getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

When it comes to addicts themselves, I fully support approaches that come out of compassion and empathy, with resources for social, health and housing services that help people get back to lives of dignity. Pepsifree has made good comments on this, and the Portuguese model that has been repeatedly raised is also something I would support. I don't really see punishing addicts for being addicts as making any sense.

When it comes to those trafficking the kinds of drugs that destroy people's lives in these ways, I am very open to severe punishment. I don't so much mean the street-level dealers, but the actual traffickers knowledgably engaging in the business of addiction at scale. I would seriously consider capital punishment for traffickers of things like the synthetic opiates that have people dying on the street daily in the DTES. They are worse than the most prolific serial killers. For street-level drug dealers selling stuff like these synthetic opiates, I would also consider corporal punishment such as caning in addition to rehabilitation.

Good points, perhaps we should come down harder on China and the Chinese gangs that are fuelling this disaster.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4149818/v...ndering-drugs/

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

For addicts who aren't committing crimes, the way to help them is to substantially increase affordable housing (perhaps including temporarily free housing) and availability to mental health services. Again, massively expensive, and only happens if society is willing to tolerate big tax increases. I'm in favor of it, but worry that our society won't be anytime soon.

Agree with your post provided that your definition of committing crimes includes Calgary bylaws addressing vagrancy in that definition. This means no accosting people on the train, harassing people like Sliver's daughter etc.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Muta

Regarding the homeless issue in Edmonton their city just built five modular affordable housing buildings across the city; 219 units total with indigenous ceremony spaces in each building. This only cost $56M total for all five buildings due to the value engineered solution of modular construction. Each place also has social and occupational support services. I think this is a stellar solution and something the City of Calgary should look into too.

If you move an addict into a home does the addict stop being an addict?

How many of the homeless people walking around are waiving their ability to level 1 on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and NOT addicts? I'd wager... maybe 5-10% max. If that even?

So, building houses is a stop-gap, short-term, non-permanent, bandaid fix that will not stop the real problem which is, of course, addiction.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDK, maybe just lurk the thread for a bit? Not to be a jerk, but your contributions on this topic are less than useless. Just snappy little judgements on anybody who has an idea that moves beyond giving junkies more drugs and hugging it out with the mentally ill.

Those of us who actually want to progress and help solve this problem are looking for practical solutions. You're just ixnaying anything anybody says, but you're not being funny, clever or contributive, so I just don't really get what you're doing here.

1) I would suggest you start by not using a stigmatizing word like junkies. They're people. They're somebody's kid, somebody's sibling etc. Calling folks junkies and crack heads reduce people to their drug use, and thus can inadvertently strip them of their humanity.

2) as I stated in my original post, yes I think safe use sites should be expanded. And that housed folks in the suburbs also use drugs and die alone in their houses/apartments. The opioid epidemic is much more far reaching than unhoused folks hanging out at an LRT station.


3) again, as I stated in my original post a reevaluation of housing policy is needed to address much of the 'social disorder' discussed in the thread. This would also impact high budget items like healthcare and health outcomes. For instance there has been an increase in Edmonton of amputations as a result of the last cold snap etc.

4) I'm not suggesting people hug it out. That's a reductive example of the approach I'm suggesting. I do believe, strongly, that you can't enforce folks out of homlessness or drug use. That it just kicks the can down the road at best, and leads to further harassment etc and stigmatization of visible drug users at worst.

5) when people start a sentence by 'not to be a jerk' they're very clearly being a jerk

6) internet tone is implied, and if you're reading more angst into my posts than I'm intending, that is what it is. But admittely I knew what this thread was going to be when I opened and i should have known better.

7) personally, I think calling Calgary a 'left wing' city is pretty funny. I think on whole it's pretty centre-right with a growing centre-left. Which I think you can see in the run up to the election as the NDP accepts the UCP framing on issues which likely means the NDP will lose, but that's a tangent.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If you move an addict into a home does the addict stop being an addict?

How many of the homeless people walking around are waiving their ability to level 1 on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and NOT addicts? I'd wager... maybe 5-10% max. If that even?

