Housing needed before there are any discussions about addictions treatment
By Lethbridge Herald on September 2, 2023.
Editor:
Regarding the homeless people in Lethbridge, let’s begin by acknowledging two simple facts:
First, anyone, at any time, for any reason, could become homeless. Second, according the U.S .National Health Care for the Homeless Council, “housing is health-care,” especially since for homeless people, “the outcomes are disastrous: homeless people suffer all illnesses at three to six times the rates experienced by others, have higher death rates, and have dramatically lower life expectancy.”
Does anyone really expect a homeless person who is sick (physically or mentally) or addicted to recover on their own without housing?
Of course, such a recovery is possible, but the misery endured during the long recovery on the streets is unacceptable.
According to the “addictions” story in The Herald, Mr. Middleton-Hope indicates that those homeless people with “organic brain damage” should not be housed. Would he say that people suffering from medical illnesses such as Alzheimer’s, or paranoid schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder, or a stroke, should not have safe housing?
I think not, but then why would he discriminate against homeless people?
We urgently need an all-hands-on-deck approach, requiring input and resources from all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, in order to provide housing for homeless people.
Housing first, and then we can talk about treatment, recovery and re-integration into society.
I’d like to hear what plans the City of Lethbridge has to provide this housing, and how soon.
David Siminovitch
Lethbridge
13-12
First it is interesting that you buy into the line that the homeless are addicts. This is not necessarily the case. Then you move to diseases of the human condition usually caused by some malfunction of the system and go to the guilt trip that addiction (which is self inflicted) is the same. Highly doubtful. It is simple, there is way too much money involved.
Identify the homeless who are not addicted and circumstances have placed them in that position. Arrange temporary housing where they can reside and re build their lives. Society will give them a hand up.
Those that are addicted go to a rehab clinic, where hopefully they understand and respect just what society is doing for them in their journey to become clean.
These suggestions have been made many times, there is no incentive to actually fix the issues other than throw more money at them. Why would I want to fix things, I would be out of a job!!!!!!! And from my perspective why should I be tasked with buying anyone a home who is going to reduce it to rubble in a couple of years.
“Regarding the homeless people in Lethbridge, let’s begin by acknowledging two simple facts:”
But wait, there’s more! Mr Siminovitch how about we acknowledge another fact before we proceed with your narrative that is entirely wrong?
Virtually every province in Canada has 75-80% of their addicted people die behind closed doors every month. So 75/80% are already living in an SRO *Single residency Occupant” (Apt or home). That means that less than 25% of the recorded deaths are homeless people. So giving Addict an SRO or home of their own actually triples their chance of death.
I thought we were trying to “save lives and kill livelihoods” in Lethbridge? Putting addicts in homes would violate both those purposes.
UNLESS
You put the addicted homeless in a Barrick like facility where they can watch over each other you are sentencing more of them to imminent death, just like Lethbridge Housing Authority and the “Eye Rollers of Lethbridge”(EROL) are proposing.
So Barricks FIRST, rehab Second, Housing Third!
Now I am sure the EROL are rolling their eyes over their breakfast this morning so I again suggest they go to Alberta Substance Use Surveillance System and click on Location to stop the eye roll before they do a 180. Then perhaps you might want to go to the BC Coroners Report and read their updates. Its all their no trickery involved.
So to solve the problem you do one of two things, remove the Dealer from the Addict, (Hasn’t worked for over 50 years) Or you try a new move which is remove the Addict from the Dealer. You move him/her (EROL Calls it Banish) from Lethbridge to a Barrick like Facility on the outskirts of town. You set up a bus system and you make the addicts life miserable by making it very very difficult for him/her to reach his/her dealer. When he/she does reach his/her dealer the LPS is right behind them as they get off the bus.
So David if you want to save Lethbridge and Standoff, and save more Homeless Addicts, look at this idea https://lethccc.com
Oh, by the way David, the last report on the numbers of homeless in Lethbridge reported 95% were addicted to a substance, whether alcohol or drugs. So by all means give housing to the other 5% which we could do before winter.
95% of your total drug addicts in any one month will remain drug addicts until they die. That means in any one month 5% will attempt rehab and 1% or less will succeed.
Yet, in any, one month the numbers of addicts that arrive on the streets of Lethbridge far exceeds the 1% or less success rate. Do the math David, If you come out with the same numbers as I predict then the answer is “were farked” if we park them around the city.
We can put shelters in the North of Lethbridge, the Center of Lethbridge, the West of Lethbridge, and the South and East of Lethbridge to satisfy the amazing new strategy that is apparently being suggested. What that does is allows the 95% to float between different shelters shifting his/her theft patterns to support their habit. It also gives the Dealer move movement so he/she is harder to catch.
We have a problem, and it better get fixed before these new strategies not only kill downtown but spread like a fungus to different districts of Lethbridge.
I say once more, NO section of Lethbridge should be burdened with a stupid nonprofit who profits, outdated idea and guides our Council into the same stupidity!
Housing an untreated addict, especially as a single resident occupant, (SRO) is a death sentence. Vancouver DTES statistics have proven it with their housing SRO . . . tangible proof!
The Lethbridge YWCA had SRO’s with a safe consumption site in the lower level and within weeks several fatal overdoses occurred, so even housing them with a SCS in the building didn’t help! Another ‘experiment’ that failed and killed several people!
Since this article is about housing addicts, not people that for some unfortunate circumstance they find themselves without a home you need to look at some other type of housing where someone can check on these people almost constantly.
Over 70% of fatal overdoses in BC and Alberta are where the person resides!
I completely disagree and would suggest you do some research, which will show you that it will only cause to fatally overdose faster!
They do die on safe consumption sites as well, no matter what they tell you!
Camps such as Alvin Mills camp he run at Standoff this year gets them off the streets, into an area where they are away from the drugs where they can detox. Housing them is the wrong thing to do.
Have you seen what happens in place they have been housed just within a month? Major property damage with garbage piled and in some cases floors used as toilets and as stated, fatal overdoses.
There needs to be a place far away from the streets, without drug dealers nearby and a communal type living, using prescibed suboxone, an induction agent to stabilize someone in withdrawal during the medical detoxification, and counselling as they transition into other programs for detox and treatment.
You need to get them off the streets away from dealers and the street life!
You are twisting Middleton-Hope’s words as well!
The city has been aggressively working for almost a year to come up with a housing plan, but housing is more of a federal and provincial responsibility, mostly federal, yet this federal government has ignored this.
I have been paying attention and seen the efforts of this city administration and they are going above and beyond . . . have you?
If your an addict you need to make it through a treatment program before you deserve free housing. Simple as that.
I Totally agree with you as well as all the above! Barracks FIRST, treatment second and sober housing.
For a province that is recovery based, I’m surprised that housing PRIOR to sobriety is even a consideration. In the rooms, this is what we call the cart before the horse. Meaning, the idea of getting everything first and sobriety second simply does not work!! And like Dennis says, SRO’s are Killers! The addict dies in isolation behind a closed door. Like the LHA rep said at SACPA, “It’s easy… you knock on the door (which usually they don’t answer) then smirked and said…”and leave the food on the floor”. I know of a non-profit where 5 plates of food were sitting on the floor, and still no one had investigated. Don’t let them fool you of their ‘compassionate good service’.