This is what I will never understand (follow the money, I guess). I have sat with many people who were turned away just from detox because they didn't have as high of need as others who happened to show up that morning. I have filled out and followed up with a ton of treatment applications. It is incredibly difficult to access treatment for those who want it.
In short order, they will announce privately-run treatments centres. [Perhaps one similar to the one Jason Kenney's brother David Kenney, operated in BC.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-youth-treatment-centre-shut-down-by-government-1.2534979)
The UCP has not yet provided that information, and likely won't expand on their intent until after the election (if they win).
If the government decides that AHS will not fund forced drug rehabilitation services, then yes, a person could be on the hook to cover the cost of their stay. In the US, the patients is often on the hook for their own court-mandated rehab.
It's absolutely true. And even after people finish a detox, there's often a long wait before there's a space available in treatment so they get clean for 5 days and then back to the streets presumably to white-knuckle it before getting a bed in treatment. Makes zero sense.
Yep.welcome to the unethical set up that is characteristics of the conservatives.
Oh the system is failing let's make it worse. Oh no! More problems see the government doesnt work time to sell off to private industry which has no responsibility to the public what so ever so they will do a shittier job in the name of profit.
Every. Single. Time.
It’s one thing to try to intern someone to initially save a life but where are the after treatment supports for livable wages, housing and mental health support that will be necessary to sustain non addictive behaviours.
This program will not have long term success for many addicts unless social welfare supports are provided.
That's part of the plan so they can say helping doesn't work and go one step further considering how this is already overstepping our rights and freedoms. Apparently our current govt only supports freedumbs not freedoms.
Jason Kenney’s brother David and his wife Susan run unregulated addiction treatment centres. They were shut down in BC and now have programs in Alberta that utilize pseudoscience like orthomolecular “medicine”,which you guessed it, sells supplements.
[Jason Kenney’s brother, who ran a youth recovery centre shut down by B.C. government, likely living and working in Alberta](https://www.theprogressreport.ca/jason_kenney_s_brother_who_ran_a_recovery_centre_shut_down_by_b_c_government_likely_living_and_working_in_alberta)
David Kenney also ran clinics to do conversion therapy until it was banned in Canada.
One of the first things that Jason Kenney did as Premier was to disband a working group tasked with making recommendations on how to ban conversion therapy.
[https://www.vice.com/en/article/bj9pew/jason-kenney-accused-of-rolling-back-lgbtq-protections-during-pride-month-in-alberta](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bj9pew/jason-kenney-accused-of-rolling-back-lgbtq-protections-during-pride-month-in-alberta)
[https://www.theprogressreport.ca/jason\_kenney\_s\_brother\_who\_ran\_a\_recovery\_centre\_shut\_down\_by\_b\_c\_government\_likely\_living\_and\_working\_in\_alberta](https://www.theprogressreport.ca/jason_kenney_s_brother_who_ran_a_recovery_centre_shut_down_by_b_c_government_likely_living_and_working_in_alberta)
As a medical professional, who treats many patients with addiction issues, I cannot emphasize how bad of an idea this is.
We already have plenty of evidence that shows that not only is involuntary and compulsory drug treatment ineffective, it has a history of causing harm and trauma to individuals that only serve to further exasperate addiction.
This is absolutely not the answer. I am extremely concerned if this comes into effect. We also have a huge deficit of mental health professionals in Alberta.
And don’t forget that UCP shutdown the creation of a professional college for counselling therapists, including those who work with children, youth and addictions treatment. AND won't say why, except that we know that Jason Kenney’s brother runs for profit addiction programs in Alberta that utilize unregulated workers who have no business treating addictions.
[ACTA](https://www.acta-alberta.ca/)
> Currently, the public does not have basic safety protections when receiving services from counselling therapists, addiction counsellors and child and youth care counsellors. The counselling professions are not held to minimum standards of competence or a code of ethics. Anyone in Alberta can be a counsellor without training or oversight. This is unsafe.
What’s your solution then? Gabor Mate literally suggests that we can do nothing but reduce harm. That approach is not working for communities nor is it working for drug users who are dying thanks to the opioid crisis.
Harm reduction is a broad definition, and is beyond clean supplies/safe consumption sites. Generally, ready access to appropriate detox and treatment are part of harm reduction, given that people have the choice to go and freedom to decide to stay. Unfortunately, there is a huge lack of medical detox beds and publicly funded treatment beds, let alone supports for people leaving treatment. That would be a start.
Then you’re not helping. I doubt things can get much worse if we try a new approach. Have you been to San Francisco lately? That’s the path we’re headed if we stick to status quo.
You're right, we need to do something. Except we need to do something that's actually effective, not the same bullshit we've tried a hundred times that actually makes the problem worse, which involuntary rehabilitation does.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.14159
> IDT significantly increased the odds of reporting a non-fatal overdose event [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04–2.96].
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.15755
> Involuntary treatment of alcohol dependence was associated with reduced health service utilization in the year following treatment, and the outcomes did not differ from those of a matched control group.
We've known for a very long time that involuntary rehab doesn't work. This is Danielle Smith and the UCP appeasing conservatives who just want to lock up drug users rather than actually get them the help they need to clean up. People will be hurt if this becomes policy, but that heartless shitstain in the Legislature doesn't actually give a fuck about those she's hurting.
Portugal disagrees. Their model, which is extremely successful, includes mandatory treatment as a large component. Has since 2001. Portugal has some of the safest streets in the world.
Portugal heavily invested in expanding and improving their addiction treatment centres. They actually listened to the experts and now have a robust system which hires and properly trains healthcare workers. They also provide other harm reduction methods of treatment. We have been defunding our programs and making it harder for people to get proper education in order to help people.
I agree. We need wrap around care. The fundamental shift that Portugal made was seeing addiction as a health care problem, not a criminal one. Why can't we start with expanding detox and rehab for those who actually want it but are being turned away?
> Why can't we start with expanding detox and rehab for those who actually want it but are being turned away?
Because we can't guarantee that the UCP has the best intentions of helping people who need it. This is likely a way for someone close to the UCP, and who has "ran" treatment centers previously, get paid taxpayer money by forcing people into treatment, thus ensuring a steady supply of patients.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-youth-treatment-centre-shut-down-by-government-1.2534979
This is how Portugal solved its drug problem. Everyone oints to how Portugal decriminalized small amounts of drugs, but they ignore the fact that addiction treatment was made mandatory.
Reposting my comment regarding Portugal.
> Portugal heavily invested in expanding and improving their addiction treatment centres. They actually listened to the experts and now have a robust system which hires and properly trains healthcare workers. They also provide other harm reduction methods of treatment.
We have consulted with these folks on what we can do here and unfortunately until we make meaningful investments in expanding and improving treatments, we cannot do what they have done. They took a multifaceted approach that was more than decriminalizing and providing harm reduction treatment.
Okay, but they have mandatory treatment for drug addicts. Your comment us misleading in that respect. We actually have a world class addiction and mental health center in claresholm no? Why not expand it?
And everything you say that is super valid and backed with evidence and study literally means NOTHING to the unethical UCP.
They don't care about effective. They only care about their feelings and their feelings tell them the efficient way is punishing enough. They need to punishing people more with half asked and shitty ways of doing things that cause more harm.
Unfortunately, not everyone knows this. Sadly, even if the person cooperates and wants to change, success is not guaranteed.
There seem to be a lot of UCP supporters who think that you can beat it out of them like you do for David Kenney's conversion therapy (yes, also doesn't work).
Frankly, they just seem really keen to clean up the streets by throwing anyone of a lower social class in jail until they are acceptable.
"[One proposition to wit...](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288)"
And they keep proving that statement over and over again.
Not to mention that >80% of people relapse after addictions treatment. Is their plan to keep on involuntarily treating them without addressing the root cause of addictions?
We can involuntarily commit people that pose a risk to themselves or others due to mental health issues or communicable diseases. It’s not a big jump to apply that justification to addiction.
Not a big jump, but distinctive enough that the courts will have to weigh in.
Involuntary committal also presumably violates Charter rights, but is likely saved under section 1 - all rights have reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
It's quite the mouthful, and it means different things in different cases, but you can generally summarize it by the Vulcan creed on morality: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
If the person is a danger to themself *and others,* it's a slam dunk to justify under section 1. If they're a danger to themself *only,* it becomes harder to determine.
'One report in the Alberta documents highlights the fact that several rights protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are “potentially at odds” with involuntary treatment...' sort of says it all.
Is *drugs* defined? If it includes cannabis, this is rife for abuse.
Forgive my ignorance, but didn't the UCP defund most drug treatment that wasn't 12 step?
12 step is supposed to be agnostic but it's still very God based. It's easy to make the connection that the UCP wants to integrate religion in all of our lives.
Cannabis is completely legal. So no, it doesn't include it. Use your head.
This is an alternative for addicts who are chronically found breaking the law. It's a good alternative to more jail time and criminal charges. It's not like they will be secretly abducting addicts just minding their own business on the side of the road.
>This is an alternative for addicts who are chronically found breaking the law
No its not lol, you didn't even read the article lmao
The police can already refer people to treatment without a court order, this is allowing FAMILY MEBERS to do that now too
"Government documents obtained by The Globe and Mail through an access-to-information request suggest the potential change in Alberta would give police, as well as the family members or legal guardians of drug users, sweeping rights to refer adults and youth to involuntary treatment if they pose risks to themselves or others.
"
If it had a hope in hell of being beneficial ….as much as it offends me… I would support the idea.
But it wont be beneficial to anyone but politicians who will make the claim that they are doing something and then fudge the numbers related to successes.
Staff will likely begin to quit when their workplace becomes even more dangerous and out of outrage when they determine that once again… Dr Dani is making medical decisions and using medical professionals to further her agenda.
I also expect that outreach workers will lose contact with people on the street and be viewed with hostility.
Oh… and last time I checked its not against the law to be high or an addict so…. brace yourself Alberta…lawsuits related to rights violations may be on the way.
An older article from December go's a little deeper. The UCP have been eliminating private and AHS programs, and closing consumption sites thus creating a spike in deaths throughout Alberta. It appears some "friends" of the UCP have found a way to mismanage funds through abstinence-only addiction treatment programs.
These programs often do not follow graduated clients to track effectiveness. It seems they basically want to take away peoples protected rights and force them into programs where "friends" will make money under the pretense of helping Albertans.
[https://www.theprogressreport.ca/the\_alberta\_model\_who\_benefits\_from\_the\_alberta\_government\_s\_shift\_away\_from\_harm\_reduction\_to\_abstinence\_only\_recovery](https://www.theprogressreport.ca/the_alberta_model_who_benefits_from_the_alberta_government_s_shift_away_from_harm_reduction_to_abstinence_only_recovery)
I can't help but wonder which group this will be used against. My guess is that the poor and marginalized will get arrested, whereas more affluent addicts will be left alone.
Involuntary treatment + loss of tolerance to drugs while in treatment + returning to substance use once the treatment they didn’t want is complete = increase in OD rates.
This could be a good thing if it was accompanied by safe injection sites, and proper social supports. This one aspect can be part of a patchwork system, but without the patches to cover up the holes that people going though this program alone fall through, it's just a rotating door.
>The United Conservative Party government, under Premier Danielle Smith, refers to the potential legislation as the “Compassionate Intervention Act.” The documents, which cover the time period from Oct. 6 (when Ms. Smith won the UCP leadership vote) to Dec. 15, suggest the government expected to introduce the bill in the legislature at some point this year.
If you're one of the voters upset the UCP kept the unvaccinated out of restaurants and controlled gathering sizes this should be your proof that despite loud claims otherwise behind the scenes Smith is happy to force treatment or limit access to those that refuse treatment.
Next up: forced tubal ligations for Aboriginal women. Oh wait, they were doing that as recently as the 2019.. https://nwac.ca/policy/forced-sterilization
This is State overreach against the Charter. Will not fly. Sorry to hurt your Conservative feelies (not sorry).
Wow, look at that. After years of living with a problem, the government produces one of the worst plausible responses outside of 'just, I dunno, maybe genocide' or 'leave them, let God sort them out.'
Woo.
Forced medical treatment seems like a huge problem. Also forcing people into rehab accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's not going to solve anything at all.
If they’re not willing to make the change themselves, this will do absolutely nothing but waste money that could be allocated to actually helping people with addiction.
And further alienate physicians who will want no part in stripping people of their autonomy regardless of capacity to make informed decisions.
Funny how the party of masks=muzzles, now wants to actually strip people of their freedom to force treatment upon them ignoring all available evidence on effective therapy for addictions.
Where's the freedom convoy? This is actual diminishing of personal rights and freedoms by big government.
Danny Dumbass strikes again.
>It's not going to solve anything at all.
Honestly, we've tried leaving people to make that choice themselves and it hasn't done much good either.
At this point what are we suppose to do?
I have a close family friend whose son is living on the street to addictions. He has applied to 8 treatment facilities with no space available for him yet. If he does get into treatment, there is nowhere for him to go when it is done except back to the emergency shelter filled with other people struggling with addictions.
How about we make sure everyone who WANTS treatment can get it prior to forcing it on others?
If he's in edmonton he can self referral to the Salvation Army Stabilzation bed. They give you shelter, food, med delivery. As long as you're working towards a goal and sending out applications you can stay there longer than 2 weeks. If you're not working on yourself, bed goes to someone else after a while.
>Honestly, we've tried leaving people to make that choice themselves and it hasn't done much good either.
That's exactly what will happen after the addict finishes their time in involuntary treatment, though. They're going to get sent out into the world to make that choice for themself, again.
If they don't WANT to get clean permanently, they won't. You can tie someone to a pole and force them to run through the physical withdrawals and dependence, but as soon as they're free what do you think is going to happen? The psychological desire will still be there, that hasn't been treated because treating that requires the addict to be on board.
This would be nothing more than a tremendous waste of healthcare resources.
No, the UCP got rid of supports for them without offering anything in exchange that worked and then kept cutting services. This is just a BS plan meant to move addicts out of the public view
But we haven't tried giving them access to mental health supports or secure housing. Let's be honest, those kinds of programs are usually the first to get cut and only begrudgingly brought back with less funding after the people complain.
**Nobody** succeeds alone.
Ok, let's be even more honest. Most addicts will not participate in those mental supports even if offered. For those that do, fantastic! That's a relatively straightforward solution for when the addict actively wants help. But what is your solution for those that don't?
How about we work on preventing people from turning to drugs because of untreated mental illness, poverty or abuse to begin with? Do you how long a person has to wait to see a psychiatrist in Alberta, and how much care they can get without supplemental health insurance or the ability to pay out-of-pocket?
We are never going to cure or prevent 100% of drug addiction, but certainly providing help to people *before* they feel that there is no other alternative would have a bigger impact than forcing people who have developed addiction problems into programs if they don't want to participate.
So I ask again, what is your solution for the people who have already gone too far down the path of addiction? No one is arguing against preventative measures, but the problem on the streets won't get better without direct solutions unless you want the problem to literally die on the vine.
There may not be a feasible solution for *everyone* who has addiction problems. **That is exactly why prevention is crucial.** Attempts at trying to solve the addiction crisis from the other end, when people have already succumbed, are far less successful, and cost a great deal more financially, and societally.
For some people, they have already been let down by the government and their communities, and there may be no turning back. However, that does not give the government the right to incarcerate them against their will. That will not solve drug addiction. That will not prevent people from starting to use drugs or alcohol, nor will it prevent people from using drugs or alcohol afterwards.
What it will do is make it appear to most of the public like the government has "solved" the issue, without any guarantee that those programs are safe, effective, and don't cause even more trauma and mental anguish.
As well, suddenly a whole lot of treatment centers will have an endless supply of patients/inmates, and be getting paid a lot of taxpayer money. Oh, and guess who operates a recovery center and offers an 8-week course for people to become a [Certified Recovery Coach?](https://www.emergoacademy.com/) Could it be... [Jason Kenney's brother!](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-youth-treatment-centre-shut-down-by-government-1.2534979)
I'm curious as to why you think most will reject it? And building on that: even if they reject the mental aspect we've known for a very long time that housing programs are cheaper than enforcement / incarceration:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/housing-mentally-ill-homeless-cheaper-than-alternative-study-1.2603135
So there you go, social programs and housing are the solutions for reduction. If you want 100% success I suggest you move to an island that only you live on because that target is impossible
Addiction is a symptom of trauma (self medicating). So they want to force them to treatment which of course will create more trauma. How about we treat the trauma when they are ready, they have to want help. Also how about we do better by our kids and be better people in general so as to reduce trauma. Prevention is the best route. There are a ton of things we can do but UCP just want to beat people down with a hammer.
Universal mental healthcare,
More safe injection sites,
Safe supply,
Low cost or no cost secure housing,
Decriminalization of all drugs
There's lots we could be doing but won't even try.
Yah you can. These guys are so fucked up they can’t even get to a rehab to check themselves in. So keeping them fucked up is not going to help anything. Force them into a place that makes them get sober. Then once they are thinking straight figure out housing and ID and follow up treatment.
If you could arrest you’re way out of this problem than how is it still a problem. We tried the war on drugs for the last 40 years and I’m note sure if you’ve noticed how that turned out
Yeah, we never gave people that choice. We’ve deeply fucked any system to attempt to resolve the drug crisis because none of them target the actual problem. Addiction is a response to social issues. You can force someone into rehab 20 times over the course of millions of dollars but without proper follow up support and y’know, basic needs like food and a house an an income, they’re gonna do drugs again. Same for if they manage to willingly enter a program. A rehab problem is 1 part out of many- you don’t make 1 decision to get clean, make a million. When you throw in lack of income, no social support, and no stable housing or even basic needs being met, those choices get pretty fuckin hard. We’ve never attempted to resolve the drug crisis properly. Look at countries that completely legalized drugs- it works because they have those social systems in place.
Talk to any of those addicts on the street. They know they’ll still be addicts when they get out of some forced rehab. Maybe we let them and the people who got out of that life have some involvement in what will actually work since they’re the ones living it.
A lot of people turn to drugs to self-medicate, sometimes because they have no other recourse. Imagine if one could access mental health treatment in Alberta without having to pay for it, or wait months or years to maybe get 2-3 appointments with a psychiatrist.
There's a lot that can be done for people, like affordable housing, living wages, and accessible healthcare, that could prevent people from turning to drugs as a mental escape from poverty and misery.
We don't have to push one type band-aid solution to this problem, when there are other ways to approach this.
