Anglicans for getting high

The Diocese of Huron’s Bishop Linda Nicholls is agitating for the setting up, in London Ontario, of a safe injection site, a place where people can get free sterilised needles to inject themselves with illegal drugs.

There are pros and cons to these establishments, not the least of which is that nobody wants to live next door to one. Since the bishop doesn’t, she doubtless feels quite comfortable in writing this letter:

I write in support of the proposed safe injection sites being considered by Council at 441 York Street and 241 Simcoe St.

As noted by the Sisters of St. Joseph in their recent letter to you:

“A recent academic article in the Harm Reduction Journal, “Supervised injection facilities in Canada: past, present, and future,” offers a careful review of the experience and impact of supervised injection facilities (SIFs). It notes that Canadian efforts have learned from positive experiences in Western Europe. In addition, Canada’s first sanctioned SIF, which opened in Vancouver 2003, was rigorously evaluated and met its objective of reducing public disorder, disease transmission and overdoses. Equally important, it successfully referred individuals to a range of external programs including detoxification, and addiction treatment programs. The evaluation demonstrated that the SIF was cost-effective and did not result in increases in crime or encourage initiation into drug use.
It should be noted that over 40 peer-reviewed studies have highlighted the benefits and the lack of negative impacts for this site. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada justices ruled 9-0 in favour of the continued operation of the SIF, noting that it “has been proven to save lives with no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada.” (2011 ruling, p. 139)”

We would, of course, prefer to end the prevalence of drug addictions in our city. However, for those who are addicted the process leading to recovery is long, slow and difficult. Along the way the need for support including harm reduction through safe injection sites is a proven factor in assisting such healing.

Surely a safe injection site is preferable to the proliferation of the discarding of needles in public areas where they can be a hazard not only to the user but to other members of the public.

Ironically, I have heard nary a peep from the bishop on Canada’s plan to legalise marijuana, a drug known to cause irreversible brain damage. Surely standing against the legalising of a harmful drug makes at least as sense as providing safe space for the already addicted to further stupefy themselves?

Santa distributes condoms and needles

Christmas, as everyone knows, is all about indiscriminate sex with strangers and injecting oneself with soul numbing opiates; it’s what makes the season festive.

Consequently, unlike cigarette manufacturers who are compelled to print gruesome photographs illustrating the effect of their noxious merchandise, a taxpayer funded New York health clinic has adopted the strategy of immersing itself in the spirit of the season by having Santa and his elves distribute condoms and needles.

Barring an accidental overdose or exertion induced heart attack, City Wide Harm Reduction is making Christmas safe for the less than stable Christmas reveller.

 

Pat Robertson wants to legalise pot

From here:

Of the many roles Pat Robertson has assumed over his five-decade-long career as an evangelical leader — including presidential candidate and provocative voice of the right wing — his newest guise may perhaps surprise his followers the most: marijuana legalization advocate.

“I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

This libertarian position – one I have a passing sympathy for – reminds me of William F Buckley’s staunch support for legalising all drugs on the grounds that it isn’t the government’s job to limit people’s freedom to choose their agent of stupefaction – lethal or not.

The problem is, if government does not make legislation that limits freedom in order to encourage a functioning society, if its legislation is not grounded in a moral framework,  then it should also not legislate against things like gay “marriage”, polygamy, polyamory, bestiality and bawdy houses.

I wonder if Pat Robertson would go along with that?