The Shotgun Blog
Friday, March 02, 2007
Safe sites in UN's sights
I know this is always a subject that ignites the passions of my libertarian friends who have aligned themselves with the harm reductionists of the left, but it still must be pointed out that the "safe-injection sites" they so enthusiastically endorse do not have universal support, despite the cheerleading of so much of the mainstream press.
Moreover, I am loathe to point to anything the United Nations does to support my position in opposition to the sites, but allies are often found in unusual places. And the fact, that the UN's International Narcotics Control Board has pointed out that Canada is breaking an international convenant by allowing the sites, is significant -- if only because so many Canadians hold the UN in such high esteem.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Safe sites in UN's sights:
Terry, Terry, you're going at this all wrong. It's manna from heaven. Your error is in feeling that by pointing to this you are admitting the U.N. may be right about something. Not all. When the U.N. is right, it is by accident.
Feltists must now either give up free needles or admit that the U.N. is not what they have been saying. They will need to give up their habit of justifying positions by saying "soandso said so" and have to use their own brains and rationale instead. It's a winwin for our side.
It's more important that we win WWIV right now. It just means that the drug issue has to be argued on its own merits. This can be done.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2007-03-02 12:47:36 PM
It's amusing when leftist UN/media crackheads get their signals mixed up...
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-03-02 1:59:35 PM
Giving Drug addicts safe injection sites is supporting the Illegal drug trade and leading to
the deaths of many of our police officers.
What goes on in the heads of people on the Left and that includes Dion, who supports the needle exchange? This keeps these wasted souls on the
streets and kills many of our law enforcement
Today a police officer died because of the drug trade.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-02 4:33:35 PM
This drug thing confounds the hell out of me. Some say these illicit drugs should be legal; some say they should stay illegal. Judges let drug dealers free even though they are caught red-handed by the police. Drug laws are flaunted with impunity. Do judges have relatives they want to protect...? Who the heck's in charge of controlling the use of drugs in Canada?
Posted by: dewp | 2007-03-02 4:55:24 PM
"Giving Drug addicts safe injection sites is supporting the Illegal drug trade and leading to
the deaths of many of our police officers."
Pretty sweeping statement, Liz, considering that you're not involved in either policing or the safe injection site in Vancouver...which most local police officers support, by the way. The Vancouver site saves a lot more lives than it endangers, which was its whole purpose.
Tessier was killed in a raid on a cocaine trafficking ring in Quebec. It is still not certain that he wasn't accidentally shot by one of the other eleven cops who were also there.
Why not get all the facts before you go making grand pronouncements?
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-02 5:13:10 PM
Chimera: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing when you say: "The Vancouver site saves a lot more lives than it endangers", but there are 2 things to keep in mind.
1) It's entirely possible that lives are saved in the short term but more are lost long-term.
2) Our police forces, even the RCMP and even the "man on the street" are caught up in the political hype that's out there today. (This is just my impression from personal experience.)
There's much room for debate. I admit that I'm inclined to go with my gut though. Making drugs and needles freely available will lead to increased use. We just find it hard in our "nice" society today to accept that certain behaviours need to be made uncomfortable in order that they not proliferate.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2007-03-02 5:37:18 PM
That's my opinion.
So it's a case of nothing can be done about it so let's provide "clean" needles?
What a waste of humanity. Instead of passing out free needles they should be taken off the streets and rehabilitated.
Perhaps we need a rescue brigade.
The drug trade certainly has caused the death of many Police officers and NOT as you ignorantly
point out at their own hands.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-02 5:51:43 PM
Furthermore, the UN has condemned Canada's "safe
injection sites" as encouraging illicit trafficking.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-02 6:02:09 PM
Liz, the opinions of the UN and a ten dollar bill will almost get you in to see a movie. The UN does not live here. The UN is taking not steps at all in helping out in any other way.
Neither are you.
