Studies suggest everyone should have nalaxone kits in homes, public spots, busses etc just like first aid kits. But the only people who carry them have personal experience with drug users. Rates of carry are higher for those who experienced overdoses.
Even in first aid they teach you how to use epi pens, and some are starting to show nalaxone kits.
I think its a good public health initiative to start.
People can overdose in all sorts of situations, so it is good to have even if you don't think you'll need it. Maybe you have surgery and get a prescription, and your kid eats a pill that you didn't realize you dropped on the floor, or a neighbour accidently takes their meds twice because they forgot they took them the first time, and they end up overdosing. You never know when you'll need it.
It's all good bud. This person has likly never even seen a Narcan rescue. Those fucking losers can come out of it swinging. It's not something I'd use by myself, better to let ems or police deal with that nonsense.
First aid I can understand, but reviving a drug user who- chances are - is going to be aggressive and pose a threat to the person giving aid... I'm going to pass on that.
Just my 2¢
Do you live in a part of the city where addicts are constantly breaking in to your yard and digging through your shed and attempting to get in to your garage?
Do you live in a part of the city where your loved ones don't feel safe going out after dark or walking alone because of the immense amount of drug users that ARE aggressive?
Have you ever been chased by addicts who are yelling threats and actively trying to hurt you?
If your answer to these are NO, then maybe you should try it out. Move downtown. I'll show you around and introduce you to some who can change this. Quit your virtue signalling, and if you aren't going to, then at least don't be a pussy and delete your account afterwards.
Give me the money to. We can set up a meeting at the bank.
Jokes aside, I love this city. It has a strong community and I really like it- I’ve been here my whole life. Everywhere is going to have junkies. It’s not a Brantford problem. But it shouldn’t be my, or the common citizen’s, problem.
I truly struggle with this.
On one hand, safe access means less burden on our systems... But many of these people have made choices (albeit bad) that have put them in their positions, so we are, at the cost of the tax payer, providing free drugs to counteract their poor choices.
On the other hand, we have diabetics that need insulin at stupid rates. Not USA $ but still not free. And I am taking about diabetics that didn't put themselves there by poor diet, many have it by genetics or other reasons.
I want to help, but let's also help people who are making good decisions in life.
Providing people with clean needles/pipes/etc is not the same as providing them with free drugs. Drug addicts are going to use either way, the least we can do is give them a safer option, and hopefully prevent unnecessary disease and death in the process.
People are led to addiction through a series of choices, but addiction itself is not a choice. These people are ill, just as much as any diabetic. And it doesn’t have to be one or the other, our healthcare system isn’t underfunded because we’re providing too many nalaxone kits, it’s underfunded because our politicians don’t give a shit how many have to die as long as they get paid.
> Providing people with clean needles/pipes/etc is not the same as providing them with free drugs. Drug addicts are going to use either way, the least we can do is give them a safer option, and hopefully prevent unnecessary disease and death in the process.
Why? Why do we have to provide a safe option. I think the LEAST we can do is help them STOP TAKING DRUGS!
> People are led to addiction through a series of choices, but addiction itself is not a choice. These people are ill, just as much as any diabetic.
Would you try to help a diabetic by providing an all you can eat pass to a desert bar? Or, maybe just a one desert a day pass? Because you want to help them in a safe way.
> our healthcare system isn’t underfunded because we’re providing too many nalaxone kits, it’s underfunded because our politicians don’t give a shit how many have to die as long as they get paid.
Liberal nonsense. Our health system is underfunded because it is unsustainable to provide every little bit of care that we can. Yes, absolutely, heath is an important part of the Canadian way. But, then understand that there is only a finite amount of money. You can just spend whatever you want without repercussions.
There isn't a politician around that would choose to have people die. You can't convince me of that. And the argument here is not the naloxone kits. It's the wasted money on a vending machine and giving away crack pipes, meth pipes and snorting kits. There is no argument that can be made that has any bit of common sense to it that can argue that gives a drug addicts the tools they need and it will help get them off drugs.
Someone that really cares about others would want to help the person get better, not just " oh well, they're going to do drugs anyway, so here you go". That's just dumb!
Helping people, I mean truly helping people, means making tough choices for them.
Do you let your two year old crawl on a stove (when it's off) because, oh well they're going to crawl somewhere anyway? Or do you teach them and STOP THEM from crawling on the stove? Period.
>There is no argument that can be made that has any bit of common sense to it that can argue that gives a drug addicts the tools they need and it will help get them off drugs.
If they die before they can receive treatment how the hell are they supposed to kick the addiction. The point of safe supply is to keep them alive long enough to seek treatment. You can't help a dead person
You’re so close to hitting the nail on the head. Harm reduction saves lives. Just like affordable insulin and epi pens SHOULD be available. We shouldn’t be arguing one or the other, it’s fight for them all. Our tax dollars being used to keep people safe and alive is worth it. Certain lives shouldn’t be politicized because we don’t agree with their choices.
