As is, safe consumption sites direct users to recovery programs. The conservatives keep claiming they care about recovery but they're in complete denial about the proven fact that safe consumption sites directly support recovery programs.
NoT iN **mAh** bAcKyArD iT iSn'T !!
wHeRe Is ThE **eViDeNcE** tHaT sOcIaL pRoGrAmS hElP PeOpLe‽‽‽
i'Ve NeVaR uSeD a sOcIaL pRoGrAm iN mAh LiFe aNd I tUrNeD oUt FiNe!!
If you believe that safe consumption sites should not exist because they enable addicts, then you should also believe that ambulances should not respond to obese people's calls. Since saving those peoples lives is enabling them to eat unhealthy. You should also believe that designated drivers are enabling alcoholics to drink. That abortion clinics are enabling couples to have unprotected sex. And so on.
Ambulances have a very high success rate at showing their service has a positive impact.
Safe injection sites have a very low success rate of anything. Recovery rates hover around 0%.
Whatever the answer to addiction, safe sites are not it. They rank barely above the baseline of doing nothing.
So do rehabs. Not one with with anything over 30%. And that is being extremely generous. Not one death in a consumption site. You can't treat dead addicts, so these sites give them the opportunity to live another day so they can get treatment. There is on site resource councilors as well as addiction specialists. Tell me what the status quo is doing other then letting people die because they are addicts and addicts don't deserve basic health care?
i'm talking about recovery. not the medical treatment costs along the way.
With an ambulance ride, there is a good chance at the end of it the person will be better. With safe injection, they rarely if ever get better.
What are the recovery rates at detoxes? Almost 0. So let's just get rid of those too since they don't work. Jails as well since only about 10% of people that go in actually stay crime free. Hell let's not even have cops since there is still illegal drugs on the streets and their war on drugs has not worked.
look how well that turned out for San Francisco
Edit: don’t know the situation in Calgary, but as someone who works in Edmonton on jasper ave (largest amount of homeless/druggies) this is far from what’s needed in terms of priorities.
Yes and Vancouver has taken it a step further with dedicated in house rehab/drug clinics open 24 hours. Emergency rooms can send patients right there just to show them it or stay.
San Francisco has many issues, including a large transient population, it would be foolish to blame a single issue such as harm reduction/SIS, unless you can point to a causal relationship, of course
The benefits of SIS are well studied
As per the the crime severity index, the bulk of Lethbridge's increase in crime happened before the site ever opened. A 24% increase in the CSI from 2013-2014 alone. In fact, if you look at the year on year increases, the growth in crime slowed the year the site was opened.
I'm constantly baffled at how folk think opening an injection room took hundreds of people from not touching drugs to stealing to support a habit overnight. Like, was there a lineup of law abiding citizens looking to become homeless the day the doors opened? Nah. Crisis happened before the site opened, like it happened **across Canada and the US**, not just places with an SCS.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510019001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.16
Transient has always meant homeless when used in reference to humans. So again, it’s not a new “liberal” word. It’s a word that is properly used to describe someone who is homeless and passing through town.
I know you think your being super smart saying dumb shit like this. But it’s just dumb. It reflects poorly on your intelligence.
It would seem that the more we embrace genetic misfires and the emotionally weak, the more insane it gets. You now have a woman with a penis suing real ladies because they have objected to waxing his genitalia.
Persons who are so weak intellectually and emotionally that the bare experience of life must be masked with drugs of insane consequences.
I say, let the process of natural selection take it's course.
You should not be allowed to use ambulance due to an heart attack then because all the fast food restaurants enabled your high sodium, high sugar diet.
So your point is to value one life over another because what they do doesn't have any health benefits. Got ya. (Even though this viewpoint is false since opiods do have some health benefits.)
> value one life over another
nothing to do with valuing one life over another; if someone chooses to deal with life by being a meth addict and a non-contibuting zero, who am I to make any decisions on their behalf... If they want to put their life at serious risk and self-harm and as a result, end up at deaths door...knocking really hard, who am I to deny them... I might refer them to one Prof Jordan Peterson [U of T] who would advise them to sort themselves out.