Personally, I'm with you in that I think it's a much better idea to rehabilitate (detox) drug users who want to get off the dope...and most of the ones I talk to would love nothing better in their own lives. But they cannot do it without help. And nobody wants to pay for help, whether it's a detox clinic, or substitution drugs (which are being tried now, but no one knows how effective they're going to be).
As for my "ignorant" remark...I was simply paraphrasing the media articles for what information I could get. Nobody yet knows who actually fired the gun that killed Tessier. It very well might have been another cop. It has happened before. Time will tell, won't it?
Greenmamba: I've got some friends on the force who work down in that area with the SIS. They say that for the most part, the drug users are pretty peaceful, and as long as they feel safe from being attacked by either thieves or the police, they won't cause trouble.
As for saving lives in the long term, I can only guess that you're of the opinion that being completely drug-free would lead to a longer life. And I would agree with that. It has been shown that people who abuse their bodies with harsh chemicals have a shorter lifespan than those who live drug-free.
That being said, I have to wonder if the drug users care? They have to know the same thing, don't they? What if they don't want to live a long life -- just a very intense one?
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-02 6:34:12 PM
God help me! I'm a drug user. Please find it in your heart to give me free a two bedroom apartment with washing machine, dryer, stove, etc. I also need a full time caregiver, someone who can look after me and feed me and do my laundry and help resuscitate me. A guaranteed income above the poverty level would give me a feeling of independence. Also, because of my inability to work until I am cured, I will need completely free, no personal obligation ever, medical care. These are my rights as a human being living in Canada. Please provide me with these things so I can get off the streets, or I will sue through the Human Rights Commission.
Posted by: dewp | 2007-03-02 7:53:50 PM
That post by dewp was/is a farce. But it's the kind of thing advocated by some, even in the media. Don't be shocked when it comes to pass.
Posted by: dewp | 2007-03-02 7:58:39 PM
Don't forget that druggies and "homeless" are a gold mine for a lot of people, drug dealers, pimps, police, ems, social workers, etc. There is a lot of economic benefit for many groups by increasing their numbers.
It is a huge industry in Canada.
Posted by: David | 2007-03-02 8:42:19 PM
I suspect (underline suspect) that police like safe injection sites because it helps localize the drug trade (and drugsuckers) into a certain area. It's a form of containment. The cops know where they are and can see for themselves who they should keep an eye on. From a broader point of view, of course, safe injection sites are just a bad idea: anything that assists a druggie in his/her habit just takes away both the incentive and need for the druggie to change. As usual with leftist ideas, the motives are good but the consequences are bound to be to dire because the underlying assumptions are all based on a wrong headed notion of human nature.
Posted by: Geoff Warren | 2007-03-02 11:51:08 PM
Giving in to drug addicts and criminals is a sure sign of a dead culture. Too bad. We lose.
Celestial Junk has a bit of the will to win. It's perfect and tells it like it is.
We indeed have no will left to stand up for what is right.
Nothing good comes easy, but our educational system and the forty years of nanny state have reduced us to a culture of obesity in thought and deed.
currently our new media is awash in the minutia of a dead talentless slut.
Posted by: John | 2007-03-02 11:57:25 PM
One more point.
The poverty professionals make a career of caring about everyone else, most of whom are doing little for themselves.
The motivation for much of this is called altruistic egoism (an addiction to the warm fuzzies)
Life is not and never has been 'fair' .. that is merely the envious wish of the lazy, stupid and incompetent.
The gene pool is degenerating because we are violating Darwin's law.
We always admire the beauty and perfection of the animal kingdom. It is that way because the weak die off or do not breed.
We are a sick species and the more we enable the weak to proliferate the weaker we become.
In Canada we have starting opening 'safe injection sites' for drug addicted criminals. In both the US and Canada we don't punish criminals and child abusers among other depots.
There is little left to admire about the human race.
Posted by: John | 2007-03-03 12:13:30 AM
It's wrongheaded, in my opinion to go out to the streets and help human beings wasted on illicit drugs continue to waste in sleaze and crime.
It's contributing to all manner of degradation of humankind.
Chimera: Your last paragraph lost your argument.
