Crackpipe Vending Machines in Vancouver

[SciFi Chick]

As ill conceived as this idea may or may not be, I find it absolutely ludicrous that our news services are going to make fun of Canada when we have the kind of problems we do here in the U.S.

I just really find the mocking tone of this "news" story offensive.

[The Supreme Canuck]

It's also entirely clueless. They mention InSite. Guess what? It works. Its purpose is to make drug use safer (yes, that's a thing - heroin is bad, but injecting with a syringe that will give you HIV or Hep C is much worse). Turns out providing clean needles, a protected space, and medical supervision reduces harm. Who'd have thought?

So what about this new initiative? Providing clean crack pipes works similarly to providing clean needles. A clean pipe drastically reduces the chances of contracting HIV or other blood-borne diseases from smoking. As it turns out, crack users often have open sores on and in their mouths. Perfect way to spread serious disease.

Just because this moron doesn't understand the concept of harm reduction and instead wants to criminalize addiction out of some sort of puritanical superiority doesn't mean that the program is actually laughable. The people making fun of something they don't understand for ideological reasons are the laughable ones. Honestly - he's rejecting something that is proven to prevent harm to people because... why? Because they're drug users, so they aren't really people? Because they're doing something illegal, so they don't deserve medical help? Because they deserve whatever happens to them, and to hell with trying to help?

Essentially, fuck this guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about. All he's doing is showing the world how cruel, ignorant, and stubborn he is.

Edit: This has actually really pissed me off. It's one thing to disagree with harm reduction if you know what you're talking about. Fine. Reasonable people can disagree. But to snarkily dismiss something that you don't understand because it doesn't fit your narrow worldview? Go straight to hell, you utter cock.

Edit 2: Seriously, I mentioned Puritanism. And I think that's really what's getting to me. This guy evidently thinks that being an addict and doing drugs is so immoral that you deserve AIDS.

First: Hey, guy? Fuck you. You're an ass.
Second: NO ONE deserves AIDS. If you wish it on someone, fuck you. You're an ass.
Third: Who cares if you think something is immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing it? Hell, as far as I'm concerned, that isn't immoral at all. If you judge people for doing those things, fuck you. You're an ass.

Edit 3: Also, to SFC's original point, this guy can shut the fuck up about my country. Where does he get off telling us how to run our own business? He can blow me and deal with it - we do what we want, and we don't need some random guy on the internet to approve our laws. Even if he is a Big-Deal Goddamn Murrican (not the same as an American, BTW).

Edit 4: Also, "Durr-hurr, Rob Ford"? Learn to write a joke, you hack.

Edit 5: Oh, I see. That website's some conservative nutjob propaganda outlet. When your mission statement starts talking about "liberal bias" in media, censorship by omission, and providing "balance," you have no credibility. I suspect Vancouver is being dragged into the US culture war to score points. "Stupid socialist Canada does a ridiculous and immoral/anti-Christian thing! That'll happen here if you vote Democrat!"

Once more: mister conservative internet hack? Fuck off back into the hole you crawled from. Keep your filth south of the 49th parallel. Try not to let the gays queers you up and the socialists turn you red on the way out. Asshole.

[SciFiFisher]

sadly, drug and alchohol addiction is NOT a victimless crime. Just ask all the people who have had thousands of dollars stolen from them by addicts. Even as I write this an addict is probably stealing property or money from their family in order to get their next fix. All too often they not only destroy their own lives but the lives of the people they should care about the most. Their family.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Criminalizing drug use rather than treating addiction helps that, how? The human misery caused by drug use justifies further misery caused by draconian and cruel laws, how? That drug users do harm justifies society allowing them to contract AIDS, when it is simple and cheap to prevent it, why?

Harm reduction programs do not increase crime rates. They do not increase the harm you are worried about. But they do reduce the harm to drug users, substantially. That's an overall reduction in harm. Why is that bad?

Edit: To be clear, I'm not irritated with you, Fisher. Just the asshat who wrote the article. It has me riled.

[geonuc]

It has me riled.

Hadn't noticed.

[Rommie]

TSC, you'd probably be interested in this column from a few days ago, which I wanted to post but forgot- Inside a Mental Hospital Called Jail. Seriously sobering stuff that should be required reading for anyone discussing addictions, drugs, and mental health IMO. Depressing as hell too.

