BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Again, safe supply is not the same as open use. It’s the latter that the public is pushing back against.

People are absolutely pushing back on safe supply. There's a not insignificant segment of the population who are like corporatejay. They basically view addicts as subhuman and not worth keeping alive with taxpayer dollars.

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?

And the issue with safe supply is it doesn’t get users as high as the street stuff.

Okay, but even reducing overdose deaths by 10-20% is worthwhile, isn't it?

You or I may think it’s a no-brainer to go with a drug that won’t kill you. But many users just want to get as wasted as possible, so they’ll take the drug that’s more potent, even if it means dicing with death.

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.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Can you point to where in the world you would model Canada housing after? Not being a jerk, genuine question.

Austria seems to be doing a pretty good job of keeping housing costs low.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...t-livable-city

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People are absolutely pushing back on safe supply. There's a not insignificant segment of the population who are like corporatejay. They basically view addicts as subhuman and not worth keeping alive with taxpayer dollars.

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?



Okay, but even reducing overdose deaths by 10-20% is worthwhile, isn't it?



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.

I don't view drug addicts as sub-human. I also don't think giving them more drugs is the solution.

What proof do you have that safe supply reduces deaths? We've seen deaths grow significantly the last few years (almost triple since 2019). During that time BC has legalize personal use/possession and provides about 5,000 people a year with safe supply. I'm not seeing the results.

The biggest issue is that the whole safe supply program relies on the fact that people care about their own health more than getting as high as possible. If you give someone safe supply, what's to stop them from getting more drugs afterwards. What about the people who sell the safe supply drugs and use that money to buy cheaper and stronger drugs.

With Fentanyl being readily available, the whole safe supply thing kind of goes out the window. People aren't looking for a safe supply of pure heroin anymore. They are looking for an ultra deadly drug that is many times more powerful than heroin.

Safe supply could work for somewhat functional addicts who are using heroin, or lesser opiates, long term but not looking to spiral into the depth of fentanyl. I'm not sure how big of a group those people are. That group would also seem somewhat amenable to actual treatment.

The current policy, overall, has created a culture of drug use in the DTES. Any actions that add to that culture or could suck more people into it should be reconsidered.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't view drug addicts as sub-human. I also don't think giving them more drugs is the solution.

What proof do you have that safe supply reduces deaths? We've seen deaths grow significantly the last few years (almost triple since 2019). During that time BC has legalize personal use/possession and provides about 5,000 people a year with safe supply. I'm not seeing the results.

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrI...g1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9

The rates of death through the first nine months of 2024 are 8% lower than 2023, and less than the annual rates of death over the previous 3 years. We'll obviously need more data to prove that 2024 isn't an outlier, but that's still less people dead from overdoses, which is good.

Anyone who was expecting this to work right away had unreasonable expectations. These things take time.

The biggest issue is that the whole safe supply program relies on the fact that people care about their own health more than getting as high as possible. If you give someone safe supply, what's to stop them from getting more drugs afterwards. What about the people who sell the safe supply drugs and use that money to buy cheaper and stronger drugs.

Even if that were the case, and there's no evidence of widespread diversion, the net result is still safer drugs in circulation. If people are able to sell them, that means there's a market for them, which means people are still using them.

Safe supply could work for somewhat functional addicts who are using heroin, or lesser opiates, long term but not looking to spiral into the depth of fentanyl. I'm not sure how big of a group those people are. That group would also seem somewhat amenable to actual treatment.

Again, even if this is the case, that's still less addicts being exposed to fentanyl overall, which will continue to decrease the amount of overdose deaths.

The current policy, overall, has created a culture of drug use in the DTES. Any actions that add to that culture or could suck more people into it should be reconsidered.

What about this do you think is going to "suck more people into it?"

The DTES has had a culture of drug use going back for almost three decades. Do you honestly think people walk by, see what's going on down there, and say to themselves "Boy, that looks like a great time?"

I'd wager having it more out in the open, where people can see the results of addiction, is a greater deterrent than anything D.A.R.E. ever came up with.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by rubecube

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrI...g1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9

The rates of death through the first nine months of 2024 are 8% lower than 2023, and less than the annual rates of death over the previous 3 years. We'll obviously need more data to prove that 2024 isn't an outlier, but that's still less people dead from overdoses, which is good.

Anyone who was expecting this to work right away had unreasonable expectations. These things take time.



Even if that were the case, and there's no evidence of widespread diversion, the net result is still safer drugs in circulation. If people are able to sell them, that means there's a market for them, which means people are still using them.



Again, even if this is the case, that's still less addicts being exposed to fentanyl overall, which will continue to decrease the amount of overdose deaths.



What about this do you think is going to "suck more people into it?"

The DTES has had a culture of drug use going back for almost three decades. Do you honestly think people walk by, see what's going on down there, and say to themselves "Boy, that looks like a great time?"

I'd wager having it more out in the open, where people can see the results of addiction, is a greater deterrent than anything D.A.R.E. ever came up with.

Man, I gots to get myself a set of those Meth teeth.

Seriously though, looking through those charts and the age spread stuck out to me. In 2014 50% of the drug deaths were people under 40. That has dropped 10% (mostly in the under 30 group) and over 60 has grown by 10%. I don't know the best way to read into that - old people are more susceptible to ODing? Young people are not doing as many drugs? Its hard to say without additional data but it was interesting to see.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

The biggest issue is that the whole safe supply program relies on the fact that people care about their own health more than getting as high as possible. If you give someone safe supply, what's to stop them from getting more drugs afterwards. What about the people who sell the safe supply drugs and use that money to buy cheaper and stronger drugs.

With Fentanyl being readily available, the whole safe supply thing kind of goes out the window. People aren't looking for a safe supply of pure heroin anymore. They are looking for an ultra deadly drug that is many times more powerful than heroin.

Safe supply could work for somewhat functional addicts who are using heroin, or lesser opiates, long term but not looking to spiral into the depth of fentanyl. I'm not sure how big of a group those people are. That group would also seem somewhat amenable to actual treatment.

I think this is a pretty uneducated or based on a limited stereotype take on these programs and addiction in general. I recommend reading this, which contains actual quotes from actual addicts and their experience with these programs. It might not change your mind, and it doesn’t bring up some issues with the programs addicts themselves had, but you’ll at least have some insight into these people instead of having to imagine what kind of things they might think or do:

https://harmreductionjournal.biomedc...54-023-00776-z

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think this is a pretty uneducated or based on a limited stereotype take on these programs and addiction in general. I recommend reading this, which contains actual quotes from actual addicts and their experience with these programs. It might not change your mind, and it doesn’t bring up some issues with the programs addicts themselves had, but you’ll at least have some insight into these people instead of having to imagine what kind of things they might think or do:

https://harmreductionjournal.biomedc...54-023-00776-z

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-beyond-police

https://globalnews.ca/news/9691790/b...rsion-concern/

https://vancouversun.com/news/vpd-de...being-diverted

Even within the very limited scop of the survey you've referenced, with people volunteering to take place (someone diverting is not going to volunteer and then tell the providers about it):

Finally, a number of participants commented on medication diversion [30]. Most participants acknowledged that diversion of medication did occur at times, with one participant recounting a time they were asked to divert: “In the beginning, people were asking me and I told them it’s not happening. I’m not messing up my program” (P17). Several participants noted that they did not agree with others who were diverting medication: “I think they’re crazy, myself” (P15). However, many participants were also able to provide important insights into why diversion happened. Given the vast difference in potency between Hydromorphone and illicit fentanyl, participants pointed out that:

First, several participants noted that current SS prescribing standards in Ottawa (Hydromorphone 8 mg × 30 tabs/day = Hydromorphone 240 mg/day maximum) were inadequate to combat the ensuing withdrawals and cravings associated with illicit fentanyl.

I'm not saying that Safe Supply can't work, just that's it's going to be pretty limited in who it will work for, and if you apply on a large scale, it's going to cause trouble.

[blender]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Ehhhh, the status quo isn't exactly compassionate. But then again an alternative of involuntary treatment isn't either (forcing people into withdrawl with no real means to deal with underlying trauma).

No easy answers here.

It's not about answers, easy or otherwise.
It's about not just letting people die because it's more economic if they are gone.

[CliffFletcher]

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.

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.

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.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Austria seems to be doing a pretty good job of keeping housing costs low.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...t-livable-city

Vienna is often cited as a model for affordable housing. But it’s pretty easy to keep housing affordable when your population barely increases in 75 years.

Vienna

1950 = 1.6 mil
1985 = 1.5 mil
2024 = 1.9 mil

Vancouver

1950 = 650k
1985 = 1.3 mil
2024 = 2.6 mil

[afc wimbledon]

There isnt any way to make Vancouver affordable, it is the single most liveable city in Canada and routinely make it into top 5 worldwide, you might as well complain that Coal Harbour or the British Properties aren't affordable, it is a city that will always have more people that want to live in it than there is space for them

What we can do though is provide a reasonable amount of low income housing for BC residents, treatment and general social care while offering help to repatriate back to the East for those that find themselves homeless here

I dont believe we should make being homeless an easy option, welfare should be reduced for the homeless, increased for the housed (and I dont thing we should require a lease or tenancy to consider someone 'housed' we should encourage (ie pay) people to get off the street and share a room if need be.

