Atlantic Canadian Politics Thread

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by sailor734

I think the whole "compelled treatment" thing is more about political posturing.

Possibly, but the consequence of an overdose with fent is the alternative. Do we simply wait until then?

[MonctonRad]

If enforced treatment is impractical (although I dearly wish it was), then we have to approach the problem another way and I suggest a severe crackdown on the pushers.

Punishment for trafficking should be swift and severe. Mandatory sentences of five years minimum, with 10 years for repeat offenders. If it can be proven the actions of any pusher contributed to an overdose death, then they should be charged with second degree murder and receive life sentence with no payroll for 20 years,

This would help get the drugs off the street.

[NB_ExistsToo]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Possibly, but the consequence of an overdose with fent is the alternative. Do we simply wait until then?

You just don't understand. Every single study EVER completed in every country in the entire world returns similar results: forced treatment does not work in terms of long term effects.

Yes, short term, drug use goes down, because it has to, the people are forced against their will to stop taking drugs and literally cannot access them. Statistically, a vast majority of these folks relapse, then when you have a bunch of addicted people relapsing, you'll have a spike in overdoses and deaths, as their dose is too high. but the drug problem effectively gets kicked down the road a few years. On top of that, you now have a large segment of the population that now has zero trust in the government since they're arresting people and forcing treatment against their will.

Nobody here is saying "lets see what happens". There needs to be more resources and facilities, so when someone wants to get clean, there isn't a 12 month waiting period to start.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If enforced treatment is impractical (although I dearly wish it was), then we have to approach the problem another way and I suggest a severe crackdown on the pushers.

Punishment for trafficking should be swift and severe. Mandatory sentences of five years minimum, with 10 years for repeat offenders. If it can be proven the actions of any pusher contributed to an overdose death, then they should be charged with second degree murder and receive life sentence with no payroll for 20 years,

This would help get the drugs off the street.

Unfortunately, US experience with "lock 'em up and throw away the key" would suggest it doesn't work. There always seems to be a steady stream of replacement dealers.

If you accept that we have a hardcore of homeless suffering from severe mental health issues and/or severe and chronic addiction who are resistant to seeking help perhaps the best use of resources is some sort of long term custodial care.
Certainly offer all the treatment (both in and outpatient) possible but at some point if it is ineffectual they need to be taken off the street for their own safety and the good of society.

However, given the events of violence and abuse at our one secure psychiatric facilty I'm not sure we should trust the NB government to to operate such a facility.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Unfortunately, US experience with "lock 'em up and throw away the key" would suggest it doesn't work. There always seems to be a steady stream of replacements.

I don't care. Expanding work camps in the near north building needed infrastructure sounds like a nifty solution to the problems of pushers. If more pushers come out of the woodwork, even better! It just means more work camps and more infrastructure. A winning solution!

Originally Posted by sailor734

If you accept that we have a hardcore of homeless suffering from severe mental health issues and/or severe and chronic addiction perhaps the best use of resources is some sort of long term custodial care.
Certainly offer all the treatment (both in and outpatient) possible but at some point if it is ineffectual they need to be taken off the street for their own safety and the good of society.

I'm old enough to remember when they closed all the asylums in the 1970s and threw everyone out onto the streets. It was only then that the problems of street people and chronic homelessness really started coming to the fore.

As harsh as it may seem, some people just are incapable of looking after themselves. They will die on the streets, either from drug overdose, preventable illness (pneumonia), violence, or just freezing to death. Is committal to a long term care facility (asylum) such a bad alternative? They will at least be warm, fed and have a comfortable bed.

[Sunnybrae]

It's always the same thing. Everyone talks about the symptoms but never the root cause. Why do people turn to drugs to deal with with there problems? You would think everyone knows that turning to drugs is the worst thing you can do but I guess not. Maybe throw more money at educating young people to the hazards of drug use in the first place because obviously, what ever they are doing now is not working.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm old enough to remember when they closed all the asylums in the 1970s and threw everyone out onto the streets. It was only then that the problems of street people and chronic homelessness really started coming to the fore.

Is this really applicable to the discussion here though? Monctons (& NBs) homeless problem is relatively new, like in the last 10 years. It didnt start because they closed a bunch of facilities down releasing everyone in the facility in the streets.

In general its a vicious cycle that greatly ties back to a lack of housing and a lack of treatment available for those who want it. Many of the people you see on the streets today were much different than what you see of them now. They may have been many of the waitlisted for help for 6 months, didn't get the help they needed, couldn't get a job because of their addiction and now they are at a point where it will be much more difficult to help them.

Generally speaking the nordic countries handle this better than anyone, and their solution is not about arresting homeless people who are addicts, but about finding housing solutions for the ones who are in the early stages of their battle, and tying their housing to employment and responsibility. You are seeing *some* success with this with the setup they have in Fredericton. Most importantly giving them the proper support and resources along the way so they don't relapse. Jailing them is almost guaranteeing relaspe.

