quote:The Supreme Court of Canada has opened the door to supervised drug injection clinics across the country in a landmark decision on Friday that ordered the federal government to stop interfering with Vancouver’s controversial Insite clinic.
The Court was persuaded by evidence that drug addicts are considerably safer administering their own injections under medical surveillance rather than obtaining and injecting hard drugs on the streets of the city’s troubled Downtown Eastside.
In its 9-0 decision, it said the federal government has the jurisdictional right to use criminal law to restrict illicit-drug use – but that the concerns it cited in an attempt to close Insite were “grossly disproportionate” to the benefits for drug users and the community.
Too bad that the Conservatives are probably going to go the other way overall, but I like how unanimous this was.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh God, I'm getting tired already just *imagining* what would be said if something like that were even seriously suggested here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The research shows that these clinics result in fewer deaths and more people getting off illegal drugs and/or otherwise into healthier situations. Overall you get fewer dead people and fewer living people who are shooting up.
This approach may not be what one thinks it is.
---
PS: Not directed at Rakeesh! Just a general caveat about how the purpose and outcomes of these clinics may or may not be understood by the general public.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't think it was, CT:). It's shocking, though-who would've imagined that shooting up would be safer for shooter and society if it were done in a controlled, clinical environment instead of a shooting gallery crammed full of jonesing, desperate, possibly armed addicts?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The clincs become key entry points for access to social work services, treatment for other mental health disorders, food and shelter, etc. They are serving immediate health needs and also serving the longterm needs which -- for some people -- includes getting off the streets and into supported care off of illegal drug use.
And time and again -- as noted in the Canadian Supreme Court decision -- they do not lead to more overall drug use.
posted
Sadly, I don't think the American public is really capable of understanding that argument, or at least, not with those who care more about politics than health and safety shouting dogmatic lies into their ears.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, I don't think it's a question of lack of understanding but, frankly, moral cowardice.
It is, after all, a very simple set of claims, backed up by research. That's all well and good, though, to understand that-but to agree to it in the face of 'soft on crime!' and 'tax dollars for junkies!' and 'personal responsibility'? Then things get sticky. We, and especially not our elected officials, aren't willing to have someone point those fingers at us.
But we know it's the right thing to do, based on how we privately treat addicts when we have the resources to do so-we send 'em to, wait for it, clinics if we get to 'em before the courts. We tell 'em to avail themselves of *medical* programs if they get caught by the system.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Didn't Portugal make drugs legal and saw improvement on just about everything drug related?
A lot of European countries have decriminalized most drugs, including cocaine and heroin. There is a natural drop off in arrests for these drugs, and since the 'war on drugs' is often chiefly to blame for the violence and graft associated with it, there have been some improvements in these areas too.
Czech Republic, for instance, where cocaine and heroin and most other drugs are decriminalized up to possession of something like 30 grams of each, and where softer drugs are almost de facto legal, there is virtually no drug violence at all. there being no reason to imprison drug offenders, there is no hardened gangster leadership recruiting young low income people to deal drugs, and their being nearly legal, there are no ghettoized drug avenues that further promote red lining and urban decay that perpetuates the cycle.
Everything in the character of the American drug war is born of that cycle, and it's fed, over and over, by politicians wanting to look "tough" on crime- rather than actually being smar about it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To me, I don't think it's a question of lack of understanding but, frankly, moral cowardice.
It is, after all, a very simple set of claims, backed up by research. That's all well and good, though, to understand that-but to agree to it in the face of 'soft on crime!' and 'tax dollars for junkies!' and 'personal responsibility'? Then things get sticky. We, and especially not our elected officials, aren't willing to have someone point those fingers at us.
But we know it's the right thing to do, based on how we privately treat addicts when we have the resources to do so-we send 'em to, wait for it, clinics if we get to 'em before the courts. We tell 'em to avail themselves of *medical* programs if they get caught by the system.
Yeah, exactly. But again, that's why I think it's a lack of understanding as much as moral cowardice. Politicians are afraid to come out for the smart solution because they know the opposition will come along with "soft on crime!" and blow him out of the water. But you can't blow him out of the water without complicity from the public. Their susceptibility to that kind of argument is, I think, a result of a lack of understanding of what the BEST solution is, regardless of how it FEELS.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm impressed that the Court actually made a decision that binds the federal government. After the Omar Khadr decision, I lost a significant amount of faith in the willingness of the MacLachlin Court to do that.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Just a general caveat about how the purpose and outcomes of these clinics may or may not be understood by the general public.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]