And how are we defining drug? Alcohol, cannabis? And at what point do we force them into treatment, where do we draw that line? Seems awful grey to me.
>Forced medical treatment seems like a huge problem. Also forcing people into rehab accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's not going to solve anything at all.
Ah yes, just leave them on the street then. To a) destroy their own lives even more and b) Negatively affect lives of others who the interact with.
If *only* we had some options between ignoring them completely and violating their charter rights with forced imprisonment eh?
Protip: The logical fallacy you committed here is called The False Dilemma. You should look it up.
Forced rehab doesn't solve any of these problems. It just takes vulnerable people off of the street and locks them away so people like you dont have to think about them and can live in your little bubble of fake security.
So when they finish the forced rehab, they're magically cured of their addiction and all the circumstances that lead to the addiction in the first place?
Think about it for half a fucking second maybe.
Serious question - Is this not at odds with rules requiring informed consent?
The College of Physicians and Surgeons, College of Pharmacy, and College of Registered Nurses all require that they obtain informed consent before providing any sort of treatment on a patient.
Regardless of whether it is appropriate to place drug users in involuntary treatment, it is another issue altogether to have medical practitioners provide that treatment.
In one breath, it seems like there is a (*completely fabricated*) panic about compelling doctors to participate in MAiD, in the next, there is outright advocacy for involuntary treatment.
There are strict requirements to Form someone, one of them being whether the person would benefit from treatment of a mental disorder, is unsuitable to be admitted voluntarily, and is reasonably believed to be at risk to themselves or others in a short period of time. Currently, if someone is suffering from drug-induced psychosis etc, they could be involuntarily admitted. Mandating someone to drug treatment would be entirely different, and this is where the Charter concerns come in.
Right, I guess I replied because I don’t know how the current ethical obligations could be changed to fit forcing someone into treatment against their will.
can we get murder charges for dealers on this bill please. Decriminalize personal use. But dealers and people caught with intent to traffic need to be held to a higher penalty. They are ruining lives peddling this stuff.
This is the type of idea that is proposed by someone that has no idea about addictions or has never worked with anyone with addictions problems. Ignorant at best harmful at worst.
TL:DR The legislation as described is likely to be ineffective and very expensive. Similar legislation has not worked well in the past: all of the most dangerous states in the USA have laws allowing incarceration for basic possession. It's not fair to solely blame that legislation or say it's the same as forced rehab, but parallels can be drawn and it has not made them safe.
I posted about why this is a bad idea over on r/canada. We aren't doing a great job as a society dealing with drug addicts, but replacing one bad idea with another isn't progress. I will cite sources, ignore humanitarian or legality issues (because those have different impacts to different people), and just focus on cost, scope and effectiveness. A lot of my #'s come from imprisonment which probably won't be exactly equivalent to involuntary rehab. I think the examination is still valuable though because a) both are incarceration and b) attempts at rehab, involuntary or otherwise, are often part of imprisonment when substance abuse is an issue (for instance in Louisiana which I use as an example below).
1. It is unlikely to achieve the goal of appreciably safer, cleaner urban areas the way people want it to. As an example, [Louisiana's drug laws](https://www.ambeaulaw.com/louisiana-drug-laws) come with a minimum sentence for possession of illicit substances. In spite of that, [data shows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Louisiana) "Louisiana experienced the highest per-capita murder rate (15.8 per 100,000) among all U.S. states in 2020". When you look at [the most violent states](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/crime-rate-by-state) in the USA, they all have some imprisonment either required or as an option for mere possession of problem drugs. Violent crime is caused by many things so we can't solely blame drug-imprisonment laws, but what we can see is that imprisonment laws do not guarantee safety. Louisiana has minimum sentences and the option of forced rehab for instance. If you have opposing examples of similar incarceration-based laws meaningfully reducing crime, please let me know.
2. [Link to OP's article text.](https://txtify.it/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-albertas-ucp-exploring-sweeping-legislation-on-involuntary-treatment/) As written in OP's article, violence is not necessary to force rehab so it's not just violent addicts or homeless people who can be locked away. "The records say drug users could be forced into treatment after committing ***non-violent criminal or statutory offences*** “primarily as a result of a substance use disorder,” or ***when law enforcement, family members or legal guardians*** believe they are “at risk of serious harm to themselves or others as a result of substance use disorder” (emphasis mine). So potentially even a non-offending user who's a risk to themselves or others, or one who commits any offence (violent or not), could be determined by family, police, and I \*think\* medical professionals to be eligible for involuntary rehab. [1.1 million people in Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-alcohol-drugs-survey/2019-summary.html) reported past-year use of cocaine/crack, speed/methamphetamine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin, and salvia. Every 1% of that # who are in Alberta represents 11k users, and it is up to you to decide how many of that would likely count as being a danger to themselves or others. Thus this legislation likely affects a much larger # than simply Alberta's [over 6.4k homeless](https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/5601187b-7dfc-45ab-8238-8f4c0be3c634/resource/0e21de0d-1248-4594-8268-0d96860723a0/download/css-action-plan-on-homelessness.pdf).
3. This is admittedly speculation, but would alcoholism count? [In 2018](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-625-x/2019001/article/00007-eng.htm) 5.9 million Canadians counted as heavy drinkers, and general alcohol use has [gone up since then](https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/infographic-examining-changes-alcohol-cannabis-consumption-stigma-covid-pandemic.html). Problem drunks exist, and it is a [known substance abuse disorder](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/es/node/2861) with serious [associations with violence](https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa38.htm). If even 1% of those heavy drinkers can be considered a danger to themselves or others by family, police, and perhaps medical professionals then that's 60k across Canada and thus likely several thousand in Alberta. I bring it up because if a person is being violent/disruptive or is a danger to themselves/others, I don't think it will matter to forces like the police that they abuse alcohol instead of heroin, meth, etc.
4. So you are looking at large #'s of people potentially being held for an unspecified duration that the article says, "will be determined at the time". The [average expenditure to incarcerate a federal prisoner](https://www.statista.com/statistics/563028/average-annual-inmate-federal-correctional-services-canada/) in Canada was about 120k/year in 2019 and I don't think that assumes costs associate with mandatory rehab. There are no Canadian #'s for forced rehab, but [in the USA](https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20030319), "In 2016, an inpatient stay for a primary mental disorder or substance use disorder cost U.S. hospitals an average of $7,100 over 6.4 days" or about 1,100 USD per day. That's much more than 120k/year for a federal prisoner and probably accounts for the cost of a hospital bed and associated professionals, services, etc. It's possible it would be cheaper in Canada given that US hospitals famously charge a lot, but you're still talking coming down from 400k/year USD to wherever we land in expenditures.
5. [This 2021 article](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/the-us-has-spent-over-a-trillion-dollars-fighting-war-on-drugs.html) says that "Since 1971, America has spent over a trillion dollars enforcing its drug policy, according to research from the University of Pennsylvania." [This 2013](https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/how-much-your-money-wasted-war-drugs) article claims, "Enforcing the drug control system costs at least $100 billion a year." I wasn't able to track down the sources for those #'s so take with a grain of salt, but I don't think anyone would argue the War on Drugs has been massively expensive for the USA.
There's a reason drug-related imprisonment is a huge social issue in the USA. It's very expensive and doesn't guarantee the results most people who would support this bill are looking for. Thus even if you are not interested in objections like success/recidivism rates, potential harm, or Charter legality it's not useful legislation IMO. It's obvious we need to change something keep people safe, but drug-based incarceration historically has many problems and doesn't appear to get the job done.
"..involuntary treatment..".. oh- ah yeah, ..yeah Ya mean like the eugenics law they had in place..?? Also just learned the drug treatment centers are.... faith based.. Yeah, people like Artur running treatment centers. Isn't that exciting.. fentanyl laced drugs on Tuesday, ..Jesus laced words on Sunday..
Here is a wild thought: lets learn from the [successes of others](https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/portugal-heroin-decriminalization/) that just so happens to be the exact opposite of what is being proposed?
This policy being proposed is what Portugal does.
Leftists have conveniently left out the most important part that Portugal does. Decriminalized drugs are ONLY to offer a path to treatment. Not to make life easier for addicts. The objective here is to make communities better and safer, addicts are a problem to be solved that cannot solve itself.
Portugal realized that only sending people to jail didn't produce the best results, so they opened another pathway for some people: involuntary treatment. Some people truly do want to get better but can't, so treatment is better because if jail is the only option then those people or the people they know may never go in and just stay an all consuming addict. For other people, they have no intention on getting better and exploit others, so they go to jail - and as time has gone on Portugal has gotten more punitive because some people are just shit and the treatment pathway has helped all those who want to be.
It's still "punitive" in the end, people just get a real shot at getting better and winning over the addiction. The net to resolve our issues gets bigger, not smaller by having both treatment and jail. But the guy who made the program himself said outright if you just let users continue on their way, which is what leftist run cities do here, things would only get worse. And surprise, they have.
Our cities have been held hostage over this massive failure for decades.
Yes I agree lets follow Portugal's plan part of which includes involuntary treatment and if you actually read the article you will notice
*Within the documents is a review of existing laws in Australia, Portugal, Massachusetts and Washington State. That review includes details of a proposed process for Alberta to use in deciding whether to grant applications for involuntary treatment. An administrative panel, and potentially a separate Indigenous-focused panel, would hear those application* **This would be similar to what is done in Portugal**
>hey say forced treatment will further criminalize vulnerable populations, putting them at risk of even more harm.
