Off Topic

Toronto Board of Health Endorses Intravenous Drug Injection Sites

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 9th, 2017 11:44 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 11, 2008
9185 posts
270 upvotes
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 18th, 2016 6:04 pm
I guess you have logic prbs, then, in addition to reading prbs. You can't really prove a -ive, i.e. not having a site is good because... Rather, ppl have to prove that sites are good, esp since they are taken at face-value 'bad' since it assists users. Finally, I'm pretty darn objective but for 11pgs or so ppl have been presenting extremely flimsy 'evidence' until recently, which should now be analyzed. I doubt that any of you pro-site ppl are as objective and some of you go even as far as saying that it's a no-brainer to have them despite the majority of TOians objecting for obvious reasons.
umm yes you can prove a negative. I can prove the earth is NOT flat. That's a negative.
Not having these sites are bad because without them, users OD, transmit diseases/infections, needles are found in public areas like parks where non-users go. So again what are you basing your opinion on?
Sure there's a hierarchy of evidence. These studies (while not 'concrete') is much better than your uninformed opinion. So as an individual, I'd rather go with these studies which at least has some form of scientific merit vs your own beliefs.
If you provide me something that is higher on the scale than these studies, then I'll change my opinion. But you refuse to do that.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
rems wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 10:04 am
umm yes you can prove a negative. I can prove the earth is NOT flat. That's a negative.
Not having these sites are bad because without them, users OD, transmit diseases/infections, needles are found in public areas like parks where non-users go. So again what are you basing your opinion on?
Sure there's a hierarchy of evidence. These studies (while not 'concrete') is much better than your uninformed opinion. So as an individual, I'd rather go with these studies which at least has some form of scientific merit vs your own beliefs.
If you provide me something that is higher on the scale than these studies, then I'll change my opinion. But you refuse to do that.
That is not an example of proving a negative because the proof that the earth was not flat was a byproduct of the discovery that the earth is indeed round. You cannot prove a negative because something has to be proven through levidence and logic...since there can be no evidence for a negative one can never be proven.

As for the polling issue...who cares? We all know the polls use loade questions...like they will ask if you think SIS is a good idea but won't ask whether you woul want one in your area.

Lets stop ollomg and go back to referendum and plebiscites...ask if we want SIS and if x-location is a suitable site.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 11, 2008
9185 posts
270 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 11:06 am
That is not an example of proving a negative because the proof that the earth was not flat was a byproduct of the discovery that the earth is indeed round. You cannot prove a negative because something has to be proven through levidence and logic...since there can be no evidence for a negative one can never be proven.

As for the polling issue...who cares? We all know the polls use loade questions...like they will ask if you think SIS is a good idea but won't ask whether you woul want one in your area.

Lets stop ollomg and go back to referendum and plebiscites...ask if we want SIS and if x-location is a suitable site.
And with these types of sites, there can never be the 'concrete' evidence the OP is asking for. There are so many variables to account for. He wants the same type of proof that the earth is round. Not gonna happen unless you have a time machine.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
rems wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 11:16 am
And with these types of sites, there can never be the 'concrete' evidence the OP is asking for. There are so many variables to account for. He wants the same type of proof that the earth is round. Not gonna happen unless you have a time machine.
granted, but on the other side of spectrum there are those who treat the possible benefits as fact and the possible negatives as impossibilities...

Frankly I have no faith in any polling. At least the CTV polls are straightforward and instant but you can also notice problems with them. For instance, when there is a poll about, say a teacher strike, how can you be sure that many of the people who contribute to the poll are the very teachers who are on strike? I remember a CTV poll like 2 years ago about SIS...they asked people if they thought SIS was a good idea and the yes side won a high%. Some days later they asked if SIS would be a good idea in your neighborhood and the no side dominated.

pollls tend to ask frame questions too theoretically.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 11, 2008
9185 posts
270 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 11:29 am
granted, but on the other side of spectrum there are those who treat the possible benefits as fact and the possible negatives as impossibilities...

Frankly I have no faith in any polling. At least the CTV polls are straightforward and instant but you can also notice problems with them. For instance, when there is a poll about, say a teacher strike, how can you be sure that many of the people who contribute to the poll are the very teachers who are on strike? I remember a CTV poll like 2 years ago about SIS...they asked people if they thought SIS was a good idea and the yes side won a high%. Some days later they asked if SIS would be a good idea in your neighborhood and the no side dominated.

pollls tend to ask frame questions too theoretically.

I think everyone is saying that the goal here is for harm reduction which many studies have shown does happen. So the benefits have been provided to the OP. So he's saying there are negatives to having them. What are they? Where are those studies. Where are the studies that show harm increased with having these sites?

