Should governments fund drug-related harm reduction programs?

Question

Should governments fund drug-related harm reduction programs?

Answer 1

No. Drug Treatment Programs and the like YES! Harm reduction programs are enabling programs. The Gov't should distance itself from any program that potentially can put it in a position of liability or as being viewed as condoning illegal and potentially lethal behaviour.

Answer 2

Yes. It is, so far, the only active response to a serious problem facing society. It allows users the opportunity of facing the addiction rather than hiding, feeling helpless and blaming others. The safety issue transcends the user, it positively affects the whole community. Those of us who live and work in downtown Vancouver can attest, denial, isolation and indifference are not working. If there is a better solution, with proven results, backed by the professional, not the politicians and pundits, I would love to hear it.

Answer 3

I have been reading everyones responses and I think that one thing everyone is forgetting is WHY we have harm-reduction programs to begin with . Its to REDUCE the harm that drug addicts place themselves and everyone else.



I ask the mother who is playing in the park with her children, - Would you want your child to find a needle left behind, stab themselvs then possibly contract deadly infections? Or would you rather have somoene ( who is going to do the drug regardless of what we think) have somewhere that will accept dirty needles etc. and keep the harm away from our children?



I ask anyone in a relationship would you want to contract HIV from your partner because he/she may have contracted it from someone who shares needles? Or would you rather a drug addict have clean needles, because again they are going to do it regardless.



Or would everyone ( including our government) rather ignore the fact we do have drugs in our country, ignore the people who are addicted ( and for those who say they had a choice, not all addicts CHOSE to be an addict, what about the 13 year old girl who is being raped everyday and is being forced to do drugs?,, or the baby who was born addicted to crack and grows up in that lifestyle?)

Should we ignore the problem in hopes it will just go away. Or should we take the steps to educate and 'reduce' the harm to our countries addicts as part of our war on drugs?

Answer 4

Absolutely. Research has shown that harm reduction is a key component to reducing overall drug use. It also protects those who are addicted from other diseases (AIDS, Hepatitis, etc.) and helps them take the first step towards dealing with addiction. As a society, we need to confront addiction honestly and openly. Ignoring the problem or throwing more police at it will only ensure rising poverty, disease, crime, prostitution, and the further marginalization of people confronting addiction.

Answer 5

I agree that drug users are sick people and that they do require help with their life, however so do other sick people like cancer victims, people with diabetes etc, who did not choose to be sick. Drug users had a choice. I do NOT support publicly funded drug sites nor other publicly funded assistance to continue with the illegal promotion of drug use. Use that money to assist people who really need it and who are hard working tax payers and benefactors to our society. Demand that the legal system, especially the judges assign penelties to the full extent of the law for breech of such laws. Breaking the law (drug or other) is a joke in Canada, criminals and drug users know that at worst they will get a slap on the wrist and most likely get help to continue doing what they normally do, break the law. What about the rest of the victims, the regular joe Canadian? where are our righs?

Answer 6

If the government isn't capable of keeping drugs under control in the first place, than they should most definately fund rehab. There is funding for the rehabilitation of rapists/murderers. Druggies are nowhere near as dangerous.

Answer 7

Money would be better spent forcing addicts into drug rehabilitation programs which include incarceration if necessary. These people are a huge drain on society in more ways than just financially and condoning their actions by offering safe injection sites will only make matters worse. In the long run the money spent on this type of forced rehabilitation would be far less than the cost of having these people on the streets draining our government programs, stealing from our businesses and citizens, commiting violent acts, and spreading disease.

Answer 8

What a crock! This is not health care but actually extending the poor health of drug(and most likely aids infected) users, which in the end costs us all more. Clean up or die. My tax dollars shouldn`t be spent on resolving self absorption. These people are a burden on society by their own willful action...lets see them use some of that will to get themselves clean. Remember folks it is not the government funding this, but you and i. And oh yeah it isn`t the drug user since he hasn`t got a job and hasn`t paid taxes in years...so no they don`t even contribute to their own health. Like lepers they should be treated with charity...not the gov`t(which means all of us tax payers) In other countries people in jail don`t eat unless their families bring them food..maybe the drug users should be helped in a similar fashion.

Answer 9

no no no!!

Answer 10

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 11

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 12

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 13

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 14

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 15

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 16

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 17

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 18

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 19

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 20

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

Answer 21

These areas are a good idea whose time has come. Addiction still suffers from the stigma of a moral issue and not a health problem, the no.1 public health issue in North America. First line of treatment is contact with the person afflicted and to let them know there is a way out. Beyond that, 95% of them will die 40 years before their time without intervention. Stats are still grim with treatment but 33% will go on to live normal lives for extended periods. A light needs to be shone on this and injection sites are the best way to begin.

Answer 22

Of course governments should fund harm reduction programs. When I first moved to Vancouver, the Downtown Eastside was like a horror movie played out in real time. The desperation and disease that I saw was comparable to the same scenes that I saw travelling in the Third World. When Insite, the first legal shooting gallery in North America, opened it was like turning on a light switch. The misery that was so apparent in the Downtown Eastside has been turned down without pushing the problem into other neighbourhoods. Harm reduction works and it's time for the anti-drug crusaders to see the reality of it.

Answer 23

No!

Why should my hard earned money be coverted to fuel some junkies addiction. If this is the type of lifestyle one chooses to live, then they should be able to handle the risks involved and the consequences. It is not Safe injection site do nothing more than tolerate an illegal activity. Our society and goverment are way too soft and sympathetic. How about we open up a site that tolerates spousal abuse, robbery or murder? This is as bad as the government giving business licences to buisnesses that sell drug paraphanialia. Everyone was taught right from wrong at an early age and should be responsible for their own actions instead of depending on society or the government to bail them out. You make your bed you lye in it.

Answer 24

Absolutely!!! More communities ought to introduce harm-reduction programs.



It amazes me how many people complain about various aspects of street-involved drug-use, yet fail to see the big picture.



If you are against harm reduction programs such as needle exchange, crack pipe distribution, and safe injection sites, then stop belly-aching about finding used needles, the costs of health care for people with HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C and the many illnesses associated with street life, and complaining about finding people in the stairwells of your buildings using drugs.



Being a drug-user does not make someone undeserving of support and respect. Creating safe spaces for drug users, not only addresses the above, but also increases the number of contacts social workers can have with this population. These supports may not necessarily send people running to rehab, but it may help someone maintain housing, see a nurse, or eat a meal. And you never know, someone might just stay clean, even if for a few days.



We can't all be Hollywood stars! Most of us have fewer choices in life.

Answer 25

Yes, governments should fund harm reduction programs. All of the serious health research that has been undertaken regarding this issue has clearly shown that funding harm reduction programs saves lives and saves money. There are three main benefits to harm reduction programs. Firstly, there is the ever present opportunity to access services designed to assist users when they are ready to step away from their addiction(s). Secondly, harm reduction programs such as Insite in Vancouver allow for clean syringes, sterile water, vein maintenance and access to front line health services that many would not ordinarily receive. This allows for reduced costs to our medical system due to a reduction in the spread of diseases such as AIDS or Hepatitis C from shared needles and a reduction in the necessity for emergency room visits for acute drug related health issues, such as infections or overdoses. This type of program reduces our health care costs. Thirdly, those who work the front lines with addicts know that harm reduction makes our streets safer. Users have a place to go and a way to dispose of used needes. They also have access to a community that cares about them. They are welcomed and treated with respect and dignity. Not being treated as a disposible person may raise self-esteem enough for the user to contemplate that they may just deserve a life different or better than they have been living. Harm reduction programs provide hope both for the user and the community.