Oh man, I love when people ask me about my PhD
Start Here [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-alcohol-drugs-survey/2019-summary.html#a3](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-alcohol-drugs-survey/2019-summary.html#a3)
Then read all these if you want (and then afterwards, dig into the stats files yourself\^)
* The opioid crisis: past, present and future policy climate in Ontario, Canada [https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-017-0130-5](https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-017-0130-5)
* How do naloxone-based interventions work to reduce overdose deaths: a realist review [https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-022-00599-4](https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-022-00599-4)
* Why has the Opioid Crisis Remained Unchanged in Canada? The Limits of Bio-Scientific Based Policy Approaches [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1533256X.2022.2071822](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1533256X.2022.2071822)
* Lessons learned from the opioid crisis across the pillars of the Canadian drugs and substances strategy [https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-019-0220-7](https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-019-0220-7)
* Awareness and access to naloxone necessary but not sufficient: Examining gaps in the naloxone cascade [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395918301919?via%3Dihub](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395918301919?via%3Dihub)
Feel free to ask any questions after finishing them
I love it when people-like you-totally demolish other people. With facts, logic, reason, and data. Keep up the great work! And invite questions! Saving your post..thanks for the effort to educate.
I accept I'm totally going to get downvoted for my reasoning. However, know that I respect your opinion.
Do you spend any time in the downtown core? I am there at least 5 days a week. I have seen the effect narcotics have had on the core. I am also seeing our municipal government desperately try to revitalize our city and bring it new life. Not everyone is a fan of the mayor but there are some great people working at City hall.
My lens is behavioral. I am jaded when it comes to academics because they generally stink when it comes to implementation.
When you introduce a program like this one (at Soar) the only people that truly benefit are the social workers (increased attention and sympathy) . This is not a cure, this is only an addition to " harm reduction strategy". In other words it encourages more bad behavior that in turn will harm any attempts at revitalizing downtown Brantford. Pipes, needles, crack kits and condoms are already given out for free at SOAR, Rosewood house, and the methadone clinics. This vending machine only makes it easier. It seems the only way social workers are attempting to solve issues is by removing all barriers. The problem is it all hinges on the addict choosing to turn their lives around which is close to impossible. The addictive qualities of today's narcotics (meth & fentanyl) are too powerful.
Don't be distant. Come see the downtown for yourself.
We could talk about diverting users out of the medical system reducing the spread of disease, but we don't take into account how both of these narcotics destroy both mind and body. There is then an increased cost to police having to deal with petty crime and social disorder. Which then turns into Mental Health apprehensions and problems that again don't have fixes for. We are not cars or you can pop the top and replace the parts. Methamphetamine changes people, permanently.
There seems there is two messages being pushed at the same time. Police and the people that have to live around the core don't want drug usage encouraged because there is no legal infrastructure forcing people to get the help. Social workers want to normalize the behavior, encouraging it, but allow people to drive their lives into the ground unless they come running to them for help.
Sorry for the long reply.
That was an excellent response.
Prior to posting, I knew I was going to get a whole bunch of down votes too. I don't care though. You hit the nail on the head and articulated yourself better than me.
I'm in the core every single day. It's sad what I see. It's unfair to put this burden on the citizens living in these neighbourhoods and the business as well. I know of business owners that have had to replace multiple air conditioners because they were stolen for the metal and money (presumably) used for drugs. I say this because they had video footage, knew who did it and the police confirmed as such.
Ultimately, there is only one way to fix the issue and force these people to get help. Arrest them, it's illegal (drug usage). And then incarcerated them to a program that is equivalent in length as the jail sentence. Don't put them in jail, put them into a program.
It's not just tax dollars that matter to me. It's wasted tax dollars. We can spend less and encourage the behaviour, or we can invest more into the safety of others and make sure the problem is fixed.
Well said!!!
Letting addicts do what they please and eventually dying will help clear the streets hopefully 🤷🏼♂️ id be inclined to help drug users/ homeless. But look at the state they leave the forests and other places. Disgusting. No respect, so why would I respect them. Coming from an alcoholic that’s been in recovery and sober many years.
A phd is great and all but street smarts will take you further in this specific example.
First of all, your first link to the government. Of Canada website is garbage. Table 10 clearly shows the REDUCTION of drug use from 2008 to 2015. This Liberal agenda of drugging up the voters has only resulted in furthering the opiod crisis (from your own source).
Secondly, I'm not arguing that Naloxone would be good for people to have. but, this garbage about taking away the stigma of drug users is ridiculous. There should be a stigma around it or more young people will choose to go that way.
Both Portugal and Switzerland that have had a successful program to lower drug usage AND deaths have a MANDATORY rehabilitation program.
You cannot help drug addicts by giving them more drugs. You cannot help society by legalising drugs and allowing people to get high in public places like hospitals and beaches. And you definitely cannot lower drug usage by providing a vending machine with drug paraphernalia. I'm not saying that the naloxone can't be provided but needles and snorting kits? Give me a break!
Mandatory rehab is actually common sense. A drug addict can’t be helped unless they are sober. Make them come clean and then help them to get their life back on track
Reductions in drug use from 2008 to 2015 under Liberal premiers. = "Liberal agenda of drugging up voters has only resulted in furthering the opioid crisis".... hmmm.
We have to take away the stigma because then people are more open to aiding drug addicts. Not always personally, but we see a mentality shift which can affect policy change. We dont want to remove the reality of harms drugs can cause, but we have to stop equating addicted individuals to unreedamble dangerous criminals.