[FZR1KG]

TSC, you know how this works?
It's like in communist countries.
In the USSR for example, they would point an laugh at the rest of the world because their trains were not as accurate as the ones in the USSR.
Yugoslavia was the same.
They just ignore the shit that is really wrong in their country.
This model seems to work almost everywhere you go.

[The Supreme Canuck]

TSC, you'd probably be interested in this column from a few days ago, which I wanted to post but forgot- Inside a Mental Hospital Called Jail. Seriously sobering stuff that should be required reading for anyone discussing addictions, drugs, and mental health IMO. Depressing as hell too.

Oh, I know. I really, really do. I went to law school - I know.

It seems to me that when the vast majority of law students, law professors, lawyers, criminologists, and mental health professionals say that the system is fucked... maybe the system is fucked. Hell, even the guys working at the prison in the article you linked agree. These groups of people are the ones actually trained in and informed about issues of mental health and addiction in criminal justice. They're actual, honest-to-god experts in the field. They all say "fix this; it's inhumane." But the general public? Policymakers? Politicians? They ignore the experts. They all say "suck it up; these people deserve what they get, and no matter what you 'experts' say, you're wrong."

Pisses me off. Legitimately, really, well-and-truly livid. We're talking about peoples' lives here, being thrown away because some grandstanding, moralizing pricks care more about their ideologies and senses of superiority - and about getting elected - than actual human beings.

Listen to the experts? Have a little empathy? No. I'd rather tell an addict why she brought this on herself. Sinner.

These people can get fucked.

FZ: Yes, I know how this works. Doesn't mean I can't be angry about it.

[Rommie]

Now you know how scientists feel when policymakers ask what we think and we don't agree with them.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yep. And that pisses me off, as well.

Hell, it's an issue in this case, too, since policymakers are ignoring public health, medical, and epidemiological studies as well as criminological ones. Science is being ignored - in both soft and hard disciplines.

[FZR1KG]

At this point I'll just like to add that lawyers overwhelmingly represent the majority of professions that migrate towards politics.
Which is proof positive imho that being a lawyer doesn't qualify one to run a country, not that it isn't obvious to anyone.
At least I hope it is obvious.

This has lots of valid points:
politics and career path to it

Law is set up as an adversarial nature which lawyers practice. So rather than be right or wrong, what they are concerned about is procedure being followed and winning against their opponent. Not an system that lends well with compromise or working for the greater advancement of the country as a whole.
If you follow American politics this adversarial nature is blindingly obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells.
Running the country properly comes at best second but realistically about fifth on the list.

[Sigma_Orionis]

And the reason is simple: in politics, each "leader" ideally represents the will of his/her faction (including prejudices and misconceptions) . And in the adversarial nature of politics allow them (theoretically anyways) to reach a compromise without resorting to "direct" action. The end result is that you move a CENTIMETER when you can move a KILOMETER, and often in the wrong direction.

I remember someone (whom I'd never work again with too) who once said "Politics occurs when you have more than three people involved".

Hence the need for "Philosopher Kings", So these days, they bribe an university and get a PhD.

[The Supreme Canuck]

FZ: Thing is, as regards this particular mess, the lawyers who move into politics tend to be older. Therefore they were in law school where these things are discussed and they practised law before the current consensus was reached. Moreover, the lawyers that move into politics are very rarely criminal or public policy lawyers. They're corporate lawyers. Not only does that mean that they don't deal with criminality and addictions day-to-day, it means that there's a selection bias since the sort of person who goes into corporate law tends to have a certain... mindset.

Plus, you know, for a lawyer to successfully move into politics, they need to be elected. Because the electorate doesn't understand these issues and tends to agree with Mr. Asshat Article Writer, there's a filtering process. Those lawyers who agree with the expert consensus do not get elected. Lawyers who disagree with the consensus do.

And so on, and so forth, and we're all fucked.

[FZR1KG]

Glad you figured it out early.
Now, work out your exit strategy.
The world will fall apart apart and the rich will fight each other to gnaw on the bones of the poor while wondering where it went wrong and why it all turned to shit.
In the mean time, we'll be fishing and living it up totally self sufficient on some deserted island distilling coconut rum and watching the ever darker sky showing more and more stars. Life will be good. For $10,000 we can take you along with us. Bring your own booze.

[SciFi Chick]

I hope no one runs away from TSC's rant. We've set BMR up to the point where we can't have a real discussion, and that's why I put this here even though my initial post and TSC's post probably both sounded like rants.

