Band-Aid Solutions To Social Problems

Have you seen this:

http://www.nationalpost.com/Vancouveris+pushing+free+crack+pipes/5190427/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/04/17/insite-lancet-study.html

I have a friend and he and I often go toe-to-toe on so many issues across the board. Often times, I see his point of view (and there have been times where he's convinced me of his perspective; he is a very good debater) but I couldn't see the rationale he had in favor of this crack-pipe program that exists AS WELL AS these injection sites that cater to "the shifting drug culture of our society".

He kept pushing the fact that it may not be the ideal solution, but it mitigates the spread of Hep C and HIV transmission, and it was not like the gov.'t was providing the drugs. He was right on those points: yes, a crack pipe that is less susceptible to exploding after being worn away from crack use does help... what did the article call it, "reduce harm" in the spreading of such viral diseases, but how does any of this help the addict who is still BREAKING THE LAW?????

Injection sites, free crack-pipe give away - all of it are simply band-aid solutions, and a cheap cop-out by a greedy government that finds manufacturing pipes and funding supervised shoot-up sites an appropriate use of tax-payer dollars, rather than funneling that capital into mental health facilities, research and rehab/addiction centres, family and personal counselling and more to combat the root problem of this increasingly sick and financially-stressed society.

.

Look at it this way: alcohol is a socially acceptable drug, and STILL, if you hurt someone or hurt YOURSELF, you are sometimes court-ordered to go to REHAB for their ILLEGAL MISCONDUCT, not to some designated area where addicts can BYOB just so the government can turn around and say "well ,we're not giving them alcohol, we're giving them an area where they can drink so they don't cause harm to the public. Plus, they are under supervision by medical staff just in case their liver shuts down." This is Canada's half-step, "proactive" legislation to dealing with a growing societal problem: quarantines. I tell you, people look at me funny when I say we haven't come far as a civilization. If this is not evidence, what is?

Of course, funding programs that would actually help society to be more happy and productive is seen as too logical to implement... or shall I use another politicians' excuse: too "expensive", sorry, " Not affordable" (as if the 11.5% hikes on top of MPs six figure salaries could not be sparred during these economic times - yes, they work sooooo hard, writing those legislation drafts at their computers, sitting for hours in fine leather chairs, and leaning into a mic debating for hours on end with no resolutions for months, if not years, on any priority issue).

That fantasy world is also too dangerous. See, if we don't have classes of people (which is based on the amount of one money has) then the need to compete with each other wouldn't be there, AND there would be less jobs because there are less ills in our country that would make us miserable. So if we live in a world with less misery there would be less demand for social workers, personal trainers, prescription meds for shit like ADHD etc. etc. In fact, despite such longevity and increased personal well-being, a society like that would actually have a higher unemployment rate; there wouldn't be anything to combat. So giving these addicts a safe haven to destroy themselves only keep the people (excuse me, MACHINES) that manufacture the pipes employed, cops on the streets, and enough reason to close down one more mental health facility, research centre or rehab clinic. And trust when I say this, funeral home operators are enjoying the increase in business, and government love taking their share in that inheritance tax and estate tax. That's revenue dollars that can't be overlooked.

I would throw race into it, because you can, but I'm going to let it go and let YOU meditate on the privilege of certain cultures getting our shared government to subsidize this type of crime, and consider if this new drug culture was occurring predominantly in a chronically lower-income cultural group, would these so-called "harm-reducing, for-the-greater-good" remedies even be implemented, much less a damn forethought? Or is it more likely that another prison would just open up?

The fact that these issues has to even go as high as the supreme court of Canada is absolutely LAUGHABLE. The article, itself stated that the drug culture is no different today than it was 20 years ago (and AIDS and Hep C were also prevalent during those times), so why start catering to these social diseases now? How is giving the means to practice an illegal habit curbing a social ill??? If the addict was able to smoke twice or even four-times as much crack with these new durable pipes, how does this prevent people from sharing their pipes, or even their needles when they are not at the InSite injection area? How does any of these government programs prevent PEOPLE from becoming addicts and the criminal activity that goes along with it?

The answer: It doesn't. That's the point.

Real Talk: Read the articles and let me know what you think about all of this.