How widespread are the homeless/mental health/addiction issues in your city/province?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Architype

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-bringing-i...aces-1.6590154

This raises obvious questions of enforcement, and severity and effectiveness of penalty.

I think enforcement will be difficult - filling up the jails with homeless people is not a great option. I'm not sure what they are expecting the police to do with somebody who has just shot up, and I also have to wonder what that will do to police resources.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

OMG, an obvious but nonetheless good idea? I hope it is enforced to the fullest. I support providing addicts with free clean drugs, but they should only be consumed in supervised facilities. You know, compromise? Meet society half way?

I suspect that most people in this situation have already given up on society, so perhaps they don't care whether they meet anything halfway, they just need that next hit, and it's the only thing that matters.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I suspect that most people in this situation have already given up on society, so perhaps they don't care whether they meet anything halfway, they just need that next hit, and it's the only thing that matters.

Of course they don’t care much whether they are physically inside a supervised injection site or on the sidewalk, when it comes to spending their post-hit zombie phase; Metro-One’s point was that the rest of society does, AND that since they do want that next hit badly, it can easily be used as a carrot.

Free stuff, except the catch is, you can only do it there. You’ll find very few addicts who’ll reply to that “no thanks to free drugs, I’d rather rob a convenience store to be able to buy no-strings-attached drugs on the street, because this way I get to conserve my right to OD on a public sidewalk”.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think enforcement will be difficult - filling up the jails with homeless people is not a great option. I'm not sure what they are expecting the police to do with somebody who has just shot up, and I also have to wonder what that will do to police resources.


.

Doesn't it also so in the new BC rules that the police approach can only be to ask or request that people comply?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Doesn't it also so in the new BC rules that the police approach can only be to ask or request that people comply?

Those ridiculous "middle" approaches are a pet peeve of mine.

It's a worst of both worlds approach. It's like saying we're going to make all speeding tickets on our roads all be 0$ / unlimited "warnings", while still paying to install and maintain a bunch of signs with various speed limits all over the network and having cops patrolling and doing radar -- all things that we would save if we openly assumed our new "German autobahn" model.

It's always one or the other:

1) Rule, COMBINED with enforcement;

2) No rule.

This 1.5) "Rule, but we don't actually enforce it, yet it's still officially on the books" is just idiocy. If we want #2, then let's be honest enough to openly choose that. Personally, I'm fine with democratically choosing either #1 or #2, both are okay, it's #1.5 that combines the worst of each, with no advantage.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Those ridiculous "middle" approaches are a pet peeve of mine.

It's a worst of both worlds approach. It's like saying we're going to make all speeding tickets on our roads all be 0$ / unlimited "warnings", while still paying to install and maintain a bunch of signs with various speed limits all over the network and having cops patrolling and doing radar -- all things that we would save if we openly assumed our new "German autobahn" model.

It's always one or the other:

1) Rule, COMBINED with enforcement;

2) No rule.

This 1.5) "Rule, but we don't actually enforce it, yet it's still officially on the books" is just idiocy. If we want #2, then let's be honest enough to openly choose that. Personally, I'm fine with democratically choosing either #1 or #2, both are okay, it's #1.5 that combines the worst of each, with no advantage.

The 1.5 rule has the advantage of allowing people who actually don't want to do anything about it, the opportunity to give the impression that they are in fact doing something.

This also happens to be the approach to the whole immigration vs. housing issue.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

OMG, an obvious but nonetheless good idea? I hope it is enforced to the fullest. I support providing addicts with free clean drugs, but they should only be consumed in supervised facilities. You know, compromise? Meet society half way?

One big issue with your idea is that the concept of "clean drugs" is a bit of a problem here. Right now the drug of choice for opioid addicts in my area is a street fentanyl pill that you crush and dilute in an acid (usually vinegar from the store shelf), which my gf and I helped analyze and we found out it contains coke and extasy and THC and PCP, among other shit, so it's highly addictive, more than just fentanyl would be. To quit it, you have to quit all those products simulaneously. (I like to joke that the makers of those pills missed a good business opportunity by not adding nicotine and caffeine in there, while at it.)

The opioid clinic's "management program to help addicts" gives them pure stuff from the pharmacy (hydromorphone pills), which many of them actually trade for $, in order to buy the street stuff which is way more potent in terms of effect. The healthcare system cannot accept -- isn't open-minded enough, I guess you could say -- to give addicts the shit that they actually prefer; the bureaucracy will stick to safe clean pharmacy stuff.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

One big issue with your idea is that the concept of "clean drugs" is a bit of a problem here. Right now the drug of choice for opioid addicts in my area is a street fentanyl pill that you crush and dilute in an acid (usually vinegar from the store shelf), which my gf and I helped analyze and we found out it contains coke and extasy and THC and PCP, among other shit, so it's highly addictive, more than just fentanyl would be. To quit it, you have to quit all those products simulaneously. (I like to joke that the makers of those pills missed a good business opportunity by not adding nicotine and caffeine in there, while at it.)

