The Final Solution to the Drug Addict Problem?

Get a load of this anonymous scumbag- I found him in the comment section of my local newspaper's website:

 Drug addicts should be separated from everyone else. Put them in a community within a reasonable distance of the rest of civilization and treat them there until they are able to function "normally" and can be trusted to be decent members society. Doesn't the government pay for their housing one way or another anyways? I can say this because I have seen how a druggie has ruined themselves and caused pain to their family for decades.Now they continue to be a burden on their family AND the health system, as they are constantly in and out of the hospital. Since the government won't help or think of new ways to tackle this problem, even when they get out of rehab, there's no place to go but back to the gov housing full of other druggies!

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/11/14/16139171-lfp.html?comments_page=3&id=16139171 

As I've said before it seems that in London Ontario, the one group of people you can say anything about is drug addicts - specifically those people who are on methadone.

I found this person's 'final solution to the drug addict problem' beneath an article concerning the methadone clinic ban.  The most heinous suggestions can be made and the most egregious lies can be told about those people, to the point of calling for their removal from our society.

Who else could you suggest building concentration camps for and yet face no rebuttal? 

Just to see how it reads, let's substitute in some other groups and see how this scumbag's suggestion comes across. Then we can use our political correctness indoctrination to help us imagine whether or not a rebuttal would be forthcoming:

Natives should be separated from everyone else. Put them in a community within a reasonable distance of the rest of civilization and treat them there until they are able to function "normally" and can be trusted to be decent members society. Doesn't the government pay for their housing one way or another anyways? I can say this because I have seen how a native has ruined themselves and caused pain to their community for decades.Now they continue to be a burden on their family AND the health system, as they are constantly in and out of the hospital. Since the government won't help or think of new ways to tackle this problem, even when they get out of rehab and jail, there's no place to go but back to the gov housing full of other Natives!

Let's go with immigrants:

Immigrants should be separated from everyone else. Put them in a community within a reasonable distance of the rest of civilization and treat them there until they are able to function "normally" and can be trusted to be decent members society. Doesn't the government pay for their housing one way or another anyways? I can say this because I have seen how immigrants have ruined themselves and caused pain to this country for decades.Now they continue to be a burden on their family AND the health system, as they are constantly in and out of the hospital. Since the government won't help or think of new ways to tackle this problem, even when they become citizens, there's no place to go but back to the gov housing full of other immigrants!

I wonder if the Human Rights Commission in Ontario handles hate speech against drug addicts.

If calling for addicts to be isolated from civilization is not hate speech, then what does constitute hate speech against drug addicts?

Something to think about...

There are roughly 1400 Londoners who are currently on methadone. There are probably far more drug-addicted Londoners who are not on any such recovery program at all.

This post will deal with the roughly 1400 Londoners who are methadone patients.

Let us imagine for a moment that there are no methadone clinics in this city.  In this London there are 1400 more contributors to the black market. In this London, having 1400 more addicts on illegal drugs is viewed as somehow being morally superior to having 1400 patients on methadone.

These imaginary Londoners are addicted an of average 200 mg illegal opiate narcotic per day, which they purchase for about fifty cents a milligram.  Some work to get the money for their drugs, others lie cheat, steal and prostitute themselves - and for the most part they commit these crimes in the city, not having the courtesy to commit them elsewhere.

In this imaginary London, drug dealers earn on average $36-48 million dollars more each year than the drug dealer's in the real London.  The $7000 that those 1400 methadone patients would have spend on their daily medicine goes into the pockets of the dealers to the tune of $100 000 - $140 000 more per day. With the methadone clinics gone from the city, the savvier out-of-town dealer's know that they are 'the only option' for addicts.  More of them come to London, where legal competition is nonexistent.

The dealers take advantage of areas where the poor congregate, so the removal of the city's methadone clinics had no benefit in that regard; the addicts still congregate to these areas and they do so in greater numbers - the dealers followed.  Letters to the editor in the local paper of this imagined London speak about 'banning coffee shops' to deny the drug dealers the opportunity to 'take advantage of the downtrodden'.  Others say that this is too extreme and that places which feed the homeless should only be banned from being 'close to schools and playgrounds - think of the children'.

A vocal minority want methadone clinics back, alleging some connection between their absence and 'the increase in drug-related crime' - but they are usually rebutted with the irrefutable rock-solid logic that says 'drugs are bad therefore giving drugs to addicts is also bad and we shouldn't do it no matter the consequences'; the consequences being an increase in drug-crime.  A product of the finest minds on the local internet comment boards, this argument is viewed as irrefutable. And the city's dealers love that.

Fortunately our London - the real London - denies those drug dealers access to those millions in potential profit in by allowing methadone clinics in the city. The real London has methadone clinics that keep at least $36 million out of the coffers of criminals every year, and which do so whilst helping people recover from devastating opiate addiction. In this light, allowing more methadone clinics to be built seems like the logical thing to do.

In our London, you and I and 'the children' are less likely to be a victim of a crime than in the imagined one, where methadone clinics don't exist.  So as much as some of us might not like the sight of them, maybe we ought to appreciate having these clinics around.

Just something to think about.

Is it safe or unsafe? Jonathan Sher on SoHo

London Free Press reporter Jonathan Sher Reports:

London's SoHo -- which stretches from Adelaide to Clarence and Horton streets to the Thames River -- may be the city's biggest challenge and opportunity. It's a working class neighbourhood that's struggled with street crime and the prospect of a methadone clinic -- but also has riverfront property that could be developed when South Street Hospital closes. Its former leader has left out of concern for her children. Her replacement says such concerns are overblown. Here are their stories:
--- --- ---
IT'S SAFE
To those who claim only gritty neighbourhoods such as SoHo have problems with drug addicts and dealers, Mark Woodward says this: “Your cocaine drives around in a BMW.”
Born in SoHo 50 years ago, Woodward has spent most of his life there, including the past two decades. In the last year he’s become the leader of the neighbourhood community group, taking the reins after Marie Claire Bylik left.
He knows some in the community complain about feeling unsafe and tell stories about drug dealers running amuck and break-ins being rampant.
But he doesn’t buy it.
“It doesn’t happen nearly as often as hysterical people would lead you to believe,” he said. “It’s not any more dangerous than any place in London.”
Woodward says he’s taking the community group in a different direction than Bylik, who stressed the artistic potential of the neighbourhood and helped organize events that celebrated local artists.
“She was trying to turn it into Wortley Village,” he said.

Londoner's telling tales to disparage methadone patients, say it ain't so. 

Londoner's would never do that.  I've never seen a Londoner resort to hyperbole and lies when discussing methadone clinics, that would never happen.  No way. Except when it Does.

Political addiction

Western Journalism's Project London Reports:

When David Winninger cast his final vote as a city councillor, he knew he would lose.
Still he voted against enacting a one-year ban on new methadone clinics in London.
“I was definitely opposed to it because the people who take methadone, who are prescribed methadone, are trying to deal with their opiod dependency and that's the kind of medicine they need, in many cases, every day of the week,” said the former Ward 11 councillor.
Despite the potential benefits, councillors and communities alike are hesitant to approve a new clinic. City council finds itself in political hot water as attempts to improve methadone distribution clash with the ‘not in my backyard’ philosophy of citizens.

 Mayor Joe Fontana said “It will always come down to that 'not in my back yard' issue (…) We wanted to make sure that that we had our policy in place first, so we had to impose that development freeze.”
He thinks location is the biggest political issue the city faces when it comes to methadone treatment.
Fontana said he is in favour of  a dispersal strategy which will ensure that treatment facilities are not concentrated in one particular area.
Andrew Sancton, a politics professor and expert on municipal government at the University of Western Ontario said the city may need clinics, but if a councillor were to actively promote a methadone clinic in their own ward, "that would be pretty close to political suicide."

Doctor Martyn Judson, from Clinic 528 comments on the ban:

Dr. Martyn Judson, medical director of Clinic 528, said methadone is an effective way to treat addiction and ultimately reduces crime, gets women off the street.
"We've taken the clinic to where patients are situated and where they need us."
Judson said the community’s aversion and fears of methadone clinics are unfounded.
“It really stems from the attitude of 'not in my back yard.' Everybody (will) recognize it’s an issue and something needs to be done about it, but no one’s prepared to sacrifice any location near where they reside or work to be an area where a clinic could be situated.”
He thinks that the moratorium is just buying the city some time to set unnecessary guidelines for methadone clinics.
“Clinics are already regulated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons so we don’t need another body to tell us what we can do,” he said.