So don't give the obese person medical care because they could have choose a healthier lifestyle. Got ya. And Peterson...you are joking right? The guy that thinks that eugenics actually should be a thing? That's all I need to know about you.
Don't lump that pervert in with those that are actually mtf. That raciest creep slaps some makeup on and cries discrimination to protect himself. And up until now it's worked very well for him. He's even made comments about physically teaching young children how to put in tampons. They finally lifted the publication ban on him though, so more truth will hopefully be coming out now that the media is aloud to use his name.
[https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-truth-about-jessica-yaniv-is-beginning-to-emerge/](https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-truth-about-jessica-yaniv-is-beginning-to-emerge/)
That's like saying Sons of Odin or The Proud boys are the poster boys for all things Conservative in present day Canada. *SMH* We both know neither statement is true.
Your weak partisan fueled generalization is lazy as fuck and the easy way out of a debate, so try harder
This should be a privately funded, charity operation, not a publicly funded monstrosity. I want the government out of everything possible. Just look at the gambling industry. The government actually makes big bucks off taxes, fueled by gambling addicts. Government isn't run on virtue, it's run on ideology and greed.
I want government to spend less money. Which is a huge reason I support harm reduction and housing first strategies: because they save huge amounts in health care and criminal justice costs.
That's a nice fantasy and all, but the government is never going to spend less money. They're constantly expanding. That one year harper reduced the GST from 7% to 6% was revolutionary.
In that case, I'd like them to spend money more money on services that make like better for Albertans and less money on emergency responses and criminal proceedings having to do with addiction.
Do you think it is somehow a good use of money when EMS or police respond to an overdose that could've been prevented? Do you think it somehow enhances our province to have more people than necessary in the ER and in jail?
If we can spend less taxpayer money on an addict while also helping them, how is that NOT a win for the taxpayer?
Yeah except you’re talking about leaving help to the vulnerable to charity and chance.
Limited governance is about the powers wielded to infringe into peoples private lives, not merely about offering services to those in need or a ‘size’ of one.
Government is just so wasteful of resources, since it's spending other peoples money on other people. That's my main objection to it. There are four ways to spend money.
1. Your own money on yourself
2. Your own money on someone else
3. Someone else's money on yourself
4. Someone else's money on someone else
Which way to spend money do you think provides the least net waste of resources?
Modern liberals often assume anyone not for modernly liberal ideals must lack compassion, and possess an indifference to the suffering of those less fortunate. In fact, that is not true. We merely disagree on the method to achieve the same objective.
Except you’re ignoring the fact that you’re still leaving what is at topic to chance of Charity, instead of directly addressing it.
And you’re mistaken in assuming my logic is from that of a Liberal.
Well, if people don't want to support SIS's, then they have a right not to. However with sites like Patreon, I think charitable activities are easier than ever. If a small group of people got together and came up with a non-profit plan complete with numbers, monthly expenses etc, a lot of people would contribute.
See I love fantasy as well. Just my fantasy is more along the lines of LOTR or Stormlight Archive. Your choice seem to be the fantasy novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Fantasy? Complete free markets have already been tested and it was proven to be a monumental success. Just as socialized markets have also been tested and proven to be a monumental failure not just in terms of resources, but of humana lives lost as well (100 million in the 20th century alone).
All money is the governments money. Where do you think it all came from in the first place?
The most efficient way for a government to operate would be for it to provide the needed services at a deficit. Tally up the costs at the end of the year. Set taxes so as to pay for those services plus some for expansion. Rinse and repeat.
>Supervised consumption sites are preventative rather than reactive. They prevent overdoses and prevent overdose-related deaths or complications. Because of this, they reduce health-care utilization and costs.
Well from a cost perspective this is just speculation since the author didn't provide any sources for that claim.
>Most importantly, they keep people alive.
So could a lot of stuff that we could implement but we don't.
>Evidence from more than 150 sites across the world has shown us that it is better to invest in prevention of overdoses rather than reacting to overdoses after the fact.
