Saturday, December 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- sherry
- I believe in the power of words-- be they written, spoken, or put to music; my vocation is to communicate the immensity of their power. More than anything, I want my life to matter.
Peace. Love. Books.
Stories that have shaped me
Fun on the Internet
Inspired by
Friends
Talking About
- Teaching (101)
- Friends (80)
- Family (61)
- relationships (of the confusing sort) (61)
- life (59)
- mothering (44)
- Photos (41)
- Home (39)
- Fun on the Internet (37)
- foster care (30)
- On being woman (29)
- Faith (28)
- pregnancy (25)
- Christmas (24)
- Books (23)
- Confessions I really shouldn't be making (18)
- summer (18)
- depression (16)
- politics (16)
- Letters to Klara (15)
- parenting (13)
- Movies (10)
- theatre (10)
- Vacation (6)
- Librarianship (5)
- sweat pants (4)
- Travel (3)
- Love (1)
The Old Stuff
"A bird does not sing because it has an answer.
It sings because it has a song."-Maya Angelou
8 comments:
I really don't know. First, it seems that it should not be an option for people to to live on the streets and do drugs. But it is not going to change in San Francisco.
Second, it seems like this will encourage more and more people who want to choose a homeless lifestyle to move to San Francisco. (I know that for many, homelessness is not a choice--namely the mentally ill. But for many, it is a chosen lifestyle.)
I can see how this program could do some good. Especially if it is connected to rehab programs, like in Canada. It could cut down on AIDS and Hep and death from bad drugs or overdoses.
However, I can imagine that it could cause some significant problems as well. As in the Methadone program, I think it was designed to do some good. It may. But I have seen it contribute to ruining several lives. It is possible this program could help some drug users, but it may also attract some additional users and increase drug dealing in San Francisco--and specially that neighborhood.
Tough question.
I don't think it will contribute to drug use; it's not like they're distributing drugs. That's like saying distributing condoms will encourage teenagers to have sex, and that seems like faulty reasoning to me. Teenagers are having sex and the mentally ill homeless population in San Francisco is shooting up. The problems persist. I also don't think it will have a big enough "following" for people to move to the City to be near it, either. If course, I really don't know.
However, the whole concept feels wrong to me. Newsom claims to support it philosophically but not pragmatically. I think I'm the complete opposite. I have a hard time with the idea of providing a clean, government funded facility for illegal drug use. It just seems wrong. I don't like the idea of having "safe" places to do drugs. Drug use is not safe, and I'm not sure we should even try to make it safer. Survival of the fittest? At the same time, needle exchange programs don't bother me at all. This just seems to be a step too far.
Practically, the most common question is, "where?" Who wants this in their neighborhood, even if your neighborhood is the Tenderloin! Can you imagine walking by that building with the foot traffic in and out of the facility?
Apparently, they have had some success in Canada with the connected rehabilitation facility. I do like that idea. It seems like a similar "safe place" connected to rehab could be created through a shelter or soup kitchen, though. Right?
I agree with facilities that trade old needles in for new,clean needles (the treatment center I worked at in Lancaster did that, but I don't agree with giving them a place to do it.
You are right. They are not distributing drugs, like with the Methadone program. I just wonder if there could be unforeseen, negative consequences, as there have been with Methadone centers. It seems like whenever the government is involved in sanctioning addictive and destructive behavior it may do more harm than good.
Your comparison with condoms may not be quite right. Needle exchange seems more like condom distribution. Creating a "safe" place where people can use whatever they bought on the street seems more like endorsing unsafe sex, but creating a good follow up program to test for and treat STDs/pregnancies.
I agree with you. I am against it philosophically, and agnostic on the pragmatism of the thing.
I think that rehab centers connected to soup kitchens/shelters would not work quite the same. From what I understand, many homeless people will not go to shelters. Maybe they would be more likely to go to a drug center. I don't know.
Happy New Year, by the way. You should come visit us sometime. There is another little girl out here, that hasn't even met you!
I'm glad to finally have a place to shoot up.
I don't like the last statement in the article about it not being right to let people use drugs and die on the street. It sounds like the epidemic is someone else's fault besides the addicts who chose their lifestyle and chose to deal with life in this manner.
Being a drug, alcohol and addiction counselor, I have compassion for those lost in this darkness, but the injection facility reeks of enablment. The Canada facility is an interesting idea, but requires further thought for sure. These are all symptoms of a deeper darkness in our culture. We still need to look at the real root of the problem of this darkness.
After being in the industry for a few years and also being the offspring of an addict, we cannot simply pretend it is merely a physical and medical and government issue, it is a very dark and spiritually rooted issue. What can we do about that? Perhaps if there were prayer warriors that greeted each addict who came in to shoot up that prayed them to the second level where a strong Believer would be waiting for them to show them the spiritual way out and followed them through detox all the way through the treatment and into a new way of life, it would work. But you think the government would think that was a conflict between the church and state? Bush's faith initiatives have proved very helpful in the industry under his leadership. But what will happen now?
In the wise words of Michael Scott,
"Enabler, enabler, enabler!!"
Interesting post, Sherry. :)
Anonymous is Lindsey by the way.
Post a Comment