Years into a drug overdose crisis, Canada is facing backlash against government-sanctioned programs such as legal injection sites designed to keep users alive without curtailing drug use.
The British Columbia government has walked back a pilot project to decriminalize small quantities of illicit drugs in public places in the province. Police there also are prosecuting activists seeking to make safe drugs available.
And the man who may become Canada’s next prime minister, Conservative Pierre Poilievre, has said he wants to shut down some sites where users can legally consume illicit drugs under supervision, calling them “drug dens.”
The backlash reflects growing fears in Canada over the use of narcotics in public spaces, encampments where drug use is seen as common, and the specter of needles in playgrounds. Some critics of the so-called harm reduction programs see a rising number of overdose deaths in Canada as evidence that existing measures are not working.
But public health experts worry that dialing back the programs would endanger the health and lives of drug users, contributing to even more deaths.
Spend the extra money on actual solutions like free rehab beds available the second someone is ready for it, and a massive safety net for every person who makes it through that hell.
I happen to have 2 centers in my neighborhood and they help local residents. Shutting them down will result in people using drugs in parks where kids play. Is that better???
The problem, at least from the perspective of people in the communities, is they’re seeing people use drugs (and do all the things that people on drugs do, like theft, littering, leaving paraphenalia around, problematic behaviour, etc) anyway.
Source: personal experience. I live in a small Ontario city with a big drug problem. The SCS, while it helps with deaths due to drug use, doesn’t appear help with the problems around drug use, especially for people who aren’t addicts or people who care about addicts.
What they aren’t understanding, is that the drug problem, as experienced by people who aren’t addicts, doesn’t really change as a result of safe-use sites. It stays the same, or at least get worse immediately around the area. The problem advocates have is that they don’t (or won’t) understand that people–and this hurts to hear–don’t care if addicts die. They actually see that as a bonus: it means one less addict engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Governments really need to step up spending on the things that actually fix the problem of addiction from the perspective of people who are not addicts. This means large, comprehensive mental health facilties that are well-staffed. It means housing-first supports so they aren’t using in parks. It means giving drugs away to addicts for free, so that they don’t commit crimes. And–and this one hurts for advocates–it means involuntary incarceration for people who can’t or won’t benefit from the first three.
The problem, for governments, is that this is expensive, both monetarily and politically. It means spending a lot of money on people and buildings, which means taxes for the rich for things that benefit the poor. It means looking like jackbooted thugs when you arrest and detain people, which hurts their image among progressives, and it means giving addicts supports, housing and, honestly, free drugs, which pisses off conservatives. From the perspective of a politician, it’s all-pain-no-gain. Except, y’know, solving the problem.
What does happen is that we do the cheap and easy part: decriminalization without supports (for Liberals) and tough talk without action (for Conservatives). Neither really helps much, unless you’re rich, because the problems of drug addiction don’t affect the rich.
The worst part is, the money is there. It’s just in the hands of the top 1% and large corporations. If we taxed that group properly, we could actually finance a lot of these programs.
Yes, won’t someone please think of the suffering people who have to be aware of addicts. It sucks that we have to pander to uneducated masses with a maimed sense of empathy to get healthcare when you belong to an unpopular class of people.
That’s what politicians should be doing, and it’s certainly what advocates need to do, instead of tone-policing people who could be allies.
I’ve spent too much time around people who are addicts who got uppity about potential allies who referred to “safe injection sites” instead of “safe-use” or "safe-consumption. Like, that doesn’t help your cause, all it does is push people away. I had one particularly smarmy person say she didn’t care about how much the local SCS was helping the community because it wasn’t for the community.
Like, how is that attitude in any way helpful?
Getting support for programs means building consensus, and all the progress that’s been made is at risk of retrenching because we’re failing to address the concerns of people in the community who aren’t addicts, but at affected by the fallout from addiction. We’re seeing this now as programs get cancelled because, frankly, we’re not doing the hard and expensive part that’s needed to support everyone.
The other post above puts it really succinctly: when you’ve lost the support of other homeless people, you have a serious problem.
as someone who volunteers and works with homeless people, few of which are addicts, you hit the nail on the head. I mean I’ve had other co-workers, some who even used to be homeless themselves, refuse to help addicts or keep them at a distance. They don’t care if they die and see it as a benefit if they do. One former homeless guy that I work with regularly told me “the addicts steal your stuff constantly, they cause problems in shelters, they wake you up in the middle of the night, I don’t care for them.”
There’s a lot of resentment towards addicts in the homeless community who feel that services and programs are tailored specifically to addicts who take advantage. There’s also the fact that simply being homeless means the rest of society instantly lumps them in with the addicts thus making attempts to recieve help and services much more difficult for sober homeless invididuals. there’s the constant stigma that if you’re homeless you’re obviously an addict which simply isn’t the case.
So I get it, I see it first hand. No one wants to deal with addicts on all fronts. people who are housed and unhoused don’t want to deal with them.