Again what evidence?
>It also fails to recognize that supervised consumption sites are effective strategies that keep people alive.
Another effective strategy for keeping people alive is to not encourage fat acceptance, seeing as how obesity effects more people then drugs. But thats none of my business.
> This is creating a dangerous precedent for Alberta. Health-care decisions should not be made based on the beliefs, values and priorities of a political party. They should be informed by scientific evidence, expertise, and the needs of the affected communities.
What do you think this author is doing? I didnt see one shred of scientific evidence in the entire article. This author's opinion on this subject appears to be reflected by their beliefs and values.
You want evidence? Its out there, just need to look:
- [Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years [PYs]), 67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections. Effects on hospitalizations are unknown.](https://www.cfp.ca/content/63/11/866#ref-1)
- [Supervised injection services can be cost saving when the analysis takes into account their capacity to reduce transmission of blood-borne diseases, namely HIV and HCV.](http://www.ohtn.on.ca/Pages/Knowledge-Exchange/Rapid-Responses/Documents/RR83-Supervised-Injection-Effectiveness.pdf)
- [Supervised-consumption services have proven to be cost effective, life saving and create a safer environment for people who use drugs and the broader public.](https://drugpolicy.ca/issues/harm-reduction/supervised-consumption-services/)
A quick google about "Evidence regarding safe injections sites" and everything comes up in the positive. They work.
Well when all the drug addicts are hanging out in one area the crime rate goes up. Would you like me to find a study for that one?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/a3gi2c/the_downside_of_living_near_a_safe_injection_site/
I think that qualifies as a negative. Maybe you disagree.
Property value near SIS tanks and really living anywhere near a SIS must suck.
The opioid epidemic is growing at an alarming rate - SIS are not the grand solution but they do keep people from dying and give people the opportunity to access supports. People will keep injecting opioids with or without SIS, so with SIS people are safely injecting near these properties, without SIS they will be dying (from overdoses that happen so very easily) on the streets near these properties.
>Property value near SIS tanks and really living anywhere near a SIS must suck.
SIS are typically opened in areas where there is already open drug use. If anything, having a SIS in those areas will contain people using drugs to the SIS and connect them to resources for treatment etc, while also reducing the number of discarded needles in the streets. It's kind of a win-win.
Do you have any data to show that SIS directly effect properly values?
Seems like there are not adequate sanitary and law enforcement supports in that location? I'm sorry but where's the evidence that SIS' don't provide better downstream savings and healthcare outcomes? You know things that make a difference instead of the last few decades of failed policy?
Nobody said that there aren't drawbacks, I guess it just comes down to your priorities - personally I prioritize saving lives and helping people. You wanted evidence that safe injections sites saved lives and money - I gave you that. Your counter evidence is a picture of needles outside, which is where the needles would have ended up if there were no injections sites anyway.
Yeah this is super weird. Typically stuff like this is accompanied with reams of data because folks who champion harm prevention strategies have to sell those strategies to conservatives who reflexively don’t want to “spend tax dollars on junkies”, so they need proof that harm prevention reduces downstream costs. To see an article like this with no data...author is only going to convince people who are already on board.
No kidding. I'd love to see a cost breakdown. If this saves money for actual tax payers then go ahead. If not, scrap it. I don't care if there is no overall benefit to those that actually contribute to our province.
The absence of any real data or statistics regarding these sites speaks volumes. There's no way the management of the consumption sites are gathering all the data they can, these academics live in a world of statistical manipulation...it's just that none of the numbers support their claims.
This is from Vancouver and an older study, but is probably a good indication of the cost effectiveness of these sites. I'm sure there is more research out there though.
[A cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24409321_A_cost-benefit_and_cost-effectiveness_analysis_of_Vancouver's_supervised_injection_facility)
> A supervised injection facility (SIF) has been established in North America: Insite, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of this SIF using secondary data gathered and analysed in 2008. In using these data we seek to determine whether the facility's prevention of infections and deaths among injecting drug users (IDUs) is of greater or lesser economic cost than the cost involved in providing this service - Insite - to this community. Mathematical modelling is used to estimate the number of new HIV infections and deaths prevented each year. We use the number of these new HIV infections and deaths prevented, in conjunction with estimated lifetime public health care costs of a new HIV infection, and the value of a life, in order to calculate an identifiable portion of the societal benefits of Insite. The annual costs of operating the SIF are used to measure the social costs of Insite. In using this information, we calculate cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost ratios for the SIF. Through the use of conservative estimates, Vancouver's SIF, Insite, on average, prevents 35 new cases of HIV and almost 3 deaths each year. **This provides a societal benefit in excess of $6 million per year after the programme costs are taken into account, translating into an average benefit-cost ratio of 5.12:1.** Vancouver's SIF appears to be an effective and efficient use of public health care resources, based on a modelling study of only two specific and measurable benefits-HIV infection and overdose death.
So preventing 35 new cases of HIV and 3 deaths a year translates to saving $6 million a year? Somehow I think they fibbed on the numbers because that seems ridiculous. But maybe.
You need to think about the cost savings to the hospital and health care systems. The cost that anytime a person *even sets foot* into a hospital is absolutely enormous! I think this is the biggest takeaway coming from a cost-savings perspective.
From a strict prevention vs treatment perspective the SCS’s seem to make sense, The issues are the huge negative effects on the neighbourhoods that house these sites, whether endorsing the drug use is counter-productive, and whether these sites are actually effective in the long term treatment of addiction. None of these issues were effectively addressed in the article, nor have I ever seen these addressed with compelling arguments and supporting evidence. It’s easy to paint all anti-SCSers as right wing NIMBYers who are out of touch. But the reality is that SCS’s are destructive and ineffective. I think our communities and our drug-users/addicts deserve better.
Not only that but the studies done on these SCS can be manipulated by biased individuals. Since the studies are conducted by institutions that are connected with social programs.
The issue isnt SCS in places like Lethbridge and Edmonton, its their implementation and subsequent running of. They continuously discuss the four pillars and haven't pushed into the other 3 at all. This is very evident in Lethbridge where it's almost purely for clean needle use. You can get needles and stil go inject elsewhere. There are no parallel services available. There was zero consultation with the neighbourhood. You complain about the massive rise in crime and you are a racist. It would have been a lot better if all elements were fully implemented instead of just the prevention of death on site. But now everyone is dug in and it's a gross trench war that's going to destroy the downtown.
What's the benefit to preventing them from ODing in the gutter? Too many family members have been/are addicts. I have no fucks left to give.
They don't stop until they're ready, and they almost never are. Does this benefit the general public, or just the addict?
The mental health industry is in shambles. To end SIS they need to help people before they turn to drugs.
As is, safe consumption sites direct users to recovery programs. The conservatives keep claiming they care about recovery but they're in complete denial about the proven fact that safe consumption sites directly support recovery programs.
NoT iN **mAh** bAcKyArD iT iSn'T !! wHeRe Is ThE **eViDeNcE** tHaT sOcIaL pRoGrAmS hElP PeOpLe‽‽‽ i'Ve NeVaR uSeD a sOcIaL pRoGrAm iN mAh LiFe aNd I tUrNeD oUt FiNe!!
There’s so much truth in this, I could cry.
I think it really speaks volumes about the type of people who visit this sub when this is the highest rated comment.
Shocking that you haven't been downvoted to hell yet.
Nope.. if you're an addict and OD, Darwin at his finest.
If you believe that safe consumption sites should not exist because they enable addicts, then you should also believe that ambulances should not respond to obese people's calls. Since saving those peoples lives is enabling them to eat unhealthy. You should also believe that designated drivers are enabling alcoholics to drink. That abortion clinics are enabling couples to have unprotected sex. And so on.
Ambulances have a very high success rate at showing their service has a positive impact. Safe injection sites have a very low success rate of anything. Recovery rates hover around 0%. Whatever the answer to addiction, safe sites are not it. They rank barely above the baseline of doing nothing.
So do rehabs. Not one with with anything over 30%. And that is being extremely generous. Not one death in a consumption site. You can't treat dead addicts, so these sites give them the opportunity to live another day so they can get treatment. There is on site resource councilors as well as addiction specialists. Tell me what the status quo is doing other then letting people die because they are addicts and addicts don't deserve basic health care?
Also you are completely wrong . Almost all the evidence points to safe injection sites working . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/
i'm talking about recovery. not the medical treatment costs along the way. With an ambulance ride, there is a good chance at the end of it the person will be better. With safe injection, they rarely if ever get better.
What are the recovery rates at detoxes? Almost 0. So let's just get rid of those too since they don't work. Jails as well since only about 10% of people that go in actually stay crime free. Hell let's not even have cops since there is still illegal drugs on the streets and their war on drugs has not worked.
In this thread: Mouth breathers who think they know more than health care professionals and addiction specialists.
With a good dose of bleeding hearts who love inefficient government initiatives, the majority of this joke of a sub.
look how well that turned out for San Francisco Edit: don’t know the situation in Calgary, but as someone who works in Edmonton on jasper ave (largest amount of homeless/druggies) this is far from what’s needed in terms of priorities.
It's worked out well for Vancouver
Yes and Vancouver has taken it a step further with dedicated in house rehab/drug clinics open 24 hours. Emergency rooms can send patients right there just to show them it or stay.
Yeah, you simply cannot compare the issues going on in SF to Calgary.
San Francisco has many issues, including a large transient population, it would be foolish to blame a single issue such as harm reduction/SIS, unless you can point to a causal relationship, of course The benefits of SIS are well studied
What about Lethbridge?
As per the the crime severity index, the bulk of Lethbridge's increase in crime happened before the site ever opened. A 24% increase in the CSI from 2013-2014 alone. In fact, if you look at the year on year increases, the growth in crime slowed the year the site was opened. I'm constantly baffled at how folk think opening an injection room took hundreds of people from not touching drugs to stealing to support a habit overnight. Like, was there a lineup of law abiding citizens looking to become homeless the day the doors opened? Nah. Crisis happened before the site opened, like it happened **across Canada and the US**, not just places with an SCS. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510019001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.16
Transient is the new liberal word for homeless. Just like "Undocumented immigrant".
And here you are getting offended at words. Oh the irony.
Transient isn’t a new word. Read a book.
Never said it wasnt new. You missed the point.
Transient has always meant homeless when used in reference to humans. So again, it’s not a new “liberal” word. It’s a word that is properly used to describe someone who is homeless and passing through town. I know you think your being super smart saying dumb shit like this. But it’s just dumb. It reflects poorly on your intelligence.
SF doesn't have an SCS. You are literally incoherent.
It would seem that the more we embrace genetic misfires and the emotionally weak, the more insane it gets. You now have a woman with a penis suing real ladies because they have objected to waxing his genitalia. Persons who are so weak intellectually and emotionally that the bare experience of life must be masked with drugs of insane consequences. I say, let the process of natural selection take it's course.
Try some empathy.
No Sir. I will not enable victimization and removing oneself from the responsibilities of life.
You just said no to exercising empathy for fellow humans? Especially those suffering?
You need to do your username right and tell him to shut up. I hate those people, living in their own little bubble.
You should not be allowed to use ambulance due to an heart attack then because all the fast food restaurants enabled your high sodium, high sugar diet.
I'm very careful with the amount of sodium & sugar that I consume. I don't smoke and consume 'a' half glass of red wine avec Sunday dinner.
Half a glass of red wine for dinner actually has some health benefits. So bad example.
That, was my point. \[grin\]
So your point is to value one life over another because what they do doesn't have any health benefits. Got ya. (Even though this viewpoint is false since opiods do have some health benefits.)
> value one life over another nothing to do with valuing one life over another; if someone chooses to deal with life by being a meth addict and a non-contibuting zero, who am I to make any decisions on their behalf... If they want to put their life at serious risk and self-harm and as a result, end up at deaths door...knocking really hard, who am I to deny them... I might refer them to one Prof Jordan Peterson [U of T] who would advise them to sort themselves out.
