Whatever. A friend of mine is a nurse in the oncology ward at a hospital up north of DC and she is frequently commenting on their overstretched nursing resources. I’d much rather have that one nurse used to help cancer patients than some junkie shoot up.
Hey, good for Vancouver. If that’s what their voters want, then I’m happy for them. I would oppose it in my town, however. For the reasons I stated already.
If we had unlimited resources, I’d say sure. But there are more important things that we devote our utmost resources tobefore we start spending a lot of money on the welfare of junkies, frankly.
And the grace of God has nothing to do with me not being a heroin addicted. It’s because I’m not a fucking idiot with no self-respect. It’s not like the effects of heroin are unknown.
One more minor nitpick: the nurse in Vancouver does not help anyone shoot up. The nurse is there to provide advice on sterilization and safe use of needles, to monitor the people using the centre, and to provide emergency medical assistance if necessary. The nurse may also be providing advice on how to avoid overdosing; my memory on this point is not certain. But the nurse has nothing to do with the actual injection.
I have more to say on this issue but I have to teach a class in ten minutes, so I’ll be back after lunch.
Yeah, no I understand she isn’t injecting. I didn’t mean to imply that, but the basic idea still holds. In certain cities in the US, there are more pressing needs for that nurse, IMO.
The clinic in Vancouver provides information on detox programs to everyone who comes in the door. What else do you think can be done to cure these addictions, short of forcibly kidnapping these people, locking them in a box, and listening to their screams as they go through withdrawal?
I’m also curious as to what you think the Vancouver clinic is “enabling”, exactly. They’re not providing the drugs. They’re just providing a safer environment. The lack of a clinic sure as hell wouldn’t deter any drug use, so I don’t see what the presence of a clinic enables, other than the continued survival of the people who use it.
[quote]
**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.**
That’s a nice list of suggestions. Let’s see how they would apply to Vancouver’s situation.
First of all, there aren’t vacant houses to tear down; the Eastside neighbourhood is mostly tenements and abandoned storefronts. For the same reason, the residents of Eastside don’t have lawns to not mow or to park their broken-down Fords on. Most of them don’t even have broken-down Fords. I suppose you could tear down the abandoned stores…the ones that don’t have occupied tenements above them, anyway…but that would just create more empty lots, which makes the neighbourhood less safe (more ground on which to scatter used needles, dark places for people to hide in at night as other people walk past them down the street).
Not allowing panhandling is at best a cosmetic improvement, and at worst creates more work for police, necessitating either increased funding (and you seem to be against spending taxpayer money on this issue) or a decrease in police availability. Not allowing loitering is simply laughable in a situation where we’re dealing with large numbers of homeless people; they’re just going to spend their time wandering in circles on those sidewalks you mentioned.
The sidewalks are a good idea; I’m always in favour of sidewalks. I don’t recall if there are already sidewalks in that neighbourhood or not. (I did live in Vancouver for two years, but that was a while ago and I was only in the Eastside neighbourhood once or twice.) Similary it’s a good idea to clean up the grafitti and trash, as you suggest.
However, I think the grafitti and trash issues highlight a misconception you seem to have. Namely, the problem the rest of Vancouver has with the Eastside neighbourhood isn’t that it looks bad. The problem is that people are dying there, at a rate of about one a day according to a police officer who was interviewed on CNN. And this is in a neighbourhood that’s about two blocks square. Cleaning up a neighbourhood like that is only going to make it a pretty neighbourhood where people die. (Talk about a waste of public funds…)
The only way Vancouver is going to recover the Eastside neighbourhood…to get businesses to invest there again, and to get residents to move there because they want to and not because they have to…is to eliminate the conditions where people end up dying on the streets. And as I said, treating it as a legal problem didn’t work. The current mayor of Vancouver should know; he’s an ex-cop.
See, the sad thing about Neurotik and msmith537’s assinine attitudes is that it seems to take a so-called “common-sense” approach to “fixing” the problem. The problem is, these solutions or ideas have been around for a long time, and THEY DON’T WORK.
I work on HIV/AIDS epidemiology. We also get research on Hep C here. IDUs (the currently accepted term in the literature - Injection Drug Users) are dying of these diseases in a serious and dangerous way. This leads us to ask why they are dying, what is happening, why they inject, etc. And you know what? The vast, vast majority of them became drug users with substance abuse problems because they had seriously fucked up lives. Sexual abuse is rampant in their pasts, rape, molestation by family, you name it. Often, fetal alcohol syndrome is a problem, as well as ADD and learning disorders. Quite often they did not do well in school, had trouble with authority, and usually it is because they come from bad homes. Most either live on the streets or in emergency housing or shelters, and are unable to hold down a real job because of their addictions.
So, did they ask for these problems? Did they ask to be abused, or have a mother who drank while she was pregnant? Did they ask to be ignored, spit on and tossed aside, with little or no support and no idea how to support themselves? No, in just about every instance, no.
I can see some people saying: so what, it’s their problem. Well that is both naive and cruel. It becomes our problem when they congregate in neighbourhoods and districts and crime becomes a problem. It becomes our problem when they start dying and ambulances are tied up bringing in overdose victims who are desperately trying to fill the void in their lives. It becomes a problem when crime rates rise because the physical desparation of addiction sets in and they need to get that next hit, no matter what. No one chooses to get addicted, they just end up that way because they did not possess the means to see a better life. Society is as much to blame for their problems as they are.
This is both incredibly naive, and ignorant. Who is going to tear down those houses? Who has the money? Where are the current residents going to live? When new houses are built, how are the old residents going to afford the now higher property values? Panhandling is difficult to police, loitering depends on who owns the property and who says someone can be there. Old cars are there because the people can’t afford to get them fixed, moved or get a new one. The run down nature of poor areas arise because either no one has the money to fix things or because no one wants to.
