Ontario tables law banning supervised consumption sites, saying there will be no more

It's kind of amazing how people will continue to vote for people who create policy that is proven to be ineffective at best and directly harmful at worst.

Yesterday my buddy who barely works and doesn't do overtime said: "poivrière said he would reduces taxes on overtime, I want that - why wouldn't I vote for him?" I don't blame my buddy, and we avoid discussing politics, but these people are short-sighted and cannot be saved.
- Talk politics with your buddy. Sounds like they need it.
- If he really hates paying taxes he really should find a country that has low/zero taxes. I will never get over the argument about how people hate taxes and try to argue that we need to get rid of them.

Fuck you ford.

Commie blocks would help this country's housing crisis immensely. I double dog dare him.
- They would devalue owners "asset"
  No

All bars banned?

What a weird comparison

As part of its plan to ban supervised consumption sites and close 10 of those operating in Ontario, the province has announced the creation of 19 intensive addiction recovery facilities, named HART Hubs.

A $378-million budget has been allocated to create the new spaces, which will combine addiction recovery with highly supportive housing units. The program should lead to 375 “highly supportive” housing units as part of the hub model.

That doesn't sound bad, actually.

That is promising, though it would be a good next step to the consumption sites rather than a replacement for them.
The consumption sites would be good first points of contact so users could be provided the treatment centre information.
I'd bet that the contract to build these happens to be someone owed a favor.
Except that the minister was on CBC yesterday, and made it clear that they're following Alberta's lead of forced treatment.
You don't go to these to get clean, you get sent there by the police.
- Oh so prison
- BC also. People support it because they want to fix the problem, and by fix the problem I mean "make it not visible to me anymore because I can't go downtown without having to walk near the untouchables and it's a nuisance".
  (I don't personally think forced treatment is the solution, but am just reiterating sentiments I have heard)
I believe in previous threads on the subject, it was identified that forced rehab doesn't work. I'm too lazy to go find the threads FYI
- Didn't finland do a similar thing and basically ended homelessness? They housed the homeless and provided treatment. Most were able to leave the program because turns out having housing is a huge factor in getting off the streets. I'm not sure the details but they stressed the housing portion was very important, if you want to clean up and get a job, having a safe place to eat, sleep, and shower is essential for that.
- It may not for some, but some former addicts say without that they would never have broken free of the downward spiral. The drugs make you only find joy in drugs, it doesn't seem to have a solution
What does HART stand for? Homeless and Really Troubled?
- HART Hubs.
  Homelessness (and) Addiction Recovery Treatment Hub.
Million dollar starter home?
Some one in BC interviewed about safe injection sites said it is not a help, it just lengthens the slow path to suicide. Oof.
- That's because they're only one part of a whole solution. The issue was never the drugs themselves. The reasons people get addicted to drugs are largely systemic in nature. Systemic solutions for systemic problems.
  I should lay out that I believe in housing as a basic human right and think that everyone is entitled to a safe and warm place to sleep. But even when arguing from a practical standpoint it's next to impossible to find a job that will hire a person with no address and possibly no government ID (need an address to get documents!). For people to even have the chance to turn their lives around they NEED a personal living space to store their belongings. Doesn't even need to be any more complex than a hotel room.
  I understand the frustrations with safe consumption sites, but they are realistically solvable, and the only reason we haven't solved them is because all these politicians are too myopic to realize the long-term benefits of actually helping our communities. They do provide a real service with the guarantee of medical staff on hand and 100% pure doses that won't instantly kill you. The problem is that without all the other things in place they look very silly.

RIP malls

Saying there will be no more of attempts to take away the rooms?

Tables the laws.

So no more attempts at banning these?

This is a Canadian topic. With regards to this exact term, in the words of Churchill, "We are divided by a common language."
- Okay as someone who isn't from an English-speaking country, would you mind elaborating on what the usage is in this case so I understand the title better?
  Thanks
  I mean I get regional differences and I'd say my knowledge of them is fairly high for someone who wasn't speaking English, but it's impossible to actually have perfect recall all the time. I still check whether licence was the noun or verb in the UK (license being the verb). And always hesitate with defence vs defense. Flat vs apartment boot vs trunk and all those are simple though, but I can't know all them. :F

Who here actually wants one in their neighborhood? They put one up in mine and we've had constant break ins since. Maybe write to your city councilor and nominate your neighborhood for one