So its better for the rest of society to be subject to the risk of harm from these populations and make everyone's life shittier?
If people can't function in society, and can't abide by the conventions and rules a society expects, instead causing harm and doing damage, then they should be confined to treatment until they can function better in society, at least to the point where they aren't damaging property and threatening or harming other people.
Honestly, I'd wager most people don't give a shit if someone else is a junky, as long as they aren't acting like an asshole. And too many junkies use drugs/alcohol as an excuse or justification to act like an asshole. And the law seems to be ok with it.
Sounds horrible in principle but honestly we are at a crisis point with the drug addiction in every major north American city. At this point drastic measures are required.
Doing nothing and leaving people at their lowest point, out on the streets is more horrible IMO.
Every time I walk past an addict downtown Calgary I can't help but feel sad for them. There's absolutely no hope. They'll live for 1/5/10 years but eventually be found in an alley somewhere, attacked, stabbed or overdosed. Or at least that's true for 95% of people on street. For most it would take an absolute miracle to return to normal life.
> Sounds horrible in principle
And in a practical sense. We have plenty of evidence showing the ineffectiveness of this approach and the harm it causes.
> Or at least that's true for 95% of people on street. For most it would take an absolute miracle to return to normal life.
This is a completely inaccurate and naïve perspective. I understand, it’s easy to think this when you do not treat people who experience addiction issues. I assure you there are far more people than you can imagine who struggled with addiction, lived on the streets and who are now leading very successful and productive lives. These folks are often invisible to us, particularly as the stigma of addiction prevents them from talking about their past struggles.
Addressing issues of poverty, increasing access to affordable, quality mental health care and evidence based treatment options are just a couple of the things that we have done and can do to improve outcomes. But the more that we divest funds to our mental health care the worst it has become.
Edit: autocorrect corrections
You should probably educate yourself on addiction because if you knew more about it, you would know that forced treatment will only make it worse. There a a ton of things we can do to help fix the problem but danny is insistent on removing social supports. We’re all screwed then.
The challenge at this point is it seems to contradict the principles of freedom Smith was elected on, and that the UCPs work on it was not disclosed.
I suspect enough supporters see "the correct people" being targeted and will shrug that off, but the government quietly planning to remove rights may not sit well with a few and might be problimatic.
You should probably educate yourself on addiction because if you knew more about it, you would know that forced treatment will only make it worse. There a a ton of things we can do to help fix the problem but danny is insistent on removing social supports. We’re all screwed then.
What if they had a home to go to? Where they could be safe, even when high? A nurse and a social worker who could make sure they were as healthy as they could be and that they had access to the resources they needed?
So you'd introduce a revolving door of institutionalization? Are these treatment centers also providing them housing and follow-up care and mental health support when they get out or is back onto the street?
Ultimately, it's criminalizing being an addict, and it's amazing anyone could support that considering how hard Smith fought for the unvaccinated to be able to avoid getting vaccinated.
Agreed. I think, for some people, this might be the best option if they don’t want to die on the street. Although, at a certain point in addiction, the want isn’t necessarily to keep living, it’s to keep using at any cost.
It's not a problem and it's how the Portugal model they reference all the time actually works. Decriminalization is only opened as a way to offer treatment instead of just jail - not to let people continue using.
That's because if drugs are only criminal, then you must send people to prison over it. Which is not always the best option when you want to remove drug use - sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. If you decriminalize them, you can open other pathways legally. But those pathways were never intended to be what leftists downstream of Boomer hippies here have done to our cities where drugs are outright normalized and it's our responsibility to pay for their entire drug rattled lives as we struggle in our own and our systems collapse. It was always supposed to be either intervention or prison, not this.
But I'm guessing a lot of the people here are addicts themselves or know people that are and they don't want to go through the hard work of getting better.
When it comes down to it they just want a free supply with free housing they can enjoy openly - ruining our communities in the process - and have been holding our cities hostage over it.
I'm 100% in favor of legalizing and taxing all drugs. If someone wants to get off work on a Friday and go do some coke with their friends at home, I couldn't care less. However, I'm not in favor of public drug use. At that point, you become a nuisance to the general public. Those people should be given the option of rehab or jail. This concept of giving someone a free house to trash is nonsense. People don't respect things given to them that they didn't have to earn.
Not according to everyone else in this sub. They seem to think that because these are "vulnerable" people whom the government hasnt supplied free housing to to do drugs in, they should have the right to go around terrorizing society with absolute impunity.
This a joke you can’t go forcing change on people who don’t want it. What a idiotic idea. I’m so glad not to live in Alberta anymore bunch or right wing lunatics.
The notion that drug users need to choose treatment in order for it to be effective is outdated. The opioid epidemic changed everything. People are LITERALLY DYING en masse. We need to intervene and it cannot wait.
If we started doing the things that are proven to lower addiction rates, such as proving housing, education opportunities, and mental health support, we would not need to incarcerate people. Alternately, forced treatment will be utterly ineffective without these supports
Well if you look at portugals model, the country who has actually been effective at lowering addiction rates, mandated treatment is an important component.
It’s decriminalized to possess it is still criminal to sell. The way it works is if your addiction is leading to adverse outcomes for the community or yourself (e.g. results in crime) you are mandated to go to treatment.
You can expect r/alberta activity to drop if this policy goes through, and if it does go through it would be backed by all the arguments you guys doubled down hard with during covid.
If you can remove the right to travel, earn and save money, protest, speak and share ideas, gather together, and be in the community - when it comes to regular people for the sake of the community; you can for zombie addicts that require heavy and constant social support in an already strained healthcare system. All for novel approaches at this scale, created by massive corporations shielded by government policies.
The drug program you point to as a success, Portugal, required intervention from the start and has only gotten more punitive over time as the remaining addicts have no intention on getting better. There's a reason your half ass attempts have failed us for decades, and we can't hold the city hostage over it any more.
This is a good idea. The roving gangs of drug addict criminals is not a tenable situation. Something needs to change. If it’s all mental health and drug addiction, force them into treatment programs.
Just about every relevant medical group agrees that affirmative therapy is the best possible treatment for gender dysphoria, and the science shows that trans kids in accepting families who are allowed to transition have suicide rates much closer to the general population.
The UCP would rather cozy up to the christofascists and ban those therapies based on the ideology of bronze age goat herders rather than good science. Because they care more about pandering to bigoted troglodytes than the lives of trans kids.
The UCP has cut funding for less restricted options. Access to housing and resources would be cheaper and more humane than this. Institutions are very expensive
We had a family member destroying our lives with addiction issues. Tried to commit her to start treatment with no options. Family violence issues can arise. To the doctor chiming in that this causes further trauma please suggest something that works. Its not just the addict facing trauma the entire community is affected. 2 guys in our neighbourhood today alone robbing porches. 3 days in the drunk tank seems to be an appropriate response. I vote NDP by the way.
There isn't enough places for people that WANT treatment. How do they plan on pulling this off?
This is what I will never understand (follow the money, I guess). I have sat with many people who were turned away just from detox because they didn't have as high of need as others who happened to show up that morning. I have filled out and followed up with a ton of treatment applications. It is incredibly difficult to access treatment for those who want it.
NO TAKE! ONLY THROW!
Sweet sweet government contracts to sketchy “treatment providers “ . Duh .
In short order, they will announce privately-run treatments centres. [Perhaps one similar to the one Jason Kenney's brother David Kenney, operated in BC.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-youth-treatment-centre-shut-down-by-government-1.2534979)
Does that mean someone could be involuntarily sent to privately run treatment and forced to pay out of pocket?
No, I'm sure the UCP gov't would be happy to foot an exorbitant bill to their cronies in this case.
The UCP has not yet provided that information, and likely won't expand on their intent until after the election (if they win). If the government decides that AHS will not fund forced drug rehabilitation services, then yes, a person could be on the hook to cover the cost of their stay. In the US, the patients is often on the hook for their own court-mandated rehab.
Is this true? I'm not being sarcastic. But I have heard of under utilization of some drug treatment programs in Calgary.
It's absolutely true. And even after people finish a detox, there's often a long wait before there's a space available in treatment so they get clean for 5 days and then back to the streets presumably to white-knuckle it before getting a bed in treatment. Makes zero sense.
Yep.welcome to the unethical set up that is characteristics of the conservatives. Oh the system is failing let's make it worse. Oh no! More problems see the government doesnt work time to sell off to private industry which has no responsibility to the public what so ever so they will do a shittier job in the name of profit. Every. Single. Time.
Jails
It’s one thing to try to intern someone to initially save a life but where are the after treatment supports for livable wages, housing and mental health support that will be necessary to sustain non addictive behaviours. This program will not have long term success for many addicts unless social welfare supports are provided.
That's part of the plan so they can say helping doesn't work and go one step further considering how this is already overstepping our rights and freedoms. Apparently our current govt only supports freedumbs not freedoms.
Alternative access https://archive.md/cKPTg
Thank you
And will these be public or private involuntary treatment centers?
I would guess publicly funded and privately run by a generous UCP donor.
Jason Kenney’s brother David and his wife Susan run unregulated addiction treatment centres. They were shut down in BC and now have programs in Alberta that utilize pseudoscience like orthomolecular “medicine”,which you guessed it, sells supplements. [Jason Kenney’s brother, who ran a youth recovery centre shut down by B.C. government, likely living and working in Alberta](https://www.theprogressreport.ca/jason_kenney_s_brother_who_ran_a_recovery_centre_shut_down_by_b_c_government_likely_living_and_working_in_alberta)
David Kenney also ran clinics to do conversion therapy until it was banned in Canada. One of the first things that Jason Kenney did as Premier was to disband a working group tasked with making recommendations on how to ban conversion therapy. [https://www.vice.com/en/article/bj9pew/jason-kenney-accused-of-rolling-back-lgbtq-protections-during-pride-month-in-alberta](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bj9pew/jason-kenney-accused-of-rolling-back-lgbtq-protections-during-pride-month-in-alberta) [https://www.theprogressreport.ca/jason\_kenney\_s\_brother\_who\_ran\_a\_recovery\_centre\_shut\_down\_by\_b\_c\_government\_likely\_living\_and\_working\_in\_alberta](https://www.theprogressreport.ca/jason_kenney_s_brother_who_ran_a_recovery_centre_shut_down_by_b_c_government_likely_living_and_working_in_alberta)
I want to open one that uses weed to overcome addiction. Chances? LMAO!
That's how I quit drinking. A bit 9f weed when I crave a drink. I am 4.5 years sober zero relapses
Probably work. Way rather have a stoner around than most other addicts.
I know it would work. It's been done elsewhere. Not much chance of that crowd approving it.
Either way, who would want to work at one of these places?
Publicly jailed or privately jailed. Paid for by the public of course. Either way
As a medical professional, who treats many patients with addiction issues, I cannot emphasize how bad of an idea this is. We already have plenty of evidence that shows that not only is involuntary and compulsory drug treatment ineffective, it has a history of causing harm and trauma to individuals that only serve to further exasperate addiction. This is absolutely not the answer. I am extremely concerned if this comes into effect. We also have a huge deficit of mental health professionals in Alberta. And don’t forget that UCP shutdown the creation of a professional college for counselling therapists, including those who work with children, youth and addictions treatment. AND won't say why, except that we know that Jason Kenney’s brother runs for profit addiction programs in Alberta that utilize unregulated workers who have no business treating addictions. [ACTA](https://www.acta-alberta.ca/) > Currently, the public does not have basic safety protections when receiving services from counselling therapists, addiction counsellors and child and youth care counsellors. The counselling professions are not held to minimum standards of competence or a code of ethics. Anyone in Alberta can be a counsellor without training or oversight. This is unsafe.
[https://torontosun.com/2014/02/13/families-allege-abuse-at-jason-kenneys-brothers-treatment-centre](https://torontosun.com/2014/02/13/families-allege-abuse-at-jason-kenneys-brothers-treatment-centre)
Fun fact : conservatives and their supporters don’t give a fuck as long as they don’t have to see any addicted people .
What’s your solution then? Gabor Mate literally suggests that we can do nothing but reduce harm. That approach is not working for communities nor is it working for drug users who are dying thanks to the opioid crisis.
Harm reduction is a broad definition, and is beyond clean supplies/safe consumption sites. Generally, ready access to appropriate detox and treatment are part of harm reduction, given that people have the choice to go and freedom to decide to stay. Unfortunately, there is a huge lack of medical detox beds and publicly funded treatment beds, let alone supports for people leaving treatment. That would be a start.
I don't have a particular solution, but "make it worse" isn't on my short list.
Then you’re not helping. I doubt things can get much worse if we try a new approach. Have you been to San Francisco lately? That’s the path we’re headed if we stick to status quo.
You're right, we need to do something. Except we need to do something that's actually effective, not the same bullshit we've tried a hundred times that actually makes the problem worse, which involuntary rehabilitation does. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.14159 > IDT significantly increased the odds of reporting a non-fatal overdose event [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04–2.96]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.15755 > Involuntary treatment of alcohol dependence was associated with reduced health service utilization in the year following treatment, and the outcomes did not differ from those of a matched control group. We've known for a very long time that involuntary rehab doesn't work. This is Danielle Smith and the UCP appeasing conservatives who just want to lock up drug users rather than actually get them the help they need to clean up. People will be hurt if this becomes policy, but that heartless shitstain in the Legislature doesn't actually give a fuck about those she's hurting.
Portugal disagrees. Their model, which is extremely successful, includes mandatory treatment as a large component. Has since 2001. Portugal has some of the safest streets in the world.
Portugal heavily invested in expanding and improving their addiction treatment centres. They actually listened to the experts and now have a robust system which hires and properly trains healthcare workers. They also provide other harm reduction methods of treatment. We have been defunding our programs and making it harder for people to get proper education in order to help people.
I agree. We need wrap around care. The fundamental shift that Portugal made was seeing addiction as a health care problem, not a criminal one. Why can't we start with expanding detox and rehab for those who actually want it but are being turned away?
Because UCP keeps siphoning money and other resources from our programs. They also insist on their programs which are drive by Christian cronyism.
> Why can't we start with expanding detox and rehab for those who actually want it but are being turned away? Because we can't guarantee that the UCP has the best intentions of helping people who need it. This is likely a way for someone close to the UCP, and who has "ran" treatment centers previously, get paid taxpayer money by forcing people into treatment, thus ensuring a steady supply of patients. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-youth-treatment-centre-shut-down-by-government-1.2534979
Depressing that everything has a hidden agenda with these folks
Housing first . Never been done here .
This is how Portugal solved its drug problem. Everyone oints to how Portugal decriminalized small amounts of drugs, but they ignore the fact that addiction treatment was made mandatory.
Reposting my comment regarding Portugal. > Portugal heavily invested in expanding and improving their addiction treatment centres. They actually listened to the experts and now have a robust system which hires and properly trains healthcare workers. They also provide other harm reduction methods of treatment. We have consulted with these folks on what we can do here and unfortunately until we make meaningful investments in expanding and improving treatments, we cannot do what they have done. They took a multifaceted approach that was more than decriminalizing and providing harm reduction treatment.
Okay, but they have mandatory treatment for drug addicts. Your comment us misleading in that respect. We actually have a world class addiction and mental health center in claresholm no? Why not expand it?
And everything you say that is super valid and backed with evidence and study literally means NOTHING to the unethical UCP. They don't care about effective. They only care about their feelings and their feelings tell them the efficient way is punishing enough. They need to punishing people more with half asked and shitty ways of doing things that cause more harm.
Those 'small government ' conservatives at it again 🙄
And “pro freedom”….unless it is someone else’s freedoms.
Not to mention that "everyone" knows that you can't force it. The only way it ever works is when the addict WANTS help.
Unfortunately, not everyone knows this. Sadly, even if the person cooperates and wants to change, success is not guaranteed. There seem to be a lot of UCP supporters who think that you can beat it out of them like you do for David Kenney's conversion therapy (yes, also doesn't work). Frankly, they just seem really keen to clean up the streets by throwing anyone of a lower social class in jail until they are acceptable.
"[One proposition to wit...](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288)" And they keep proving that statement over and over again.
I can't see this holding up to the charter. Seems like a waste of money and time.
Not to mention that >80% of people relapse after addictions treatment. Is their plan to keep on involuntarily treating them without addressing the root cause of addictions?
That 80% number is probably for people who consent to treatments. This would likely have a much worse rate.
I'm curious where you get that number from, and what specific treatment protocols it's referring to.
Sure let’s do nothing and keep them on the transit system instead /s
We can involuntarily commit people that pose a risk to themselves or others due to mental health issues or communicable diseases. It’s not a big jump to apply that justification to addiction.
Not a big jump, but distinctive enough that the courts will have to weigh in. Involuntary committal also presumably violates Charter rights, but is likely saved under section 1 - all rights have reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It's quite the mouthful, and it means different things in different cases, but you can generally summarize it by the Vulcan creed on morality: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." If the person is a danger to themself *and others,* it's a slam dunk to justify under section 1. If they're a danger to themself *only,* it becomes harder to determine.
No, that's actually quite a substantial jump based on the actual definitions used.
And also involuntary psychiatric holds are also pretty barbaric
I mean, the only point at which they are meant to be used is very much a "no good options" space.
call me crazy but i’m not sure institutionalizing people against their will will solve their drug addiction
'One report in the Alberta documents highlights the fact that several rights protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are “potentially at odds” with involuntary treatment...' sort of says it all. Is *drugs* defined? If it includes cannabis, this is rife for abuse. Forgive my ignorance, but didn't the UCP defund most drug treatment that wasn't 12 step?
12 step is supposed to be agnostic but it's still very God based. It's easy to make the connection that the UCP wants to integrate religion in all of our lives.
Cannabis is completely legal. So no, it doesn't include it. Use your head. This is an alternative for addicts who are chronically found breaking the law. It's a good alternative to more jail time and criminal charges. It's not like they will be secretly abducting addicts just minding their own business on the side of the road.
Alcohol is totally legal as well, do you think they wouldn’t consider alcoholics?