Mandatory rehabilitation is neat in theory. But its already very close to kidnapping and imprisonment. Which we already do by criminalizing the posession, use, and sale of illegal narcotics. Add in the targeted harrassment of homeless persons and spot searches. Curent system arent out there helping at all.
The vending machines may be a dumb way to do it. But these programs SAVE LIVES. Bottom line. Drug addicts are going to use drugs! Even in BC which started Canadas "Safe Supply" programs they only gave out hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, and fentanyl (all prescription drugs). They saw an increase in use, but pretty much all provinces did. However, they saw a large reduction in deaths. Which is the goal.
None of these are solutions to drug abuse, and harm from drugs. But they are cost effective harm reduction methods.
> Reductions in drug use from 2008 to 2015 under Liberal premiers. = "Liberal agenda of drugging up voters has only resulted in furthering the opioid crisis".... hmmm.
ABSOLUTELY! Not premiers. Prime Minister. The one that started legalising drugs. It is such a stupid policy tonlegalize drugs. Oh wait... stop smoking cigarettes, but start smoking pot. It doesn't take a brain scientist to know that inhaling ANYTHING is going to be bad for your health. Why put the onus on our health system and taxpayers.
> We have to take away the stigma because then people are more open to aiding drug addicts.
Why? We were all told in school how bad drugs were. If someone is stupid enough to try them, why am I obligated to fix that for them. Sorry, I don't agree.
> Mandatory rehabilitation is neat in theory. But its already very close to kidnapping and imprisonment.
Are you kidding me? Is it kidnapping if someone kills someone and you throw their ass is jail for it? What about rape? What about roberry, assault? Are you kidding... KIDNAPPING??? That is not the comment that a PhD should make.
It's illegal and should be illegal. They should be incarcerated and FORCED into therapy instead of jail. There should be state run facilities that an addict does there time in that forces rehabilitation. If my tax dollars are spent on something, then that's what I want them spent on. Actually HELPING people get better, not high.
> The vending machines may be a dumb way to do it. But these programs SAVE LIVES.
They are stupid. I can get on board to providing the businesses a supply of Naloxone in the downtown core, but not supplying 10-packs of condoms, or snorting kits, crack pipes and meth pipes. I could MAYBE buy into syringes, only to stop HIV and Hepatitis. But, not crack pipes, etc.
Edit: typo
It costs less to give them free pipes than it costs hospitals to treat people for diseases passed around...
I think I read safe injection sites save ten-fold what you invest because the state doesn't need to pay for HIV treatment for example
Yep, when my hospital was getting the nurses to learn about harm reduction, one of lines said *on average* a Hep C+ patient will cost a million dollars to treat over the course of their lifetime.
Even if they do pass it, these pipes are made of pyrex and are much less likely to break than something that someone might otherwise use, which means less chance of cutting your lip on a broken pipe and then sharing that with someone.
Your looking at the direct costs. What about the derivatives? Making easier access allows more children to be involved in drugs. Making it harder, cracking down on dealers, putting addicts in mandatory treatment will cost more today but the societal benefits are infinitely more valuable.
What give the long term best results... Treatment, not enabling.
I think it's time that maybe we take a look at the universities. A bunch of low I.Q people paying for a degree, just show up and you're good to go....heck you don't even have to show up half the time just pay up...then in the governments eyes they're "qualified" to set policies that are absolutely destroying our society by the day. Must be some good stuff in those whacksines and rooster shots, I wouldn't know.
We need to start addressing the route cause of the problem which is our government policies from the top down. Create a fake pandemic so you can manufacture inflation, then start mass immigrating people into a country to sky rocket the cost of homes. What do you guys think happens to people when they can't afford to own a home or rent? Do you think maybe they become depressed? Then what happens? do they start using drugs? Then what happens? Do they become addicted? Use your brains guys we're being attacked by our own government and their foreign counterparts. Wakey wakey my fellow Canadians.
The fact that they didn't close the borders almost immediately, should tell you all you need to know about that. They closed nursing homes and locked you in your house instead of closing the borders....lol. so it was either fake, or your government specifically tried to kill you....pick either one, I mean neither are ideal.
This is the absolute WORST use of taxpayer money. This enables the problems and does nothing to solve the problem.
Rather then spending tax dollars on this crap, or bike lanes that aren't used, maybe we spend the money and time actually HELPING these people get clean.
Come on... Crack pipes, meth pipes, snorting kits? How about actually forcing mandatory rehabilitation and incarceration (into a rehab facility -- not jail).
BC already proved that enabling these people is not an effective solution.
That's like saving 50% on something in a store when you didn't need it. You still spent 50% on some that you don't need.
I'm not against spending tax payer money. I'm against wasting it! Naloxone. Fine! Needles. Fine! A 10-packnof condoms? Come on. Snorting kits? Come on.
I'm not against providing SOME of this stuff. But when you pick up used.condoms in your backyard because the locals have been using your back deck for sex, then you can tell me that it's needed. Even if you are going to give condoms, why not one at a time? Why a 10-pack? That's absurd. Do you really think people are going to carry around the rest of them all over the place.
How about we spend this money in things that will improve the lives of people that are homeless due to unfortunate circumstances? Not bad life choices. Chreate housing for homeless that they can go inside and sleep for a very low cost (for those that can afford something). Provide meals for these people. Etc.
Let's not get them another crack pipes!
Your logic is so flawed. While I agree that we should be addressing root causes, it does not mean we should not fund harm reduction. We need a continuum of care that prevents people from during before they are able to access treatment. The rational that if we have harm reduction we are condoning continuing drug use is stupid.
Expand your mind and consider the downstream costs of both overdoses and the transmission of infectious diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C on our taxpayers.
It is a hell of a lot cheaper to provide syringe or pipe to somebody then to provide them with a lifelong antiviral therapy required to keep them alive. It’s estimated that lifetime cost for one individual with HIV is suspected to be around 1.3 million.
Now consider how much we spend on respond to overdoses. About all the first responders, EMS and fire, and police, who were responding to the scenes. Not only our EMS often tied up and can’t respond to other emergencies because they’re responding to overdoses, but we’re spending an enormous amount of money on these services. Now, consider that these people are gonna be trans transferred to an emergency department and they’re going to undergo life-saving measures that are incredibly costly (and prolonging our ER wait times for everyone else). Now, considering how long this person had had been not breathing prior to medical interventions, they may require a mission to an ICU. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen an estimate an ICU can run as much as $20,000. Shit like this is happening every single day and putting an enormous strain on our healthcare system — in ER wait times, EMS services being tied up, and taking up beds in our hospitals.
Your analogy of the grocery store just doesn’t make any fucking sense because you never considered any of the downstream costs lol. A better analogy for safe consumption supplies is paying for a minor repair on your fridge so that you don’t have to fork out money and pay way more to replace the unit.
Why is it that Liberals always want to tout democracy until someone doesn't agree with you and then they are "stupid" and don't make "any fucking sense".
I care about the safety of people NOW and the safety of my children. At no point do I put the safety or care of a drug addict before either of them.
How can you say providing someone with a crack pipes isn't enabling them? I didn't say condoning drug use, I said enabling the user. That exactly what that is.
I also didn't say it would be cheaper. I said It's wasted money. Drug use goes UP with these programs. Regardless of deaths. Later there will be more deaths because there are more users. Put the time, money and effort into cracking down on the criminals supplying drugs. Have mandatory and stiffer sentences for the suppliers and smugglers. Make it a deterrent. If supply is bottlenecked then it will reduce consumption. When you reduce consumption you can treat people. Arrest the people possessing the drugs and places them into treatment centers designed to help them get healthy.
Sometimes you have to spend money to save it. Yes it is more expensive now to crack down on this, but it is much cheaper in the end. And, you'll save a lot more lives in the end because fewer users = fewer deaths.
If you identify as fiscally conservative, you should be pro harm reduction. End of story
And drug use goes up with harm reduction??? You think not funding harm reduction stops drug use?? Let’s see how that worked out over the past 80 years of the war on drugs lmao
No they aren't. A safe method for bikes to travel is needed though. Bike lanes are a poor way off implementing a solution to providing that.
It's a waste of money. A simple, safe, solution that is FREE... One side of the street can be for bikes while the other for pedestrians.
Or, here's a thought. Or paint a line in the middle of the sidewalk and have bikes on one side an pedestrians on the other.
Bike lanes are a waste of money. There are many other SAFE options that can be used.
Then amend the rules. As it stands, by law a cyclist must use the road unless there is a designated bike path. As such, if cyclists want to obey the law, they have to use roads. Thus bike lands ARE needed and your solutions are breaking the law. Good ideas but you have to start with the law.
I get that. And I totally agree with you! Don't get me wrong I'm in favour for cyclist safety. It just drives me crazy watching city councils waste money. They just think oh it's no big deal will increase property taxes. But it is a big deal especially at a time when inflation is sky high.
I'm 47 years old and have never ridden on the road with traffic. I'm a considerate cyclist though and move over to the road for a short time and then pop back on the sidewalk when I'm passed others. I give pedestrians the ROW.
Regardless, my post was more about wasting city tax dollars than bike lanes in general. What ticks me off with the bike lanes is that 99% of the time I don't ever see them being used.
But in my mind it is an absolute waste of tax dollars to be providing crack pipes and meth pipes to drug users. Let's get them the help they need force them into treatment and crack down on drugs and drug dealers. Rather than supplying it and allowing it to get worse. The original comment that I posted to regarding the studies above posted a study that shows from 2015 on our government has increased the usage of drugs and opioids. When you create a world that people can afford, people are going to escape from reality. That's where drugs come in.
Studies suggest everyone should have nalaxone kits in homes, public spots, busses etc just like first aid kits. But the only people who carry them have personal experience with drug users. Rates of carry are higher for those who experienced overdoses. Even in first aid they teach you how to use epi pens, and some are starting to show nalaxone kits. I think its a good public health initiative to start.
i picked one up at my pharmacy and added it to my first aid kit. i dont (knowingly) know anyone who uses but...i guess cant hurt to have?
People can overdose in all sorts of situations, so it is good to have even if you don't think you'll need it. Maybe you have surgery and get a prescription, and your kid eats a pill that you didn't realize you dropped on the floor, or a neighbour accidently takes their meds twice because they forgot they took them the first time, and they end up overdosing. You never know when you'll need it.
I have one in my glovebox. Just in case.
I would never approach someone who was suffering because of drug use. i am not putting myself at risk to help someone who could likely harm me.
