Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I have real concerns, both civil and medical, about choosing one drug over another to incarcerate someone over. Opioids are deadly, but not as deadly as alcohol and yet we don't incarcerate alcohol addicts. Cigarettes are the only legal product that exists that will kill you if used correctly and yet we don't incarcerate cigarette addicts. We've chosen to incarcerate those with opioid addictions because it's yucky and culturally acceptable.

What proportion of alcohol users have repeated interactions with police and emergency rooms vs the proportion of opioid users? How many suffer near-lethal overdoses again and again?

The hands-off, offer voluntary services, and do no harm approach to lethal drugs pioneered in North America over the last 15 years has failed. It has failed addicts, it has failed our health system, and it has failed the public.

Addressing root causes sounds nice. But remedy for this sort of social distress takes decades and generations. In the meantime, first responders and emergency care are in crisis, the electorate doesn’t feel safe or comfortable in public spaces, and street drug users are dying at unprecedented rates. Wishing even harder that addicts entered voluntary treatment and making pledges to address inequality aren’t going to cut it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What proportion of alcohol users have repeated interactions with police and emergency rooms vs the proportion of opioid users? How many suffer near-lethal overdoses again and again?

The hands-off, offer voluntary services, and do no harm approach to lethal drugs pioneered in North America over the last 15 years has failed. It has failed addicts, it has failed our health system, and it has failed the public.

Addressing root causes sounds nice. But remedy for this sort of social distress takes decades and generations. In the meantime, first responders and emergency care are in crisis, the electorate doesn’t feel safe or comfortable in public spaces, and street drug users are dying at unprecedented rates. Wishing even harder that addicts entered voluntary treatment and making pledges to address inequality aren’t going to cut it.

Why am I agreeing with you so often lately?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm not talking about just involuntary detention (which is already authorized in various provincial mental health legislation). I'm talking about involuntary detention with involuntary treatment at the same time (which, presumably, would attempt to do what you've outlined here).



I don't think that's very fair. I'm certainly not suggesting that involuntary treatment is some panacea. Addiction and homelessness are incredibly complex. Recovering from addiction is a lifelong process (that will almost certainly involve numerous relapses). Addicts living in homeless encampments are the most vulnerable people in our communities and have all no doubt suffered horrific traumas in their lives. We need a multifaceted, multi-disciplinary response. I just think that involuntary treatment can be a useful and important tool (if used carefully).

That's fair, and I think you've outlined a pretty nuanced take (including some important questions for front of mind) in your previous posts.

The problem is I don't think a lot of people advocating for this have the capacity for that contextual nuance, nor do I think they have any intentions other than a 'hammer and nail' approach.

Generally, if it's birthed by this iteration of the UCP it is going the be a heavy-handed disaster. They are as likely to confer with medical experts on this as they did their backwards transgender policies.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What proportion of alcohol users have repeated interactions with police and emergency rooms vs the proportion of opioid users? How many suffer near-lethal overdoses again and again?

The hands-off, offer voluntary services, and do no harm approach to lethal drugs pioneered in North America over the last 15 years has failed. It has failed addicts, it has failed our health system, and it has failed the public.

Addressing root causes sounds nice. But remedy for this sort of social distress takes decades and generations. In the meantime, first responders and emergency care are in crisis, the electorate doesn’t feel safe or comfortable in public spaces, and street drug users are dying at unprecedented rates. Wishing even harder that addicts entered voluntary treatment and making pledges to address inequality aren’t going to cut it.

Valid, but we also can't be plucking people off the streets and forcing them into treatment against their will. As mentioned it hasn't proven all that effective, and it seems like it's bound to be the same unproductive cycle we have now with fewer steps and invoking numerous and troublesome civil rights questions.

We can invest in long-term socio-economic restructuring while addressing short-term crises intervention. De-stigmatizing addiction, increasing caretakers and professionals, and funding and opening greater access points for treatment are all more ethical and important things we can do right now to help everyone affected by this epidemic.

NIMBYism is easier and more popular, unfortunately.

[woob]

Just wanted to say I appreciate the responses people have posted on this discussion and the demeanor. Refreshing to see discussion, on what can be a hot button and emotional topic, be civilized and thoughtful.

[curves2000]

Opioids and fentanyl are the game changer here. It's a different level of addiction with different level of associated destruction affects on the person and on society. Meth is up there as well.

The vast majority of these people are not capable of making decisions for themselves for better or worse. They are mentally done. It's different with these drugs which is why this problem has gotten worse from the crack, heroin, PCP days, and those were bad days. This is a different level of addiction than cocaine, alcohol, gambling.

A huge portion of people have committed a shocking amount of crimes and need to be either in forced treatment or in prison as they are a danger to themselves and society. We have seen this story before. Somebody needs to advocate for these people to get better and sometimes that is forcibly the government and their families.

The guy in the park who is having a paranoia attack, thinking that he is under attack and trying to rip out his genitalia to use as a phone, he isn't in a position to know what is best for him. We try to limit the damage to severe dementia patients by not allowing them to go out in -30 without a coat, have POA/trustee's in place for financial decisions. We don't allow toddlers to play with matches in the middle of the street.

[woob]

Welp.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by woob

Welp.

That one is on you. Took your winters off too soon.

[WideReceiver]

Who removed their winter tires in February?