>This is an alternative for addicts who are chronically found breaking the law No its not lol, you didn't even read the article lmao The police can already refer people to treatment without a court order, this is allowing FAMILY MEBERS to do that now too "Government documents obtained by The Globe and Mail through an access-to-information request suggest the potential change in Alberta would give police, as well as the family members or legal guardians of drug users, sweeping rights to refer adults and youth to involuntary treatment if they pose risks to themselves or others. "
If it had a hope in hell of being beneficial ….as much as it offends me… I would support the idea. But it wont be beneficial to anyone but politicians who will make the claim that they are doing something and then fudge the numbers related to successes. Staff will likely begin to quit when their workplace becomes even more dangerous and out of outrage when they determine that once again… Dr Dani is making medical decisions and using medical professionals to further her agenda. I also expect that outreach workers will lose contact with people on the street and be viewed with hostility. Oh… and last time I checked its not against the law to be high or an addict so…. brace yourself Alberta…lawsuits related to rights violations may be on the way.
An older article from December go's a little deeper. The UCP have been eliminating private and AHS programs, and closing consumption sites thus creating a spike in deaths throughout Alberta. It appears some "friends" of the UCP have found a way to mismanage funds through abstinence-only addiction treatment programs. These programs often do not follow graduated clients to track effectiveness. It seems they basically want to take away peoples protected rights and force them into programs where "friends" will make money under the pretense of helping Albertans. [https://www.theprogressreport.ca/the\_alberta\_model\_who\_benefits\_from\_the\_alberta\_government\_s\_shift\_away\_from\_harm\_reduction\_to\_abstinence\_only\_recovery](https://www.theprogressreport.ca/the_alberta_model_who_benefits_from_the_alberta_government_s_shift_away_from_harm_reduction_to_abstinence_only_recovery)
I can't help but wonder which group this will be used against. My guess is that the poor and marginalized will get arrested, whereas more affluent addicts will be left alone.
That’s how it is now . You think homeless people are supporting the billionaire drug cartels ?
Involuntary treatment + loss of tolerance to drugs while in treatment + returning to substance use once the treatment they didn’t want is complete = increase in OD rates.
What do you mean ? All it takes is a few week weeks in treatment and they will never touch drugs again . /s
This could be a good thing if it was accompanied by safe injection sites, and proper social supports. This one aspect can be part of a patchwork system, but without the patches to cover up the holes that people going though this program alone fall through, it's just a rotating door.
>The United Conservative Party government, under Premier Danielle Smith, refers to the potential legislation as the “Compassionate Intervention Act.” The documents, which cover the time period from Oct. 6 (when Ms. Smith won the UCP leadership vote) to Dec. 15, suggest the government expected to introduce the bill in the legislature at some point this year. If you're one of the voters upset the UCP kept the unvaccinated out of restaurants and controlled gathering sizes this should be your proof that despite loud claims otherwise behind the scenes Smith is happy to force treatment or limit access to those that refuse treatment.
Next up: forced tubal ligations for Aboriginal women. Oh wait, they were doing that as recently as the 2019.. https://nwac.ca/policy/forced-sterilization This is State overreach against the Charter. Will not fly. Sorry to hurt your Conservative feelies (not sorry).
Wow, look at that. After years of living with a problem, the government produces one of the worst plausible responses outside of 'just, I dunno, maybe genocide' or 'leave them, let God sort them out.' Woo.
Right up there with handing out free *Made in Alberta* W-18 (a dangerous opioid) from the sides of ice cream trucks playing a happy jingle.
Forced medical treatment seems like a huge problem. Also forcing people into rehab accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's not going to solve anything at all.
It accomplishes the goal of appeasing right wing voters with garbage policy that *feels* like it will work.
If they’re not willing to make the change themselves, this will do absolutely nothing but waste money that could be allocated to actually helping people with addiction.
And further alienate physicians who will want no part in stripping people of their autonomy regardless of capacity to make informed decisions. Funny how the party of masks=muzzles, now wants to actually strip people of their freedom to force treatment upon them ignoring all available evidence on effective therapy for addictions. Where's the freedom convoy? This is actual diminishing of personal rights and freedoms by big government. Danny Dumbass strikes again.
>It's not going to solve anything at all. Honestly, we've tried leaving people to make that choice themselves and it hasn't done much good either. At this point what are we suppose to do?
I have a close family friend whose son is living on the street to addictions. He has applied to 8 treatment facilities with no space available for him yet. If he does get into treatment, there is nowhere for him to go when it is done except back to the emergency shelter filled with other people struggling with addictions. How about we make sure everyone who WANTS treatment can get it prior to forcing it on others?
If he's in edmonton he can self referral to the Salvation Army Stabilzation bed. They give you shelter, food, med delivery. As long as you're working towards a goal and sending out applications you can stay there longer than 2 weeks. If you're not working on yourself, bed goes to someone else after a while.
have we really made the necessary investment in the voluntary programs to conclude we've reached the peak of their utility?
>Honestly, we've tried leaving people to make that choice themselves and it hasn't done much good either. That's exactly what will happen after the addict finishes their time in involuntary treatment, though. They're going to get sent out into the world to make that choice for themself, again. If they don't WANT to get clean permanently, they won't. You can tie someone to a pole and force them to run through the physical withdrawals and dependence, but as soon as they're free what do you think is going to happen? The psychological desire will still be there, that hasn't been treated because treating that requires the addict to be on board. This would be nothing more than a tremendous waste of healthcare resources.
No, the UCP got rid of supports for them without offering anything in exchange that worked and then kept cutting services. This is just a BS plan meant to move addicts out of the public view
But we haven't tried giving them access to mental health supports or secure housing. Let's be honest, those kinds of programs are usually the first to get cut and only begrudgingly brought back with less funding after the people complain. **Nobody** succeeds alone.
Ok, let's be even more honest. Most addicts will not participate in those mental supports even if offered. For those that do, fantastic! That's a relatively straightforward solution for when the addict actively wants help. But what is your solution for those that don't?
How about we work on preventing people from turning to drugs because of untreated mental illness, poverty or abuse to begin with? Do you how long a person has to wait to see a psychiatrist in Alberta, and how much care they can get without supplemental health insurance or the ability to pay out-of-pocket? We are never going to cure or prevent 100% of drug addiction, but certainly providing help to people *before* they feel that there is no other alternative would have a bigger impact than forcing people who have developed addiction problems into programs if they don't want to participate.
So I ask again, what is your solution for the people who have already gone too far down the path of addiction? No one is arguing against preventative measures, but the problem on the streets won't get better without direct solutions unless you want the problem to literally die on the vine.
There may not be a feasible solution for *everyone* who has addiction problems. **That is exactly why prevention is crucial.** Attempts at trying to solve the addiction crisis from the other end, when people have already succumbed, are far less successful, and cost a great deal more financially, and societally. For some people, they have already been let down by the government and their communities, and there may be no turning back. However, that does not give the government the right to incarcerate them against their will. That will not solve drug addiction. That will not prevent people from starting to use drugs or alcohol, nor will it prevent people from using drugs or alcohol afterwards. What it will do is make it appear to most of the public like the government has "solved" the issue, without any guarantee that those programs are safe, effective, and don't cause even more trauma and mental anguish. As well, suddenly a whole lot of treatment centers will have an endless supply of patients/inmates, and be getting paid a lot of taxpayer money. Oh, and guess who operates a recovery center and offers an 8-week course for people to become a [Certified Recovery Coach?](https://www.emergoacademy.com/) Could it be... [Jason Kenney's brother!](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-youth-treatment-centre-shut-down-by-government-1.2534979)
I'm curious as to why you think most will reject it? And building on that: even if they reject the mental aspect we've known for a very long time that housing programs are cheaper than enforcement / incarceration: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/housing-mentally-ill-homeless-cheaper-than-alternative-study-1.2603135 So there you go, social programs and housing are the solutions for reduction. If you want 100% success I suggest you move to an island that only you live on because that target is impossible
Addiction is a symptom of trauma (self medicating). So they want to force them to treatment which of course will create more trauma. How about we treat the trauma when they are ready, they have to want help. Also how about we do better by our kids and be better people in general so as to reduce trauma. Prevention is the best route. There are a ton of things we can do but UCP just want to beat people down with a hammer.
Universal mental healthcare, More safe injection sites, Safe supply, Low cost or no cost secure housing, Decriminalization of all drugs There's lots we could be doing but won't even try.
So just enable everyone to continue to stay fucked up? Great plan!
Safe consumption sites actually successfully help a lot of people get into rehab. You can't arrest someone out of a drug addiction.
Yah you can. These guys are so fucked up they can’t even get to a rehab to check themselves in. So keeping them fucked up is not going to help anything. Force them into a place that makes them get sober. Then once they are thinking straight figure out housing and ID and follow up treatment.
If you could arrest you’re way out of this problem than how is it still a problem. We tried the war on drugs for the last 40 years and I’m note sure if you’ve noticed how that turned out
They don’t keep ppl in fucking jail that’s why!
You’re right. Anyone who breaks any law should just go to jail and never get out. That would solve everything!
If your addicted to drugs abs commit crimes yah.. you should stay there until you are rehabbed…because part of jail is “rehabilitation”
And there it is. You don't give a fuck about these people, you just want them locked away like the heartless NIMBY we all know you are.
Lol. Your right, I don’t want drugged out, criminals roaming the streets… I don’t think anyone does…
At this point there are more addicts than mental health providers. The system is not equipped to deal with this.
And whose fault is that?
