Jump to content

Recommended Posts

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm really disappointed that the Dulwich Medical

> Centre is reapplying for what was so vehemently

> opposed only a few years ago.



Vehemently opposed due to ignorance, social bias, prejudice and Nimbyism?

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not sure that local pharmacies are that far from

> DMC and they all provide repeat facilities.

> Also from a governance perspective it seems wise

> for GP's NOT to profit from the pharmacy function

> and good pharmacists act as a check on what is

> prescribed which would be harder to do when your

> salary comes fro mthe GP's you might need to

> correct.



And this quite frankly, is just an insult to the professional integrity and accountability of Pharmacists.

DMC is already a "for profit" business - I doubt any earnings from an onsite Pharmacy/Needle Exchange would in anyway influence prescribing habits of the GP's. Seriously.

LuLu Too Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm really disappointed that the Dulwich

> Medical

> > Centre is reapplying for what was so vehemently

> > opposed only a few years ago.

>

>

> Vehemently opposed due to ignorance, social bias,

> prejudice and Nimbyism?


xxxxxxx


Yes.

Is it really ignorance and prejudice to be concerned about the impact providing a service that will cater to drug addicts late at night will have on the area? We can agree that NIMBY attitudes shirk social responsibility without pretending there won't be any downside to having this locally. If there aren't other late night exchanges in Southwark, its not unreasonable to assume providing this service will attract drug users from other areas to East Dulwich- if there are other services then why is this necessary here?


Compelled by their addiction, drug addicts engage in behaviour that most people wouldn't want in their neighborhood including crimes of opportunity such as theft / robbery, drug-use itself, and unpredictable / anti-social behaviour when high. Instead of pretending that there are no issues, why don't we debate this honestly and say that if such a service is really needed and ED is the best place to provide it (not yet proven), what measures need to be taken to minimise the impact on the local community.

We are talking about people who are responsible enough to be using a needle exchange.


Not people who are "compelled by their addiction to engage in behaviour that most people wouldn't want in their neighbourhood."


Do you actually know anything about addiction?


And Forest Hill Road and Peckham are not very near Crystal Palace Road, so it would seem that there may be a need for something more local.


ETA: Two close relatives of mine were both in the past heroin addicts, and both held down responsible jobs. Both of them have been off it for years, no thanks to the sort of people whose prejudices are expressed in this thread.

Are you seriously suggesting that just because an active drug user wants to remain healthy and exchange needles their addiction will no longer hold sway over them and they will no longer be tempted to commit crime etc to fund their drug use? Are you saying that active drug users who want to stay healthy won't be tempted to get high locally when they receive their new needles (out of respect for neighborhood they are visiting)

I didn't say that so please don't be so dramatic. One of my closest friends works in a methadone treatment centre in Devon but its not my own field of expertise. Does that disqualify me from participating in the dialouge ?


From what I know, drug addicts to feed their addiction do have a higher propensity to commit crimes of opportunity (robbery / break-ins). Let me know if you disagree with that statement. Attracting more active drug users to the area should raise concerns about an increase in this sort of crime. If you think this is entirely unfounded please explain why?

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't say that so please don't be so dramatic.

> One of my closest friends works in a methadone

> treatment centre in Devon but its not my own field

> of expertise. Does that disqualify me from

> participating in the dialouge ?

>

> From what I know, drug addicts to feed their

> addiction do have a higher propensity to commit

> crimes of opportunity (robbery / break-ins). Let

> me know if you disagree with that statement.

> Attracting more active drug users to the area

> should raise concerns about an increase in this

> sort of crime. If you think this is entirely

> unfounded please explain why?


xxxxxx


If you can produce some statistics to show that bringing a needle exchange to an area results in an increase in crime, and that that crime is committed by addicts, then I will be happy to change my view.


If you can't, then I think that you are unnecessarily scaremongering.

I think it's really sad that people can be so prejudiced against drug addicts rather than praising those who wish to minimise the danger to themselves and others by using a needle exchange. Surely having more of these facilities can only be a good thing as it encourages users to be safe and if it s a convenient location then I don't see the problem. As Sue mentions, not all addicts fund dugs through crime and frankly if you look on the forum on any day you will find a wealth of crimes committed, the area isn't as rosy as some like to believe.


East Dulwich is a community, it's inclusive of all people and prejudice doesn't help to promote a neighbourly spirit. I hope all those who judge and heap scorn on addicts never find themselves in a position where they struggle emotionally, mentally or financially. Imagine how wonderful life would be if everyone had lovely jobs, a balanced home and a happy childhood. These matters need to be out in the open to support people with their recovery and not make it so shocking or shameful. I presume you pile the same amount of negivity towards the homeless or rowdy groups of 'youths'?!


And I have a toddler who goes to a nursery, I think that if I spent my life trying to protect her from 'undesirables' I would never take her out! Personally I want her to grow up having appreciation for all people and understanding, not to look down her nose at people or hide behind the curtains. Plus if you've seen the metal gates and entry system at gumboots you will see how regulated visitors are, exactly what are the addicts going to be doing??