Answer 26

No! Who defined these programs as harm reduction? The description cloaks the real problem of drugs and criminals in our society. It doesn't stop the drugs, you could even say it gives societies' blessing to drug use with a message that says: "its OK, here have a clean needle, we understand." Well, I don't understand. Addicts still need money to buy their drugs. Crime inflicted on innocent citizens by drug addicts is terrible. The safe injection sites in Victoria and Vancouver are a magnet for the walking dead that populate those areas at night. City neighbourhoods are destroyed by this blight! Businesses such as restaurants cannot attract customers since nobody likes stepping over and around these dregs as they drool about our downtown sidewalks in their stupor!



Don't encourage drug use - get the drug addicts and criminals out of our society.

Answer 27

Absolutely! As much as we would all love to live in a world free of drugs, it's not bound to happen anytime soon. As long as these drugs are still available there will always be users. The best thing the government can do for these users as well as everyone else is to put funding into drug education. Make sure that we are telling people the TRUTH about drugs and help them to understand the drugs. Also, it is important that drug users know how to safely use their drugs and how to dispose of needles and other possible dangers. You can't stop them, so at least help them do it in the safest possible way!

Answer 28

I don't think so. I think this tactic is no more useful than putting the addict in jail. They still commit criminal acts to obtain their drug of choice. They still behave in a totally irresponsible manner sexually. They still have a negative impact on the health of society. I think it's time we woke up and realized that to help we need a more intrusive intervention. As I understand it the only way to turn some of their lives around is an extended stay in rehab. I say it's time we made some amendments to the mental health act and forced addicts into a government funded rehab clinic for a year or more. I'm sure some pinheads are saying that will cost too much. I say the current approach costs far too much. Violent/property crime, health care costs, and lives of family members/friends destroyed, that's the current cost and to allow it to continue is obscene. We put people in jail for committing crimes because they harm society, so do most people addicted to hard drugs. Why should we be afraid to force a drug addict into treatment. What's worse, making them attempt to get their life back together or condemning them to be slaves to criminal gangs.

Answer 29

Yes, I do believe governments should use our health care monies to fund goverment funded harm reduction programs.

These programs are programs that do not just "enable the user to use more" like most people think. These programs help keep needles off the streets and playgrounds where our kids play and adults work. These programs also help to keep people healthy and prevent the spread of diseases that have life long consequences and cost the health care system millions of dollars to treat. If we can help prevent people from getting these diseases or spreading these diseases then we can save millions of dollars and use those dollars to fund other programs such as building of hospitals, offering childhood community programs etc.

These programs are also successful in helping users to quit using. People may see it as enabling those who use drugs but you never know when a drug user maybe willing to change and need a program to help get them on the right track. Having someone to talk to goes a long way to helping someone change destructive behavior.

Answer 30

How can the government ban smoking in public areas and then turn around and say yep it's ok to shoot up in this government funded facility. I feel my tax money is far better spent on other areas of health care where the people actually care about thier health. Addicts are what they are whether it's alcohol or cocaine and I realize they all need help but if we are not funding program for alcoholics and tobacco related treatments why should we fund cocaine and heroin addicts? Doesn't make much sense but what does when it comes to government policies. Do we really want our children walking past a facility like that? How are you going to explain that one "This is where junkies shoot up darling and right next to it is a building that was built in the early 1900's". Can't save everyone but at least we should try to save the people who really want to be saved.

Answer 31

Yes I agree the government should be funding these programs because they are worth it. As long as users in the program must go to therapy and show signs that they are wanting rehab and not just a free fix.



This a great issue to raise with Harper's government who want to start imposing maditory minimum sentences in Canada! I guess the conservatives would like to see the millions of people who smoke marijuana in Canada behind bars? How did Canada go from trying to decriminalize pot to imposing manditory minimium sentences within three years? Answer, we voted in a leader who has turned Canada into Bush's new lap dog. It's like looking looking at movie previews, I can always tell if the movie is going to suck yet most people can't. When I was watching Harper for first time on TV I knew this guy was no good for Canada, yet here we are.

Answer 32

The Government can keep funding harm reduction programs or it can invest in more staff and facility's to incarcerate those who are addicted to drugs. I am sure that no ones wakes up one morning and thinks how fun it would be to an addict. The only smart and cost effective thing to do is to fund programs like these, in the hope that we can start to change some lives for the better.

Answer 33

NO, we should help them in finding the cause of the draw to the drug. There is no nice place for a drinker to go and have this clean place to get hammered. There needs to be a alternative way of helping them. Where is the help if you can get high in a government building, and a smoker has to go outside. There is something wrong with that picture. It is only enabling the cause. There are those that will take help and other that have no desire of changing there ways. We need to focus on those that want to be helped. There are social programs that are losing fund that help families function today. We all are responsible which road we take, have a place that will deal with the root issues for these people help them to fix what is inside with love and a safe place to deal with things

Answer 34

It's a tired catch phrase, but: "Do or do not. There is no try."

Which is to say, 'harm reduction' is foolish - why not 'harm prevention'? Supposedly, low tar cigarettes are a form of 'harm reduction', but they still kill you.



If the government wants to make a significant contribution to the problem of drug abuse, why not just legalize the practice of self-prescription? Allow self-reliant adults to prescribe anything they want, controlled substances/narcotics included. Then tax it, and make it a full-service business, from educational materials and health warnings, to specially metered doses (to help prevent overdosing), to complimentary needles...you would also eliminate a lot of drug-related crime, syndicates and cartels, the whole underworld drug market.



If there is a demand, someone will find a way to fill it - why not keep ALL drugs under government control and distribution?

Answer 35

I definately think governments should fund drug harm reduction programs. It doesn't matter if there are safe places to inject or other programs, if people want to take drugs they will. By providing funding the government is keeping drug users safer, lowering the risk of getting HIV/AIDS ( and other blood diseases) and may reduce the number of drug addicts on the street.

Answer 36

This question has been argued over by many analyists on the news and in the media, but apparently it hasn't been researched enough. Ottawa wants to keep this injection site running to see if it positively affects safety of drug use in Vancouver's downtown east side. If you think about it logically, how could it negatively affect safety?



Focusing on one main point of this argument, the spread of disease thanks to drug use is ever increasing world-wide. It is highly possible, more than ever before, to get HIV from drug use. If we can help reduce the spread of any disease in any way, in this case by providing clean, sterile needles to those who shoot heroin, then we should.



Our government currently has task forces related to catching and seizing marijuana grow-ops. In Surrey alone, last I read, there are constantly over a thousand grow-ops running at one time, and even though police know where these houses are located, they can't act promptly and there's no way to nab all of them. Not to say this is a complete waste of time, but I do believe government should shift not only monetary resources towards drug safety (not exactly drug elimination), but also police forces.



Although these substances are illegal, the safety of our communities is the most important thing, and we should do all that we can to keep our streets safe. We can't eliminate drug use, it's impossible; we should do the next best thing - make drug use as safe as possible for those addicted until they can get proper treatment.