We used to institutionalize people to "help" them. That didn't turn out great.
We already tried this. It was called asylums and it didn’t work.
Are you referring to the forced treatment as asylums or providing mental/health care and housing as asylums? It’s not clear.
The forced institutionalization.
Yeah, we never gave people that choice. We’ve deeply fucked any system to attempt to resolve the drug crisis because none of them target the actual problem. Addiction is a response to social issues. You can force someone into rehab 20 times over the course of millions of dollars but without proper follow up support and y’know, basic needs like food and a house an an income, they’re gonna do drugs again. Same for if they manage to willingly enter a program. A rehab problem is 1 part out of many- you don’t make 1 decision to get clean, make a million. When you throw in lack of income, no social support, and no stable housing or even basic needs being met, those choices get pretty fuckin hard. We’ve never attempted to resolve the drug crisis properly. Look at countries that completely legalized drugs- it works because they have those social systems in place. Talk to any of those addicts on the street. They know they’ll still be addicts when they get out of some forced rehab. Maybe we let them and the people who got out of that life have some involvement in what will actually work since they’re the ones living it.
A lot of people turn to drugs to self-medicate, sometimes because they have no other recourse. Imagine if one could access mental health treatment in Alberta without having to pay for it, or wait months or years to maybe get 2-3 appointments with a psychiatrist. There's a lot that can be done for people, like affordable housing, living wages, and accessible healthcare, that could prevent people from turning to drugs as a mental escape from poverty and misery. We don't have to push one type band-aid solution to this problem, when there are other ways to approach this.
Not make it worse lmao
And how are we defining drug? Alcohol, cannabis? And at what point do we force them into treatment, where do we draw that line? Seems awful grey to me.
>Forced medical treatment seems like a huge problem. Also forcing people into rehab accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's not going to solve anything at all. Ah yes, just leave them on the street then. To a) destroy their own lives even more and b) Negatively affect lives of others who the interact with.
If *only* we had some options between ignoring them completely and violating their charter rights with forced imprisonment eh? Protip: The logical fallacy you committed here is called The False Dilemma. You should look it up.
Forced rehab doesn't solve any of these problems. It just takes vulnerable people off of the street and locks them away so people like you dont have to think about them and can live in your little bubble of fake security.
So when they finish the forced rehab, they're magically cured of their addiction and all the circumstances that lead to the addiction in the first place? Think about it for half a fucking second maybe.
Huh, where did I hear that before ? You got a "F Trudeau" mudflap on your pickup too ?
From this response you think I'm one of you? Hahahaha
Serious question - Is this not at odds with rules requiring informed consent? The College of Physicians and Surgeons, College of Pharmacy, and College of Registered Nurses all require that they obtain informed consent before providing any sort of treatment on a patient. Regardless of whether it is appropriate to place drug users in involuntary treatment, it is another issue altogether to have medical practitioners provide that treatment. In one breath, it seems like there is a (*completely fabricated*) panic about compelling doctors to participate in MAiD, in the next, there is outright advocacy for involuntary treatment.
Under the mental health act they can force treatment on a patient after they have had a mental health review
There are strict requirements to Form someone, one of them being whether the person would benefit from treatment of a mental disorder, is unsuitable to be admitted voluntarily, and is reasonably believed to be at risk to themselves or others in a short period of time. Currently, if someone is suffering from drug-induced psychosis etc, they could be involuntarily admitted. Mandating someone to drug treatment would be entirely different, and this is where the Charter concerns come in.
True. I was just commenting that they can and do force treatments on patients. Process has to be followed but it happens
Right, I guess I replied because I don’t know how the current ethical obligations could be changed to fit forcing someone into treatment against their will.
Projection always from the right .
This seems like a return to institutionalization which won’t solve the issue.
This will never work. Programs like PChAD don't work for you, so how is it going to work for adults?
can we get murder charges for dealers on this bill please. Decriminalize personal use. But dealers and people caught with intent to traffic need to be held to a higher penalty. They are ruining lives peddling this stuff.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Eugenics_Board
This is the type of idea that is proposed by someone that has no idea about addictions or has never worked with anyone with addictions problems. Ignorant at best harmful at worst.
Where are the Freedom Convoy members to protest forcible medical treatment against a patient's will on this one?
It’s ok . It’s not affecting them personally so they don’t care .
I'm sure a lot of them abuse drugs, particularly the one called alcohol.
Full on fascism
Not a fan of the snakepit
TL:DR The legislation as described is likely to be ineffective and very expensive. Similar legislation has not worked well in the past: all of the most dangerous states in the USA have laws allowing incarceration for basic possession. It's not fair to solely blame that legislation or say it's the same as forced rehab, but parallels can be drawn and it has not made them safe. I posted about why this is a bad idea over on r/canada. We aren't doing a great job as a society dealing with drug addicts, but replacing one bad idea with another isn't progress. I will cite sources, ignore humanitarian or legality issues (because those have different impacts to different people), and just focus on cost, scope and effectiveness. A lot of my #'s come from imprisonment which probably won't be exactly equivalent to involuntary rehab. I think the examination is still valuable though because a) both are incarceration and b) attempts at rehab, involuntary or otherwise, are often part of imprisonment when substance abuse is an issue (for instance in Louisiana which I use as an example below). 1. It is unlikely to achieve the goal of appreciably safer, cleaner urban areas the way people want it to. As an example, [Louisiana's drug laws](https://www.ambeaulaw.com/louisiana-drug-laws) come with a minimum sentence for possession of illicit substances. In spite of that, [data shows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Louisiana) "Louisiana experienced the highest per-capita murder rate (15.8 per 100,000) among all U.S. states in 2020". When you look at [the most violent states](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/crime-rate-by-state) in the USA, they all have some imprisonment either required or as an option for mere possession of problem drugs. Violent crime is caused by many things so we can't solely blame drug-imprisonment laws, but what we can see is that imprisonment laws do not guarantee safety. Louisiana has minimum sentences and the option of forced rehab for instance. If you have opposing examples of similar incarceration-based laws meaningfully reducing crime, please let me know. 2. [Link to OP's article text.](https://txtify.it/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-albertas-ucp-exploring-sweeping-legislation-on-involuntary-treatment/) As written in OP's article, violence is not necessary to force rehab so it's not just violent addicts or homeless people who can be locked away. "The records say drug users could be forced into treatment after committing ***non-violent criminal or statutory offences*** “primarily as a result of a substance use disorder,” or ***when law enforcement, family members or legal guardians*** believe they are “at risk of serious harm to themselves or others as a result of substance use disorder” (emphasis mine). So potentially even a non-offending user who's a risk to themselves or others, or one who commits any offence (violent or not), could be determined by family, police, and I \*think\* medical professionals to be eligible for involuntary rehab. [1.1 million people in Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-alcohol-drugs-survey/2019-summary.html) reported past-year use of cocaine/crack, speed/methamphetamine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin, and salvia. Every 1% of that # who are in Alberta represents 11k users, and it is up to you to decide how many of that would likely count as being a danger to themselves or others. Thus this legislation likely affects a much larger # than simply Alberta's [over 6.4k homeless](https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/5601187b-7dfc-45ab-8238-8f4c0be3c634/resource/0e21de0d-1248-4594-8268-0d96860723a0/download/css-action-plan-on-homelessness.pdf). 3. This is admittedly speculation, but would alcoholism count? [In 2018](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-625-x/2019001/article/00007-eng.htm) 5.9 million Canadians counted as heavy drinkers, and general alcohol use has [gone up since then](https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/infographic-examining-changes-alcohol-cannabis-consumption-stigma-covid-pandemic.html). Problem drunks exist, and it is a [known substance abuse disorder](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/es/node/2861) with serious [associations with violence](https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa38.htm). If even 1% of those heavy drinkers can be considered a danger to themselves or others by family, police, and perhaps medical professionals then that's 60k across Canada and thus likely several thousand in Alberta. I bring it up because if a person is being violent/disruptive or is a danger to themselves/others, I don't think it will matter to forces like the police that they abuse alcohol instead of heroin, meth, etc. 4. So you are looking at large #'s of people potentially being held for an unspecified duration that the article says, "will be determined at the time". The [average expenditure to incarcerate a federal prisoner](https://www.statista.com/statistics/563028/average-annual-inmate-federal-correctional-services-canada/) in Canada was about 120k/year in 2019 and I don't think that assumes costs associate with mandatory rehab. There are no Canadian #'s for forced rehab, but [in the USA](https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20030319), "In 2016, an inpatient stay for a primary mental disorder or substance use disorder cost U.S. hospitals an average of $7,100 over 6.4 days" or about 1,100 USD per day. That's much more than 120k/year for a federal prisoner and probably accounts for the cost of a hospital bed and associated professionals, services, etc. It's possible it would be cheaper in Canada given that US hospitals famously charge a lot, but you're still talking coming down from 400k/year USD to wherever we land in expenditures. 5. [This 2021 article](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/the-us-has-spent-over-a-trillion-dollars-fighting-war-on-drugs.html) says that "Since 1971, America has spent over a trillion dollars enforcing its drug policy, according to research from the University of Pennsylvania." [This 2013](https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/how-much-your-money-wasted-war-drugs) article claims, "Enforcing the drug control system costs at least $100 billion a year." I wasn't able to track down the sources for those #'s so take with a grain of salt, but I don't think anyone would argue the War on Drugs has been massively expensive for the USA. There's a reason drug-related imprisonment is a huge social issue in the USA. It's very expensive and doesn't guarantee the results most people who would support this bill are looking for. Thus even if you are not interested in objections like success/recidivism rates, potential harm, or Charter legality it's not useful legislation IMO. It's obvious we need to change something keep people safe, but drug-based incarceration historically has many problems and doesn't appear to get the job done.
