Off Topic

Toronto Board of Health Endorses Intravenous Drug Injection Sites

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 9th, 2017 11:44 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6319 posts
490 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 10:50 am
...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.
Great summary of the thread and OP's attitude. But, I'm sure he's thrilled to see 209 posts in this thread!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 10:50 am
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.
Um, no, the police close to the site only stated that the site *may* have reduced some stats in the immediate area, but can't say for certain: yet another example of flimsy evidence. Also, your most recent quote is re public order, so what else have they said about the site itself besides the first assertion? Not much. As for what the local police really feel about the site, I think that the cryptic response says it all.

Re sites getting ppl off drugs, that's an extremely indirect side effect. The supposed main goal is 'harm reduction' and its supposed effectiveness.

Yes, there are 2 paths, but yours is a slippery slope and doesn't make much sense. Morals are what separate us from the lowlifes. Nothing wrong w/ my morals since I don't support drug use and continued enabling - that's what you consider "disgusting"? You must live in Bizzarro World. You're the disgusting one w/o morals if you feel that society should give in and enable users, regardless of whatever arguable benefits there are, and they are just slight variations in stats, even accounting for the only solid stats provided by mike/flyingnurse ITT...at what cost though? Let's just have society w/o morals just because if there is a prb and it's too difficult, then we should allow that to happen and go from there. Legalize drugs, killings, rapes, wife-beatings, etc. Same thing and defeatist logic. All those factors you believe stem from sites are debatable and also at what cost, basically condoning and legalize drug use so that the prb never goes away, vs actually trying to treat the prb. Your 'solution' is just lazy and a silly, useless bandaid that doesn't solve anything. Still, I'm not focusing on one against factor as there are many and there's no clear case for having them, regardless of how much you try to convince (you sure you don't have a user in your life the way you try to force this issue?). Finally, you have provided nothing to forward your case otherwise sites would be readily accepted and luckily they are not, hence over 200 posts ITT (that's right, Jimbobs).
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Um, no, the police close to the site only stated that the site *may* have reduced some stats in the immediate area, but can't say for certain: yet another example of flimsy evidence.


You only think that it's flimsy evidence because it contradicts your position. I never said anything is certain. It's safe to say that Insite increases public order, because that's what the Vancouver Police are saying, and you have no evidence that's superior to their position. If you can provide superior evidence, or it becomes available in the future, I will change my position based on new evidence.

But having said that, public order is a minor point. If Insite reduced public order, but saved lives, reduced infections, and saved money, then I'd still be in favor of it.

And this is just an example of arguing only with the weakest point your opponent makes. The fact it saves money and lives, that just towers over any other evidence for or against.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Also, your most recent quote is re public order, so what else have they said about the site itself besides the first assertion? Not much. As for what the local police really feel about the site, I think that the cryptic response says it all.
I'm sorry, I forgot that every little point needs to be explained in detail to you. The police's job is to maintain public order. Their opinion on Insite's effect on public order is valid and relevant. Their moral opinions don't carry any more weight than that of the average citizen. So there's no need for that to be studied and reported. The fact that it isn't studied and reported doesn't mean that it's safe for your inference that they don't support it. They generally live in Vancouver, and it's hard to imagine that their viewpoint would be radically different from the rest of their friends, families, and neighbors. But I realize how desperate you are, that you have to use unjustified assumptions about irrelevant opinions in order to support your crumbling position.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Re sites getting ppl off drugs, that's an extremely indirect side effect.
Sometimes, I'm not certain you know what words mean. People using the site and opting for treatment is a DIRECT effect of their exposure to the facility and it's staff. How else would you explain a huge spike in people seeking treatment after visiting? Do you need me to link to this stuff again so you can fail to understand it again?
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
The supposed main goal is 'harm reduction' and its supposed effectiveness.
That's their actual goal and their actual effect. If you disagree, please provide evidence that their main goal isn't harm reduction and their effect isn't harm reduction. And yes, treatment is part of a harm reduction strategy.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Yes, there are 2 paths, but yours is a slippery slope
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
and doesn't make much sense.
Not to you, but to reasonable, educated, and intelligent people, like the vast majority in this thread, it makes a lot of sense. Your failure to understand things doesn't make them untrue.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Morals are what separate us from the lowlifes.
No, because lowlifes can have morals but be unable to follow them. That's a silly and simplistic approach. Or maybe I should take a page out of your playbook, and ask for concrete evidence that morals are what separate us from the lowlifes.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Nothing wrong w/ my morals since I don't support drug use and continued enabling - that's what you consider "disgusting"?
I don't support drug use either. And you don't really understand what "enabling" means. Drug users are "able" to use drugs without Insite. The word "enabling" is to provide the means for someone to do something. Clean needles and a safe place aren't needed to do drugs. Staff don't aid users in any way. Using the actual definition of the word, I don't support enabling users. Using your stretched, exaggerated version of the word, then yes, I do.

