To be honest, a lot of the problem is because people–not addicts, nor the people who are trying to help them–aren’t seeing the benefit, and advocates have been terrible at messaging.
I’ll give you an example: the common refrain is that harm reduction saves lives, and that Naloxone saves lives, and that safe-consumption sites save lives.
And while this is true, most people don’t care. In fact, a sizable–and growing–percent of the population sees “saving lives” as a bug, not a feature. They’re tired of being robbed, of having their property stolen, of being assaulted, of being chased out of downtowns. Many have seen their supply of empathy run dry, and a lot didn’t have any empathy to begin with.
They would be quite happy if most addicts died.
I’ve heard a lot of people saying “You know what? Fuck naloxone. Fuck safe-use sites. I haven’t had a doctor for six years, I have to dodge needles and crack pipes while walking, I can’t use the park down the street any more, someone shit on my front lawn and someone stole my kid’s bike. If a junkie ODs, that’s one less junkie who makes my life miserable”. And that’s pretty much a direct quote.
We need to do a much better job of explaining to people how safe consumption sites reduce crime overall, and why safe-supply cuts out predatory dealers and thusly the economic incentives that drive crime. We really need to talk more about social services and treatment. Because, and again, this is hard to hear, an increasing number of people don’t really care if addicts die.
And we need to do it, because the people who vote, are burnt out and the political right is at least talking to their insecurities and anger and anxiety, where the left offers platitudes at best and condescension & condemnation at worst.
Can we really blame people for being upset about human beings taking shits and urinating in their spaces? We find it offensive when dog owners don’t clean up after their pets, imagine seeing giant human shits and smelling piss stained walls when you go out your door… I can understand people not being sympathetic anymore to others willing to violate their space like that.
We need a system of governance where we don’t have to explain why saving human lives is desirable, where we do not depend on votes to protect human lives because it is a fundamental mandate of all governments.
We need to remove the warning labels and safety restrictions form a lot of things and just let natural selection do its job; then we wouldn’t have to worry about this anymore.
Isn’t there a huge difference between safe supply and safe consumption sites?
I agree with safe consumption sites if it keeps people from dying on the streets, but if the safe supply is allowed to leave the site it’s not really solving any of the problems.
You’re correct. Safe consumption sites are intermediary harm reduction and preventions.
Safe supply sites are policy driven, highly directed efforts that require an exemplary amount of planning and should be intended to be run for as short a time as possible.
They need to be managed by a collective of police/therapists/drs/councilors/volunteers and should be a direct effort to remove the economic power the street drugs hold.
They need to be supported by facilities and programs from small community driven “get clean” initiatives to full blown live in rehab. These things all need to happen with the proper weight and progression needed to both prove to the public the system is working AND give the most amount of choice possible to the victims of drugs.
With housing the way it is, there is going to be a lot of people new on the streets. These people will likely turn to drugs if things don’t start looking up to them. There have been studies for decades that say this is statistically the case.
The stigma is that the homeless and druggies are bad people and deserve what they get but the fact is most people in Canada are only a few paycheques from the same situation. Not all homeless are criminals. Not all people who do drugs are bad people. People have been pushed so hard though that even though they know the distinction, they don’t really care anymore.
Basically it requires much more thought and planning that any of the leaders in this country are capable of. For that they’d have to learn something instead of larping like most of our politicians like to do. Experts need to make this kinda thing happen but our politicians aren’t qualified enough to vet and hire the right ones. We’ll experts don’t work for free so I guess we’re just fucked
It’ll work when government spends real money on it.
That means real institutions, not shoestring strip-mall locations with precarious funding. It also means safe-supply. It also means housing. And–this is the hard one for advocates–it means humane incarceration for people for whom support, housing and safe-supply aren’t enough.
All of this comes with a price tag, but we’d rather build a spa parking lot or give Galen Weston money to upgrade his fridges or some such bullshit.
I agree. I don’t mind the government spending real money on it to prove it works, but 100% the advocates will never agree to forcibly incarcerating people who are unwilling or unable to participate in society at a civilized level.
So it’s doomed to fail and everyone will want to thanos -snap the problem away.
One of the big problems is good, lasting solutions are rarely quick, easy solutions. And most people want solutions now, not 5, 10, or 20 years from now. And let’s not even mention how long we neglected these problems to let them get this big. But don’t worry, prisons and policemen aren’t expensive at all, not like schooling and social programs.
Politicians have had almost 15 years since the drug crisis started in earnest to do something.
What they did was implement a “let’er rip!” non-enforcement strategy that, without supports, housing or healthcare, was basically pouring gasoline on the pre-existing fire. Addicts weren’t going to get help, but they were going to get even fewer speedbumps on the road to letting addiction ruin everything for them and around them.
And politicians did this because choosing not to enforce anything while simultaneously not providing supports was the cheapest option. It required doing even less than they were doing at the time, and it let them get kudos for being so progressive and forward looking.
Jump forward fifteen years or so and the toxic fruits have come to bear.
Clamping down on SCS is just another way to avoid spending money fixing the problem.
Don’t think education has much to do with it when emotion takes over. If I had a personal experience with it I’d be out for blood too and I’m well educated.
Education doesn’t mean just imparting knowledge, but also tools for how to think, such as logic and critical thinking. This helps one avoid making or accepting policy decisions based on how they make you feel, but based on reality and actions that will help you achieve your goals.
“You know what? Fuck naloxone. Fuck safe-use sites. I haven’t had a doctor for six years, I have to dodge needles and crack pipes while walking, I can’t use the park down the street any more, someone shit on my front lawn and someone stole my kid’s bike. If a junkie ODs, that’s one less junkie who makes my life miserable”.
I feel for junkies and how easy it is to end up there, but I’m tired of the constant hell, disturbance, thefts, why would someone shit on a subway seat?!.. I’m with this guy. Enough is Enough.
To be honest, a lot of the problem is because people–not addicts, nor the people who are trying to help them–aren’t seeing the benefit, and advocates have been terrible at messaging.
I’ll give you an example: the common refrain is that harm reduction saves lives, and that Naloxone saves lives, and that safe-consumption sites save lives.
And while this is true, most people don’t care. In fact, a sizable–and growing–percent of the population sees “saving lives” as a bug, not a feature. They’re tired of being robbed, of having their property stolen, of being assaulted, of being chased out of downtowns. Many have seen their supply of empathy run dry, and a lot didn’t have any empathy to begin with.
They would be quite happy if most addicts died.
I’ve heard a lot of people saying “You know what? Fuck naloxone. Fuck safe-use sites. I haven’t had a doctor for six years, I have to dodge needles and crack pipes while walking, I can’t use the park down the street any more, someone shit on my front lawn and someone stole my kid’s bike. If a junkie ODs, that’s one less junkie who makes my life miserable”. And that’s pretty much a direct quote.
We need to do a much better job of explaining to people how safe consumption sites reduce crime overall, and why safe-supply cuts out predatory dealers and thusly the economic incentives that drive crime. We really need to talk more about social services and treatment. Because, and again, this is hard to hear, an increasing number of people don’t really care if addicts die.
And we need to do it, because the people who vote, are burnt out and the political right is at least talking to their insecurities and anger and anxiety, where the left offers platitudes at best and condescension & condemnation at worst.
Can we really blame people for being upset about human beings taking shits and urinating in their spaces? We find it offensive when dog owners don’t clean up after their pets, imagine seeing giant human shits and smelling piss stained walls when you go out your door… I can understand people not being sympathetic anymore to others willing to violate their space like that.
We need a system of governance where we don’t have to explain why saving human lives is desirable, where we do not depend on votes to protect human lives because it is a fundamental mandate of all governments.
We need to remove the warning labels and safety restrictions form a lot of things and just let natural selection do its job; then we wouldn’t have to worry about this anymore.
That’s not cool. Deal with your shit.
Isn’t there a huge difference between safe supply and safe consumption sites? I agree with safe consumption sites if it keeps people from dying on the streets, but if the safe supply is allowed to leave the site it’s not really solving any of the problems.
You’re correct. Safe consumption sites are intermediary harm reduction and preventions.
Safe supply sites are policy driven, highly directed efforts that require an exemplary amount of planning and should be intended to be run for as short a time as possible.
They need to be managed by a collective of police/therapists/drs/councilors/volunteers and should be a direct effort to remove the economic power the street drugs hold.
They need to be supported by facilities and programs from small community driven “get clean” initiatives to full blown live in rehab. These things all need to happen with the proper weight and progression needed to both prove to the public the system is working AND give the most amount of choice possible to the victims of drugs.
With housing the way it is, there is going to be a lot of people new on the streets. These people will likely turn to drugs if things don’t start looking up to them. There have been studies for decades that say this is statistically the case.
The stigma is that the homeless and druggies are bad people and deserve what they get but the fact is most people in Canada are only a few paycheques from the same situation. Not all homeless are criminals. Not all people who do drugs are bad people. People have been pushed so hard though that even though they know the distinction, they don’t really care anymore.
Basically it requires much more thought and planning that any of the leaders in this country are capable of. For that they’d have to learn something instead of larping like most of our politicians like to do. Experts need to make this kinda thing happen but our politicians aren’t qualified enough to vet and hire the right ones. We’ll experts don’t work for free so I guess we’re just fucked
I think everyone needs to see proof of it working and I mean visibly reducing crime and violence, not saving lives.
It’ll work when government spends real money on it.
That means real institutions, not shoestring strip-mall locations with precarious funding. It also means safe-supply. It also means housing. And–this is the hard one for advocates–it means humane incarceration for people for whom support, housing and safe-supply aren’t enough.
All of this comes with a price tag, but we’d rather build a spa parking lot or give Galen Weston money to upgrade his fridges or some such bullshit.
I agree. I don’t mind the government spending real money on it to prove it works, but 100% the advocates will never agree to forcibly incarcerating people who are unwilling or unable to participate in society at a civilized level.
So it’s doomed to fail and everyone will want to thanos -snap the problem away.
All they are is dust in the wind dude.
One of the big problems is good, lasting solutions are rarely quick, easy solutions. And most people want solutions now, not 5, 10, or 20 years from now. And let’s not even mention how long we neglected these problems to let them get this big. But don’t worry, prisons and policemen aren’t expensive at all, not like schooling and social programs.
Politicians have had almost 15 years since the drug crisis started in earnest to do something.
What they did was implement a “let’er rip!” non-enforcement strategy that, without supports, housing or healthcare, was basically pouring gasoline on the pre-existing fire. Addicts weren’t going to get help, but they were going to get even fewer speedbumps on the road to letting addiction ruin everything for them and around them.
And politicians did this because choosing not to enforce anything while simultaneously not providing supports was the cheapest option. It required doing even less than they were doing at the time, and it let them get kudos for being so progressive and forward looking.
Jump forward fifteen years or so and the toxic fruits have come to bear.
Clamping down on SCS is just another way to avoid spending money fixing the problem.
I think politicians are getting very close to being handed a mandate from the public that doesn’t include “good” solutions but mean, punitive ones.
Hence why it’s commonly said that one of the foundations for a working democracy is an educated populous.
Don’t think education has much to do with it when emotion takes over. If I had a personal experience with it I’d be out for blood too and I’m well educated.
Education doesn’t mean just imparting knowledge, but also tools for how to think, such as logic and critical thinking. This helps one avoid making or accepting policy decisions based on how they make you feel, but based on reality and actions that will help you achieve your goals.
I feel for junkies and how easy it is to end up there, but I’m tired of the constant hell, disturbance, thefts, why would someone shit on a subway seat?!.. I’m with this guy. Enough is Enough.