Wondering if drug users care statement says a lot.
How can anyone assume drugged people can make a rational decision on anything beyond their next shot? Doubt they'd be capable of pondering
whether they'd wish to live a long life or an intense one.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-03 6:04:17 AM
#1-There is no such thing as a "safe injection" when you are shooting illicit drugs into your veins.
#2-These "safe' addicts still need to break into our cars,homes,businesses etc regularly to fund their habits.
#3-Still,to this day,there are no readily available treatment openings in Vancouver for those rare addicts who decide it's time to stop the numbness and face their pain.
IMO,funding this site is nothing more than a way for social activists to feel good about themselves.It accomplishes NOTHING to end or even slow the ravages of drug abuse in Vancouver.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-03-03 8:54:23 AM
I think that David has spotted the motivation for state promotion of drug use among citizens of a free country. Money. Drug Lords do not look like sleaze bags; they wear three peace suits and Dior gowns and they are seldom brought down - the small time dealer is the guy who pays if caught. Drugs are available at your local pharmacy, there is no need for 'safe injection sites'.
Money/Power is the motivator for all haters of humanity. It is a pretty sorry state when people smoking a legal weed (tobacco) are fined and marginalized and spit upon but people who are destroying their lives (and the lives of their families) with mind altering drugs are given free drugs and needles to shoot up with!
BTW, tobacco increases testosterone levels in men and it also is a killer of spores - in the bad old days farmers used to smoke tobacco in their chicken coops to kill the nasty green mold that grows in today's schools; didn't hurt the chickens but it killed the spores that killed their chickens! Give me some positive uses for mariwanna, crack, or Cocaine 'do gooders' of the left wing set who defend the practise of giving publicly funded drugs to drug addicts.
Posted by: jema54j | 2007-03-03 10:28:22 AM
So called "free needles" and "safe injection sites" are a symptom of the politically correct madness sweeping this country. Taxpayers dollars would be better spent on taking these people off the streets and into treatment centres.
People who have TB are forced into treatment and rightly so, yet the drug addicted are assisted in their self destroying habits by governments? Something is haywire in the Land of the political Looneys.
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-03-03 11:38:15 AM
Stephen Gray: Right you are. One particular post on this thread expresses the kind of attitude that
feeds this type of insanity. It's a great Loopy Left network of "Social Workers" whose livelihood depends on the downtrodden, it's in their interests to keep them there.
There can be nothing more sickening than enabling
human beings to waste away on the streets of our cities plied with illicit drugs. It's a nightmare.
The Liberals and NDP are yelling because
the Conservative government is eliminating offices and waste in administration on womens' issues.
They will give the money directly to the women who
need it, makes sense.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-03 12:04:55 PM
Stephen Gray, you are partly wrong when you say, "Taxpayers dollars would be better spent on taking these people off the streets and into treatment centres." That is not enough. They also must be taught personal responsibility. Then again, that is a lesson many people in Canada must learn. That would negate many crimes including the need to rely on an artificial high.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2007-03-03 1:34:20 PM
Liz said: "Chimera: Your last paragraph lost your argument.'
The paragraph to which she was referring is:
"That being said, I have to wonder if the drug users care? They have to know the same thing, don't they? What if they don't want to live a long life -- just a very intense one?"
To which I reply: Liz, WTF are you talking about? My last paragraph consisted of three (count 'em) question! No argument involved.
And just to clear up some misunderstanding in the language being used: "Safe" does not refer to the drugs' being safe -- it refers to the safety of the people in the neighborhood, as well as the users themselves...keeping the predators away from them while they shoot up. The safety involved in giving free and clean needles to drug injectors is to try and prevent the spread of diseases.
Now, for those of you who not only don't live here, but who are also adamant that treatment for drug abuse is the only acceptable option, it may surprise you to know that I agree with you. But I also live here. And I know that there is no money available to set up treatment facilities.
