Doug Ford bezeichnete überwachte Konsumseiten als „das Schlimmste, was es je gab“. Neue Untersuchungen zeigen, warum er falsch liegt
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/doug-ford-called-supervised-consumption-sites-the-worst-thing-ever-new-research-shows-why-hes/article_175bfc81-cd90-4c35-afb8-783c3f3bdc27.html
5 Kommentare
Of course he’s wrong. But people love to treat certain kinds of illnesses like moral failures. But only subcategories of those illnesses. I don’t see anybody demanding liquor stores be shut down, despite alcohol being probably the most harmful addictive substances known to humanity.
Anyone paying even a little bit of attention would know he’s wrong. This is well studied and virtually every study agrees that safe consumption sites reduce overdose deaths and serve as a gateway to treatment (*if* it is readily available), and has somewhere between a positive to neutral effect on crime, drug paraphernalia litter, and public drug use, but people are just unwilling to actually listen to real evidence on this.
This post will get people disagreeing, but not one of them will quote a study – either saying that studies can’t be trusted because all of these sites secretly want drug use to continue, or because their anecdotal, often wildly exaggerated anecdotes trumps science.
I am sure it helps drug addicts, but I live right next to the gay village in Montreal and we have two centers like that. The area has become unsafe and we now have a permanent police presence. There are meth addicts everywhere, you get stopped multiple times for money. You have mentally ill people screaming in the streets. A few weeks ago I had to call the police because a woman was walking aggressively with a kitchen knife. I carry pepper spray every time I go there. Just ask local businesses how they feel about it. I know I am going to be downvoted for this, but I have some compassion fatigue. I do not have any alternative to offer, just stating that it’s pretty grim.
The government has been providing it’s “ safer “ drug at the taxpayers expense. They then sell these drugs to young kids, to buy the stuff they actually want. Making two problems instead of fixing one at all. I have worked in one of these safe supply the program’s buildings. Its grim. On one level of the same building, you have a breastfeeding clinic and a daycare, then on the other side you have a safe supply, whatever you want to call it drug addict, hang out. I’m seeing zombies walk around with needles and their arms while young children are just feet away. It’s a recipe for disaster. I understand that the people that are benefiting from this program and all the funding, would be able to afford funding studies that would help them. So I have a hard time believing the numbers.When i’ve seen it firsthand how it can affect a community.
I can’t prove that they’re selling the government supplied drugs, i was told this in passing from somebody that worked with them.
Looking at the results, I think the data is being interpreted pretty generously. The trends they say increase, went up by **50% for break and enter and 20% for theft from motor vehicle,** and the ones that went down all went down by less than 3 percent. And they ignored some obvious crime data like theft under $5000, public intoxication, causing a disturbance, etc.
What is more likely is that police increased patrols, and/or people gave up reporting crimes below their insurance claim threshold.
>Within 400 m (approximately a quarter mile), OPS/SCS implementation was associated with **increases in break and enters (49.88%; 95% CI, 27.03% to 76.84%)**, and to a lesser extent, **thefts from motor vehicles (20.03%; 95% CI, −0.63% to 44.99%)**. However, monthly trends for break and enters (−1.19%; 95% CI, −1.71% to −0.68%), robberies (−1.32%; 95% CI, −1.93% to −0.70%), thefts over $5000 (−1.48%; 95% CI, −2.45% to −0.50%), bicycle thefts (−1.82%; 95% CI, −2.93% to −0.68%), and thefts from motor vehicles (−1.30%; 95% CI, −2.18% to −0.42%) declined. Site-specific results revealed some OPS/SCS were associated with increases in crime while most were not.
Gee I wonder why they didn’t track more crimes, like theft under 5,000, causing a disturbance, etc.?