And I would support a pharmacy on site as people who are ill or dragging around toddlers and kids would prob find it more convenient. However I also agree that the surgery have lots of other issues to address first!

Who is heaping scorn? Drug addiction is a disease and my first comment clearly said despite any negative consequences, shirking social responsibility via NIMBY attitudes is inapproriate. Holding those views though does not mean you have to pretend that drug addiction (as a disease not a moral failing) has behavioural consequences and that we should openly discuss this rationally to be able to mitigate against them if this service is provided.


I'll see what statistics I can find and post them if you think that will be helpful.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Compelled by their addiction, drug addicts engage

> in behaviour that most people wouldn't want in

> their neighborhood including crimes of opportunity

> such as theft / robbery, drug-use itself, and

> unpredictable / anti-social behaviour when high.

>

Sounds pretty scornful to me. You state an apparent fact here, if perhaps you used the wrong words then maybe clear it up, otherwise you will many people read it the same way as I have. It is a sweeping statement in my opinion and I look forward to the facts that back it up. I don't think anyone doubts that drug using can go hand in hand with crime but then crime occurs in many forms and frankly it is a touch short-sighted to say that all drug addicts are criminals. Also, if this centre shouldnt go in crystal palace road then where should it go? If you don't want it on your doorstep then whose doorstep should it go on?

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/treatment-drug-abusers-in-criminal-justice-system

Quote from article at link from government website advocating drug treatment below:


"The connection between drug abuse and crime is well known. Drug abuse is implicated in at least three types of drug related offenses: (1) offenses defined by drug possession or sales, (2) offenses directly related to drug abuse (e.g., stealing to get money for drugs), and (3) offenses related to a lifestyle that predisposes the drug abuser to engage in illegal activity (e.g., through association with other offenders or with illicit markets)."


Now, if someone can explain to me why active drug users who use needle exchanges will behave differently than other drug users, I would be very happy to hear it. I am actually for exchanges as public health policy but I don't want to pretend like we don't need to discuss this frankly including how to mitigate any negative consequences.


Another link on increase of crime associated with needle exchanges-- not to say this is definitive evidence but rather that there is a basis for debating the point. Wanting to debate this does not make me ignorant or prejudiced, just pragmatic.



Needle exchanges increase crime Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007: "Crime Increases in Area of Needle Exchanges: - Crimes Due to Drug Use: When a needle exchange program (NEP) moves in, associated crime and violence follows, including prostitution which contributes to the spread of AIDS. A spokesperson from the Coalition for a Better Community, a NY City based group opposed to NEPs, visited the Lower East Side Needle Exchange with a NY Times reporter. Their conclusion: ?Since the NEP began we?ve seen an increase in dirty syringes on our streets, in schools yards, and in our parks?Brazen addicts shoplift, loot, and steal to buy drugs."



Also, Jenny H, if you read my previous posts you would know that I said if ED is the best place for it, then it should be here but we need to mitigate the negative consequences. Why people keep on trying to paint my argument as something its not, I have no idea...

I'd like to see actual statistics from the neighbourhoods of needle exchanges which have been set up in this country please, not vague "conclusions" about "an increase" from an American paper nearly five years old which is clearly setting out, as indeed its title states, to make the case for opposing needle exchange.


ETA: And as has already been clear, needle exchange users DO differ from many other drug users, because they are responsibly attending a centre where they can obtain clean needles.


Which is not to say that many other needle users who do not use needle exchanges are not responsible.


And not all drug users, in fact I would guess not the majority, use needles at all, so to quote studies about links between drug use and crime is just muddying the waters here.

I've looked and couldn't find a UK study on the matter one way or anther. However, the NHS has its own statement regarding the connection between drug addiction and crime on its needle exchange website: http://www.nta.nhs.uk/criminal-justice.aspx


Given this connection is acknowledged even by proponents in favor of needle exchanges, perhaps you can provide some evidence that there won't be any negative issues at all if there is an increase in drug addicts visiting the area? I agree that if the facility was used only by our own local addicts it should be neutral but if the late night service is rare, one would imagine addicts from other areas would be informed about it as an alternative out of hours location to their local exchanges.

Have you read the thread? I am not against needle exchanges per se. I simply believe that if an additional one is really needed in ED that provides a service that will attract drug users from other neighbourhoods because of its unique opening hours, we should as a community discuss and plan ways to mitigate the negative consequences of this social good...


I've already said I am in favour of exchanges from a public health policy perspective but that doesn't mean I have to pretend that there is no downside to having one

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've looked and couldn't find a UK study on the

> matter one way or anther. However, the NHS has its

> own statement regarding the connection between

> drug addiction and crime on its needle exchange

> website:

> http://www.nta.nhs.uk/criminal-justice.aspx

>

>

xxxxxxxx


This link does not seem to be connected with any needle exchange website? Have I missed the mention of needle exchanges?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...