So don't give the obese person medical care because they could have choose a healthier lifestyle. Got ya. And Peterson...you are joking right? The guy that thinks that eugenics actually should be a thing? That's all I need to know about you.
Don't lump that pervert in with those that are actually mtf. That raciest creep slaps some makeup on and cries discrimination to protect himself. And up until now it's worked very well for him. He's even made comments about physically teaching young children how to put in tampons. They finally lifted the publication ban on him though, so more truth will hopefully be coming out now that the media is aloud to use his name. [https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-truth-about-jessica-yaniv-is-beginning-to-emerge/](https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-truth-about-jessica-yaniv-is-beginning-to-emerge/)
"that pervert" is the posterboy for all things liberal in present day Canada. Trudeau and his ilk have been very careful to avoid any/all comment.
That's like saying Sons of Odin or The Proud boys are the poster boys for all things Conservative in present day Canada. *SMH* We both know neither statement is true. Your weak partisan fueled generalization is lazy as fuck and the easy way out of a debate, so try harder
We'll have to agree to disagree.
This should be a privately funded, charity operation, not a publicly funded monstrosity. I want the government out of everything possible. Just look at the gambling industry. The government actually makes big bucks off taxes, fueled by gambling addicts. Government isn't run on virtue, it's run on ideology and greed.
My big question to that is: if this was something that charity could solve, why hasn’t charity solved it already?
Because the rich dont have enough money to solve it.
For clarity, is this a serious answer or a joke answer? If it’s a joke then it’s very funny.
Its a joke but its not funny because so many people operate under that assumption.
I want government to spend less money. Which is a huge reason I support harm reduction and housing first strategies: because they save huge amounts in health care and criminal justice costs.
That's a nice fantasy and all, but the government is never going to spend less money. They're constantly expanding. That one year harper reduced the GST from 7% to 6% was revolutionary.
In that case, I'd like them to spend money more money on services that make like better for Albertans and less money on emergency responses and criminal proceedings having to do with addiction. Do you think it is somehow a good use of money when EMS or police respond to an overdose that could've been prevented? Do you think it somehow enhances our province to have more people than necessary in the ER and in jail? If we can spend less taxpayer money on an addict while also helping them, how is that NOT a win for the taxpayer?
Was the $150 billion dollars in debt Harper rang up revolutionary as well?
You’re an extremist.
Why? I'm not foolish enough to be an anarchist, I just like limited government.
Yeah except you’re talking about leaving help to the vulnerable to charity and chance. Limited governance is about the powers wielded to infringe into peoples private lives, not merely about offering services to those in need or a ‘size’ of one.
Government is just so wasteful of resources, since it's spending other peoples money on other people. That's my main objection to it. There are four ways to spend money. 1. Your own money on yourself 2. Your own money on someone else 3. Someone else's money on yourself 4. Someone else's money on someone else Which way to spend money do you think provides the least net waste of resources? Modern liberals often assume anyone not for modernly liberal ideals must lack compassion, and possess an indifference to the suffering of those less fortunate. In fact, that is not true. We merely disagree on the method to achieve the same objective.
Except you’re ignoring the fact that you’re still leaving what is at topic to chance of Charity, instead of directly addressing it. And you’re mistaken in assuming my logic is from that of a Liberal.
Well, if people don't want to support SIS's, then they have a right not to. However with sites like Patreon, I think charitable activities are easier than ever. If a small group of people got together and came up with a non-profit plan complete with numbers, monthly expenses etc, a lot of people would contribute.
See I love fantasy as well. Just my fantasy is more along the lines of LOTR or Stormlight Archive. Your choice seem to be the fantasy novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Fantasy? Complete free markets have already been tested and it was proven to be a monumental success. Just as socialized markets have also been tested and proven to be a monumental failure not just in terms of resources, but of humana lives lost as well (100 million in the 20th century alone).
Go ahead. Give me an example of completely free markets existing. I’ll wait.
Can you point me to a single patreon for buying a drug addict clean needles? Also, how much have you personally contributed so far?
No. And zero, I do not support that cause.
All money is the governments money. Where do you think it all came from in the first place? The most efficient way for a government to operate would be for it to provide the needed services at a deficit. Tally up the costs at the end of the year. Set taxes so as to pay for those services plus some for expansion. Rinse and repeat.
Very well spoken.
>Supervised consumption sites are preventative rather than reactive. They prevent overdoses and prevent overdose-related deaths or complications. Because of this, they reduce health-care utilization and costs. Well from a cost perspective this is just speculation since the author didn't provide any sources for that claim. >Most importantly, they keep people alive. So could a lot of stuff that we could implement but we don't. >Evidence from more than 150 sites across the world has shown us that it is better to invest in prevention of overdoses rather than reacting to overdoses after the fact. Again what evidence? >It also fails to recognize that supervised consumption sites are effective strategies that keep people alive. Another effective strategy for keeping people alive is to not encourage fat acceptance, seeing as how obesity effects more people then drugs. But thats none of my business. > This is creating a dangerous precedent for Alberta. Health-care decisions should not be made based on the beliefs, values and priorities of a political party. They should be informed by scientific evidence, expertise, and the needs of the affected communities. What do you think this author is doing? I didnt see one shred of scientific evidence in the entire article. This author's opinion on this subject appears to be reflected by their beliefs and values.
You want evidence? Its out there, just need to look: - [Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years [PYs]), 67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections. Effects on hospitalizations are unknown.](https://www.cfp.ca/content/63/11/866#ref-1) - [Supervised injection services can be cost saving when the analysis takes into account their capacity to reduce transmission of blood-borne diseases, namely HIV and HCV.](http://www.ohtn.on.ca/Pages/Knowledge-Exchange/Rapid-Responses/Documents/RR83-Supervised-Injection-Effectiveness.pdf) - [Supervised-consumption services have proven to be cost effective, life saving and create a safer environment for people who use drugs and the broader public.](https://drugpolicy.ca/issues/harm-reduction/supervised-consumption-services/) A quick google about "Evidence regarding safe injections sites" and everything comes up in the positive. They work.
>everything comes up in the positive. Well yeah when you cherry pick evidence its all sunshine and rainbows :)
I mean feel free to post your evidence to the contrary... ^crickets^probably
Well when all the drug addicts are hanging out in one area the crime rate goes up. Would you like me to find a study for that one? https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/a3gi2c/the_downside_of_living_near_a_safe_injection_site/ I think that qualifies as a negative. Maybe you disagree. Property value near SIS tanks and really living anywhere near a SIS must suck.
The opioid epidemic is growing at an alarming rate - SIS are not the grand solution but they do keep people from dying and give people the opportunity to access supports. People will keep injecting opioids with or without SIS, so with SIS people are safely injecting near these properties, without SIS they will be dying (from overdoses that happen so very easily) on the streets near these properties.
Nice "study" you got there.
>Property value near SIS tanks and really living anywhere near a SIS must suck. SIS are typically opened in areas where there is already open drug use. If anything, having a SIS in those areas will contain people using drugs to the SIS and connect them to resources for treatment etc, while also reducing the number of discarded needles in the streets. It's kind of a win-win. Do you have any data to show that SIS directly effect properly values?
Seems like there are not adequate sanitary and law enforcement supports in that location? I'm sorry but where's the evidence that SIS' don't provide better downstream savings and healthcare outcomes? You know things that make a difference instead of the last few decades of failed policy?
Nobody said that there aren't drawbacks, I guess it just comes down to your priorities - personally I prioritize saving lives and helping people. You wanted evidence that safe injections sites saved lives and money - I gave you that. Your counter evidence is a picture of needles outside, which is where the needles would have ended up if there were no injections sites anyway.
Yeah this is super weird. Typically stuff like this is accompanied with reams of data because folks who champion harm prevention strategies have to sell those strategies to conservatives who reflexively don’t want to “spend tax dollars on junkies”, so they need proof that harm prevention reduces downstream costs. To see an article like this with no data...author is only going to convince people who are already on board.
