I was aiding in a peer review and was diligently checking citations and sources to find that the majority of sources used had relevant titles but did not support the claims the author was making... I pointed these out and was removed from reviewing with the professor saying I needed to offer positive comments only ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dont work in Vancouver but work with partnered organizations with reports from the public nursing teams in that area and the harm reduction programs.

I work on the medical side of addiction treatment. Not doxxing myself and you can choose to believe what you would like but I see this policy as an absolute failure of duty to our youth and young adults.

I am sorry to tell you that is 100% not correct. I work in the industry and people get given whopping amounts of hydromorphone tablets that end up in highschool and university students pockets for partying and anxiety. We have over 20x more clients under 25 than ever before

The logic is it also ruins other peoples lives. No one exists in society in a nut shell or as an island. If your choice to use drugs would expose, entice, or otherwise encourage a person to use drugs then it is reasonable in my opinion for the state to protect people from it.

That being said clearly our approach isn't working. There shouldn't be laissez-faire drug use all over but there shouldn't be life in prison immediately consequences either.

The most succesful drug rehabilitation programs are mandatory rehab facilities that are a choice alternate to going to jail for an equal amount of time.

Also housing first models are incredibly effective. But... the entire western world uses housing as an investment vehicle and commodity so it is diametrically opposed to housing first initiatives. If the average citizen is paying 50% of their income for housing and then "junkies" get given free housing the political party that implemented it would be booted so fast.