I'm particularly annoyed by this subject, because every time a celebrity dies of a drug overdoes, all the "conservative" bastions of the Internet swarm on every news article and bemoan the fact that any of us mourn the celebrity's death. The most recent example of this has been Mr. Hoffman's death.

Ironically, his death let me to reading a column by Russell Brand, and ironically, gave me a LOT more respect for Brand, even though I don't generally find him funny.

Here is an example of his eloquence on the subject of addiction.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Glad you figured it out early.
Now, work out your exit strategy.
The world will fall apart apart and the rich will fight each other to gnaw on the bones of the poor while wondering where it went wrong and why it all turned to shit.
In the mean time, we'll be fishing and living it up totally self sufficient on some deserted island distilling coconut rum and watching the ever darker sky showing more and more stars. Life will be good. For $10,000 we can take you along with us. Bring your own booze.

Really? the $10000 includes dealing with Venezuelan Paperwork?

[The Supreme Canuck]

SFC, I think you and I are of one mind on this.

And, yeah, my post was a rant. But don't let that put anyone off. Just needed to vent. I'm so fucking tired, y'know?

[FZR1KG]

Nice relaxing cruise down the Pacific in your plans? lol

[SciFi Chick]

SFC, I think you and I are of one mind on this.

And, yeah, my post was a rant. But don't let that put anyone off. Just needed to vent. I'm so fucking tired, y'know?

I do know. I really do. *sigh*

[Cyborg Girl]

The sad thing is, the first thing I thought when looking at the title of this thread was, "WTF? Why?" I didn't think of harm reduction until I saw it mentioned.

(Then again, I didn't know about crack pipes and open sores until I saw it mentioned, so...)

But yeah. There is a huge problem with judgmental self-righteousness in this country.

BTW, @Fisher, I agree that addiction can lead to crime. However there are multiple problems with handing out punishments based on that:
a) Collective punishment based on statistics is not kosher
b) Punishment for potential rather than actual crimes is not kosher
c) Punishment doesn't get rid of the addiction, so it doesn't get rid of the criminal motive
d) People can redeem themselves if you give them a chance
e) Keeping people in prisons is tremendously expensive

I would also point out that, by standards of absolute harm, every last one of us is a war criminal. We buy things made by slave labor, we pay taxes to governments that commit war crimes, etc. If we handed out punishments based on absolute cause and effect, everyone would see prison time.

I appreciate a strong sense of justice. Really. But having justice sometimes means you have to pick your battles, IMO.

[FZR1KG]

Just remember GJ, you can vote not to be a part of the system... lol

[SciFiFisher]

Part of the reason that the punish them crowd is at the forefront is because the cure rate for addiction sucks. And in the meantime the addicts continue to ruin their lives and the lives of the people who care the most for them. In fact, it's because they care that the addict can ruin their lives. So, if rehabilitation doesn't work then that only leaves punishment as a way to modify the behavior.

The other factor that blurs the issue is that most societies cannot decide if addiction is a crime or a disease. The actions of most addicts involve criminal behavior in addition to the use of illegal drug use which compounds and complicates the issue even further. For example, if a drug addict robs a little old lady for money should we try to rehabilitate them or punish them for theft?

[FZR1KG]

When another person actively profits from the misfortune of others, its a crime, not a disease.
Drug cartels, pushers etc make active profit and actively try to increase profits.

The real problem is that the public is wanting the victims to be punished rather than the perpetrators.
Of course that's what they are lead to believe because of the corruption that goes from police to politicians and everyone in between earning a nice side business that will remain viable so long as it's illegal.

[SciFiFisher]

When another person actively profits from the misfortune of others, its a crime, not a disease.
Drug cartels, pushers etc make active profit and actively try to increase profits.

The real problem is that the public is wanting the victims to be punished rather than the perpetrators.
Of course that's what they are lead to believe because of the corruption that goes from police to politicians and everyone in between earning a nice side business that will remain viable so long as it's illegal.

That's another aspect of the drug trade. There is a lot of money to be made from illegal drugs. Not so much if you legalize it. And I am not just talking about the drug dealers and the people who look the other way. Consider the "for profit" prison industry that benefits from the "war on drugs".

[FZR1KG]

Pretty sure I covered that with, "from police to politicians and everyone in between".

It's an industry. That's what people seem to forget. It buys police, lawyers, judges, politicians and someone every aspect of the legal/corrections fields.
It does so because money is God and they have a lot to throw at problems, read pesky people that want to do the right thing.