It has been some time since I have done one of these articles and as a rule the reason for doing them is that something was said or done that really bothers me. This is one of those issues:
I recently came across an article from Ottawa and I quote “It is "unfortunate" that the province has stepped in to save a program that provides clean crack pipes to Ottawa drug addicts despite Ottawa city council's decision in July not to continue funding it, Mayor Larry O'Brien said through his spokesman.
A number of city councillors said they don't like the province's decision either.
The move by Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long-term Care is "in direct opposition to the direction of city council," O'Brien said in an e-mail via spokesperson Pat Uguccioni late Friday afternoon.
The province confirmed Friday it will provide $287,000 to run the program for the next 12 months.
The program is intended to reduce the sharing of used crack pipes and therefore the spread of diseases such as hepatitis C and AIDS, but the mayor has maintained in the past that there is no evidence that it works.” The city of Ottawa was also investing $7,500 per year in this project.
As much as I feel sorry for anyone with hepatitis C or HIV, it appears to me that this seems like a lot of money to spend on something that is illegal. ALS on the other hand is not illegal and I do not know of anyone who even, if they could get the disease, by using a crack pipe or any other method would want to get it. I think that money could be better used by getting the dealers off the street thus cutting off the supply of cocaine and heroin.
While researching this I came across another interesting fact and once again I quote “Prisons need needle exchange programs, OMA says”. I was under the impression that when you went to prison it was for the use and/or sale of drugs not to get into a place that supplies you with clean needles with which to inject illegal drugs.
Although rather long I would like to add this article to the mix:
HARM REDUCTION : THE OPPOSING VIEW
SGT./ REV. ANDRE BIGRAS
INTRODUCTION:
Everyone should be in favor of Harm Reduction especially if it accomplishes it's
aims and goals. Harm reduction is synonymous with drug use and is in all aspects
of the government's drug strategy. They are programs such as Needle Exchange,
Injection Sites, Cocaine Pipe Distribution, Wet Room for Severe Alcoholics,
Methadone Clinics, Medical Marijuana and the latest one is the Free Heroin
Project in Vancouver, etc.
Harm reduction is a complete paradigm shift from the goal of recovery, and
instead teaches one to use drugs in a less harmful way. Abstinence is almost non
existent in this new approach. Many people base their views on emotion and
ideology rather than on facts and experience in this new philosophy.
As a society, are we on the right track or should we re-examine the programs we
have in place?
Are they effective, are they accomplishing the goals set in place such as the
reduction of HIV/AIDS, of Hepatitis "C"?
Are they reducing drug use or are they encouraging use? In
AA, this could be considered enabling.
Let's examine them and see if they are bringing about the change that will
minimize the cost associated to them.
Canada's Drug Strategy defines harm reduction as:
"to reduce the harms associated with alcohol and other drugs to individuals,
family and communities."
William Penn wrote:
"Wrong is wrong even if everyone agrees with it
Right is right even if everyone is against it."
I would like to share my 11 years of experience and training in the area of
addiction, of working as a volunteer with the poor, homeless and addicts of the
inner city of Ottawa.. The following is what I perceived in the area of harm
reduction, drug use, abuse and of poverty.
We as a society are faced with constantly increasing health cost to the point
where we are questioning the sustainability of our health care program.
Possibly, there are ways to minimize cost especially if it is determined that we
are spending into programs that are not producing the positive results desired.
I will address what I see as those programs and let you decide their worth and
their effectiveness from what I've witnessed and learnt over the years. I'm
certain there is an opposing view and am open to it providing they can produce
scientific surveys to disprove my observations and what I have gleaned from
research.
NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS:
Let's begin with the Needle Exchange program that came about in the mid to late
80's. The goal was supposed to minimize the spread of HIV/AIDS and of Hepatitis
C. They began as a true exchange program, one dirty needle for a clean one to
ensure dirty needles were not left where children or others could be pricked by
them. The program has evolved to the point where we now give out 25 needles at a
time, now making it a needle distribution program versus an exchange program and
we now have crews that go to known injection drug user's sites to clean them up.
This manner of collection is considered "returned needles" rather that the true
"retrieve needle" program and we pay for it.