There are some informative links at the article location. They have facts, figures and information about the laws regarding methadone dispensing. A profile on the OATC (The Ontario Addiction Treatment Centre) is also available -  the OATC are largest clinic network in the province. 
See the article in its entirety:

 Political addiction | Public and private interests clash in the battle to improve methadone treatment

Strangled With Red Tape Outside Socialist Hospital

Moonbattery reports:

If you’re going to have an asthma attack, be sure not to do it in front of a hospital — at least not in a country with socialized medicine. Once again Britain lights to the way into our bleak collectivist future:

A student lay dying from an asthma attack outside a hospital after A&E [accident &emergency] staff refused to summon help, telling her friend to ring for an ambulance instead.
Melody Davis, 20, had been driven to casualty but her friends got stuck behind a barrier to a staff car park.
One of Miss Davis’s friends ran 150 yards into the A&E department and asked a receptionist to summon help.
She was told she would have to dial 999 for an ambulance if she wanted emergency treatment.
The staff member refused to place the call and told the friend to use a phone in the reception area.

Rules are rules. The all-pervasive bureaucracy implicit in socialism reduces people to automatons who exist to obey them, oblivious to common sense.

By the time she returned to the car several minutes later, the Liverpool University student had collapsed and another friend was trying to resuscitate her.

Eventually the proper forms must have been filled out and the mandatory protocol complied with, because Miss Davis was finally taken into the hospital, where she died free of charge, compliments of socialized medicine.




To be fair,This death-by-policy- also happens in the USA:

PORTLAND – An injured man who had just crashed his car in a hospital parking lot was forced to wait for an ambulance because of hospital procedure, Portland police said.

Investigators said 61-year-old Birgilio Marin-Fuentes died afterward from cardiac complications.
An officer who had been investigating a possible DUII near Portland Adventist Hospital was flagged down early Thursday morning by someone who had just witnessed the crash.
The witness told the officer a man had just crashed his car into a light pole in the hospital parking lot, according to Sgt. Pete Simpson.
The officer responded to the crash scene and found Marin-Fuentes unresponsive. Simpson said the driver had apparently suffered a medical condition not associated with the crash.
Adventist spokeswoman Judy Lindsay Leach said the charge nurse directed a paramedic to go immediately to the scene, then dispatched first responders.
The crash was approximately 100 yards from the hospital, but the victim could not be processed without following standard ambulance protocol.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41521922/?gt1=43001


If this behaviour starts becoming all the more common and accepted - perhaps some of those hospital receptionists could be replaced by a computer interface.  Machines are better at following protocol and rules and if that is all that is going to be expected of these people, perhaps money could be saved by using machines instead of having to pay people who behave like machines. At least no one will have to pay for counseling for these things when their inability to deviate from protocol results in a death.

It isn't like there wouldn't be humans around to help out, but it might help the hospital workers feel even less responsible if they had a machine they could wheel out on to tell people that their loved one is just going to have to call an ambulance from the hospital parking lot if they don't want to die - "it is policy". Maybe one day some union will demand it.

Anyhow, getting serious here:

I wonder if these cases ever result in punishment for the receptionist. I shall have to look into that, but one would think that they would not be punished if they adhered to the rules and policy of their hospital.

If so then this is a moral hazard of a sort, is it not?  It reminds me of some of the conclusions made after the Milgram experiments, particular insofar as obedience and responsibility are concerned.  Whereas in those experiments responsibility was - in the eyes of the subject - assumed by the experimenter, in this case responsibility is probably seen by the hospital workers to be assumed by policy and protocol.  They simply may not view themselves as responsible for anything else other than obeying the rules and obeying protocol. 

"the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow" - The Milgram Experiment:   A lesson in depravity, the power of authority, and peer pressure

The Addicts Won't Leave....

It's true.

Even if the city stopped building methadone clinics entirely, it won't make them leave.  It might even make things worse for us all.