Ironically, this morning my wife said “it’s summer.” The warm weather has confused her.

[powderjunkie]

Probably unrelated...

https://www.rmoutlook.com/local-news...ments-10292706

Currently, the deaths of all children and youth who die in government care or received intervention services within the two years before their death are investigated. For children under the age of 18, this will not change, but for youth ages 18 and 19, investigations will only be performed at the discretion of the Child and Youth Advocate

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Involuntary intervention can often be a first step. However, involuntary treatment is a soothing solution to lazy and simple-minded people that like to think they're helping, but in fact have never had a brighter resolving thought beyond what equates to "lock 'em up".

I agree with this. I think safe consumption sites are similar. Done alone, it's just giving someone a safer/warmer place to perpetuate their misery.

We need a national response to this on all fronts, but won't get it due to a fracturing of all of the services and policies needed to provide a true solution being fractured across multiple levels of government here.

I also agree with Makarov that at this point I just want someone to try something new and hopefully be humble enough to recognize we'll need to learn and adapt along the way. The status quo is failing people in an egregious and painful manner.

[Slava]

To the surprise of no one, the budget is projected to be a $5.8bn deficit and there are no plans to balance that in the coming years. They’re blaming the tariff uncertainty, but that’s just convenient because they weren’t going to balance it anyway.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Slava

To the surprise of no one, the budget is projected to be a $5.8bn deficit and there are no plans to balance that in the coming years. They’re blaming the tariff uncertainty, but that’s just convenient because they weren’t going to balance it anyway.

But her lightbulbs.

[Torture]

Good thing Conservatives are good at finances or something.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Slava

To the surprise of no one, the budget is projected to be a $5.8bn deficit and there are no plans to balance that in the coming years. They’re blaming the tariff uncertainty, but that’s just convenient because they weren’t going to balance it anyway.

Looks like there's also going to be a bit of an increase in provincial property taxes for education.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Slava

To the surprise of no one, the budget is projected to be a $5.8bn deficit and there are no plans to balance that in the coming years. They’re blaming the tariff uncertainty, but that’s just convenient because they weren’t going to balance it anyway.

But how else can they give lucrative contracts to their friends?

[Fuzz]

The UCP assault on Alberta Health Services has become a land grab.

And maybe a hospital fire sale by a cash-strapped government.

Flagged in the new budget is a move to transfer ownership of all hospitals, and the land they stand on, to the Alberta Infrastructure department.

You may not have been aware (I certainly wasn’t) that besides being the province’s largest employer, AHS is also owner of almost the whole public component of the health system: land, structures, the works.

AHS owns about 500 standalone buildings, from giant hospitals such as the Foothills, to service buildings and small rural care centres.

With approval from the health minister, AHS is allowed to sell property — and keep the money for itself.

The intriguing part is that the government, as owner, would also be free to sell the properties to private interests.

They’re already shifting surgeries to private clinic owners and operators at a brisk pace. But many in the UCP, including Smith, have long had wider aims in mind.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid...es-it-possible

Right, so they can either sell them to private companies who then bill us for services, or lease them out to private operators who then sell us healthcare services. Somehow, this is fiscally responsible. Oh, wait, they don't give a #### about that, as long as they can get the government out of everything and turn it over to their buddies.



Special thanks to all the ####tards who's vote has made this possible.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid...es-it-possible

Right, so they can either sell them to private companies who then bill us for services, or lease them out to private operators who then sell us healthcare services. Somehow, this is fiscally responsible. Oh, wait, they don't give a #### about that, as long as they can get the government out of everything and turn it over to their buddies.



Special thanks to all the ####tards who's vote has made this possible.

So is the plan to transfer them over to infrastructure so AHS doesn't get the money, but it goes into general revenue?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by indes

So is the plan to transfer them over to infrastructure so AHS doesn't get the money, but it goes into general revenue?

AHS won't exist anymore so I guess they have to go somewhere, and because they chopped and diced healthcare up so much, there wouldn't be one agency that would make sense to manage them all.

I really don't understand who people could have been so fooled as to think this would save money. At minimum, you end up duplicating things like payroll across all these agencies, there has to be redundancies that woudl go away with it all being under AHS.

They also canned the person who was responsible for Netcare, and I've gotta wonder where that even ends up? Who manages IT for everything? Acute Care? Continuing care? Mental health? It's also so deeply stupid I still can't really believe we are doing this, but it had to be done if the ultimate goal is to part out the system and sell it for scraps so private companies can take over, who we will most certainly be at the whims of.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

AHS won't exist anymore so I guess they have to go somewhere, and because they chopped and diced healthcare up so much, there wouldn't be one agency that would make sense to manage them all.

I really don't understand who people could have been so fooled as to think this would save money. At minimum, you end up duplicating things like payroll across all these agencies, there has to be redundancies that woudl go away with it all being under AHS.

They also canned the person who was responsible for Netcare, and I've gotta wonder where that even ends up? Who manages IT for everything? Acute Care? Continuing care? Mental health? It's also so deeply stupid I still can't really believe we are doing this, but it had to be done if the ultimate goal is to part out the system and sell it for scraps so private companies can take over, who we will most certainly be at the whims of.

Lol anyone that thought splitting AHS up was going to save money is immediately outing themselves as a complete moron who shouldn't be trusted with my kids allowance.