Even if there were money for the facilities, the red tape to get into treatment is totally unbelieveable! Do you know that, in order to get drug counselling, a user has to be off drugs for a month to three months? Those are the rules, as set down by the bureaucrats that run the system. Why? Because they, too, don't want to have to deal with someone who is actually using the drugs they're being counselled not to use!
What a frickin' stupid way to run a country!
And the UN can go suck a poxy dick unless they actually come up with some answers instead of just critisizing what they know nothing about.
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-03 3:26:04 PM
Appears we've struck a nerve, the language has gone to the gutter.
No way a person zapped out on drugs is in a position to make a rational decision on anything.
There are too many people still part of the problem to sort this Human tragedy/disgrace any time soon.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-03 4:54:36 PM
Good points Canadian Observer(8:54 AM.)
I'm with Chimera on this general subject.
Drug prohibition laws enacted by Eugenics fascists are why cops get killed, syringes must be prescribed by Doctors or users cannot get clean ones, and the cost of currently illicit drugs are so high that crime is often the only way to get the artificially high sums to pay for drugs.
This is a function of the drug LAWS not the drugs.
Also the culture surrounding the use of these drugs is underground so the users are beyond caring what the 'solid citizens' and fascist Drug Warriors think about their usage.
"And the UN can go suck a poxy dick unless they actually come up with some answers instead of just criticizing what they know nothing about."
Posted by: Chimera | 3-Mar-07 3:26:04 PM
Nice language for a clergyman Chimera./
I think we could afford more of a rehab effort if the economic failure known as recycling were lower on the political agenda than detox/rehab as well as the funding for the Drug War.
I think people need to be more responsible for themselves and criminalizing behavior by citizens similar to alcohol use isn't the answer.
All of the Liberal/Democrat legislation which was enacted during the 1930s should be revisited with the view of repealing it if it was influenced by the ideology of Eugenics.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-03 5:30:03 PM
Liz, let me make this perfectly clear, without risking your being mock-offended by any "language": Put up or shut up. If you won't contribute to the solution, don't complain about the problem that's in someone else's neighborhood.
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-03 5:30:38 PM
"Nice language for a clergyman Chimera./"
I live in the real world, not in a bubble. Sometimes, "language" is the only way to get someone's attention without resorting to a two-by-four.
Seems to have worked. ;D
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-03 5:33:21 PM
David - my same feelings for a lot of years now.
How secure would my job as a welfare worker be if I didn't have quite enough people to "look after and help". Not to secure, so I had better create more need, i.e. more that need my help. And so it goes, they thrive and multiply.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2007-03-04 7:08:39 AM
What an interesting study of the decline of a culture this makes. The same city with the tax-payer funded "safe injection" sites would like nothing better than to outlaw tobacco. Not enough that there must be no smoking in bars, restaurants, etc., they want to stop it outside buildings. Such progressives just know how evil any form of tobacco is, just as they condone all other drugs. Even the federal prison system provides free (tax-payer funded again) bleach kits for inmates along with free condoms, lubricants and dental dams.
A large, if the not the largest, part of crime to-day is to support druggie habits. Making drugs legal will not change this much, since they will still need to fund their habit.
As others have pointed out this is part of what I call the welfare industry and all those making a living from it will fight tooth and nail to protect their milk cow. I suppose this is human nature and I could just ignore it. What I will not ignore is the never ending theft (called taxation) from those who work and try to lead responsible lives in order to fund all this socialist rot.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-03-04 12:03:30 PM
Well said Alain.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-04 3:26:58 PM
"The same city with the tax-payer funded "safe injection" sites would like nothing better than to outlaw tobacco."
As opposed to every other city in the western world who welcome smokers whenever and wherever they want to smoke?
Get a grip...
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-04 5:18:21 PM
"As opposed to every other city in the western world who welcome smokers whenever and wherever they want to smoke?"
No, that would be "in addition to" and it fails to address Alain's point regarding the contradiction within that particular city. Specifically, the irony of making the use of *illegal* drugs "safe" while endangering the lives of people using a *legal* product.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-04 5:35:04 PM
Yes, it is a poignant statement that while outlawing tobacco they are not enforcing the other drug laws. Such is the religious piety of Leftist culture.
