Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
And again, people are using out in the open because they don't have housing and there are a lack of supervised consumption sites. Where else are they supposed to use?
|
Even where there are safe consumption sites, people will use street drugs two blocks away.
People have been using illicit drugs in urban centres for decades. What’s new is them being used right out in the open in public parks, streets, and transit stations. I know some people don’t like to hear it, but out of sight in underpasses or wherever is actually better.
Because the public will not tolerate abandoning their public spaces to chaos and open drug use. Not in Vancouver, not anywhere. This notion that a sophisticated and benignly tolerant public will regard this as part of the texture of urban life is delusional. The public will stop going to places that feel scummy and dangerous. And they’ve shown they’ll vote out people governments that allow it to happen. So progressive, left-leaning governments can clean up public spaces, or lose in elections to politicians that will do it anyway, along with bringing in worse policies on other fronts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Okay, but even reducing overdose deaths by 10-20% is worthwhile, isn't it?
|
Where have I said it isn’t?
The issue is that these efforts nibble around the edges. They don’t get at the issue that most people that far gone in addiction will not willingly enter into rehab, and will continue using either until they die, or they’re prevented from using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
How do you not see that this indicates much larger addiction and mental health issues among those types of users? Those aren't the Gregs of the world.
|
See above. Just housing them won’t make them whole or make them stop using. In most cases, they will need to be compelled to stop using.