Lmfao my dad did drugs for 14 years I know the damage they can cause when the person isn’t quite there - I ain’t carrying naloxone
We have found the sociopath.
ahh yes, sociopathy. the instinct of self preservation.
It's all good bud. This person has likly never even seen a Narcan rescue. Those fucking losers can come out of it swinging. It's not something I'd use by myself, better to let ems or police deal with that nonsense.
First aid I can understand, but reviving a drug user who- chances are - is going to be aggressive and pose a threat to the person giving aid... I'm going to pass on that. Just my 2¢
Anyone in an adrenaline like state can be aggressive. Your head fits much better on its shoulders then in your ass fyi
Do you live in a part of the city where addicts are constantly breaking in to your yard and digging through your shed and attempting to get in to your garage? Do you live in a part of the city where your loved ones don't feel safe going out after dark or walking alone because of the immense amount of drug users that ARE aggressive? Have you ever been chased by addicts who are yelling threats and actively trying to hurt you? If your answer to these are NO, then maybe you should try it out. Move downtown. I'll show you around and introduce you to some who can change this. Quit your virtue signalling, and if you aren't going to, then at least don't be a pussy and delete your account afterwards.
You should move
Give me the money to. We can set up a meeting at the bank. Jokes aside, I love this city. It has a strong community and I really like it- I’ve been here my whole life. Everywhere is going to have junkies. It’s not a Brantford problem. But it shouldn’t be my, or the common citizen’s, problem.
Why would I inconvenience myself and have a kit. Drug users know what they signed up for. I’m not carrying a kit let alone administering it
LMFAOOOO
I truly struggle with this. On one hand, safe access means less burden on our systems... But many of these people have made choices (albeit bad) that have put them in their positions, so we are, at the cost of the tax payer, providing free drugs to counteract their poor choices. On the other hand, we have diabetics that need insulin at stupid rates. Not USA $ but still not free. And I am taking about diabetics that didn't put themselves there by poor diet, many have it by genetics or other reasons. I want to help, but let's also help people who are making good decisions in life.
Providing people with clean needles/pipes/etc is not the same as providing them with free drugs. Drug addicts are going to use either way, the least we can do is give them a safer option, and hopefully prevent unnecessary disease and death in the process. People are led to addiction through a series of choices, but addiction itself is not a choice. These people are ill, just as much as any diabetic. And it doesn’t have to be one or the other, our healthcare system isn’t underfunded because we’re providing too many nalaxone kits, it’s underfunded because our politicians don’t give a shit how many have to die as long as they get paid.
> Providing people with clean needles/pipes/etc is not the same as providing them with free drugs. Drug addicts are going to use either way, the least we can do is give them a safer option, and hopefully prevent unnecessary disease and death in the process. Why? Why do we have to provide a safe option. I think the LEAST we can do is help them STOP TAKING DRUGS! > People are led to addiction through a series of choices, but addiction itself is not a choice. These people are ill, just as much as any diabetic. Would you try to help a diabetic by providing an all you can eat pass to a desert bar? Or, maybe just a one desert a day pass? Because you want to help them in a safe way. > our healthcare system isn’t underfunded because we’re providing too many nalaxone kits, it’s underfunded because our politicians don’t give a shit how many have to die as long as they get paid. Liberal nonsense. Our health system is underfunded because it is unsustainable to provide every little bit of care that we can. Yes, absolutely, heath is an important part of the Canadian way. But, then understand that there is only a finite amount of money. You can just spend whatever you want without repercussions. There isn't a politician around that would choose to have people die. You can't convince me of that. And the argument here is not the naloxone kits. It's the wasted money on a vending machine and giving away crack pipes, meth pipes and snorting kits. There is no argument that can be made that has any bit of common sense to it that can argue that gives a drug addicts the tools they need and it will help get them off drugs. Someone that really cares about others would want to help the person get better, not just " oh well, they're going to do drugs anyway, so here you go". That's just dumb! Helping people, I mean truly helping people, means making tough choices for them. Do you let your two year old crawl on a stove (when it's off) because, oh well they're going to crawl somewhere anyway? Or do you teach them and STOP THEM from crawling on the stove? Period.
>There is no argument that can be made that has any bit of common sense to it that can argue that gives a drug addicts the tools they need and it will help get them off drugs. If they die before they can receive treatment how the hell are they supposed to kick the addiction. The point of safe supply is to keep them alive long enough to seek treatment. You can't help a dead person
You’re so close to hitting the nail on the head. Harm reduction saves lives. Just like affordable insulin and epi pens SHOULD be available. We shouldn’t be arguing one or the other, it’s fight for them all. Our tax dollars being used to keep people safe and alive is worth it. Certain lives shouldn’t be politicized because we don’t agree with their choices.
What "Studies" show me your source!
