getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The juxtaposition of city life is somewhat comical when you think that showing up with a cooler of cold ones at a non designated picnic spot for a BBQ at Bowness Park could land you with bylaw officers writing you up, while at Chinook Station we’re all supposed to ‘live and let live’ the drug dens the ctrain shelters have become.

Well one of these people can and will pay that fine, whereas the other probably won't.

[jayswin]

Not to mention the latter generally don't have homes to go to so they're not really "going somewhere" to do drugs, they're just existing and doing drugs. What people want is for them to be out of site out of mind.

Unfortunately, the problem has become so big that we now do need to deal with them congregating in major public areas. The sad thing being that public areas represent their small chance of surviving OD's as those are the ones where some (many don't) will step in or at least call 911.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's a better solution than leaving them on the streets to slowly commit suicide with these drugs, meanwhile, people who have their #### together have to step over needles and passed out junkies, and avoid eye contact on public transit with hopped up addicts who are assaulting people near daily.

I swear its ####ing amazing how bad things are getting for regular working class people. Inflation, climate change, and, "shut up and let the zombie meth addict call you wife a bitch" shaming of lack of concern for the "unhoused".

There’s not a post of mine suggesting we do nothing in this, just the opposite in fact, we need massive coordinated action across multiple levels of government, non profits, medical professions etc.

But the sentiment of round em up and lock em up I feel is a concerning one. First of all I can’t figure out what people think we should even charge them with. It’s unfortunate your wife gets called a name and she shouldn’t have to deal with it, but nobody is going to jail for that. We don’t get to just lock people up because they’ve become a nuisance. Second, the criminal system is in no way a treatment system, dumping a massive amount if them into the system and saying job well done doesn’t do anything except put them around more criminals.

[jayswin]

Just a heads up as I didn't know before but most drug stores now offer free naloxone kits, I got two and tossed them in the trunk. Everyone should do this, imo. You never know when you'll suddenly be in a position to save someone's life.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by whynotnow

there’s not a post of mine suggesting we do nothing in this, just the opposite in fact, we need massive coordinated action across multiple levels of government, non profits, medical professions etc.

But the sentiment of round em up and lock em up i feel is a concerning one. First of all i can’t figure out what people think we should even charge them with. It’s unfortunate your wife gets called a name and she shouldn’t have to deal with it, but nobody is going to jail for that. We don’t get to just lock people up because they’ve become a nuisance. Second, the criminal system is in no way a treatment system, dumping a massive amount if them into the system and saying job well done doesn’t do anything except put them around more criminals.

100%.

[troutman]

I don’t think it is heroin so much now - that has been around forever. The new street drugs seem more addictive and lethal?

https://www.sprouthealthgroup.com/su...drugs-to-know/

https://www.addictionresource.net/bl...to-watch-2022/

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

But the sentiment of round em up and lock em up I feel is a concerning one.

Who’s suggesting we just round up all homeless addicts and throw them in jail?

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

First of all I can’t figure out what people think we should even charge them with.

We have all sorts of laws and bylaws around public intoxication, disorderly behaviour, trespassing, and harassment. What we’re seeing is a consequence of a deliberate policy decision to stop enforcing laws we had previously enforced.

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

It’s unfortunate your wife gets called a name and she shouldn’t have to deal with it, but nobody is going to jail for that. We don’t get to just lock people up because they’ve become a nuisance.

No, we don’t just lock people for shouting obscenities at strangers. But we shouldn’t just pass it off as part of the rich tapestry of urban life, either. Until recently, we didn’t. And most of the world still doesn’t.

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Second, the criminal system is in no way a treatment system, dumping a massive amount if them into the system and saying job well done doesn’t do anything except put them around more criminals.

The provincial government just opened a residential treatment centre, and is planning three more. The province now has 19,000 addictions treatment spaces (not all residential). It needs more - but we aren’t doing nothing.

The crux of the issue is that only a tiny fraction of homeless people suffering from addiction will voluntarily enter treatment. So the move to treat addiction and its downstream behaviours as strictly health care issues - a policy first adopted in some American communities over the last 10 years and then taken up in Canadian communities - was doomed to failure.

