getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Sliver

There's no way the threshold for something being a tangible problem is physical harm versus no physical harm. Hate speech, sexual harassment, noise bylaws, etc. etc.

It’s not really that fine of a line between the aforementioned and a “huh, that was a super odd interaction with a stranger” situation.

[blender]

It's a mess here in Kamloops right now, too.
Junkies shooting up all over downtown in broad daylight, large groups congregating here and there, aggressive panhandling, etc.

I am definitely in the compassion and let's find a constructive way to help these people camp, BUT I've got two daughters that shouldn't feel scared of walking around the neighborhood.

I feel like the level of tolerance for this type of civil disorder is ridiculous at the moment. There was a time not long ago when I felt conspicuous walking around with an open beer (lol, I would probably still get busted!), and now there are people literally shooting up in the street.

Where is the law and order?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think criminalizing it helps.

Maybe we need a new classification...or revive an old one. I think we need to institutionalize people who are severely addicted to hard drugs and force our help upon them after giving them an opportunity or three to claw out themselves.

I don't think a home will help. I believe homelessness comes after drug addiction; not before. Helping with housing once they're clean works for me, though.

I'm fine with a tax increase to cover this. Even, say, a 3% sales tax or something to directly pay for it.

Are we as bad as Vancouver or LA? Probably not yet, but my taste of these ####ers over the past week has been enough to want to hit this problem hard and fast and with a greater concern for society at large than for the individual drug users whose interests we seem to be prioritizing (to no avail) over the interests of the rest of us who are operating within the boundaries of normal and trouble-free behaviour.

You’re assuming the way out is the reverse of the way in which is not always the case. There are limited examples, but in the countries where housing-first has been applied (including in Canada about a decade ago) there have been positive results.

You also have to ask yourself what you’re trying to solve. Are you trying to solve addiction? Or homelessness? Because they’re different. And they require different solutions. And you can try to solve both, but you just need a bigger, more comprehensive solution.

Beyond imprisoning these people, how are you going to force them to deal with their addiction issues? And let’s say they kick the addiction, then they get housing? When? And what if they do drugs again? You take it away? That’s just not a workable scenario unless you’re going to proceed with criminalization (or whatever you want to rename it).

Instead, giving them a foundation and building on top of it is the way, which is the idea behind housing-first. Give them a home, and then they’re more likely to seek out support for mental health and addiction issues. Unless you think they just do drugs because it’s fun. It also solves you “interacting” with them, considering there’s a lot less reason for them to be on your car hood or hanging around downtown in the cold when they actually have a place to go to. Do you think they’re hanging out at an intersection because it’s a nice place to be?

Either way, 3% tax isn’t going to cut it, so you’re going to have to be ok with a lot more than that.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by blender

Where is the law and order?

"That's racist."
"It's not fair to arrest drug makers/sellers/users."
"Disproportionate influence of the Police Department"
"Defund the police."
"The police are stealing homeless tents."
"They'll just release them again in 5 minutes."
"Random stranger attacks are the new normal, just get used to it."
"We can't do anything about that, mental illness."
"Here's some free drugs."
"There aren't enough free drugs, we need more free drugs."
"You use the C-Train? Make sure you carry NARCAN."

Speaking of which:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rain-1.6483690

This time we were lucky. The stations were emptier than expected. At one point, three out of the only four people on the Chinook platform were doing drugs or were obviously under the influence.

What's the solution? How can Calgary get this under control? What will happen in the city if it doesn't?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chemgear

"That's racist."
"It's not fair to arrest drug makers/sellers/users."
"Disproportionate influence of the Police Department"
"Defund the police."
"The police are stealing homeless tents."
"They'll just release them again in 5 minutes."
"Random stranger attacks are the new normal, just get used to it."
"We can't do anything about that, mental illness."
"Here's some free drugs."
"There aren't enough free drugs, we need more free drugs."
"You use the C-Train? Make sure you carry NARCAN."