You see, when a person becomes addicted to opiates they do not often have the forethought to ponder whether or not they will have access to a methadone clinic when the times comes for them to sober up. That is simply not a factor in their decision making process.  Point being: methadone clinics do not 'create' addicts.
That being the case, one can see how these clinics might be of benefit or how our community would suffer if methadone clinics were banned completely from the city.
 
When they [methadone clinics] are made accessible to the members of the community who are trying to get better, those Londoners are less likely to use illegal opiates - illegal opiates are usually what people starting methadone are addicted to.  This is good for those Londoners in recovery, but it is also bad for the drug dealers who make their living selling illegal drugs - and that is a win-win.

 This is why the 'drug dealers prey on them' argument is a poor one. Drug dealers hate methadone clinics; as far as they are concerned the clinics are stealing customers. Saying that you don't want to build a clinic  because you want to protect people from the dealers is a ludicrous idea; if addicts can't get methadone they will go to the dealers - the addicts won't just quit because they can't find a clinic.  Nor will people refrain from starting to abuse opiates because there are less clinics.

I won't get into the crime and expense associated with illegal drugs. . . 

Alas, some people seem to think that the community would come to benefit from banning these clinics and preventing more of them being built, but this is just not so. Sure the visibility of addicts in particular areas would decrease, but the addicts and dealers would just spread out and go elsewhere.  People tend to forget that keeping that sort of activity confined to certain areas is a benefit in it's own right.

I also hear the arguments about one methadone clinics being close to a school and that is somehow a bad influence for the children to see.  To the contrary I think it might be a good thing, the children need to be able to see what happens when they abuse drugs - having that clinic next to a school allows teachers to point and say "that is what will happen to you if you don't put down that damn reefer..."

And those kids at that school aren't all innocent.  If any of you have kids who attend that school, ask them about the drug dealers who attend it.  Ask them what drugs can be bought at school; you might find yourself surprised.

Heck, some of you already know from experience what can be purchased in some of our schools. 

Some of you finding yourself here might have even got your addiction started in high school - would you not have benefited from having such a visible example of what awaited you so near?  I think it might.  For kids already hooked on the hard dope, it could possibly be used a a positive example: 'See kid, you can get off those percocets'. Sadly nowadays any teacher who used the addicts across the street as an example might find themselves reprimanded by the PC Police.

In conclusion, it is disingenuous to argue that the addicts would benefit if the means to recovery were made more difficult to access. The excuse that we must refrain from building clinics to protect the addicts from dealers is a poor one and does not hold up to scrutiny.  Methadone clinics and the lines might be unsightly, but the eyesore is a price we pay for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that at least those people are getting the help they need. With every new methadone patient, the dealers lose a customer the rest of us benefit; that methadone patient will be in a better position to be a contributing member of the community than when he/she was on illegal opiates and they are much less likely to commit crime.  This is a good thing.

SoHo to be spared methadone clinic in its midst

A white knight has galloped into London’s SoHo neighbourhood to sweep up a property that was targeted by a large operator of methadone clinics.
Ontario Addiction Treatment Centres offered to buy 353 Bathurst St., the property’s owner, John McDonald, said Wednesday.
But two locals who have already heavily invested in SoHo then bettered that offer and McDonald accepted. He expects the sale to close March 31.
The two locals, Slavko Prtenjaca and Patrick Ambrogio, run Creative Property Developments and have already developed two commercial plazas on the south side of Horton St. and the old Great West Steak House on the north — next to 353 Bathurst.
Ambrogio is also a SoHo native, having been born and raised on Grey St.
The deal had been kept quiet in advance of the closing date, so many residents have been distraught about the prospect of a methadone clinic opening in a neighbourhood that already has two shelters and subsidized housing.
So when The Free Press broke the news to community leader Mark Woodward, he was relieved and elated.
“This will make a huge difference in the community,” he said. “The morale of the residents is going to go through the roof.”
Prtenjaca and Ambrogio could not be reached to comment Wednesday but Woodward had a few words for them.
“Personally, I’ll buy them a beer. We owe these two fine gentlemen a big round of applause for their continued commitment to the community.”

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/02/09/17216421.html

I read this and I feel as though I have just been trolled and trolled hard.

