Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre | ? | 2 fl | Planning

[atnor]

I’m with HonestMaple. Safe injection sites can attract the riffraff and can be a massive blight on our city. Yes I know these people are often suffering from addiction and illnesses but I would love to know the recovery rates that are attributed to safe injection sites on a local Hamilton or Toronto level. The benefits often cited are less needles in public spaces, clean equipment, and the users are supervised in case of overdose but how many in Hamilton or Toronto come clean as a result of SIS?

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by atnor

I’m with HonestMaple. Safe injection sites can attract the riffraff and can be a massive blight on our city. Yes I know these people are often suffering from addiction and illnesses but I would love to know the recovery rates that are attributed to safe injection sites on a local Hamilton or Toronto level. The benefits often cited are less needles in public spaces, clean equipment, and the users are supervised in case of overdose but how many in Hamilton or Toronto come clean as a result of SIS?

This. I'm not convinced by the 'science' showing that these are effective at reducing addiction. I could pull up just as many scientific journal articles showing these safe injection sites cause more harm. It's a cognitive bias if you believe they help. You're completely ignoring the harms because you want to believe it 'helps' these people.

But beyond the health implications, I just don't think these sites belong in the downtown core. They just attract more riffraff. We already have enough shelters downtown, why give these people even more incentive to come to downtown Hamilton? This is the wrong direction for the city. Disagree with me, sure. Look at the shelter on York across from the library. Driving down the street there it's honestly embarrassing. We need to do better. Giving these people a place to sleep and then a place to do drugs legally is not ok. It just worsens the problem by enabling the behaviour. There are other ways to help these people that doesn't involve shooting up drugs 'safely'.

[Hawrylyshyn]

I'm curious what your suggestion would be for an alternative? As said before, they're going to do these drugs regardless of these facilities existing. So are they better off doing it in public spaces near children, pets, etc., leaving needles out where people can step on them or get pricked? Or inside a building where they public isn't exposed to or in danger from it?

In an ideal world these places wouldn't be needed, I agree. But we don't live in an ideal world.

[atnor]

The solution is to not play the game from the very start. Lord knows how we achieve that.

I understand both arguments for and against SIS, ironically they are both often in the same vein as out of sight of out of mind.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

I'm curious what your suggestion would be for an alternative? As said before, they're going to do these drugs regardless of these facilities existing. So are they better off doing it in public spaces near children, pets, etc., leaving needles out where people can step on them or get pricked? Or inside a building where they public isn't exposed to or in danger from it?

In an ideal world these places wouldn't be needed, I agree. But we don't live in an ideal world.

I think that is the problem. That line of thinking believes that they will do the drugs regardless. I think we should help them stop doing drugs, and clean up their lives. Not give them a place to do the very drugs that are ruining their lives.

Why build it in the centre of the city though? Why ruin the look and feel of our downtown core with these people walking around. I don't understand it. I don't see these types of facilities in downtown Burlington or Oakville, why here in our great city? Why do these places need to be in such a visible part of our city that is currently trying to reinvent itself?

I don't support the construction of these facilities (shelters, safe injection sites, etc.) in our downtown core one bit. It's just not the right location.

[Hawrylyshyn]

1. Yes ideally we should eliminate drug use. Again, is that something that is realistic to achieve? That truly comes down to personal views and I respect we differ here.
2. Oakville and Burlington also don't have the same extent of social issues that we do (poverty, mental health, etc.)
3. If built they need to be accessible to people they are built for, which is (unfortunately) downtown.

Great discussion though everyone

[Crapht]

Drugs have been a part of the human experience forever. Telling people drugs are bad and you shouldn't do them doesn't work. Just say NO doesn't work. The war on drugs hasn't worked. Also, these people don't commute into the core from elsewhere to use these facilities. This is where they live. I understand people not liking the sight of 'these people" (I hate using that term) but you'd probably hate it more without places like this. There are no easy solutions.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Crapht

Drugs have been a part of the human experience forever. Telling people drugs are bad and you shouldn't do them doesn't work. Just say NO doesn't work. The war on drugs hasn't worked. Also, these people don't commute into the core from elsewhere to use these facilities. This is where they live. I understand people not liking the sight of 'these people" (I hate using that term) but you'd probably hate it more without places like this. There are no easy solutions.

Because these types of facilities exist here.

[Hawrylyshyn]

They lived there before the facilities existed.

[Markus83]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Some people here specifically said the conversation should go elsewhere. I and others disagreed. The people thinking this is off-topic are no less the authority than I or others.

My biggest issue with taking the conversation elsewhere is this forum has maybe 30 active users. The threads elsewhere die after a while and never come back alive. You can't have 50 or 60 active threads with a 15-30 user forum.

The only people annoyed by off topic discussion are like 3 people. Of the 15 that post regularly. Honestly, if you're not interested you can just come back when we're back on the topic you care about, or not respond creating unnecessary drama.

I must say @Ritsman, I've never been fond of you. But perhaps I should keep that to myself as it is also off topic.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by atnor

I’m with HonestMaple. Safe injection sites can attract the riffraff and can be a massive blight on our city. Yes I know these people are often suffering from addiction and illnesses but I would love to know the recovery rates that are attributed to safe injection sites on a local Hamilton or Toronto level. The benefits often cited are less needles in public spaces, clean equipment, and the users are supervised in case of overdose but how many in Hamilton or Toronto come clean as a result of SIS?

They attract "riffraff" but they don't create them. That's the entire point. The riffraff exist, they just exist in parks, school playgrounds, under bridges, and create dirt, needles, and litter in those places. If the safe injection sites reduce the riffraff then we're at a net positive.

