Ottawa's Byward Market

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

There's a cost to everything. Nothing is free. So there is a cost. There is the cost in dollars and there is the cost to locals insofar as running their businesses or living in residential.

SIS's are not hotels. People come in, get a new needle, do their business and leave. They are again wandering streets and panhandling for their next fix.

Except an SIS actually reduces costs. It will reduce health care costs by more than it costs to operate, so opening it will SAVE money, not cost it.

Originally Posted by ac888yow

So they don't cost anything, but are very cheap to run, which means they cost something. Gotcha.

You didn't read the rest of my post. I mentioned right after that they save the healthcare system costs in many other areas that more than make up for their very tiny cost of operation.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

I hope and trust (and demand) that the Mayor and Police and the public at large will do everything possible to block this asinine idea.

There's nothing asinine about safe injection sites. They're proven to save lives.

If you don't support SIS, then you don't support human life. It's that simple. It's not like they're an extremely expensive project where there's cost-benefits to weigh... they actually save the system money, not cost it.

The Supreme Court ruled that not allowing safe injection sites is a violation of Canadians' Right to Life under the constitution, for this exact reason. I for one hope that the SHCHC files a Charter challenge against the City of Ottawa if its turned down and I would be first in line to donate to cover the legal costs.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

If you don't support SIS, then you don't support human life. It's that simple.

Complete and utter nonsense. I reject this statement, just like I reject your original that kicked off this discussion.

You've got a quite the set of stones to tell another human being that they're against human life.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Anyway, I've said my bit, others theirs, and I don't think either camp is going to change its perspective. I certainly won't.

What evidence would it take for you to change your opinion? Not saying you are wrong, I'd like to know what could change your mind on this.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Complete and utter nonsense. I reject this statement, just like I reject your original that kicked off this discussion.

You've got a quite the set of stones to tell another human being that they're against human life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(AG)_v_PHS_Community_Services_Society

Supreme Court agrees with me.

[acottawa]

Lots of government policies have the potential to save lives. Sometimes they're implemented, sometimes they're not. It's a pretty slippery slope to start making moral judgments about people that disagree with a particular policy. Grade-separating the via tracks in Barrhaven would save lives, "denticare" would save lives, building a new Bridge to get trucks off of King Edward/Rideau would save lives.

On the safe injection sites, the claimed success rate of the safe injection site in Vancouver is one life saved per year. Critics have suggested the success rate of these sites is less than that. Saving a single life is important, but it is far fewer than the number of lives that would be saved by the interventions above.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Lots of government policies have the potential to save lives. Sometimes they're implemented, sometimes they're not. It's a pretty slippery slope to start making moral judgments about people that disagree with a particular policy. Grade-separating the via tracks in Barrhaven would save lives, "denticare" would save lives, building a new Bridge to get trucks off of King Edward/Rideau would save lives.

Except all three measures have a pretty significant cost; measured in the hundreds of millions or billions, so you have to weigh the lives saved against public expenditure.

An SIS is cost-neutral, so it's not comparable.

Originally Posted by acottawa

On the safe injection sites, the claimed success rate of the safe injection site in Vancouver is one life saved per year. Critics have suggested the success rate of these sites is less than that. Saving a single life is important, but it is far fewer than the number of lives that would be saved by the interventions above.

The research conducted around the world, and the statistics out of Switzerland which has a huge network of these things, are pretty clear that safe injection sites safe lives and reduce medical costs.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(AG)_v_PHS_Community_Services_Society

Supreme Court agrees with me.

Does it say that SIS is a better medical and societal solution than curing the addiction outright? Come back to me when it does, because that's what I'm for.

You're for accusing people to be murderers and anti life. Your ideology blinds you from seeing that we all have the same objective - to help these people - but have different opinions on the best way to do that. It says more about you as a person than anything else.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Does it say that SIS is a better medical and societal solution than curing the addiction outright? Come back to me when it does, because that's what I'm for.

You're for accusing people to be murderers and anti life. Your ideology blinds you from seeing that we all have the same objective - to help these people - but have different opinions on the best way to do that. It says more about you as a person than anything else.

The SCC decision clearly states that by attempting to shut down an SIS, the government was violating addicts Charter right to life, liberty, and security.

SIS vs. addiction treatment is not a one or the other choice. We can and must do both. Your fiscal argument makes no sense because SIS saves taxpayer dollars by reducing healthcare costs. This frees up funds that can be used to enhance treatment programs. One can enable the other.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The SCC decision clearly states that by attempting to shut down an SIS, the government was violating addicts Charter right to life, liberty, and security.

