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.