It began reasonably enough, with the goal of moving from America’s reliance on criminal justice to something like Portugal’s approach to addiction: steer small-scale drug users to treatment rather than charging them criminally. But this being the polarized USA, the approach taken up by progressive American (and subsequently Canadian) cities and states swung way further than anything practiced in Europe, to a completely hands-off approach to public drug use and its associated disorders. The most radical experiment is Oregon’s decriminalization of hard drugs - a move that even many of its original supporters now acknowledge has been a disaster.

So the pendulum swung too far. Time to dial it back and offer support for treatment and housing while restoring our public spaces by enforcing the law. And recognize that in some cases government should employ coercion in treating addiction - that any approach relying on voluntary submission to treatment is condemning most of the addicts on the street to misery and, ultimately, death.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Just a heads up as I didn't know before but most drug stores now offer free naloxone kits, I got two and tossed them in the trunk. Everyone should do this, imo. You never know when you'll suddenly be in a position to save someone's life.

I will never use a naloxone kit as I will not put myself in danger if the junkie wakes up and goes into a rage. That's not a position I will ever be putting myself in.

For reference it's a possibility that junkies go into acute withdrawal after Naloxone is administered. I would highly encourage everyone to educate themselves on the danger you're putting yourself in by delivering it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...%20et%20al.%2C

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I will never use a naloxone kit as I will not put myself in danger if the junkie wakes up and goes into a rage. That's not a position I will ever be putting myself in.

Not only that, many wake up pissed off that you've ruined their high and they have to go get another one and may become violent over that, too.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Who’s suggesting we just round up all homeless addicts and throw them in jail?



We have all sorts of laws and bylaws around public intoxication, disorderly behaviour, trespassing, and harassment. What we’re seeing is a consequence of a deliberate policy decision to stop enforcing laws we had previously enforced.



No, we don’t just lock people for shouting obscenities at strangers. But we shouldn’t just pass it off as part of the rich tapestry of urban life, either. Until recently, we didn’t. And most of the world still doesn’t.



The provincial government just opened a residential treatment centre, and is planning three more. The province now has 19,000 addictions treatment spaces (not all residential). It needs more - but we aren’t doing nothing.

The crux of the issue is that only a tiny fraction of homeless people suffering from addiction will voluntarily enter treatment. So the move to treat addiction and its downstream behaviours as strictly health care issues - a policy first adopted in some American communities over the last 10 years and then taken up in Canadian communities - was doomed to failure.

It began reasonably enough, with the goal of moving from America’s reliance on criminal justice to something like Portugal’s approach to addiction: steer small-scale drug users to treatment rather than charging them criminally. But this being the polarized USA, the approach taken up by progressive American (and subsequently Canadian) cities and states swung way further than anything practiced in Europe, to a completely hands-off approach to public drug use and its associated disorders. The most radical experiment is Oregon’s decriminalization of hard drugs - a move that even many of its original supporters now acknowledge has been a disaster.

So the pendulum swung too far. Time to dial it back and offer support for treatment and housing while restoring our public spaces by enforcing the law. And recognize that in some cases government should employ coercion in treating addiction - that any approach relying on voluntary submission to treatment is condemning most of the addicts on the street to misery and, ultimately, death.

I don't disagree with most of this, but just two thoughts I want to add

-It's not so much a case of the pendulum swinging too far one way or the other, it's just that no matter which way it swings, the Canadian way has been to half ass the approach

-We never stopped enforcing these laws, the problem has just outgrown available resources

[SutterBrother]

The most radical experiment is Oregon’s decriminalization of hard drugs - a move that even many of its original supporters now acknowledge has been a disaster.

Oof. From 3 weeks ago. “If you build it, they will come” I guess.

Early results of this reform effort, the first of its kind in any state, are now coming into view, and so far, they are not encouraging. State leaders have acknowledged faults with the policy’s implementation and enforcement measures. And Oregon’s drug problems have not improved. Last year, the state experienced one of the sharpest rises in overdose deaths in the nation and had one of the highest percentages of adults with a substance-use disorder. During one two-week period last month, three children under the age of 4 overdosed in Portland after ingesting fentanyl.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rdoses/674733/

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by btimbit

-We never stopped enforcing these laws, the problem has just outgrown available resources

In the Oregon case, it does seem that enforcement took a step back by 75%.

A survey of law-enforcement officers conducted by researchers at Portland State University found that, as of July 2022, officers were issuing an average of just 300 drug-possession tickets a month statewide, compared with 600 drug-possession arrests a month before Measure 110 took effect and close to 1,200 monthly arrests prior to the outbreak of COVID-19.

“Focusing on these tickets even though they’ll be ineffective—it’s not a great use of your resources,” Sheriff Nate Sickler of Jackson County, in the rural southern part of the state, told me of his department’s approach.

Advocates have celebrated a plunge in arrests. “For reducing arrests of people of color, it’s been an overwhelming success,” says Mike Marshall, the director of Oregon Recovers. But critics say that sidelining law enforcement has made it harder to persuade some drug users to stop using. Sickler cited the example of drug-court programs, which multiple studies have shown to be highly effective, including in Jackson County. Use of such programs in the county has declined in the absence of criminal prosecution, Sickler said: “Without accountability or the ability to drive a better choice, these individuals are left to their own demise.”

A sort of common saying is “the war on drugs failed”. I tend to look around now, and would suggest that whatever we’re currently doing is failing far worse.

Disadvantaged communities were absolutely being overcriminalized in the past, but the move to just letting it be a free for all has basically made downtown cores and public spaces unsafe and unusable by the rest of society.

Public space drug users should be arrested and (once sober, if competent) presented with voluntary treatment options. If they choose not to take them, they should be incarcerated to protect every non-substance abuser out there. If they are mentally ill, then again - compulsary treatment.

These actions would save a lot of lives. Addicts can’t make good choices for themselves. A compassionate society recognizes and responds to that.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Another thing happening in the US is a massive rise in gated communities; which I suspect we'll start seeing more of here too.
The people with the means to do so will just avoid these areas, avoid public transport & watch the problems get worse from a safe enclave.
Even here in Vancouver, there has been a growing flee from downtown and people choosing to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.
Gastown businesses are shutting down because consumers are choosing its just not worth going there.
The mentality is that if policy makers won't do anything, it's best to just flee to the burbs and look out for your family.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

There’s not a post of mine suggesting we do nothing in this, just the opposite in fact, we need massive coordinated action across multiple levels of government, non profits, medical professions etc.

But the sentiment of round em up and lock em up I feel is a concerning one. First of all I can’t figure out what people think we should even charge them with. It’s unfortunate your wife gets called a name and she shouldn’t have to deal with it, but nobody is going to jail for that. We don’t get to just lock people up because they’ve become a nuisance. Second, the criminal system is in no way a treatment system, dumping a massive amount if them into the system and saying job well done doesn’t do anything except put them around more criminals.

Out of curiosity, do you live in the inner city or do you live in the burbs? Apologies if I missed it as I haven't read the last 10 pages or so.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

If you're taking the train from the west end of town (I assume) and have not experienced what Sliver is saying, then you are either 1) oblivious, 2) have nerves of steel, or 3) are purposefully misrepresenting your experiences in order to support your position.

So now I'm either stupid or a liar. No one is making shelters on trains that I take. No one is even smoking crack while on the train. I have seen people on the odd platform on the south line doing drugs. I have seen people not in the train platforms doing drugs. They keep to themselves.

Like Workius says, I see old people and kids on the train and they seem to accept that there are people less fortunate who happen to be sitting there.

Again, it seems like people just don't like seeing drug addicts walking around. That's fine, but it's not illegal to be homeless, it's not illegal to be a drug addict. If someone is dangerous to others, arrest them. I use the train every work day, and have never felt unsafe.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Not to mention the latter generally don't have homes to go to so they're not really "going somewhere" to do drugs, they're just existing and doing drugs. What people want is for them to be out of site out of mind.

Unfortunately, the problem has become so big that we now do need to deal with them congregating in major public areas. The sad thing being that public areas represent their small chance of surviving OD's as those are the ones where some (many don't) will step in or at least call 911.

this

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

It seriously costs the city 100k a year per homeless person?

Offer every single homeless addict actually dignified rehab (I've personally seen first hand what is on offer and it the farthest thing from dignified), then assisted living, and with first weekly, bi-weekly, and then monthly drug testing offer 20% of that (so 20k) as a carrot after a year sober to be put towards school/job training.

But Trad! Why should addicts get a free 20k for education when I did everything right and have to pay for it myself!?

Because you don't have a terrible disease and debilitating mental illness. Stop comparing yourself to the lowest of low like its somehow an injustice your basic standard of existence isn't a wretched hell.

Here is the thing, my understanding is that most cities have a fund for homelessness, and they take bids from 'Non-Profit Organizations' who are going to receive those funds in order to take an active part in dealing with the homeless situation.

I think you can see where this is going? Good ol' 'Trickle-Down Economics?'

So they contract the 'Non-Profit' who allocates the funds (after expenses...of course) and then bills the City who calculate it as a line-item on their Balance Sheet.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I don't disagree with most of this, but just two thoughts I want to add

-It's not so much a case of the pendulum swinging too far one way or the other, it's just that no matter which way it swings, the Canadian way has been to half ass the approach

-We never stopped enforcing these laws, the problem has just outgrown available resources

As someone toiling away within the Alberta criminal justice system for the last 20 years I find it particularly difficult to spend much time engaging in any in-depth analysis of the regularly updated "new" solutions to society's identified problems within the system.

Because no matter the idea or its source, almost nobody wants to pay the actual reasonable costs for anything to be done properly.

Many demand a top-tier justice system that at lightning speed and efficiency tries, convicts, and then incarcerates way more people for way longer, and then expect elite rehabilitation to guarantee they will not endanger society or re-offend upon release (begrudgingly accepting we can't lock them all up forever) together with police on every corner to prevent all future crimes (but while also not infringing any FREEDOM!!) as long as nothing that anyone with any knowledge or expertise says is needed to accomplish these things will cost a single extra taxpayer dollar.

The predictable result is failure to varying degrees and then the next group of political 'leaders' come along to superficially promise they will fix the mess - but without even remotely coming close to properly resourcing and actually putting the immense power that we as a society can wield into a "fix" if we actually make it a priority.

Currently we are declaring a "war on crime" (oh, man, why didn't we just declare war on it earlier?! of course crime will go away now!!! Brilliant!!!!!).

We are going to "crack down" and be a "hard ass" and arrest the hell out of these people causing all these problems!!! I mean, this is the level of 'advanced' strategy currently being put into it by each of the Premier, and the ministers in charge of policing / public safety and the entire justice system. The most recent being from the new Minister of Justice:

https://edmontonsun.com/opinion/colu...f-f95f07173e7f

OK - so, Step 1, create a new special prosecutions unit to address all of the worst of the worst offenders - especially in Calgary and Edmonton. Sounds great but...we already have two units (one in Calgary and one in Edmonton) called "Specialized Prosecutions". I can't remember exactly when the first version of "Specials" was created but we are talking likely more than a decade ago.

https://www.alberta.ca/contact-the-a...px#jumplinks-2

So, pray tell, why have these specialized units not solved everything already?


Oh wait - because I forgot about Step 2 - we will now be telling all the police and prosecutors in the system to:

prosecute every single offence of these dangerous lawbreakers, the seriously violent, those committing multiple crimes, other serious offenders “to the fullest extent of the law."

Hahahaha...ok.

First we would have to accept the premise that Alberta has ever had some kind of leniency plague within its prosecution services. I haven't seen that happen since back around 2005 when it was fairly routine for impaired driving offences to be liberally (pun intended) offered 'careless driving' traffic tickets for a few years. Of course that was then expressly shut down by implementing an over-reactive pendulum 'zero careless driving' policy...but I digress.

Second - more praying to tell - with what jail cells, what courtrooms, with which Clerks, judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, Sheriffs will we do this?

The system is perpetually left teetering on the edge of collapse. Prosecutors just had to threaten strike, and defence lawyers had to stop taking work - both due to chronic underfunding. There is a crisis level of court clerk shortages. And this is all at the current level of files coming into the system.

The Edmonton courthouse was nonfunctional for weeks this year because the crumbling building electrical system just failed to work for some unknown reason:

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/edmonton...ding-1.6254631

Do Albertans actually think that our jails are sitting with excess space waiting for someone to finally get serious on crime and make more arrests and deny more bail? In reality they are often filled beyond capacity and inmates sometimes get sent home early to free up space.

Do Albertans actually think that people accused of serious violent crimes just get walked out a 'revolving door'? I mean, yeah I guess they do think that. But for anyone who knows actual facts, Alberta is already notorious for being one of the hardest line jurisdictions both for bail and sentencing. Routinely the percentage of Alberta provincial prisoners in pre-trial remand custody (not released on bail) is above the national average.

We are so backward, in fact, the most recent stats have us with 76% of our prisoners being presumed innocent waiting to find out if they are guilty or not - as opposed to in jail after being convicted and serving sentences. As a comparison, Saskatchewan has only 55% in remand (national average is 71% and Ontario is looking to reach new heights of embarrassment now at 79%).

There is a really helpful 'dashboard' website for a number of corrections statistics here:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...019018-eng.htm

Side note - for those on remand status, Alberta provides almost zero opportunities for work, training, education, counselling or any other measure that might make the time spent in custody beneficial. We actually just cram accused criminals into over crowded concrete boxes and let them stare at walls and get opportunities to become more engrained in the criminal lifestyle.

We create conditions so bordering on cruel and unusual treatment (and we cross that line) that prisoners get extra credit for the harsh remand conditions. As a result, with machine-like relentlessness Alberta ensures the majority of offenders in its custody who need help receive none before they are released back to the community.

Of course it would be complete blasphemy to spend Albertan's money on bettering the lives of accused people by giving them programs in remand facilities. For...reasons.

So the idea that we will just all at once lay more charges, run way more bail hearings (instead of negotiating releases that are almost certainly going to be what happens after the hearing anyway) resolve way less cases, prosecute more charges per accused, put more people in jail and for longer is just not a serious policy discussion.

These measures would need several hundred million (and if you account for province-wide infrastructure well into the billions) in funding and about a 5 year investment and implementation horizon to try and get caught up for how far behind we currently are.

In fact, the only reason the system has not actually collapsed to date is because we have been doing the opposite for an extended period of time. Triaging cases in the interests of economic factors, consenting to reasonable release orders and plea bargaining to avoid using court time, fast tracking parole etc.

The current government will not be adding the jail and courthouse capacity needed for these announced policy changes, nor hiring anywhere near the needed humans. Already burnt out people will continue to leave. The backlogs in the Courts will spike again. All of these things are obvious and predictable.

I will end on a particularly notable example. Drug treatment courts in Alberta have proven to be incredibly successful as compared to other programs. To be fair the government has taken steps to expand them from initial pilot projects to permanent ones and in more locations.

But here's the practical reality. Every so often we get an email around to our defence lawyer groups telling us the programs will be opening for new applications on a certain date. That day, within minutes, we get an email confirming applications are no longer being accepted. It's like trying to get Taylor Swift tickets to get clients a space.

Also, every year a judge who cares deeply about the drug treatment court and our CBA group run a fundraiser project selling tickets to theater shows in Calgary. We raise thousands of dollars a year to donate to keep the thing afloat. Why?

Why are judges and lawyers left to do this in a province that has enormous wealth, an unprecedented lethal drug addiction crisis, and a proven program that works?

[fotze2]

Holy crap, I actually feel ten times stupider reading that post. Totally changed my view. I’m gonna stare at a wall in shame. So you are saying it’s not simple?

Hall of fame post. I’m humbled for having read it.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

My issue here is that it seems like a lot of the posters' problem is simply the fact they have to look at these people, which seems a tad mean spirited to me.

I think it's an issue that people are fine looking at these people, and just let them fade into the background of their busy day and move along.

We're looking at people living in utter misery, many on a march toward an early death. It's awful, and it should be upsetting to look at if you have any empathy. Acceptance of the situation is the last thing I hope we achieve.