Supervised Injection Sites
I am against Supervised Injection Sites.
Supervised Injection Site: A legally sanctioned building where illicit Drug users can go to recieve clean needles and consume their drug.
I get high with a little help from my friends!
Okay, I am going to make some assumption of my opponent’s argument. I may get some wrong but I will we could just void the ones that are not related. I Just figure I would try some mind reading on this one. You know something special. ;)
-It’s drug users fault because they choose to do, drugs! So the should pay or get like punished and stuff.
-Aren’t these facilities going to increase or encourage people to do more drugs? There are so stupid. Duh!
-They should like go to jail for using drugs because it’s like bad and stuff.
-Drugs are bad Mmmkay! You shouldn’t do drugs because then you are like bad. Mmmkay. Drugs are bad.
I get by with a little help from my friends! ;)
So the main purpose of these types of programs that we have in Canada are harm reduction plans:
Dirty shared needles are the most prominent cause of spreading HIV and hepatitis C, and a plethora of other diseases, in developed countries.
The more people who have HIV or AIDS the faster it spreads throughout the general population, claiming many victims of users and non-users who come in contact with them.
The primary function of such faculties is really to give out clean needles. The idea is simple and moral, such types of drug addictions are so strong anyways, that at that point of addiction they are going to do it anyways.
The needles are relatively cheap especially compared to the amount of lives saved.
We have free health care system and it would cost way more money and stress on the healthcare system having to treat that much more people for with HIV and AID for a very long time of their lives.( Canada)
One thing to remember is that we don’t have the strict war on drugs going on here, where you get lock up for weed or something.
Nobody in who is fully educated on the effects and consequences that happen of such drug use would put themselves in a position people often end up in. They are usually people or street kids who come from uneducated and poverty stricken families who just don’t know any better. The number one predictor is education of the parents and social economic status of the parents.
These facilities set up systems with the addicted users in which they participate in a weaning process where they are monitored and slowly weaned off the drugs. With each succession they move up a floor to a lighter section and then to detox to try and cure the problem once and for all.
Going to try with a little help with my friends!
How most drugs addiction work: Well there are two main sets of neurotransmitters that most of these kind of drugs work on, that is dopamine and endorphins. These brain chemicals are there for natural reasons to make us attracted to things that help us survive and reproduce. They are those that tell you that you like something. These drugs by pass you reasoning system and rewire you neural pathways in a way that causes your mind and body to think that the drug is the thing you must have. Many experiments with rats show that when given an opportunity to press a lever to receive such reward they will do it till they die. Many victims are people who over estimate there free will and think that it won’t happen to them but it almost always does. And there is on much they can do about it without help once they are hooked. I hope this is cut and dry and I will leave some facts about addiction.
Myths & Facts
Myth: Addiction is self-inflicted.
Fact: Addiction is an illness. Just as a person doesn’t choose to have asthma or cancer, neither does a person choose to have an addiction.
Myth: People can stop using drugs if they really want to. Fact: It is hard for injection drug users to stop using drugs without help. Drug use can change a person’s brain function making it very difficult to quit without effective treatment.
A person who suffers from addiction is often perceived by others as different and as having a weakness or character flaw. Discrimination against people with addictions restricts their access to education, housing, employment, financial assistance and health care.
Addiction is a chronic, relapsing illness. It is defined as a compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance.
I think this is just a matter of education.
AIDs, death and drug addiction is not Cool!! Vote FOOL!!
Thanks for the argument Jake! (The Fool and I have been good friends for a number of years now but he never admits it as to keep the integrity of his internet persona, which I find a bit silly)
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to this handsome debate where I will essentially be arguing that the Harm Reduction of Supervised Injection Sights is so small it is irrelevant, and that greater principles and goods are sacrificed because of it.
I'll start with Rebuttal:
Jake's first idea: Supervised Injection sites have health Benefits! They like cut down on the spread of Aids and HIV!
You're right, they do cut down the spread of AIDS, but not significantly. My main issue with with what you said is that many of the people who would attend the sites are already burdened with many infectious diseases. One usually contracts HIV or AIDS a few weeks after beggining drug use, that is because at the beggining stage they only obtain their drugs by being given them. Almost all drug addicts start out by sharing needles, usually at a party with a large group of people. So by the time you hit rock bottom and finally decide to go to a site, you already have HIV or AIDS.
Jake also never told us how this stops drug addicts for exchanging HIV/AIDS by other means than needles. He is wrong when he says the main cause of disease circulation is by needles, they only account for 1 in 5 cases of diseases amongst illicit drug users . This goes to show that HIV and AIDS amongst the illegal drug user community will still be rampant, even if Supervised Injection Sites are put in place. I always hate using statistics, but there is evidence that shows disease has not decreased among drug users in the US despite Supervised Injection Sites .
Jake's Second Idea: They are going to do it anyways
It is unusual of Jake to adopt this "If you can't beat them join them" policy. When an unwanted activity (such as child abuse) is going on in a society, we make it harder, not easier for that activity to be carried out. For example, rape will always be carried out in a society, it doesn't mean we supply them with a condom to make it safer for the victim (Jakey boys first argument) and duct tape to make it safer for the rapist. What I'm getting at is it is not right to sacrifice expediency for principle. Society has declared itself against drug use, and society must actively resist all forms of drug use, and leave it to the law to stop them (We need to change our policy towards the laws approach to drug users, not facilitate it in sites).
Jakes Third Idea: This helps Drug users quit
I'm not entirely sure how this is true. Jake straight up lied when he said they are weaned off the drug; the sites don't supply you with drugs, it's a bring-your-own-drug-policy. No less harmful versions of the drugs are offered, and the quantity of the administered drug isn't regulated. Drug users normally enter a Supervised Injection Site shaky irritated and in no mental position to have a conversation with, let alone of discussing of getting off the drug they are so dependant on (remember many of them aren't able to entertain the notion of quitting). When they leave they are hopelessly inebriated on a powerful drug and extremely incoherent. Where in that time frame does any sort of discussion or counseling happen?
Remember, a large theme of this debate is that it is pointless to decrease the side effects of powerful drug without decreasing the use of the drug itself; even if there were no infectious diseases, no public safety threats or gang problems from Heroine, it would still be awful because the substance itself is 10 times more destructive than any of the health issues it presents.
I'll give a few brief arguments
Canada's action against drugs is more important than the health concern
This is legalizing drug use in a certain area, making the police unable to stop it. Now anyone can go into a building and commit a criminal offense with immunity. This means that a large amount of drug addicts will not receive treatment, because usually they are found, arrested, and then faced with either rehab or jail. The existing status quo allows the law to force addicts into rehab and that's exactly what they need. With an addiction as strong as heroine use, the user has shown no ability to personally resist it, and thats exactly what the sites de-tox program rely on. Jail is a better place to get clean than Insites (the existing Injection Site) exclusive de-tox clinic that can only service 12 people.
Supervised Injection Sites give the appearance of dealing with Drug abuse but don't deal with any of the less tangible issues such as:
-Youth abusers (They never go to a SIS, understandably)
-Pregnant Abusers (They can walk in and use heroine as much as they want without the police being able to stop them-even if some drug users are overlooked pregnant abusers have priority and are immediately arrested and kept in a drug free environment, as are all high risk abusers)
-Crime involving drugs
Maybe you could support Drug use if it dealt with these issues.
And most importantly...THEY ARE STILL INJECTING HEROINE INTO THEIR BODIES, WHICH IS WORSE THAN ANY HEALTH BENIFIT FROM SUPERVISED INJECTION SITE, AND THE LAW CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT
Sorry, my cat, Boots just jumped on the Caps Lock Key.
The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Alright, so Jake forfeitted this basically because he didn't have time to invest, as his Prayer group has been unusually busy lately. So let all know I'm not pissed, I know the guy and hes a bit busy right now.
Plus, out of all the arguments we've ever had he's never won once, Jake is ever so fond of maintaining records.
Is it boldness or ignorance: You Be the Judge!
Ipse dixit ( AKA bold assertion fallacy) F=Fallacy
F1. ‘Thanks for the argument Jake!’
F2. ‘Almost all drug addicts start out by sharing needles, usually at a party with a large group of people.’
F3. ‘Society has declared itself against drug use.’
F4. ‘Drug users normally enter a Supervised Injection Site shaky irritated and in no mental position to have a conversation with.’
F5. ‘Remember many of them aren't able to entertain the notion of quitting’
F6. ‘Where in that time frame does any sort of discussion or counselling happen?’
F7. ‘THEY ARE STILL INJECTING HEROINE INTO THEIR BODIES, WHICH IS WORSE THAN ANY HEALTH BENIFIT FROM SUPERVISED INJECTION SITE ‘
F9. ‘Sorry, my cat, just jumped on the Caps Lock Key(Special Pleading Fallacy)’
Men of Straw!
Strawman Fallacy F=Fallacy
F10 Pro: ‘you said is that many of the people who would attend the sites are already burdened with many infectious diseases.’
F11 ‘Jake adopt this "If you can't beat them join them" policy.’
F12 ‘rape will always be carried out in a society, it doesn't mean we supply them with a condom to make it safer for the victim (Jakey boys first argument) and duct tape to make it safer for the rapist.’
The Fool: Yeah, that’s right, I always argue for that every day!?!?!? ;)
F13 ‘Canada's action against drugs is more important than the health concern.’
‘Maybe you could support Drug use if it dealt with these issues.’
Red Herring fallacy
F14 Jake also never told us how this stops drug addicts for exchanging HIV/AIDS by other means than needles.
F15 When an unwanted activity (such as child abuse) is going on in a society; we make it harder, not easier for that activity to be carried out.
F16. Youth abusers (They never go to a SIS, understandably)
F16. ‘Jake straight up lied’
F17 ‘Is a bit silly’
Trailer Park Fool!
Pro: This is legalizing drug use in a certain areas, making the police unable to stop It.’
The Fool: Why would the Cop’s want to stop what is LEGAL!!!??
Pro: Now anyone can go into a building and commit a criminal offense with immunity.
The Fool: Ergo, it’s not a criminal offence, now is it?
Pro: ‘Pregnant Abusers can walk in and use heroine…’
The Fool: no…… they can’t, what are you basing this on, we have more social programs for such things.
Pro: Jail is a better place to get clean than Insites (the existing Injection Site) exclusive de-tox clinic that can only service 12 people.
Pro: Jail is a better place to get clean than Incites. You do know that if you stop cold turkey you may DIE! Right! Right!!
The Fool: he is actually mentioning the fact that they are also de-tox clinics, which destroys this whole argument. Secondly Pro is only talking about the one Facility, There are many others in Canada many strictly detox places in the city. The actual injection facilities are temporaries until people get ships to more permanent Rehabs and Detox Centers.
Pro: The existing status quo allows the law to force addicts into rehab and that's exactly what they need.
The Fool: If this made any possible sense then we would not have the problem in the first place now would we.
The Fool: Pro inside example in First Round is based on a Canadian (injection Incite) medical facility but his other references are not, making them invalid.
The Pro: Canada's action against drugs is more important than the health concern.
The Fool: No, it’s not. There is No War On Drugs in Canada. Drug addiction here is considered a mental illness not a Criminal act. In Canada the criminal focus is on Trafficking as appose to using. Criminalizing users is waste tax dollars on incarceration. it doesn’t fix the problem, in fact it makes it worse. it increase crime; as criminal learn from others, general criminal social groups and connections, will affirming criminal acts.
Pro: but what about Crime involving drugs. (Drug Gangs, Collapsed veins etc are not mutually exclusive)
The Fool: Remember there are No guns!! Guns are extremely hard to get in Canada. Gangs are extremely rare and rudimentary at best. Reducing addictions users reduces trafficking.
The Fool: The facilities in Canada are also rehabs and a Detox. Also Rehab is free in Canada as part of the free health care system. While rehab is not free in the US, so jail is never a better option, Pro is not making any sense as Jail as a rehab.
The Fool: The issue here is one of education. It’s not a matter of support; it’s not a democratic issue. Sometimes it’s better to leave issues to people who know what they are talking about aka the Ethical and Medical specialist and not PRO.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|