Returned needles can also come from diabetics and others who
have a medical need to inject. This creates a flaw
and does not give a true picture of given/return rate of needles. They do not
count them individually but arrive at anumber by the weight and level of needles seen in the used needles containers.
This also has room for errors and yet we are given very specific numbers of
needles returned. How much has this program cost over the years, across this
land given that Vancouver alone hands out over 2 million needles a year?
I will state the initial goals and aims of the needle exchange program was to
reduce and prevent the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Given the opposite has occurred,
they now state:"Imagine what it would be like if we didn't have a needle
exchange program."
What other medical program would survive with this type ofreasoning?
The statistics demonstrate clearly that they are not achieving the desired goals.
The needle exchange program might work well for heroin addicts
but not for cocaine addicts.
Ottawa is known as a cocaine town where 83% of intravenous drug users are women
and 76% of men are injecting cocaine (according to Lynn Leonards Community
Health Research Report of 2001). The needle exchange program does not work for
this segment of society as they may inject up to 15 to 20 times a day.
Cocaine users say they know that the needles are available but
when they are high on cocaine they just forget about safe injection. (Magner
1997)
I believe that explains why the rate of HIV positive has doubled from 10.3% in
1992 to 23% in 2000 in the Injection drug users attending the site needle
exchange program (according to Lynne Leonard's report).
She also stated that injection drug users accounted for 2% of HIV diagnoses between 1985 and 1988 and this up to the end of 1991. As of 1999 they now accounted for 17%.
The needle exchange began in the early 1990 and the results speak for themselves, while we were giving out needles the rate of HIV/AIDS rose from 2% to 23% which is not a very positive outcome of a program initiated to prevent and control the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Similar increased results were reported in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.
Have we attained the goals desired according to Canada's Drug
Strategy definition of harm reduction as:"to reduce the harms associated with
alcohol and other drugs to individuals, family and communities" and the goals of
the Needle
Exchange program to prevent and minimize and control the spread of HIV/AIDS and
Hepatitis C.
Diabetes affects two million Canadians. It is a chronic disease that has no
cure, It is the leading cause of death by disease in Canada, yet diabetics must
pay for their needles.
Somehow it just doesn't seem to add up.
SAFE INJECTION SITE:
The philosophy behind this is that we can't eliminate the use of hard drugs,
therefore let us try to minimize their consequences.
Given that same logic, the reality is that we can't stop rape either but do we consider trying to reduce it' consequences and provide the means to do it. We also have a problem with the sharing of straws to snort cocaine in that they can spread Hep "C" so should we also implement a straw exchange program?
According to the Canadian Press article written by Amy Carmichael on Dec 26th, 2003, she states that crack cocaine has hit the Vancouver streets and it is now estimated that 90% of intravenous drug users have Hep "C" and 30% are HIV positive.
They have now installed an inhalation room in the sanctioned injection facility and staff are now looking to allow people to smoke crack there. She goes on to state that Maxine Davis, director for Dr. Peter Center have been running an illegal supervised injection site for years. She states that 5 users have quit during the year and a half that the center has offered supervised injection service. I applaud the five who have made a positive health choice but question if five is an acceptable number over that time frame.
Vancouver presently has an safe injection site pilot program to study it's effectiveness. Right at the start, the name contradicts itself in that there is no such thing as a safe injection site when one injects unknown illegal drugs into their body. The illegal drug is as dangerous as the manner in which they are taken. Another thing to consider is that today's cocaine dose can be the overdose of tomorrow. One never knows how the body will react especially to cocaine.
Remove one fang from a rattle snake and it is still as deadly is
an analogy that is similar.
One newspaper referred to the safe injection site having 12 stalls instead of
cubicles where addicts can shoot up. His
choice of words makes me wonder if we look upon the addict as animals instead of
human beings suffering from the disease of addiction. Is the benefit of a safe
site more symbolic than practical?
Given cocaine is the drug of choice over heroin in the drug injection user
population, will the addict wait in line for
hours at a time given he may have to inject 15 to 20 times a day if on a binge?