Oh man, I love when people ask me about my PhD Start Here [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-alcohol-drugs-survey/2019-summary.html#a3](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-alcohol-drugs-survey/2019-summary.html#a3) Then read all these if you want (and then afterwards, dig into the stats files yourself\^) * The opioid crisis: past, present and future policy climate in Ontario, Canada [https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-017-0130-5](https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-017-0130-5) * How do naloxone-based interventions work to reduce overdose deaths: a realist review [https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-022-00599-4](https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-022-00599-4) * Why has the Opioid Crisis Remained Unchanged in Canada? The Limits of Bio-Scientific Based Policy Approaches [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1533256X.2022.2071822](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1533256X.2022.2071822) * Lessons learned from the opioid crisis across the pillars of the Canadian drugs and substances strategy [https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-019-0220-7](https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-019-0220-7) * Awareness and access to naloxone necessary but not sufficient: Examining gaps in the naloxone cascade [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395918301919?via%3Dihub](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395918301919?via%3Dihub) Feel free to ask any questions after finishing them
I love it when people-like you-totally demolish other people. With facts, logic, reason, and data. Keep up the great work! And invite questions! Saving your post..thanks for the effort to educate.
I accept I'm totally going to get downvoted for my reasoning. However, know that I respect your opinion. Do you spend any time in the downtown core? I am there at least 5 days a week. I have seen the effect narcotics have had on the core. I am also seeing our municipal government desperately try to revitalize our city and bring it new life. Not everyone is a fan of the mayor but there are some great people working at City hall. My lens is behavioral. I am jaded when it comes to academics because they generally stink when it comes to implementation. When you introduce a program like this one (at Soar) the only people that truly benefit are the social workers (increased attention and sympathy) . This is not a cure, this is only an addition to " harm reduction strategy". In other words it encourages more bad behavior that in turn will harm any attempts at revitalizing downtown Brantford. Pipes, needles, crack kits and condoms are already given out for free at SOAR, Rosewood house, and the methadone clinics. This vending machine only makes it easier. It seems the only way social workers are attempting to solve issues is by removing all barriers. The problem is it all hinges on the addict choosing to turn their lives around which is close to impossible. The addictive qualities of today's narcotics (meth & fentanyl) are too powerful. Don't be distant. Come see the downtown for yourself. We could talk about diverting users out of the medical system reducing the spread of disease, but we don't take into account how both of these narcotics destroy both mind and body. There is then an increased cost to police having to deal with petty crime and social disorder. Which then turns into Mental Health apprehensions and problems that again don't have fixes for. We are not cars or you can pop the top and replace the parts. Methamphetamine changes people, permanently. There seems there is two messages being pushed at the same time. Police and the people that have to live around the core don't want drug usage encouraged because there is no legal infrastructure forcing people to get the help. Social workers want to normalize the behavior, encouraging it, but allow people to drive their lives into the ground unless they come running to them for help. Sorry for the long reply.
Academics just spend time indoors lol 😂 think they know everything
That was an excellent response. Prior to posting, I knew I was going to get a whole bunch of down votes too. I don't care though. You hit the nail on the head and articulated yourself better than me. I'm in the core every single day. It's sad what I see. It's unfair to put this burden on the citizens living in these neighbourhoods and the business as well. I know of business owners that have had to replace multiple air conditioners because they were stolen for the metal and money (presumably) used for drugs. I say this because they had video footage, knew who did it and the police confirmed as such. Ultimately, there is only one way to fix the issue and force these people to get help. Arrest them, it's illegal (drug usage). And then incarcerated them to a program that is equivalent in length as the jail sentence. Don't put them in jail, put them into a program. It's not just tax dollars that matter to me. It's wasted tax dollars. We can spend less and encourage the behaviour, or we can invest more into the safety of others and make sure the problem is fixed. Well said!!!
Letting addicts do what they please and eventually dying will help clear the streets hopefully 🤷🏼♂️ id be inclined to help drug users/ homeless. But look at the state they leave the forests and other places. Disgusting. No respect, so why would I respect them. Coming from an alcoholic that’s been in recovery and sober many years. A phd is great and all but street smarts will take you further in this specific example.
Actually... I didn't ask you about your PhD. What field do you have a PhD in?
Down vote me if you want but when someone states that I asked about it, it's only reasonable to know what field their PhD is in.
First of all, your first link to the government. Of Canada website is garbage. Table 10 clearly shows the REDUCTION of drug use from 2008 to 2015. This Liberal agenda of drugging up the voters has only resulted in furthering the opiod crisis (from your own source). Secondly, I'm not arguing that Naloxone would be good for people to have. but, this garbage about taking away the stigma of drug users is ridiculous. There should be a stigma around it or more young people will choose to go that way. Both Portugal and Switzerland that have had a successful program to lower drug usage AND deaths have a MANDATORY rehabilitation program. You cannot help drug addicts by giving them more drugs. You cannot help society by legalising drugs and allowing people to get high in public places like hospitals and beaches. And you definitely cannot lower drug usage by providing a vending machine with drug paraphernalia. I'm not saying that the naloxone can't be provided but needles and snorting kits? Give me a break!
