November 1st, 2020

SCS a ‘house of horrors’


By Letter to the Editor on February 8, 2020.

The Supervised Consumption Site is, for the most part, not what it claims. Anyone can witness that most of the addicts go in, grab their free needles and other free drug supplies, then leave to get high in parks, playgrounds, the library, etc. The addict then becomes a danger to themselves, leaves biohazard needles strewn about, and victimizes innocent people to get their next hit. That isn’t “supervised consumption.”

The SCS claim they “save lives.” Giving an addict supplies to consume a toxic substance, reviving them, then repeating this horrific process until their body and mind totally destruct isn’t saving a life. It’s outright cruelty that one would be jailed for if they did the same to an animal. They would be appalled if someone suggested this process for their own addicted child, yet they have no problem doing it to someone else. To add insult to injury, they profit from it and have the tenacity to call themselves “health-care professionals.”

The SCS also claims they “help” the addict until such time as the addict voluntarily seeks treatment, but it is well known that meth and opioid addicts rarely go to treatment centres voluntarily. Every recovering addict states that they only sought treatment because they “hit their personal rock bottom.” Most SCS addicts are homeless due to their addiction, rob people for money, watch their body and mind rot away, and no longer have a fear of death. It’s obvious that these addicts have no “rock bottom” to scare them into voluntary treatment. So even if we had 10 treatment centres, it would have little impact on the addiction rate and addict crime. It’s also why, after two years of operation, and tens of thousands of visits, the SCS success rate is effectively zero. It is clear that the SCS is dismal failure that causes far more harm than good. The politicians involved in creating this house of horrors should show some integrity and resign.

So what to do? More policing will accomplish almost nothing due to our catch-and-release justice system. Voluntary-based treatment centres will accomplish almost nothing due to these addicts rarely entering treatment voluntarily. As such, repeat addict criminals should be court ordered with the choice of long-term treatment or long-term jail. Either way, they should not be allowed in society to continually harm others.

Seth Anthony

Lethbridge

Share this story:

7
50 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
h2ofield

Yawn..the guy from Vulcan is back to his monthly diatribe.
I like this quote from ‘biff’ on another post here./..closer to the truth than Ant-phony..
“”as for the concerns expressed that the scs is allowing a slow death for the addict: utter nonsense. the scs helps to reduce the number of deaths due to overdose, and the amount of needles and use in public spaces. it is not perfect, but it serves a degree of positive purpose.””
Yep, much better than Seth’s embellishments… fear-mongering gets more reaction than common sense…that’s his and others playbook.
I wish people all jacked up about the SCS could put the same energy into tackling alcohol abuse, which is MUCH more a problem.
Go ahead and freak-out, Seth.. I expect it ..again…yawn.

Seth Anthony

I’m not going to freak out on you H2. Why would I freak out on someone that has the intellect of a child? Your claim to fame on this forum is the “class clown” that consistently offers childish quips, rides on the coat tails of other people’s intellect, and never provides anything that is the least bit original or thought provoking.

h2ofield

Because I agree with someones valid point I’m riding the coattails of others intellect?
PFFFFT!
Yep…Seth’s playbook…Belittle, lie, embellish and fear-monger.
He’s done it (and been caught) many times. You’re a bore.

Seth Anthony

RE: Needles (bio hazards) in public places:

Before the SCS, ARCHES was handing out 4,000 needles a month from their 4th Av S location. They opened the SCS and within a few months were handing out 15,000 a month at the SCS. I don’t know how many they are handing out now. With that said, they didn’t care about all the new biohazards in the parks, playgrounds, etc, UNTIL kids started being poked and there was a public outcry.

RE: Why aren’t you addressing alcoholics?

We already have very strict DUI laws, and alcoholics are often court ordered to attend treatment. In contrast, there is little to no consequences for the destruction that addict’s cause, and they are not court ordered to enter treatment. Typically when the addict criminal is caught, they have multiple previous convictions and breaches of probation conditions. But alas, they are just released over and over again to continue killing themselves and harming others. This is unacceptable, and this is what we are attempting to change. To call this “fear mongering”, “boring”, or attempting to divert by shifting the focus to alcoholics, is laughably inane.

RE: Saving lives:

It is spoken as if it is the same as saving someone’s life following a car accident. Let’s keep it in perspective that this so called “saving lives” is exactly how I outlined it in my letter to the editor. Saving their life would be taking them somewhere where they are no longer killing themselves and also prevented from victimizing others.

h2ofield

I question your data on point one. You ALWAYS deflect from the fact LESS needles make it into the parks with an SCS. Your claim that it’s just handing out needles to take away I doubt is the norm.

On point two, I was addressing the social impact of alcohol abuse, not necessarily chronic use….the things you don’t hear about that have major impacts as a whole…person A gets drunk and kills someone driving (a couple of months ago)…Person B has a few drinks and abuses their spouse or kids…Person C can’t go to work from a hangover, thus affecting co-workers…and on and on..daily! Talk about ‘taking poison’!

On point three, It’s disingenuous to assume all using the SCS are the same. Someone on another thread said 92% were aboriginal…that’s probably incorrect and lower. I think there is a fringe aspect that should be recognized…the 20-40 year old blue collar worker that dies alone in his/her house..maybe a one-time user that messed up…there are scenarios to consider.

Either way, drug crime and addictions will not disappear should the SCS shut down.
Can we all agree there is room for improvement everywhere instead of doomsday forecasts?

Seth Anthony

When lives are at stake, “room for improvement” is an understatement. The solutions that both the NDP and the UCP have proposed, are woefully inept. Although it remains to be seen if the UCP will do the right thing by mandating court ordered treatment.

Correct if I’m wrong H2, but wasn’t it you that mentioned having a friend’s son die of an OD? If it was your child, would you give them needles, help them to shoot up, and let them continue being a harm to himself and others (like the SCS does)? OR, would you force them into treatment if you were able to?

h2ofield

Yes, yes, yes, no and yes.

Seth Anthony

I asked you three questions, but you confusingly gave me 5 yes’s and no’s.

Citi Zen

Seth, your words of wisdom are entirely accurate. What is needed now are some “common sense” alternatives, such as you have suggested. There can certainly be no harm in forcibly enrolling the addicts in a self-preservation program, whether it be prison or rehab.
Well spoken, SA

johnny57

As usual Seth your words are filled with common-sense and wisdom! And that may be the real reason that clowns like waterhead (h2o) reject them! These morons would rather ride the merry-go-round of denial and descent than own-up to what’s really taking place and provide practical solutions. And so the carousel continues!

h2ofield

You need to be outed.
Settle it. or STFU.

johnny57

Consider the source!

johnny57

As usual waterhead all talk no action. Blah blah blah!