Since when does making things difficult for people in the community count as beneficial?

How can someone argue that creating circumstances whereby addicts are less able to get legal drugs and more likely to use illegal drugs to be a sign of 'community commitment'? Is that a morale booster?

The less access those addicts have to methadone, the more likely they are to use other illegal drugs and those drugs are expensive - and more often than not, that means crime will be committed to acquire the money to purchase them. This is not good for the community.

The drug-addicted criminals of London won't be traveling to Toronto to commit those crimes to get money for those expensive illegal drugs; they are going to commit those crimes right here in London and it is Londoners who will suffer as a result.

When locating new clinics, addicts should come first

The reaction of residents of London's SOHO community over a proposed methadone clinic should be a clear signal to city council of the difficult road ahead as they try to sort out what to do about this issue.
While something has to be done to ensure residents south of Horton St. are heard in the debate and concerns are taken into account, no one should lose sight of the fact these clinics are more about people in recovery, not people using illicit drugs or committing crimes.
There's no doubt such clinics are unwanted in every neighbourhood. Just look at the methadone clinic on Dundas St. across from Beal secondary school, where dozens of people at a time can be seen lining up to enter the building to get their dose.
That alone is unfortunate, not just for the students, businesses and other neighbours forced to tolerate some inappropriate behaviour, but also for the people in the lineup.
One would think that a methadone clinic would be capable of providing some measure of privacy for clients, not just in location but also in design.
These people should be able to come and go -- discreetly -- with relative ease, not forced to stand outside on a sidewalk on one of the city's busiest roads where everyone -- their family, friends, neighbours and employers -- can see them.

Article continues at link:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/editorial/2011/02/04/17151236.html


 This is a good opinion piece by Joe Belanger.

If you take the time to read his article, you will see that he has taken into account many of the things which are often omitted from articles addressing this issue; namely the effects on the addict that these clinics and the current environment has on them.

One can only imagine what it feels like for those people, forced to line-up in full view of the public.  I hope that their being seen lined up outside a notorious methadone clinic would not negatively affect their employment, or reputation - sadly I know it does.  I have spoken to methadone patients regarding this very issue and every one of them dislikes the lines. Not only are they [methadone addicts] on display and out in the cold but when those lines stray outside the view of the pharmacy staff, those lines can become places of temptation where drug dealers can find easy prey.

This does not mean I think legislation should be created forcing pharmacy owners to create enclosures to protect the privacy of their clients, just that it is a negative thing which could be remedied. Unfortunately that remedy includes the building of more clinics, except that has been banned.

Another alternative would be to allow more pharmacies to dispense methadone.  In my time interviewing addicts I discovered a large number who had "take-home" doses after proving themselves responsible enough to have them. Such people should be allowed to get their drugs from the same pharmacies that I get mine.

It is good for all of us to have things as convenient as possible for those making the greatest efforts.  The less obstacles those people face the more they can work and accomplish. That is a good thing.

The only reason for the inconvenience is how people would feel about methadone being distributed at the pharmacies they use. Those same people won't whine much about all the other drugs that come out of these pharmacies - speed, valium, opiate-narcotics and the like - but then again methadone addicts are such an easy target: they're already stigmatized, they are often unable offer cogent rebuttal, and they are one of the few groups you can attack whilst plausibly claiming that you are doing it for the public good.

And so all the more reason to give Kudos to Mr Belanger. That man has has taken up his pen in defense of those defenseless people and his words truly work toward their benefit and that is to the benefit of all.

Worth a thousand words....

Methadone clinic fight looming

Canada’s largest operator of methadone clinics has set its sights on a London neighbourhood struggling to revitalize, The Free Press has learned.
Ontario Addiction Treatment Centres, that claims to treat one of every three methadone patients in Ontario, wants to open a clinic on Bathurst St. along a commercial strip that frames the city’s SOHO community.
Its intentions came to light after it hired prominent London lawyer Alan Patton to fight a temporary ban on such clinics imposed in November by city council.
“353 Bathurst Street (is) ideally suited to meeting the needs of its patients,” Patton wrote in a notice of appeal obtained by The Free Press.
Council adopted the one-year ban in the hope city staff could draft new rules and limits on clinics to avoid problems associated with an already existing clinic a stone’s throw from Beal secondary school.
But the hoped-for window may be closing, at least if Patton prevails at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing that may come as soon as March or April.
That prospect has drawn concern from employees at a Canadian Tire just next door. The store, located near two big homeless shelters, already suffers from more than the normal share of theft, employees said.
They fear long lineups of addicts may make matters worse.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/02/01/17117791.html



Some worry that more clinics might make theft worse in a given area.