I'm certainly for investing in policing to find and arrest the suppliers.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by lirette

Is this really applicable to the discussion here though? Monctons (& NBs) homeless problem is relatively new, like in the last 10 years. It didnt start because they closed a bunch of facilities down releasing everyone in the facility in the streets.

In general its a vicious cycle that greatly ties back to a lack of housing and a lack of treatment available for those who want it. Many of the people you see on the streets today were much different than what you see of them now. They may have been many of the waitlisted for help for 6 months, didn't get the help they needed, couldn't get a job because of their addiction and now they are at a point where it will be much more difficult to help them.

Generally speaking the nordic countries handle this better than anyone, and their solution is not about arresting homeless people who are addicts, but about finding housing solutions for the ones who are in the early stages of their battle, and tying their housing to employment and responsibility. You are seeing *some* success with this with the setup they have in Fredericton. Most importantly giving them the proper support and resources along the way so they don't relapse. Jailing them is almost guaranteeing relaspe.

I'm certainly for investing in policing to find and arrest the suppliers.

12 Neighbours vigorously self polices and forbids drug use and anti-social behaviour. Zero tolerance AFAIK.

Saint John has opted for full tolerance.

[adamuptownsj]

Candidate update, little change in the pre-Labour Day doldrums.

Lib 47 (plus Carleton-Victoria and Fredericton-Grand Lake scheduled next week)
PC 36 (plus Bathurst and SJ Harbour, scheduled tomorrow)
Grn 26
NDP 17
PA 11
Libertarians 0 (safe to call this party stillborn?)
Independents 0

Hampton-Fundy-St. Martins becomes the 5th 5-candidate race.

[TitleRequired]

Well, in practicality, we have discussed the policy points between compelled treatment and harm reduction more than will be covered by media and candidates during the election....

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Candidate update, little change in the pre-Labour Day doldrums.

Lib 47 (plus Carleton-Victoria and Fredericton-Grand Lake scheduled next week)
PC 36 (plus Bathurst and SJ Harbour, scheduled tomorrow)
Grn 26
NDP 17
PA 11
Libertarians 0 (safe to call this party stillborn?)
Independents 0

Hampton-Fundy-St. Martins becomes the 5th 5-candidate race.

Any word on who is doing a run in SJ harbour?

[lirette]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Well, in practicality, we have discussed the policy points between compelled treatment and harm reduction more than will be covered by media and candidates during the election....

Unfortunately given the nature of social media and other factors there isn't much room anymore for detailed policy discussion in elections.

It is easier on the right politically to call Susan Holt a radical liberal or whatever buzzword we are going with these days than to discuss policy in depth and find reasonable critiques. There is a number of long form interviews that she has given in the last little while where the radical liberal description comes across as silly once you hear her speak, but people don't want to take the time to do that anymore.

That is why the "compelled treatment" policy is one of vibes. Its meant to appease on peoples fears , perhaps someone whos had their house broken into, or been yelled at downtown or had their bike stolen. Of course these are valid reasons to be concerned, and the person hears this policy and thinks all of these individuals will be locked away while ignoring any concerns about how the policy will be implemented and if it would actually make the problem worse, and perhaps even ignoring that the people who committed these crimes or acts aren't even necessarily addicts who would be the ones that end up locked away. We already have studies that tell us that mandatory treatment always leads to a high% of relapse.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Any word on who is doing a run in SJ harbour?

I have heard there are two candidates right now, both of whom lost their attempts at a nomination in other Saint John ridings already. Certainly seems like the PCs have given up on the seat, which is surprising given how tight it has always been in the past.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by lirette

Unfortunately given the nature of social media and other factors there isn't much room anymore for detailed policy discussion in elections.

It is easier on the right politically to call Susan Holt a radical liberal or whatever buzzword we are going with these days than to discuss policy in depth and find reasonable critiques. There is a number of long form interviews that she has given in the last little while where the radical liberal description comes across as silly once you hear her speak, but people don't want to take the time to do that anymore.

That is why the "compelled treatment" policy is one of vibes. Its meant to appease on peoples fears , perhaps someone whos had their house broken into, or been yelled at downtown or had their bike stolen. Of course these are valid reasons to be concerned, and the person hears this policy and thinks all of these individuals will be locked away while ignoring any concerns about how the policy will be implemented and if it would actually make the problem worse, and perhaps even ignoring that the people who committed these crimes or acts aren't even necessarily addicts who would be the ones that end up locked away. We already have studies that tell us that mandatory treatment always leads to a high% of relapse.

What's your proposal again? I didn't catch it...

All I know is the current strategy against fent isn't working, and is rotting out Waterloo Village, and growing. I don't care what we do, as long as we can win against fent and its ilk.

Is there a better form of Harm reduction? Is there a better form of treatment? No Idea.

Status quo though is unacceptable.

[Dieppe98]

The 338Canada.com/nb predictions have been updated. They project:
PC - 23 (18 to 29)
Lib - 23 (18 to 27)
Green - 3 (1 to 6)
PA - 0
NDP - 0

[adamuptownsj]

You see, if we do anything other than devote 50%+ of emergency service attention to meth head resuscitation, it doesn't work. We must simply continue resuscitating the meth heads until they decide to stop doing meth. If they ruin a neighbourhood and commit constant crime along the way, that's someone else's fault.

Here's an idea. No tents. No 'harm reduction' facilities (now there's something that clearly doesn't work). If you camp in city limits your tent is destroyed. If you want to camp and be on drugs all day, try a different city. We don't have to live like this. We do not have to inflict insane drug addict criminals on the poor and working class. What are they going to do, sue?

We are dangerously close to people taking matters into their own hands. This is not a tenable situation. Emergency service workers are at their limits responding to the same individuals multiple times a day. Council formalizing drug cities will have second- and third-order effects that will be very ugly.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

You see, if we do anything other than devote 50%+ of emergency service attention to meth head resuscitation, it doesn't work. We must simply continue resuscitating the meth heads until they decide to stop doing meth. If they ruin a neighbourhood and commit constant crime along the way, that's someone else's fault.

Here's an idea. No tents. No 'harm reduction' facilities (now there's something that clearly doesn't work). If you camp in city limits your tent is destroyed. If you want to camp and be on drugs all day, try a different city. We don't have to live like this. We do not have to inflict insane drug addict criminals on the poor and working class. What are they going to do, sue?

We are dangerously close to people taking matters into their own hands. This is not a tenable situation. Emergency service workers are at their limits responding to the same individuals multiple times a day. Council formalizing drug cities will have second- and third-order effects that will be very ugly.

I thought of recently how much % capacity that must be utilized on a daily basis at St Joes. Must be epic?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Dieppe98

The 338Canada.com/nb predictions have been updated. They project:
PC - 23 (18 to 29)
Lib - 23 (18 to 27)
Green - 3 (1 to 6)
PA - 0
NDP - 0

A dead heat. Very interesting.

If this pans out, I could see Higgs trying to continue governing, but, with a quickie vote of non confidence organized by the Liberals, and supported by the Greens, which will pass, dissolving the government, with the LG then offering the Liberals a chance to govern with informal support from the Greens.

The situation would be highly unstable, but, Higgs would be forced to resign as PC leader, with a leadership convention called within the year. A fresher, more popular leader would then be chosen.

A Holt government would not last beyond two years. Depending on her performance, the subsequent election could be hers to lose.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

What's your proposal again? I didn't catch it...

All I know is the current strategy against fent isn't working, and is rotting out Waterloo Village, and growing. I don't care what we do, as long as we can win against fent and its ilk.

Is there a better form of Harm reduction? Is there a better form of treatment? No Idea.

Status quo though is unacceptable.

I am against a plan that will ultimately leads to worse outcomes regardless of it making people feel better in the moment. The status quo is absolutely better than an option that makes things worse if its a binary choice.

I would imagine though at a high level I would support things that target the issue before it reaches a breaking point such as:

-Further investment in clinics for voluntary treatment, whether that's increased wages for addiction professionals, increased schooling access for addiction professionals. Tax credits for people who stay in NB to work after school etc. We will never get anywhere if we can't get that waitlist down
-Create models like 12 neighbors all over the province, starting with Moncton & Saint John
-Investments in police services to deal with supply (this needs to happen at all government levels).
-Increase in mental health services available - many of these issues begin as mental health issues, that spiral to drug use because self medication will happen if someone cannot get help.
-Invest in programs that help people re-integrate in society after incarceration

Ultimately these issues tie back to the biggest issues in our province, health care & housing. People don't just find themselves doing fentanyl when things are going well in the jobs and family life, and if they do they often have support systems that the people who we see distressed on the streets never had.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by Dieppe98

The 338Canada.com/nb predictions have been updated. They project:
PC - 23 (18 to 29)
Lib - 23 (18 to 27)
Green - 3 (1 to 6)
PA - 0
NDP - 0

Yes, very interesting and not entirely surprising. It does make one point though. Hicks needs a majority win to stay in power as the Liberals are by far the most likely recipient of Green support.
Another thing to note is the big spread in potential seat numbers for both the Libs (18-27) and the PC's (18-29) would seem to indicate a lot of close ridings.

They are also predicting the Liberals getting blanked in both SJ and Freddy. (PC sweep in SJ and PC's + 2 Greens in Fredericton) That would mean Holt not winning a seat.

Interesting time to be the Lt. Governor.

I did have someone tell me recently one poll showed a real chance of the Greens winning in Holt's seat and the Liberals winning Coon's