Monday, September 1, 2008

Province Letter Writer Spills the Insite Beans

Monday, Sept. 1/08

Letter writer Callum Milne of Prince George would like some "evidence" to support David Berner's assertions that Insite has not been telling the truth about its operation.

Here's one: Not every injection supplied by Insite is supervised.

As the former partner of a heroin addict, I can tell you that Insite routinely gives out handfuls of needles to its "clients" to take home, or wherever, to help them shoot up.

That is not what Insite says it does.

As much as it was against my better judgment, I would drive her to the facility and she would run in and be back in five minutes with a handful of needles. I did it to ensure she was safe because she was going to do it anyway.

But how is handing out handfuls of needles to addicts helping them?

If you want to know why Insite is still around, just follow the money. Those running the facility are stuffing their pockets with our tax dollars and will never tell you how much they are making to see addicts strung out all over the city. ,

Nelson Thomas Reekie


Anonymous said...

"Not every injection supplied by Insite is supervised."

This is more of twisted, myopic and deliberately false logic.

Insite does not "supply" heroin. They provide a place with supervision, and needles.

When and where did Insite say otherwise, Sir David?
And please cite verifiable facts.

Anonymous said...

"injection supplied" obviously meant the needle and place to inject the heroin. Your comments, in my opinion, are semantics. His partner received a HANDFUL of injection needles to take home. THIS IS NOT SUPERVISED INJECTING..... That was the point of the article.


MurdocK said...


this is a blog, not a debate or 'news' program.

the reality is if it was written on the bathroom wall it may be as trustworthy as a blog.

that said, so far I have seen nothing that the 'harm reduction' people have ever accomplished.

no reduction in the number of addicts, overdoses or even a real statistical change in the hep C cases.

Those are real numbers.
Those are real facts.

the insite 'facts' should be taken the same way.

Anonymous said...

Harm reduction is intended to do nothing more than KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE - which its proponents believe is better than the alternative. (It's a issue of faith, I guess.)

Anyhow - can someone please answer these two questions.

What is the number of people who DID overdose, but SURVIVED because they were at Insite?

And why does that not seem to matter for those opposed to Insite?

Anonymous said...

'this is a blog, not a debate or 'news' program.'

That is interesting Murdock. I for one was not aware of that. Can you tell me where David has posted the rules for this site?

Seems to me that I have seen much debate on this blog - political and otherwise.

Please clarify David. I can read blogs anywhere - it is discussion and debate I enjoy.

MurdocK said...

I don't know if you are the same anonymous but if you are your first challenge was to make David somehow accountable with "verifiable facts."

The sheer volume of statistics coming out from the 'harm seduction' crowd will make verifiable facts a difficult thing to prove in current times.

Since there are, of course, lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Therefore if you are going to make any rational comparison you need to start with values that existed before insite...or in large metro areas where no such facility exists.

To my researches there are no differences on the key issues of OD deaths and HepC cases that cannot also be attributed to statistical error.

That means that the verifiable fact is that the money spent on insite is a waste.

Oh and clearly David is encouraging debate, but to demand it from him is something else.

Anonymous said...

"Oh and clearly David is encouraging debate, but to demand it from him is something else."

I am absolutely against Insite and have considerable knowledge regarding addiction and treatment. My only posts were in re semantics and one reply to your attempting to "manage" and critique my comment.

I made no demand and you are not in charge of this site, nor would David allow you to speak for him, as you seem to have done here....

It becomes rather confusing when most post anonymously - and the "control" issues are becoming tiresome.

Anonymous said...

in response to the question about how many people have been helped by insite when it comes to overdoses over 1000 people since it has openened with no fatalities.

you are able to get clean needles and some supplies at the site to take but it is encouraged that participants use the facility. by supplying clean needles it keeps people from sharing supplies.which in turn will cut down the spread of disease.

if someone can up with a better solution to the very complex issue of addiction than 'harm reduction' i think that most would be open to knowing it.