Addicts need better access to rehab, not a supervised drug site
By Lethbridge Herald on May 26, 2023.
Editor:
I have a close family member who is an addict and has been living on the streets or in his vehicle for the past two years.
I also have a daughter who has been fighting against addicts in her alley, and around her children because of businesses like now on 7th Avenue South that house many addicts and dealers alike. Her house is right down the alley.
Arches not only increased the level of addiction in the city, it created new addicts. There were people who would have never tried drugs had they not had a safe place to do it and within the first time or the very first few times, an addict was created. When addicts heard about Arches, they came from Calgary. Edmonton, Kelowna, Montana, Regina and even as far as Toronto; they moved to Lethbridge.
The crime in our city went out of control making us No. 1 for crime across Canada.
There were addicts I talked to who are frustrated with the competition for things to steal, like bicycles to dismantle, as there are so many more in the city that need crime to feed their habit!
What an addict needs is to be able to get into detox and rehab as soon as they are ready.
I have watched my family member and others I have now met agree to go to rehab but by the time a bed opens up they are no longer ready to go.
In the discussions I have had with these people, who are both on the streets, or still trying to work at this time, that the worst thing that ever happened and could happen for them, is a place like Arches.
Your dealer is right there, so getting access is no longer a problem. The amount that you use would also increase.
Another complaint came from those who have to steal to be able to supply their habit, is the competition that came in once Arches was established.
Most addicts I have talked to have stated that what they need is better access to rehab when they need it, with longer programs and better support at the tail end.
The UCP party is doing that. Throwing money at it to facilitate their drug use is absolutely the wrong approach.
Arches also tried to house other services in that building, and nobody wanted to go there to access those services because they were afraid of the addicts and the dealers that were hanging around outside!
Millions were thrown at a really bad idea. Now the NDP in B.C. are giving out free drugs, thinking that may somehow tackle drug addiction! Unbelievable!
Jill Skriver
Lethbridge
18-17
This is the flaw in “evidence based data”. It depends whom is presenting the evidence and where they get it. The interesting thing about evidence is the source in some cases. There is a highly respected individual who spent most of his adult life in the DTES Vancouver.
He wrote articles, a lot of articles. He was published, in fact he wrote 88 articles supporting specific approaches. Two years ago it was found he was financially invested in virtually every solution he recommended.
He quoted others who also found the same evidence, only to find they too were financially invested in their solutions.
There are numerous papers published on the benefits of an SCS. But no one bothers to tell you or others why there is evidence SCSs work. They work for one simple reason, you are babysitting an addict while he takes a dose of drugs. There is no mystical side of this. So SCSs pop up everywhere with those that rant about saving lives, running them. What is dismissed as a sidebar is SCSs are enablers always have been, after all they are spun off from Fix Rooms of the 60’s and 70’s
So they create a support for addiction by removing the only thing an addict fears less than rehab, which is death
I have said numerous times if you babysat an addict 24/7/365 there would be NO deaths, so lets get on with it! I could generate evidence in a nanosecond proving I am right, but at what point does Uof L peeps actually start working for a living?
Very clever Dennis, but for those of us who live in reality, it’s obvious that a 24/7/365 support worker for each addicted person isn’t financially possible. So instead we should try to get as much of the benefit as possible within a realistic budget – for example we could establish a site where they could consume their drugs, and then have a few people on site to supervise them! I wonder what we’d call something like that…
I will say, it’s refreshing that you’re finally being honest about your real beliefs – that addicts not yet ready for treatment and rehab should just die. It’s heartless and disgusting, but it’s honest, and that’s a start.
Quite amazing you were able to extract that message, especially because it was not there.
Having death as the deterrent is what keeps most addicts alive. When you relieve them of that concern, you get experimentation. After all, if I cannot die while in an SCS I might as well go big. The problem with that approach and it does not surprise me you support it, is that sometimes they forget to get to the SCS and consume a concoction that was drummed up for use within an SCS.
So they die. It is like your position on housing, you know that 70% of the addicts die behind closed doors and alone yet you rant on as a housing expert and want everyone to have one? So is it fair then to assume you believe that addicts should just die? If 7 out of every 10 addicts die in an SRO, why do you promo housing as the answer, don’t you want to see them live? Glad you finally came clean you heartless bast*d! See, two can play your silly game of words, right YB!
If it were true that experimentation led to increased deaths, drug related deaths would increase in the presence of supervised consumption sites, which as you admitted in your above post, they do not. Yes, people use stronger drugs when they have an SCS available, but the increase in risk from that is dwarfed by the decrease in risk that comes from supervision while using.
If death as a deterrent was what was keeping addicts alive, then the death rates would increase, not decrease.
Playing a “game of words” with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. It will take a dump on the board and strut about like the victor, but that doesn’t mean it won.
Humorous how all your arguments fall apart in light of the reduction in deaths associated with SCS operation. Do they lead to stronger drugs? Probably, but if so that effect is countered by the decrease in deaths from the SCS. Arguing against them doesn’t just require showing that they have caused a death at some point, it requires showing they cause more deaths than they prevent. And you can’t because they don’t. Which makes one think – perhaps saving the lives of addicts isn’t a thing you’re particularly concerned with. Death is the great motivator after all! That’s why when you take away death as a risk, more people end up dying… except oh wait, that’s not true.
You’re welcome to play a game of words, but much like a game of chess with a pigeon, after crapping on the board and knocking over the pieces, only the pigeon comes out thinking it won.
You are quite simply wrong dude
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-shellenberger-albertas-recovery-focused-approach-to-addiction-is-a-model-for-north-america
Actually I am not wrong, you just choose to not look at the data, or you look at data in isolation. The reality is, 7 out of 10 addicts die behind closed doors (SRO’s) So instead of championing the 7 you choose to look at the other 3. Of those 3 only 10% frequent an SCS. So based on that, yes, SCSs save .3 of a life while you ignore the other 9.7
If you then look at the damage an SCS can inflict on a city and the resultant drug wars etc, There are more than .3 deaths associated with the drug infrastructure that are not drug addicts. So kill the taxpayer to allow .3 lives saved in an SCS run by “nonprofits” who profit highly and destroy the city! You gotta be NDP
Data Source: https://healthanalytics.alberta.ca/SASVisualAnalytics/?reportUri=%2Freports%2Freports%2F1bbb695d-14b1-4346-b66e-d401a40f53e6§ionIndex=0&sso_guest=true&reportViewOnly=true&reportContextBar=false&sas-welcome=false
Then click on “Location of Opioid Deaths” (extreme right hand tab)
Free drugs from the NDP. Great reason to vote for them…. guess who pays for the drugs?
if legal, the drugs cost very little. think coffee, among the world’s very most expensive legal and recreational drugs to bring to market. and, yet, no one i have known, nor anyone have i heard of, steals to support their coffee habit. your resistance to this fact, and ditto the other fascist dinosaurs in this forum that demand forced rehab (can you get any more fascist than that?), suggests that the real issue here is one’s desire to control the life choices of others.
by supporting drug laws, which entirely go against the principle of freedom to choose for one’s body, you support the heavy hand of the state; further, you condemn people addicted to substances to pay far too dear a price for drugs; further, you condemn people to health issues and deaths due to lack of quality control; further, you condemn society at large to have to deal with excessive social costs (such as policing, ems/health system, judicial, penal) related to ridiculous, unnecessary, fascist, extremely costly and ineffective “enforcement.” free drugs for addicts, with quality control, and, ideally, real drugs such as opium and coca leaf, that are not synthesised, to replace “opioids” and methamphetamine.
creates a win-win, for real freedom, health and safety of users and society, far less expensive than the present approach….