CaractacusPotts @ CaractacusPotts @lemmy.ca

Posts

250

Comments

101

Joined

2 yr. ago

You may call that a solution, but that sounds like continuing the problem (that is, substance abuse).

Substance-abuse pales in comparison to death. I don't care if people are addicted to substances as long as they continue to live they have an opportunity to quit.

But if the government is saying there’s not enough money to continue, what’s the next step?

The government isn't saying that. The government is saying there isn't money to expand the programs. This is primarily political because people on the right have attacked evidence-based addiction treatment.

what’s the next step?

More deaths. Either that, or expand safe supply which as previously noted has political opposition from the right. Conservatives are playing politics with peoples lives.

You know what they say: “Prevention is better than cure.”

If you want to prevent deaths due to toxic drugs, the obvious answer is to provide non-toxic drugs. You have no control over whether or not people use drugs. The only thing you can do with 100% certainty is provide clean safe drugs.

It may be true that some people will simply stop using drugs in their own time (not likely with opioids)

Show proof that opioids is less likely.

getting 1 out of 10 people to sober up is much better than enabling continued consumption through “safe alcohol consumption sites”, right?

Not if the other nine are dead, right?

With the limited funds available, what approach would be most effective to tackle this problem?

Safe supply and harm reduction. Clean, safe drugs including stimulant would cost very little. In addition the money saved from policing, courts, incarceration plus reduced burden on paramedics and others in healthcare means that even after the government provided safe supply they would still be saving money.

Ironically the right wing libertarian Cato institute believes the same thing. https://www.cato.org/commentary/economic-moral-case-legalizing-cocaine-heroin#

As I previously explained, this is political. The NDP is worried about right wing backlash in the approach to an election. Instead of doing the right thing, they have caved to political pressure.

The majority of Canadian provinces have conservative governments. Why do people vote against their own class interests?

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward Bernays, Propaganda

I think you read my response, but perhaps didn't understand it.

But “prolonging life” as an addict just gives someone more opportunities to die.

People are dying because they are consuming drugs of unknown purity and strength. That is, you don't know what's in your drugs and you don't know how strong the drugs are. There are simple solutions to these problems. Best solution is to provide a safe supply. Second best solution have safe consumption sites and drug testing available.

the reasons why people are taking these drugs in the first place.

There are as many reasons to take drugs as there are people taking them. The reasons aren't our concern. Obviously poverty, housing and employment are things we can help people with, but beyond that it's up to the individual user. As I pointed out the majority of people using drugs will quit on their own in time. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1071282194/addiction-substance-recovery-treatment

If B.C drags out a program that isn’t getting results (i.e. getting people off drugs)

How successful do you think treatment is? Would it surprise you to learn that faith based recovery has a success rate of about 5 to 10%? There are other programs that have slightly better results but in general abstinence based treatment is a dismal failure.

A new book concludes that the success rate for Alcoholics Anonymous is between 5 and 10 per cent, one of the worst in all of medicine https://www.thestar.com/life/alcoholics-anonymous-has-a-terrible-success-rate-addiction-expert-finds/article_b8a76bb7-0d3c-565d-be99-d57d3337e491.html

This article was part of my first response to you.

When she says “most people,” she means most people who get long-term medication-assisted treatment (MAT), widely considered the gold standard in addiction care. It combines regular counseling and behavioral therapy with the medication methadone or buprenorphine (often prescribed under the brand name Suboxone). Both contain synthetic opioid compounds, which prevent withdrawal and cravings, and they can lower overdoses by as much as 76 percent. (A third medication, less often used, is naltrexone, which blocks the high from opioids.)

The philosophy of MAT — a departure from the moralizing, abstinence-based rehab and 12-step programs that dominated addiction care for most of the 20th century — began to take shape in the early 2000s, when the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine and a federal law authorized primary care physicians to prescribe it.

MAT shifted the treatment paradigm dramatically. Now, every overdose death is a tragedy, Wakeman told me, not because opioid addiction is unsolvable but because, like so many other chronic illnesses, it’s now very treatable. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2024/1/16/24033590/treatment-opioid-addiction-crisis-2024

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200405/the-surprising-truth-about-addiction-0

The Surprising Truth About Addiction More people quit addictions than maintain them, and they do so on their own. That's not to say it happens overnight. People succeed when they recognize that the addiction interferes with something they value—and when they develop the confidence that they can change.

I keep editing to add more links.

The first step has to be keeping people alive. The second step is building a relationship with the people so that they feel comfortable accepting help. This can be done through overdose prevention centres and drug testing facilities. The third step would be medication assisted treatment, but not everyone will be receptive to the idea. Therefore we repeat step one and step two.

I am going to assume you honestly don't know and are asking a legitimate question.

We are in the middle of an toxic drug crisis, in British Columbia almost 7 people a day are dying. Now this may surprise you, but dead people don't recover. Therefore the most important thing we can try to do in the short term is save lives. Rehab and treatment are obviously part of the solution, but they don't work for everybody and in fact the data suggests Abstinence-Only Opioid Treatment Is Deadlier Than None.

Incidence rates for opioid poisoning deaths for those exposed to treatment ranged from 6.06±1.40 per 1000 persons exposed to methadone to 17.36±3.22 per 1000 persons exposed to any non-medication treatment. The estimated incidence rate for those not exposed to treatment was 9.80±0.72 per 1000 persons. With no exposure to treatment as referent, exposure to methadone or buprenorphine reduced the relative risk by 38% or 34%, respectively; the relative risk of non-medication treatments was equal to or worse than no exposure to treatment (RR = 1.27–1.77). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871623012784?via%3Dihub

Now as many people with lived experience and people who study the subject will tell you the majority of people will age out of addiction on their own in time. The key is providing the resources they need to do that and of course keeping them alive.

We have treatments for opioid addiction that work. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2024/1/16/24033590/treatment-opioid-addiction-crisis-2024

That would be odd, since the national observer is a centre left publication. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-observer-canada/

https://archive.ph/pUDkg

It's probably an editors is fuck up.

That's not a conspiracy theory.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ronald-reagan-allies-jimmy-carter-sabotage-delayed-u-s-hostages-release-1234699688/

https://archive.ph/05pHD

I think the purpose of the article is to question why the people of Indonesia would vote for someone connected to Suharto. I don't think the article talks about the people of West Papua because they would have had very little influence in the result of the election. The majority of people who voted in this election however would have direct memory of the repression Indonesia experienced under Suharto.

This is the patch

Canada has “thin blue line” flags

According to experts, the impact of housing measures recently introduced by the feds, including taking the GST off new rental developments and funnelling millions in funding to municipalities through the Housing Accelerator Fund, has yet to be borne out in the data

They don't have GST in the US.

Ethnic cleansing

Ethnic cleansing

I find your hand-wringing over water and sanitation issues to be disingenuous. Obviously the city can provide freshwater and Porta potty's so that's not really an issue.

They are not "hoarding", they are gathering together for survival. You are confusing the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society with corporations and the wealthy who are hoarding housing. They are in communal space because that's all they have, they have no where else, they have to exist in communal space. If the tent communities are smashed the people don't suddenly disappear, they simply disperse into the neighbourhoods making them even more more vulnerable.

What's this nonsense about building shacks in the woods? Do they have support systems there? Where is the food supposed to come from, what about medical care?

I saw him speak in Vancouver a-month before he died. I thought he had quite a few years left. It's really very tragic.