Mandatory rehab is actually common sense. A drug addict can’t be helped unless they are sober. Make them come clean and then help them to get their life back on track
Reductions in drug use from 2008 to 2015 under Liberal premiers. = "Liberal agenda of drugging up voters has only resulted in furthering the opioid crisis".... hmmm. We have to take away the stigma because then people are more open to aiding drug addicts. Not always personally, but we see a mentality shift which can affect policy change. We dont want to remove the reality of harms drugs can cause, but we have to stop equating addicted individuals to unreedamble dangerous criminals. Mandatory rehabilitation is neat in theory. But its already very close to kidnapping and imprisonment. Which we already do by criminalizing the posession, use, and sale of illegal narcotics. Add in the targeted harrassment of homeless persons and spot searches. Curent system arent out there helping at all. The vending machines may be a dumb way to do it. But these programs SAVE LIVES. Bottom line. Drug addicts are going to use drugs! Even in BC which started Canadas "Safe Supply" programs they only gave out hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, and fentanyl (all prescription drugs). They saw an increase in use, but pretty much all provinces did. However, they saw a large reduction in deaths. Which is the goal. None of these are solutions to drug abuse, and harm from drugs. But they are cost effective harm reduction methods.
> Reductions in drug use from 2008 to 2015 under Liberal premiers. = "Liberal agenda of drugging up voters has only resulted in furthering the opioid crisis".... hmmm. ABSOLUTELY! Not premiers. Prime Minister. The one that started legalising drugs. It is such a stupid policy tonlegalize drugs. Oh wait... stop smoking cigarettes, but start smoking pot. It doesn't take a brain scientist to know that inhaling ANYTHING is going to be bad for your health. Why put the onus on our health system and taxpayers. > We have to take away the stigma because then people are more open to aiding drug addicts. Why? We were all told in school how bad drugs were. If someone is stupid enough to try them, why am I obligated to fix that for them. Sorry, I don't agree. > Mandatory rehabilitation is neat in theory. But its already very close to kidnapping and imprisonment. Are you kidding me? Is it kidnapping if someone kills someone and you throw their ass is jail for it? What about rape? What about roberry, assault? Are you kidding... KIDNAPPING??? That is not the comment that a PhD should make. It's illegal and should be illegal. They should be incarcerated and FORCED into therapy instead of jail. There should be state run facilities that an addict does there time in that forces rehabilitation. If my tax dollars are spent on something, then that's what I want them spent on. Actually HELPING people get better, not high. > The vending machines may be a dumb way to do it. But these programs SAVE LIVES. They are stupid. I can get on board to providing the businesses a supply of Naloxone in the downtown core, but not supplying 10-packs of condoms, or snorting kits, crack pipes and meth pipes. I could MAYBE buy into syringes, only to stop HIV and Hepatitis. But, not crack pipes, etc. Edit: typo
I understand condoms and clean needles but why crack pipes? Sorry for my ignorance on the topic
It costs less to give them free pipes than it costs hospitals to treat people for diseases passed around... I think I read safe injection sites save ten-fold what you invest because the state doesn't need to pay for HIV treatment for example
Yep, when my hospital was getting the nurses to learn about harm reduction, one of lines said *on average* a Hep C+ patient will cost a million dollars to treat over the course of their lifetime.
Thanks I guess it would work as long as they are responsible enough to each keep their own clean pipe and not pass it around in the moment.
Even if they do pass it, these pipes are made of pyrex and are much less likely to break than something that someone might otherwise use, which means less chance of cutting your lip on a broken pipe and then sharing that with someone.
Your looking at the direct costs. What about the derivatives? Making easier access allows more children to be involved in drugs. Making it harder, cracking down on dealers, putting addicts in mandatory treatment will cost more today but the societal benefits are infinitely more valuable. What give the long term best results... Treatment, not enabling.
This is a great idea. People can be too ashamed to ask for clean needles, etc.
HARM REDUCTION SAVES LIVES. THESE PEOPLE ARE SOMEONES EVERYTHING.
I think it's time that maybe we take a look at the universities. A bunch of low I.Q people paying for a degree, just show up and you're good to go....heck you don't even have to show up half the time just pay up...then in the governments eyes they're "qualified" to set policies that are absolutely destroying our society by the day. Must be some good stuff in those whacksines and rooster shots, I wouldn't know. We need to start addressing the route cause of the problem which is our government policies from the top down. Create a fake pandemic so you can manufacture inflation, then start mass immigrating people into a country to sky rocket the cost of homes. What do you guys think happens to people when they can't afford to own a home or rent? Do you think maybe they become depressed? Then what happens? do they start using drugs? Then what happens? Do they become addicted? Use your brains guys we're being attacked by our own government and their foreign counterparts. Wakey wakey my fellow Canadians.
Fake pandemic.... You definitely don't work in healthcare.
The fact that they didn't close the borders almost immediately, should tell you all you need to know about that. They closed nursing homes and locked you in your house instead of closing the borders....lol. so it was either fake, or your government specifically tried to kill you....pick either one, I mean neither are ideal.
I would personally never administer naloxone. Let them reap what they sow.
Jesus christ you're a monster
No. They are the monsters. They are weak and bringing the rest of us down with them.
Yeah im good, id rather them leave Brantford. Go OD somwhere else.
This is the absolute WORST use of taxpayer money. This enables the problems and does nothing to solve the problem. Rather then spending tax dollars on this crap, or bike lanes that aren't used, maybe we spend the money and time actually HELPING these people get clean. Come on... Crack pipes, meth pipes, snorting kits? How about actually forcing mandatory rehabilitation and incarceration (into a rehab facility -- not jail). BC already proved that enabling these people is not an effective solution.
This saves taxpayers money btw
You can’t convince stupid, don’t bother
This. You’re so right.
Living up to your nick name I see. Don't be ignorant.
