Isn’t there a huge difference between safe supply and safe consumption sites?
I agree with safe consumption sites if it keeps people from dying on the streets, but if the safe supply is allowed to leave the site it’s not really solving any of the problems.
You’re correct. Safe consumption sites are intermediary harm reduction and preventions.
Safe supply sites are policy driven, highly directed efforts that require an exemplary amount of planning and should be intended to be run for as short a time as possible.
They need to be managed by a collective of police/therapists/drs/councilors/volunteers and should be a direct effort to remove the economic power the street drugs hold.
They need to be supported by facilities and programs from small community driven “get clean” initiatives to full blown live in rehab. These things all need to happen with the proper weight and progression needed to both prove to the public the system is working AND give the most amount of choice possible to the victims of drugs.
With housing the way it is, there is going to be a lot of people new on the streets. These people will likely turn to drugs if things don’t start looking up to them. There have been studies for decades that say this is statistically the case.
The stigma is that the homeless and druggies are bad people and deserve what they get but the fact is most people in Canada are only a few paycheques from the same situation. Not all homeless are criminals. Not all people who do drugs are bad people. People have been pushed so hard though that even though they know the distinction, they don’t really care anymore.
Basically it requires much more thought and planning that any of the leaders in this country are capable of. For that they’d have to learn something instead of larping like most of our politicians like to do. Experts need to make this kinda thing happen but our politicians aren’t qualified enough to vet and hire the right ones. We’ll experts don’t work for free so I guess we’re just fucked
Isn’t there a huge difference between safe supply and safe consumption sites? I agree with safe consumption sites if it keeps people from dying on the streets, but if the safe supply is allowed to leave the site it’s not really solving any of the problems.
You’re correct. Safe consumption sites are intermediary harm reduction and preventions.
Safe supply sites are policy driven, highly directed efforts that require an exemplary amount of planning and should be intended to be run for as short a time as possible.
They need to be managed by a collective of police/therapists/drs/councilors/volunteers and should be a direct effort to remove the economic power the street drugs hold.
They need to be supported by facilities and programs from small community driven “get clean” initiatives to full blown live in rehab. These things all need to happen with the proper weight and progression needed to both prove to the public the system is working AND give the most amount of choice possible to the victims of drugs.
With housing the way it is, there is going to be a lot of people new on the streets. These people will likely turn to drugs if things don’t start looking up to them. There have been studies for decades that say this is statistically the case.
The stigma is that the homeless and druggies are bad people and deserve what they get but the fact is most people in Canada are only a few paycheques from the same situation. Not all homeless are criminals. Not all people who do drugs are bad people. People have been pushed so hard though that even though they know the distinction, they don’t really care anymore.
Basically it requires much more thought and planning that any of the leaders in this country are capable of. For that they’d have to learn something instead of larping like most of our politicians like to do. Experts need to make this kinda thing happen but our politicians aren’t qualified enough to vet and hire the right ones. We’ll experts don’t work for free so I guess we’re just fucked