Given Vancouver has approximately 5000 injection drug users but can accommodate
only 248 per day, if they are open 12 hours given they have only 12 cubicles and
usually a person is given ½ hour at a time. What happens to the rest especially
those who are cocaine injection users who binge?.
Does this really provide a service or is it only window
dressing or worse big business using an illness to achieve their goals?
This program goes against and violates the UN organization's international
agreement on ways to control drug abuse.
It also goes against the Criminal Code Sec 462.2 which deals with: "{Offence}
Everyone who knowingly imports into Canada, exports from Canada, manufactures,
promotes or sells instruments or literature for illicit drug use is guilty of an
offence and liable on summary conviction
a) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars or
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both; or
b) for s second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding three hundred
thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to
both."
In an article in the Globe and Mail on January 1, 2004, an individual drug user
was suing his dealer for his addiction,
poor health, emotional and financial problems. Will the governments eventually
be held accountable for enabling and
assisting addicts in their addiction? Cigarette companies in the USA didn't
believe they could be held accountable until they were fined in the billions of
dollars. Food for thought.
This program has been introduced after studying the Frankfurt Germany
experience. Let's take a closer look and examine what is happening with the
Frankfurt program. It was fortunate tohave a member from the RCMP Drug Awareness
Program from British Columbia attend and report back first hand what he observed
and what is happening with the injection sites in Frankfurt while attending the
conference with the Institute on Global Drug Policy. Here are excerpts from this
conference and from the member's observation :
Conference: The Institute On Global Drug Policy issued a press release on May 7,
2001.
They stated:
"Softening of drug policy, which has been termed 'Harm Reduction' was identified
as a major failure of international
drug policy. Examples of failed policies which were discussed include
decriminalization of some drugs, needle exchange or hand outs, heroin
maintenance, non-abstinence based treatment and prevention messages which accept
drug use or encourage drug use in adolescence as inevitable. 'Harm Reduction'
policy is resulting in increasing drug use and crime throughout countries, which
have implemented it. Specifically, Canada, Holland, Switzerland, Australia and
some cities in the United States. It is clear that the fallout of soft drug
policy particularly threatens the well being of adolescents."
Dr Eric Voth, a presenter at the conference stated: " It is increasingly clear
that 'Harm Reduction' policy should
be regarded as 'Harm Production' policy. Effective drug policy should instead
embrace 'Harm Prevention' and 'Harm
Elimination'."
Member: In Frankfurt "In the early 1990's the mayor was approached by the
business community who wanted to make Frankfurt a world banking center if they
could get rid of the drug users from the park." They were estimated to be
approximately 12,000.
"- In 1991, hundreds of extra uniform police were brought into the city to start
cleaning up the park." Through enforcement they displaced the problem from
Frankfurt to the outside areas.
"- 1993 the overdose rate within the city limits dropped dramatically (from 127
to 68), as had the number of users
allowed to stay in the city. We were unable to determine how this affected the
overdose rates in the many communities next to Frankfurt as the other users
moved out. However, we were able to determine that the overdose rate for all
Germany has continued to rise."
What brought down the death rate, the injection sites or the fact that a large
number of addicts left the immediate area? This must be determined before
we can claim success of the injection site program.
Here are some interesting facts with regards to Drug Injection sites ( DIS):
"Many addicts are now poly drug users injecting a mixture of heroin, cocaine and
benzodiazepines (Frankfurt cocktail), the heroin is between 7% and 12% and the
cocaine around 30%."
"An increase in cocaine use has started to present problems. One
DIS manager is changing his staff from three shifts of four to two shifts of six
due to an increase in violence associate to use of cocaine. Although this will
shorten the number of hours they are open, he believes safety of his staff is
more important."
" Each DIS is different in size. The largest one has 12 injection spots. Each
user is allowed to use the slot
approximately 30 minutes. They are open 14 hours per day. This allows a maximum
of 336 injections ( some repeat users) per day in that site. With all four
sites, the maximum injections would be around 900 per day. They estimate that
the total number of addicts in the city is back around 10,000."
That leaves approximately 9,100 who don't use the facilities.
"There is a line up of users in the street outside each DIS every morning
waiting to get into the DIS. Due to the limited number of people allowed to
enter the DIS at the same time, users often inject outside rather than wait for
their turn."