What I consider disgusting is that you're willing to spend more money and have people die on the streets.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
You must live in Bizzarro World.
In Bizzarro World, a person opposes drugs because of the harm they cause, and then opposes reducing the harm they cause.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
You're the disgusting one w/o morals if you feel that society should give in and enable users, regardless of whatever arguable benefits there are, and they are just slight variations in stats, even accounting for the only solid stats provided by mike/flyingnurse ITT...at what cost though?
People die. You need to make a very convincing case that there is some greater good achieved when closing insite, that are worth people's lives. The only argument that you've trotted out defending your willingness to let people die is your authoritarian aversion to "enabling." That's a far insufficient justification.

tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Let's just have society w/o morals just because if there is a prb and it's too difficult, then we should allow that to happen and go from there. Legalize drugs, killings, rapes, wife-beatings, etc.
OK, lets.

Imagine that legalizing wife-beating reduced the incidence of wifebeating, and it's severity, and saved money for taxpayers somehow. How would you justify allowing more women to suffer, and suffer to a greater degree?

How about beer? What if beer was illegal, and that illegality actually caused more social problems then beer itself? Would you still oppose drug use (alcohol is a drug) and want to avoid "enabling" it's use by creating government owned beer stores?

tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Same thing and defeatist logic.
It's pragmatism. And it's far superior to your wishful thinking, because it saves lives.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
All those factors you believe stem from sites are debatable and also at what cost, basically condoning and legalize drug use so that the prb never goes away, vs actually trying to treat the prb.
It is actually trying to treat the problem, and trying to reduce the magnitude of the problem. As soon as you or anyone else has a better solution, I'll support that. I wonder if you support eating chicken soup when you have a cold, since that doesn't actually treat the problem.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Your 'solution' is just lazy and a silly, useless bandaid that doesn't solve anything.
Bandaids aren't useless, we've been over the benefits too many times to count.

I don't think it's a 'solution.' It's a great help, it saves lives, and if you have a better fix, then I'm happy to hear it.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Still, I'm not focusing on one against factor as there are many
None that you've presented that are even the slightest bit convincing. Flawed opinion polls, even if valid, would be an appeal to popularity. A misunderstanding of the word "enabling." The belief that just because the government permits something, means that they support or endorse it. Slippery slope fallacy.

These awful arguments combined don't even come close to balancing a single unnecessary death.

