Hey neat, you used full sentences and articulated some points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
1) I would suggest you start by not using a stigmatizing word like junkies. They're people. They're somebody's kid, somebody's sibling etc. Calling folks junkies and crack heads reduce people to their drug use, and thus can inadvertently strip them of their humanity.
|
Well, first of all, the addicted human being I ran into two days ago labeled herself a "crack whore" so there's that.
I'm also less concerned about me calling a drug addict who jumps on my teenager's car a junkie and more concerned about doing something to address this problem. You keep working on the words, though...that should get us there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
2) as I stated in my original post, yes I think safe use sites should be expanded. And that housed folks in the suburbs also use drugs and die alone in their houses/apartments. The opioid epidemic is much more far reaching than unhoused folks hanging out at an LRT station.
|
Yes, well I guarantee you Debbie the housewife addicted to opioids isn't going to go hang out with the more downtrodden among us to get her fix; she'll be "too good" for that.
I was onboard with trying the safe sites, btw, but they just aren't working, which is obvious to anybody who has left their house in the past three years. I'm not in support of quadrupling down on a failed approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
3) again, as I stated in my original post a reevaluation of housing policy is needed to address much of the 'social disorder' discussed in the thread. This would also impact high budget items like healthcare and health outcomes. For instance there has been an increase in Edmonton of amputations as a result of the last cold snap etc.
|
Nope, it's addictions that come before homelessness. And throwing an addict into a house solves jack ####. Counselling and clean before free houses IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
4) I'm not suggesting people hug it out. That's a reductive example of the approach I'm suggesting. I do believe, strongly, that you can't enforce folks out of homlessness or drug use. That it just kicks the can down the road at best, and leads to further harassment etc and stigmatization of visible drug users at worst.
|
Oh yeah, committing people to a facility to address their mental illness and drug addiction is somehow kicking the can down the road even though it actively address all the issues at once (the wellbeing of the troubled individual, peace in public and the lack of a home), but free drugs and a place to use them is solving...something?
Give me a break. Your approach is kicking the can down the road and it's preposterous you can't see that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
5) when people start a sentence by 'not to be a jerk' they're very clearly being a jerk
|
No, I was giving you some helpful tips and tricks and it seemed to have worked. Sometimes you can't just tolerate people polluting spaces with bad behaviour and have to actually spell out your expectations and let them know their shenanigans won't be tolerated.
Look, you've now contributed to the thread with some well-written responses. Thank you. I credit myself with getting you back on the rails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
6) internet tone is implied, and if you're reading more angst into my posts than I'm intending, that is what it is. But admittely I knew what this thread was going to be when I opened and i should have known better.
|
Should we just not talk about this stuff? Is it too triggering for you? I don't get why this topic - that affects us all - is off limits in your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
7) personally, I think calling Calgary a 'left wing' city is pretty funny. I think on whole it's pretty centre-right with a growing centre-left. Which I think you can see in the run up to the election as the NDP accepts the UCP framing on issues which likely means the NDP will lose, but that's a tangent.
|
Yep, that's a tangent. I don't even know who called Calgary left-wing. I mean, I'm definitely left wing on most topics I find, but it doesn't mean I have to tow the company line on everything. I'm sure my view on this issue is more right wing, but isn't that normal to have a range of views? I can't imagine how weird it would be to somehow magically have all my views supported by the party for whom I vote. What would the chances of that be? I'd be concerned I'm a partisan if that was my experience.