Tuesday, November 6, 2007

To Michael

This is what a commentor wrote to me:

"David you are approaching this only from the addicts point of view. (i.e. what will work to cure them) The "harm reduction" argument represents taxpayers who are fed up having their homes and cars broken into and having their tax dollars going to pay for cops and jails to arrest and incarcerate these people. It is, hopefully a first step toward full legalization of all these substances. My primary concern lies not with the addict but with the cost that addiction places on the rest of us. Addiction is a social problem as well as a personal health issue. 100 years of prohibition has created, not solved, this problem. "

This is my reply:

I am NOT approaching this from the addicts point of view. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am approaching this from the point of view of a citizen.

You think that harm reduction actually reduces break-ins to cars and homes? You poor sap. You don't understand addictions at all and you've swallowed whole the pseudo-science and inflated stats of the harm reduction apologists.

After the dope fiends get their free dope, free needles, comfy places to shoot up, etc...what do you think they do, Michael?

Go to Physics class or viola rehearsal?

Because they only want MORE AND MORE AND MORE, they go into the back alleys from which they came and shoot more illegal drugs using the money they got from selling YOUR STUFF THAT THEY ROBBED FROM YOUR HOME AND CAR.

You think break-ins in cars and homes have shrunk since harm reduction? Ha! They have skyrocketed.

Ask Sun Editor Daphne Braham, who used to write so eloquently about the glories of Harm reduction..until about 2 years ago, when her condo became a regular target for drug addict break-ins. Now she writes from a slightly different perspective.

Ask the cops who witness this madness every day.

And finally, I am many things in life. But the LAST category in which I view myself is a taxpayer. If I had to make all my decisions based on the fact that I am a taxpayer above all, I'd quickly part this sorrowful world.

You are looking, like everyone else, for that magic Silver Bullet answer. It is a never-to-be-satisfied unholy and unhopeful viewpoint.

I am looking at this problem in terms of what will work for me and you and my neighbours and addicts.

But thanks for telling me what I'm doing. Without your help, how could I get out of bed in the morning?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good response, David. Keep up the good fight.

I run into this all the time: "Law enforcement created the problem. Harm reduction is the answer."

It sounds bogus to me, so I had a look at the numbers. On the one hand, we have Vancouver, which has been actively pursuing primarily "harm reduction" methods since 1989. On the other, we have New York City, which has been actively pursuing law enforcement initiatives since 1989. New York now has three times as many cops per thousand residents as Vancouver.

In 1990, the crime rates in BC were a bit higher than what they were in New York City. 1990 is the worst year in New York's history since 1963 (which is as far back as I could find records online).

Crime rates have gone down up BC slightly (about 2%) while they have fallen dramatically in NYC (about 70%).

In the past three city administrations (who were the most outspoken advocates of "harm reduction", Vancouver's violent crime rate has slowly risen. HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C have skyrocketed (from about 3% of needle users to 30% and 90% respectively).

Vancouver now has a 13% higher violent crime rate than New York City EVER did. And our property crime rate is fairly steady at 30% higher than New York at its worst.

And since the "Safe" injection site has opened, the overdose death rate has gone up in Vancouver, while it has gone down in the rest of the province.

One of the most significant reductions in crime we've seen in recent years has been auto theft (-30%), due mainly to the bait car program, A LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE.

The record clearly shows that law enforcement works and "harm reduction" doesn't.

Incidentally, I'm enclosing "harm reduction" in quotes for more than just the obvious reason that it's not actually reducing any harm. In some jurisdictions, "harm reduction", by definition, includes "reducing the supply of drugs". In Vancouver, the definition has been altered to mean "enabling and medically supporting drug use".

Anonymous said...

Excellent response David. It seems like the people with such fundamentally wrong-headed "full legalization of all these substances" thinking have never had any dealings with an addict and absolutely no understanding of what's really involved. This becomes painfully clear with his last statement "100 years of prohibition has created, not solved, this problem. " By the way I really liked the way you related the credo/mentality of Robinson's character in 'Key Largo' to addiction.Fantastic movie. Unfortunately, that "more" attitude could be applied to much of the world these days. Please keep up the good work.