After the DIS's close, users hang out in groups on the sidewalks near them.
Drug are openly injected in these areas
until the wee hours of the morning.
- Drug dealers come to the areas near the DIS's to sell drugs.
- Although the overdose rate in Frankfurt remains low, the rate of Hep C
infection is over 90%.
- The budget for the system used in Frankfurt is approximately 12 million
dollars per year."
Were all these drawbacks examined along with the perceived benefits?
This Vancouver injection program and site alone cost between $900.000 to $1.5
million per year and already they say that the need is to have at least 4 in the
East Hasting neighborhood.. Can this money not be spent in more innovative ways
to encourage people to quit and educate others to not become involved . Is our
tax money being spent wisely and effectively? After one year, if like Dr.
Peter's Center only a small percentage of people quit means that the greater
percentage will still have to use it. It will be a continuous drain and will
only grow in numbers. The cycle will continue.
It is stated that these types of programs will not increase usage but I only
look at the former Vancouver East Hasting
area, when we stopped enforcing and permitted that behavior to go on unchecked,
we now see the results. How can we be so certain that this program will not have
a negative impact?
Provide the way and they will come.
METHADONE AND OXICODIN PROGRAM:
Methadone is a powerful narcotic analgesic pain killer that is given to replace
heroin or morphine as this takes away the craving for those drugs and alleviates
withdrawal symptoms, yet doesn't give the high associated with heroin. Some
people have basically replaced the illegal drug with a prescription drug and
have been on methadone for years. Have we really resolved the drug issue in that
person's life?. It should also be noted that withdrawal from methadone is more
severe that heroin.
Methadone was supposed to be given temporarily with the goal of abstinence but with the miserable rate of successful withdrawal the new focus is now on "maintenance" where the addicts take the drug until they decide to quit if ever.
Another irony is that methadone does not stop addicts using
other drugs. A 1995 survey of 47 Methadone Users by the
Melbourne Drug Rehabilitation facility in Odyssey House found
that none had stopped using illicit narcotics. Is methadone
only a band aid solution to cover a deep infection and fails to
treat it?
In Ottawa, according to an article in the Ottawa Citizen, James
Gordon's article on July 6th, 2004 states that there are between
800 and 1,200 people on waiting list for treatment that are
addicted to heroin and codeine. This is supposedly above the
ones already receiving treatment. Lynne Leornard report of 2001
states that there are approximately 3,500 injection drug users in
Ottawa. She also stated that Ottawa was a cocaine city where
83% of women and 76% of men injection drug users use cocaine.
If you average that percentage out it is approximately 79.5% and
that is 2600 hundred people who inject cocaine out of the 3,500.
There are others that are on speed and other injectable drugs
along with people already being treated. If you remove the ones
on cocaine it leaves only 900 injection drug users. Given we
already have programs in place, how can we still have between
800 and 1,200 on a waiting list. When one studies in this area,
the numbers rarely add up.
In Prince Albert's Pine Grove Correctional Center Saskatchewan
they have a methadone program. One of the inmate vomited up her
dose so that another inmate could consume it. Sonia Faith
Keepness died from an apparent overdose seeing the dosage was too
strong for her. Drug addiction is what drove Sonia to this
irrational behavior, to denigrate herself. How can we call this
type of situation compassionate?
In line with methadone, there are other clinics that are now
supplying opioids, narcotic prescribed drugs as a form of Harm
Reduction. This is done under the guise of helping users live
as normal a life as possible. In Ottawa, we had a local doctor
prescribing morphine based drugs such as oxicontin under the Harm
Reduction banner. He was found to be incompetent and had his
licence to prescribe narcotics banned for two years and then to
be re-evaluated. " His inadequate control of the drug supply was
mirrored by the "physical chaos" of his office which was so
disorganized that patient charts were lost. His careless
practices put his patients at risk" is how Dr. Pennington
concluded. Is this really a harm reduction program or is it a
harm production problem, causing more drugs to be hitting the
streets. It is time to re-evaluate the whole harm reduction
philosophy and also the cost involved, then sit down and see if
there is not a better way of doing business.
