Canadian Politics Thread

[Warhippy]

Just now, RupertKBD said:

@Warhippy Kudos my friend for taking the time to write that magnum opus....

 

I doubt your target audience will read it, but that doesn't diminish the effort.

That is not mine. 

 

But it doesn't even touch on things like Harper spending almost 2 million dollars shipping a limo around the globe. Or the almost $60,000 spent on limos to go two blocks at a summit in switzerland. Or the cold camembert nonsense with bev oda and her $1000 oj

[Optimist Prime]

16 hours ago, 112 said:

"incarceration with treatment" does nothing but let people with impaired empathy enjoy a bit of schadenfreude.

I am not sure.  Cleaning up our streets is a thing. Ensureing hundreds of kids in Duncan can walk to one of three schools within a block of a safe injection site, that is a thing. 

 

I am not angry at addicts, I am trying to figure out a solution for them and for the non-addicts in our community. The current status quo is not working. 

 

I like to reward contributors to society and disincentivize destructors. Don't you?

[Optimist Prime]

16 hours ago, 112 said:

"incarceration with treatment" does nothing but let people with impaired empathy enjoy a bit of schadenfreude.

 

16 hours ago, Sapper said:

Here's the issue

 

The overwhelming number if these addicts have no capacity to understand a law let alone obey it.  Some call it the revolving door but judges can't simply jail someone who legitimately isn't sane enough to understand.  We don't have enough hospital beds to pink them all .....

 

The ones with some grasp on reality may substitute one drug for another to get around it but that won't reduce anything.

 

I doubt few If any started hard drugs because of the trial .... More like they did it more so out in the open.  I don't disagree though that public spaces are not ok .... We don't permit even tobbaco use in those spots.  If anything they should have provided use sites and by extension only decrimilized.the use at those locations to maybe incentive them to stay away from other spots.

 

Our courts and police costs would need to double if we actually want the laws enforced  and add jail costs on top of that ..... 

 

Like I said we have never before had so many people with mental.health issues on the streets and these easy to access ,  cheap and highly addictive drugs. 40 years ago it was pot and coke mostly. Street hobos couldn't afford coke so turned to booze.

 

I wonder how many of them are now second generation street addicts ? Children of the first group that hit the streets when places like Riverview closed 

 

If anything I'd want the policing to go all in on cutting of the supply and getting it off the streets ... Can't use what ya can't get.

 

Yes they would just switch item of addiction but it's the fentenayl that's driving alot of deaths. Eliminating it would be a big first step 

 

Don't charge the user ..... Hammer.the sellers and makers.

 

Make use locations in a safe place away from the public and enforce the law that location is the only place beyond a private residence where you won't face charges ..... 

 

The old way of laying theaw down worked when the street hobo didn't have mental.health issues and understood consequences. This version has.neither so the same approach keeps failing everywhere.

 

 

I don't know the answer of what for sure will work ..... But laying the law down failed horribly , decriminalization led to horrible consequences in public spaces.

 

The answer may rest in the middle but unless regular Canadians are ok with a large tax amount going in to an all out country wide effort to treat the symptoms we are just going to keep failing 

 

Politicians of all parties make that solution near impossible as opposition parties weaponized and use it for politics and in power governments are fearful of spending too much money on it or about voters turning on them if they did actually do something that costs money..... A no win situation that keeps growing and is in BC just as it's in Ontario , Saskatchewan, Alberta etc etc .... It's not a right wing or left wing party problem ... It doesn't discriminate and no province has made much of a dent in it 

 

Just my 2 c

 

 

I think you guys assumed I meant throw em in the clink and toss away the key. 

 

I would like to see them arrested and forced into a secure treatment facility. There is a difference. 

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Tell me about Gazebos good sir.  Or G8 G 20 spending.  Or the CNOOC agreement.  Wheat board sale?  GM bailout?  Multiple books for fighter procurement.  Pierre's being a housing minister even though he was never a housing minister (his claims not mine) and spending over $300-$400 million to build less than 50 units

 

Every single thing you can bring up is an excess or evil the Conservatives commited a mere 9 years ago after a decade in power.

 

I stated then and I'll state it again.  With 2 parties in Canada that have held power since inception, every time we vote one out because of it we vote the other one I and excuse their doing the exact same things.

 

It's why I keep calling the electorate idiots.  Pretending that Poiliverre is somehow a regular blue collar guy who "gets it" while he wasted a decade + defending the EXACT same excesses he and yourself blame the liberals of committing is the height of stupidity 

 

And no, Singh is not a viable option.  We need a true Small L Small C option in our nation for the moderates

 

So much this.

 

Liberals are corrupt and waste tax dollars. Conservatives are even more corrupt and also waste (frequently more) tax dollars... while also trying to set us back 50+ years on human rights, and do nothing about climate change that's costing us hundreds of millions every year. Yippee. And ~40% of us evidently think that will be "better".

 

At least the Liberals throw the populace some crumbs in social safety nets etc. But we really DO need better options. I'd have written "deserve better options" but I'm not sure much of the electorate deserves better government than we're currently getting between the two main parties. "We" are mostly emotional, reactionary, ill informed idiots.

 

 

[Sapper]

1 hour ago, Optimist Prime said:

 

I think you guys assumed I meant throw em in the clink and toss away the key. 

 

I would like to see them arrested and forced into a secure treatment facility. There is a difference. 

That could help .... BUT ..... If there is only welfare / poverty and or homelessness after treatment then it's not worth it and not useful 

 

The expectations are that following treatment the streets will be paved in gold and a good life will await them ( conservative view)

 

We need to have a safe decent housing spot for them to move into on release , a living wage allowance with free pharmacare and dental ( most of these addicts once off the drugs are still people with mental health issues that will require a doctor , prescriptions etc ).

 

If they put the money into the after recovery phase with an eye to breaking the cycle and keeping them off the street for good .... Then some law enforcement measures may be helpful

 

I've seen more than a few decide on their own to get clean and on discharge can only afford on welfare the worst of the worst apartments. They try for work but only fast food or Walmart will hire them and the wages are just enough to lose health care coverage but not to get out of the ghetto..... Predictable that many return to the street and addiction 

 

 

[bishopshodan]

1 hour ago, Optimist Prime said:

I am not sure.  Cleaning up our streets is a thing. Ensureing hundreds of kids in Duncan can walk to one of three schools within a block of a safe injection site, that is a thing. 

 

I am not angry at addicts, I am trying to figure out a solution for them and for the non-addicts in our community. The current status quo is not working. 

 

I like to reward contributors to society and disincentivize destructors. Don't you?

The thing is, we will never stop hard drug use.

New designer drugs are too powerful and easy to smuggle. Some of the toughest places in the world still have drug problems.

 

We dont have the treatment facilities for mental health we used to and we have no real support for the drug crisis we now see all over.

 

Our prison is filled with addicts. We have complex needs units, we have healthcare, chaplins, and councillors. We have education programs, skills programs and trauma reduce incarceration. It's working but we are slammed and dont have the staff levels. 

 

I dont need money. I do this job to pay back a little to this great country that accepted my immigrant familly. But the wage they pay for this challenging job is not very high....at all. So, we are struggling and we are set to see more people come in for being addicts. The streets may get a bit cleaner, maybe... we in prison will be compromised, overwhelmed, and our service will suffer.  Recidivism will increase. 

 

We need waaay more money put to public safety. 

Put a lot of money in to all aspects of support. Law enforcement, mental health, treatment facilities etc... otherwise we will just have to put all that money just into the prison system and like I opened up with, it still wont stop the hard drugs from being used. 

 

 

 

[Bob Long]

10 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

The thing is, we will never stop hard drug use.

New designer drugs are too powerful and easy to smuggle. Some of the toughest places in the world still have drug problems.

 

We dont have the treatment facilities for mental health we used to and we have no real support for the drug crisis we now see all over.

 

Our prison is filled with addicts. We have complex needs units, we have healthcare, chaplins, and councillors. We have education programs, skills programs and trauma reduce incarceration. It's working but we are slammed and dont have the staff levels. 

 

I dont need money. I do this job to pay back a little to this great country that accepted my immigrant familly. But the wage they pay for this challenging job is not very high....at all. So, we are struggling and we are set to see more people come in for being addicts. The streets may get a bit cleaner, maybe... we in prison will be compromised, overwhelmed, and our service will suffer.  Recidivism will increase. 

 

We need waaay more money put to public safety. 

Put a lot of money in to all aspects of support. Law enforcement, mental health, treatment facilities etc... otherwise we will just have to put all that money just into the prison system and like I opened up with, it still wont stop the hard drugs from being used. 

 

 

 

 

What you will get, however is a stupid use of the notwithstanding clause to demonstrate conservative "principles" and righteousness, while your job gets harder.

[112]

1 hour ago, Optimist Prime said:

 

I think you guys assumed I meant throw em in the clink and toss away the key. 

 

I would like to see them arrested and forced into a secure treatment facility. There is a difference. 

Yes, that was my assumption.

 

We absolutely don't have enough capacity in terms of beds and treatment facilities to do this to even a majority of drug users, though.

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

What you will get, however is a stupid use of the notwithstanding clause to demonstrate conservative "principles" and righteousness, while your job gets harder.

 

I've learned a lot about trauma in the last few months Jim

 

A lot of the people 'inside' are good people. They are human beings....many have fasd and other issues, because they are poor they have never had any kind of treatment. They turn to drugs to help handle some of the trauma.  It breaks my heart, so I know I am in the right job.

 

The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members

 

Trauma is the route cause of this discussion. 

 

I know i dont watch many vids posted....but please watch this.

 

 

[Bob Long]

8 minutes ago, 112 said:

Yes, that was my assumption.

 

We absolutely don't have enough capacity in terms of beds and treatment facilities to do this to even a majority of drug users, though.

 

I wonder if the answer ies in some brilliant chemist in the future that can invent non addictive opioids.

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, Optimist Prime said:

 

I think you guys assumed I meant throw em in the clink and toss away the key. 

 

I would like to see them arrested and forced into a secure treatment facility. There is a difference. 

 

Even then, it's still more nuanced. I said it the other day, you can't force folks into treatment and expect results, it will not work the way a lot of folks think it will. You can't force folks to be ready, even if you can force them to detox and go through the motions within a treatment environment. A lot of folks go through treatment, exit, and have it do very little for them. Wait lists are a thing, as is folks repeatedly going through treatment. 

 

You can take it a step further and home in one the quality of support that's available at x or y treatment center too. One of my classmates who I went through my diploma program with went through treatment and wound up being better educated about recovery, trauma, and so on than some of the staff, to the point where they had others in treatment coming to them with questions, and to look for advice. I myself had more extensive human services education during my second year practicum than many of the support staff I was shadowing. 

 

Oftentimes human service work doesn't pay well, and this is sometimes reflected in the quality of support offered, or in the education and expertise of those providing support; particularly for organizations that don't have the means to pay as well, or to provide a broad range of services. If various governments, liberal or conservative, actually want to address this they'll incentivize folks going into the helping fields and they will help fund social service organizations (which isn't to say that they don't). And it matters, because without folks actually having the qualifications needed to provide certain levels of support it doesn't matter which approach society takes.

 

There's often never enough funding, nor is there enough staff, and turnover can be high. Not a single person I've done human services work has been paid enough for what they do, which is often trying to do more with less, it's often thankless work that doesn't pay well (particularly for frontline staff with more limited education, which sucks because they fill valuable and necessary roles).

 

A privatized, profit-driven approach doesn't necessarily help either, because at the end of the day it'll often come down to how much profit can an organization extract, which comes with it's own issues. For-profit addictions facilities will never resonate me, which isn't to say they don't have value to those who wouldn't access anything lesser than a higher quality rehabilitation setting, it's just that most Canadians don't have that kind of dough. 

 

It's not just about treating addiction either, because in many cases there's something beneath that addiction, oftentimes there are intersecting factors. It's nuanced, and often involves trauma, family histories, abuse, poverty, mental health, and a bunch of other factors. One could take it further and dive into things like racialization, intergenerational trauma, colonization, being a refugee, gender identity, age, ethnicity, and so on. 

 

Society can try and push folks into treatment all it likes but it won't matter if there aren't social and community supports, as well as actual resources, to help them escape belonging to a more marginalized demographic. Even if Canadian society were to go the route of shoving folks into forced treatment facilities there would need to be supports on the outside, there would need to be infrastructure, funding, safe, drug free housing environments, and a great deal of other things. And even with those things in place, which probably isn't realistic (particularly in smaller communities with less resources and infrastructure), folks will still end up on the streets going all the things they likely are now. 

 

Within the past year or so my partner gave me an example of this, she had someone come in looking for emergency housing/funding for housing because he'd just gotten out of treatment and the only thing available to him without financial support was shelter housing; shelter housing that featured those who use, and probably individuals he'd previously had connections with. Further down the line this individual fell back into using and eventually died of an OD. It's a tragic story, but it's not an uncommon one. Having infrastructure to support individuals getting out of treatment is important too, but even that wouldn't save everyone. Those who do addictions work, particularly frontline work that doesn't involve facilities, live with the reality that they will encounter death, and that in some cases they will encounter bodies. 

 

Most folks who go through treatment do relapse at some point, that's why having things like sponsors and individuals to reach out is so important, so folks have supports who can help them climb back on the horse as opposed to spiraling. Having a functioning social safety net matters too, particularly with more marginalized demographics, it's hard for helping professionals to connect individuals with resources that simply do not exist, or that continually have their budgets cut, or that have their eligibility criteria increasingly narrowed. 

 

Ultimately it often comes down to money and resources, whether that's folks looking to earn money, trying to manage things with a limited budget, trying to do more with less, and trying to source funding from charitable organizations, individuals, levels of government, and so on. It's all so complicated and a lot of things are intertwined. 

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

Even then, it's still more nuanced. I said it the other day, you can't force folks into treatment and expect results, it will not work the way a lot of folks think it will. You can't force folks to be ready, even if you can force them to detox and go through the motions within a treatment environment. A lot of folks go through treatment, exit, and have it do very little for them. Wait lists are a thing, as is folks repeatedly going through treatment. 

 

You can take it a step further and home in one the quality of support that's available at x or y treatment center too. One of my classmates who I went through my diploma program with went through treatment and wound up being better educated about recovery, trauma, and so on than some of the staff, to the point where they had others in treatment coming to them with questions, and to look for advice. I myself had more extensive human services education during my second year practicum than many of the support staff I was shadowing. 

 

Oftentimes human service work doesn't pay well, and this is sometimes reflected in the quality of support offered, or in the education and expertise of those providing support; particularly for organizations that don't have the means to pay as well, or to provide a broad range of services. If various governments, liberal or conservative, actually want to address this they'll incentivize folks going into the helping fields and they will help fund social service organizations (which isn't to say that they don't). And it matters, because without folks actually having the qualifications needed to provide certain levels of support it doesn't matter which approach society takes.

 

There's often never enough funding, nor is there enough staff, and turnover can be high. Not a single person I've done human services work has been paid enough for what they do, which is often trying to do more with less, it's often thankless work that doesn't pay well (particularly for frontline staff with more limited education, which sucks because they fill valuable and necessary roles).

 

A privatized, profit-driven approach doesn't necessarily help either, because at the end of the day it'll often come down to how much profit can an organization extract, which comes with it's own issues. For-profit addictions facilities will never resonate me, which isn't to say they don't have value to those who wouldn't access anything lesser than a higher quality rehabilitation setting, it's just that most Canadians don't have that kind of dough. 

 

It's not just about treating addiction either, because in many cases there's something beneath that addiction, oftentimes there are intersecting factors. It's nuanced, and often involves trauma, family histories, abuse, poverty, mental health, and a bunch of other factors. One could take it further and dive into things like racialization, intergenerational trauma, colonization, being a refugee, gender identity, age, ethnicity, and so on. 

 

Society can try and push folks into treatment all it likes but it won't matter if there aren't social and community supports, as well as actual resources, to help them escape belonging to a more marginalized demographic. Even if Canadian society were to go the route of shoving folks into forced treatment facilities there would need to be supports on the outside, there would need to be infrastructure, funding, safe, drug free housing environments, and a great deal of other things. And even with those things in place, which probably isn't realistic (particularly in smaller communities with less resources and infrastructure), folks will still end up on the streets going all the things they likely are now. 

 

Within the past year or so my partner gave me an example of this, she had someone come in looking for emergency housing/funding for housing because he'd just gotten out of treatment and the only thing available to him without financial support was shelter housing; shelter housing that featured those who use, and probably individuals he'd previously had connections with. Further down the line this individual fell back into using and eventually died of an OD. It's a tragic story, but it's not an uncommon one. Having infrastructure to support individuals getting out of treatment is important too, but even that wouldn't save everyone. Those who do addictions work, particularly frontline work that doesn't involve facilities, live with the reality that they will encounter death, and that in some cases they will encounter bodies. 

 

Most folks who go through treatment do relapse at some point, that's why having things like sponsors and individuals to reach out is so important, so folks have supports who can help them climb back on the horse as opposed to spiraling. Having a functioning social safety net matters too, particularly with more marginalized demographics, it's hard for helping professionals to connect individuals with resources that simply do not exist, or that continually have their budgets cut, or that have their eligibility criteria increasingly narrowed. 

 

Ultimately it often comes down to money and resources, whether that's folks looking to earn money, trying to manage things with a limited budget, trying to do more with less, and trying to source funding from charitable organizations, individuals, levels of government, and so on. It's all so complicated and a lot of things are intertwined. 

 

So my question is, if we need this level of control over a person to actually help them through all the things needed to get them healthy, can we do that without a first step of "treatment incarceration" for lack of a better term? particularly people who are really vulnerable like the person in your story, or people with untreated mental illness? 

 

[Coconuts]

32 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

So my question is, if we need this level of control over a person to actually help them through all the things needed to get them healthy, can we do that without a first step of "treatment incarceration" for lack of a better term? particularly people who are really vulnerable like the person in your story, or people with untreated mental illness? 

 

 

I don't think you'll ever meet anyone who can give you a definitive answer to that. 

 

I don't know, I just know there isn't likely to be a perfect single solution. I do think there need to be supports within prison systems, and @bishopshodan can speak to this personally, but I do question approaching addiction as a criminal issue as opposed to as a public health issue. You're asking a very big question, there's a lot of layers to it. I know there is no magic bullet, but I question the actual value of another war on drugs sort of approach. 

 

On some level I also question the ethics of "control" and restricting autonomy too. 

 

There's also the question of what "help" is, and what the end result of "help" is expected to be, or the range of expected results even. Drug use can have both short and long-term negative physical and neurological results, some of which aren't reversable. Even what "healthy" means is open to interpretation. Some folks will probably never be functioning members of society in the general sense, some folks will always need support, some folks may never be able to work through their baggage, be able to live independently in the general sense, and so on. 

 

It's hard, one of the issues with addiction is how dehumanizing it can be, I'm sure many of us have heard people speak about how individuals should just be put down as if they're animals. It can be similar to mental health in the sense that folks often see individuals as their troubles as opposed to individuals. Language matters, addict is loaded word, so is junkie. Folks have their preferences, will identify themselves in certain ways, there's so much diversity. It's easy to forget, but words have a lot of power. Every single person who is living with substance use issues, or mental health struggles, is an individual with a story, with friends, with family, and so on. There's always a ripple effect, and it almost always goes beyond the individual. Addiction really is a societal issue, it reaches every demographic regardless of how privileged or not they are. 

 

That being said, each journey is also an individual thing with all sorts of variables. A one size fits all approach will never work, there need to be multiple approaches. 

 

Ultimately I don't think there will ever be a singular approach, or even multiple approaches, that affect the social perception of addiction enough that it's not a hot button topic. Which isn't to say we shouldn't strive to make things better. 

 

It's all very complicated, we could go around in circles on this matter for a year or more and still find things to talk about. 

Edited May 3 by Coconuts

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't think you'll ever meet anyone who can give you a definitive answer to that. 

 

I don't know, I just know there isn't likely to be a perfect single solution. I do think there need to be supports within prison systems, and @bishopshodan can speak to this personally, but I do question approaching addiction as a criminal issue as opposed to as a public health issue. You're asking a very big question, there's a lot of layers to it. I know there is no magic bullet, but I question the actual value of another war on drugs sort of approach. 

 

On some level I also question the ethics of "control" and restricting autonomy too. 

 

There's also the question of what "help" is, and what the end result of "help" is expected to be, or the range of expected results even. Drug use can have both short and long-term negative physical and neurological results, some of which aren't reversable. Even what "healthy" means is open to interpretation. Some folks will probably never be functioning members of society in the general sense, some folks will always need support, some folks may never be able to work through their baggage, be able to live independently in the general sense, and so on. 

 

It's hard, one of the issues with addiction is how dehumanizing it can be. It can be similar to mental health in the sense that folks often see individuals as their troubles as opposed to individuals. Language matters, addict is loaded word, so is junkie. Folks have their preferences, will identify themselves in certain ways, there's so much diversity. It's easy to forget, but words have a lot of power. Every single person who is living with substance use issues, or mental health struggles, is an individual with a story, with friends, with family, and so on. There's always a ripple effect, and it almost always goes beyond the individual. Addiction really is a societal issue, it reaches every demographic regardless of how privileged or not they are. 

 

That being said, each journey is also an individual thing with all sorts of variables. A one size fits all approach will never work, there need to be multiple approaches. 

 

Ultimately I don't think there will ever be a singular approach, or even multiple approaches, that affect the social perception of addiction enough that it's not a hot button topic. Which isn't to say we shouldn't strive to make things better. 

 

It's all very complicated, we could go around in circles on this matter for a year or more and still find things to talk about. 

 

So for me, I've made a career of distilling things down to simple action items for clients. People like lists of things to do, to get to some goal. I know that approach works.

 

When I read this, which I appreciate btw, I have a hard time seeing what the next step is. How do I turn this into an actionable list? whats my first step? when do I know we've been successful? 

 

At the same time, I know if we don't act and continue like we are, 1000s of people die every year. 1000s more next year.

 

Maybe we just have to keep trying ideas until one works, can it get much worse?

 

 

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

1 hour ago, Sapper said:

That could help .... BUT ..... If there is only....

 

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

The thing is, we will never stop hard drug use....

 

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

What you will get, however is a stupid use of the notwithstanding clause to demonstrate conservative "principles" and righteousness, while your job gets harder.

 

1 hour ago, 112 said:

We absolutely don't have enough capacity in terms of beds and treatment facilities to do this to even a majority of drug users, though.

 

54 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

I've learned a lot about trauma.......

 

42 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

Even then, it's still more nuanced..... 

 

All very good points, and all of these things ring true, however NONE of these things is resolved by allowing festering black holes to take root in every town and city in Canada. We need to stop the blight where the hobo/addict/nutbars converge WHILE we also try to help them on a better level than we have been in my lifetime. 

I am not so much concerned for the individuals...sadly there are almost 8 billion individuals, and that is too many to worry about at a one on one level. I am more concerned with policy that will push back against the blight in our cities while also being better overall for the masses of individuals who fit my crass quick statement of hobo/addict/nutbar. (not trying to be mean, just succinct)

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

All very good points, and all of these things ring true, however NONE of these things is resolved by allowing festering black holes to take root in every town and city in Canada. We need to stop the blight where the hobo/addict/nutbars converge WHILE we also try to help them on a better level than we have been in my lifetime. 

I am not so much concerned for the individuals...sadly there are almost 8 billion individuals, and that is too many to worry about at a one on one level. I am more concerned with policy that will push back against the blight in our cities while also being better overall for the masses of individuals who fit my crass quick statement of hobo/addict/nutbar. (not trying to be mean, just succinct)

 

Skippy will simply leave it to the municipalities, while doing his con grandstanding. He'll make unconstitutional laws and take away safe injection sites.

 

What the next step is, I don't have a freaking clue. 

 

[Sapper]

Lets look at how we break the cycle for forced sex workers

1- it's not a crime for them to solicit. It's a crime to solicit to purchase.  Theme here is decriminalize the victim and criminalize the ones that seek it ( for drugs it's the makers and sellers 

2 - Those who want off the streets have programs that will move them and re establish them to get their lives back 

 

3 - by not criminalizing them once back they don't face having to disclose criminal records to potential employers 

 

Many lessons learned in succesful help to support forced sex workers get back to life and move on would be a great step with addicts.

 

Problem is society views one with pity and the other with contempt ..... 

[Optimist Prime]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

Skippy will simply leave it to the municipalities, while doing his con grandstanding. He'll make unconstitutional laws and take away safe injection sites.

 

What the next step is, I don't have a freaking clue. 

 

Believe me when I say we DO NOT want Skippy to be the Skipper. For profit prisons will sprout up and be filled with mentally deficient addicts. There was a poor chap in Ontario, downs syndrome, in an adult prison, in open population and the other assholes in jail with him had over the years knocked out all his teeth so he couldn't bite their junk when they raped him. it is sad and disgusting, but needed to be said so that you understand that i am aware. We can't as a wealthy educated nation do this to our citizens or anyone else's citizens who are not at full mental capacity, and addiction is included on that spectrum. We also can't allow them to be free range hobos either or we lose entire city blocks to the cesspool. 

[The Arrogant Worms]

[The Arrogant Worms]

[Coconuts]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

So for me, I've made a career of distilling things down to simple action items for clients. People like lists of things to do, to get to some goal. I know that approach works.

 

When I read this, which I appreciate btw, I have a hard time seeing what the next step is. How do I turn this into an actionable list? whats my first step? when do I know we've been successful? 

 

At the same time, I know if we don't act and continue like we are, 1000s of people die every year. 1000s more next year.

 

Maybe we just have to keep trying ideas until one works, can it get much worse?

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard, it's terrifying sometimes even, sometimes it feels hopeless. The more human services education I've done the more I've questioned things, because it's all so expansive and so many things interconnect, and at different levels too. Once you start to see/understand some things you can't unsee them. One of my third-year professors described social work as swimming within the grey, and that's always stuck out to me as a top notch definition of what human service work is. 

 

When it comes to people, and society, a lot of things will simply never be black and white, a lot of the time things are murky and uncertain, and a lot of things simply always will be. 

 

It's really intimidating, particularly when considering scenarios where ethics meets law, many helping professions have their codes of ethics, methods and standards of best practice and so on, but even with the guidance of such things as well as the consultation of things like unions, professional colleges and associations and so on, it's still so tricky. There's so much grey, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is, and I'm not even a practicing social worker yet. 

 

Studies are useful, but they can be tough. You get into things like qualitative and quantitative data, research methods, latitudinal and longitudinal studies, funding, and so on. And even then, they don't necessarily guarantee insight. Most professions, medical and helping, have decades of literature, study, and so on underpinning them. There's no shortage of research that's been done on addiction. 

 

Fortunately we're always learning things, but we also live within the economic realities of the present day. Trying to find and implement solutions will always happen within a changing political context, which has all sorts of impacts. 

 

A quick example is a how a macro level decision made by a federal or provincial government can affect the funding and policies of meso level organizational policy, which in turn impacts both the micro level practitioner as well as the micro level service users. Another example is how a tough on crime approach championed by a federal party could result in higher levels of micro level individuals being present within meso level prison settings, one could take it a step further and throw in a curveball such as the historically higher rates of Indigenous individuals being incarcerated as well. It's murky. 

 

 

 

[Gurn]

Some of the best posts I've seen on this site, CDC, or any site, have been on this page.

the vid posted by @bishopshodan has me crying.

 

So damn sad, the things that some people do to people.

So often those people will do damage to other people, who go on to do damage to more, and on and on it goes.

[Sapper]

37 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

All very good points, and all of these things ring true, however NONE of these things is resolved by allowing festering black holes to take root in every town and city in Canada. We need to stop the blight where the hobo/addict/nutbars converge WHILE we also try to help them on a better level than we have been in my lifetime. 

I am not so much concerned for the individuals...sadly there are almost 8 billion individuals, and that is too many to worry about at a one on one level. I am more concerned with policy that will push back against the blight in our cities while also being better overall for the masses of individuals who fit my crass quick statement of hobo/addict/nutbar. (not trying to be mean, just succinct)

Like the zombie herd on the walking dead If you move the from one place they just move to another 

 

When Vancouver pushed to move them out for the Olympics Surrey and Chilliwack became.the target destinations

Closing sites means they will use drugs where they please and chasing them out of town is just going to pass the problem to the next nearest town 

 

Outside of tripling jail space to accomodate them it's going to require looking at the bigger picture and the end goal vs the quick hit of pushing them to the next town

 

Sounds crass but it's the reality. This mess has been decades in the making and isn't the fault of one single party. Inflation hasn't had that great of impact as we have seen tent cities across BC for decades now. Their numbers are increasing but that's a reflection of people from frozen towns moving to warmer climates in my opinion .... 

[Coconuts]

22 minutes ago, Sapper said:

Like the zombie herd on the walking dead If you move the from one place they just move to another 

 

When Vancouver pushed to move them out for the Olympics Surrey and Chilliwack became.the target destinations

Closing sites means they will use drugs where they please and chasing them out of town is just going to pass the problem to the next nearest town 

 

Outside of tripling jail space to accomodate them it's going to require looking at the bigger picture and the end goal vs the quick hit of pushing them to the next town

 

Sounds crass but it's the reality. This mess has been decades in the making and isn't the fault of one single party. Inflation hasn't had that great of impact as we have seen tent cities across BC for decades now. Their numbers are increasing but that's a reflection of people from frozen towns moving to warmer climates in my opinion .... 

 

That's part of it, but it really is everywhere. When I was living in Nanaimo it was a common belief that individuals wound up living on the island because of it's mild climate, and it makes a lot of sense, if you're going to be homeless you may as well be homeless somewhere where you're less likely to freeze to death. It's really quite straightforward. There's a lot of hubbub about the homeless, and addiction, in Nanaimo, but it's all over the island. Beacon Hill Park in Victoria has had a growing reputation for it, I've heard a lot of folks say Victoria's gotten much worse in recent years. 

 

I was stuck in Prince George for a few days the winter before last, and one of the things that stood out to me was the the same homeless camps I saw in Nanaimo, and around the island, were present in PG. I would venture the same could be said of almost every northern community. Fire barrels, folks with inadequate clothing, folks huddling for warmth in -40, that wasn't something I'd ever seen before. 

 

There's a lot of incentive for folks living in poverty to try and live somewhere where the climate isn't shit. 

Edited May 3 by Coconuts

[Optimist Prime]

23 minutes ago, Sapper said:

Like the zombie herd on the walking dead If you move the from one place they just move to another 

 

When Vancouver pushed to move them out for the Olympics Surrey and Chilliwack became.the target destinations

Closing sites means they will use drugs where they please and chasing them out of town is just going to pass the problem to the next nearest town 

 

Outside of tripling jail space to accomodate them it's going to require looking at the bigger picture and the end goal vs the quick hit of pushing them to the next town

 

Sounds crass but it's the reality. This mess has been decades in the making and isn't the fault of one single party. Inflation hasn't had that great of impact as we have seen tent cities across BC for decades now. Their numbers are increasing but that's a reflection of people from frozen towns moving to warmer climates in my opinion .... 

Yeah, at one point in the 90s Alberta Social Services was offering a double shot of welfare if you also took the one way bus ticket to Vancouver along with it. Or very near to that, as a policy. From memory, so might be slightly different of an offer, but the one way bus ticket was absolutely involved.