Look. I lived down the street from Rebecca street site, and it wasn't that bad, and don't get me wrong, do I like seeing, dealing with and hearing the "poors"? No. I work my ass off, and of course seeing people that are not choosing my lifestyle, or didn't have that option because of mistreatment by family and society is not desired. It makes me, my partner, and others feel unsafe. But that's the entire point. We're trying to fix our society. Ignoring it and pushing them somewhere else is exactly the kind of NIMBYism you all hate about skyscrapers.

Other people hate skyscrapers, and don't want them in their neighbourhood. It destroys the character, creates shade, and other things people don't like. You don't like to look at the ugliness in society manifested in homeless addicts. But they exist, and if we can find ways to all find a middle ground the world would be a significantly better place.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

They attract "riffraff" but they don't create them. That's the entire point. The riffraff exist, they just exist in parks, school playgrounds, under bridges, and create dirt, needles, and litter in those places. If the safe injection sites reduce the riffraff then we're at a net positive.

Look. I lived down the street from Rebecca street site, and it wasn't that bad, and don't get me wrong, do I like seeing, dealing with and hearing the "poors"? No. I work my ass off, and of course seeing people that are not choosing my lifestyle, or didn't have that option because of mistreatment by family and society is not desired. It makes me, my partner, and others feel unsafe. But that's the entire point. We're trying to fix our society. Ignoring it and pushing them somewhere else is exactly the kind of NIMBYism you all hate about skyscrapers.

Other people hate skyscrapers, and don't want them in their neighbourhood. It destroys the character, creates shade, and other things people don't like. You don't like to look at the ugliness in society manifested in homeless addicts. But they exist, and if we can find ways to all find a middle ground the world would be a significantly better place.

But people like me feel like these sites are part of the problem, not the solution. I firmly believe safe injection sites are not the answer. I'll say it again, they enable people. I can't imagine a situation where giving someone a place to do drugs helps them kick their habit. The best thing would be to help them get off the drugs to begin with.

Why are you and others on here so opposed to moving these types of facilities to say, out beside the airport (an exaggeration, but you can understand what i'm trying to say)? Why does it have to be right in the middle of our core that is going through a fantastic renaissance of sorts. It just makes no sense to my why the city wants this type of riffraff downtown. As a property tax paying resident of this city, it frustrates me to no end that our city supports and encourages the development of these types of places in the downtown core.

[Hawrylyshyn]

If built near the airport, they would not be able to get there and access the facility. It would go unused (waste of money) and we would still have all the issues downtown (eg. needles disposed in parks, and the "riffraff"). As you say, ideally we rehabilitate everyone to not do drugs. However, that simply isn't a realistic feat to accomplish.

"Why do we need jails? Let's just teach people to be good!" <- basically your argument.

[ZTrade]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I don't really get the "think of the children" motives behind most protectionism. Are 7 year old kids going to start shooting up because they saw a homeless guy do it? Better still that guy should be inside, hidden from the children. The health centre and safe injection site on Rebecca, many people don't even know what the build is used for.

My post was just posing a question, I don't agree with the "think of the children" angle either. I'm just curious if there are any current rules to stop an injection site being that close to an elementary school.

However in this case there is some merit to that argument. A safe injection site seems more high risk than a mission services. I've biked/walked past the Rebecca site at its peak, and I wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) walking past that on their way home. To say most of the kids there take the bus or get picked up is false also, I live 2KM away from this proposed injection site and see many children walking home from the schools nearby my home. I imagine once the neighborhood becomes aware of an injection site being built that close to a school, there will be pushback. Not sure they can do much though at this point.

[atnor]

I support the duterte model, sorry but I have no sympathy for addicts.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I don't see these types of facilities in downtown Burlington or Oakville, why here in our great city?

Probably because the visionary city councils and good people of Oakville and Burlington also don't want those facilities around. And why should they, when there are perfectly acceptable social services like that available in Hamilton and Toronto. Problem solved, win-win!

I lived in downtown Burlington for 14 years. In all that time, I knew of TWO homeless men I would see on occasion. One rode a bike around collecting stuff, the other hung around the blocks just east of Brant making do. The bike guy seemed to have disappeared one summer -- I always wondered what happened to him, as I used to see him fairly regularly as I was driving to/from home. Did he pass away, or did he get help and change his life? Did he get shipped out to Hamilton? I bet it was the latter.

There are social service providers in those suburbs, but I think they're limited in number and capacity, and that's probably because of the attitudes against them and the belief that help can be found elsewhere so why establish any locally. And I think it's sad.

[TheHonestMaple]

I understand both sides of the argument. I just don't understand why the city prioritises funding for these things for the downtown. As a taxpayer, I don't support it.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I understand both sides of the argument. I just don't understand why the city prioritises funding for these things for the downtown. As a taxpayer, I don't support it.

Where should they go then?


We will probably see these kinds of things on the central mountain at some point. But the debate will be a nuclear standoff.

Will never happen in Ancaster, Dundas, Waterdown, Binbrook... they're "not Hamilton" if you ask many residents, and definitely not up for helping a "Hamilton problem" Maybe lower Stoney Creek, but around Eastgate and not in the downtown or anywhere eastward.

[ZTrade]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Where should they go then?

.

[Hawrylyshyn]

You guys continue to complain and make some-what valid claims yet don't offer an alternative solution? What do you think should be done that's better and more ethical?

Moving the facility somewhere inaccessible to those who need it isn't going to fix the issue.