This is silly logic.

As much as I dislike them, even I will admit that more methadone clinics means less people stealing to get illegal drugs.  This is simple economics, you don't steal what you can obtain for free or at low-cost.  One wouldn't buy drugs illegally and risk jail-time - which means horrible withdrawals for an addict - when one can get obtain them from doctor or pharmacy at relatively low prices.

I'm not saying people wouldn't steal to get enough money to purchase methadone, but methadone is cheap and so people stealing to get money for methadone instead of other opiates will steal considerably less.

This is actually a good thing.

Every time some addict gets caught stealing to fund his habit (maybe because he wasn't on methadone), I have to pay to keep the punk imprisoned.

That comes out of my wallet.  It comes out of your wallet too.  Frankly, I'd rather have my tax dollars subsidize their methadone than spent locking them up.  Just look at these numbers:


The cost of incarceration
Correctional service expenditures for 2004-05
were $3 billion. The cost to the public;
• Federal prisoner $260 per/prisoner/per day
• Federal female prisoner:
$50,000-$350,000 per prisoner/per year
• Provincial prisoner: $143 per prisoner/per day

(source www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/downloads/behindbarsleaflet08.pdf)

$260- $143 a day for imprisoning them,  versus $5 dollars per day spent on methadone.

That is $1825 per year - Considerably less than the cost of incarcerating a drug addict.


Times are tough for everyone right now. The global economy is going through the worst depression yet.


If the Canadian government or even local city government can use methadone clinics to protect people from crime and save them money then they ought to allow them to be built.  The only excuse I can think of is how methadone makes people 'feel'. It is an appeal to emotion, not logic. 

Know what I don't want to feel?  I don't want to feel lighter in the wallet than I have to. I don't want to feel like my city is increasing the likelihood that I'll be a victim of robbery or theft by some addict, all because they couldn't gain access to the drugs they need to keep them off the street. 

Build more clinics, I say.

It lowers crime (the kind with actual victims) and having the clinics around gives seniors like myself something to whine and piss and bitch and moan about.

Prisoner Homicided by Methadone Overdose - Coverup Suspected

VANCOUVER — The brother of an inmate who overdosed on methadone in a B.C. prison as a result of staff errors says he thinks what really happened was covered up at the prison.
Brian Slatten, of Mission, B.C., says it was several days after 32-year-old Robbie Slatten died last October that police informed him of the death.
“I thought it was very strange they took four days to find me,” Slatten said. “My first thought was, ’This is a coverup.’ ”
And Slatten only learned the cause of his brother’s death — a fatal dose supplied by a rookie nurse — this week after reading about a confidential B.C. Corrections review of Robbie’s death in the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre in the Vancouver Province.
The nurse had only been on her second orientation shift and should have been shadowing a regular nurse rather than working on her own, according to the review, obtained through an access-to-information request.
“The government never told me anything,” Slatten said.
What’s more, Robbie Slatten was not registered on the methadone maintenance program.
The review suggests the nurse was tricked because Slatten accessed the photo ID of his cellmate, who was on the methadone program.

http://www.canada.com/news/national/Brother+Maple+Ridge+inmate+given+fatal+methadone+dose+suspects+prison+cover/4191547/story.html


Well there you have it.

Staff at the prison claim to have confused this white man with an Arab.

They passed by the dying man several times and did nothing even as he lay against the wall taking in his dying breaths.  I hope there is a video recording of that - perhaps something on it can be used against them. 

The man wasn't even on the methadone program. the staff just though he was.... claim to have confused him for an arab they did....

Sure.

I recommend you folks read this article.  And look at the picture I posted, it is the man who died.  I don't think anyone will get punished for killing this man - he was one of those people.