Answer 37

Yes, they should fund all harm reduction programs in this country. People assume that harm reduction programs are all about the drug usage - but it's not! It is all about keeping people safer & healthier, and providing the tools to keep them safer and healthier.



The price of funding harm reduction programs is far less than providing people with medication for HIV, Hepatitis C, and other blood borne pathogens. It is far cheaper to fund one harm reduction program than say to perform one liver transplant.



Would the Canadian government or MP's feel differently if their own children were in fact using a harm reduction program?



What people seem to forget is that alcohol is classified as a drug, and many types of programs are funded for people who abuse alcohol and tobacco. After all a drug is a drug, no matter what one uses.



Some forms of harm reduction are safe grad, keys please, needle exchange programs, just to name a few.

Answer 38

Yes, not only does it help prevent the spread of disease but it can also be a point of contact for those who feel they are able to try to stop using.

All the removal of the Safesite will do is show that our government wishes to follow the same broken ideology as the US goverment, instead of following actions based on being a responsible community.

We still have a LONG way to go with getting doable treatment programs, and access to medication to treat this at a REASONABLE price.

I lost a sibling to heroin, the methadone was not easy to get (location and affordability). We need to look into treatment programs that understand the severity of this addiction.

Answer 39

Harm related issues, crime to obtain drugs,social and physical implication are far more costly to the community and the individual and their families than to treat through methadone treatment programs.

Once stable on a methadone treatment program the individuals can begin to rebuild their lives with families and the community. There is world wide evidence that long term treatment prescribing of methadone at appropriate dosages for the individual creates stability and allows the person to get on with their lives. I work as a GP Shared Care within the UK (I'm a Canadian who was brought over here 4yrs ago to implement a prescribing program for the local Primary Care trust of the NHS) So I can see first had the benefits of Long Term Prescribing

Answer 40

No. These safe-injection sites simply make it safer for addicts to inject. It allows addicts to keep the injection with the illusion that now it won't harm them. But I don't think throwing addicts in jail is the answer. The government simply needs to put more money into educating youth, creating drug rehabilitation programs for addicts. And from a legal perspective, how does it make sense to help someone break the law so they won't get hurting doing it by themselves. To be honest, I'm glad I live in Ontario where we don't have these sites, because I don't think I could fall asleep at night knowing that my tax dollars we're helping someone get high.

Answer 41

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Since the safe injection site opened here in Vancouver nothing has improved. Not one person who uses the site has become clean. Not one. The purpose of the site was to reduce the harm to addicts, clean up the neighbourhoods, and above all else, get the addicts off the drugs. We seem to forget that it is illegal to possess these drugs. If someone doesn't want to recover from their addiction, why should we spend $ 30 million a year to let them shoot up drugs that are against the law for the rest of us to possess? I say enough is enough. We tried our best. No one got off drugs. In essence, we simply failed.

Answer 42

Absolutely! The goverment should seriously focus in to actually doing something about it, not just "thinking" of what to do. As the 2010 olympics are just so close to take off, these issues of homelessness and drug and alcohol addicitions are not getting any better. Why does the goverment seem to have millions to invest in other things and not in those human beings that really need the help. To begin with, they're homeless because of various factors; they turn to drugs and/or alcohol because is the easy way to deal with whatever they're going thru (all kinds of history of abuse; family breakdown; undiagnosed mental health issues, etc.) They have no choice but to get into crime in order to survive! If those in power cared seriosly enough about these people, people that are part of our communities, then we'll be talking about a different story!

Answer 43

No, I don't think that the government should fund a safe-injection site. Funds need to go to low-income families and programs that can help children who may be at risk of becoming addicted to drugs. We should work on prevention rather than on trying to solve problem after the fact. The government seems never seems to work towards preventing problems - especially in health care!



And, in response to Jeff M., neither diabetes nor cancer is the fault of the person who suffers from these diseases. Yes, type 2 diabetes can develop in part due to poor eating habits, but nobody knows what causes type 1 diabetes - so please watch your words - they can be hurtful to those who suffer from these diseases. Cancer and diabetes - as well as other diseases - are not like drug addictions. A person makes a conscious decision to take drugs. It is not forced upon them. As well - we have the power to prevent addiction as a disease - we don't know what causes many diseases so, we cannot prevent them completely.

Answer 44

The government should close down the safe injection site as soon as possible. Drugs are dangerous no matter where they are done or who is watching. If we truly wish to help people powerless to their own addictions we should secure them away from illegal substances. Make users stay away from drugs for six months to a year and see if they wish to start up again afterwards. And I really mean secure. No day trips or unsupervised visits of any sort, or making "clients" responsable for each other. Not having access to drugs means a user won't be able to consume any drugs and lets face it, if you could trust drug addicts safe injection sites would not have been thought up in the first place.

Answer 45

YES!

The "Get Tough on Drug Use" Plan of the Conservatives

has been the modus operandi in the U.S. for years. Any moron can tell it does not work. These sites have reduced Aids and Hepatitis infections drastically. Those are the facts.

We already have to worry about the exploding number of

Diabetes cases bankrupting our health care system in the

future. We do not need to add multiple aids and Hep C cases to the issue. Tony Clement should be focusing on health care issues instead of being part of the Conservatives addled War on Drugs idiocy.

Answer 46

Have people lost all connection with right and wrong? No, of course government shouldn't fund safe injection sites. People at a drug injection site belong in one of two places: government sponsored rehab or prison. Why, because drug addiction absolutely devastates lives. Drug addiction is the main reason behind most crime, it causes untold child neglect and abuse, and it reduces productive citizens to addicts. So in no way should government enable drug use. Enable recovery. I people won't go for recovery, then protect society.

Answer 47

I have mixed feelings about this.

People choose to do drugs and create their own problems.. but I understand that there are also a lot of people that just fell into a rut!! I think the government would have to do some interviewing and a screening process to make sure these people are going to clean themselves up! I certainly do feel like health should be top priority.. as long as the person is committed to helping themselves!

Answer 48

The philosophy behind these sites goes "They're going to do it anyway, so lets allow it and give them a site to do it." You can take the same stance on any law if you want to.

If you want to follow that philosophy you might just as well burn all the books of laws and just go back to the law of the jungle. Which is a place, by the way, where these same addicts would not last very long at all.

Then there is the serious question of the mixed message these sites send, especially to youth. On the one hand society is telling them not to do drugs, while at the same time saying, "well if you do drugs we'll give you what you need to help support the habit".

Get rid of these sites or legalize opium dens once more.

Answer 49

Yes I think the Government should fund harm reduction programs, as well as others. Not one type of treatment is good for everyone and a variety needs to be made accessible to suit each person's needs.

Answer 50

I believe that harm-reduction will show us the path to zero tolerance in some cases,so should they fund these programs

yes they support giving prescriptions that could create problems so now they must become part of the solution.Not all will stop but being the power of example along with support assists more than not doing anything.

Deb Nanson

Answer 51

there is so many things wrong with this situation I don't know where to begin. These people wouldn't be crack heads if there was a place to go after school, someone who believed in them, easy access to therapy (if needed), easy access for higher education. There are so many things we can do to stop them from becoming crack heads. Why not start with that, and not give crack heads a place to commit a crime. We know all this we don't need a place to prove it. Whose to say they are only shooting up at this "safe crack house" anyways. I've read some comments and they are complaining about the hours! There are so many other things that money can go to for productive members of society, perhaps day care and actually make it affordable, (studies have shown that in if a child in day care will do better their entire school careers. At least that's what the commercials say on television.) Perhaps also stopping the drug dealers, make rehab free.

