Supervised Injection Sites

Thanks for the argument Jake! (The Fool and I have been good friends for a number of years now but he never admits it as to keep the integrity of his internet persona, which I find a bit silly) Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to this handsome debate where I will essentially be arguing that the Harm Reduction of Supervised Injection Sights is so small it is irrelevant, and that greater principles and goods are sacrificed because of it. I'll start with Rebuttal: Jake's first idea: Supervised Injection sites have health Benefits! They like cut down on the spread of Aids and HIV! You're right, they do cut down the spread of AIDS, but not significantly. My main issue with with what you said is that many of the people who would attend the sites are already burdened with many infectious diseases. One usually contracts HIV or AIDS a few weeks after beggining drug use, that is because at the beggining stage they only obtain their drugs by being given them. Almost all drug addicts start out by sharing needles, usually at a party with a large group of people. So by the time you hit rock bottom and finally decide to go to a site, you already have HIV or AIDS. Jake also never told us how this stops drug addicts for exchanging HIV/AIDS by other means than needles. He is wrong when he says the main cause of disease circulation is by needles, they only account for 1 in 5 cases of diseases amongst illicit drug users [1]. This goes to show that HIV and AIDS amongst the illegal drug user community will still be rampant, even if Supervised Injection Sites are put in place. I always hate using statistics, but there is evidence that shows disease has not decreased among drug users in the US despite Supervised Injection Sites [3]. Jake's Second Idea: They are going to do it anyways It is unusual of Jake to adopt this "If you can't beat them join them" policy. When an unwanted activity (such as child abuse) is going on in a society, we make it harder, not easier for that activity to be carried out. For example, rape will always be carried out in a society, it doesn't mean we supply them with a condom to make it safer for the victim (Jakey boys first argument) and duct tape to make it safer for the rapist. What I'm getting at is it is not right to sacrifice expediency for principle. Society has declared itself against drug use, and society must actively resist all forms of drug use, and leave it to the law to stop them (We need to change our policy towards the laws approach to drug users, not facilitate it in sites). Jakes Third Idea: This helps Drug users quit I'm not entirely sure how this is true. Jake straight up lied when he said they are weaned off the drug; the sites don't supply you with drugs, it's a bring-your-own-drug-policy. No less harmful versions of the drugs are offered, and the quantity of the administered drug isn't regulated. Drug users normally enter a Supervised Injection Site shaky irritated and in no mental position to have a conversation with, let alone of discussing of getting off the drug they are so dependant on (remember many of them aren't able to entertain the notion of quitting). When they leave they are hopelessly inebriated on a powerful drug and extremely incoherent. Where in that time frame does any sort of discussion or counseling happen? Remember, a large theme of this debate is that it is pointless to decrease the side effects of powerful drug without decreasing the use of the drug itself; even if there were no infectious diseases, no public safety threats or gang problems from Heroine, it would still be awful because the substance itself is 10 times more destructive than any of the health issues it presents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll give a few brief arguments Canada's action against drugs is more important than the health concern This is legalizing drug use in a certain area, making the police unable to stop it. Now anyone can go into a building and commit a criminal offense with immunity. This means that a large amount of drug addicts will not receive treatment, because usually they are found, arrested, and then faced with either rehab or jail. The existing status quo allows the law to force addicts into rehab and that's exactly what they need. With an addiction as strong as heroine use, the user has shown no ability to personally resist it, and thats exactly what the sites de-tox program rely on. Jail is a better place to get clean than Insites (the existing Injection Site) exclusive de-tox clinic that can only service 12 people. Supervised Injection Sites give the appearance of dealing with Drug abuse but don't deal with any of the less tangible issues such as: -Drug Gangs -Youth abusers (They never go to a SIS, understandably) -Pregnant Abusers (They can walk in and use heroine as much as they want without the police being able to stop them-even if some drug users are overlooked pregnant abusers have priority and are immediately arrested and kept in a drug free environment, as are all high risk abusers) -Collapsed veins -Crime involving drugs -Drug dealing Maybe you could support Drug use if it dealt with these issues. And most importantly...THEY ARE STILL INJECTING HEROINE INTO THEIR BODIES, WHICH IS WORSE THAN ANY HEALTH BENIFIT FROM SUPERVISED INJECTION SITE, AND THE LAW CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT Sorry, my cat, Boots just jumped on the Caps Lock Key. Refrences: 1.http://www.thirteen.org... 3.http://www.redorbit.com...