Popular Post Coconuts Posted April 30 Popular Post Share Posted April 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said: Unfortunately I don't think the problem will ever be fixed by any party. Open up treatment centres and people will complain how their taxes are being spent. Do we force addict to get treatment? Is that even an option? Addiction is an incredibly complex matter, one that often intersects with poverty, homelessness, and a bunch of other factor such as trauma. Even if various levels of government were willing to vigorously fund wraparound services on a more long-term basis, including long-term housing, it'd never "solve" the addiction crisis. And typically those supports don't exist, particularly in smaller communities. NIMBYism is also a problem, I'm sure some of you remember the tent city in Nanaimo from a few years back, it got provincial wide coverage. Well, what some folks probably didn't hear given they weren't locals was what the process of trying somewhere to place supportive housing was like. There was a lot of pushback regarding where it should and shouldn't be. Folks want solutions but they don't want to pay for them, and they don't want them in their neighborhoods. I understand addiction and homelessness are viewed as concerns for many, but oversimplifying these matters for the sake of political theater doesn't accomplish anything. The ethics around forcing folks to get treatment would be murky, but I'll say this: forcing folks into treatment will never guarantee folks stay clean. You can place someone in a scenario, but typically folks don't embrace treatment until they're actually ready to. And even then, it's not uncommon for folks to go through treatment multiple times. One of the guys I met at Edgewood towards the of my second year practicum was going through the 45-50 stay for the third time. At the time that was roughly $500 a day, closer to $700 a stay down in extended (which goes beyond the 45-50 day stay), hard to say what they charge now. Top end treatment isn't financially accessible for a lot of folks. Treatment is also typically expensive, even for lesser options, beds are often limited too. Waitlists are also a thing. Some folks will simply never get into treatment, or get to a point where they're ready for it, some folks will not stop using for various reasons, that's where a harm reduction approach is relevant. But even these people are still deserving of support. Addressing addiction involves providing actual supports, actually addressing trauma, accessible housing options (including low barrier housing), and a bunch of other things that cost money and that necessitate resources and infrastructure . Every addiction journey is different, there is no one size fits all approach, there is no magic bullet. Edited April 30 by Coconuts 3 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 6 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Addiction is an incredibly complex matter, one that often intersects with poverty, homelessness, and a bunch of other factor such as trauma. Even if various levels of government were willing to vigorously fund wraparound services on a more long-term basis, including long-term housing, it'd never "solved" the addiction crisis. And typically those supports don't exist, particularly in smaller communities. NIMBYism is also a problem, I'm sure some of you remember the tent city in Nanaimo from a few years back, it got provincial wide coverage. Well, what some folks probably didn't hear given they weren't locals was what the process of trying somewhere to place supportive housing was like. There was a lot of pushback regarding where it should and shouldn't be. Folks want solutions but they don't want to pay for them, and they don't want them in their neighborhoods. I understand addiction and homelessness are viewed as concerns for many, but oversimplifying these matters for the sake of political theater doesn't accomplish anything. The ethics around forcing folks to get treatment would be murky, but I'll say this: forcing folks into treatment will never guarantee folks stay clean. You can place someone in a scenario, but typically folks don't embrace treatment until they're actually ready to. And even then, it's not uncommon for folks to go through treatment multiple times. One of the guys I met at Edgewood towards the of my second year practicum was going through the 45-50 stay for the third time. Treatment is also typically expensive, even for lesser options, beds are often limited too. Waitlists are also a thing. Some folks will simply never get into treatment, or get to a point where they're ready for it, some folks will not stop using for various reasons, that's where a harm reduction approach is relevant. But even these people are still deserving of support. Addressing addiction involves providing actual supports, actually addressing trauma, accessible housing options (including low barrier housing), and a bunch of other things that cost money and that necessitate resources and infrastructure . Every addiction journey is different, there is no one size fits all approach, there is no magic bullet. Yes...I went to Port Place Mall a lot in Nanaimo back then. It was a scary time back then and even more so now after someone was murdered there. I try to stay away from downtown there as it isn't safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Another one gets kicked out of parliament https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-conservative-mp-kicked-out-of-the-house-of-commons/vi-AA1nWXxO?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a5c0b5eaccdc429996084015f9b80439&ei=9 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 44 minutes ago, Bob Long said: but why should I ignore him going to a wacko camp, and visit a camper with a white nationalist logo on the door? please give me one good reason why that shouldn't concern me. An excellent question......and I'm sure you'll get an answer just as soon as he can figure out how to inject the phrase "printing money" into the conversation.... It's more or less become the Godwin's Law of Canadian political discussion...... 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 18 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Addiction is an incredibly complex matter, one that often intersects with poverty, homelessness, and a bunch of other factor such as trauma. Even if various levels of government were willing to vigorously fund wraparound services on a more long-term basis, including long-term housing, it'd never "solve" the addiction crisis. And typically those supports don't exist, particularly in smaller communities. NIMBYism is also a problem, I'm sure some of you remember the tent city in Nanaimo from a few years back, it got provincial wide coverage. Well, what some folks probably didn't hear given they weren't locals was what the process of trying somewhere to place supportive housing was like. There was a lot of pushback regarding where it should and shouldn't be. Folks want solutions but they don't want to pay for them, and they don't want them in their neighborhoods. I understand addiction and homelessness are viewed as concerns for many, but oversimplifying these matters for the sake of political theater doesn't accomplish anything. The ethics around forcing folks to get treatment would be murky, but I'll say this: forcing folks into treatment will never guarantee folks stay clean. You can place someone in a scenario, but typically folks don't embrace treatment until they're actually ready to. And even then, it's not uncommon for folks to go through treatment multiple times. One of the guys I met at Edgewood towards the of my second year practicum was going through the 45-50 stay for the third time. At the time that was roughly $500 a day, closer to $700 a stay down in extended (which goes beyond the 45-50 day stay), hard to say what they charge now. Top end treatment isn't financially accessible for a lot of folks. Treatment is also typically expensive, even for lesser options, beds are often limited too. Waitlists are also a thing. Some folks will simply never get into treatment, or get to a point where they're ready for it, some folks will not stop using for various reasons, that's where a harm reduction approach is relevant. But even these people are still deserving of support. Addressing addiction involves providing actual supports, actually addressing trauma, accessible housing options (including low barrier housing), and a bunch of other things that cost money and that necessitate resources and infrastructure . Every addiction journey is different, there is no one size fits all approach, there is no magic bullet. As you say, it's a very complex matter....but that won't stop the usual suspects from proposing "tougher" prison sentences as the way to fix it.... Let's have a new "War on drugs!"....because the last one worked out so swimmingly.... 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spur1 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: The provincial NDP tried to make all hard drugs legal and it backfired on them to the point they had to reverse course and make them illegal again. So are they wack jobs for making them legal in the first place? Also, what’s wrong with asking or getting people to seek treatment? Isn’t that the whole point of trying to help an addict? They did not make them illegal again. Only public use illegal. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 1 minute ago, RupertKBD said: As you say, it's a very complex matter....but that won't stop the usual suspects from proposing "tougher" prison sentences as the way to fix it.... Let's have a new "War on drugs!"....because the last one worked out so swimmingly.... I'd rather to go with something similar to the open container law with booze. No issue if in the privacy of one's home or a safe consumption site. Cracking down on simple possession is the definition of insanity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 12 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: Yes...I went to Port Place Mall a lot in Nanaimo back then. It was a scary time back then and even more so now after someone was murdered there. I try to stay away from downtown there as it isn't safe. I get it, I grew up there. Harewood used to have that rep too, still does to a lesser degree. I wound up working with a lot of the folks who'd been living in the tent city though, it was interesting. Drawing from that experience, I can't emphasize enough how complicated it all is. Being homeless in itself can be incredibly traumatic for all sorts of reasons. It's not just Nanaimo though, Duncan, Port Alberti, Campbell River, and everywhere else experience it too. It's everywhere though, I moved up to Dawson last June and we have the exact same problems up here that were in Nanaimo, albeit on a smaller scale and within a community context that features fewer resources. Shootings, tent communities in the woods, bodies found, OD's, it's all here too. Folks in every community view it as an issue in their community, but it's an issue everywhere. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 5 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: As you say, it's a very complex matter....but that won't stop the usual suspects from proposing "tougher" prison sentences as the way to fix it.... Let's have a new "War on drugs!"....because the last one worked out so swimmingly.... I'd like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs. A tough on crime approach won't solve shit. But I reckon folks don't want to pay to fund prisons stays with their tax dollars either do they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 9 minutes ago, King Heffy said: I'd rather to go with something similar to the open container law with booze. No issue if in the privacy of one's home or a safe consumption site. Cracking down on simple possession is the definition of insanity. Seems like a sensible compromise.....but I'm sure some will see a reason to disagree.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 9 minutes ago, Coconuts said: I'd like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs. A tough on crime approach won't solve shit. But I reckon folks don't want to pay to fund prisons stays with their tax dollars either do they? Funny thing is, the "law and order" crowd seems far more willing to spend their tax dollars on prisons, than they are rehab facilities.... Either way, the taxpayer is on the hook, but only one option actually has the potential for mitigating the actual problem of addiction..... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 2 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said: I use self checkouts and I do not like it. But the alternative is standing in line with a few items and waiting behind a line up of people with full shopping carts for 20 minutes. I do not shop at Walmart in Duncan often but that store is a prime example. Maybe having 3 cashiers open while the the store is full of customers. Three is if you are very lucky, I had 1 cashier with 12 people lined up, and every self checkout full, with a line of 20 people waiting for those one day...the cashier supervisor, instead of opening a till and running it herself called 6 times for all available cashiers to come to the checkout area immediately, by the time she FINALLY opened a till herself both tills had 20 people at them: that is just walmart being Walmart. Asshats, the lot of them. I try not to shop there, but admit to going maybe once every two months on average? hehe. If you watch your pennies, your dollars look after themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 6 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Funny thing is, the "law and order" crowd seems far more willing to spend their tax dollars on prisons, than they are rehab facilities.... Either way, the taxpayer is on the hook, but only one option actually has the potential for mitigating the actual problem of addiction..... Money would be much better spent funding community organizations such as this one, and by investing in things like supportive housing. They can never get enough funding, and there are always folks looking for housing. https://www.islandcrisiscaresociety.ca/programs/ https://www.islandcrisiscaresociety.ca/programs/newcastle-place/ https://www.islandcrisiscaresociety.ca/programs/samaritan-place/ 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 2 hours ago, Bob Long said: I used to in SK, no one in BC tho. It was a shit show under Harper too, maybe its just how we do things. Someone like @Optimist Prime can speak to this maybe. I remember when Harper changed our mission mandate in Afghanistan to focus more on putting troops in harms way in contested areas, (the "front" in afghan terms) rather than securing built up areas, winning local hearts and minds and building schools and communications infrastructure: a LOT of my peers pulled pin on their careers, the ones with options and/or pensions waiting simply fled the forces in droves. What was left was the junior ranks being rapidly promoted up out of their skillset A-game zones to fill the command and control levels. Generally now Canada is almost as short handed as can go in peacetime, without suffering irreparable losses to so called 'corporate knowledge' of how to do the military jobs effectively. You don't need 200 thousand troops in peace, not even 100,000 troops for that matter, but you do need a bare minimum in order to provide training and context and leadership to a sudden influx if and when the time comes that we would require a rapid escalation in our troops numbers. I would venture to say that at this moment in time we are right there for full time CAF members. I wouldn't want to be short another 10,000 EVER, but we could in theory lose up to 5k more if the idea is then to recruit heavily once the chaff is separated from the wheat. and now this: here is a hero you may never have ever heard about! https://navydiver.ca/Documents/News/Chronicile_Herald09.pdf Quote Jim Leith was admiring the sunrise over an Afghanistan mountain range when a bomb blast tipped off a chain of harrowing events that led him to Rideau Hall and a Star of Courage. It was Sept. 28, 2006, and little did the bomb disposal specialist know that moments after the bone-rattling explosion ripped through the Bison armoured vehicle he was riding in, he would be bending over another bomb, on the same desolate road, with only a bayonet to dismantle it. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 8 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said: I remember when Harper changed our mission mandate in Afghanistan to focus more on putting troops in harms way in contested areas, (the "front" in afghan terms) rather than securing built up areas, winning local hearts and minds and building schools and communications infrastructure: a LOT of my peers pulled pin on their careers, the ones with options and/or pensions waiting simply fled the forces in droves. What was left was the junior ranks being rapidly promoted up out of their skillset A-game zones to fill the command and control levels. Generally now Canada is almost as short handed as can go in peacetime, without suffering irreparable losses to so called 'corporate knowledge' of how to do the military jobs effectively. You don't need 200 thousand troops in peace, not even 100,000 troops for that matter, but you do need a bare minimum in order to provide training and context and leadership to a sudden influx if and when the time comes that we would require a rapid escalation in our troops numbers. I would venture to say that at this moment in time we are right there for full time CAF members. I wouldn't want to be short another 10,000 EVER, but we could in theory lose up to 5k more if the idea is then to recruit heavily once the chaff is separated from the wheat. and now this: here is a hero you may never have ever heard about! https://navydiver.ca/Documents/News/Chronicile_Herald09.pdf Really distressing to hear this considering how well trained our troops have been in the past. I'm really concerned that any budget cuts will take us further away from the 2% mandated by NATO and contribute to the further degradation of our forces caused by years of neglect from both governing parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 3 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said: Sorry....he is using Trump's tactics of appealing to the far right. I have never heard anyone say O'Toole was not a nazi. Did I miss something? As a Liberal Insider, of sorts, I can confirm the Liberal Party was more worried about O'Toole being the closest thing to a centrist in the Conservative Leadership since Peter Mackay lied to win the PC leadership and promptly folded like a cheap tent and went back on his word to never merge with the Reform/Alliance extreme right wingers. I don't know of any major movement calling him a nazi, lol. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 5 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Really distressing to hear this considering how well trained our troops have been in the past. I'm really concerned that any budget cuts will take us further away from the 2% mandated by NATO and contribute to the further degradation of our forces caused by years of neglect from both governing parties. Rudyard Kipling was bang on. "In times of war and not before, god and the soldier we adore, But in times of peace and all things righted, god forgotten and the soldier slighted." I remembered it slightly differently so I admit i googled "in times of trouble and of war god and the soldier we emplore".. google corrects me like all the freakin time, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Smashian Kassian Posted April 30 Popular Post Share Posted April 30 (edited) @RupertKBD @Bob Long @Miss Korea @Satchmo Sorry for stirring stuff up guys, these conversations are interesting sometimes but I regret getting involved in these big arguments as I don't generally enjoy politics & you certainly all follow closer than me. So I concede & that's all for now. Playoffs are on after-all! Cya y'all in the hockey threads, GCG. Edited April 30 by Smashian Kassian 1 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 5 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said: @RupertKBD @Bob Long @Miss Korea @Satchmo Sorry for stirring stuff up guys, these conversations are interesting sometimes but I regret getting involved in these big arguments as I don't generally enjoy politics & you certainly all follow closer than me. So I concede & that's all for now. Playoffs are on after-all! Cya y'all in the hockey threads, GCG. No worries. It can be hard to discuss this stuff, but you are always very respectful. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 1 hour ago, Spur1 said: They did not make them illegal again. Only public use illegal. Ah, that's right. So, if I snort my 8 ball at home I should be okay. Good to know... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 2 hours ago, Boudrias said: As much as Liberal want to make PP another Trump, he isn't. Not even close. Just as O'Toole was not a nazi just because he served in the military. If you want to attack PP do it on his economic plans. His handling of the economy is where he is destroying Trudeau. If PP says he will 'axe the carbon tax' then how will he replace that revenue? Everyone should realize by now that tax is not revenue neutral. PP has to replace that revenue or cut some expenditure to make up for it. The general approach by the CPC is to cut many taxes. How will they replace the lost revenue. That approach makes more sense than trying to convince people that PP is another Donald Jr. People simply won't believe you. Linking PP with Trump isn't working, as is shown in the polls and in the gen z voting. So, Trudeau and the liberal government will need to find another plan of attack. Talking about Alex Jones for 2 minutes in front of reporters didn't really work for Trudeau either. He needs to fire his PR department and hire better people... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said: I wonder what a steak costs in the other places....... Damn, and I thought I was getting ripped off with the $60 steaks. I'm not, they are actually a deal at that price!!! This is great news really, I think I will need to celebrate once the Canucks win tonight and advance to the second round. I might even hit Elisa tomorrow and go all out... 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 21 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said: @RupertKBD @Bob Long @Miss Korea @Satchmo Sorry for stirring stuff up guys, these conversations are interesting sometimes but I regret getting involved in these big arguments as I don't generally enjoy politics & you certainly all follow closer than me. So I concede & that's all for now. Playoffs are on after-all! Cya y'all in the hockey threads, GCG. I'm on vacation and you wrote a lot. Maybe I'll respond on the flight back lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 4 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: I'm on vacation and you wrote a lot. Maybe I'll respond on the flight back lol Don't even worry about it, probably alot of non-sense rambling that I wouldn't even want to follow up on lol Enjoy your vacation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rook Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, Boudrias said: As much as Liberal want to make PP another Trump, he isn't. Not even close. Just as O'Toole was not a nazi just because he served in the military. If you want to attack PP do it on his economic plans. His handling of the economy is where he is destroying Trudeau. If PP says he will 'axe the carbon tax' then how will he replace that revenue? Everyone should realize by now that tax is not revenue neutral. PP has to replace that revenue or cut some expenditure to make up for it. The general approach by the CPC is to cut many taxes. How will they replace the lost revenue. That approach makes more sense than trying to convince people that PP is another Donald Jr. People simply won't believe you. You didn’t answer my question earlier, do you believe our govt is the cause of inflation? Not sure if you saw it or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.