What point are you attempting to make here? Because some of this is legitimately beneficial parts of what could be an effective comprehensive strategy to deal with the issue, and others just seem like you’re using homelessness as an excuse to gripe about reactions to other social issues, which seems stupid and unhelpful on their own. Would you like to add anything resembling a solution?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blender

It's a mess here in Kamloops right now, too.
Junkies shooting up all over downtown in broad daylight, large groups congregating here and there, aggressive panhandling, etc.

I am definitely in the compassion and let's find a constructive way to help these people camp, BUT I've got two daughters that shouldn't feel scared of walking around the neighborhood.

I feel like the level of tolerance for this type of civil disorder is ridiculous at the moment. There was a time not long ago when I felt conspicuous walking around with an open beer (lol, I would probably still get busted!), and now there are people literally shooting up in the street.

Where is the law and order?

Unfortunately the pendulum appears to have swung too far and that any type of legal enforcement is considered a draconian punishment and a fascist infringement upon personal freedom.

Thats the part of the precious Portuguese system that appears to be conveniently ignored.

People arent arrested or thrown in jail, but their drug use isnt openly tolerated without any repercussions either.

They are required to go into supervised treatment.

Thats what some previous posters alluded to, in Canada we're going the same route in the terms of not arresting people (thus normalizing open drug use, which appears to be a core element of the problem) but then there is no required treatment as compensation for that amnesty of prosecution.

Which essentially translates into just legally allowing open drug use. For compassion.

[Wormius]

Some strong, “Have you been to the Stampede?” vibes coming off people.

[chemgear]

It's become socially unacceptable to call for law and order. The pendulum has swung completely against it.

We worry more about partial solutions like handing out free drugs and making sure people are free to continue killing themselves rather than complete supports (heck we keep cherry picking mere parts of the Portugal example just like mentioned above).

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Locke

Unfortunately the pendulum appears to have swung too far and that any type of legal enforcement is considered a draconian punishment and a fascist infringement upon personal freedom.

No, people are just realizing that that doesn't work. If it did, things would never have gotten this bad in the first place

[Scroopy Noopers]

I’ve never understood when people say “you think it’s bad here, check out how bad it is over there! That’s a real problem!” What is the point of this? Is it a backwards way of saying do something before it’s too late? Doesn’t seem to be.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Just saw a news story on Global News Vancouver about how teens are now accessing Vancouver's safe supply, which addicts get for free with a prescription from finger print verification vending machines. Teens buy them off the streets to experiment with and addicts sell them to buy from the streets.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9433341/d...outh-concerns/

But some people working in the recovery sector say kids aged 16 and 17 are getting their hands on the product coming out of the machines.

“Their friends and them are accessing safe supply because they want to use it recreationally and they know, relatively, that it’s safer than the alternative,” Jessica Cooksey, director of operations with the Last Door Recovery Centre, told Global News.

“It’s good people know how to access a safe supply, but it also exposes people to have access that wouldn’t necessarily have readily access,” she said.


At the 12:00 mark. Buried in a hilarious blockage of ads.

https://globalnews.ca/video/9434507/...6-bc-jan-24-2/

[Locke]

Originally Posted by btimbit

No, people are just realizing that that doesn't work. If it did, things would never have gotten this bad in the first place

Well...thats not really accurate though is it?

I'm not advocating for a return to 'The War on Drugs' if thats what you're referring to then you're correct, that did not work, fairly conclusively.

What I was referring to is the swing to the state now supplying the drugs and eliminating the consequences.

Thats switching from opponent to accomplice.

And I'm not even suggesting that Safe Supply or Safe Injection are bad ideas, I think there is a lot of merit to them, I'm merely suggesting that that cant be the Endgame. Thats not a plan.

If there is no system or mechanism in place to require some quid-pro-quo, ie. "We'll provide your substance of choice while you work your way to stop using."

If there is no back-end treatment...required...then all they're really doing is distributing drugs.

[Cycling76er]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

Come visit the lovely core of Winnipeg. It's meth city here with a meth murder in the news every few days.

Oh, I see you live in my neck of the woods

Moved here from Calgary in 2014. Calgary is a ####ing utopia compared to here. I went back last August and thought "look at all of these awesome scooters!". Can't have that #### here. They'd be stolen and sold for scrap. Can't ride a bike here either. They get stolen and sold for meth.

