Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Montreal's Safe Injection Site Another Moronic Idea

Now that the city of Montreal has opened storefront drug injection sites for junkies to enjoy a safe space to ravage their bodies with drugs, perhaps the city should consider buying a vacant  building and furnishing the apartments with all sorts of consumer goods, jewellery and some cash for the benefit of habitual burglars who would be allowed to ply their trade, thus reducing the number of residential break-ins. For that matter, how about a place for pedophiles to satisfy their sick predilection, although the application would likely be a bit problematic.

Those proponents of safe injection sites manifest a holier than thou attitude of smug superiority, telling us that we should much prefer a controlled site where junkies can slowly kill themselves, rather than to allow them to shoot up in the streets and back alleys, strewing their needles for our children to find.
At any rate, if we are really bent on providing injection refuges to safeguard society and the junkies themselves, is it not logical that we provide the drugs as well, in order to undermine the dealers and to eliminate the crimes related to procuring the drugs?

Ridiculous? Absolutely....
The entire idea of safe injection sites is based on the moronic idea that to control evil is better than to combat it.

Families who live with the agony of a drug addicted member understand that allowing a loved one to continue their drug use in a safe environment, is not exactly the path to redemption.
Allowing addicts to remain at large means that not only will they continue to destroy themselves, but also their families and in the larger picture, society in general as they rob and steal to feed their habit, inflicting violence and emotional pain on those around them. For women addicts the descent into Hell includes prostitution and degradation.
Not something you'd want for your son or daughter.

The fault in the argument that safe injection sites are the preferable alternative fails to understand that there is another option, one that removes junkies from the streets and forces them into mandatory drug rehab, whether they like it or not.
Before one pooh-poohs the idea of mandatory rehab for addicts, consider that each safe injection site saves on average, just one life a year. In fact, despite the hoopla, safe injection sites attract precious few addicts and while they remain a liberal ideal, they are absolutely useless in solving the problem of extreme drug addiction.

Right now, using drugs like heroin is not a crime, unless it leads to disorderly conduct.But what if public drug use of heroin type drugs were to be made a criminal offence and addicts were rounded up by the police and duly convicted of being a habitual drug user, then sent to special rehab prison where they would be forcibly detained and subjected to therapies to break their habits, however long it takes, even years.
Opponents will argue that making drug addiction illegal will only drive addicts off the streets, which in my mind is already a good result, but the truth is that junkies are out of control and are easily found out, with families probably the very first to denounce loved ones who are addicted, in an effort to find an end game that doesn't include death by needle.

Safe injection sites are another alt-Liberal idea that sounds compassionate but actually hurts those it is supposed to help.
Drug addiction is a serious affliction requiring a serious and brave response.

Coddling addicts with safe injection sites is not the answer.


  1. Indeed. Drug users are evil sinners, and they need to be punished - public health costs, economic costs, social costs, and all costs be damned. Why stop the War on Drugs now, in this, its moment of Triumph?

    Even your "take them off the street and send them to rehab" plan is soft and coddling. How would that even work? Free food, a place to sleep? Cable TV? No, that's just rewarding bad behaviour. And who's going to pay for it? Good, virtuous people like you and me?

    No, they should be beaten to death in public places, as examples to the others. Liberals, blinded by piety and misplaced compassion, may never understand, but serious problems require serious and brave responses.

  2. Ah sarcasm....Never works in print.
    Sad deflection.
    I wonder if your sister was deeply in throws of addiction, emaciated and sick,turning tricks in the alley a couple of times a day to support her habit, you'd prefer a safe place for her to shoot up rather than forced rehab.
    One or the other. Take your pick.
    If you pick the first, then you can make fun of me and other conservatives.

  3. While we're at it, let's incarcerate all public health scofflaws: smokers, fatties, and soda drinking diabetics. Every vice is a stumbling block on the road to paradise.

    1. Coward....Pick one or the other.

  4. The real world is a little bit more complicated than your false dichotomy. There's no one shot cure for drug addiction and abuse. I'm also not convinced that public health policy ought to be based on an individual's feelings about their addict sister.

    If one is inclined to look for it, there is a significant body of scientific research that indicates that injection sites are a useful weapon in the fight to reduce the overall damage inflicted on society as a result of drug addiction. For example, they can help to reduce overdose deaths, HIV and Hep C transmission, and they expose people to treatment and medical care. See also: Portugal's decriminalisation of all drugs.

    I understand that coming up with thoughtful, evidence supported strategies for reducing drug harm isn't as emotionally gratifying or as easy as waging righteous war against "evil". But drugs have always won the war on drugs. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then either stop or do something different. There's no point being an idiot in addition to being a failure.

  5. I used to be against this idea but not so sure now. It does seem like we are making it easier for drug addicts to stay addicted. On the other hand I would rather they at least are not spreading diseases amongst each other which ultimately would cost us way more money as a society. Perhaps more money towards drug rehabilitation so thats its not only rich people who can afford to send their kids to these clinics. On the other hand that would be very expensive. I think in the end there is some merit to this idea.

    Its perhaps a similar argument to legalizing prostitution in some areas..I support this as prostitution will never go away no matter how hard governments try. Drug addiction will never go away either and some peopke are just very susceptible to it because of genetics or a screwed up family life. At least legalizing prostituation protects many of them in the field..brings in tax dollars..and keep them in specific areas.
    There is a certain naivety in thinking that we can eradicate both afflictions..we wont..these two problems are one of the worlds oldest and we need to accept them and try to make those that partkae in them as safe as possible..and limit the spread of diseases and so on.