[mthoms]

The primary goal is harm reduction: fewer deadly overdoses, less disease (HIV) transmission due to needle sharing and less needles discarded on the street.

The site where I live can also provide some help for people who want to get off drugs and off the street, but the addict must want to do that.

I can’t speak to how effective that help actually is, but the harm reduction part certainly works.

[gotoeleven]

Are there any estimates of the degree to which policies like these increase the rate of drug use as opposed to just reducing the danger for existing users?

Are people surprised that subsidizing drug use seems to attract more drug use?

[mthoms]

>The first several years of evaluation have yielded an array of scientific outputs, including more than 30 peer-reviewed studies describing the program’s impacts. These publications indicate that Insite provides a range of benefits to its clients and the greater community, including a reduction in public injecting, lower levels of HIV risk behaviours (e.g., syringe sharing), and an increase in uptake of addiction treatment among the facility’s clients. Furthermore, studies seeking to identify potential harms of the facility found no evidence of negative impacts. Studies were independently peer-reviewed and published in top scientific periodicals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal.

Emphasis mine.

From https://www.bccsu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/insite_repor...

[diogenescynic]

>the harm reduction part certainly works.

Certainly? Goals and outcomes are different though. Is there any evidence that SF's policies are having positive outcomes? It seems like all the statistics show it the opposite. Overdoses are up, crime is up--so who is this really helping? The skeptic in me thinks it's a nice way for the government to just give up on people even more but under a kinder veil of "harm reduction". SF is closer to Ancapistan than it is any progressive utopia.

[mthoms]

Certainly. But I wasn't speaking about SF, I was speaking about Vancouver.

>The first several years of evaluation have yielded an array of scientific outputs, including more than 30 peer-reviewed studies describing the program’s impacts. These publications indicate that Insite provides a range of benefits to its clients and the greater community, including a reduction in public injecting, lower levels of HIV risk behaviours (e.g., syringe sharing), and an increase in uptake of addiction treatment among the facility’s clients. Furthermore, studies seeking to identify potential harms of the facility found no evidence of negative impacts. Studies were independently peer-reviewed and published in top scientific periodicals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal.

From https://www.bccsu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/insite_repor...

[nopenopenopeno]

How could SF give up on people any more than it already has?