[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Neil]

There's nobody quite like me.

Even better.

The enmity of the villain doesn't really bother me much, scumbag.

[viper37]

You're just being bizarre now.

Clearly the goal is to help get the addicts into treatment, to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, prevent overdose deaths.

And clearly marijuana is not the same as heroin.

Why should I care about overdose deaths?  Nobody is forcing them to use drugs, they make their own choice.  They have to assume the consequences of their acts.

[crazy canuck]

You're just being bizarre now.

Clearly the goal is to help get the addicts into treatment, to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, prevent overdose deaths.

And clearly marijuana is not the same as heroin.

Why should I care about overdose deaths?  Nobody is forcing them to use drugs, they make their own choice.  They have to assume the consequences of their acts.

Rather than raise the ethics of the situation I will simply appeal to your bottom line nature.  It costs less to give people a safe place to inject their drugs then not for the simple fact that the cost of responding to addicts who have complications due to injecting in an unsafe enviornment is greater.

Further, you should factor in the cost savings of rehabilitating even one addict so that they can become a net contributor to our society.

Let me be clear, I think there are very good ethical arguments in addition to these points.  But I am here only addressing your rather mercenary view of the situation.

[crazy canuck]

In other news another Conservative backbencher picked today to go on an abortion rant.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/another-anti-abortion-tory-blasts-funding-for-nefarious-aid-group/article2186690/

I suppose its good to get this out of the way now so they can be delt with and the government can get on with the job of governing.  But I have to wonder what they think they can accomplish.  The PM said repeatedly the abortion issue is not going to be reopened.  Do these people really think the PM can do anything but keep his promise about that?

[Malthus]

Rather than raise the ethics of the situation I will simply appeal to your bottom line nature.  It costs less to give people a safe place to inject their drugs then not for the simple fact that the cost of responding to addicts who have complications due to injecting in an unsafe enviornment is greater.

Further, you should factor in the cost savings of rehabilitating even one addict so that they can become a net contributor to our society.

Let me be clear, I think there are very good ethical arguments in addition to these points.  But I am here only addressing your rather mercenary view of the situation.

The issue here is that many see drug use as a moral concern, not a public health concern, and so having addicts drop dead or suffer in other ways is simply meet and proper and attempts to prevent that are positively immoral.

For example, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that a heroin addict could be placed on a maintenance dose and that such a person could live an (otherwise) normal life, paying taxes, having a family, etc., whereas without the maintenance dose he or she would commit crimes against others to feed the monkey and die young and painfully ... many would *still* be against providing maintenance. Even though the cost of paying for cops, victims of crime, jails, increased security, ambulances, foregone taxes, etc. far, far outweigh the cost of the maintenance program, even if the guy is paying for mainteance *himself*, people would still be against it, because it appears to "reward" immoral behaviour by preventing the addict from reaping the just deserts of his or her addiction - poverty, misery, early death.

[viper37]

You're just being bizarre now.

Clearly the goal is to help get the addicts into treatment, to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, prevent overdose deaths.

And clearly marijuana is not the same as heroin.

Why should I care about overdose deaths?  Nobody is forcing them to use drugs, they make their own choice.  They have to assume the consequences of their acts.

Rather than raise the ethics of the situation I will simply appeal to your bottom line nature.  It costs less to give people a safe place to inject their drugs then not for the simple fact that the cost of responding to addicts who have complications due to injecting in an unsafe enviornment is greater.

Further, you should factor in the cost savings of rehabilitating even one addict so that they can become a net contributor to our society.

Let me be clear, I think there are very good ethical arguments in addition to these points.  But I am here only addressing your rather mercenary view of the situation.

Operating costs: 3 million $ a year.
Health care savings: 18 million$ a year 10 years. (less than 1.8M$/year).

My stoneheart is hurt knowing that we will replicate this model in Montreal.

[crazy canuck]

Operating costs: 3 million $ a year.
Health care savings: 18 million$ a year 10 years. (less than 1.8M$/year).

My stoneheart is hurt knowing that we will replicate this model in Montreal.

Your stoneheart notwithstanding, presumably your brain can still understand the numbers going directly to the bottom line.

From the data collected by Health Canada - the ministry opposed to granting the exemption...

Mathematical models (see caution about validity below) showed cost to benefit ratios for the INSITE service of one dollar spent on INSITE providing 0.97 to 2.90 in benefits. That is, the total cost of preventing each HIV infection is between $52,000 and $155,000. When these mathematical models included estimates of the number of overdose deaths prevented (1.08/year), they showed cost-benefits ratios that ranged from 1.5 to 4.02.

@Malthus - Yep, I think you are correct.

[Neil]

Rather than raise the ethics of the situation I will simply appeal to your bottom line nature.  It costs less to give people a safe place to inject their drugs then not for the simple fact that the cost of responding to addicts who have complications due to injecting in an unsafe enviornment is greater.

Further, you should factor in the cost savings of rehabilitating even one addict so that they can become a net contributor to our society.

Let me be clear, I think there are very good ethical arguments in addition to these points.  But I am here only addressing your rather mercenary view of the situation.

The issue here is that many see drug use as a moral concern, not a public health concern, and so having addicts drop dead or suffer in other ways is simply meet and proper and attempts to prevent that are positively immoral.

For example, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that a heroin addict could be placed on a maintenance dose and that such a person could live an (otherwise) normal life, paying taxes, having a family, etc., whereas without the maintenance dose he or she would commit crimes against others to feed the monkey and die young and painfully ... many would *still* be against providing maintenance. Even though the cost of paying for cops, victims of crime, jails, increased security, ambulances, foregone taxes, etc. far, far outweigh the cost of the maintenance program, even if the guy is paying for mainteance *himself*, people would still be against it, because it appears to "reward" immoral behaviour by preventing the addict from reaping the just deserts of his or her addiction - poverty, misery, early death.

Naturally.  There is more to public policy than economics, after all.

[Jacob]

Ok, let's assume that there will be zero drug trade there or outside the premises.
You still need funding for the building.  For the regular staff, for the nurses.  For the needles.  The any kind of medical supplies you may need.

And what is the goal of that?  Treating the addicts? No.  Helping drug addicts get their fix.
It is still immoral.  And disgusting.

I have zero tolerance for drug users.  From marijuana to heroin, it's all the same.  They want to use, fine, let them use.  But let them fend for themselves until they're ready to stop using.  For fuck sake, they're not even helping them to stop.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[Jacob]

drinkers don't steal or attack people to get their fix, not do drinkers decide one day they see demons and start attacking people

Yeah, nobody ever committed any crimes to get money to drink; nobody ever ruined their life drinking; and nobody ever committed violence against other people because of their addiction to alcohol.

Seriously Viper, you're being way unreasonable here.

[Neil]

drinkers don't steal or attack people to get their fix, not do drinkers decide one day they see demons and start attacking people

Yeah, nobody ever committed any crimes to get money to drink; nobody ever ruined their life drinking; and nobody ever committed violence against other people because of their addiction to alcohol.

Seriously Viper, you're being way unreasonable here.

Yeah, even I think vipers made a mistake here.

Now, let's get a little more reasonable and discuss my lawyer-hanging proposal.

[Maximus]

It would cut down on threads being hijacked by law talk. The ACW was lightyears more interesting.

[citizen k]

Now, let's get a little more reasonable and discuss my lawyer-hanging proposal.

Too harsh. Just ban them from voting and holding office.

[Neil]

Now, let's get a little more reasonable and discuss my lawyer-hanging proposal.

Too harsh. Just ban them from voting and holding office.

But won't that leave them free to peddle their poison amongst the people?

[citizen k]

Now, let's get a little more reasonable and discuss my lawyer-hanging proposal.

Too harsh. Just ban them from voting and holding office.

But won't that leave them free to peddle their poison amongst the people?

But not legislate it.