So, building houses is a stop-gap, short-term, non-permanent, bandaid fix that will not stop the real problem which is, of course, addiction.

I don't disagree, but we as a society have to start somewhere. And addressing those needs keeps folks alive to treat other diseases such as addiction.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Good points, perhaps we should come down harder on China and the Chinese gangs that are fuelling this disaster.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4149818/v...ndering-drugs/

Yeah, people engaged in the business of trafficking these kinds of drugs deserve severe penalties regardless of where they are imo, including China. Canada can't really enforce anything inside other countries, but I don't think it should matter where they're from if they can be caught engaging in stuff like this inside an area of Canadian jurisdiction.

China did implement stricter controls in 2019, after that article was written, and my understanding is that now a lot of the synthetic opioid supply is coming through manufacturing in Mexico with component ingredients sourced from China and elsewhere, but regardless of whether it's the manufacturing of the final drug, or the component ingredients, or the shipping and distribution of it, if someone is involved in that at a high level where they are responsible for and knowledgeable about what they're doing, I don't really have sympathy for them.

[Sliver]

Hey neat, you used full sentences and articulated some points.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

1) I would suggest you start by not using a stigmatizing word like junkies. They're people. They're somebody's kid, somebody's sibling etc. Calling folks junkies and crack heads reduce people to their drug use, and thus can inadvertently strip them of their humanity.

Well, first of all, the addicted human being I ran into two days ago labeled herself a "crack whore" so there's that.

I'm also less concerned about me calling a drug addict who jumps on my teenager's car a junkie and more concerned about doing something to address this problem. You keep working on the words, though...that should get us there.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

2) as I stated in my original post, yes I think safe use sites should be expanded. And that housed folks in the suburbs also use drugs and die alone in their houses/apartments. The opioid epidemic is much more far reaching than unhoused folks hanging out at an LRT station.

Yes, well I guarantee you Debbie the housewife addicted to opioids isn't going to go hang out with the more downtrodden among us to get her fix; she'll be "too good" for that.

I was onboard with trying the safe sites, btw, but they just aren't working, which is obvious to anybody who has left their house in the past three years. I'm not in support of quadrupling down on a failed approach.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

3) again, as I stated in my original post a reevaluation of housing policy is needed to address much of the 'social disorder' discussed in the thread. This would also impact high budget items like healthcare and health outcomes. For instance there has been an increase in Edmonton of amputations as a result of the last cold snap etc.

Nope, it's addictions that come before homelessness. And throwing an addict into a house solves jack ####. Counselling and clean before free houses IMO.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

4) I'm not suggesting people hug it out. That's a reductive example of the approach I'm suggesting. I do believe, strongly, that you can't enforce folks out of homlessness or drug use. That it just kicks the can down the road at best, and leads to further harassment etc and stigmatization of visible drug users at worst.

Oh yeah, committing people to a facility to address their mental illness and drug addiction is somehow kicking the can down the road even though it actively address all the issues at once (the wellbeing of the troubled individual, peace in public and the lack of a home), but free drugs and a place to use them is solving...something?

Give me a break. Your approach is kicking the can down the road and it's preposterous you can't see that.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

5) when people start a sentence by 'not to be a jerk' they're very clearly being a jerk

No, I was giving you some helpful tips and tricks and it seemed to have worked. Sometimes you can't just tolerate people polluting spaces with bad behaviour and have to actually spell out your expectations and let them know their shenanigans won't be tolerated.

Look, you've now contributed to the thread with some well-written responses. Thank you. I credit myself with getting you back on the rails.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

6) internet tone is implied, and if you're reading more angst into my posts than I'm intending, that is what it is. But admittely I knew what this thread was going to be when I opened and i should have known better.

Should we just not talk about this stuff? Is it too triggering for you? I don't get why this topic - that affects us all - is off limits in your mind.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

7) personally, I think calling Calgary a 'left wing' city is pretty funny. I think on whole it's pretty centre-right with a growing centre-left. Which I think you can see in the run up to the election as the NDP accepts the UCP framing on issues which likely means the NDP will lose, but that's a tangent.

