As Canadian drug deaths rise, programs to keep users safe face backlash
As Canadian drug deaths rise, programs to keep users safe face backlash
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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".
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.
No, you don't get it, if we stop considering them, they don't exist. /s