnt work. At least half of that can go to harm reduction initiatives.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm definitely no advocate for the war on drugs, but let's be realistic. Not only do you want the government to stop make drug arrests, but you want them to help people use/obtain drugs as well? That's ludicrous.

I don't want the war on drugs, and I don't want these ridiculous clinics popping up either. Simply put, no government intervention when it comes to drugs is the best answer. This means no war on drugs, and no harm reduction clinics. Tax dollars should not be spent on a matter of private concern.
 
^so i'm assuming that you went to a private school, won't use social security, and if you're poor you're just gonna 'tough it out'
 
qwe said:
^so i'm assuming that you went to a private school, won't use social security, and if you're poor you're just gonna 'tough it out'
Click to expand...

Nice picking on my last sentence; let me reword it: "private concerns such as this".

I'm sure it's going to go over real well in the next elections for any politician when the public finds out he used their money to help druggies. Doing something like that is political suicide, with right wing groups having as much power as they do, in addition to the conservative population of America. Hell, even most liberals don't favor legislation like this.

I am just being a realist, that is simply how it is.

However, I'll argue on the merits just for the purposes of discussion. Why should my hard earned money go towards helping someone who chose to put themselves in the situation of being addicted to a drug? Addicts can't technically help it, but even they made the first choice of taking a drug for recreational purposes.

Seriously, I'm registered in Bluelight and even I don't want the government to spend money on stuff like this.

I'd say the best and most just thing to push for would be decriminalization of possession and use drugs. To expect anything more would be idealistic at best.
 
I dunno If I can swing with all ya guys this time...This doesn't seem like a great idea.

It may keep addicts off the streets, but it reduces the consequences of drug addiction. Instead of risking being arrested living on the streets etc. this project makes life easier, and therefore reduces the incentive not to do harder drugs.

I mean it costs a lot of tax money, and its probably about as sensible as as current drug policy. (Not sensible).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top