What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
π Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknownπ» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
π£οΈ Politics
π Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
Conservatives always seem to prefer being reactive rather than proactive, because when you are reactive you actually see the effects of the money being spent (gear for police, jails, etc.).
Being proactive you just see money being spent and you don't actually see as much physical and obvious things, mostly just stats and numbers (less crowded ERs, lower crime rates, less overdoses, etc.) Which are harder for them to believe/justify.
Politics, especially on the right, likes βright nowβ policies. We give the cops more gear right now to crack heads, etc. And inevitably in a few years when theyβre out of office they cab point to the short term changes made and campaign off that. No matter the cost to society or vulnerable populations. I mean itβs not just the right, but they provide so many examples on the regular.
It's always better to prevent the problem both fiscally and responsibly. Modern Conservatives/Neoliberals don't care about that though, they just want to hurt people and then pretend they're doing something. Creating issues like this helps keep people distracted from the reality that the wealthy have robbed workers for the last 40 years
Basically the life of an IT admin in a nutshell
Prevention and risk reduction is always cheaper than cures or damage control.
The problem always seems to be that government and those in power always view these issues from an economic and financial perspective ... rather than as a humanitarian issue that just requires us to take care of one another.
Ironically though, almost every time the humanitarian approach is more economical.
It's more expensive to police people than to help them. It's more expensive to clean up around a homeless camp and deal with all the fallout than it is to house them. It's more expensive to handle the repercussions of ignoring everyone's health than to treat them.
Most of the time, when you cut to the quick of why people don't want to fund something like OAT, you tend to get a response that basically boils down to wanting bad behaviour to be punished.
Exactly, I WISH the government would view these issues from an economic perspective, because that would mean actually helping these people and integrating them back into society
You forgot the most obvious that homeless drug addicted people are not employed and paying taxes. It's a double whammy.
Oh I didn't forget. It's just that I could write forever and I have to draw the line somewhere.
Yeah, and seemingly only looking as far ahead as the next election, not what is best for society in the next 20 years.
We simultaneously want everything right now with no waiting ... and believe that we will also live forever.
Spending money now uses fewer cops.
This will save money and reduce crime. I could not care less about being socially minded, but this just makes sense.
Is there any NA city that implemented this that actually reduced overall drug abuse and homelessness? I always assumed the "you can do it!" Group was always loud via survivorship bias.
I just hope we're not throwing good money after bad.
Best example I've ever read or seen first hand is in what they did in Portugal.
Every other example in North America is basically the same ... they did half measures, expected results in weeks or months and never bothered to see what would happen in years or even lifetimes. Everyone always wants quick answers ... but no one ever wants to admit that social problems like this will take decades and lifetimes of support, work and assistance to see positive results.
There is no quick fix ... if there was, we would have used it and been successful by now.
El Salvador fixed it's violence problem in 1 year, their methods are just not something Canadians could stomach as a solution I think.
Def not
I'm also concerned with the reports, or that one documentary by that conservative dude who's got some incredibly distasteful opinions on other things so no one would even give the video a watch.
Some people getting a "safe supply" of up to 40 "dollies" per day, and then they'd just go and sell those to get the hard stuff. With the dollies even finding their way into public schools.
It's a good idea, but it shouldn't be a long term solution, it should be for weening people off and giving them safe places to use. It needs to be paired with giving a shit all across the board, getting these people into good housing, social services, jobs if possible.
Here I am paying sales tax on kratom like a cuck!
Some people are genuinely in pain, e.g. those with osteoarthritis, and opioid treatment, e.g. methadone, could reduce their suffering, good for them!
The unfortunate reality of substance abuse is not the lack of care, but the lack of commitment or motivation to get care. Same with all the resources we provide for mental illness.
We need to find more ways to get people into treatment, or at least incentivize them to do so.
I've heard a number of stories of people asking for assistance with mental health and being added to a list that will take them as much as 6 months to be seen even once. So what is it? Are there so few resources to help those who are asking, never mind those who have given up, or are we spending vast amounts on that with no one taking advantage of it? The evidence suggests the former.
No doubt, waiting lists happen, depends on the resource or service needed.
You also need to be acutely aware that some mental illnesses (i.e anxiety disorder) can distort a persons perspective, so any small effort would be described as "I tried everything to get help." This should be recognized by anyone involved in this person's care.
In Ontario, you are a call away from help. We have crisis teams that can be called out. We have free and paid therapy options. There are hospital beds for someone in a crisis. Etc. These are often immediately availability with no wait.
Yes, if you want to commit yourself to a place like Ontario Shores, then there's likely a wait list depending on the program, but there are a half dozen other services you can access while you wait.
Kids and youth are helped faster than adults.
Can we use more resources? Of course, but getting someone with a mental illnesses to access and commit to treatment is the most difficult part, IMO.
I can't speak for anyone else's experiences, but I do have first hand experience, and a spouse who needs these services on an ongoing basis.
With mental health specifically, help often involves many moving parts: pharmaceutical, family support, workplace support, doctor support, therapist support, an in or out patient commitment, personal motivation, often times financial aid, and time.
It is daunting for anyone to see how much effort is needed, so it becomes an even greater challenge for someone who's already struggling or has little will to see past today's suffering.
But seeing how the Ontario government has been chronically underspending, I do believe that we can do much better for people in need.
I would encourage you to try and access care - itβs incredibly challenging if you arenβt an immediate threat to yourself or someone else. I agree lack of access would demotivate people trying to access care.
Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal matter.
I would encourage you to try and access care
I have, for my spouse and another person in my immediate family (under 18). Mind you, this was before the pandemic, so things may have changed since then (no doubt), but it was far easier to find resources than it was to get a commitment for treatment.
You can't force someone to get treatment, since these places only accept people who consent to it.
The real problem is that anyone who's in a mental health crisis, or struggles with substance abuse, lack the perspective to see that they need treatment. We do need more access, but we also need proven strategies to help convince someone to seek treatment (and to stick with it).
It's a difficult puzzle to solve, and I really empathize with any family or individual who is in this situation.
Care can't follow up the demand. Psychologist struggle to see suicidal clients every month where they should have 2 consultation per weeks to make sure they don't do it. ....one month is way too long for someone suicidal to loop it's on thoughts. Without professional input.
Now this said, yes you are right.... People drop .... By lack of ability to have proper help.
Absolutely an important step along with safea supply
We've been charging for addiction treatment? Every other province still is? Damn, that's cold.
Great news! This has been long overdue in BC.