Yea those CTV/online polls are unscientific. I don't pay any attention to those.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
rems wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 11:35 am
I think everyone is saying that the goal here is for harm reduction which many studies have shown does happen. So the benefits have been provided to the OP. So he's saying there are negatives to having them. What are they? Where are those studies. Where are the studies that show harm increased with having these sites?

Yea those CTV/online polls are unscientific. I don't pay any attention to those.
they may be unscientific but that does not mean they have no value. I think they were the only polling that showed Rob Ford would destroy Smitherman in Toronto's mayoralty race...

As for the issue at hand I'm too busy atm to look too far into it. I think, however, that research into such things is usually excessively narrow. Like I can find studies that show that health-care saves money by getting surgery patients home ASAP but I can say that is not always the case...I've had 2 knee surgeries where I was sent home same-day (where in other places I would have been inpatient 2-3 days) only to pop stitches, develop infections etc. which resulted in emergency room visits...vastly more expensive and time consuming. The studies I saw promoting faster turn-around times never mentioned the cost of follow-up care.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
rems wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 10:04 am
umm yes you can prove a negative. I can prove the earth is NOT flat. That's a negative.
Not having these sites are bad because without them, users OD, transmit diseases/infections, needles are found in public areas like parks where non-users go. So again what are you basing your opinion on?
Sure there's a hierarchy of evidence. These studies (while not 'concrete') is much better than your uninformed opinion. So as an individual, I'd rather go with these studies which at least has some form of scientific merit vs your own beliefs.
If you provide me something that is higher on the scale than these studies, then I'll change my opinion. But you refuse to do that.
rems wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 11:16 am
And with these types of sites, there can never be the 'concrete' evidence the OP is asking for. There are so many variables to account for. He wants the same type of proof that the earth is round. Not gonna happen unless you have a time machine.
No, can't prove a negative as silky averred to...the earth example is not the same thing. Negative as in not doing something/not having something, not your negative example.

Anyway, there was (finally) some concrete evidence but only 11pgs into this debate, as presented by mike/flyingnurse, so much some other ppl claiming that there's no such thing. I'm open-minded and those are encouraging stats but still it's a very hard hurdle to get by esp w/ many factors to go against these sites (financial/practical/feasible/moral).
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
t3359 wrote:
Mar 14th, 2016 5:21 pm
I can see how it will take more drugs off the streets, reduce needle problems, and reduce health care costs, but I'm still against it. It's like handing out machetes to reduce gun violence. I dunno. I don't see any other solutions though.

bjl
More like allowing people to kill themselves behind closed doors and behind a bail of moral relativist acceptance so you don't have to see it and don't have to deal with the real problems.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7188 posts
238 upvotes
beaneyov wrote:
Mar 18th, 2016 6:03 pm
If you actually knew anything about this subject, arguing with you would be fun. But you don't. And it's not. Good day to you.
It takes some phone calls and a half and hour drive for you to get a family doctor.

Shortage of doctors has nothing to do with your problem. Yours is simply laziness.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 5:05 pm
Good article on Vancouver's Insite.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... ts-changed
Interesting article and it covers a wide spectrum of evidence, it presents some solid evidence like the 35% drop in OD deaths, prevent 35 HIV cases, avoid 3 deaths, saves $6M, all of which are great. On the flipside, it's an opinion piece as well, ofc when asking ppl in the field and users, they are going to give the site glowing reviews. OTOH, other sectors like the police there probably don't want to publicize their (negative?) opinion of the site, so it's still controversial and there's no real consensus.

I just think that it's sad if this is the best way to address this issue.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 5:32 pm
Interesting article and it covers a wide spectrum of evidence, it presents some solid evidence like the 35% drop in OD deaths, prevent 35 HIV cases, avoid 3 deaths, saves $6M, all of which are great. On the flipside, it's an opinion piece as well, ofc when asking ppl in the field and users, they are going to give the site glowing reviews. OTOH, other sectors like the police there probably don't want to publicize their (negative?) opinion of the site,
http://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentr ... -597X-3-11
In fact, research conducted for the Canadian Expert Advisory Committee on Supervised Injection Site Research found that the majority of local Vancouver police officers interviewed support the Vancouver SIF as means of improving public order
Not that I agree with police making policy - large numbers of them would support rollbacks in privacy and freedom to make their jobs easier and reduce crime. If they were opposed, it wouldn't affect my opinion.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 5:32 pm
so it's still controversial and there's no real consensus.
Saves lives, saves money, gets people off drugs, cleans up the streets. The opposition is a problem with the people opposed, not with the SIS program. Once people look into it and educate themselves, the opposition fades. If Toronto gets one, and people see the benefits firsthand, opinions will change.
its popularity is highest inside Vancouver, where some 76% of residents expressed support for the facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insite


I just think that it's sad if this is the best way to address this issue.
What's sad is your relationship with reality. You and reality are so far apart, you can't seem to say something that isn't instantly disproven.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6319 posts
490 upvotes
Toronto
Yesterday, Toronto’s Board of Health endorsed the plan for supervised injection services and will launch public consultations for three proposed sites in the next month or two. Apparently, it was the big increase in o/d deaths from 206 in 2013 to 252 in 2014 that carried it. Here's the report.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2016 9:09 pm
Saves lives, saves money, gets people off drugs, cleans up the streets. The opposition is a problem with the people opposed, not with the SIS program. Once people look into it and educate themselves, the opposition fades. If Toronto gets one, and people see the benefits firsthand, opinions will change.

What's sad is your relationship with reality. You and reality are so far apart, you can't seem to say something that isn't instantly disproven.
I'd much prefer to argue the issues in a civil manner, but I suppose you love to make personal attacks and argue semantics, indicative of the losing side. Just a very grating personality as evident by your posts.

Nothing I've said has been disproved at all (I guess you're attacking my belief of negative police vies of the site? I'm just guessing given the cryptic response of that cop, but in any event, see below). In contrast, your failure to argue logically and to selectively choose which evidence to accept while laughably ignoring others has been pointed out.

Re your wall of text cites, what do they prove? Nothing substantive, in fact, lots of controversies, vested interests on both sides w/ biased reports. Again, no real consensus despite whatever you falsely believe.

Re your selectiveness, here's a case in pt:
In fact, research conducted for the Canadian Expert Advisory Committee on Supervised Injection Site Research found that the majority of local Vancouver police officers interviewed support the Vancouver SIF as means of improving public order
Well, obviously things will be more orderly as some users will be off the sts and into the sites, but the crucial question is what do police think of the site itself?

Here's what you neglected to quote, which immediately follows your above quote:
Despite clear support for the Vancouver SIF by local police officers, external national law enforcement bodies remain vocally opposed to the facility. Most recently the Canadian Police Association (CPA) issued a public call for the Government of Canada to "shut down the failed Supervised Injection Site experiment" and suggested that most police officers do not support the initiative
Safe to say more police seem to oppose rather than support, and, again, we're talking about the *site* itself, not about irrelevant/less important side issues such as 'public order'.

(Sarcasm-->) Yes, so obvious, saves lives/money (arguable), let's have them and totally disregard the obvious fact: it condones drug behavior and enables by providing a place to shoot up. Nevermind, says you, disregard morality and logic, if society can't solve these types of prbs, just give into them and enable, that should solve the prb then! /sarcasm Even site proponents are using terms as harm reduction, as there's nothing to 'get ppl off drugs' here (who's far from reality here?): that's an extremely indirect side-result. You are the only unrealistic person here if you think that sane, reasonable ppl should readily accept these controversial and on-its-face counter-productive sites w/o question (again, far from reality).
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
Funny, the police who know the most about SIS, and work closest to it, are supportive. The ones who know the least, and have never worked near one, aren't supportive.

I'm not surprised that when you evaluate that evidence, you give precedent to the opinions of those who know the least. Your side of the argument has a tremendous dependence on ignorance. As ignorance vanishes, through education and experience, opinions change and become more supportive.

Why don't external police forces support it? Here's some more required reading.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/injecting-truth/

Regarding my claim that SISs get people off drugs:
Research shows that people using Insite are more likely
to enter withdrawal management (detox) programs
than injection drug users who do not use the facility.
http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/media ... oundup.pdf
The study begins by noting that the number of individuals entering detox rose 30 per cent in the year following Insite's opening. Researchers then assessed a random group of 1,031 individuals who used Insite, and found that entry into detox was associated independently with entry into methadone maintenance and other addiction treatment programs.

This suggests that Insite is helping to get people into long-term treatment, thereby reducing or ending their drug use.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... de421dcb91

Here's another great quote:
During InSite's 3 years, a remarkable consensus that the facility reduces harm to users and the public developed among scientists, criminologists and even the Vancouver Police Department. Research, all positive, was published in 15 peer-reviewed journals, including the CMAJ , Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1586084/

I like the quote above because you seem to be fixed on "consensus." What you don't seem to understand is that not everyone's opinions are equal. When scientists and local police say one thing, and uneducated and ignorant people on the other side of the country say another, you think that consensus is relevant.

There are two paths that it's possible to take, support or not support SIS in communities with high drug use. You want to take us down a path with more overdose deaths, more public drug injection, less public order, reduced access to treatment, greater drug use, more people contracting preventable diseases, and more healthcare dollars wasted. And you want to do all this for "moral" reasons? Your morals are disgusting and you should be embarrassed of yourself. It's bewildering that a rational human could say that they're opposing SISs for moral reasons, which is why I'm not surprised that you have no trouble doing so.

Top