The opioid clinic's "management program to help addicts" gives them pure stuff from the pharmacy (hydromorphone pills), which many of them actually trade for $, in order to buy the street stuff which is way more potent in terms of effect. The healthcare system cannot accept -- isn't open-minded enough, I guess you could say -- to give addicts the shit that they prefer; they'll stick with safe clean pharmacy stuff.

You've just provided a pretty good argument for why the state probably shouldn't be providing unlimited(?) free non-medically necessary drugs to people in the first place.

[lio45]

Well, I'm 100% with Metro-One on this at least: if the State is going to pay for your morphine, THEN you have to do your shoot on the premises. You're not leaving the building with anything that has street market value.

Gf and I personally know a shitload of "fake morphine addicts" who are enrolled at the opioid clinic, and they get their daily morphine for free, and trade it all for crack, each day. The irony is that the clinic is full, no new admissions, so I know several opioid addicts who can't get it (they're on a waiting list with no chance of anything happening anytime soon, probably no chance of success within their life expectancy, no exaggeration!), therefore, the actual opioid addicts who are hopelessly waiting for enrollment buy their opioids in cash from the fake opioid addicts who are grandfathered into the program, who get the stuff for free from the healthcare system each day, sell it to the actual addicts who aren't into the program, and use the money to buy crack.

It's maddening, or to be more exact, it WOULD be maddening to me, if I weren't so blasé about the fact that IMO, Quebec is quickly going to shit, and this sort of thing is just perfectly normal -- it's how we do things here.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, I'm 100% with Metro-One on this at least: if the State is going to pay for your morphine, THEN you have to do your shoot on the premises. You're not leaving the building with anything that has street market value.

Gf and I personally know a shitload of "fake morphine addicts" who are enrolled at the opioid clinic, and they get their daily morphine for free, and trade it all for crack, each day. The irony is that the clinic is full, no new admissions, so I know several opioid addicts who can't get it (they're on a waiting list with no chance of anything happening anytime soon, probably no chance of success within their life expectancy, no exaggeration!), therefore, the actual opioid addicts who are waiting for enrollment buy their opioids in cash from the fake opioid addicts who are grandfathered into the program, who get the stuff for free from the healthcare system each day, sell it to the actual addicts who aren't into the program, and use the money to buy crack.

It's maddening, or to be more exact, it WOULD be maddening to me, if I weren't so blasé about the fact that IMO, Quebec is quickly going to shit, and this sort of thing is just perfectly normal -- it's how we do things here.

Any consolation in the fact that we're far from the only ones?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Any consolation in the fact that we're far from the only ones?

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...t-pu-etre-pire

[someone123]

Drug addicts still respond to incentives. If they get in trouble in one area they'll go somewhere else, and they'll do things in exchange for free drugs (the thing that makes them addicts is that they will value the drugs more highly than life necessities or social behaviour sometimes). Part of what's not working is that the incentive structure is messed up, and I think that is because of a mix of strange ideology and a kind of learned helplessness in institutions and society.

There are already effective incentive-structuring policies around smoking, like taxes, border controls, and restrictions on where you can smoke.

I think illegal public drug use is by definition already banned but it's good they're at least signaling that they want to move in a sane direction.

[RHINO]

This problem is becoming the single biggest issue to all Canadians and every attempt to
" fix " it has failed completely. The creation of safe injection sites and the distribution of safe supply has increased the issue, and is spawning a new crop of drug addicts at an even younger age. If you couple the feeling of hopelessness around rental and property cost, & living cost that our youth suffer under and many will turn to something that will allow them an escape from reality. Those getting safe supply, simply turn around and sell them to these poor people so they can buy hard drugs. People who want OFF drugs, don't want safe supply. Ask them. Many will say its the worst thing the government EVER did. But the left rarely admits to making errors. And they certainly NEVER actually fix problem's. Things just get worse and people still vote for them.

MANDITORY rehab is the only way to fix this issue. We need to stop putting the feelings and life style of 2% of the population ahead of the 98%. If we dont do something soon, those numbers could swing to 5% to 95% in the next 10 years.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by lio45

Those ridiculous "middle" approaches are a pet peeve of mine.

It's a worst of both worlds approach. It's like saying we're going to make all speeding tickets on our roads all be 0$ / unlimited "warnings", while still paying to install and maintain a bunch of signs with various speed limits all over the network and having cops patrolling and doing radar -- all things that we would save if we openly assumed our new "German autobahn" model.

It's always one or the other:

1) Rule, COMBINED with enforcement;

2) No rule.