Time to embed new taboos.
Both are drug laws.
Neither set of laws should be countenanced by free people.
"Making drugs legal will not change this much, since they will still need to fund their habit."
Posted by: Alain | 4-Mar-07 12:03:30 PM
Believe it or not, Alain, people who use heroin or cocaine are as capable of 'funding' their habit as alcohol, coffee, or tobacco users.
Why is it that prohibition fascists like yourself cannot grasp that the economics of illegal drugs are a function of their illegality and not intrinsic to the drug itself?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-04 6:58:59 PM
Speller you do jump to conclusions. I am not a prohibition fascist, but I do raise a valid point. Considering that so many druggies I have encountered are incapable of functioning well enough to hold down a job, one has to wonder from where they would obtain the money to maintain their habit outside of crime. So I am not convinced that simply legalising these drugs will solve the problem. This however does not make me a prohibitionist, much less a prohibition fascist.
I am the first to agree that one cannot legislate morality, especially if it is lacking during one's upbringing and within general society. But frankly I am sick and tired of the amount of crime caused by the need to feed one's drug habits. It has become a sad joke with few, if any, doing any time. Even the police tend to throw in the towel, since whenever they nab someone he still ends up walking.
So perhaps you could explain how legalising all drugs will solve the problem.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-03-04 11:22:57 PM
Well, Alain, to begin with, when these illegal drugs were still legal there wasn't a problem with people committing crimes to feed their habit was there?
Can you direct me to a source of information on the crime that was caused to obtain funds to pay for these drugs back when they weren't illegal?
No you can't and I'll tell you why: they were cheap and many people who used them held down jobs and lived normal lives while using these drugs.
Yes, there were people who abused them to the point that they couldn't function properly in society but they were the exception just as alcoholics are today.
It is the social stigma caused by the mark of criminalization of drug use that has caused the unbridled abuse which is evident in the homeless street users who need safe injection sites.
For every drug user who has been lost to such abuse there are hundreds of users who secretly lead successful daily lives, but when a traumatic event strikes these lives they turn to a cycle of abuse just as those many seemingly lost alcoholics.
This is because these drugs are illegal and must be obtained secretly and used secretly.
The difference is that the alcoholics aren't treated as criminals and neither are Sue and Jim bar tending at the local Pub or the waitress who brings the drinks treated as criminal drug traffickers.
If you aren't a Drug Warrior /Prohibitionist then why are you using the lame argument that these people commit crimes to obtain the money for these drugs when the drugs would be cheap, if legal, and the expense is a direct function of the LAWS which make them contraband?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-05 1:39:53 AM
Speller I know of no time when the use of these hard drugs was legal, but I do not believe you do either. It so happens that the area in which I live, rural at that, continues to suffer from on-going break-ins, and theft of all kinds including mail, and the police confirm it is being done by druggies to support their habit.
You were however right about my being a prohibitionist, and I stand corrected. I stated without thinking it through that we cannot legislate morality and was wrong. So yes I am a prohibitionist when it comes to theft, murder, rape, physical assault etc.
However the bottom line for me is that I shall not accept the theft of my money in order to fund the drug habit of some, be it for shoot-up sites or sealing my property to support their habit.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-03-05 11:31:00 AM
Someone explain how society benefits when the right of the individual is not in a vacumn.
Individuals have the right to do things that hurt themselves, including breaking laws. Its called making choices. Societies have the right to make laws that will encourage beneficial behavior and discourage destructive behavior. They have this right because society, through gov't, ends up paying (in more ways than one) for the bad choices of the individuals that make up that society.
No-one can stop you from being a druggie, if that's what you choose. And its simplistic to think that the only cost a junkie is to society , is related to maintaining the law.
Actually encouraging the bad behavior, as in 'safe sites' and same -sex 'marriage', will result in learning the hard way, what we should have learned from the fall of Rome.
Libertarians suffer from not understanding the true meaning of freedom.
