getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Is there something in between a jail, a psych ward and a detox facility...

Marriage.

[Yeah_Baby]

when you force folks into recovery the outcomes of success are much lower than when they decide to be there.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I would not support anymore “free drugs” if people are finding ways to exploit / sell them - worst of all if it’s aiding youths experimenting with or general use of these drugs.

I am all for a solution, although I don’t know what it is. I am hesitant to offer free housing as the first step. If people found a way to exploit free drugs, they will find a way to exploit free housing. All that will do is allow more people to wander down a dangerous path.

Portugal installed a model that works.

They have human beings there. It's simple. We do what Portugal does (all of it). It also literally does what everybody is trying to say in this thread (carrot and stick / empathy and consequences, etc.).

I still am at a loss for why, literally everyone, can't just all agree, yeah, let's do what's already worked.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills myself now. The one guy who quoted me just said "ya it won't work" and then proceeded to not give an explanation why.

Makes no sense. There is a solution. Do what's already worked.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

when you force folks into recovery the outcomes of success are much lower than when they decide to be there.

What about when they are neither forced or have the capacity to decide to be there?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Looking online 2000 people in Calgary experience homelessness on any given night . Trying to research stats the best i could find was 20% of people experiencing homelessness are because of drug use .

Let’s say it’s 1/4 for easy math, so 500 people (crack whores , Junkies in some peoples terminology ) are homeless and on drugs

This is the group that is potentially dangerous, violent , and usually
Referred to in the derogatory terms

Not to over simplify it - is it really that expensive to figure out the solution for these 500 people

Build a mental health / low security prisons (whatever you want to call it ) in the middle of the country with 500 beds Obviously men and women split . Take away the drugs and have proper medical / therapy/ etc on hand . Round up the “crack whores and junkies” and put them there.

Let’s say we use the average cost of a Canadian prisoner - and I am not sure why it would need to be that high - $120k - that’s a total cost of 50 million a year

Here is Calgary general budget until 2026

https://newsroom.calgary.ca/the-city...s-and-budgets/

Now obviously it isn’t quiet as simple as drive around Calgary , pick up the strung out homeless , and put into this facility …. But it isn’t exactly rocket science either.

People aren’t getting self help when they are homeless and on meth because of free drugs and hugs (carrot) They need to be forced (stick) and hopefully some of them can become productive members of society if they get clean . But a lot will never and that’s a reality we need to Face and stop tip toeing around the impending escalation of this issue . Just look at California , Seattle and Van .

Seriously - if you don’t realize the magnitude of this issue when left unchecked you need to take a field trip out there

Sure lots will probably never fully recover from that group of 500, but we can’t just most of them running around the city terrorizing citizens

Sure now ask the same question and replace "drug use" with "addiction" and watch the number sky rocket.

At the very least, let's say it's 50% of homeless are addicts, you take 50% of homelessness away by working on addiction.

You do this by doing the Portugal model. /thread.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So the only two options are:

1) buy people addicts houses to live in or;

2) let them die

Got it. Makes sense.

It's uncomfortable. There is no easy solution, it is obviously a complex and difficult problem that dates back to the first apes. But if we are to simplify the argument into a dichotomy, the options are

1. help addicts get back on their feet
2. let them suffer and die.

Option 1 sucks, and will only work for a small percentage of folks, option 2 is the historical norm. That said, binaries don't exist in society. most in this thread are suggesting some blend of the two which is a more nuanced debate which is better to focus on than my simplification.

[Jason14h]

Also I think we are partially mixing 2 issues - the opioid addicted person who lays at home on a couch or in their tent and ODs, Vs the Meth addict threatening and doing harm

While both groups need “help/a solution” one group is a much greater threat the general population then the other , who are more a threat to themselves “

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

It's uncomfortable. There is no easy solution, it is obviously a complex and difficult problem that dates back to the first apes. But if we are to simplify the argument into a dichotomy, the options are

1. help addicts get back on their feet
2. let them suffer and die.

Option 1 sucks, and will only work for a small percentage of folks, option 2 is the historical norm. That said, binaries don't exist in society. most in this thread are suggesting some blend of the two which is a more nuanced debate which is better to focus on than my simplification.

Wrong, there appears to be a viable solution.

Do what Portugal did.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

What about when they are neither forced or have the capacity to decide to be there?

To me, someone whose contributions to this thread are apparently suspect, I think where Harm Reduction is key. It keeps folks who are using drugs alive, to one day choose to decide. In addition to addressing housing etc.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Sure now ask the same question and replace "drug use" with "addiction" and watch the number sky rocket.

At the very least, let's say it's 50% of homeless are addicts, you take 50% of homelessness away by working on addiction.

You do this by doing the Portugal model. /thread.

Okay looks like it’s 1/3 for drug and alcohol . I assume Canada is similar

https://americanaddictioncenters.org...guide/homeless

So we’re taking 600-700 people in Calgary. I don’t know enough about the “Portugal System” and haven’t researched pros and cons- but I agree with the premise that it isn’t rocket science to fix - and not the expense relative to other things we “waste” dollars on

It’s just not a sexy voting topic until they are in your neighborhood

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Words are only part of the thing. Nowhere did I suggest that's where things stop

I mean, again, when safe-use sites are expanded you're likely pulling clients from the immediate area. Which is typically the sites have been placed in urban cores. So if you have one in Tuscany, you're probably not serving the same clients are the the Schumer

But I'm saying no housewives are going to drop off their kids at school and then head over to shoot up at the corner safe-injection site. There is way too much reputational risk that nobody is going to take. They're not going to out themselves as a drug addict, risk losing their kids and they're not going to even think of themselves as the type of person that needs to go there.

I think it's a naïve plan that obviously won't do anything. Safe sites in a community like fricken Tuscany is beyond ridiculous. If you can afford to live there and buy drugs on the regular, you can afford to get yourself into detox. A safe site does nothing to help this problem in this scenario.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I don't think you can look at the last three years as a fair assessment. With the government change in 2019 the UCP all but ended support for the sites. You can look at the outcomes worsening in Lethbridge after their site closed as a concrete example of the Government's approach. The research at places like Insite in Vancouver, and other studies, demonstrate out what the long-term positives that they are. It's not a failed approach, they UCP ignored the studies and doubled down on making it a failure.

It's the UCP's fault government-run drug dens didn't work? Okay, I hate UCP as much as the next liberal, but let's be real here...setting up safe sites to draw drug addicts to a centralized place always came with a bit of a risk. Risks that are obvious, but hey, let's try it out anyway. But c'mon, they don't work and, again, are kicking the can down the road, which is the exact thing you claim to not want to do.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I mean, it keeps them alive and prevents them from having needless amputations etc. Even in my own life and my own mental health, as my material conditions improved I was able to address those issues in myself. Not to mention that often folks use drugs or alcohol to self-medicate from the harsh realities of their material conditions/life. It's really no different than what a Wine Mom does, it's just we've not stigmatized booze the same way as drugs.

You remain mixed up on the order of these things. People are starting out in a home, then are getting addicted to drugs, and then become homeless. You don't turn to drugs because you are homeless; you turn to homelessness because you are on drugs. Giving them a house doesn't reverse the process; you have to get off the drugs before having a home will work.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

It's as simple as safe consumption sites are keeping people alive. Dead people don't enter treatment or recover.

No, they're keeping people addicted to drugs, creating more drug use (keeping people alive to keep buying drugs, which increases supply, which leads to more people addicted, etc.). We need to get these people into treatment, which has to involve institutionalization - that will save lives. Just feeding them drugs - without a doubt - is not helping this issue lol.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But I'm saying no housewives are going to drop off their kids at school and then head over to shoot up at the corner safe-injection site. There is way too much reputational risk that nobody is going to take. They're not going to out themselves as a drug addict, risk losing their kids and they're not going to even think of themselves as the type of person that needs to go there.

I think it's a naïve plan that obviously won't do anything. Safe sites in a community like fricken Tuscany is beyond ridiculous. If you can afford to live there and buy drugs on the regular, you can afford to get yourself into detox. A safe site does nothing to help this problem in this scenario.



It's the UCP's fault government-run drug dens didn't work? Okay, I hate UCP as much as the next liberal, but let's be real here...setting up safe sites to draw drug addicts to a centralized place always came with a bit of a risk. Risks that are obvious, but hey, let's try it out anyway. But c'mon, they don't work and, again, are kicking the can down the road, which is the exact thing you claim to not want to do.



You remain mixed up on the order of these things. People are starting out in a home, then are getting addicted to drugs, and then become homeless. You don't turn to drugs because you are homeless; you turn to homelessness because you are on drugs. Giving them a house doesn't reverse the process; you have to get off the drugs before having a home will work.



No, they're keeping people addicted to drugs, creating more drug use (keeping people alive to keep buying drugs, which increases supply, which leads to more people addicted, etc.). We need to get these people into treatment, which has to involve institutionalization - that will save lives. Just feeding them drugs - without a doubt - is not helping this issue lol.

People are going to use drugs. That's a fact. Part of why deaths spiked in 2020 was a lack of safe supply as a result of the pandemic. If people ARE going to use they should have access to a safe supply that lowers their risk of dying from a toxic OD etc.

Lots of working folks with houses use drugs and alcohol to excess. They're dying too. Just look at all the stories of folks in groups like Moms Stop the Harm etc. It really seems like your major issue is the visible of those with crap material conditions that cause disorder.

Also suggesting that every drug user experiencing homeless starts in a house then uses drugs and ends up on the streets, as a result, isn't a universal experience. Poverty is a generational cycle that's extremely hard to break, especially in our mode of late stage capitalism.

You fundamentally think I'm an idiot it seems, so I don't think we're changing each other's mind. I belive strongly your unwillingness to listen experts on Harm Reduction and they way you stigmatize folks who use drugs prevents you from listening them (I am not one of them, but they have informed my persepctive)

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

People are going to use drugs. That's a fact. Part of why deaths spiked in 2020 was a lack of safe supply as a result of the pandemic. If people ARE going to use they should have access to a safe supply that lowers their risk of dying from a toxic OD etc.

Lots of working folks with houses use drugs and alcohol to excess. They're dying too. Just look at all the stories of folks in groups like Moms Stop the Harm etc. It really seems like your major issue is the visible of those with crap material conditions that cause disorder.

How is that not perfectly reasonable? People kill themselves in multiple ways all the time. Obesity, smoking, drinking, whatever. None of my business. I just had a physical last week. Doctor said I have to watch my sugar intake when looking at my bloodwork. I've been expecting this conversation for decades because I love candy. But, see, that's me harming myself...I don't run around jumping on cars and yelling at people when I have too much Pez.

When drug addicts start jumping on my daughter's car and accosting me in the mall, yeah, I don't like it in the same way nobody would.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Also suggesting that every drug user experiencing homeless starts in a house then uses drugs and ends up on the streets, as a result, isn't a universal experience. Poverty is a generational cycle that's extremely hard to break, especially in our mode of late stage capitalism.

You fundamentally think I'm an idiot it seems, so I don't think we're changing each other's mind. I belive strongly your unwillingness to listen experts on Harm Reduction and they way you stigmatize folks who use drugs prevents you from listening them (I am not one of them, but they have informed my persepctive)

I don't think you're an idiot, but I think the idea of giving drug addicts drugs and leaving them to rot on the street once they come down enough to not need some NARCAN is ridiculous and I'm super tired of hearing about this useless program that is doing more harm than good when better options are available.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How is that not perfectly reasonable? People kill themselves in multiple ways all the time. Obesity, smoking, drinking, whatever. None of my business. I just had a physical last week. Doctor said I have to watch my sugar intake when looking at my bloodwork. I've been expecting this conversation for decades because I love candy. But, see, that's me harming myself...I don't run around jumping on cars and yelling at people when I have too much Pez.

When drug addicts start jumping on my daughter's car and accosting me in the mall, yeah, I don't like it in the same way nobody would.



I don't think you're an idiot, but I think the idea of giving drug addicts drugs and leaving them to rot on the street once they come down enough to not need some NARCAN is ridiculous and I'm super tired of hearing about this useless program that is doing more harm than good when better options are available.

But that's just it. It doesn't do more harm than good. Generally speaking, if you access to safe supply, and are using at a safe use site, you likely won't need NARCAN. I feel very confused because when I say we need to look at housing first, you disagree, but then you agree folks shouldn't have to be unhoused. So let's say someone wants to enter treatment and there is a bed a public facility. They're clean, they get out of treatment, where do they go? Likely keep living on the street and likely using again.

[Traditional_Ale]

If you hate yourself, hate your place in the world, and feel like there is no hope to change it, drugs are awesome. Like, really, really awesome. There is no quicker, easier fix to shut off the emotions of the indignity of being in a terrible place in your life than drugs. A lot of homeless addicts have tried to get clean, but having seen first hand what is offered to them to accomplish this I think its making things worse. Its not respectful, sincere, and is essentially punitive. Therapists with token diplomas that are terrible at their jobs, resources and workbooks that look like photocopies of photocopies of photocopies from the 1970's, and while the first suggestion in every worksheet about handling withdrawal symptoms is to "listen to music" you're not allowed a personal music player in rehab. If you want to play a piano so out of tune its literally unplayable or a guitar with 5 strings, go nuts.

Would it really be so much work for them to take their pathetic workbook, hand it to any grade 6 kid, and pay them a couple hundred bucks to give the thing a revamp? It would take like two hours, but apparently that is far too much work for a bunch of stupid addicts. At least make the effort to look like someone cares enough to develop a plan to help people, and not haphazardly shove a bunch of "things" from "somewhere" into a binder and expect anyone to feel like they're being respected.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

But that's just it. It doesn't do more harm than good. Generally speaking, if you access to safe supply, and are using at a safe use site, you likely won't need NARCAN. I feel very confused because when I say we need to look at housing first, you disagree, but then you agree folks shouldn't have to be unhoused. So let's say someone wants to enter treatment and there is a bed a public facility. They're clean, they get out of treatment, where do they go? Likely keep living on the street and likely using again.

I think it needs to go like this:

1. Try to get clean yourself using your own resources. That is, I'm not in favour of just snatching people off the streets because they yelled at a guy in South Centre Mall or jumped on a car once. How do we track these people to potentially establish either a pattern of behaviour or a one-off episode? Don't know, but we can figure that out.

2. If they can't get clean, institutionalize them.

3. Get clean while institutionalized.

4. Half-way house.

5. Low-cost housing/free housing with strings (i.e. stay clean).

So yes, shelter is a critical component of this, but providing shelter without first ensuring people are clean is just a recipe to concentrate troublesome people in one place and that will lead to more problems.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think it needs to go like this:

1. Try to get clean yourself using your own resources. That is, I'm not in favour of just snatching people off the streets because they yelled at a guy in South Centre Mall or jumped on a car once. How do we track these people to potentially establish either a pattern of behaviour or a one-off episode? Don't know, but we can figure that out.

2. If they can't get clean, institutionalize them.

3. Get clean while institutionalized.

4. Half-way house.

5. Low-cost housing/free housing with strings (i.e. stay clean).

So yes, shelter is a critical component of this, but providing shelter without first ensuring people are clean is just a recipe to concentrate troublesome people in one place and that will lead to more problems.

Resources imply a certain level of material conditions, no?

[stone hands]

How much harder do you imagine it to be to stop using hard drugs if you live on the street vs have a stable place to rest your head

Housing comes first, addiction comes second

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Resources imply a certain level of material conditions, no?

Yes. I mean, there was a popular fellow (Calgary alternative music scene, FUBAR, etc.) that many of us knew who had hit rock bottom a couple years ago. One of his friends reached out to all the people that knew/know him and a bunch of us donated to help him stay in rehab. That's what I mean by resources. I don't expect people in a lot of these situations to be sitting on a bank account with $100k in it, but I do think they should have the opportunity to self-fund a rehabilitation direction of their own choosing if they are able.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think it needs to go like this:

1. Try to get clean yourself using your own resources. That is, I'm not in favour of just snatching people off the streets because they yelled at a guy in South Centre Mall or jumped on a car once. How do we track these people to potentially establish either a pattern of behaviour or a one-off episode? Don't know, but we can figure that out.

2. If they can't get clean, institutionalize them.

3. Get clean while institutionalized.

4. Half-way house.

5. Low-cost housing/free housing with strings (i.e. stay clean).

So yes, shelter is a critical component of this, but providing shelter without first ensuring people are clean is just a recipe to concentrate troublesome people in one place and that will lead to more problems.

Step 0 - Mandatory 20-year minimum sentence for dealing schedule 1 drugs. 40-years for distribution. Hard ass prison labor with the rapists and peodphiles.