Answer 52

Absolutely Not! The gov't becomes a drug pusher by allowing drug users to continue their habits in a "safe" environment. Harm reduction is "enabling", allowing the user to continue the habit, not break it. What's next. Safe houses for suicides, spouse abusers and child molesters? That is an extreme example to get the reader to think of the implications. Is the act of drug use illegal or not? Drug rehabilitation, counselling, half way houses and yes, enforcement of the laws are ways to deal with drug use. Not spending money on clean injection sites, free needles, sterile water for drug use. I have read how the harm reduction model allows the user to be counseled about the negative impact of drugs on their lives. I believe that the harm reduction model contradicts that message, by allowing the continued abuse of drugs.

Answer 53

I don't know ... I have mixed feelings ... people, by my understanding, become drug addicts by choice ... they individually make the decision to pick up the needle and stick in their individual bodies ... whether it be arm, leg, or wherever ...



The person made the choice in the first place, for whatever reason, to use the drug ....



the government and other organizations provide excellent 'recovery' programs ... which are readily available, to my understanding, for folks with drug difficulties.



yet, safe drug facilities attempt to ensure that there will be a generation to "inherit" this country ... and it is a sorry outlook to consider that folks who are drug addicted will "inherit" the country.



If safe drug injection sites can ensure the prevention of HIV/aids then it is likely a more cost-effective way to spend tax dollars ... than the medical expenses of assisting HIV/aids patients.



So ... you can see I am torn on the topic.



It is in my mind ... similar to capital punishment ... I'd like to think we are civilized enough to not want capital punishment ... yet ... when you look at an individual like Clifford Olson .... it really makes it difficult to be altruistic about it.



Hopefully other folks will be more definite ... and will be able to comfortably live with their decisions ... for myself ... it is a toughie.



A note to Lois-Anne:



Maybe you ought to check your facts and figures before making wild statements about the salaries of Members of Parliament [not that I agree with the amount they get] .. because they do not get millions as you think ...



In fact the Prime Minister's salary is:



The Canadian prime minister lives in an official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada’s capital. The prime minister also has a summer residence on a private lake outside Ottawa. The salary of the prime minister was C$160,640 in 1999.





And the President of the United States of American makes even less:



Well .. it seems that has changed .. and that Bill Clinton's salary was less than $225,000.00 per year.



On one particularly good day in Canada, Clinton made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president.

Answer 54

I'm a recovered junkie on methadone (5 years clean, baby!). I was a useless burden on society, reckless criminal, didn't care enough about my own life or the life of others cuz I thought my life was entirely forfeit and picked up hepatitis C from sharing needles with people who I knew or suspected to have had it, cuz there were no clean ones available and nothing would get in the way of my next dose (hooray for run-on sentences. Do forgive ... it has been a dreadfully long day at work and the furthest thing from my mind tonight is proofreading)... HAD clean needles been readily available, I would not have wilfully exposed myself to the Hepatitis C virus and become effective, thus becoming a lifelong financial liability to the healthcare system. Knowing there was no recourse, I was resigned to dying. In a rare moment of clarity, I realized that I had to move from New Brunswick to Ontario because - quitting cold turkey never worked, 12-step programs were a joke to me, and there were no methadone maintenance programs available. When I moved to Ontario, where the treatment I titrated my opiate intake and supplanted it with methadone. I'm now a college graduate, play team sports (ultimate frisbee), working a 50-hour work week and paying taxes and paying into the system that was there for me when I needed it. And yeah, I pay for my own medication. Remember, I'm a productive, responsible human being once again. (always was a human being though)



How much does a needle cost? How much does it cost for 6 to 12 months of Interferon/ribavirin treatment cost? How much do you think you're taking away from education/pensions/whatever funding when the gov't subsidizes these programs? The City of Ottawa, in a classic kneejerk reaction, cancelled it's Safe Inhalation program which provided sterile glass tubes to crack users to prevent bloody chapped lips smearing Hep C and HIV virus (infections of which are the highest per capita in all major Canadian cities) on crackpipes that are passed around to other crack users with split, bloody chapped lips (heat and the chemical burn [base pH] ravage the lips, teeth and gums). This was cancelled despite the protests of the Chief Medical Officer (who better to guage the health benefits/risks? Certainly NOT the city council.) The cost of the program? $8,000/yr. The cost of HIV treatment for the estimated 12 new infections per year/per year after the loss of the program is upwards of $300k per year per person. Compounded with the cost of all past and future HIV infections, now we're talkin' some serious cash, yeah?



However an addict becomes an addict (dunno too many addicts in the circles that I've travelled that specifically chose and set out to become addicts), the fact is that the impact of ignoring it and repeatedly trying the same failed approach (enforcement/imprisonment) expecting drastic results out of the blue someday is pure madness. And it's costing us a fortune to ignore it. And costs so little to address. It's socially responsible to save our fellow human beings from immediate harm when we have the capacity to do so.



Isn't there a saying - 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?'



So. Yes, by all means ... fund harm-reduction.

Answer 55

What really annoys me is that the Government can spend millions of dollars to allow drug users to shoot up in a public place however, smokers have no place to smoke. The government is now considering opening sites also in Victoria. Drug usage is illegal and smoking is not. The government make tons of money from the smokers and the smokers get nothing in return. A lot of drug users cause problems in the general public by break and enters, etc. to support their habits.



Tell me this, should the smokers now become drug users to be more acceptable in the public eye or the government eye?



This is just SICK

Answer 56

Yes I think they should fund them. What we've been doing so far hasn't been working. It's time to try something different across Canada. Drug addicts do cost the Health system but treating Hep-C and AIDS costs way more.



Drug addiction is a disease and it's not right for drug addicts to have to hide in dangerous places. It's the equivalent of putting mental Health patients out on the streets...oh wait...we do that anyways.

Answer 57

Yes, the government should fund drug-related harm reduction programs. The reason being they can help keep people safe. They can keep city streets and alley ways free of needles, etc. They can also help drug users to properly use their drugs.

Answer 58

No. While I understand the arguments for harm reduction these programs just prolong the problem and normalise the addiction. Drug addiction is a nasty thing on many levels. Trying to "clean it up" without trying to stop it is not the answer. However, funding for rehab is great.

Answer 59

NO!...I think supporting a Safe-injection Site is only sending a wrong message to Society, it's like trying to solve a problem and not the cause of the problem.

The leniency of our Judiciary System is just a mockery to the serious crime offenders or syndicates who can make easy money at the expense fo someone else's life.

I believe our penalty system is long over due to be seriously reconsidered & revised.

Answer 60

Kind of funny question to answer.......I agree somewhat with all the the comments I have read........but here goes my view.

1. Does the government fund programs for compulsive gamblers?

2. Does the government fund programs for alcoholics?

3. Does the government fund programs for smokers? (actually they do the exact opposite)

I can go on and on.....well, if the answer is no to any one of these, then I say it should also be no for drug users.

I should not be paying for someone's habit.