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-03-05 11:35:49 AM
These illegal drugs were, in actual historical fact, legal at one time.
It burns me up that someone who knows so little about the subject has the unmitigated gall to speak out of the dark abysmally deep pool of their ignorance on a subject which is about the criminalization of culture.
Why don't you a least Google Drug Prohibition History Eugenics?
What did you learn from the Fall of Rome?
Did Rome Fall because of SSM?
Did Rome Fall because people were allowed too much freedom, too much licence if you will?
Rome fell because any barbarian who served in the Legions was given citizenship and trained to fight to the high Roman standards and then these barbarians kept their loyalty to their non-Roman culture and sacked Rome.
The fall of Rome occurred because of the disloyalty of immigrants.
Do alcoholics commit crimes to pay for their addiction?
Not everything proscribed by law is wrong, and not everything which is a crime is proscribed by law.
Ray Charles was an example of a highly functioning heroin user who had a criminal record not because he was a criminal but because the LAW made him a criminal.
The drug war is a Leftist criminalization of culture itself.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-05 12:26:20 PM
Posted by: Marc | 2007-03-05 12:46:32 PM
Marc: Thanks for that video link -- not only hilarious, but truer than a lot of people are willing to admit. Drug prohibition is not in place for anyone's safety, but for the convenience of the government lobbyists.
Speller: What an excellent article on the history of drug laws! And even though it focuses on the United States, it has echoes around the world.
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-05 1:57:40 PM
Why is Chris Rock equating the ads on tv with gov't drug pushing? Because not all drugs are legal?
Speller - The Romans fell because they were decadent. No longer were they concerned with building up of society. They were immersed in self-indulgent behavior that did not build up or protect their society. Those in power were only concened with having power. A society cannot survive when they are not working together for the benefit of the whole. This includes respecting others rights as individuals.
Does respecting others' rights as individuals mean publicly encouraging through repressive laws, and publicly financed anti-health programs, something that ultimately destroys the individuals you are 'respecting'?
Morality cannot be legislated, because ultimately everyone is free to choose what is 'bad' for them. It does not follow that society must then accept as 'good' through repressive laws and public programs, things that are counter-productive to building up of society, with the aim of 'respecting '.
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-03-05 2:22:01 PM
You are free to do whatever you want to your own body, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Just don't ask me to pay for the resulting problems associated with you doing that. That takes my freedom away and violates my rights by forcibly taking my money that I earn because I choose NOT to be a slacker.
Posted by: David | 2007-03-05 7:49:30 PM
What's more of a loss of freedom David, a couple of bucks for clean syringes or $80.000.00 per year to keep one man in prison?
How much does it cost to do the same to those alcohol abusers and those who traffic in alcohol?
Nothing much, alcohol isn't illegal anymore.
Not only will it reduce corruption among police but Drug Warriors won't have to make public displays of their low watt intellects by straining moral equivalence between how their taxes are disbursed and actually putting people in prisons and taking away real liberty.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-05 9:42:27 PM
I resent having to pay for someone elses bad behaviour, whether they are stealing from me directly or having their enablers do it for them through the CRA. Maybe we should promote responsibility in school rather than have fun with no consequences.
Posted by: David | 2007-03-06 9:57:21 AM
In one of her earlier comments, Liz said: "The drug trade certainly has caused the death of many Police officers and NOT as you ignorantly
point out at their own hands."
She was talking about the recent death of Detective Sergeant Daniel Tessier, and her assertion that it was the illegal drug trade that prompted one of the drug dealers to kill the cop. Well, guess again:
The cops broke into the guy's house -- THE WRONG HOUSE -- in the middle of the night, waking everyone up, and proceeded to act like a home-invasion gang. He defends his family and his house, a cop gets killed, and they want to charge HIM with murder when THEY were the ones who fucked it up in the first place? Gimme a break. And then give me a gun. Because this is not the first time it's happened, and it won't be the last as long as the government insists on this stupid "war on drugs."
This wasn't murder. It was suicide by stupidity.
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-03-08 2:30:26 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.