Should governments fund drug-related harm reduction programs?

Question

Read more:
Gov't extends life of Vancouver safe-injection site
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071002/health/health_injection_site_extension

Answer 1

Yes, they should fund all drug related programs! Instead of increases into their own pockets, all increases should go into health care! For once, I would like to see any North American government ask it's own peoples how much of a raise they should receive instead of them telling the people how much they are getting. Governments should be afraid of it's peoples and not the other way around. People should never have to worry about getting health care, it should be provided by the government; so what if a politician has to take a cut of $100,000.00 out of his/her $1,000,000.00 salary! Health Care should be free for all! We vote in our governments to make our world better; then damnit, the government should do just that!!!!

Answer 2

This is a loaded question - this is like asking "should the government be concerned about drugs?". The obvious question is yes of course they should. I think the more prudent question is "how should the government deal with the drug problem?".

I think it is obvious to anyone who has half a head on their shoulders that the "War on Drugs" is not working. The governement has been demonizing marijuana for years and what happens - meth. People are going to get high whether you like it or not. There are three primary concerns for existance of all beings - reproduction, an energy source, and a sense of security. The fourth, it has been said, is the need for an altered state of conciousness.

Yes these people need help. Yes the government should be doing something about it. How do we help these people? We make more safe injection sites and red light districts.

Society seems to have a huge problem with prostitues and drug addicts roaming the streets. If you provide them and area where they are safe and controlled you kill two birds with one stone - 1. society doesnt have drug addicts roaming the streets and leaving dirty needles in playgrounds and other public areas. It's out of the public eye, right where society wants it; 2. there is a place where these people can go to feel safe, surrounded by people just like them. This is where you set up the rehab and 'harm-reduction' programs.

Open your mind and look at other views - there is no 'truth'...

Answer 3

No more safe injection sites. What we need is for Riverview to open up again and have a safe haven for the mentally incapable. The other thing we in desperate need of, are addiction facilities. Anyone with an active addiction, in the critical stages, first of all has no capability of seeking the help they require. Whether they are still able to function and work albeit with thoughts of suicidem, or are completely down and out and all alone. It's no life. Throwing them into jail, then back onto the streets of the downtown eastside or wherever else they can get their drug or choice is no solution. Anyone who does have the capability of looking for help on their own is faced with roadblocks, waiting lists and very little in the way of facilities that are government funded without stipulations and medically supervised detox. Oh sure for the ones who can afford it, there are some treatment facilities that cost an arm and a leg. However if someone is in the deep, dark, isolated depths of dispair and is fortunate to still have family that cares and can afford it, there is always intervention. Proactive treatment, not free injections is the key -- the answer. From someone who knows and has been there...

Answer 4

My only child is addicted to crystal meth, so I am a strong supporter of government-funded harm reduction initiatives. Contrary to some opinion that using drugs is a choice, you cannot forget that in order for that choice to have been made in the first place, there had to be some underlying catalyst. A mentally healthy person doesn't wake up one morning and decide to become addicted. People have to realize that addiction more often than not goes hand-in-hand with a mental illness of some type (often undiagnosed), whether that be depression, bi-polar disorder, etc.

Unlike heroine, which at least has methadone as a treatment option, users of crystal meth have no such option available. The rate of successful recovery from crystal meth addiction is less than 5%, largely due to the devastating effects it has on the brain chemistry and the behaviours and habits that are caused by that altered chemistry.

Recent news regarding the Canadian federal government's plans to "get tough" on drugs is frightening. As has been shown many times the world over, the "war on drugs" is a losing battle. Incarcerating people who are ill does nothing to help them overcome their addiction. In fact, it's a well-known fact that addiction runs rampant in correctional facilities, so you can hardly consider that an acceptable alternative to treating people. Educational campaigns can be a useful tool in early prevention, but our schools have been teaching D.A.R.E. and other programs for a long time now and we're still seeing a burgeoning population of addicts and the problems that go with addiction such as illness, homelessness and criminal activity.

Until such time as governments realize that it is their duty AND responsibility to provide adequate health care funding and accessibility for everyone, we will continue to struggle. Until such time the government realizes that it is better to fund more long-term residential recovery facilities (6-18 months) and help these people become productive citizens again, we are dooming a whole segment of the population to a life of poverty, illness, crime and eventually death. The number of facilities are few and the wait lists are lengthy. When an addict hits bottom and realizes that they need help, what they DON'T need is a 4-6 week wait to get into a facility. If the individual is homeless (as is often the case), they need admission to a facility NOW, while the motivation is there. Even a wait of 7-10 days could make a life & death difference to a person.

Also, instead of going after the addicts, the laws should be beefed up to deal with drug dealers - the source of the problem. Rather than waging war on people who are ill, the government should be putting more effort into fighting organized crime, which we all know is the domain of the drug dealers. Many of these individuals are not even citizens of this country and yet are treated to the priviliges of Canadian citizenship. I am a firm believer that if you are not a citizen of this country and commit a serious crime, deportation should be immediate and without appeal.

So I ask every one of you, when the time comes, raise your voices, use your votes, and tell our governments that addicts are not criminals - they are ill and they need help NOW!! And make your voices heard that we need stiffer penalties for dealing drugs, not using drugs!!

