BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The NDP is extremely moderate and moved right with their election platform.

But Chip Wilson told me they were communists

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that most people living in, commuting to, or running businesses in urban areas were just going to become benignly tolerant of open drug use and its associated disorder is beyond naive. The people you call NIMBYs are mostly just regular working people - usually women - who don’t feel safe in public spaces that feel that lawless and scummy.

There’s nowhere in the world where people tolerate that kind of behaviour in their public spaces. Which is why the cities that experimented with decriminalizing open use - among the most liberal cities in the world - are all reversing course.

If you support urban densification and public transit, while simultaneously tolerating open drug use, you’re completely out to lunch. Those two policies are mutually exclusive.

The challenge is that we know criminalization of drug addiction does not solve the problem, that it is very expensive, and that it is a massive burden on the judicial system.

No less, I think that you're right, the way we handle open drug abuse is punitive against the general public, mostly people who are lower middle class and rely on public infrastructure and spaces. Moreover, people who work in hospitality bear a significant burden.

I don't think upstream interventions, like mental health and safe supply are bad things, but if that infrastructure exists people who aren't using them should be kept away from everyday people trying to live safe and sane lives.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Legalizing illicit drug use in public spaces is about as far from moderate one could imagine.
They reversed it because the political writing was on the wall, but let's not pretend it's moderate.

This is it, somehow overtime the Overton window had moved far enough left in Canada and BC in particular in this space that these policies in some people's minds are now considered 'moderate.'

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that most people living in, commuting to, or running businesses in urban areas were just going to become benignly tolerant of open drug use and its associated disorder is beyond naive. The people you call NIMBYs are mostly just regular working people - usually women - who don’t feel safe in public spaces that feel that lawless and scummy.

There’s nowhere in the world where people tolerate that kind of behaviour in their public spaces. Which is why the cities that experimented with decriminalizing open use - among the most liberal cities in the world - are all reversing course.

If you support urban densification and public transit, while simultaneously tolerating open drug use, you’re completely out to lunch. Those two policies are mutually exclusive.

And yet, the NDP basically swept the big cities and received their 2nd highest vote share in the last 40 years. I mean, yeah, I'm sure people in Vanderhoof and Prince George are very concerned about drug usage in downtown Vancouver, but I doubt that was what was driving their vote.

And ultimately, open drug use is a housing issue, not a drug policy one. Open drug use is rising across the country in jurisdictions with a wide range of drug policies. The common thread is that the lowest income housing has become increasingly unaffordable and unavailable in those areas.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And yet, the NDP basically swept the big cities and received their 2nd highest vote share in the last 40 years. I mean, yeah, I'm sure people in Vanderhoof and Prince George are very concerned about drug usage in downtown Vancouver, but I doubt that was what was driving their vote.

And ultimately, open drug use is a housing issue, not a drug policy one. Open drug use is rising across the country in jurisdictions with a wide range of drug policies. The common thread is that the lowest income housing has become increasingly unaffordable and unavailable in those areas.

Drug addiction issues are much worse in Prince George than Vancouver. It's very much a major electron issue in small towns.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that most people living in, commuting to, or running businesses in urban areas were just going to become benignly tolerant of open drug use and its associated disorder is beyond naive. The people you call NIMBYs are mostly just regular working people - usually women - who don’t feel safe in public spaces that feel that lawless and scummy.

There's a middle ground between benign tolerance and and malicious intolerance that many people enjoy. Many of the people who pushed back against this were not the people who lived and worked directly in these areas. It was people in surrounding, more affluent areas like Chip Wilson. I fully understand not feeling safe when you see and hear some of the horror stories going on. I fully understand it, even though I know that most metrics show things getting better, not worse. It's why this was such an easy political wedge issue. "Feels" over "Reals" are an understandable thing.


But in the end with what we know about how addiction works and what is required to fix it, this was a step that was needed and will likely be needed again if we are ever going to make head-ways against epidemic. Though now it is when the time is right politically as opposed to when it is necessary to do something (we're there now).

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There’s nowhere in the world where people tolerate that kind of behaviour in their public spaces. Which is why the cities that experimented with decriminalizing open use - among the most liberal cities in the world - are all reversing course.

Who is reversing course? BC, Oregon and Ecuador? I can't see anything about anywhere else. And two of those are reversing course on something that had barely just started so we'll never know if it would have worked as intended in the long term.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you support urban densification and public transit, while simultaneously tolerating open drug use, you’re completely out to lunch. Those two policies are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, we gotta hide and stigmatize drug addiction! If we don't see it we can pretend it's not there! Die in your home/alley/dark corner alone like a good unmentionable. This is the BCCs plan of attack to get rid of the drug problem. Like I said, just shove it all back into the closet, clean up anything that leaks out under the door and everything will be better! Trust them!

They're not mutually exclusive. And while I don't think every street corner is a great place to do your drugs, I don't think every street corner is a great place to smoke or vape. They're publicly intrusive and smell bad. I think all these things should have designated areas.

