Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
5 comments:
Cool idea. Looks like all the effects it has are positive. Hurray for pragmatic solutions.
Please tell me you are just saying that to poke a stick at me. Please say you actually do not agree for locations around town to be a place the local drug addicts get to go and do illegal drugs. By the way should the place be within a few hundred feet of a school or a local park, near a residential neighborhood? Do you agree that near by businesses will be affected because nobody wants to be around those who shoot up.
Please tell me you were joking
Interesting to observe the newly ignited uproar about the safe drug injection center: interesting, puzzling, and in case of diatribe's heightened upsetness even amusing. I didn't expect you to reflect on this issue in a way other than you reflected, thereby ignoring that those places have PROVEN to significantly reduce the death counts among drug addicts, to improve the reachability of the drug addicts for treatment programs, to reduce addiction-related infections, ETC. The list of benefits of this program is definitely longer than its disadvantages (and, as it seems, the only disadvantage you think of is the potential danger that those centers have on YOU and your safety - so purely personal objections). I'm not pulling these facts out of my head - the sucessful practice of drug injection centers is widelely known in Norway, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.
To your argument of "nearby businesses": Most likely, these centers are placed in city areas, where the problem of drug addiction is already widely known and where drug addicts run around visibly and openly for long times- so, you wouldn't have shopped there anyway - with, or without a drug-injection center. Well, if that's your only concern.... then, I think you haven't understood the concept of getting the addicts off the street.
Let me take a look at some of your points Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous.
1. They reduce the death counts among addicts. = Which means we have more addicts walking around (awesome) - before they used to die and we did not have to worry about them anymore.
2. To increase the ability for people to find drug treatment programs. = Why not open a drug treatment program then? Have drug addicts come there to detox or get some methadone.
3. Reduce addiction related infections. = Wouldnt a drug TREATMENT center do that as well?
It seems that this plan says it is okay for people to do drugs, which to me sounds like the wrong position to take.
1) "...before they used to die and we did not have to worry about them anymore." So, on the whole (...) then, you say that saving the life of a drug addict is a bad thing. ?!?
I'm just naively assuming that this statement of yours was meant to be purely confrontational.
2) I hate to go into details again, but the accessibilty for drug addicts to treatment programs is naturally HIGHER when "the program comes to the addict" and not vice versa. It is far more easier to reach the ones in need for a program within their specific environment - where they do not have to travel miles across the city, but rather have a place available right where their addiction is centered. Yep, that will not convince you, I fear.
3. A drug treatment center would do that as well, however, a drug treatment center is the second step. The first step is indeed providing drug addicts with sterile needles - right when they do their next shot.
Post a Comment