Off Topic

Toronto Board of Health Endorses Intravenous Drug Injection Sites

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 9th, 2017 11:44 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 14, 2005
11019 posts
1520 upvotes
City of Vancouver
Archanfel wrote:
Aug 16th, 2017 7:34 am
..I fully support people's free choice to use whatever drugs they want. However, freedom comes with responsibilities. It's time they pay for their choices.
People shouldn't be free to use whatever drugs they want precisely because they are irresponsible. Same thing applies to children. U see certain types with tons of children, all on welfare and probably with fetal alcohol syndrome, living off the taxpayers for the rest of their lives.
De gustibus non est disputandum
Crazy people will make even sane people crazy.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4787 posts
349 upvotes
Becks wrote:
Aug 18th, 2017 9:41 pm
People shouldn't be free to use whatever drugs they want precisely because they are irresponsible. Same thing applies to children. U see certain types with tons of children, all on welfare and probably with fetal alcohol syndrome, living off the taxpayers for the rest of their lives.
There are good reasons that children don't have same freedom as we do. You can't treat adults like children or we will lose the freedom we enjoy. Today is drug, tomorrow it might be smoke and alcohol. Then junk food. Then skiing. Where does it end?

My point is that they shouldn't be on welfare. Lots of rich people use drugs. As long as they can pay for it, I don't see anything wrong with it. As for those who can't afford it, "heads, spikes, walls."
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
26203 posts
6061 upvotes
GTHA
Toronto's first sanctioned supervised injection site will open on Monday morning near Yonge-Dundas Square. The future of the recently opened pop-up injection site at Moss Park is now uncertain. Amanda Ferguson has the details.

Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
I'm a little confused...i thought the benefit of this was that it prevented the spread of diseases-hiv/aids-by providing clean safe places to inject drugs. Well I just stumbled across a study from 2012 which showed that injection sites had no impact on the rate of Infections amongst users. Here is a little blurb from that...

"A further study examined more closely the link between using the needle and syringe programme and becoming infected with HIV by following up 870 injectors initially free of the virus. Whilst those who attended the service frequently were more likely to become infected than those who did not, this was fully explained by the fact that frequent attendees were at higher risk in the first place, including unstable housing and injecting cocaine daily; there was no evidence that attendance in itself increased risk of infection".

Now this was a study defending the safe injection sites despite their failure to affect infection rates...but doesn't that just suggest that HIV infections of drug users are not caused specifically by dirty needles but by their general behavior/lifestyle?
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
Found an article in which a doctor at St.Mikes said that safe injection sites could prevent 150 hiv infections. He of course did not mention the time span of this...is it over a year, 5 years, a decade or a century?

Now, an Ontario gov publication from 2008 shows that there were 30 hiv infections from drug needles that year. Since then the number infected by needles has been dropping....but let's stick with 30. Now, let's just assume that 1/2 of those are infected in Toronto...it would take 10 years to prevent 150 new infections if safe injection sites are 100% effective. The sis will serve an estimated 10,000 users at a base cost of $11,000/year. So, if the sites are 100% successful they will prevent 15 infections per year at a cost of $110mil or 1.1 billion over a decade.

Seems like a pretty expensive harm management program to me...especially since it will never be 100% effective...since the the previous study showed that lifestyle was a bigger factor than just dirty needles in drug user hiv infections...and since there is no way to know if those who are said to have been infected by drug needles actually were infected by drug needles and not, for example, by unprotected prostitution for drug money.
Sr. Member
Aug 21, 2011
788 posts
181 upvotes
I'd love to see the money going towards getting people off drugs, getting real help and prevention programs rather than safety programs that just further normalize the criminal act.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
Notice how the supporters of the safe injection sites kept falling back on research and telling those of us who are against the program to justify our views yet when I provide evidence the supporters are no where to be found?
Sr. Member
Jan 9, 2010
791 posts
170 upvotes
I'm going to be the one to say it and not dance around the topic.

"Maybe some people do deserve to die? Isn't that the whole point of natural selection?"

There, I said it. *flame suit on*
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
16268 posts
1734 upvotes
Langley
silky28 wrote:
Sep 2nd, 2017 5:13 pm
Notice how the supporters of the safe injection sites kept falling back on research and telling those of us who are against the program to justify our views yet when I provide evidence the supporters are no where to be found?
I thought it was such an obvious failure of an argument that there was no point in even responding. But if you really want a response, I'm happy to provide one.

You're only looking at a single benefit in a program that provides more than one benefit. It's like if you were going to run a grocery store and a friend said that you'll never recoup your costs by selling eggs. You'd probably stare blankly at your friend for a minute, then try and kindly explain to him that you'd be selling more than just eggs.

This point is even before we consider how badly butchered your numbers are. I have no idea where you're getting 10k people at $11k each, but cost looks like $400k in startup and $1.6m/year for a 10 year cost of $16.4m.

I have CDC numbers for the lifetime cost of an HIV infection, at $379,668US which is currently $469,605.90CAD according to XE.com.

If the SIS prevents 150 HIV infections over 10 years, which you appear willing to concede, that will save $70 440 885CAD.

So at a cost of about $16m, over 10 years, we're looking at a long term savings of 70m in HIV infections alone.

And this is before we even consider the other infections that can be prevented, the lives that can be saved, and the success that these sites have had helping people get into rehab programs.

Thank for your research. Once your numbers were corrected, you've helped prove why SIS are a good thing.

Citations:
http://globalnews.ca/news/3169269/ontar ... n-toronto/
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/programresource ... index.html
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2012
2737 posts
297 upvotes
Ottawa
If the main goal was to reduce the spread of HIV and the associated costs, you wouldn't need a safe injection site. All you would need is a place where people could get free needles and a bin to take the old, used ones. Assuming they use an existing service counter (say, at a medical clinic) the costs would be a lot less.
[OP]
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jun 1, 2006
11048 posts
14533 upvotes
kevindurant1 wrote:
Aug 15th, 2017 2:14 pm
+1000000000

People will not listen until people start OD'ing left and right. Its just sad that it had to take bodies for people to open their mind.

The only one against this from the beginning was the conservatives. No one is promoting drug use but its here and needs to be dealt with.

This has ALWAYS been a health issue.
Vancouver has several drug injection sites yet its a record year for overdoses here. The drug injection sites are doing nothing to stop the overdoses.

All the drug injection sites doing is enabling drug users. They are doing nothing to get people off drugs which is the ultimate goal.
Have a nice day!


Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
i6s1 wrote:
Sep 5th, 2017 12:44 pm
I thought it was such an obvious failure of an argument that there was no point in even responding. But if you really want a response, I'm happy to provide one.

You're only looking at a single benefit in a program that provides more than one benefit. It's like if you were going to run a grocery store and a friend said that you'll never recoup your costs by selling eggs. You'd probably stare blankly at your friend for a minute, then try and kindly explain to him that you'd be selling more than just eggs.

This point is even before we consider how badly butchered your numbers are. I have no idea where you're getting 10k people at $11k each, but cost looks like $400k in startup and $1.6m/year for a 10 year cost of $16.4m.

I have CDC numbers for the lifetime cost of an HIV infection, at $379,668US which is currently $469,605.90CAD according to XE.com.

If the SIS prevents 150 HIV infections over 10 years, which you appear willing to concede, that will save $70 440 885CAD.

So at a cost of about $16m, over 10 years, we're looking at a long term savings of 70m in HIV infections alone.

And this is before we even consider the other infections that can be prevented, the lives that can be saved, and the success that these sites have had helping people get into rehab programs.

Thank for your research. Once your numbers were corrected, you've helped prove why SIS are a good thing.

Citations:
http://globalnews.ca/news/3169269/ontar ... n-toronto/
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/programresource ... index.html
The statistics, costs etc. Come from research papers that support the safe injection sites and from a doctor at St. Mikes hospital who, again, supports the program. And I only looked at the single issue because my goal was not to show that every aspect of the program is flawed but that the research is 100% biased. Researchers provide evidence which, if thought through, often undermines their conclusions yet un surprisingly they fail to contemplate the significance of it.

So the study shows that of 870 aids free drug injectors they followed those who attended the injection sites more frequently were more likely to become infected. The researchers of course downplayed this pointing to other factors that made frequent attendees higher risk....no evidence mind you just conjecture that those who use the place the most engage in riskier activities. They conclude that there is no evidence that attending the safe injection sites leads to an increase risk of infection.

Except for the study shows that those who use the sites most often DO get AIDS at a higher rate. And this opens the door to many possibilities the study ignored...the most obvious one being that life style is a bigger driver for HIV infection than drug injections for if someone is unwilling to attain for themselves clean needles when they inject are they likely to use condoms when they have sex? When they prostitute themselves out for drug money? And what about this - maybe the safe injection sites make it easier to do drugs which leads to an increased in the amount of drugs the 'customers' do. Because of this they need to raise more and more drug money so they begin to prostitute themselves which then leads to HIV infections?

Last question...how can we tell how effective the sites are at preventing HIV infections if there is no way to tell if a drug user was infected by a needle or by another means?
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2824 posts
83 upvotes
Toronto
I wonder if any studies have been undertaken on the possibility that the safe injection sites lead to an increase in the number of people who inject drugs? I'm sure one has not been done because the goal is only to show the benefits and effectiveness of the sites.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
26203 posts
6061 upvotes
GTHA
Councillors want more resources for safe injection sites

Top