Answer 61

Yes. The majority of people still believe that it is the downtrodden and lazy who become addicts. This is a fallacy and it is why everyone thinks that rehab is the answer. Well, it isn't. Addiction is a disease that many will never recover from and 30 days of rehab isn't going to heal them. If they are going to use, and they are going to use, at least safe places should be provided to prevent the further spread of HIV and Hep. In addition, the current rehabilitation facilities and programs need to be revamped and more funds put into them.

Answer 62

Yes, absolutely. Several scientific studies appear to support the contention that the Vancouver site and other like it have reduced deaths from overdoses and/or the contracting or spreading of infectious diseases, many of them fatal.



Money spent on prohibition of drugs is no more effective than prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. in earlier decades, although politicians have found it productive to them.



I would be much happier knowing that the decision-makers will rely on science (including science that has already been applied in studies so far) rather than ideology to expand facilities like the Vancouver one, along with financial support.

Answer 63

I believe that the government should legalize all drugs and make safe houses for them. This way the drug users aren't doing it in children's playgrounds etc. If drugs were legal i believe the stigma around it will dissolve it will be like alcohol. Look at places like Holland, the crime rate and other criminal acts associated with it diminished. That also goes for prostitution. If it was legal and the employees were tested every week and given a "work" card there would be less rapes and other crimes as well. We should totally take on the same principles as Holland. It would do all of us some good.

Answer 64

Yes I think governments should fund drug-related harm reduction programs.

Answer 65

Of course they should. It reduces the amount of disease transmitted amoung drug users. Even if the government takes away safe-injections sites, people will continue to inject drugs. It is better that they are in a safe environment. It is also a safe place to keep them from getting arrested for injecting somewhere else.



Drugs should be legal and controlled. Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol is the only drug that I do. But I think that drugs such as marajuana, mushrooms etc. should be legal without any question. Putting people in jail for doing drugs is ******* counter-productive.

Answer 66

Yes, governments should fund harm reductions programs. This is a health issue not a crime issue.

Answer 67

What a nice sugar-coated name it is: drug-related harm reduction program. I prefer the name safe-injection site. Straight and to the point, no pun intended.



If the gov't wants to get serious on drugs, arrest all the people shooting up. Lock em in a room, where they will starve for their drugs. When they're going crazy and beg to get out so they can buy more drugs, you tell them that in order to get out, they have to tell you who their dealer is. No other way out. In return, you give them some methadone. Since it will take the drugee several days to probably need the stuff enough to rat out their dealer, it will help to detox them a bit. On the flipside, one more dealer off the street. Eventually they will arrest the right people. Too bad we need tougher laws though, dealers should get instant death penalty in return for the slow, torturous death that they inflict upon the people. Too bad our society is so soft on the suppliers.

Answer 68

NO. My tax money should be spent helping people who intend to help themselves. I believe in rehab of all types, but supporting this drug habit is the same as a co-dependant partner of an alcoholic, who many times, even unknowingly aids in the addiction.

Codependancy:

'It is a condition of a dysfunctional relationship the codependant has with others. The codependant may see themselves as the only one who can fix the other's problems. This is known as a "Messiah Complex", "only they can change or fix the problem by protecting the person at all costs". Due to many factors mostly low self esteem, the codependant needs to be needed. The other person may become needy as a result of this relationship. '

Answer 69

These sites are very resourceful, people must not get the wrong ideas of these places, and see them how they really are, if it wasn't for places like these diseases such as hiv and hep c would be rampant in the places where these facilities exsist. We should not look at the costs of running these places rather than the costs of treating a very larger percent of people with hep c and aids,the probable outcome if these places did not exist, the cost on the health system would be far greater than it takes to run these places. It creates jobs and internships for people in, or looking to get into certain health proffesions. These places save lives and are a great resource for support and those also who want to quit using illegal substances. The staff who work in these places are given alot of resources, including helping people who want to quit using find appropriate detox centres etc. In My opinion thes places are for the better and society should look at the whole picture before making judgements.

Answer 70

Definitely! The concept of harm reduction is one that is realistic. Providing clean needles and a safe place to dispose of used needles will cut down on the spread of HIV and other blood-borne diseases such as Hepatitis. This in turn will cut down on health care costs, both in the short term and long term! Hopefully people will be able to look ahead and see how this benefits everyone...

Answer 71

Yes they should. These people are addicted to a substance they cannot easily give up. They rarely have any resources of their own, yet, because of the effects of addiction on their lives they become dependant on the government for support. I believe that the government and the people would be better served if the money was spent on their rehabilitation into society, where thy will have the opportunity to create new and better lives for themselves. This would ease the amount of money needed for ongoing addiction support and maybe free up funds for homelessness etc.

Answer 72

No. It hasn't worked anywhere in the world. In fact. a bigger addiction problem is created because the "Gov't" funded program is view by users as it is OK. Therefore other drug users in the drug milieu follow suite. What is wrong with tough love, accountability? The safe-injection negates this.

Answer 73

Absolutely, we need to reduce risk and harm and provide full support sytems for individual who use IV drugs as well as those who smoke drugs. Harm reduction is a proven method which helps to reduce the risk of further harm, i.e. HIV, HEP C,etc. The SIS also prvodes counselling, nursing support and safety to the people who use thier site. Keep it open, keep it funded and keep the people working there to continue helping the people who use the service.

Answer 74

No !



I will qualify that. If a person is drug addicted due to the over prescribing of narcotics..........then the medical profession is indeed responbilbe and should be forced to put these people in places where help is mandatory.



If a person is drug addicted because of unwillingness to get help, or of the willingness to be in a constant state of idiocy , then the answer has to be NO. Drop them on an island, give them all they want except a way out.



All that fall between should be offered the one chance to straighten out their life with mental help, physical therapy, training for jobs and work once trained and the right to live a decent life.

Answer 75

No, of course not. Those people choose to throw their lives’ away by drug addiction why should the government be responsible for that? Government can use the money for people that really need them, like old people with low income for medications or other needs, those people build this great country and they deserve it. What does a drug addict for the country, nothing.

There are sick kids that needs funds, there are low family income that need help, there are people paying taxes in this country and need child assistance and daycares for their children and the future of this country. There are native people that need employment training and development because of global warming. There is shortage of housing all over the country so many other things that can benefit from the help of the government.

We need to invest in medical care, schools not to support drug addiction.

Answer 76

Yes, we must do something to help these people. I feel very uncomfortable living a good life and watching people suffering around me.



The downtown emergency wards are inundated with people that could be partially helped by the nurses at the safe-injection site.



Let's be brave and accept the necessity of trying new ways.

Answer 77

Canadian citizens have put up with these scum for too long, It's time to just put them in jail and let them detox in prison.

These so called "safe injection sites" I spent most of my young life in Surrey B.C and I seen these sites nothing but junkies, drug addicts, and the rest of the filth piled up outside this site behind King George Highway. This once great city my grandad fought for and most of my elderly family in World War two now dwindled down to a hell hole. It's time to say no to these sites and yes to long prison sentences. Kid's are being taught to tolerate this stuff, that it's OK if you use a safe injection site. it's asinine. No to safe injection sites.

Answer 78

No No No, Legalize the stuff and put all the drug dealers out of business, deaths from drug related deceases have increased since the introduction of this safe site, one addict said that he does 5-15 break-ins a DAY to feed his stinking habit, just take a walk or drive down East Hastings any time of day or night and see for yourselves the addicts shooting up its so disgusting, they are worse than animals.

