By arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
Monday, September 4, 2006
Health Minister Tony Clement announced that the Safe Injection Site (SIS) that is currently being operated will be allowed to continue. The pilot project that was scheduled to end on September 12 has now been extended to December 2007. Located in Vancouver, the heart of Canada's Left Coast, the SIS allows drug addicts to shoot up in a controlled environment where they are provided with clean needles and a nurse to prevent the junkies from accidentally overdosing while getting their required fix. Those who argue for the SIS, which is practically everyone in Vancouver, do so on the basis of "harm reduction". The site prevents the use of dirty needles and therefore cuts down on the spread of HIV/aIDS and hepatitis.
By granting the extension to the end of next year, the governing Conservative Party has shown that they truly are the big tent party that was touted by their one time former star, Belinda Stronach. The government is tough on crime while granting what is essentially an exemption to a privileged few in Vancouver. Oh well, gotta make up for the loss of all those votes from pro-Hezbollah Quebeckers somehow.
On her blog, Small Dead animals, Kate wrote that perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to suggest designated traffic lanes for alcoholics. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea.
We should allow drunks to drive but only in designated traffic lanes. That would keep them apart from SUVs full of kids that are manned by sober drivers. While special Drunk Driving Lanes (DDL) will not prevent all harm, a lot of it could be reduced. Barring that the harm would at least be limited to other drunk drivers. Let's face it; it's not much of a stretch from designated bicycle lanes to designated drunk lanes. at least drunks don't drive on the sidewalk and completely ignore red lights and other rules of the road. Okay, so sometimes they do drive like that but only because they are too drunk to drive properly. They don't perpetually cruise along sidewalks and bomb through red lights as a "lifestyle choice".
In the last 30 years, society's view of drinking and driving has drastically changed. It has gone from the butt of late night comedians' jokes (don't drink and drive; you might spill it) to being regarded as a serious criminal offence. But it will never be eradicated completely, any more than robberies or sexual assaults will be totally eliminated. as long as there is alcohol and motor vehicles there will always be drunk drivers. So let's give them their own lanes and reduce the harm to all of the innocent men, women and children who are out on the roads. after all, we can't just simply declare war on drunk driving. War is bad. We are peacekeepers not warriors. We know this for a fact because Jack Layton keeps telling us that.
DDLs would also go a long way to achieve the major objective of the rules of the road raising revenue for governments that just can't seem to stop spending. The police could conduct blitzes where, with breathalyzer in hand, they could catch sober drivers who are driving in the Drunk Driving Lanes, probably just for fun. Those who are caught driving in a DDL and blow under 80 would be subjected to a large fine that would go a long way in allowing politicians of all stripes and at all levels to keep living in the style to which they are accustomed. We need Drunk Driving Lanes; for harm reduction of course.
Drunk Driving Lanes would only be the beginning. If we are truly serious about harm reduction, we also need safe eating sites. after all, we are constantly being told that obesity is becoming a major world problem. Mothers all across the country are telling their children, "don't finish your potatoes children in africa are becoming obese." We need safe places to eat, where patrons can choose anything that they want, as long as it is approved by a government nutritionist.
The government shouldn't be playing games with harm reduction. They should either scrap it or legalize drugs.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement