|
How far should we be responsible for other people's rights? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by cammaxwell
You're actually missing the point here. The clinic's main goal is, while offering a safe environment for these addicts who will use regardless, is to offer guidance and counseling to those people that obviously have addiction issues.
I totally support this initiative, ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, why not address the issue. I would rather these addicts have a proper and safe means of doing their vice in a way that doesn't spread disease or put them in a dangerous situation. At least this way we can have trained professional people who have been educated on dealing with these kinds of things talk to them. |
it's bigger than what the clinic does. it's a legal and charter issue apparently. already prostitution laws are being challenged from precedence used in this clinic ruling. (not saying whether i agree with prostitution laws or whatnot). who knows how people will use this precedence to challenge other laws?
| quote: |
Hell, if it only saves a hand full of people isn't it worth it? |
not if it will bring more harm in the future |
|
|
| cammaxwell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
it's bigger than what the clinic does. it's a legal and charter issue apparently. already prostitution laws are being challenged from precedence used in this clinic ruling. (not saying whether i agree with prostitution laws or whatnot). who knows how people will use this precedence to challenge other laws?
not if it will bring more harm in the future |
Actually no.....the whole prostitution case (already before the courts anyway) is still to be decided and hasn't even (in court) brought this decision up. Sure, this ruling may have a impact on that case but that has been ongoing for awhile and has much larger decision to make in my opinion.
I agree it has certain implications....but when it come to law, law should be decided on right and wrong (aka justice) and not on the individual ramifications on particular judgements or case files. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
If this was private charity and not tax payer funded i wouldnt mind it. But it is true. Why should we have "an obligation" to this as taxpayers? |
agreed |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
| millions of Canadians don't have access to family medicine, but thank god they can at least get someone to shoot their smack more safely. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay
millions of Canadians don't have access to family medicine, but thank god they can at least get someone to shoot their smack more safely. |
seriously. I think affordable eye glasses and dental care are more of a rights issue than this clinic |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
If this was private charity and not tax payer funded i wouldnt mind it. But it is true. Why should we have "an obligation" to this as taxpayers? |
We have an obligation because as a nation we must do the necessary to uphold the charter rights of all Canadians. If this is necessary to protect the right to security of the person under the Charter then we must provide it. Moreover; however, your "question" ignores the fact that all the research studies on this clinic in particular and harm reduction programs in general agree that it is a net benefit to taxpayers because the savings in other government funded services realized due to the harm reduction program exceed the costs to run the harm reduction program. So to answer your "question" we should fund it because it is more economical then not funding it. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
seriously. I think affordable eye glasses and dental care are more of a rights issue than this clinic |
The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you... no disrespect to you, Yohan, but on matters of constitutional rights I'm going to defer to the justices. |
|
|
| mahalliner |
| quote: | ...
So apparently tax payers have a duty to fund clinics so that drug users can inject drugs safely into themselves. (druggies must provide own drugs)
Am I the only one think this is nuts? |
Well, if you premise this whole situation on the reality that we live in a country with universally accessible healthcare, from a purely economic perspective it's a better option to reduce the impact that their addiction has on the the system by giving them access to these services. Plus, people tend to forget what Insite does. It's not just a space for addicts to shoot up, there are counsellors there, addiction treatment workers and other social services to support them if they reach a point where they need to quit. |
|
|
| daves |
| quote: | Originally posted by mahalliner
Well, if you premise this whole situation on the reality that we live in a country with universally accessible healthcare, from a purely economic perspective it's a better option to reduce the impact that their addiction has on the the system by giving them access to these services. Plus, people tend to forget what Insite does. It's not just a space for addicts to shoot up, there are counsellors there, addiction treatment workers and other social services to support them if they reach a point where they need to quit. |
Good point; if we take away the whole idealogical argument here... does it actually cost less to facilitate safer drug usage than it does to treat the inevitable illness/disease which comes out of "less" safe drug usage? |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | Originally posted by cammaxwell
is to offer guidance and counseling to those people that obviously have addiction issues.
|
sure. "heres a room and a clean needle. you just bring your own drugs and its all good". does anybody give a flying how do they get money to buy those drugs?? and most importantly who sells them those drugs?
em, i say tag every single one of them, track their dealers, arrest them and dealers. cant say problem solved but it would be much more effective than providing safe haven to shoot up.
i had 4 blood brothers. 2 of them choked on their vomit and one was "killed in action" while in army (may they rest in peace). heroin is worst stuff ive ever seen.
cancer is illness, so is diabetis. addiction is not. what kind of society is saying "awwwww" and helping them out by providing stuff for them? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
sure. "heres a room and a clean needle. you just bring your own drugs and its all good". does anybody give a flying how do they get money to buy those drugs?? and most importantly who sells them those drugs?
em, i say tag every single one of them, track their dealers, arrest them and dealers. cant say problem solved but it would be much more effective than providing safe haven to shoot up.
i had 4 blood brothers. 2 of them choked on their vomit and one was "killed in action" while in army (may they rest in peace). heroin is worst stuff ive ever seen.
cancer is illness, so is diabetis. addiction is not. what kind of society is saying "awwwww" and helping them out by providing stuff for them? |
a) property crime and prostitution (the two main sources for drug money) actually have taken a demonstrable drop in the area around insite since it opened.
b) addiction is an illness, recognized by the AMA, CMA, Royal College of Physicians, and pretty much every other association of medical professionals you can think of. It is most certainly a disease; and recognized as such in law. |
|
|
|
|