Answer 79

absolutely. safe injection sites are a win-win policy. the addict has access to clean, sanitary implements and premises to administer their drugs. by using such sites, there is less liklihood of contracting and spreading deadly diseases such as HIV and Hep B or C. this is a significantly positive result, for not only the addict, but the community at large. for example, as sanitary conditions help to prevent the spread of disease, a secondary benefit is that the health care system will not be forced to shoulder the burden of the extremely expensive costs associated with treating these potentially deadly diseases. furthermore, the sites offer social workers opportunities to develop relationships and gain the trust of addicts in a safe environment. such relationships can assist the addict in deciding to deal with issues and gain access to community and rehabilitation services. not only is this advantageous to the addict, but the community again benefits. the more addicts in recovery has a direct impact on crime within the community.

Answer 80

Yes, absolutely. Harm reduction is an effective way to improve the lives of individuals using drugs.

Answer 81

I am not sure! I think, the best way, perhaps may be to legalize it (to sell drugs), like selling alcohol. Get some/lot "tax", out of it and to help everyone. We can never ever stop selling illegal drugs (Didn't we learn a lesson yet?). Or do a strong law enforcement like in Singapore, not a slap in the wrist..It doesn't work Judge..Politician.



Harm reduction: Should we provide ladies/men/children to the rapist/abuser to do harm reduction? (to reduce rapes/abuse etc??). I don't think so, In fact, "Absolutely big "NO". then, why drugs to druggies? Please help me.



Raj

Answer 82

No I do not think these programs should be government funded. People make choices in their lives...good and bad. We need to accountable for our choices. We need to look at things more in a global context. The planet is over populated and there are not enough resources for everyone to have the basics of life. Those who live in Canada are very fortunate to have the basics of life provided. If they choose to throw it away on something like an addiction they must live or die with the consequences.

Answer 83

i work in the downtown eastside of vancouver, im a recovering addict,, 3yrs clean.. i dont know exactly the statistics of if any saved lifes from the sights, but im sure it has saved someones life. if just 1, then thats enough to keep these sights open!! the problem is that this place opens at some ridiculous time, i think like 10 in the morning then closes earlie, these people need there fix as soon as they wake up!!! why open the doors so late, i guess the people running this place really dont care about the people, its just a job, a paycheck to them, its sad. i am grateful the goverment has implamented this program, something has to be done in the core,, i dont have the answers, but anything helps.

Answer 84

No, these kinds of programs do little if anything to address the problem. We need to go after drug dealers with a vengeance. What these creeps do to people is disgusting and heartless. We have to make it so that it's not lucrative, or we need to make it not worth the risk. The poor users, many of them children working as prostitutes to pay for the problem, need help. They need help finding other outlets, not help shooting up. The monsters that willingly destroy people's lives just for money, they need to be badgered and arrested and locked up, and if they refuse to change their ways, get rid of them.



I've seen what this stuff does to people, and anyone that can sell that stuff does not deserve to be part of the human race.

Answer 85

The question should have been: "Is the government really reducing harm or encouraging harm?"



Funding to SUPPORT a harmful habit is never a good idea! Unless of course, those who conceived the idea is already toast as well! How about educating them? OKey, okey. Just expressing a view...

Answer 86

So providing a person a "safe" place to conduct an illegal activity is considered "harm reduction"? Personally, I don't accept that view. Although I find it somewhat acceptable to provide support and treatment to those seeking to end their addictions, I cannot condone the use of public money (i.e. my money) to facilitate that addiction.

Drug users made a choice that has resulted in them being addicted. Further, they have probably engaged in other, more harmful, criminal activity (stealing, mugging, murdering) to allow them to continue to engage in this activity. If they have to use dirty needles or go to dangerous shooting alleys or crack houses to use their drugs, so much the better for the rest of us. Drug use by its very nature is and should remain, unsafe.

If you choose to use, you take the risk of dying. The state should have no business in attempting to mitigate that risk.

Answer 87

Absolutely No.



They should fund rehabilitation and recovery not the continued use of a substance that kills it's users and causes the community so much harm.



They may be saving a few dollars on health care for junkies but these same junkies continue to commit crimes to support their habits costing communities much more in crime prevention, devalued properties and personal trajedies.

Answer 88

Absolutely. The emphasis should be on treatment and rehabilitation rather than pulling funding to the 'bad people' to appease a middle-canada voting base who knows nothing of the problems of inner city drug use.



Harper's government is trying to push a US War On Drugs policy on us - which is going to end up wasting billions of our taxdollars on criminalizing sick people and recreational users while doing nothing for treating addiction or the sick.

Answer 89

RYN: I think governments have to stop being hypocritical when it comes to supporting safe drug houses so addicts can shoot up. It seems that the governments are banning smoking almost everywhere and now in private cars. Either they allow people to smoke or inject when and where they want or they don't. it can't be either one or the other...it has to be both or none at all. Just my thoughts.

Answer 90

Absolutely,yes!! Addiction is an illness,of which,affects a person physically,mentally,and emotionally.Without government help most would be doomed to a life of self-destruction not only affecting themselves but their loved ones.Society has more to loose by not helping them help themselves.Nobody sets out in life to be an addict.It starts this way ,a person takes the drug and then the drug takes the person .We need to be supportive of those wanting help because someday it could be you,a friend,a family member,a co-worker,etc.There are several "Walking Corpses"who need to find their own spiritual paths,so,could we all help them in doing so?Thank-you.

Answer 91

No...being a diabetic, I get little help from the government for any of my meds and equipment. I am always concerned that drug users have access to free needles when I am expected to pay for mine or at least have my insurance company pay partially for them. I can not get an insulin pump as they are not covered by my insurance company. The next time a drug addict needs a program to help them administer their narcotics safetfy, please consider that there are many people that do require help with meds that do not have the choices that many addicts have.

Answer 92

Yes governments should fund drug related programs. This makes for a safe place to use their drugs and prevents the passing on of HIV or AIDS to other drug users. This also prevents many drug related deaths as well as gives drug users the option of trying to get off drugs if they wish to do so. It also helps to prevent crime.

Answer 93

I don't think that the government should fund drug-related reduction programs. I have seen first hand what the meth program does for the addicts in Saskatchewan. It does nothing for them. In life we have choices, and it is up to us to make healthy choices. The government should be funding healthier programs for those of us who do help ourselves and for our children. these needle injectors can go to rehab!!

Answer 94

No. Why should the government (aka Taxpayer's) pay for someone's addiction problem? The addicts got themselves there in the first place so it is their problem, besides if they can afford to PAY for their own drugs then they should be able to fork over the money to get some help.

The notion that we as tax payers should have to give money to a drug addict is absurd and ignorant.

Answer 95

Good plan. They're not moving this to my neighbourhood, right? Then, good plan. If for no other reason than it may prevent some poor old woman from getting shot because some junkie wants her pain killers.

Safe injection sites should reduce crime in theory, I don't know if it is, in reality. It makes sense that having a lot of the junkies in one location makes it easier to monitor their actions, thereby reducing crimes commited to get drugs.

Answer 96

Yes they should. Legalize it all and treat it as an illness like all others. Any governement employee that is a hard drinker gets free help paid by the taxpayer, so what is the difference? Alcohol is the last legal drug and there are dealers everwhere.

