yes_this_time @ yes_this_time @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

23

Joined

1 yr. ago

Fair enough, I am thinking of decriminalization that's being moved away from, which is further along the spectrum.

I kind of see your analogy, but driving a car has utility, and is much safer (although I would like to prevent some car driving as well). Fentanyl addiction is not a natural course.

Anyway I don't think we will agree, so I'll take a separate tack. Yes, prevention and treatment is a separate issue. It also has wider support, so my wish would be that government can get some consensus here and take action.

I don't disagree that having professionals nearby can prevent overdose / accidental death.

My concerns are: Safe consumption sites are controversial, and their support causes broader backlash. Usage rates are low and not a good use of resources.

Proponents are misusing data:

users of SCS would tend towards wanting help anyway and don't speak to broader efficacy.

'Lives saved' don't take into account any increase in use from a system perspective. That is to say, reduced stigma I believe increases drug use and death. Studies I've seen look at a micro level but not macro level. Example, "we prevented 10 deaths", but they dont take into account any increase in drug use from its normalization.

It's OK to feel shame for being addicted to drugs. But I also get we don't want people hiding away and dying. Stopping use should be the goal.

The people on the front lines have an important perspective, but they aren't seeing the whole story.

Aren't cities moving away from SCS because it's not working?

I don't think Dofo is taking the right approach, but sanctioned consumption sites I don't think are the way to go.

We shouldn't be normalizing drug use, and they are very controversial.

My preference is to lean into voluntary treatment centers. Make space available so the moment someone decides they need help, space is available for them.

Agressively advertise treatment options in areas trafficked by addicts.

We need to work to shut down the use and availability of fentanyl and related opiates.

Prices are coming down, it may take a bit of time to shake out.

Students, affordable housing, starter homes, some retirees will see a downsize opportunity, reducing overcrowding in some homes.

Lots of utility at the right price.

At least some of that is because Alberta has the highest percentage of working age population - a share of the population is transient.

Seniors are less likely to retire in AB, and AB imports educated Canadians from other provinces.

Which also speaks to why equalization payments make sense (Atlantic provinces have to bare the cost of more retirees for example).

Latest quarterly population data has growth back down to historic norms.

No thanks. I would prefer more grocery options not less

Yeah, I never understood this. Targeting legal firearms just annoys people.

I have a theory, that canada has been pressuring the US on gun control (the actual problem), and the whole 'fentanyl crossing the border' thing is projection

I've never seen an LLM response be cavalier with credentials.

Threats to other countries isn't noise... It doesn't seem appropriate to hand wave away threats to other people.

That is not several times Canada's GDP. Maybe you meant many many times Canada's annual military expenditure.

Regardless 1.7 trillion Is a lot of money

Yes, but items are targeted to inflict the least amount of pain. We don't neeed orange juice or bourbon for example.

Before having a debate on forced treatment, we should be maximizing volunteer treatment.

Are there treatment spaces available the moment an addict wants help?

Is there awareness amongst addicts on where to get help?

I did a quick search and couldn't find an answer.

I wonder if part of the disconnect is that they are using just a general "dwelling" in CPI. As opposed to price per square foot. That is, is dwelling size shrinking, while costs are growing, this could cause housing costs to be understated in CPI

The library is appealing to me because:

Precedence: pre internet I could connect to the library over a landlines and access the library and community news.

Expertise: not necessarily deep tech expertise, but with information retrieval, curation, education.

Community access: libraries are a municipal service with brick and mortar locations, and are heavily involved with community/public engagement.

For clarity, on the fediverse instance aspect. I was thinking more read only, with users being more official organizations with a barrier of entry vs. The general public. I personally wouldn't want libraries to be moderating public discourse - this should be arms reach. And wouldn't want them worrying about liability.

Public information (like safety bulletins for example) shouldn't exclusively be sitting on a for profit ad platform, it's bizarre.

Libraries should evolve to play a larger role in the internet, theyve been trying to reinvent themselves and i think this best aligns with their spiritual purpose. Some ideas:

Caretakers of digital archives.

Caretakers of relevant open source projects.

Could I get a free domain with my library card?

Could I get free api access to mapping or other localized data?

Should libraries host local fediverse instances for civic users? (think police, firefighter alert, other community related feeds)

Yes, confiscation of illegal and dangerous substances and drunk tank for public intoxication. Why is this outlandish?

If I go through an airport I'm frisked and water can be confiscated. Open liquor at a beach can be confiscated.

If I get drunk to the point I'm out of control I can be placed a drunk tank.

Crystal Meth, fentenyl etc... are very dangerous drugs. And people on these drugs are very antisocial.

You may just be saying that those policies won't help an addict. Addicts have different profiles and so would behave differently. Having consequences on actions would be helpful for some.

Conversely, a complete laissez faire attitude is propelling addiction for some. We are implicitly condoning their behavior.

It's OK for there to be consequences to an addicts behavior, while also providing more support.

Their behavior disproportionately impacts the poor. Consider addicts tend to poorer neighborhoods, but only a very small portion of the neighbourhood are addicts. And it's the poorer families who can't use their parks, or have their kids run to the corner store or maybe even play outside. Their public amenities are trashed, and local funding doesn't go as far. The normalization and access to drugs is certainly not helpful either.

What about a third choice of confiscating their very dangerous drugs?

Or a fourth choice of putting them in a drunk/drug tank for 24 hour hold with optional invite to a treatment center? I get it's certainly not ideal to use force on people.

Why is thinking of the children not valid? Certainly they have some right to be able to walk around their neighborhood without fear.

I like this - as a fan of democracy.

Democracy costs, I think it's OK that it takes a bit of time, more representatives, more votes is OK.

More civic engagement is a positive. Hearing the viewpoints of your neighbour is positive.

A really interesting dynamic, is that you would be creating a strong pipeline of leaders/representatives developing bottom up.