CRACK COCAINE DISTRIBUTION KITS:
In Vancouver and Toronto, we have the approved Crack Cocaine
distribution kits which contain, a crack pipe, condoms,
vaseline, and vitamin C for your health, along with educational
material, again all in the name of Harm Reduction. In Toronto,
the original crack pipe had copper tips and were recalled for
health reasons seeing when the copper is heated up creates a
health hazard.
The reason for these kits being distributed is that without the proper pipes, the user would burn and cut their lips which would create open sores that could lead to HIV/AIDS or Hep "C" if they shared it or had oral sex. If this wasn't so serious, if would be laughable.
Cocaine can kill you the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 10th time, you never know yet we play with the lives of these addicts. Crack cocaine is one the most addictive drugs.
Paranoia, a common effect of cocaine use can cause violent and erratic behavior. Sometimes users experience 'coke bugs' imaginary bugs crawling over their skin. Crack causes euphoria followed quickly by sadness, depression, irritability, sleeplessness and paranoia. The final stage is schizophrenic like psychosis complete with delusions and often hallucinations and we hand out crack pipe to save our youth from HIV/AIDS and Hep "C'. It's okay if they go crazy as long as they don't have these terminal diseases. Whether clean pipe or not, whether legal or illegal, the effects and reactions do not change.
How much is this program costing us financially and with wasted
lives?.
It reminds me of the Pied Piper taking our kids down the road to
doom except we are handing them the pipe to do it to themselves.
At the Senate hearing on Drugs chaired by Senator Nolin, Senator
Ed Lawson recommended that heroin and cocaine be made available
in liquor stores. What about the above effects of the drugs on
human beings?
WET ROOM / CONTROL DRINKING PROGRAM:
This program is available in Toronto at Seaton House and in
Ottawa at the Shephards of Good Hope Shelter.
It entails giving severe alcoholics, (those chosen) alcohol on a daily basis. When this program was introduced in Ottawa, the Citizen Newspaper article of February 12th, 2001 reported on it with an article entitled "Treating Alcoholics with Alcohol".
The very first sentence quoting Mary Cleary in charge of the program said it all: "10 chronic alcoholics being served the very thing that's killing them * alcohol."
They serve 5 ounce glasses of Brights 74 sherry once an hour up
to 14 drinks per day. This is called an Harm Reduction Program.
This is not a closed program, the participants have their drink
then can leave and return one hour later for the next. What
they do or take in between, no one knows for sure.
Alcohol to an alcoholic is poison whether it is sherry or
mouthwash. The liver cannot distinguish one from the other.
"She went on to state that within the first month, the
participants wanted showers, saw doctors and dentist, got
haircuts, took care of themselves."
In other words, we had clean drunks.
Here are the statistics for one year according to a Citizen
article dated July 19th, 2003.
It states that out of 20 participants, five people have gone
through the program whatever that means, 10 who, after
successfully finishing the program died from illnesses, mainly
irreversible liver damage and 5 others have relapsed. I will let
the results speak for themselves but this program cost over
$300,000 per year. We do not even know if any have quit drinking
yet we are told the program is a success, my question is a
success for who?
A health worker for the City of Ottawa sent me an e-mail in
response to mine indicating that she has "yet to meet a homeless
injection drug user who is not HEP "C" positive and most of the
street alcoholics are similarly infected", which leads me to my
next but most critical point about this program.
In the Canadian Liver Foundation Hepatitis "C" brochure, it
states:
"The disease progresses more quickly if the infected person
regularly drinks alcohol."
Is it a coincidence that 10 participants in the program died of
irreversible liver damage given the above?
It goes on to say:
"Most patients who acquire hepatitis "C" as adults, and who DO
NOT REGULARLY DRINK ALCOHOL, will never develop any life
threatening complications or die from Hepatic disease."
It further states:
"The most important aspect of keeping healthy is preventing any
further damage to the liver. Alcohol (including spirits, wine,
beer, light beer) is potentially harmful to the liver and should
be avoided. Regular use of alcohol allows the virus to grow
more readily in the liver and in the blood, so it's essential if
you have advanced cirrhosis not to drink alcohol. If you have
mild hepatitis "C", you may drink occasionally, but no more than
two drinks in one day."
