Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Crack pipes for free vs. none at all.

Victoria counsel will debate a proposal to distribute free crack pipes, the purpose of which is to reduce the spread of hepatitis C.

Conversely, Esquimalt is looking at ways to restrict the actual sale of glass tubes, steel wool and baking soda, all of which are used in smoking crack.

These municipalities border each other and aside from a periodic, discrete sign, no one walking around would ever know when they are in one or the other. So why would we have the possibility of such diverse situations in such a small area?

I suppose it is like allowing smoking on one floor of a building but not the other. But really, which ever is the right approach, should it not apply to the whole region?

If restricting the purchase of items is ever going to be useful in reducing crack use, it has to be region wide. Otherwise it is just a political “feel good” position (which will be pointless to crack users) and which will create useless bureaucracy, assuming it is even enforced.

If distributing free crack pipes is ever going to be useful in reducing hepatitis C, it has to be region wide. Otherwise it will have a limited effect, which while it might be useful, fails to achieve the potential benefit to the region in which we all live.

Regardless of which approach you support, would it not make sense that the approach be consistent in the region?

It could be suggested that someone could go to all 13 counsels to try and convince them to get on board with either proposal. However, that would be such a waste of energy, time and resources, compared to working with one or two effective cities.

No comments: