How is it a low blow? I've never attended a NA meeting nor plan to because I don't abuse drugs. Just like I don't attend AA meetings because I don't have a drinking problem.
That may be so; but, you don't have to be an alcoholic or addicted to narcotics to go to a meeting. Some you do, the closed meetings for confidentiality purposes. Many are open to public. In fact, I've sent non alcoholic college students to AA meetings as a developmental judicial sanction and then report on what they learn about alcoholics and their behavior. I believe JLAP was suggesting to go for the experience, not because he was claiming you were an addict.
there is a difference between using drugs and abusing drugs......
This is so very true. You can't assume that everyone that utilizes the injection room is going to be
abusing drugs.
Trying to get back on topic, I think we have to look at whether this program would be beneficial in achieving desired outcomes.
Could an injection room prevent the spreading of intravenous diseases in the community? Yes, since sharing needles would be negated. Could an injection room prevent death from overdosing? Yes, since there would be trained staff available. Could an injection room be a possible first step for someone trying to quit their drug habit in a safer and controlled environment? Yes. Of course I'm not arrogant or ignorant enough to say that this would be the only use. It goes back to the original article when they say:
yahoo said:
While 800 overdoses have occurred on the premises, none resulted in death because of the medical supervision provided at InSite, said Thomas Kerr, a University of British Columbia researcher who has extensively studied the program. His research also has shown an increase in addicts seeking drug treatment and a decrease in abandoned syringes, needle-sharing, drug-related crime and other problems since the clinic opened, he said.
I think any and all of those outcomes are desired by almost everyone; which, with the limited response and limited explanation of methodology and findings, they seem to be achieving.
Can anyone really say that this program is not achieving some outcomes that they align themselves with?
yahoo said:
I prefer the approach of the Vancouver Police Department, which was: 'We don't like the idea of this, but let's look at the evidence and at the end of three years we will tell you either this is something we can support or it's something we can't support,'
I'm sure if I thought long and hard enough about it, I could come up with many initiatives that I personally don't support, but after reviewing evidence I see how it makes a positive difference and can then feel more comfortable knowing that people do care and do want to make a difference. That's the attitude that creates solutions. I know I sound like a broken record here; but, just saying that drug users shouldn't use drugs in the first place is not a solution. It clearly hasn't worked.
Finally, stay on topic. This topic is not a sparring match about past personal interactions. I would hate to see this topic have the same exact fate for the same exact reason as every other topic with the slightest mention of religion in it: the closed or deleted pile.
xvart.