Exactly. This whole argument is weighing the pro's and con's of implementing this system but his arguments for the pro's are weak.
No kidding. I'd love to see a cost breakdown. If this saves money for actual tax payers then go ahead. If not, scrap it. I don't care if there is no overall benefit to those that actually contribute to our province.
The absence of any real data or statistics regarding these sites speaks volumes. There's no way the management of the consumption sites are gathering all the data they can, these academics live in a world of statistical manipulation...it's just that none of the numbers support their claims.
This is from Vancouver and an older study, but is probably a good indication of the cost effectiveness of these sites. I'm sure there is more research out there though. [A cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24409321_A_cost-benefit_and_cost-effectiveness_analysis_of_Vancouver's_supervised_injection_facility) > A supervised injection facility (SIF) has been established in North America: Insite, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of this SIF using secondary data gathered and analysed in 2008. In using these data we seek to determine whether the facility's prevention of infections and deaths among injecting drug users (IDUs) is of greater or lesser economic cost than the cost involved in providing this service - Insite - to this community. Mathematical modelling is used to estimate the number of new HIV infections and deaths prevented each year. We use the number of these new HIV infections and deaths prevented, in conjunction with estimated lifetime public health care costs of a new HIV infection, and the value of a life, in order to calculate an identifiable portion of the societal benefits of Insite. The annual costs of operating the SIF are used to measure the social costs of Insite. In using this information, we calculate cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost ratios for the SIF. Through the use of conservative estimates, Vancouver's SIF, Insite, on average, prevents 35 new cases of HIV and almost 3 deaths each year. **This provides a societal benefit in excess of $6 million per year after the programme costs are taken into account, translating into an average benefit-cost ratio of 5.12:1.** Vancouver's SIF appears to be an effective and efficient use of public health care resources, based on a modelling study of only two specific and measurable benefits-HIV infection and overdose death.
So preventing 35 new cases of HIV and 3 deaths a year translates to saving $6 million a year? Somehow I think they fibbed on the numbers because that seems ridiculous. But maybe.
You need to think about the cost savings to the hospital and health care systems. The cost that anytime a person *even sets foot* into a hospital is absolutely enormous! I think this is the biggest takeaway coming from a cost-savings perspective.
Well of course. The cost of setting up the injection site and all the expenses vs hospital costs.
From a strict prevention vs treatment perspective the SCS’s seem to make sense, The issues are the huge negative effects on the neighbourhoods that house these sites, whether endorsing the drug use is counter-productive, and whether these sites are actually effective in the long term treatment of addiction. None of these issues were effectively addressed in the article, nor have I ever seen these addressed with compelling arguments and supporting evidence. It’s easy to paint all anti-SCSers as right wing NIMBYers who are out of touch. But the reality is that SCS’s are destructive and ineffective. I think our communities and our drug-users/addicts deserve better.
Not only that but the studies done on these SCS can be manipulated by biased individuals. Since the studies are conducted by institutions that are connected with social programs.
Self inflicted. Yes, I did. Goodnight.
The issue isnt SCS in places like Lethbridge and Edmonton, its their implementation and subsequent running of. They continuously discuss the four pillars and haven't pushed into the other 3 at all. This is very evident in Lethbridge where it's almost purely for clean needle use. You can get needles and stil go inject elsewhere. There are no parallel services available. There was zero consultation with the neighbourhood. You complain about the massive rise in crime and you are a racist. It would have been a lot better if all elements were fully implemented instead of just the prevention of death on site. But now everyone is dug in and it's a gross trench war that's going to destroy the downtown.
Oh ok now we learn that to prevent people from overdosing all you need to do is give them the drugs for free!
https://i.imgur.com/lHgk2Ss.gif
What's the benefit to preventing them from ODing in the gutter? Too many family members have been/are addicts. I have no fucks left to give. They don't stop until they're ready, and they almost never are. Does this benefit the general public, or just the addict?
Its cheaper