If you want to decriminalize it then fine, go for it, but you god damn well better make sure you have the supports in place before you even think about doing so. Otherwise it’s all for naught. Because even programs currently in place for homeless addicts aren’t working and most of the homeless programs in place are geared towards addicts. Therefore people who aren’t addicts and are homeless essentially are told “deal with it on your own, we have nothing for you, we’re here to help the ones that don’t want the help.”
It’s a whole system from top to bottom that needs to go back to the drawing board.
Funny, because the majority of people at the shelters my partner works are addicts. They don’t necessarily arrive as addicts, but they usually leave that way. Maybe things are different here.
yeah I don’t work in a shelter and I’d say the majority of people I do work with refuse to stay in shelters for the reason you stated. Most in shelters are full of addicts.
that’s just the common consensus I hear from people “I won’t stay in a shelter because the addicts will steal my stuff”.
If you think Conservatives are going to pay for cops and courts and jails, I have a bridge to sell you. Oh, they’ll talk a good game, but they won’t spend a red cent.
Conservatives represent the rich. The rich can ignore this problem because they live and work in places where they’re rarely, if ever, affected. They can afford to let the problem get really bad–especially when they’re making bank on real estate and paying record-low taxes–so why would they pay for more cops or judges?
Maybe we’ll get private prisons, but the US has shown that those actually cost more money, and it still doesn’t address the gaps in the court system. Doug Ford could partner with Galen Weston on No Frills-branded prisons, where you can use your Optimum Points for, eg, smokes or rations, and even then it’d be a hard sell because other rich people aren’t going to pick up the tab for the taxes needed to fund it.
This pilot program made Vancouver the fentanyl capital of the world, so it obviously is not working. Rehab and stopping the supply would have worked better.
The problem is harm reduction and/or decriminalization initiatives are only the first step (and unfortunately oftentimes the only step taken) needed to ease the drug cris. The follwing steps, often much harder, are oten left aside: Hiring (with appropriate pay) and training professionals to actually work with the people that attend these sites, financing housing-fiest programs, offering job orientation and trainings, etc, etc. You know, all the things you need to actually STOP using? Instead of just using safely.
Why would I stop using, if my choice is sleep on the street sober, or sleep on the street and maybe don’t wake up and be done with this shit?
I don’t have a big issue with supervised consumption sites, but they are treating the symptom not the problem. The actual solution is helping these people build up the desire to have a life again, which involves giving them a place to stay so they can actually get a job and a bank account. But that’s incompatible with commodified housing.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Legalize, regulate, tax.
Spend the extra money on actual solutions like free rehab beds available the second someone is ready for it, and a massive safety net for every person who makes it through that hell.
Everything else is political nonsense.
Fuck I hate Poilievre. Fuck him do hard.
I happen to have 2 centers in my neighborhood and they help local residents. Shutting them down will result in people using drugs in parks where kids play. Is that better???
The problem, at least from the perspective of people in the communities, is they’re seeing people use drugs (and do all the things that people on drugs do, like theft, littering, leaving paraphenalia around, problematic behaviour, etc) anyway.
Source: personal experience. I live in a small Ontario city with a big drug problem. The SCS, while it helps with deaths due to drug use, doesn’t appear help with the problems around drug use, especially for people who aren’t addicts or people who care about addicts.
What they aren’t understanding, is that the drug problem, as experienced by people who aren’t addicts, doesn’t really change as a result of safe-use sites. It stays the same, or at least get worse immediately around the area. The problem advocates have is that they don’t (or won’t) understand that people–and this hurts to hear–don’t care if addicts die. They actually see that as a bonus: it means one less addict engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Governments really need to step up spending on the things that actually fix the problem of addiction from the perspective of people who are not addicts. This means large, comprehensive mental health facilties that are well-staffed. It means housing-first supports so they aren’t using in parks. It means giving drugs away to addicts for free, so that they don’t commit crimes. And–and this one hurts for advocates–it means involuntary incarceration for people who can’t or won’t benefit from the first three.
The problem, for governments, is that this is expensive, both monetarily and politically. It means spending a lot of money on people and buildings, which means taxes for the rich for things that benefit the poor. It means looking like jackbooted thugs when you arrest and detain people, which hurts their image among progressives, and it means giving addicts supports, housing and, honestly, free drugs, which pisses off conservatives. From the perspective of a politician, it’s all-pain-no-gain. Except, y’know, solving the problem.
What does happen is that we do the cheap and easy part: decriminalization without supports (for Liberals) and tough talk without action (for Conservatives). Neither really helps much, unless you’re rich, because the problems of drug addiction don’t affect the rich.
The worst part is, the money is there. It’s just in the hands of the top 1% and large corporations. If we taxed that group properly, we could actually finance a lot of these programs.
We could probably finance them now and it would probably be cheaper than the current emergency services, clean up, and courts costs.