Yep, that's a tangent. I don't even know who called Calgary left-wing. I mean, I'm definitely left wing on most topics I find, but it doesn't mean I have to tow the company line on everything. I'm sure my view on this issue is more right wing, but isn't that normal to have a range of views? I can't imagine how weird it would be to somehow magically have all my views supported by the party for whom I vote. What would the chances of that be? I'd be concerned I'm a partisan if that was my experience.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If you move an addict into a home does the addict stop being an addict?

How many of the homeless people walking around are waiving their ability to level 1 on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and NOT addicts? I'd wager... maybe 5-10% max. If that even?

So, building houses is a stop-gap, short-term, non-permanent, bandaid fix that will not stop the real problem which is, of course, addiction.

No it doesn’t but you have an addict with an address, protection from the elements and a safe drug supply. This gives you the ability to offer other services. I wonder if while we work on other issues is it cheaper to house addicts and supply them with drugs is known doses and happily subsidize the problem to reduce social disorder.

Effectively the old asylum model with just a little more freedom.

The goal being the lowest cost solution to the social disorder challenges and not the addiction challenges.

[JohnnyB]

How does someone without even a safe and reliable place to live manage to get the stability and foundation in their life to break their addictive habits?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

How does someone without even a safe and reliable place to live manage to get the stability and foundation in their life to break their addictive habits?

They don't people who argue not to have those things are inadvertently arguing that we let these people die.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

They don't people who argue not to have those things are inadvertently arguing that we let these people die.

Who is arguing that we leave the people on the streets? I don't think anybody is, so not sure what you're saying here.

[Ozy_Flame]

A robust housing strategy is critical - no, paramount - to addressing this problem. Do I need to post the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs diagram? Don't make me post the diagram.

[Hack&Lube]

Sounds like we need a plan to exterminate all bears meth heads

[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.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Who is arguing that we leave the people on the streets? I don't think anybody is, so not sure what you're saying here.

No one in this thread is directly saying this.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

They don't people who argue not to have those things are inadvertently arguing that we let these people die.

So the only two options are:

1) buy people addicts houses to live in or;

2) let them die

Got it. Makes sense.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Hey neat, you used full sentences and articulated some points.



Well, first of all, the addicted human being I ran into two days ago labeled herself a "crack whore" so there's that.

I'm also less concerned about me calling a drug addict who jumps on my teenager's car a junkie and more concerned about doing something to address this problem. You keep working on the words, though...that should get us there.

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

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yes, well I guarantee you Debbie the housewife addicted to opioids isn't going to go hang out with the more downtrodden among us to get her fix; she'll be "too good" for that.

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

Originally Posted by Sliver

I was onboard with trying the safe sites, btw, but they just aren't working, which is obvious to anybody who has left their house in the past three years. I'm not in support of quadrupling down on a failed approach.

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.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Nope, it's addictions that come before homelessness. And throwing an addict into a house solves jack ####. Counselling and clean before free houses IMO.

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.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh yeah, committing people to a facility to address their mental illness and drug addiction is somehow kicking the can down the road even though it actively address all the issues at once (the wellbeing of the troubled individual, peace in public and the lack of a home), but free drugs and a place to use them is solving...something?

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

Originally Posted by Sliver

No, I was giving you some helpful tips and tricks and it seemed to have worked. Sometimes you can't just tolerate people polluting spaces with bad behaviour and have to actually spell out your expectations and let them know their shenanigans won't be tolerated.

Look, you've now contributed to the thread with some well-written responses. Thank you. I credit myself with getting you back on the rails.

Pretty rich coming from you.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Should we just not talk about this stuff? Is it too triggering for you? I don't get why this topic - that affects us all - is off limits in your mind.

Yeah, I'm a giant snowflake c**k that thinks we should acknowledge that drug users are human beings.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

What I wouldn't do is recreate this Star Trek episode.

https://podwraithsds9pod.castos.com/...se-part-i-ii34

Hell, the Bell Riots are happening this year so we've still got time to build the Sanctuary Cities

[Yeah_Baby]

nm

[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