May 28th, 2024

Writer retracts comment

By Lethbridge Herald on January 8, 2022.


I had a discussion with Dr. Tailfeathers and she stated that the 91 deaths in Lethbridge were not just drug addicts but were also the sick and suicides. She used the number 91 in the video saying the 91 died because the SCS closed. I never got a chance to ask more about the issue but I assume she actually meant to say ARCHES which offered more than just the SCS services.

I questioned  the number because it was not the correct SCS number. In the context of ARCHES Services, which was not mentioned in the video, Dr. Tailfeathers’ number was the correct one. Rather than create an irrelevant argument over building names ARCHES vs SCS, I will retract my comment regarding the numbers and apologize. I easily could have made the same building name substitution mistake and not been aware of it!

Dennis Bremner


Share this story:

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Kudos to the author for this correction.

Citi Zen

Arches was the name of the group that founded and operated the SCS. No apology needed.

Dennis Bremner

ARCHES provided suicide counselling and many other services. So the 91 could be the sum of all services provided by ARCHES. A subset of ARCHES was SCS and during that period 39 died from overdose. So you have two different numbers that may be correct. So when discussing numbers, one is correct for SCS the other, could be correct for ARCHES, no idea. So as stated by author there is no use in getting into an argument over building names.

Last edited 2 years ago by Dennis Bremner

It was up to Ms. Tailfeathers to explain her numbers/building names publicly. All these coulds and maybes are beside the point and a distraction .


Wonderful to correct yourself on one meaningless point of the constant stream of misinformation you spread. I really believe we should applaud you for that.

Good job! You deserve a cake or something. What a good boy.

Seth Anthony

Lortho said, “Dennis Bremner does not speak for the majority of Lethbridge”.

If you’re referring to “taking a lead” (as you said), then of course not.

If you’re referring to his general point over the years, which is stopping the criminal addict and addressing the cause of such (childhood trauma), then I would suggest that most, if not all, Lethbridge citizens wholeheartedly agree. That general point, is what I, the author, and many others have posted about over the last few years.

Nothing legitimate is being done to stop these criminal addicts from harming themselves and others, and little seems to be accomplished in confronting the cause of the childhood trauma.

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony

people have every right to harm themselves. it is not the business of society/govt to protect people from their choices. honest education is essential, mind you. thus, a good society is able and willing to provide information, and help when a person so wishes. as for “criminals”, a good society is able and willing to protect one from the other; that is to say, the innocent from offenders.
taking drugs cannot be criminal because it is a choice that pertains to one’s body. however, we each have a duty to uphold the rights of another, and as such we must always be responsible for our behaviour. alcohol use may often, with some people, alter behaviour such that drunkenness leads to criminal behaviour, most typically manifested in violence. most drug choices, particularly natural/non-synthetic, do not foster violent and otherwise criminal behaviour.
however, with “drugs” being deemed illegal – an illegal law by govt/society that has only served to injure users, and society, more than not – the cost of numerous drugs are artificially hyper-inflated due to risk and monopoly. consequently, the price to procure drugs is ridiculously higher than drugs would cost were “drugs” legal, as they should be. the primary, if not not sole reason that there is theft and mugging crimes associated with some drug use choices is because of illegal and unjust drug laws. if drugs were legal, the prices would be affordable, just as are alcohol and coffee, and there would belittle to no theft and mugging needed to procure drugs.
of course, there will always be the conditioned, authoritarian personalities that well outnumber those that support freedom and open-mindedness; and, they will continue to judge to the extent that, because drugs are not for them, they cannot be for anyone. they will be quick to neg this entry, and they will continue to overlook what a costly failure – in terms of money and social health and safety – what a sham and a failure has been the illegal war on drugs. they will continue to spout the ignorance that cannabis is a gateway drug, even though if it were, about a third of society or more would be heroin addicts. they will also overlook the fact that, as is the case with alcohol, the vast majority use their recreational and medical drugs responsibly. that is one’s choice and one’s right. it is an affront to all that bogus and illegitimate drug laws create crime and criminals where there would neither, that so much public money and resource is wasted in an vain attempt to negate freedom and choice. all that massive money and resource would be far spent on a war on human trafficking. but that would likely piss off a lot of powerful abusers – ever have good look at some of the pics of the people surrounding epstein? – and would line corrupt pockets as has the war on drugs.

Seth Anthony

I considered not including the “harming themselves” part, due to personal freedom. However, if I didn’t include it, I likely would have got, “WELL WHAT ABOUT THE ADDICT!!!!!!! DON’T YOU CARE ABOUT THE ADDICT!!!!!!!!!”. “YOU HAVE NO EMPATHY!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony

too true. and, we do care about the addict. however, i feel the addict must come to desire to make change; it should not be forced. what we can do to care more is to not compound drug addiction issues with stupid laws that make life worse for the user and for society.


i further agree with your refrain that most addictions are borne of trauma.

Seth Anthony

For the type of addicts that are being discussed, then yes, childhood trauma is the main cause. More specifically, generational trauma. However, there is an important caveat to that. That is, trauma doesn’t just “magically jump” from one person to another, so what exactly are the parent(s) saying and/or doing, to pass on their emotional pain to the child, and why is that not being acknowledged?

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony