Foreigner
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,303
To start with, this is a really complicated subject with many, many factors so we're never only going to be able to boil things down to "one cause".
The situation in cities on the west coast of Canada and the U.S. is really, really bad. The homeless populations are skyrocketing along with violent crime and drug addiction. Most of the major cities have responded with "harm reduction only" policy, creating a revolving door where violent offenders are in and out of the justice system, with no solution in sight. Part of this "pure HR" approach is that drug addicts are see as victims of social determinants and all of their bad behaviour comes from their poor lot in life. In British Columbia, the government's policy is that drug addiction is a disease and there is no cure; addicts will be addicts for life and so the only solution is safe, decriminalized supply. But you have so many former addicts speaking out about this.
This documentary, although having a conservative slant, accurately describes how bad the current situation is in Vancouver, BC.
I have never been attacked on the streets by a random person in my life, and in the past year I've been violently assaulted three times in my city, all by homeless people who are drugged out. Each time involved the police and each time nothing really happened to the offender. They were arrested, booked, and then I saw those people on the streets again within the same week. That's how I know that what the above video is talking about is accurate.
The city and province's response has been to decriminalize all drugs and emphasize a pure harm reduction policy. I think "pure" is the key word here. If I assaulted someone tomorrow as a sober person, I would see a prison cell. But if I was on drugs when I did and claimed hardship, I'd get a slap on the wrist. Maybe I'd be forced into detox for 30 days, but then when I hit the streets I'd be right back at it.
We can all agree that the "war on drugs" is a dismal failure, but is a pure harm reduction approach appropriate either? In Vancouver, the police have had their hands tied for over a decade due to a far left-wing city hall. "Catch and release" has become the policy for drug users, even though they attack people, break into homes, disrupt businesses, etc.
I look at a country like Portugal that introduced decriminalization and HR, but they went full tilt. They poured hundreds of millions of Euros into de-escalating services, detox, etc. They opened all the doors. I don't see that happening in these left-wing Canadian/American cities. They're removing the penalties for being a drug user but they're not opening enough doors.
What is the answer? I'm seriously asking. I don't want to see people arrested for petty drug use, but I also don't think "harm reduction" is practical if it's just transferring harms to non-drug users through violence, property damage, and disruption of livelihood. This whole situation stinks of mismanagement.
The situation in cities on the west coast of Canada and the U.S. is really, really bad. The homeless populations are skyrocketing along with violent crime and drug addiction. Most of the major cities have responded with "harm reduction only" policy, creating a revolving door where violent offenders are in and out of the justice system, with no solution in sight. Part of this "pure HR" approach is that drug addicts are see as victims of social determinants and all of their bad behaviour comes from their poor lot in life. In British Columbia, the government's policy is that drug addiction is a disease and there is no cure; addicts will be addicts for life and so the only solution is safe, decriminalized supply. But you have so many former addicts speaking out about this.
This documentary, although having a conservative slant, accurately describes how bad the current situation is in Vancouver, BC.
I have never been attacked on the streets by a random person in my life, and in the past year I've been violently assaulted three times in my city, all by homeless people who are drugged out. Each time involved the police and each time nothing really happened to the offender. They were arrested, booked, and then I saw those people on the streets again within the same week. That's how I know that what the above video is talking about is accurate.
The city and province's response has been to decriminalize all drugs and emphasize a pure harm reduction policy. I think "pure" is the key word here. If I assaulted someone tomorrow as a sober person, I would see a prison cell. But if I was on drugs when I did and claimed hardship, I'd get a slap on the wrist. Maybe I'd be forced into detox for 30 days, but then when I hit the streets I'd be right back at it.
We can all agree that the "war on drugs" is a dismal failure, but is a pure harm reduction approach appropriate either? In Vancouver, the police have had their hands tied for over a decade due to a far left-wing city hall. "Catch and release" has become the policy for drug users, even though they attack people, break into homes, disrupt businesses, etc.
I look at a country like Portugal that introduced decriminalization and HR, but they went full tilt. They poured hundreds of millions of Euros into de-escalating services, detox, etc. They opened all the doors. I don't see that happening in these left-wing Canadian/American cities. They're removing the penalties for being a drug user but they're not opening enough doors.
What is the answer? I'm seriously asking. I don't want to see people arrested for petty drug use, but I also don't think "harm reduction" is practical if it's just transferring harms to non-drug users through violence, property damage, and disruption of livelihood. This whole situation stinks of mismanagement.