Answer 5

Get real. First to those who didn't fully understand the question, funding drug related (ie addiction rehab) programs and funding safe drug injection sites are really polar opposites of the same issue. Second, what the heck does access and right to health care have to do with a frickin' government funded injection site. I'd rather see my tax money and therefore some of that government funding go to a toddler with a heart defect who not only did not choose that condition(nor understand the consequences), rather than someone who, of his/her own free will, sticks some form of eventual death into him/herself (understanding that, gee, sometimes drugs can be addictive, and not necessarily beneficial to ones health, duh). So I'm supposed to help fund not only a place for Joe to practice his habit (or heck, maybe even try it for the first time and thus help create an addict in the first place) , but then pay AGAIN to treat the addict (that I may have even helped to create(or enable))? How much sense does that make??? Stop wasting the money in the form of splitting it up between these two opposing programs and take a stand. Do we (and therefore the government) desire to educate, prevent and treat addiction or do we desire to create, enable and facilitate addiction? Do we want clear-headed individuals able to contribute and be part of our society in a positive manner, or individuals who continually depend on us and are unable to function on many levels. Are we a pro-drug society or an anti-drug society? Perhaps once we(and therefore the government) answer that and define our stand, the answers to such ridiculous questions as the one posed above will become so obvious that we can spend not only our money, but our time and energy on real solutions to a very real and very deadly problem.

Answer 6

Yes they should because users would rather go to a place where they can get their drugs and use them safely. Also the potency of the drugs will be more closely controled because the government won't put drugs on the market that are killers. The social up swing is less illegal sellers and safety knowing that the drugs given will not be potent and will be given in low doses so as not to overdose the user. Also these programs will offer help for those who want to quit but are having a hard time giving up their habit. These places make it safer for the user and may give the general public a break from homeless people begging for drug money.

Answer 7

Short answer is no. I'm not paying taxes so that people can have a safe place to inject themselves with whatever poison they happen to find. Getting them into programs where they can get treatment to stop their destructive behaviour is the most logical path and that's where tax dollars should be spent. I'm all for helping people but this just won't help them get their addictions under control. It's only justifying them and telling them that drugs are ok. I can't believe that this is even debatable. What part of this is moral? All the "yes" argument is saying is that these "unfortunate" people can shoot up anywhere but near me. Isn't that a little selfish? These people need help and not more drugs. More funding should be put in mental facilities and health care. Period.

Answer 8

Yes to reduce the OD`s on the streets and they can also have counsellors working in the program to reach out to those that may want to quit the drug lifestyle.
A safe injection site brings some off the streets and would reduce the needles left out on the streets although there will still be some that prefer doing there drugs outside ,I believe there should be outreach workers to work along side street nurses to go into areas to help those on the streets.
If the program is run right it can be effective but if not run right then it would be a waste of money.
I see some detox centers that are a waste of our tax payers money because the workers are not trying to really help those try and quit ,the workers once they went union all they care about is themselves not the people, I won`t name the place but it is in Victoria .

Answer 9

I really have one simple answer: SCIENCE. If we can put our ideology and beliefs aside for a moment, look at the studies, the science (from various disciplines) we see that all though Harm Reduction techniques will not solve the problems of society, like drug use, it can help prevent greater harm (like HepC, HIV, infections) and enable people to make healthier decisions about their lives.
Harm Reduction makes sense fiscally as well, the prevention of a Hepatitis C or HIV infection (keep in mind this is just one individual case of prevention) it saves up to a million for Hepatitis C and up to $950,000 for HIV. This could keep many harm reduction programs running for years, programs that would keep preventing the spread of virus which would save more money!
Also, we live in a society and have decided as a nation that every life has intrinsic worth and every person deserve the care that they need, beyond what we think or believe about that person.
Drug Addiction is also classified as a mental illness under the DSM IV hence...it's a health issue not and issue of ideology or morality.
There are a thousand arguments for harm reduction with many reports and studies (both qualitative and quantitative) that support this strategy.

Answer 10

Yes, I think so. The choice for society come down to paying to help these people through the healthcare and social systems or by way of supporting the crime which is part of this life, the police effprts amd the justice system costs. In my opinion, the second choice has next to no chance of improving the situation. This reality means that helping them is our best choice. Let the police work on the supply side and crime against others.
A junkie is not going to stop being a junkie because he was arrested, accused, found guilty and imprisoned. At the same time,he is going to be at risk to transmit diseases. With harm reduction programs, there is a chance to save some of these poor people. I thank those who do the work.
Bob

Answer 11

I believe that the government should fund drug related programs. Why? Addictions is a worldly concern and problem. Through these programs an individual not only deals with the addiction, they also deal with the underlying issue of the cause. Many of these people need counselling that costs alot of money to attend. In a good facility an the success rate of recovery is high. Harm reduction is one way for uses to deal with their addiction. It's not the last source and is successful in quiting. I strongly believe that the funding should also go to Christian based facilities as these programs have a much higher success rate then one that is not of a Christain base.

Sincerely,
Hailey Mills