Answer 97

Noooo. How is this helping those people. Addiction to anything is not good but this is huge. I say put the money into "a dry out town." make a town in the middle of no where, give each individual a job, a home and the doctors. This will keep their mind working to a positive, a home to be secure and a future. Stop pimping out our sad souls. help them help themselves!!!!

Answer 98

No Way!! Let them get all the drugs they want off the street, where they all started. Decriminalize dope. We're enabling these people. Do you see these kind of government sponsored programs for cigarette smokers?(Of which the government allows tobacco companies to sell legally, despite the known fatality rate?)

This government is just going flippin' insane.

Answer 99

Yes. We regularily fund all sorts of diseases that are a result of personal choices, including some cancers and diabetes, so saying that people with diabetes or cancer 'didn't have a choice' if they eat to excess, smoke, or eat any foods that are known to be a certain degree of health risk for any number of diseases affecting anything right from the colon to the brain (stroke, for eg) is blind judgement, at best. Unless we're all eating tofu and string beans, we're contributing to poor health.



No one ever says, "When I grow up, I wanna be a drug addict!" People are conditioned for it through life experiences, often bad ones, and many people have a far lower tolerance to addictive substances thanks to genetics. It's no less true to say someone is 'born with higher risk of addiction' than to say someone is 'born with a higher risk of developing cancer'. People need to stop assuming that all addicts are just 'party animals'.

Answer 100

Of course and while they are at it, why don't they include free drugs and alcohol. And to handle the huge crowds, open some of the closed schools and turn them into free drug haven hotels. Maybe they can also invite all the prostitutes as well to keep them off the cold rainy streets of Vancouver.



Makes good sense to me since its a good fit...drugs, alcohol and sex. Throw in some free hand guns to include that element and our problems will be solved.

Answer 101

Yes. It creates a bridge to get help and maybe educates the users a little about what they're doing to themselves and others. Probably helps a lot with the spread of disease too and that is something not limited to junkies.



For the people who think not:

-junkies shoot up in uncontrolled area and share needle

-one of these junkies infects the others with HIV

-one of these infected junkies shoots up with a person they know from school, infecting them

-this person, who may not be labeled a junkie, then goes to the bar, hooks up and gets physical with a friend of yours or a son or a daughter infecting them with HIV

-you see where i'm going with this...



this CAN affect ALL of us in some way or another, are you willing to take that chance?



i'm willing to chip in a few tax dollars to help keep HIV and god knows what out of my community...

Answer 102

NO.

Our tax money should only be used for the benefit of those who contribute to the federal budget.

There is no point in protecting something that is destroid already, just for the sake of extending their agony. This is sick and stupid!

They can use those funds for healthcare or education or to consolidate the aging road infrastructure.

Answer 103

Of course they should. It reduces the amount of disease transmitted amoung drug users. Even if the government takes away safe-injections sites, people will continue to inject drugs. It is better that they are in a safe environment. It is also a safe place to keep them from getting arrested for injecting somewhere else.

Answer 104

No.. They shouldn't.. The money can be better spent on kids, healthcare, schools, whatever.. Anything is better than that.. If they want to keep getting high and harming themselves, let them.. If they want to clean up and get off it, help them.. But don't pay money to allow them to continue to use with minimal risk, giving them even less reasons to quit.. Just enforce the laws that are there for a purpose..

Answer 105

No! I volunteer at the Our Place Society soup-kitchen in Victoria, BC, and, I deal with drug-addicts on a regular basis. Drug-Addicts should be imprisoned in prison-hospitals for at least a year to "Dry Out." Anything else enables drug-addicts to continue their harmful behaviour.

Answer 106

I think that the government should allow the safe injection sites as it allows for clean syringes and a safer environment for drug users,plus help to prevent futher disease and less dirty needles and syinges strewn all over the place.

Answer 107

Yes for 3 more years

Answer 108

no! absolutly not! these people are worthless losers who CHOSE to get into drugs & ruin their lives. these drugs are illegal. if i ever had a kid that started stuff like that, id kick it out in a hurry til he/she got cleaned up for good.



having the gov't say drugs are illegal & then go ahead & fund drug injection sites gives a double message that contradicts itself.



funding a rehab would be a lot better. then these guys can clean them selves up there & get off the streets & dont have to use drugs anymore.



but creating a "legal" place to conglomerate to do "illegal" drugs is just...well its as stupid as those losers are. the gov't might as well start crack themselves.

Answer 109

NO. Its a total waset of money. I know the drug scene well and there is a tone of cash being wasted allready. use the budget thats there , we should reduce what we are spending . the fights and crap that go on it the sites and most users dont use them anyway, anyone can play with #s to get a result but the fact its there a waste of money!

Answer 110

Yes we should.



I think the standard goes something like..."What you do to the least of my people, you do to me..."



No one chooses a the cyclical life of drug dependancey. We have to be compassionate and realize that drug addiction is about more than just the drugs... many things have happened along life's highway which have led individuals to where they are.



Think of the issues based in poor diet and exercise habits, do we deny people of services because they have "chosen" to over eat or eat poorly... NO... for instance...



People who are fat... we treat heart attacks and strokes and fund prevention programs to lessen the impact...



People with poor diets who develop diabetes... we provide with programs to control the disease and prevention programs to lessen the impact...



People with preventable cancer... we treat cancer with the best medical treatment we have available... we also fund prevention programs to lessen the incidence of many cancers...



The examples could go on and on.



Bottom line... a society is judged not by how it punishes those who need help... but by how compassionate they are in offering assistance to those who do.



It is a fine line and one that is way too easy to cross... what is next... not giving social assistance to single young women because they have "chosen" their life... I think not... NOT in my Canada.

Answer 111

If the government wants to make a significant contribution to the problem of drug abuse, why not just legalize the practice of self-prescription? Allow self-reliant adults to prescribe anything they want, controlled substances/narcotics included. Then tax it, and make it a full-service business, from educational materials and health warnings, to specially metered doses (to help prevent overdosing), to complimentary needles...you would also eliminate a lot of drug-related crime, syndicates and cartels, the whole underworld drug market.

Answer 112

Yes. Programs such as these are already funded from provincial governments. It has helped those less fortunate to achieve sobriety. Further research and funding is needed from federal government.

Answer 113

Yes, they should! Harm reduction programs reduce overdoses and the spread of disease that happens when addicts reuse needles.

Programs like methadone replacement for illegal heroin allow people to function fairly well without committing crimes like theft and prostitution.

Also, if people are accepted and encouraged at whatever step they're at in the recovery process, they're more likely to succeed than if they're punished for their habit.

Whatever we've been doing--making drug use illegal and shameful--has not encouraged sobriety, it's enabled the pushers and pimps more than anyone, and increased the power of illegal suppliers generally.

I'd like to see all drugs controlled and legalized, personally, especially marijuana. When more than half the population (like in my community) are using it seems futile to arrest people for possession. Providing more treatment and counselling makes more sense to me.

Answer 114

No question about it, YES!

The 'war' on drugs is a failure. Drug addiction is a medical issue and needs to be addressed in terms of a medical and public health solution.

Answer 115

No. It should be left to the closest organization involved on the specific drug. This way, whoever donated for that organization, is willing to help those patients involved on the reduction drug program.

Answer 116

Absolutely not !

This is so ridiculous!

Providing a safe place for people to do illegal activities is a cop-out.

Drugs are illegal. Any action which assists those in pursuing this illegal activity is a clear admission of the governments inability to enforce their own law.