SIS vs. addiction treatment is not a one or the other choice. We can and must do both. Your fiscal argument makes no sense because SIS saves taxpayer dollars by reducing healthcare costs. This frees up funds that can be used to enhance treatment programs. One can enable the other.

We're not shutting down anything; we already don't have it. SCC didn't rule on what approach is best.

Cost argument makes perfect sense if you can think broadly. "Cost" is very difficult to quantify because there are too many variables that influence one another. Health care costs are just one variable, but there's also cost to the neighborhood/local business/tourism/property values, policing/crime, etc. Your "savings" argument is too simplistic and thus invalid.

Addiction treatment is the only choice. An addict is still an addict after using SIS. With addiction treatment, they actually have a fighting chance at being cured.

Fundamentals of problem solving. SIS is easy and allows supporters to point at something and congratulate themselves. It does nothing to solve the root cause of the problem, and that's fundamentally why I'll never support it.

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Except an SIS actually reduces costs. It will reduce health care costs by more than it costs to operate, so opening it will SAVE money, not cost it.

SIS's don't operate 24/7. Drug users do.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

We're not shutting down anything; we already don't have it. SCC didn't rule on what approach is best.

Cost argument makes perfect sense if you can think broadly. "Cost" is very difficult to quantify because there are too many variables that influence one another. Health care costs are just one variable, but there's also cost to the neighborhood/local business/tourism/property values, policing/crime, etc. Your "savings" argument is too simplistic and thus invalid.

Addiction treatment is the only choice. An addict is still an addict after using SIS. With addiction treatment, they actually have a fighting chance at being cured.

Fundamentals of problem solving. SIS is easy and allows supporters to point at something and congratulate themselves. It does nothing to solve the root cause of the problem, and that's fundamentally why I'll never support it.

An injection site isn't a solution to the problem, but it is part of the fix. The problem is that addiction isn't a cut and dried problem, nor does it feature an easy solution. Addiction -> treatment -> productive member of society is a nice picture to paint. In reality, that's not how this happens. A SIS exists precisely because that doesn't happen, but we don't need people to die before getting the proper treatment. There are any number of reasons why an addict isn't just turning themselves into a rehab facility, but the SIS can provide help, counsel, and contacts for when they hit rock bottom. Denying the site just keeps the stigma on users and leads to less help for them later.

[1overcosc]

I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone here... I'm just going to settle on agreeing to disagree, and bow out of this topic.

[UrbOttawa]

not sure if this version has been posted

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Anyway, I've said my bit, others theirs, and I don't think either camp is going to change its perspective. I certainly won't.

Shunning evidence is not admirable.

Originally Posted by ac888yow

We're not shutting down anything; we already don't have it. SCC didn't rule on what approach is best.

This is a status quo bias and is not an argument against safe injection sites.

As 1overcosc mentioned, safe injection sites are ultimately revenue-neutral. It keeps these people in a safe environment, avoiding overdoses and communicable diseases. It drastically reduces emergency visits among people that are hugely overrepresented in our ERs. And by providing on-demand treatment supports, these sites provide a welcoming environment that helps to move people out of the orbit of their dealers.

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Cost argument makes perfect sense if you can think broadly. "Cost" is very difficult to quantify because there are too many variables that influence one another. Health care costs are just one variable, but there's also cost to the neighborhood/local business/tourism/property values, policing/crime, etc. Your "savings" argument is too simplistic and thus invalid.

The reduced health costs argument is not invalid at all. Unless you can demonstrate that health care cost savings are outweighed by measurable costs imposed elsewhere, it is, indeed, a compelling argument.

Perhaps you could show how these sites have been proven to cause crime to escalate. Certainly they're usually located in areas where people are shooting up anyway. Getting these people into a safe setting off the streets is better for everyone.

Where safe injection sites have been introduced elsewhere, they do have the support of local residents, businesses, police forces, etc. People are understandably apprehensive, and it doesn't help that our mayor cravenly panders to public fears, but the international experience is positive.

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Addiction treatment is the only choice. An addict is still an addict after using SIS. With addiction treatment, they actually have a fighting chance at being cured.

Addiction treatments are already available.

As the experts advocating for this have indicated, addicts need to be in a stable environment before they will begin to access additional services like addictions and mental health treatment.

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Fundamentals of problem solving. SIS is easy and allows supporters to point at something and congratulate themselves. It does nothing to solve the root cause of the problem, and that's fundamentally why I'll never support it.

To borrow your expression, you have "stones" to suggest this. Because there is evidence that safe injection sites work, save lives, save money, and do not increase harm.

[ars]

Originally Posted by canabiz

This is anecdotal but my wife's niece is visiting from South Korea and she told me she is not a big fan of the Byward Market because there were/are too many homeless people/panhandlers loitering around.

I tried to explain to her (she is here to learn English/travel so she doesn't quite get all the common expressions/nuances yet) that this is a socio-economic problem and has nothing do with the Byward Market. There are a number of shelters around the Market and it is common to see folks from those shelters milling around, especially on nice days. The panhandlers congregrate where there is a lot of traffic and this is not a problem exclusive to Byward Market/Ottawa/Canada per se, you will see them everywhere you travel.

Having been to South Korea before, I can understand why your wife's niece would find the amount of homeless unsettling, I didn't see a single homeless person in SK while I was there. That said, it's obvious that she hasn't really been out of Korea much(or at all) because Ottawa's homeless problem is nowhere close to as bad as other cities with a high quality of living. I'm currently in Melbourne and the amount of homeless people right smack dab in the middle of downtown/touristy areas is quite astounding.

[kwoldtimer]

The chain of posts set off by one South Korean's discomfort at seeing homeless people is impressive. Closer to home, Ottawans who don't feel comfortable around homeless people can (and do) avoid the Market and Rideau St. Personally, I see it as an ongoing social problem that is not unique to Ottawa, but it doesn't affect my experience of the Market in any significant way.

[canabiz]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The chain of posts set off by one South Korean's discomfort at seeing homeless people is impressive. Closer to home, Ottawans who don't feel comfortable around homeless people can (and do) avoid the Market and Rideau St. Personally, I see it as an ongoing social problem that is not unique to Ottawa, but it doesn't affect my experience of the Market in any significant way.

I don't go out of my way to avoid the Market and Rideau St, per se, but it simply doesn't look good for our city where problems happen on a daily basis, just a stone's throw from our Parliament.

I was downtown yesterday and witnessed a fight between a Caucasian guy and an Aboriginal guy right at the corner of Rideau and Dalhousie (across from the Second Cup). Fights happen every day and every where, I get that. What is troublesome to me is there were people hanging around on Rideau Street who seemed to be egging the guys on. It was evident (to me at least) that the Aboriginal guy was under some sort of influence so he may be more aggressive than he normally is.

Anyway I am not here to speculate what led to the fight or the mental state of these folks. I hope the City does something to clean up this part of downtown. Thankfully, I wasn't there with any company from out of town...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by canabiz

I don't go out of my way to avoid the Market and Rideau St, per se, but it simply doesn't look good for our city where problems happen on a daily basis, just a stone's throw from our Parliament.

I was downtown yesterday and witnessed a fight between a Caucasian guy and an Aboriginal guy right at the corner of Rideau and Dalhousie (across from the Second Cup). Fights happen every day and every where, I get that. What is troublesome to me is there were people hanging around on Rideau Street who seemed to be egging the guys on. It was evident (to me at least) that the Aboriginal guy was under some sort of influence so he may be more aggressive than he normally is.

Anyway I am not here to speculate what led to the fight or the mental state of these folks. I hope the City does something to clean up this part of downtown. Thankfully, I wasn't there with any company from out of town...

I don't think that anyone would suggest that it does. What I have no answer for is how one would "clean up" that part of the downtown, given the concentration of amenities for the homeless in the area, something that is not going to change. Housing all the homeless in permanent housing of their own, with all necessary supports, might be a good starting point.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by canabiz

I don't go out of my way to avoid the Market and Rideau St, per se, but it simply doesn't look good for our city where problems happen on a daily basis, just a stone's throw from our Parliament.

I was downtown yesterday and witnessed a fight between a Caucasian guy and an Aboriginal guy right at the corner of Rideau and Dalhousie (across from the Second Cup). Fights happen every day and every where, I get that. What is troublesome to me is there were people hanging around on Rideau Street who seemed to be egging the guys on. It was evident (to me at least) that the Aboriginal guy was under some sort of influence so he may be more aggressive than he normally is.

Anyway I am not here to speculate what led to the fight or the mental state of these folks. I hope the City does something to clean up this part of downtown. Thankfully, I wasn't there with any company from out of town...

I don't think that anyone would suggest that it does. What I have no answer for is how one would "clean up" that part of the downtown, given the concentration of amenities for the homeless in the area, something that is not going to change. Housing all the homeless in permanent housing of their own, with all necessary supports, might be a good starting point, but I don't see anybody racing to take on the responsibility.