Yes, won’t someone please think of the suffering people who have to be aware of addicts. It sucks that we have to pander to uneducated masses with a maimed sense of empathy to get healthcare when you belong to an unpopular class of people.
That’s what politicians should be doing, and it’s certainly what advocates need to do, instead of tone-policing people who could be allies.
I’ve spent too much time around people who are addicts who got uppity about potential allies who referred to “safe injection sites” instead of “safe-use” or "safe-consumption. Like, that doesn’t help your cause, all it does is push people away. I had one particularly smarmy person say she didn’t care about how much the local SCS was helping the community because it wasn’t for the community.
Like, how is that attitude in any way helpful?
Getting support for programs means building consensus, and all the progress that’s been made is at risk of retrenching because we’re failing to address the concerns of people in the community who aren’t addicts, but at affected by the fallout from addiction. We’re seeing this now as programs get cancelled because, frankly, we’re not doing the hard and expensive part that’s needed to support everyone.
The other post above puts it really succinctly: when you’ve lost the support of other homeless people, you have a serious problem.
I mean you don’t sound like an ally.
as someone who volunteers and works with homeless people, few of which are addicts, you hit the nail on the head. I mean I’ve had other co-workers, some who even used to be homeless themselves, refuse to help addicts or keep them at a distance. They don’t care if they die and see it as a benefit if they do. One former homeless guy that I work with regularly told me “the addicts steal your stuff constantly, they cause problems in shelters, they wake you up in the middle of the night, I don’t care for them.”
There’s a lot of resentment towards addicts in the homeless community who feel that services and programs are tailored specifically to addicts who take advantage. There’s also the fact that simply being homeless means the rest of society instantly lumps them in with the addicts thus making attempts to recieve help and services much more difficult for sober homeless invididuals. there’s the constant stigma that if you’re homeless you’re obviously an addict which simply isn’t the case.
So I get it, I see it first hand. No one wants to deal with addicts on all fronts. people who are housed and unhoused don’t want to deal with them.
If you want to decriminalize it then fine, go for it, but you god damn well better make sure you have the supports in place before you even think about doing so. Otherwise it’s all for naught. Because even programs currently in place for homeless addicts aren’t working and most of the homeless programs in place are geared towards addicts. Therefore people who aren’t addicts and are homeless essentially are told “deal with it on your own, we have nothing for you, we’re here to help the ones that don’t want the help.”
It’s a whole system from top to bottom that needs to go back to the drawing board.
Funny, because the majority of people at the shelters my partner works are addicts. They don’t necessarily arrive as addicts, but they usually leave that way. Maybe things are different here.
yeah I don’t work in a shelter and I’d say the majority of people I do work with refuse to stay in shelters for the reason you stated. Most in shelters are full of addicts.
that’s just the common consensus I hear from people “I won’t stay in a shelter because the addicts will steal my stuff”.
No, you don’t get it, if we stop considering them, they don’t exist. /s
Usually they decriminalize because that is easy and then they don’t follow up with the increased support services.
Then it’s all shocked Pikachu when nothing changes or it gets worse.
This looks like more of that.
Here of course, step2 is whinging by the cons and even decriminalization is killed.
And who pays for cops to stop and frisk for a half a gram? Why, everyone pays. That’s some smart spending from a life-long outsider.
If you think Conservatives are going to pay for cops and courts and jails, I have a bridge to sell you. Oh, they’ll talk a good game, but they won’t spend a red cent.
Conservatives represent the rich. The rich can ignore this problem because they live and work in places where they’re rarely, if ever, affected. They can afford to let the problem get really bad–especially when they’re making bank on real estate and paying record-low taxes–so why would they pay for more cops or judges?
Maybe we’ll get private prisons, but the US has shown that those actually cost more money, and it still doesn’t address the gaps in the court system. Doug Ford could partner with Galen Weston on No Frills-branded prisons, where you can use your Optimum Points for, eg, smokes or rations, and even then it’d be a hard sell because other rich people aren’t going to pick up the tab for the taxes needed to fund it.
This pilot program made Vancouver the fentanyl capital of the world, so it obviously is not working. Rehab and stopping the supply would have worked better.
The problem is harm reduction and/or decriminalization initiatives are only the first step (and unfortunately oftentimes the only step taken) needed to ease the drug cris. The follwing steps, often much harder, are oten left aside: Hiring (with appropriate pay) and training professionals to actually work with the people that attend these sites, financing housing-fiest programs, offering job orientation and trainings, etc, etc. You know, all the things you need to actually STOP using? Instead of just using safely.
Why would I stop using, if my choice is sleep on the street sober, or sleep on the street and maybe don’t wake up and be done with this shit?
I don’t have a big issue with supervised consumption sites, but they are treating the symptom not the problem. The actual solution is helping these people build up the desire to have a life again, which involves giving them a place to stay so they can actually get a job and a bank account. But that’s incompatible with commodified housing.