Answer 117

Absolutely not, If any money is spent on these losers it should be put to treatment not aiding & abetting a habit. You can't treat an alcholoic by giving him a safe place to drink. Why give a druggie a place to shoot up? If they need a place to take drugs let them pay for it theirselves, not with my dime!

Answer 118

NO.It's about time the government stops playing around with this problem.It is not going to go away because we wish it to or because the government bans it.LEGALIZE DRUGS AND TAX THEM THE SAME AS ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO !!!This will also have the effect of putting a crimp in organized crime.

Answer 119

Yes, I believe in them. Hastings is my community, I am not a user, I live nearby as it is affordable. I know from speaking with people and also polls I have read that it IS working. The DTES needs all the help it can get!

Answer 120

Hello,

The ability to read is vital for success. It helps your child succeed in school, helps them build self-confidence, and helps to motivate your child. Being able to read will help your child learn more about the world, understand directions on signs and posters, allow them to find reading as an entertainment, and help them gather information.



Here you can find a step-by-step online program that can help your child learn to read: http://readingprogram.toptips.org



Learning to read is very different from learning to speak, and it does not happen all at once. There is a steady progression in the development of reading ability over time. The best time for children to start learning to read is at a very young age - even before they enter pre-school. Once a child is able to speak, they can begin developing basic reading skills. Very young children have a natural curiosity to learn about everything, and they are naturally intrigued by the printed texts they see, and are eager to learn about the sounds made by those letters. You will likely notice that your young child likes to look at books and thoroughly enjoys being read to. They will even pretend to behave like a reader by holding books and pretend to read them.



For more info visit http://readingprogram.toptips.org

Good Bye

Answer 121

Of course they should. This is a medical and social problem, not a criminal one, and harm reduction is the first thing to do. Then there is a chance addicts might free themselves from their addiction.

Answer 122

I really do think that it is important.It helps stop the needles in play grounds and the passing of disease that is ramped in the drug communities.It keeps them all in one place.If the government dose not care how will?I am a x addict who has been clean for 6 years and needle exchange saved me.

Answer 123

The government needs to get its facts straight! All they care about is the money. I work down there and see how the insite program has saved many lives and made many good changes which you never hear about!

Answer 124

Of course they should. Programs like this work. Just ignoring the problem never does. Let's put our money toward things that improve life.

Answer 125

Yes

Answer 126

These sites are a disgrace to all taxpayers. They do nothing but perpetuate problems. Treatment and help are the answer not injection sites. I am appaled and disgusted to be part of a province and country that condones these sites

Answer 127

Absolutely not, does nothing for getting them off the drug. Put the money into rehab and programs to get them off the drugsl

Answer 128

absolutely. drug addictions are a health problem. many people with additctions have a mental illness as well. they need our help and understanding. we all need to work together on this planet so we can all be the best we can be.

hugs n luv

bet

Answer 129

YES IF THE PROGRAM IS TO REHABILITATE THE ADDICTS AND SLOWLY CLEANS THEM PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND SPIRITUALLY FROM EVIL CAUSED BY DRUG ADDICTION.NO IF THEY GOING TO CONTINUE USING SAFE INJECTION SITE THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES THEY CANNOT CONTROL THEIR OWN BRAIN THEY CAN JUST DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IN OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD,Ei HITTING INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH HARD OBJECT IN THE HEAD, ROBBERY ETC.

Answer 130

The fact that our tax dollars are used to help people break the law makes me sick.

These junkies should NOT receieve help shooting up, they should be throw in jail and left there until they can pass a drug test.

Answer 131

Yes! the gov' should fund these clinics, to limit the visual exposure to the younger & more impresionable sections of canada.also to drive the msg. home that help is out there.

Answer 132

Yes, absolutely. Safe-injection sites are about saving lives. It is very often the inconsistency of street drugs that kills people. Injection sites help minimize the risk of overdose.

Answer 133

This is about a great an abuse of tax dollars that there is. I would sooner spend the extra dollars slapping the dealers into jail and getting the scum off our streets.

Answer 134

Absolutely!

Answer 135

Absolutely! Bottom line....these places save lives! That really should be the only reason needed to keep Insite open and to open new sites where there is a need.

Answer 136

No, I don't believe that they should fund such programs. It's no wonder addicts can't break their addictions due to the government helping them with such easy access to programs.

They should fund programs on getting rid of addicts from abusing themselves by monitoring Doctors prescriptions to patients who sell their prescribed medications to the addicts.

Answer 137

NO. Money can be put towards homelessness or treatment centers but not injection sites. This is absolutelty ridiculous.

Answer 138

Yes definitely!

Answer 139

Yup!! I think so then I am positive that we would see less syringes/ paraphneila on city streets. I find mysekf too often explaing to my children what they are and why not to touch things like that!!

Answer 140

NO !! If these people are too stupid to read the word "no" and they choose self harm then like someone else said, " Send them to an island and sink the boat. "..

Answer 141

To be honest i feel that this is only opening the window for more illegal drug use than what is going on now.

Answer 142

Yes; the greater good in preventing disease, violence etc.

outweighs the individual harm in supplying prohibited drugs

and allowing their use.

Answer 143

I don't think that they should why would I want to fund someone who does drugs? If I want to pay for someone to get high I would pay for myself to do it.

Answer 144

This is whithout doubts.The drug addiction looks like the world wide disaster!

Answer 145

PROGRAMS LIKE THIS WHICH WERE STARTED IN ENGLAND WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING PEOPLE OFF DRUGS PERMANENTLY, REDUCING CRIME, RESTORING FAMILIES, IMPROVING NEIGHBOURHOODS, REDUCING HIV, CUTTING POLICING COSTS AND SIMPLY SAVING HUMAN LIFE! WE NEED TO HELP THESE PEOPLE AND NOT ALLOW OUR SMUG SELF-RIGHTOUSNESS TO GET IN THE WAY OF UTILIZING PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE A PROVEN RECORD OF SUCCESS!

Answer 146

they should get all drugs off the streets. get rid of all the crime, talk is cheap we need action to make this a better place to live

Answer 147

No. Funding should be for rehab not for supporting destructive habits.

Answer 148

Absolutely not!

Drug addicts are sick members of our society and our tax dollars should be used to help them, not enable them to continue hurting themselves.

Answer 149

I think they are being responsible in their approach. We have to try options in solving the problem. Bury your head in the sand and you die. I believe if one life is saved we are a better society for it.

Answer 150

NO

But should pay treatment to stop addiction

Government should pay for Alzheimer's medications, and for people who works and have not enough money to pat their meds

Answer 151

I think they should it's much safer for everybody including the drug addict and the public.

Answer 152

Y not if they are addicted to a drug let them use it. Clean needles meen no aids.

Answer 153

Yes, yes, yes

it saves peoples lives, it saves governments money

Answer 154

Yes.

Answer 155

Yes.

Answer 156

of course in a modern society where we care for other humans

Answer 157

no, why should the government supply them drugs.

they don,t supply me cigarettes and it's legal.

if they start supplying drug , then you might as well legalize it.

Answer 158

no we are encouraging drug use. get tougher on dealer

Answer 159

YES, YES, YES!

Answer 160

absolutely!!!

Answer 161

YES!!!!!

Answer 162

No.

Answer 163

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 164

NO.