It's awesome living in a city with just over half the population of Calgary and more than double the murders.

[blender]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It's become socially unacceptable to call for law and order. The pendulum has swung completely against it.

We worry more about partial solutions like handing out free drugs and making sure people are free to continue killing themselves rather than complete supports (heck we keep cherry picking mere parts of the Portugal example just like mentioned above).

Not true, even though it may seem like it. Here in Kamloops we just elected a complete ####wit mayor straight out of the "lets get tough on these people", Trump-style mold because people want tough action. He has been banned from visiting shelters after showing up unannounced too many times and if he could he would load them on train cars and send them out if town.

The people that just want this problem to "go away" are loud and proud. Its fortunate that they can't just do what they want because they also already would have privatized everything and built an open pit mine atop a hill 2km from the city limits above town, but I digress...

The root of this problem is corporate greed, and the drug companies that pushed dangerous addictive pills into the market for profit despite all evidence against should be made to pay to clean up the mess they made. It's a global problem and ultimately just another in a long list of examples of how unregulated capitalism and corporate greed is destroying human society.

Edit to add: chemgear, I think you are correct about the half-measures, like others in this thread have said , too.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by blender

Not true, even though it may seem like it. Here in Kamloops we just elected a complete ####wit mayor straight out of the "lets get tough on these people", Trump-style mold because people want tough action. He has been banned from visiting shelters after showing up unannounced too many times and if he could be would load them on train cars and send them out if town.

The people that just want this problem to "go away" are loud and proud. Its fortunate that they can't just do what they want because they also already would have privatized everything and built an open pit mine atop a hill 2km from the city limits above town, but I digress...

The root of this problem is corporate greed, and the drug companies that pushed dangerous addictive pills into the market for profit despite all evidence against should be made to pay to clean up the mess they made. It's a global problem and ultimately just another in a long list of examples of how unregulated capitalism and corporate greed is destroying human society.

That was definitely true for a generation of people. Drug companies certainly got a generation of people addicted to opioids.

That being said, the very unfortunate truth is that opioid users now have a very short lifespan, and most of the people you see out there haven't been there that long.

IMO the ongoing problem is caused by easily accessible synthetic opioids imported from China. Anyone with internet access can order fentanyl delivered to their door. No need to snuggle heroin from Afghanistan. There's a cheaper and stronger alternative now.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by blender

Not true, even though it may seem like it. Here in Kamloops we just elected a complete ####wit mayor straight out of the "lets get tough on these people", Trump-style mold because people want tough action. He has been banned from visiting shelters after showing up unannounced too many times and if he could be would load them on train cars and send them out if town.

This is reactionary voting because what you quoted actually is 100% true and now hitting a breaking point.
The pendulum went too far & that opens the door for "Trump types" to get elected from the frustrations of the populous.

The far left has got this issue wrong and it's pushing voters right in the effected cities to hope that's the solution.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

That was definitely true for a generation of people. Drug companies certainly got a generation of people addicted to opioids.

That being said, the very unfortunate truth is that opioid users now have a very short lifespan, and most of the people you see out there haven't been there that long.

IMO the ongoing problem is caused by easily accessible synthetic opioids imported from China. Anyone with internet access can order fentanyl delivered to their door. No need to snuggle heroin from Afghanistan. There's a cheaper and stronger alternative now.

First of all...hey, if you're addicted to Heroin then you get the Afghani stuff that understands the importance and benefits of a good snuggle.

Especially if you're in a tent when its cold.

Secondly...you're right, which...when one looks at the concept of a system that provides easy access to the substances but difficult, limited access to resources to kick those substances the imbalance is really starkly obvious.

One might think that there are parties that would prefer to see this problem sort of 'Solve Itself.'

It wont.

The addicted and homeless that we see are, in their own ways, the products of other issues within society. Be it education (lack thereof) limiting employment, obviously housing, mental health issues and lack of support thereof, and frankly...cheap and easy access to substances that make all of those problems (albeit temporarily) go away.

Thats not a generational thing that is going to phase itself out, thats a social cycle.

If one doesnt address the core underlying issues it doesnt matter because the next Generation is going to run into the same problems and address those problems with the same substances and the wheel just spins round and round again.

[The Familia]

All I have to say is #### drugs and the car they rode in on. I hate them so much.

I also have to agree with Sliver on this one. Getting sick and tired of these meth heads destroying my city. I hope they can overcome their demons and get the help they need, but damn I’m getting tired of these people and their actions. I’m starting to become less sympathetic to their cause the more I hear and see what they are doing. No 16 year old girl driving home should be subjected to some strung out dude draping himself all over the hood of her car. #### him. At some point enough is enough. The well being and safety of law abiding citizens who just want a pleasant experience in their city should trump these other individuals. I don’t know what the solution is but something has to give and I think we need more extreme measures, whatever that may entail.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re assuming the way out is the reverse of the way in which is not always the case. There are limited examples, but in the countries where housing-first has been applied (including in Canada about a decade ago) there have been positive results.

You also have to ask yourself what you’re trying to solve. Are you trying to solve addiction? Or homelessness? Because they’re different. And they require different solutions. And you can try to solve both, but you just need a bigger, more comprehensive solution.

Beyond imprisoning these people, how are you going to force them to deal with their addiction issues? And let’s say they kick the addiction, then they get housing? When? And what if they do drugs again? You take it away? That’s just not a workable scenario unless you’re going to proceed with criminalization (or whatever you want to rename it).

Instead, giving them a foundation and building on top of it is the way, which is the idea behind housing-first. Give them a home, and then they’re more likely to seek out support for mental health and addiction issues. Unless you think they just do drugs because it’s fun. It also solves you “interacting” with them, considering there’s a lot less reason for them to be on your car hood or hanging around downtown in the cold when they actually have a place to go to. Do you think they’re hanging out at an intersection because it’s a nice place to be?

Either way, 3% tax isn’t going to cut it, so you’re going to have to be ok with a lot more than that.

IMO there should be a 3rd 'problem' on that menu, which is Anti-Social Behaviour (or whatever you want to call it).

An individual with just one of homelessness/drugs/anti-social behaviour probably isn't the big societal problem we're talking about here, and are probably the lowest hanging fruit in terms of successful support. But once a second of those issues creeps in it seems like the trifecta is nearly inevitable.

Obviously the hope would be earlier intervention for individuals with relatively minor issues (group 1) to prevent them developing into major issues (group 2). A question I can only guess at is does the existence/prevalence of group 2 undermine/counter the efforts to help group 1?

ie. if group 2 is not an ongoing element in the community, would we be more successful with group 1? Could a 'banishment*' approach for group 2 recidivists coupled with more intensive supports for group 1 be most effective?

*still with supports/dignity/compassion as best as possible, though I'd argue none of those three are true in the status quo

I'm sure this could be articulated much more elegantly, but I guess I'm wondering if the first step isn't to admit that many people are effectively lost-causes and that pretending otherwise is a major obstacle to helping people who actually could be helped (eventually reducing/eliminating the lost-causes)?

Originally Posted by chemgear

It's become socially unacceptable to call for law and order. The pendulum has swung completely against it.

We worry more about partial solutions like handing out free drugs and making sure people are free to continue killing themselves rather than complete supports (heck we keep cherry picking mere parts of the Portugal example just like mentioned above).

Nah, we've just recognized that it's ineffective and expensive. But the only alternative we've tried (pretty close to nothing) has also been ineffective and expensive [in different ways]. No reason to limit ourselves to those two options...we'll probably have to fail several more times with tiny wins along the way.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

This is reactionary voting because what you quoted actually is 100% true and now hitting a breaking point.
The pendulum went too far & that opens the door for "Trump types" to get elected from the frustrations of the populous.

The far left has got this issue wrong and it's pushing voters right in the effected cities to hope that's the solution.

“The far left” when the measures currently in effect are maybe a fraction of what an effective “far left”/socialist solution would look like. Solutions that have actually worked elsewhere.

The pendulum didn’t go too far, you guys don’t know what you’re talking about. The pendulum is rocking back and forth covering very little area. A solution is only going to come when it swings hard in one of the two directions.