BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[GGG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's difficult to prove categorically that harm reduction works, as other social and medical interventions change the statistical model, but every indication is it has reduced HIV and Hep rates drastically in the DTES, we know clearly that Insite has dealt over 6500 overdoses, not all of them would have resulted in death but you have to assume if there was no widely available Narcan (another massive part of harm reduction) and those poor souls OD on the street half of them would be dead, 3000 less dead is a success where I come from

If you save 3000 drug addicts that means more drug addicts on the street. Someone arguing that harm reduction isn’t working would use that data to suggest that more drug users are out there and it’s making the problem worse.

[blankall]

Something dramatically changed during COVID. Deaths from drug overdoses almost tripled from about 900 in 2019 to 2500 in 2023. Deaths had actually decreased substantially from 2017 to 2019. Things go totally off the rails during COVID, and they never recover.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You claimed "a lot of people are addicted because they just like getting high." What percentage of people dealing with extreme addiction issues are dealing with them solely on the basis that they like to get wasted, and not because there are other mitigating socioeconomic and mental factors?.

Where did I say it was the only factor? But it’s certainly a factor. There’s lots of research on people who have addictive personalities and are prone to risk-taking behaviours.

So we’re agreed that that there are several reasons why people end up succumbing to addiction. Looking only at homelessness and undiagnosed mental illness - as the post I was responding to did - misses a big part of the picture. Most obviously because most people who are economically distressed or mentally ill do not succumb to addiction.

[CliffFletcher]

First poster: People succumb to addiction because of A and B
Me: Yeah, but C is also a reason.
Other posters: WHY YOU THINK C ONLY REASON?!?! LOL!!!

Never change, CP.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, but corperatejay doesn't look into things, he shoots from the conservative hip! Them liberals are done wrong and shoot from the woke hip!.

I have eyes. If what we are witnessing in Calgary and Vancouver with respect to homeless and drug addiction is success then you and I have different definitions.


@AFC what percentage of those 3,000 ever get clean? End up dead eventually? Are we just delaying the inevitable at significant societal cost?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

First poster: People succumb to addiction because of A and B
Me: Yeah, but C is also a reason.
Other posters: WHY YOU THINK C ONLY REASON?!?! LOL!!!

Never change, CP.

No no, you’re right Cliff, nobody has considered that people like doing drugs. Great comment. Very astute. We need to get these wonks and scientists to understand that people addicted to drugs LIKE drugs!!

To separate them from all the people who get addicted to feelings they do not enjoy at all.

[opendoor]

The dumb thing about this whole tangent is that we're talking about PUBLIC drug use. That's the whole issue.

So even if you don't accept that socioeconomic factors play a huge role in addiction rates, it really doesn't take a genius to understand that increasingly unstable housing situations and lack of mental health supports (which can lead to more homelessness) are massive factors in the level of public drug use in an area.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No no, you’re right Cliff, nobody has considered that people like doing drugs. Great comment. Very astute. We need to get these wonks and scientists to understand that people addicted to drugs LIKE drugs!!

To separate them from all the people who get addicted to feelings they do not enjoy at all.

Liking the high is only the gateway, the real addiction is aimed at avoiding the horrible sickness experienced during withdrawal.

[afc wimbledon]

So the argument is we'd be better off if they were all dead? that society should just ignore them, encourage their deaths as quickly as possible?

of the 10 or so ex foster kids I have cared for who ended up homeless and using one died of an OD a couple of years ago, one is still down on the street and the rest are working, mostly in construction, 2 are full red seal carpenters and one is a kitchen manager at a white spot

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Liking the high is only the gateway, the real addiction is aimed at avoiding the horrible sickness experienced during withdrawal.

this, a thousand times this.

[afc wimbledon]

I would also add that as a country Canada is directly responsible for the levels of addiction and social disruption within the native community, that every single native kid in my house had either mum and dad or (pretty much 100%) Grandparents that were rounded up and sent to residential schools where they were all subjected to both horrific levels of sexual and physical abuse but were also denied any kind of example of parenting that they could learn and so do a decent job with their kids who end up at my house in foster care, as a country we are quite literally responsible and will be for generations to come for the levels of addiction in the native community, many of whom are on the DTES

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

First poster: People succumb to addiction because of A and B
Me: Yeah, but C is also a reason.
Other posters: WHY YOU THINK C ONLY REASON?!?! LOL!!!

Never change, CP.

Cliff, we're talking about different levels of addiction here. The majority of at-risk addicts that are using street drugs, living on the street, committing crimes or engaging in sex work aren't doing that just because they like getting high.

Almost all of them are experiencing homelessness and some kind of concurrent mental health issues.

Can you see why bringing Greg into this discussion is kind of silly and irrelevant to the bigger picture?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I have eyes. If what we are witnessing in Calgary and Vancouver with respect to homeless and drug addiction is success then you and I have different definitions.

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

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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

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

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

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

Wanna make a bet? Norway

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Cliff, we're talking about different levels of addiction here. The majority of at-risk addicts that are using street drugs, living on the street, committing crimes or engaging in sex work aren't doing that just because they like getting high.

Almost all of them are experiencing homelessness and some kind of concurrent mental health issues.

Can you see why bringing Greg into this discussion is kind of silly and irrelevant to the bigger picture?

I think the Greg anecdote serves as a example why safer supply is so important. Do people really want the kids that are just experimenting recreationally subjected to drugs laced with god-knows-what and dying?

[blender]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

@AFC what percentage of those 3,000 ever get clean? End up dead eventually? Are we just delaying the inevitable at significant societal cost?

Extremely harsh and disturbing take.
Maybe you need to go visit with AFC Wimbledon for a few days and get some much-needed perspective.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think the Greg anecdote serves as a example why safer supply is so important. Do people really want the kids that are just experimenting recreationally subjected to drugs laced with god-knows-what and dying?

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

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

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by blender

Extremely harsh and disturbing take.
Maybe you need to go visit with AFC Wimbledon for a few days and get some much-needed perspective.

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.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think the Greg anecdote serves as a example why safer supply is so important. Do people really want the kids that are just experimenting recreationally subjected to drugs laced with god-knows-what and dying?

Are you suggesting that the government will start providing kids, who want to experiment and are not addicts, with drugs? That's never happening.