Government funded shooting galleries in the US. Why not? Canada is doing it.

Found at the bottom of an article about how nasty Canadian government grown marijuana is;

After all, the Government exists to protect the well being of its citizens does it not?

This should be implemented in the states!

Or shouldnt it?

They’re gonna shoot up somewhere… may as well be in a supervised environment where purity and sterility are assured. Harm reduction is the key.

In the US they don’t give a damn harm reduction. All that the government cares about is punishment.

Why should I care if a drug addict is safe shooting up?

Of course, I don’t care that much about punishment, either.

Simple humanity.
One such shooting gallery has operated here in Sydney for a year or two with great success. It has not caused any problems and has saved many lives. It has also seen quite a few addicts successfully referred to services to help them quit. The trial was renewed for another 4 years just recently, but unfortunately not extended to other locations.

I believe they exist in Europe as well

Whatever. :rolleyes:

I talked about this with some people this morning. We all seemed to agree that it wasn’t a paticularily good idea. From what I’ve heard you need to register in order to use them. Now, I don’t know much about heavy drug users, but I would assume that if given the choice between driving into a bad area of town, registering and then getting to shoot up or just going into a bathroom and getting it over with, I would take the road of least resistance. I would rather see the 6 million go towards rehabilitation.


6 million would be much better spent if you knew who the addicts were. Currently, there is no way to register addicts unless they are arrested or end up in the hospital or morgue.

As for Neurotik, I see your compassionate conservatism shine through.
As for the OP, the dumb fucks at in the US government would never subsidize drug use, even if it would benefit all. They are so wrapped into their lies that to turn back now is unthinkable.

The choice here is between shooting up on the street/someone’s back yard/doorway, or in a safe medically supervised area. I’m not even sure they were required to register.

This is scarey:

In 1997 the average age of a first time heroin user was 17. In at least one place more eighth graders were using it than seniors. Use is growing among females and in middle and upper class neighborhoods.

The heroin is purer and stronger now, and more likely to kill.

Maybe it’s just me, Neurotik, but there is something about dead little girls lying in the streets that seems messy. So just for the sake of keeping your neighborhood clean and fresh and worthy of your presence, maybe you need to reconsider.

They only have to give their initials and their age, so there’s no registration that identifies the person.

I do think it will save lives especially OD’s, since if anything goes wrong, i.e. the drug is too strong, there are heath care workers on hand to provide immediate attention.

If humanity isn’t good enough, how about enlightened self-interest? Dirty needles spread HIV and Hep. Your/your loved ones’ chances of catching diseases go up if there are more carriers around. And your taxes go up to pay for treatment.

I’m not a conservative. Nice try, though.

Maybe something besides enabling should be done? Wouldn’t that be a better idea?

Finally. An actual argument. Now, would shooting galleries actually be cheaper? Someone quoted $6 million and I’m not sure where they got that from, since I didn’t see it in the article. But that doesn’t tell me what city it would be in or what the capacity would be.

The disease argument is a good one, but couldn’t the same thing be accomplished with a simple needle exchange? And likely be much cheaper?

The other problem is who will be staffing the clinics. My guess would be nurses. Unfortunately, at this time in the US there is something of a nursing crunch. I’d much rather see those nurses put to use in more traditional manners, rather than overseeing an addict shoot up.

Minor nitpick: purity is not assured, because the site in Vancouver does not provide the actual heroin.

“More traditional manners”? So you do not see drug addiction as a medical problem? The nurse at the Vancouver site (only one, from the stories I’ve seen) is performing a medical service as I see it: he/she’s helping people with a medical condition, namely addition, manage that condition.

I’ll remember that next time I want to have sex with some crack-head.

Oh thank God. Cause you never know - today’s teen addict may be tomorrows addict airline pilot, addict surgeon or even the mayor of Junkietown.
How about some good old-fashioned conservative “taking responsibility for your actions”? There are quite a few people out there who have decided to not embrace a life of shooting up drugs and living in a box in the alley behind the old crack-house. I don’t see why they have to pay for the box or the alley or the crack-house.

I don’t really care if these people want to be drug addicts. Just let them find a way to pay for it themselves just as the alchoholics and coke-heads do.

Oh that’s brilliant. Because you can always tell at first glance when someone has slept with someone who’s slept with someone who’s slept with “some crack-head”.

I don’t see why they “have to” pay for anything either. But maybe they should consider paying for such things anyway, especially if the alternative is a decaying urban core and overtaxed emergency rooms.

It’s worthwhile noting that the plan in Vancouver had widespread public support: the current mayor of Vancouver was elected after campaigning on this issue alone. Vancouver tried letting drug addicts fend for themselves and treating the issue as a legal problem, and that didn’t work. No matter how many addicts got arrested, the Eastside neighbourhood was still a shitty wasteland which negatively affected all residents of the city. So now they’re trying something else: treating drug addiction as a health problem. There’s no guarantee that this will work any better, but I stronly applaud them for having both the decency and the rational self-interest to try.

I can think of several areas where used needles and syringes are left lying on the ground. These are also the sort of areas where kids play in the streets.

If you have a shooting gallery, you get less used, and possibly infected, needles left lying in the street to injure others.

You also get less IVDAs freezing to death or overdosing in alleys, because the shelters and hostels ban drugs and alcohol. Many IVDAs would rather live on the streets with heroin than be warm, dry and safe without it.

Not everyone is physically, mentally or emotionally ready or able to get clean, or stay that way, and we should do our utmost to keep them alive until they are.

Because they’re people too, and there but for the grace of God could go any one of us.

I’m all for treating addiction as a health problem. That means CURING the addiction, not enabling it.

You want to clean up a neighborhood? Tear down all the vacant houses. Clean up the grafiti. Remove the trash from the vacant lots. Don’t allow panhandling or loitering about. Fine people who don’t mow their yards or leave old Buicks with the door from an Oldsmobile proped up on wheelblocks in their front yard. Put sidewalks and streetlights along the street so people can walk around.

I never understood why “poor” meant “I have to let my neighborhood look like shit”. You aren’t doing anything else all day, you could at least clean some of that shit up.

Personally, I’m all for it. Let the government provide free junk, too. The kicker is that every, say, 50th dose would be guaranteed lethal.

In a year or so, no drug problem!