This 1.5) "Rule, but we don't actually enforce it, yet it's still officially on the books" is just idiocy. If we want #2, then let's be honest enough to openly choose that. Personally, I'm fine with democratically choosing either #1 or #2, both are okay, it's #1.5 that combines the worst of each, with no advantage.

It is interesting that I'd likely be quite zealously prosecuted by the cops under #1 for openly drinking and being intoxicated in public in pretty much every jurisdiction.

Maybe humanity's longer and more clear relationship with alcohol makes it an easier case.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by RHINO

Those getting safe supply, simply turn around and sell them to these poor people so they can buy hard drugs.

This point, which was just brought up, is something that can easily be fixed by making sure you're not letting anyone leave with anything that has street market value.

For opioids, if you asked me to run it, the way it would work is that people would show up, explain their consumption habits and typical dosing to the staff, the staff would then prepare their shoot / IV for them, using pharmacy morphine not laced with anything else, and be the ones doing the injection, with naloxone available in case the clinic customer just intended Suicide-By-OD by lying about their habits and tolerance (when you do this, you're then semi-blacklisted, and your doses get slightly lowered in the future, as a penalty). You can then stay for a while in a lounge / resting area, and you leave with nothing you can resell on the street.

[harls]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, I'm 100% with Metro-One on this at least: if the State is going to pay for your morphine, THEN you have to do your shoot on the premises. You're not leaving the building with anything that has street market value.

I think you underestimate the 'I want my to shoot up my shit alone and fuck off' factor of addicts.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by harls

I think you underestimate the 'I want my to shoot up my shit alone and fuck off' factor of addicts.

I don't underestimate it at all. You're free to go rob a convenience store (if male) or suck a few dicks (if female) and THEN you can do what you want with the shit that you bought and which is fully yours.

But if the State is going to pay for your stuff, sorry, we're not going to let you argue that you prefer to do your shoot privately on your own, as we have no way of preventing you from selling your stuff on the street and buying other drugs with the cash. Free stuff comes with strings attached. If you don't like it, no problem, just pass.

[harls]

Originally Posted by lio45

I don't underestimate it at all. You're free to go rob a convenience store (if male) or suck a few dicks (if female) and THEN you can do what you want with the shit that you bought and which is fully yours.

But if the State is going to pay for your stuff, sorry, we're not going to let you argue that you prefer to do your shoot privately on your own, as we have no way of preventing you from selling your stuff on the street and buying other drugs with the cash. Free stuff comes with strings attached. If you don't like it, no problem, just pass.

That wasn't what I was saying. Addicts are not in a conformative state of mind like you or I.

You can't expect a drug-addled brain to comply with rules. Heck, this is why they are where they are in the first place.

[Acajack]

Though even the drug-addled will act in self-interest and often take the easiest route to whatever it is they want or need.

Plus there is never an expectation with these types of programs that they will bring (much less save) everyone or even most everyone.

It's not about definitely ending the damage, but rather reducing it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RHINO

This problem is becoming the single biggest issue to all Canadians and every attempt to " fix " it has failed completely.

I do think we should accept that existing practices have not worked well, and that we have basically been following a similar policy framework for many decades, going back to the 1960's in some cases (does a general approach that's been implemented for 50 years still count as "progressive"?).

I am skeptical when I see people argue that, sure, things have gotten worse, but their policies were a net win over what otherwise would have happened and their ideology should not be questioned. We should generally look at outcomes and set success rather than failure as the baseline. I do not believe that the best Canada can do is partly manage a situation where lots of people are dying from drugs and living in tents.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

Of course they don’t care much whether they are physically inside a supervised injection site or on the sidewalk, when it comes to spending their post-hit zombie phase; Metro-One’s point was that the rest of society does, AND that since they do want that next hit badly, it can easily be used as a carrot.

Free stuff, except the catch is, you can only do it there. You’ll find very few addicts who’ll reply to that “no thanks to free drugs, I’d rather rob a convenience store to be able to buy no-strings-attached drugs on the street, because this way I get to conserve my right to OD on a public sidewalk”.

I think you missed my point. I was reacting to the concept that the police asking the addict to go to a safe injection site, and the addict wanting to do it out of some concept of being reasonable and 'meeting society half way' would ever have any chance of success, generally. Maybe Metro didn't mean it that way, and I suppose it doesn't matter really.

I agree that as a member of 'normal, productive' society, I don't want drug addicts hanging about and shooting up in public spaces. I find it incredibly sad that so many people have lost hope and have turned to hard drugs as a lifestyle, and equally sad of what that has meant for the quality of life for the rest of us. With the actions that have been done so far, I can't foresee it getting any better, and in fact fully expect it to become worse.

It would take a few generations to clear up, if we could take a dive into identifying and correcting the root cause(s) of people starting down that road in the first place, but there has to be something that can be done, and so far we are just trying to put bandaids on the gushing wound while not trying to understand how the wound happened in the first place.