To be honest, I've never seen someone with such a baseless, vapid argument argue with such confidence in the face of so much evidence.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
and there's no clear case for having them,
The evidence is overwhelming that it saves lives and money. It's the best of both worlds in healthcare. There's no good argument against them, which is why you're so focused on ignoring the evidence for SISs instead of presenting your own evidence against.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
regardless of how much you try to convince (you sure you don't have a user in your life the way you try to force this issue?).
I'm starting to think you're smoking something.... does that count?
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
Finally, you have provided nothing to forward your case otherwise sites would be readily accepted and luckily they are not, hence over 200 posts ITT (that's right, Jimbobs).
The case is solid, but it's difficult to overcome ignorance in the face of evidence. Some people have an astounding aversion to cognitive dissonance, and won't even consider any evidence that contradicts their position. They suffer from the primacy effect, which means they latch strongly onto the first thing they hear. They have confirmation bias, which means they seek out evidence that agrees with their existing beliefs. And sometimes, they realize they've made a mistake but think they'll save face by refusing to admit that they were wrong about something.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6319 posts
490 upvotes
Toronto
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2016 5:22 pm
... The supposed main goal is 'harm reduction' ...
There is no "supposed" about it: the main goal is harm reduction.

"Dr. David McKeown, the (Toronto) medical officer of health, said the growing trend of overdose deaths and opioid use highlights the need to treat injection drug use as a public health issue and the related overdose deaths as preventable."
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
is61>
Now I know you're trolling. No one can be so anal and verbose, unless they have absolutely no life. Also, I'm calling you out. No one can be so aggressively passionate about sites if they don't have someone in their life being a user. Too bad you can't prove a negative but you can continue pretending to have an objective view when you don't. The only 2 groups that are as vocal in extreme support for sites are those in the field and users. You're not in the field and I assume not a user, so the only deduction is that you have someone that is... I can see ppl supporting sites but the way you vehemently deny everything makes you worse than an OJ juror.

Re police's stance on public order, I'm not denying that but you do have reading comprehension prbs. I'm saying that the local police states that it may have improved public order, but they didn't say anything about the site itself. However, the pro-site group is using that as meaning that police support the site, which is not being truthful.

As for the huge spike of users getting treatment, you are just being simplistic (akin to the 'public order' comment). Ofc there will be an increase of that since they are in the site! What next, you step in the shower and there's an increase of getting wet? I'm just echoing what even pro-site ppl are saying, i.e. that the primary purpose is for 'harm reduction', not curing of this addiction.

Nope, reasonable, educated, and intelligent people will see that having sites is problematic due to its very nature/methods and need to be convinced. The recent polls overwhelming are against your pro-site side. You may think that you have the majority as usually ppl w/ ulterior motives and vested interests are most vocal.

You can get technical all you want again but the fact of the matter is that the site *enables*, or don't, e.g., nurses help them w/ the needles? Funny how you try to wiggle out of every single pt when it's clear you are wrong. What's next, the sun isn't hot?

Your wife-beating example just shows how warped your thinking is, no need to address that as it's self-evident.

Here's the thing: all sides here have vested interests, but even taking ALL the pro-site evidence into account, it is quite slight and not clear-cut to turn it into a no-brainer, yet you foolishly think that there are no downsides at all and wonder w/ amazement why ppl don't readily accept this controversial idea. There are sources attacking the pro-sites' data and it makes sense because those in the field have vested interests. Still, even assuming that most of those attacks are baseless, that some of them have grounds shows that the data is tainted and can be self-serving. Going back to vested interests, ppl in the field ofc want to have more funding/influence/and also believing that sites actually work; users ofc think sites are great, that's a given, vs those Drug Free America/Australia/etc groups that are against, because they are against drugs. Which of these sides are more objective and have less personal bias on this issue?

It's just delusional to have your insistence that there are only +ives for sites and absolute no -ives. Obviously not as this is a hard sell in TO, hence the consultations. Finally, ironically, your last para fits you to a 'T'.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6319 posts
490 upvotes
Toronto
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
... Nope, reasonable, educated, and intelligent people will see that having sites is problematic due to its very nature/methods and need to be convinced ...
By this logic, the health professionals and experts advocating the sites are not reasonable, are not educated and are not intelligent?
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
... The recent polls overwhelming are against your pro-site side. ...
What polls?

"The results found that 56% of Ontarians strongly agreed with SISs if they can demonstrate they reduce neighbourhood problems related to injection drug use; 13% strongly disagreed. For Torontonians in this survey, reducing neighbourhood problems was the goal resident's agreed with most. Forty-eight percent of survey respondents strongly agreed with SISs if they show reductions in overdose and infectious diseases and increased contact with health and social workers (14-18% strongly disagreed). A third of survey participants (31%) strongly agreed with SISs if goal is to encourage safer drug use; a similar number (28%)
strongly disagreed."
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 11:19 am
By this logic, the health professionals and experts advocating the sites are not reasonable, are not educated and are not intelligent?



What polls?
No, if you read what I wrote, they can believe sites are effective but also have vested interests in funding/influence/employment, hence why some attack that their findings are tainted.

CTV polls from a few pgs back.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6319 posts
490 upvotes
Toronto
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 1:40 pm
No, if you read what I wrote, they can believe sites are effective but also have vested interests in funding/influence/employment, hence why some attack that their findings are tainted.

CTV polls from a few pgs back.
So the experts' and professionals' opinions are "tainted" because they are involved? Even you must see that this makes no sense whatsoever. The reason these people are professionals is that they can set aside their personal opinions and do their jobs.

And then you cite a TV stations online poll as evidence that people oppose SIS's? Do you have any idea how these polls are conducted (I use that term very loosely)? Even though this one ended up being fairly evenly split (48% for, 52% against), I certainly wouldn't use it as evidence of anything.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 2:12 pm
So the experts' and professionals' opinions are "tainted" because they are involved? Even you must see that this makes no sense whatsoever. The reason these people are professionals is that they can set aside their personal opinions and do their jobs.

And then you cite a TV stations online poll as evidence that people oppose SIS's? Do you have any idea how these polls are conducted (I use that term very loosely)? Even though this one ended up being fairly evenly split (48% for, 52% against), I certainly wouldn't use it as evidence of anything.
No, not that, the other side is attacking their pro-site studies as biased due to vested interests and that they are actively only looking for other stats that confirm their position. I'm not saying just because they are in the field it's tainted from the start.

Again re the recent CTV phone/internet polls, it's a good indication but all polls are not precise; anyway, it's a max of 78% against.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6319 posts
490 upvotes
Toronto
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 2:29 pm
Again re the recent CTV phone/internet polls, it's a good indication but all polls are not precise; anyway, it's a max of 78% against.
The CTV poll result is here http://www.ctvnews.ca/more/poll-results

The result:

Do you support safe drug injection sites?
Yes 2397 (48 %)
No 2603 (52 %)

Total number of votes: 5000
Newbie
Jan 26, 2014
40 posts
3 upvotes
Toronto
It's about time Toronto gets an Insite clinic. If I or any loved ones were to end up addicted to injecting heroin, these sites would help prevent the spread of disease and overdose. I used to go to ryerson public school and there were plenty of addicts throwing used needles in the park next door. I remember as a teenager, having to contact a staff at the community centre to pick up some of the needles strewn about. I remember the staff carrying an almost full Sharp's container full of needles. I asked him how often does he find needles and he said often. Sites like these wouldhave an added bonus of helping dispose of these needles safely.

I also think having a familiar face at the clinic would overtime help establish a relationship to encourage getting treatment. The main negative would be the "not in my backyard" mentality.