"Many patients ask if there is a special diet once they are diagnosed with hepatitis "C"?
The most important dietary recommendation is to stop using alcohol because the virus progresses more rapidly in people who drink alcohol." I think when one recognizes that most patients have Hepatitis "C", its obvious that this program is not conducive to Health Canada's definition of Harm Reduction: "to reduce the harms associated with alcohol and other drugs to individuals, family and communities."
In light of the above, shouldn't we call this a euthanasia
program instead of an Harm Reduction program, which it really is?
FREE HEROIN DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM:
This is the latest Harm Reduction Pilot Program with an $8.1
million dollar three year budget. This program will be in
Vancouver's East Hasting area and will have 158 drug users and
this is set to begin at the end of 2004. The clinic will have
extraordinary high levels of security and the heroin will be
delivered by armed truck. 88 people will receive heroin and 70
will receive methadone. The want to evaluate if
heroin-maintenance therapy will provide a viable option for
chronic heroin users. They base their need for this type of
program on similar European projects where they say that heroin
users have returned to school, stopped committing crimes and
there is less spreading of infectious disease seeing they get
their daily dose.
It's only a matter of time before we entertain this idea with all other drugs.
In the Heroin Distribution in Switzerland, the analysis of the Scientific Value
of the Evaluation by Ernst Aeschbach, M.D., he states in his conclusion:
"The assertions of positive results from the Swiss Heroin Distribution Projects are inconsistent with the goal of abstinence."
"The improvements in the health, social and other conditions of the addicts are welcome. However, the evaluation does not establish that they are due to heroin distribution. The decrease in delinquency among the participants as often heard argument in support of the projects, is not borne out by the statistics.
The data show that whatever decrease in criminal activity by those participating in the Projects was not unique to them, but were consistent with similar patterns observed in connection with other community groups. The objective of incorporating the "severely addicted" as participants in the Projects was not achieved."
"The unprofessional use of the media is illustrated by the appearance of a Project Director on a television show in Australia in which he blithely proclaimed success before the Final Report of the evaluators has even been presented."
"Switzerland would do well to return to established methodologies and therapies
for treating and eliminating dependence on drugs."
It is not always positive, as we are lead to believe.
I would like to see people with opposing view at a table putting aside
their agendas and simply do what is best and right for this segment of our
society that is addicted and hurting.
MARIJUANA:
Decriminalization, legalization and medicalization are all viewed as harm
reduction, in that they feel usage would be
reduced with decriminalization or legalization.
Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail article dated Feb 18,2002 states:
"Cannabis is being used as the Trojan Horse for the legalization of all drugs,
and the medicinal use of cannabinoids is being used as the Trojan Horse for the
legalization of marijuana."
The medicinal use of marijuana is the tool that the harm reductionist are using
to open the flood gate to legalize all
drugs.
In the series: Reefer Madness, The Sequel (1 of 3) Maclean's Magazine, Author
Julian Beltrame states:
"But Health Minister Allan Rock believes there is enough anecdotal evidence to
justify Canada's experiment with
permitting AIDS, cancer patient and chronically ill patients to use the drug."
What other drug would be made available with anecdotal evidence.
It is to be noted that there are two synthetic THC pills called Drabinal and
Marinol that are available but patients refuse to take it.
Federal Health Minister Anne McLellan in the Ottawa Citizen article date the
20th of August 2002 states:
"she is uncomfortable with allowing people to smoke marijuana for medical
reasons and want it's benefits to be scientifically proven first."
"Health authorities have a responsibility to prove the scientific worth or any drug for medical treatment and that should be no different for marijuana." she said.
"Some of the doctors are concerned about the health effects of smoking marijuana, and others fear they will be held liable if they back patients' request for federal exemptions allowing for medicinal use of the drug."
"The minister said she understands how some people believe smoking marijuana helps them with their illnesses, but added 'we owe it to all Canadians' to subject it to scientific scrutiny."
"Ms. McLellan also expressed some unease with allowing marijuana smoking at
the same time as her department is responsible for the largest single public
awareness campaign in the country *the campaign against cigarette smoking."