Life in an SRO is pretty crappy and if I was an addict I would happily choose a tent and the extra 150 bucks a month being homelessness pays but as a society I dont think we have any obligation to assist that, either for the good of the individual or the community at large

[afc wimbledon]

We also desperately need to pull services out of the DTES, services should be reached there in drop in's safe injection sites etc but having detox's and rehabs, social housing etc right in the heart of the DTES has always been insane, if you want these services they should be away from the belly of the beast, some naffing moron thought it was a good idea to contract a federal parole residence on Main and Cordova, you might as well hand the poor bastards over to the Hells Angels at that point

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Vienna is often cited as a model for affordable housing. But it’s pretty easy to keep housing affordable when your population barely increases in 75 years.

Vienna

1950 = 1.6 mil
1985 = 1.5 mil
2024 = 1.9 mil

Vancouver

1950 = 650k
1985 = 1.3 mil
2024 = 2.6 mil

I love the Vienna model, but you're right, the population growth in Vancouver and Canada as a whole doesn't make it sustainable. If you implemented that model, you will just getting even more people scrambling to Vancouver to take advantage of it, making it even less sustainable.

Do you know what else Austria has that Canada doesn't? Stricter immigration controls. They allow some immigrants, but for the most part, Austria is for Austrians and Vienna is for the Viennese. And when immigrants do move to Vienna and get public housing, they spread them around to different areas to avoid the ghettoization of immigrant communities and force assimilation. Something the left in Canada would probably not allow to happen.

To be fair, they don't just do that with immigrants in Austria looking for public housing, they do it for economic demographic classes as well. They don't want all wealthy people living in one area, and poor people in another, so they try to even it out.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I love the Vienna model, but you're right, the population growth in Vancouver and Canada as a whole doesn't make it sustainable. If you implemented that model, you will just getting even more people scrambling to Vancouver to take advantage of it, making it even less sustainable.

Do you know what else Austria has that Canada doesn't? Stricter immigration controls. They allow some immigrants, but for the most part, Austria is for Austrians and Vienna is for the Viennese. And when immigrants do move to Vienna and get public housing, they spread them around to different areas to avoid the ghettoization of immigrant communities and force assimilation. Something the left in Canada would probably not allow to happen.

To be fair, they don't just do that with immigrants in Austria looking for public housing, they do it for economic demographic classes as well. They don't want all wealthy people living in one area, and poor people in another, so they try to even it out.

Now my Crackhead for every building policy doesn’t seem that crazy.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There isnt any way to make Vancouver affordable, it is the single most liveable city in Canada and routinely make it into top 5 worldwide, you might as well complain that Coal Harbour or the British Properties aren't affordable, it is a city that will always have more people that want to live in it than there is space for them

Maybe not affordable, but Vancouver could and should be radically denser. Build up! Vancouver should be upzoned to Manhattan/Hong Kong population density, about 28,000/km^2, instead of its current 6,000.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There isnt any way to make Vancouver affordable, it is the single most liveable city in Canada and routinely make it into top 5 worldwide, you might as well complain that Coal Harbour or the British Properties aren't affordable, it is a city that will always have more people that want to live in it than there is space for them

Look. I've said it before...I have already solved Vancouver's homeless and drug problem, I've had this solved for years!

Park a few decommissioned Cruise Ships in the Harbour, fill them with the homeless and drug addicts. Free rooms!

Maybe toss some Cocaine on board and then...just cut the moorings.

The Pacific shall take care of the rest.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by SebC

Maybe not affordable, but Vancouver could and should be radically denser. Build up! Vancouver should be upzoned to Manhattan/Hong Kong population density, about 28,000/km^2, instead of its current 6,000.

Given Vancouver's inevitable destruction by a massive quake, I dunno how wise this is.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree. The neoliberal and market capitalist approach to housing has been a colossal failure in Canada.

Neoliberal and market capitalist is a gross misrepresentation of our NIMBY-driven housing approach. A truly free market would build a lot more supply where there is demand.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Given Vancouver's inevitable destruction by a massive quake, I dunno how wise this is.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...ve-earthquakes .

If Japan can do it so can we.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by SebC

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...ve-earthquakes .

If Japan can do it so can we.

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/l...y-that-3436301


Vancouver is built on sand. A magnitude 9 quake would basically liquefy the ground beneath the city, and that's before the tsunami hits the low lying city centre, and inundates most of the lower mainland.