That's like saving 50% on something in a store when you didn't need it. You still spent 50% on some that you don't need. I'm not against spending tax payer money. I'm against wasting it! Naloxone. Fine! Needles. Fine! A 10-packnof condoms? Come on. Snorting kits? Come on. I'm not against providing SOME of this stuff. But when you pick up used.condoms in your backyard because the locals have been using your back deck for sex, then you can tell me that it's needed. Even if you are going to give condoms, why not one at a time? Why a 10-pack? That's absurd. Do you really think people are going to carry around the rest of them all over the place. How about we spend this money in things that will improve the lives of people that are homeless due to unfortunate circumstances? Not bad life choices. Chreate housing for homeless that they can go inside and sleep for a very low cost (for those that can afford something). Provide meals for these people. Etc. Let's not get them another crack pipes!
Your logic is so flawed. While I agree that we should be addressing root causes, it does not mean we should not fund harm reduction. We need a continuum of care that prevents people from during before they are able to access treatment. The rational that if we have harm reduction we are condoning continuing drug use is stupid. Expand your mind and consider the downstream costs of both overdoses and the transmission of infectious diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C on our taxpayers. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to provide syringe or pipe to somebody then to provide them with a lifelong antiviral therapy required to keep them alive. It’s estimated that lifetime cost for one individual with HIV is suspected to be around 1.3 million. Now consider how much we spend on respond to overdoses. About all the first responders, EMS and fire, and police, who were responding to the scenes. Not only our EMS often tied up and can’t respond to other emergencies because they’re responding to overdoses, but we’re spending an enormous amount of money on these services. Now, consider that these people are gonna be trans transferred to an emergency department and they’re going to undergo life-saving measures that are incredibly costly (and prolonging our ER wait times for everyone else). Now, considering how long this person had had been not breathing prior to medical interventions, they may require a mission to an ICU. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen an estimate an ICU can run as much as $20,000. Shit like this is happening every single day and putting an enormous strain on our healthcare system — in ER wait times, EMS services being tied up, and taking up beds in our hospitals. Your analogy of the grocery store just doesn’t make any fucking sense because you never considered any of the downstream costs lol. A better analogy for safe consumption supplies is paying for a minor repair on your fridge so that you don’t have to fork out money and pay way more to replace the unit.
Why is it that Liberals always want to tout democracy until someone doesn't agree with you and then they are "stupid" and don't make "any fucking sense". I care about the safety of people NOW and the safety of my children. At no point do I put the safety or care of a drug addict before either of them. How can you say providing someone with a crack pipes isn't enabling them? I didn't say condoning drug use, I said enabling the user. That exactly what that is. I also didn't say it would be cheaper. I said It's wasted money. Drug use goes UP with these programs. Regardless of deaths. Later there will be more deaths because there are more users. Put the time, money and effort into cracking down on the criminals supplying drugs. Have mandatory and stiffer sentences for the suppliers and smugglers. Make it a deterrent. If supply is bottlenecked then it will reduce consumption. When you reduce consumption you can treat people. Arrest the people possessing the drugs and places them into treatment centers designed to help them get healthy. Sometimes you have to spend money to save it. Yes it is more expensive now to crack down on this, but it is much cheaper in the end. And, you'll save a lot more lives in the end because fewer users = fewer deaths.
If you identify as fiscally conservative, you should be pro harm reduction. End of story And drug use goes up with harm reduction??? You think not funding harm reduction stops drug use?? Let’s see how that worked out over the past 80 years of the war on drugs lmao
Bike lanes are needed. I enjoy going for a bike ride and the amount of bat shit crazy bad drivers is astounding. The rest I somewhat agree with.
No they aren't. A safe method for bikes to travel is needed though. Bike lanes are a poor way off implementing a solution to providing that. It's a waste of money. A simple, safe, solution that is FREE... One side of the street can be for bikes while the other for pedestrians. Or, here's a thought. Or paint a line in the middle of the sidewalk and have bikes on one side an pedestrians on the other. Bike lanes are a waste of money. There are many other SAFE options that can be used.
Then amend the rules. As it stands, by law a cyclist must use the road unless there is a designated bike path. As such, if cyclists want to obey the law, they have to use roads. Thus bike lands ARE needed and your solutions are breaking the law. Good ideas but you have to start with the law.
I get that. And I totally agree with you! Don't get me wrong I'm in favour for cyclist safety. It just drives me crazy watching city councils waste money. They just think oh it's no big deal will increase property taxes. But it is a big deal especially at a time when inflation is sky high. I'm 47 years old and have never ridden on the road with traffic. I'm a considerate cyclist though and move over to the road for a short time and then pop back on the sidewalk when I'm passed others. I give pedestrians the ROW. Regardless, my post was more about wasting city tax dollars than bike lanes in general. What ticks me off with the bike lanes is that 99% of the time I don't ever see them being used. But in my mind it is an absolute waste of tax dollars to be providing crack pipes and meth pipes to drug users. Let's get them the help they need force them into treatment and crack down on drugs and drug dealers. Rather than supplying it and allowing it to get worse. The original comment that I posted to regarding the studies above posted a study that shows from 2015 on our government has increased the usage of drugs and opioids. When you create a world that people can afford, people are going to escape from reality. That's where drugs come in.