And just to be honest, I grew up poor. I mean poor. Unless one has done it, and knows what it’s like to face eviction, to go without food, to live in an inner city area, one cannot fairly comment on the sense of desparation and hhelplessness it brings. Simple, off the cuff solutions like that don’t help. The roots of these sorts of problems go much deeper than “they were too stupid/lazy/ignorant/whatever to know better”.
As for curing addiction, it’s much like curing smokers: unless they want it, it won’t work. The addicted mind is irrational, and cannot see reason when the craving kicks in. Imagine starving on a deserted island. You start to lose your rationality pretty fast when the hunger pangs kick in. You can’t just force people to quit, you have to convince them to want to, and that doesn’t happen over night. The safe injection site (and most needle exchanges) know this, and offer counselling services when appropriate, but they know that any attempt to force things will drive their clients away (and back into peoples’ backyards).
Also, the nurse on staff in Vancouver does not help anyone inject, only overseeing their use and providing advice and medical aid should something go wrong (cuts and injuries, overdose, etc.). As for the cost of the site, it has been well-proven that it is cheaper to use this method than to deal with the problem punitively and let disease levels increase (look up the VIDUS study as an example, they have done a few cost-analysis research papers). And yes, Europe has a few safe-injection sites as well, and their results have been overwhelmingly positive, both for the addicts and for the cities they are in.
So what is the solution? Permenantly institutionalize these people because they can’t support themselves?
So…are you also a drug addict or did you manage to become a productive member of society without turning to the crack-pipe?
“Making a neighborhood look pretty” is not just a cosmetic effect. Neighborhoods are a product of their design. Businesses (other than liquor stores and pawn shops maybe) don’t want to invest in a neighborhood that looks run down. A broken window or graphitti on the other hand attracts more of the same. I have a vacant lot next to my appartment and all it takes is for a few pieces of garbage to be left on the sidewalk and the whole stretch of pavement becomes a shanty-town within the week.
I don’t want to imply that there is a simple solution, but if the city is going to spend $1M, it should be to address the causes of drug abuse, not the symptoms.
I have more to add but I have to get to a meeting otherwise I will find myself unemployed and homeless.
Just a nitpick : the Vancouver area to which people are referring is called the Downtown Eastside. It’s about a 2-3 block area centred on East Hastings and Main St. Calling it the Eastside is misleading, as the Eastside (more commonly called East Vancouver) basically refers to the whole east side of the city (anything east of Main St.), not just this small area.
**Glad you ask. One solution is to allow IDUs a safe place to inject AND access to rehabiliation treatment in the same location.
Like cancer treatment, as in your previous example?
Under Neurotik reasoning, I suppose we should all agree that nurses should be withdrawn from the treatment of patients with lung cancer that was caused by their own smoking. Indeed, it follows that medical resources should be withdrawn from skin cancer patients whose condition may be attributed to overexposure to the sun; persons with broken bones caused by foolish misadventure; and people with heart disease caused by poor diet and lack of exercise.
Or Neurotik, is it just worthless “junkies”, those “fucking idiot[s] with no self-respect” who are undeserving of our compassion and resources?
Of course, the truth is that drug addiction is a medical problem just as is skin cancer, lung cancer and mental illness. Its causes are various and more often than not stem from social problems highlighted by scule: child abuse, sexual abuse, psychiatric problems and a background of poverty. Governments have a choice: they can behave as Neurotik and msmith and dismiss IDUs as worthless junkies who are solely responsible for their own conditions, or they can take measures to treat IDUs as citizens suffering a medical condition that may stem from factors beyond their control; a condition which warrants treatment and compassionate care.
In any event, even if you don’t accept that IDUs deserve compassion, safe drug injecting rooms can have a positive effect:
Less dirty needles on the pavement means a safer environment for non-IDUs.
IDUs using sterile equipment to inject reduces the incidence of HIV and Hep witihin our community. Despite what msmith may believe, merely refraining from sex with “some crack-head” may not protect you, your family or your community from disease: they aren’t called transmissable diseases for no good reason. Further, reduced incidences of disease among IDUs and their partners reduces the overall cost of healthcare to the community – which helps non-IDUs, as well as those apparently worthless “junkies”.
I am not a drug addict (never touched an illegal drug, never even smoked), mainly because I had good parents who didn’t abuse me and so I had a strong enough psyche to go to school, get a degree and improve my lot (all of my family have done so, by supporting each other and working hard). The problem for most IDUs is not just poverty, but domestic problems, abuse, mental disorders, etc. (as Narrad said too).
And making a neighbourhood look good is a good idea, no question (we have a neighbourhood in Ottawa called Vanier which is a nasty eyesore that I would love to see be re-developed). The problem is, where does the money come from? How can the poor people who live there afford new homes at higher property values (as will happen once new homes are built)? Where do they go otherwise? The problem is that the people who move into a run down neighbourhood generally do so because they have no other options. They would rather it looked nicer, but what can they do?
The ultimate point of this is that the safe injection site, like those in Europe and Australia, is the realization of the facts that other methods of dealing with drug abuse haven’t worked. It’s cheaper, more effective, and more compassionate, and ultimately better for all parties.
I struggle with it too. I want people to be reasponsible for themselves. I hate it when people whine about how they are victims, and always find someone else to blame. The problem is, I’ve come to learn, that drug addiction is different. It is like hunger, or sexuality. It is a burning, irrational drive that has no sense of reason. To anyone who questions this, go down to a detox centre and check out someone trying to get clean. Check out the pain a heroin addict goes through, and tell me how hard that looks. The mind doesn’t work rationally when one is addicted, so it has to be dealt with medically.