Drug addiction is a reality and unless there is a better way to deal with the reality of disease transmission, overdose, dirty needles in the open, we should strongly encourage having Insite clinics.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 2:36 pm
The CTV poll result is here http://www.ctvnews.ca/more/poll-results

The result:

Do you support safe drug injection sites?
Yes 2397 (48 %)
No 2603 (52 %)

Total number of votes: 5000
I'm not sure which one is more updated; you can refer to my links from past posts.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6319 posts
490 upvotes
Toronto
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 2:48 pm
I'm not sure which one is more updated; you can refer to my links from past posts.
You may have looked at the "poll" at a particular point in time, while it was still open, to get your number. However, the results are in my post above and, as you can see, are not "overwhelming" in either direction.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7367 posts
921 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 2:53 pm
You may have looked at the "poll" at a particular point in time, while it was still open, to get your number. However, the results are in my post above and, as you can see, are not "overwhelming" in either direction.
Np, I can accept that. Still a majority of ppl against.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
is61>
Now I know you're trolling. No one can be so anal and verbose, unless they have absolutely no life. Also, I'm calling you out. No one can be so aggressively passionate about sites if they don't have someone in their life being a user. Too bad you can't prove a negative but you can continue pretending to have an objective view when you don't. The only 2 groups that are as vocal in extreme support for sites are those in the field and users. You're not in the field and I assume not a user, so the only deduction is that you have someone that is... I can see ppl supporting sites but the way you vehemently deny everything makes you worse than an OJ juror.
Your myopia is hilarious. I literally laughed out loud when I read that.

YOU started this thread, have been in it since the beginning, and have been responding to several people. I joined it when it was already several pages long. If your conclusion is that my many responses show that I'm passionate and therefore not objective, than what does that show about you? That you're even less objective? If I have to have a vested interest, what's your vested interest for starting the thread and having a greater degree of participation?

I don't know any addicts. The closest I can think of is a guy I went to high school with. After school he got a drug habit, started breaking into cars, went to jail, found Jesus, and cleaned up. I haven't talked to him for at least 15 years, but I did read his story on the Gideon's website. He runs a church recovery program now.

The truth is that I'm simply a stubborn know-it-all, and I have a long post history that will prove this.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Re police's stance on public order, I'm not denying that but you do have reading comprehension prbs. I'm saying that the local police states that it may have improved public order, but they didn't say anything about the site itself.
Yes, it does. If they say Insite improves pubic order, then that's saying something about Insite itself. If you're trying to say that you want the police to be making statements about the health effects, or their moral opinions of SIS, then nope, that's irrelevant. I'm not really sure what else you expect the police to say about Insite.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
However, the pro-site group is using that as meaning that police support the site, which is not being truthful.
No. The fact that police support Insite as a means to increase public order, all that's saying is that police support Insite as a means to increase public order. They're not saying that they morally support it, and I wouldn't care at all if they did or did not. We don't base laws on the moral opinions of police officers.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
As for the huge spike of users getting treatment, you are just being simplistic (akin to the 'public order' comment).
Sometimes simple things are true. Your job is to provide evidence that demonstrates my position is wrong, not that some supporting facts are simple.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Ofc there will be an increase of that since they are in the site! What next, you step in the shower and there's an increase of getting wet?
Facepalm. You seem to think that Insite is treatment. It's not. It's a safe injection site. They can talk to staff and get information about treatment options, then get signed up for it, and go to it. It's an effective means of getting more people into treatment, reducing drug use. It's not automatic as you somehow seem to think, they are free to inject drugs in there and not sign up for treatment, and not ask for information about it.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
I'm just echoing what even pro-site ppl are saying, i.e. that the primary purpose is for 'harm reduction', not curing of this addiction.
Yes, the only purpose is harm reduction. Increased avenues to treatment is one of the pillars of a harm reduction strategy. You seem to think that "harm reduction" and "curing addiction" are two separate things. Treatment options is part of harm reduction.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Nope, reasonable, educated, and intelligent people will see that having sites is problematic due to its very nature/methods and need to be convinced.
We do need to be convinced. I was against Insite at first until I educated myself on its results and effects. I found there practically no downside and a tremendous amount of positives, so I changed my opinion in the face of evidence. I actually are about the people who get HIV, HepC, and those who die on the street.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
The recent polls overwhelming are against your pro-site side.
No, as shown above. No, because it's a non-random and non-scientific poll anyway, and it doesn't matter because that's just an appeal to popularity. Educated opinions matter more than ignorant ones.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
You may think that you have the majority
In Vancouver, I'm quite certain that I do. But it doesn't matter, I care about saving lives, not fickle public opinion.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
as usually ppl w/ ulterior motives and vested interests are most vocal.
Exactly, this is why your non-random polls are completely irrelevant. It's pathetic that you keep bringing them up to support your nonsense when people are dying.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
You can get technical all you want again but the fact of the matter is that the site *enables*, or don't, e.g.,


