BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[Wormius]

Chemgear, if you’re going to quote the article it would make sense to keep it in order so it makes some sense. It looks like that whole post is one quote, but it’s just snippets and the context is lost. For example when the RCMP suggested that it’s not safe for people to buy those prescribed safe drugs doesn’t make sense without the preceding quote from the actual article that you left out.

“They are sold in bundles of a variety of pills. People are mixing them and there are going to be people who don’t understand what they are purchasing and see that it is a prescription drug and assume it may be safe. But if it is not prescribed to you it is not safe.

“If these are getting into the hands of our youth or young adults who may think this is a safe way to get high, it is concerning to us.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Chemgear, if you’re going to quote the article it would make sense to keep it in order so it makes some sense. It looks like that whole post is one quote, but it’s just snippets and the context is lost. For example when the RCMP suggested that it’s not safe for people to buy those prescribed safe drugs doesn’t make sense without the preceding quote from the actual article that you left out.

Hmm, sorry if I mixed it up a bit. I do try to pluck our appropriate but smaller summary pieces and always make sure the full link is available to the original article.

I recall that I got in trouble once back in the day from a mod that I had put too much of the text of a new piece in the post. I think it's the one slap on the wrist that I've gotten here when I started.

Thanks for the note.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by chemgear

As some expected.

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You need to have some compassion for these people because they have a disease. They just need free drugs and UBI and it will make everything better.

Right-wing logic hard at work here again. "The program isn't working perfectly. Better scrap the whole thing!"

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Right-wing logic hard at work here again. "The program isn't working perfectly. Better scrap the whole thing!"

It's pretty obvious these programs only work when there is both a carrot and a stick. The left wing only wants to give out carrots, and the right only wants to use the stick.

Portugal has provided a very clear road map of how to make these programs work. It involves medical treatment and non-criminal solutions, but also mandatory compliance and consequences for non-compliance.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's pretty obvious these programs only work when there is both a carrot and a stick. The left wing only wants to give out carrots, and the right only wants to use the stick.

Portugal has provided a very clear road map of how to make these programs work. It involves medical treatment and non-criminal solutions, but also mandatory compliance and consequences for non-compliance.

It's still illegal to sell drugs on the street in B.C. Personal use is the only thing that's been decriminalized.

The RCMP is Helen Lovejoying the #### out of this because police love the easy arrests that addicts provide them. Is it bad that safe supply drugs are finding their way into the hands of street dealers? Sure. It's also still better if safe, clean drugs are being sold on the street vs. fentanyl-laced drugs.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's still illegal to sell drugs on the street in B.C. Personal use is the only thing that's been decriminalized.

The RCMP is Helen Lovejoying the #### out of this because police love the easy arrests that addicts provide them. Is it bad that safe supply drugs are finding their way into the hands of street dealers? Sure. It's also still better if safe, clean drugs are being sold on the street vs. fentanyl-laced drugs.

The point is that allowing people suffering from addiction to just run free with drug use and petty crime isn't the solution. That isn't the model that worked in Portugal. The correct model involves mandatory treatment, and consequences for not complying with that treatment.

Safe supply is good in theory and in limited circumstances. Just giving people suffering from addictions pure drugs to flip for cash so they can buy fentanyl (which is more powerful and often times more desired) isn't a working solution. If you are going to provide safe supply, it should be single doses that are administered on site and part of a mandatory treatment program.

The idea that someone using street drug cocktails of fentanyl, meth, and various other substances really just wants a pure supply of a less powerful drug is pretty detached from reality.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

The point is that allowing people suffering from addiction to just run free with drug use and petty crime isn't the solution. That isn't the model that worked in Portugal. The correct model involves mandatory treatment, and consequences for not complying with that treatment.

Portugal does a lot of good things. However there is enough research now that shows that compelling people to enter treatment doesn't really work in terms of treating addiction. Furthermore, B.C. has a massive problem with unregulated substance use treatment facilities (thanks, BC Liberals!), which often scam addicts out of their various benefits (e.g. welfare, EI, etc.). The unregulated facilities that aren't scams often offer programs that aren't evidence-based and are usually lacking adequate facilities and staffing. (Source: I work directly in this industry)

There are private, licensed operators and centres operated by the various health authorities, which are subject to regulations and usually provide better treatment than the unregulated providers. However, the licensed operators are often not affordable and the HA centres have a very limited number of beds. There are also significant wait times to get into these facilities.

If we want to start compelling people to go to treatment, there needs to be better infrastructure in place. Wouldn't you agree that until that infrastructure is in place, we need harm reduction strategies such as safe supply to keep people from dying.

If you are going to provide safe supply, it should be single doses that are administered on site and part of a mandatory treatment program.

See above. Additionally there are not enough safe-consumption sites in the province to support this requirement.

The idea that someone using street drug cocktails of fentanyl, meth, and various other substances really just wants a pure supply of a less powerful drug is pretty detached from reality.

It's pretty contradictory to state that dealers are acquiring safe supply drugs to resell them AND that there is not significant demand for safe supply drugs.

[Fuzz]

“Alberta has been warning for years that diversion of high-potency opioids from these programs could be diverted and trafficked across Canada, potentially causing irreparable harm and death in communities across the country. In Alberta, we have made the provision of “safe supply” illegal to prevent this very thing from happening. Unfortunately, that does not stop organized criminals from bringing it here illegally from other provinces.


“With the serious concern of diversion becoming evident and the reality that these drugs may be ending up for resale in Alberta, I have asked Deputy Premier and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Services Mike Ellis, and Minister of Mental Health and Addiction Dan Williams, to request an emergency meeting with their counterparts in British Columbia to stop the flow of these high-potency opioids to Alberta.”

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...4AFF526DF1F120


Smith tossin' shade at BC. You gonna take that, BC? I call for a press release war focused on drug talk. This can only go well.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...4AFF526DF1F120


Smith tossin' shade at BC. You gonna take that, BC? I call for a press release war focused on drug talk. This can only go well.

Clearly the UCP model is working fabulously.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...hows-1.7055469

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Clearly the UCP model is working fabulously.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...hows-1.7055469

Didn't you see? That's, well... "British Columbia to stop the flow of these high-potency opioids to Alberta." See? Not our fault. Nice try, BC lover.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You need to have some compassion for these people because they have a disease. They just need free drugs and UBI and it will make everything better.

As any fiscal conservative should ask: What's cheaper?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rvices-canada/

$123,000.00 per inmate. I'm no expert, but i suspect UBI and free drugs would be a hell of a lot cheaper than putting people in prison.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Portugal does a lot of good things. However there is enough research now that shows that compelling people to enter treatment doesn't really work in terms of treating addiction. Furthermore, B.C. has a massive problem with unregulated substance use treatment facilities (thanks, BC Liberals!), which often scam addicts out of their various benefits (e.g. welfare, EI, etc.). The unregulated facilities that aren't scams often offer programs that aren't evidence-based and are usually lacking adequate facilities and staffing. (Source: I work directly in this industry)

There are private, licensed operators and centres operated by the various health authorities, which are subject to regulations and usually provide better treatment than the unregulated providers. However, the licensed operators are often not affordable and the HA centres have a very limited number of beds. There are also significant wait times to get into these facilities.

If we want to start compelling people to go to treatment, there needs to be better infrastructure in place. Wouldn't you agree that until that infrastructure is in place, we need harm reduction strategies such as safe supply to keep people from dying.



See above. Additionally there are not enough safe-consumption sites in the province to support this requirement.



It's pretty contradictory to state that dealers are acquiring safe supply drugs to resell them AND that there is not significant demand for safe supply drugs.

There's lots of money being spent on the problem.

Good luck diverting money from existing expenditures to a more comprehensive system though. It will take serious political will to address the problem in any meaningful way.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You need to have some compassion for these people because they have a disease. They just need free drugs and UBI and it will make everything better.

Green text?

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Cappy

As any fiscal conservative should ask: What's cheaper?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rvices-canada/

$123,000.00 per inmate. I'm no expert, but i suspect UBI and free drugs would be a hell of a lot cheaper than putting people in prison.

Except that is only the ones in prison. With a UBI, everyone wants a piece of the pie.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

As any fiscal conservative should ask: What's cheaper?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rvices-canada/

$123,000.00 per inmate. I'm no expert, but i suspect UBI and free drugs would be a hell of a lot cheaper than putting people in prison.

Look, I wanted to make a dark, dark joke but I'm not doing that.

The fact of the matter is though, is that this is a disingenuous look at the problem.

Drugs are 'free' to the user, not to the provider, facilities are 'free' to the user, not the provider, then there is facilities, infrastructure, staff, support staff, training, the use of Police personnel, their support staff, the consumption of their time.

And then theres the prospective costs of social damage. Reduction of property values, I could go on and on.

I agree that we need to help, but I disagree that its as simple a question as: "Lock 'em up or give 'em free drugs."

Theres more nuance to the equation than that.

No one ever suggested this was an easy question or that there was a 'Magic Bullet' solution. Its important to keep an open mind.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Locke

Look, I wanted to make a dark, dark joke but I'm not doing that.

The fact of the matter is though, is that this is a disingenuous look at the problem.

Drugs are 'free' to the user, not to the provider, facilities are 'free' to the user, not the provider, then there is facilities, infrastructure, staff, support staff, training, the use of Police personnel, their support staff, the consumption of their time.

And then theres the prospective costs of social damage. Reduction of property values, I could go on and on.

I agree that we need to help, but I disagree that its as simple a question as: "Lock 'em up or give 'em free drugs."

Theres more nuance to the equation than that.

No one ever suggested this was an easy question or that there was a 'Magic Bullet' solution. Its important to keep an open mind.

Of course it is. Do not take my response as an either or scenario; more of a response to the general idea of just putting people away in prison as a cost effective measure.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Of course it is. Do not take my response as an either or scenario; more of a response to the general idea of just putting people away in prison as a cost effective measure.

Fair enough. I was just sort of intimating that I can come up with some really, really cost effective measures...but people ain't gonna like 'em.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

There's lots of money being spent on the problem.



Good luck diverting money from existing expenditures to a more comprehensive system though. It will take serious political will to address the problem in any meaningful way.

Nice dodge. Taking the current environment and lack of infrastructure into account, do you think safe supply is an appropriate harm reduction strategy. If not, what do you propose is a better strategy?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nice dodge. Taking the current environment and lack of infrastructure into account, do you think safe supply is an appropriate harm reduction strategy. If not, what do you propose is a better strategy?

Whatever is currently going on, obviously isn't working. BC is setting records for drug deaths in a year/month. Anecdotally, on my morning bus ride the DTES, I see more people than ever.

I do not think safe supply, in itself, is effective. As stated, people suffering from addiction are actively seeking out stronger drugs. Fentanyl is the major issue right now. Once you start using that, the safe supply isn't going to cut it. Even if they are using the safe supply, what is stopping them from also seeking Fentanyl once they leave the clinic.

Proponents of safe supply envision users taking drugs the way party kids do at a rave. They're just looking to get high and would be better off with a safe and predictable source. That's not really the way it works with hardcore opioid users. The nature of opioids is that you constantly need a larger and stronger supply.

[SeeGeeWhy]

This crap totally feels like retaliation for the opium war.

I’d love to see us try running ayahuasca or other psychedelic based treatment programs that was aimed at addressing the underlying trauma that feeds all addictions.