It is to be noted that the same products that are in cigarettes are in marijuana
except marijuana doesn't have nicotine nor does cigarettes have THC. If one is a
health hazzard, it is hard to say the other isn't.
In the Ontario Secondary School Survey of the three drugs used in order of
importance are as follows.
1997***Alcohol***Cigarettes***Marijuana
2001***Alcohol***Marijuana***Cigarettes
The survey from 1997 to 2001 indicates a reversal trend with marijuana and
cigarettes that has occurred because cigarettes are now viewed as harmful, it is
not morally acceptable to smoke and the high cost of cigarettes along with the
age restriction make it harder to purchase, whereas marijuana is viewed as not
harmful, especially since we are talking about decriminalization, legalization
and the medicinal use, it is now morally acceptable and it is easily available
especially since there is minimum enforcement.
Will usage decrease as suggested? The survey points in the opposite direction.
CONCLUSION:
It is the constant discrepancies and anomalies that has one question this
philosophy. The lack of follow up and statistical evidence that are needed in
every other program is not required here making one wonder if there is a hidden
agenda.
We are told that abstinence is not cast aside but funding for treatment is
being cut back.
There is a group home in Pembroke that will shut it's doors, the Detox Center in
Ottawa will close in October 2004 due to cuts in funding and the Rideauwood
Addiction Treatment [Ottawa} institute cannot take any more patients due to
funding issues.
Are they really interested in abstinence? At the end of the day, we have to ask
our self, did we take poverty, and drug use /abuse and make them big business
and now are afraid to question it or are we facing too much resistance to review
it and possibly correct it if required?
We also have to ask if we are in line with the Canada's Drug Strategy definition
of harm reduction.
Has it reduced the harms associated with alcohol and drugs to individuals,
families and communities?
It will take someone or a group with a strong sense of internal fortitude to
dare re-visit and make strong decisions in the area of harm reduction, that will
certainly be challenged under the banner of Human Rights.
Will that day come or will we wait a couple of decades and possibly see the
likes of Vancouver's East Hastings ghetto become reality and visible in most
communities across this land. Maybe then we will realize the error of our
decisions.
Quick fixes have proven not to work yet I believe they
are at work under the guise of Harm Reduction.
Pay me now or
pay me later.
I am hoping this has created some discomfort whether you are for or against harm
reduction, that this has made you question and ponder some of these issues, if
so then I've accomplished what I set out to do.
***********
They estimate that HIV/AIDS costs the person $115,000, mostly made up of drugs
which are ultimately covered by the provincial governments in most cases.
ALS on the other hand costs much the same but is made up of mostly equipment
which is not covered entirely by the government other than equipment purchased
through ADP which covers 75% of the costs. The rest of the money has to either
come from donations or functions organized by the Provincial ALS Society's such
as the walks. Unfortunately in most cases the ALS patient has to pay for a good
portion of the equipment as well as making their homes handicapped assessable.
In a lot of cases this forces second mortgages large loans and the person with
ALS ultimately dies leaving huge debts for families to look after.
As near as I could tell from searching the Internet the majority of research
funds for ALS come from places such as the ALS Society Of Canada. The federal
government does make some grants available but they're in the $250,000 bracket.
In the meantime the funds made available to find a cure for HIV/AIDS is
literally in the millions, with a very large proportion of that going to
countries such as Africa.
Perhaps someone should let the federal government know that more people die of
ALS in Canada per year than HIV/AIDS. Perhaps then we would get our slice of the
pie.
At any rate, that is the way I see it.
George Goodwin
P.S: I personally know the devastation of drugs having a son that has
taken that road. After getting on drugs he was stealing money from me as well as
medications that I required. We have not spoken in over five years and in fact I
have no idea where he is or if he is alive. Encouraging people to go to safe
places and use drugs is not the answer. I have often thought that a stint in
jail might do him good but if they are providing clean needles obviously there
are also drugs available so I have changed my mind on that one as well. A tough
thing to go through to say the least.
“What we call our despair is often only the painful eagerness of unfed hope.” George Eliot
MGM
© ALS Independence 2003-11