News (Media Awareness Project) - CN BC: LTE: Drug Treatment Centres Should Be The Priority |
| Title: | CN BC: LTE: Drug Treatment Centres Should Be The Priority |
| Published On: | 2003-01-07 |
| Source: | Vancouver Sun (CN BC) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-01-21 15:17:32 |
DRUG TREATMENT CENTRES SHOULD BE THE PRIORITY
The Jan. 4 article "Safe injection sites will draw key users" says only 37
per cent of the addicts surveyed were interested in using a safe injection
site. It seems like an awful lot of money to spend on an initiative that
the large majority of intravenous drug users have no interest in supporting.
The reality is that all addicts, whether they use safe injection sites or
not, will still have to use whatever means they are using now to buy drugs.
Safe injection sites will do nothing to alleviate the crime problem
associated with drugs.
According to statistics by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, there
were 181 overdose deaths in 1999 despite all the money being spent on harm
reduction initiatives. That was a decrease from the early 1990s, but
overdose deaths in Vancouver are also down from what they were then when
strong heroin was on the market.
Addicts who have used safe injection sites told me they were convenient
because the dealers were close by. They could push the envelope on how high
they could get because they knew someone would be there to revive them.
Proponents have stated the sites will bring addicts into contact with
health services that will help them get into treatment. Do they not realize
we don't have enough beds for those who would like to go into treatment now?
As a recovering addict who has talked to many other addicts in recovery,
particularly those who were IV drug users, one thing is clear. By the time
one gets to a point of shooting drugs regularly, they are very aware of
what services are available. The only thing that can help them to change
their life is desire -- and that has to come from within. Addicts in
recovery tell me that is a largely attainable goal with supportive treatment.
The question comes down to whether taxpayers want to fund programs that
enable drug use. If a loved one was drug addicted, would you rather there
be an adequate treatment support system or would you rather the money be
spent on programs that caretake them while they continue to destroy their
lives using drugs?
Barry Joneson
Burnaby
The Jan. 4 article "Safe injection sites will draw key users" says only 37
per cent of the addicts surveyed were interested in using a safe injection
site. It seems like an awful lot of money to spend on an initiative that
the large majority of intravenous drug users have no interest in supporting.
The reality is that all addicts, whether they use safe injection sites or
not, will still have to use whatever means they are using now to buy drugs.
Safe injection sites will do nothing to alleviate the crime problem
associated with drugs.
According to statistics by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, there
were 181 overdose deaths in 1999 despite all the money being spent on harm
reduction initiatives. That was a decrease from the early 1990s, but
overdose deaths in Vancouver are also down from what they were then when
strong heroin was on the market.
Addicts who have used safe injection sites told me they were convenient
because the dealers were close by. They could push the envelope on how high
they could get because they knew someone would be there to revive them.
Proponents have stated the sites will bring addicts into contact with
health services that will help them get into treatment. Do they not realize
we don't have enough beds for those who would like to go into treatment now?
As a recovering addict who has talked to many other addicts in recovery,
particularly those who were IV drug users, one thing is clear. By the time
one gets to a point of shooting drugs regularly, they are very aware of
what services are available. The only thing that can help them to change
their life is desire -- and that has to come from within. Addicts in
recovery tell me that is a largely attainable goal with supportive treatment.
The question comes down to whether taxpayers want to fund programs that
enable drug use. If a loved one was drug addicted, would you rather there
be an adequate treatment support system or would you rather the money be
spent on programs that caretake them while they continue to destroy their
lives using drugs?
Barry Joneson
Burnaby
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