[afc wimbledon]

The trouble with open use and most other 'compassionate' drug policies are they actually make the problems worse, if I let my foster kids do what ever the eff they want, drink, use drugs, screw in the house and I just lock myself in my bedroom and ignore it all then their drug use, crime and general self destructive behavior goes up, both individually and as a group, a new kid moving in that has mild issues will soon follow the other kids deeper into greater use because drug use also has an Overton window as well, if you live in a community where open drug use is fine along with the crime and violence that supports it then that becomes your normal in the same way drinking and driving used to be normal even when nominally illegal

My fear from my experience in the field is what ever we do as a society that doesn't actively discourage drug use, homelessness and it's associated behavioral issues, policies like safe supply, open use and the benign neglect of policing the DTES, Whalley corridor etc, draws more people into addiction and ultimately death

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by blankall

Drug addiction issues are much worse in Prince George than Vancouver. It's very much a major electron issue in small towns.

Public drug use though? My understanding is Prince George enacted a Safe Streets bylaw in 2021 to crack down on homeless people and public drug use. Unfortunately, their overdose death rate relative to the rest of the province went up a fair bit in the aftermath of that, going from about 2.5% of total provincial overdose deaths pre-pandemic to about 4-5% of total deaths since the bylaw came into effect. They're a good example of what might happen if the BC Conservatives are able to set drug policy province wide.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The trouble with open use and most other 'compassionate' drug policies are they actually make the problems worse, if I let my foster kids do what ever the eff they want, drink, use drugs, screw in the house and I just lock myself in my bedroom and ignore it all then their drug use, crime and general self destructive behavior goes up, both individually and as a group, a new kid moving in that has mild issues will soon follow the other kids deeper into greater use because drug use also has an Overton window as well, if you live in a community where open drug use is fine along with the crime and violence that supports it then that becomes your normal in the same way drinking and driving used to be normal even when nominally illegal

My fear from my experience in the field is what ever we do as a society that doesn't actively discourage drug use, homelessness and it's associated behavioral issues, policies like safe supply, open use and the benign neglect of policing the DTES, Whalley corridor etc, draws more people into addiction and ultimately death

Those policies are OK if they're treated as a stop gap. Basically if you want to prevent existing addicts from dying, then safe consumption sites, decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs, etc. can reduce the harm without expending a ton of resources.

But the problem is, no one seems to be able (or willing) to successfully tackle the underlying issues driving drug addiction which are things like lack of mental health supports, housing insecurity, etc. If people don't end up on the streets in the first place, they're probably far less likely to get addicted to drugs.

[Blaster86]

There is a very large misunderstanding as to what the goals of decriminalization are. It's not about letting people get high when ever and where ever they want. It's about removing stigma, putting people in places they are more likely to find avenues to help or get help if something happens to them.

It should not work alone and cannot work without other policies being in place.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Those policies are OK if they're treated as a stop gap. Basically if you want to prevent existing addicts from dying, then safe consumption sites, decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs, etc. can reduce the harm without expending a ton of resources.

But the problem is, no one seems to be able (or willing) to successfully tackle the underlying issues driving drug addiction which are things like lack of mental health supports, housing insecurity, etc. If people don't end up on the streets in the first place, they're probably far less likely to get addicted to drugs.

The trouble is we insist (on both ends of the political spectrum) in treating the addicted and homeless as if they are just ordinary normal people having a bit of bad luck but that all they need is either something nice (a free house and some money) or something nasty (a prison sentence) to fix them, in truth if you are living in a tent fixing up on the DTES you are dealing with huge long term cognitive and mental health issues which make normal decision making all but impossible, if we want to help these people we have to shepherd them along with constant interventions and support but also taking away other options, right now we pay people extra money to be homeless

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The trouble is we insist (on both ends of the political spectrum) in treating the addicted and homeless as if they are just ordinary normal people having a bit of bad luck but that all they need is either something nice (a free house and some money) or something nasty (a prison sentence) to fix them, in truth if you are living in a tent fixing up on the DTES you are dealing with huge long term cognitive and mental health issues which make normal decision making all but impossible, if we want to help these people we have to shepherd them along with constant interventions and support but also taking away other options, right now we pay people extra money to be homeless

I think anyone naive enough to think that addiction issues are a bit of bad luck are probably best suited for not being in a position to make decisions. Addressing the long term mental health crisis will go a long way to addressing the addiction and homelessness crisis.


Hence, decriminalization only being a part of what is needed. But make no mistakes, it is a part of this. But this argument doesn't go to a good place. I don't want to get into something where you feel like I am trying to undermine the life you've lived, the people you've helped and the work you've done as you were very much on the front line and this argument, no matter how much I mind my words risks doing that.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think anyone naive enough to think that addiction issues are a bit of bad luck are probably best suited for not being in a position to make decisions. Addressing the long term mental health crisis will go a long way to addressing the addiction and homelessness crisis.


Hence, decriminalization only being a part of what is needed. But make no mistakes, it is a part of this. But this argument doesn't go to a good place. I don't want to get into something where you feel like I am trying to undermine the life you've lived, the people you've helped and the work you've done as you were very much on the front line and this argument, no matter how much I mind my words risks doing that.

I appreciate your concern but don't worry, you can't do the work I have done without having a lack of concern for being occasionally being insulted, sworn at, spat, swung at or occasionally stabbed, online crap doesnt even register frankly

If I had a magic wand I would build a large well staffed modern mental health facility up in the valley, a pleasant version of Riverview that provided both short term (a week or two) involuntary interventions for street level behavioral issues but also offered voluntary long term care, I'd rebuild and restaff the Main Street police station, pulling the cops out of the DTES because they dont like dealing with the area was always insane, it is an area that needs extra street level cops, there should always be a beat cop visible anywhere in the DTES, 40 or so all the time, obviously you need to pick compassionate older cops that can police with the appropriate give and take the area requires, I would do everything possible to Dis encourage out of town arrivals, you rock up from Lethbridge or PG on the DTES you should be given a bus ticket home by the welfare

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

There is a very large misunderstanding as to what the goals of decriminalization are. It's not about letting people get high when ever and where ever they want. It's about removing stigma, putting people in places they are more likely to find avenues to help or get help if something happens to them.

It should not work alone and cannot work without other policies being in place.

Isn't it also diverting certain costs associated with enforcement/court/jail into those programs in an attempt to permanently rehabilitate individuals? Basically a longer term goal to save government money?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

There is a very large misunderstanding as to what the goals of decriminalization are. It's not about letting people get high when ever and where ever they want. It's about removing stigma, putting people in places they are more likely to find avenues to help or get help if something happens to them.

It should not work alone and cannot work without other policies being in place.

How does decrim remove stigma? Do you think the the stigma of drug abuse is because it’s illegal?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think anyone naive enough to think that addiction issues are a bit of bad luck are probably best suited for not being in a position to make decisions.

Instead we're letting addicts and 12 year old kids hooked on hardcore drugs dictate what they want to do. They do drugs.

The fact that 10 and 12 year olds are allowed to override their parents wishes and continue to kill themselves with drugs is wild and shows how far the pendulum has swung on government enablement.

####, are kids allowed to even legally allowed to decide to skip school? Are they allowed to shoplift or burn down houses? But fentanyl? Government says hey, here's some needles, go nuts kid! #### what your parents want for you.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/parents-fight-...camp-1.7033221

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Those policies are OK if they're treated as a stop gap. Basically if you want to prevent existing addicts from dying, then safe consumption sites, decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs, etc. can reduce the harm without expending a ton of resources.

But the problem is, no one seems to be able (or willing) to successfully tackle the underlying issues driving drug addiction which are things like lack of mental health supports, housing insecurity, etc. If people don't end up on the streets in the first place, they're probably far less likely to get addicted to drugs.

But one of the underlying issues of drug addiction is some people just love to get wasted. Absolutely love it. Want to get wasted as much as they can as often as they can.

A lot of well-intentioned, educated people who see this as strictly a socioeconomic or health issue seem to have trouble putting themselves in the shoes of heavy drug users. They champion policies and supports that would help someone like them get clean and off the streets. That’s why they struggle to understand why, when presented with the choice between a medically-supervised, free, clean opiate substitute, and a street drug that costs money and may kill you, many choose the latter (or both). Or why most addicts have no interest in entering rehab.

I had dinner on the weekend with an old friend who I’ve known since we were kids. We got to talking about his brother, Greg, who’s been homeless for over 20 years now.

Greg is a very bright guy. Raised in an upper-middle-class home. But since he was in jr high, he has loved to get wasted. Booze, pot, acid, speed, meth, coke - he loves it all. When he was in his 20s, he had his #### together enough to work regularly and pay rent in low-end apartments. By his mid-30s he wasn’t reliable enough to work a 9-5 job, so he couldn’t make regular rent, and drifted from friend’s place to friend’s place, burning bridges by living like a pig, stealing, etc until he wound up on the street.

These days he lives at the drop-in centre 5 days a week, and on weekends musters up enough money to pay for a hotel room with a couple buddies and party until Sunday, when he goes back to the drop-in centre.

Unaffordable housing isn’t the issue with Greg - he couldn’t pay rent regularly even when it was cheap to live in Calgary. Give him a free place to live and he would trash it within weeks. His parents tried to get him into rehab many times, with zero success. For Greg, any future that involves getting wasted less is a future he has no interest in.

[opendoor]

Sure, but the number of homeless people in Greater Vancouver has risen significantly in the last decade, including before the pandemic. In that same period, population-level hard drug usage has been more or less flat and usage of alcohol has declined.

So it's not a case of there are x number of addicts in the population and a percentage of them will always end up homeless. There are lots of people who are currently on the streets who with proper supports and more affordable housing, could either be somewhat functioning addicts or not be doing drugs at all. That doesn't mean you can eradicate drug usage or homelessness, but it's clearly a symptom of other issues that can be affected by things like mental health supports and housing. Otherwise every place would have similar homelessness issues, when that's clearly not the case.

[Galakanokis]

So cliff. You think Greg just loves to get wasted no matter what? Life, loved ones, responsibilities be damned! Versus having an undiagnosed mental health issue? That's what you think is the reason for all of the drugs and homelessness?

[activeStick]

Damn. The BC storms has killed 1 person.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1848429430235943376