You should just use words correctly. Then I wouldn't have to point out your errors, it would save me some time.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
nurses help them w/ the needles?


What on earth do you imagine happens in there? You think there's nurses that inject drugs into client's arms? Don't be ridiculous. They are provided a clean needle, alcohol swabs, a place to dispose of this stuff after. Staff doesn't help them do drugs.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Funny how you try to wiggle out of every single pt when it's clear you are wrong.
Hasn't happened. I actually know what I'm talking about.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
What's next, the sun isn't hot?


-crickets-
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Your wife-beating example just shows how warped your thinking is, no need to address that as it's self-evident.


That's the sound of you wiggling...
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Here's the thing: all sides here have vested interests, but even taking ALL the pro-site evidence into account, it is quite slight and not clear-cut to turn it into a no-brainer,
No, it's overwhelmingly a no-brainer. It saves money and lives, what's the negative that's more important than that?
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
yet you foolishly think that there are no downsides at all and wonder w/ amazement why ppl don't readily accept this controversial idea.
That's a lie. I think there's downsides, I listed them for you in one post, and I've demonstrated how they're all invalid or insufficient to justify wasting money and letting people die.

You're so embarrassed at how weak the support is for your argument that you'd rather focus on flawed opinion polls. Why exactly do you care what ignorant people think when we could be saving money and lives?
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
There are sources attacking the pro-sites' data and it makes sense because those in the field have vested interests.
Yes, vested interests in saving lives, preventing infection, and saving money.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Still, even assuming that most of those attacks are baseless, that some of them have grounds shows that the data is tainted and can be self-serving.
Nope. If you think that, then show which complaints have valid grounds and which data is tainted. People against Insite can do research. In fact, the RCMP was tremendously concerned with the project, did their own research, and even from their nominally-against-SIS bias, came to the conclusion that the sites were beneficial overall.
tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
Going back to vested interests, ppl in the field ofc want to have more funding/influence/and also believing that sites actually work; users ofc think sites are great, that's a given, vs those Drug Free America/Australia/etc groups that are against, because they are against drugs. Which of these sides are more objective and have less personal bias on this issue?
I don't care one bit. The side that has the most bias could be right or wrong, considering bias is not a valid method for finding truth. Impartial scientific research is what's most important, since the scientific method has mechanisms to reduce the effect of the bias of the researcher. Insite has been studied in detail, using high quality methods, by people who support it and oppose it, and the results are clear. Insite saves lives, gets people into treatment, reduces hepC and HIV infections, and saves money.

tranquility922 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2016 12:55 am
It's just delusional to have your insistence that there are only +ives for sites and absolute no -ives. Obviously not as this is a hard sell in TO, hence the consultations. Finally, ironically, your last para fits you to a 'T'.
No, it doesn't. I change my opinion when faced with evidence. I have before on SIS and other issues. Your arguments have been pathetic, seriously.

Flawed opinion polls that are irrelevant anyway;
an immoral argument that it's somehow moral to let people die;
the repeated, yet unsupported, suggestion that VPD are opposed;
the incorrect assumption that nurses help users do drugs;
the "It would be better to have a unicorn" argument;
the belief that failure to understand "enable" is a valid argument against safe injection sites;

am I missing anything?

Please, if you respond to just one thing about this post, list the strongest argument you think you have, the one that justifies letting people die unnecessarily.

Top