Years into a drug overdose crisis, Canada is facing backlash against government-sanctioned programs such as legal injection sites designed to keep users alive without curtailing drug use.
The British Columbia government has walked back a pilot project to decriminalize small quantities of illicit drugs in public places in the province. Police there also are prosecuting activists seeking to make safe drugs available.
And the man who may become Canada’s next prime minister, Conservative Pierre Poilievre, has said he wants to shut down some sites where users can legally consume illicit drugs under supervision, calling them “drug dens.”
The backlash reflects growing fears in Canada over the use of narcotics in public spaces, encampments where drug use is seen as common, and the specter of needles in playgrounds. Some critics of the so-called harm reduction programs see a rising number of overdose deaths in Canada as evidence that existing measures are not working.
But public health experts worry that dialing back the programs would endanger the health and lives of drug users, contributing to even more deaths.
Fuck I hate Poilievre. Fuck him do hard.
I happen to have 2 centers in my neighborhood and they help local residents. Shutting them down will result in people using drugs in parks where kids play. Is that better???
The problem, at least from the perspective of people in the communities, is they’re seeing people use drugs (and do all the things that people on drugs do, like theft, littering, leaving paraphenalia around, problematic behaviour, etc) anyway.
Source: personal experience. I live in a small Ontario city with a big drug problem. The SCS, while it helps with deaths due to drug use, doesn’t appear help with the problems around drug use, especially for people who aren’t addicts or people who care about addicts.
What they aren’t understanding, is that the drug problem, as experienced by people who aren’t addicts, doesn’t really change as a result of safe-use sites. It stays the same, or at least get worse immediately around the area. The problem advocates have is that they don’t (or won’t) understand that people–and this hurts to hear–don’t care if addicts die. They actually see that as a bonus: it means one less addict engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Governments really need to step up spending on the things that actually fix the problem of addiction from the perspective of people who are not addicts. This means large, comprehensive mental health facilties that are well-staffed. It means housing-first supports so they aren’t using in parks. It means giving drugs away to addicts for free, so that they don’t commit crimes. And–and this one hurts for advocates–it means involuntary incarceration for people who can’t or won’t benefit from the first three.
The problem, for governments, is that this is expensive, both monetarily and politically. It means spending a lot of money on people and buildings, which means taxes for the rich for things that benefit the poor. It means looking like jackbooted thugs when you arrest and detain people, which hurts their image among progressives, and it means giving addicts supports, housing and, honestly, free drugs, which pisses off conservatives. From the perspective of a politician, it’s all-pain-no-gain. Except, y’know, solving the problem.
What does happen is that we do the cheap and easy part: decriminalization without supports (for Liberals) and tough talk without action (for Conservatives). Neither really helps much, unless you’re rich, because the problems of drug addiction don’t affect the rich.
deleted by creator
Funny, because the majority of people at the shelters my partner works are addicts. They don’t necessarily arrive as addicts, but they usually leave that way. Maybe things are different here.
deleted by creator
The worst part is, the money is there. It’s just in the hands of the top 1% and large corporations. If we taxed that group properly, we could actually finance a lot of these programs.
We could probably finance them now and it would probably be cheaper than the current emergency services, clean up, and courts costs.
Yes, won’t someone please think of the suffering people who have to be aware of addicts. It sucks that we have to pander to uneducated masses with a maimed sense of empathy to get healthcare when you belong to an unpopular class of people.
That’s what politicians should be doing, and it’s certainly what advocates need to do, instead of tone-policing people who could be allies.
I’ve spent too much time around people who are addicts who got uppity about potential allies who referred to “safe injection sites” instead of “safe-use” or "safe-consumption. Like, that doesn’t help your cause, all it does is push people away. I had one particularly smarmy person say she didn’t care about how much the local SCS was helping the community because it wasn’t for the community.
Like, how is that attitude in any way helpful?
Getting support for programs means building consensus, and all the progress that’s been made is at risk of retrenching because we’re failing to address the concerns of people in the community who aren’t addicts, but at affected by the fallout from addiction. We’re seeing this now as programs get cancelled because, frankly, we’re not doing the hard and expensive part that’s needed to support everyone.
The other post above puts it really succinctly: when you’ve lost the support of other homeless people, you have a serious problem.
I mean you don’t sound like an ally.
No, you don’t get it, if we stop considering them, they don’t exist. /s