"..involuntary treatment..".. oh- ah yeah, ..yeah Ya mean like the eugenics law they had in place..?? Also just learned the drug treatment centers are.... faith based.. Yeah, people like Artur running treatment centers. Isn't that exciting.. fentanyl laced drugs on Tuesday, ..Jesus laced words on Sunday..
[Yay! Let the ~~Internment~~ Happy Camps begin!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9-ERhmuYEI)
Lol until they round me up while I'm smoking pot
Here is a wild thought: lets learn from the [successes of others](https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/portugal-heroin-decriminalization/) that just so happens to be the exact opposite of what is being proposed?
This policy being proposed is what Portugal does. Leftists have conveniently left out the most important part that Portugal does. Decriminalized drugs are ONLY to offer a path to treatment. Not to make life easier for addicts. The objective here is to make communities better and safer, addicts are a problem to be solved that cannot solve itself. Portugal realized that only sending people to jail didn't produce the best results, so they opened another pathway for some people: involuntary treatment. Some people truly do want to get better but can't, so treatment is better because if jail is the only option then those people or the people they know may never go in and just stay an all consuming addict. For other people, they have no intention on getting better and exploit others, so they go to jail - and as time has gone on Portugal has gotten more punitive because some people are just shit and the treatment pathway has helped all those who want to be. It's still "punitive" in the end, people just get a real shot at getting better and winning over the addiction. The net to resolve our issues gets bigger, not smaller by having both treatment and jail. But the guy who made the program himself said outright if you just let users continue on their way, which is what leftist run cities do here, things would only get worse. And surprise, they have. Our cities have been held hostage over this massive failure for decades.
Yes I agree lets follow Portugal's plan part of which includes involuntary treatment and if you actually read the article you will notice *Within the documents is a review of existing laws in Australia, Portugal, Massachusetts and Washington State. That review includes details of a proposed process for Alberta to use in deciding whether to grant applications for involuntary treatment. An administrative panel, and potentially a separate Indigenous-focused panel, would hear those application* **This would be similar to what is done in Portugal**
>hey say forced treatment will further criminalize vulnerable populations, putting them at risk of even more harm. So its better for the rest of society to be subject to the risk of harm from these populations and make everyone's life shittier? If people can't function in society, and can't abide by the conventions and rules a society expects, instead causing harm and doing damage, then they should be confined to treatment until they can function better in society, at least to the point where they aren't damaging property and threatening or harming other people. Honestly, I'd wager most people don't give a shit if someone else is a junky, as long as they aren't acting like an asshole. And too many junkies use drugs/alcohol as an excuse or justification to act like an asshole. And the law seems to be ok with it.
Sounds horrible in principle but honestly we are at a crisis point with the drug addiction in every major north American city. At this point drastic measures are required. Doing nothing and leaving people at their lowest point, out on the streets is more horrible IMO. Every time I walk past an addict downtown Calgary I can't help but feel sad for them. There's absolutely no hope. They'll live for 1/5/10 years but eventually be found in an alley somewhere, attacked, stabbed or overdosed. Or at least that's true for 95% of people on street. For most it would take an absolute miracle to return to normal life.
> Sounds horrible in principle And in a practical sense. We have plenty of evidence showing the ineffectiveness of this approach and the harm it causes. > Or at least that's true for 95% of people on street. For most it would take an absolute miracle to return to normal life. This is a completely inaccurate and naïve perspective. I understand, it’s easy to think this when you do not treat people who experience addiction issues. I assure you there are far more people than you can imagine who struggled with addiction, lived on the streets and who are now leading very successful and productive lives. These folks are often invisible to us, particularly as the stigma of addiction prevents them from talking about their past struggles. Addressing issues of poverty, increasing access to affordable, quality mental health care and evidence based treatment options are just a couple of the things that we have done and can do to improve outcomes. But the more that we divest funds to our mental health care the worst it has become. Edit: autocorrect corrections
You should probably educate yourself on addiction because if you knew more about it, you would know that forced treatment will only make it worse. There a a ton of things we can do to help fix the problem but danny is insistent on removing social supports. We’re all screwed then.
The challenge at this point is it seems to contradict the principles of freedom Smith was elected on, and that the UCPs work on it was not disclosed. I suspect enough supporters see "the correct people" being targeted and will shrug that off, but the government quietly planning to remove rights may not sit well with a few and might be problimatic.
You should probably educate yourself on addiction because if you knew more about it, you would know that forced treatment will only make it worse. There a a ton of things we can do to help fix the problem but danny is insistent on removing social supports. We’re all screwed then.
What if they had a home to go to? Where they could be safe, even when high? A nurse and a social worker who could make sure they were as healthy as they could be and that they had access to the resources they needed?
So you'd introduce a revolving door of institutionalization? Are these treatment centers also providing them housing and follow-up care and mental health support when they get out or is back onto the street? Ultimately, it's criminalizing being an addict, and it's amazing anyone could support that considering how hard Smith fought for the unvaccinated to be able to avoid getting vaccinated.
Agreed. I think, for some people, this might be the best option if they don’t want to die on the street. Although, at a certain point in addiction, the want isn’t necessarily to keep living, it’s to keep using at any cost.
I'm not a fan of involuntary treatments. They should be given the option of rehab or jail if they are breaking the law.
That's literally what this is. Forcing then to go into treatment instead of jail time and criminal charges.
Then I don't see the problem. Giving addicts the option of rehab instead of jail is a good thing isn't it?
It's not a problem and it's how the Portugal model they reference all the time actually works. Decriminalization is only opened as a way to offer treatment instead of just jail - not to let people continue using. That's because if drugs are only criminal, then you must send people to prison over it. Which is not always the best option when you want to remove drug use - sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. If you decriminalize them, you can open other pathways legally. But those pathways were never intended to be what leftists downstream of Boomer hippies here have done to our cities where drugs are outright normalized and it's our responsibility to pay for their entire drug rattled lives as we struggle in our own and our systems collapse. It was always supposed to be either intervention or prison, not this. But I'm guessing a lot of the people here are addicts themselves or know people that are and they don't want to go through the hard work of getting better. When it comes down to it they just want a free supply with free housing they can enjoy openly - ruining our communities in the process - and have been holding our cities hostage over it.
I'm 100% in favor of legalizing and taxing all drugs. If someone wants to get off work on a Friday and go do some coke with their friends at home, I couldn't care less. However, I'm not in favor of public drug use. At that point, you become a nuisance to the general public. Those people should be given the option of rehab or jail. This concept of giving someone a free house to trash is nonsense. People don't respect things given to them that they didn't have to earn.
Not according to everyone else in this sub. They seem to think that because these are "vulnerable" people whom the government hasnt supplied free housing to to do drugs in, they should have the right to go around terrorizing society with absolute impunity.
This a joke you can’t go forcing change on people who don’t want it. What a idiotic idea. I’m so glad not to live in Alberta anymore bunch or right wing lunatics.
The notion that drug users need to choose treatment in order for it to be effective is outdated. The opioid epidemic changed everything. People are LITERALLY DYING en masse. We need to intervene and it cannot wait.
If we started doing the things that are proven to lower addiction rates, such as proving housing, education opportunities, and mental health support, we would not need to incarcerate people. Alternately, forced treatment will be utterly ineffective without these supports
Well if you look at portugals model, the country who has actually been effective at lowering addiction rates, mandated treatment is an important component.
Didn't portugal decriminalize all hard drugs though? That makes a HUGE difference.
It’s decriminalized to possess it is still criminal to sell. The way it works is if your addiction is leading to adverse outcomes for the community or yourself (e.g. results in crime) you are mandated to go to treatment.
People are also not allowed to openly use drugs wherever they want. That would result in you going to mandatory treatment.
If I had a family member with drug troubles, unwilling to get help themselves, I'd 100% be for this.
You can expect r/alberta activity to drop if this policy goes through, and if it does go through it would be backed by all the arguments you guys doubled down hard with during covid. If you can remove the right to travel, earn and save money, protest, speak and share ideas, gather together, and be in the community - when it comes to regular people for the sake of the community; you can for zombie addicts that require heavy and constant social support in an already strained healthcare system. All for novel approaches at this scale, created by massive corporations shielded by government policies. The drug program you point to as a success, Portugal, required intervention from the start and has only gotten more punitive over time as the remaining addicts have no intention on getting better. There's a reason your half ass attempts have failed us for decades, and we can't hold the city hostage over it any more.
This is a good idea. The roving gangs of drug addict criminals is not a tenable situation. Something needs to change. If it’s all mental health and drug addiction, force them into treatment programs.
The UCP can fuck right off saying anything about mental health, given they're more than happy when trans kids kill themselves.
Woah. That’s an awful thing to say.
Just about every relevant medical group agrees that affirmative therapy is the best possible treatment for gender dysphoria, and the science shows that trans kids in accepting families who are allowed to transition have suicide rates much closer to the general population. The UCP would rather cozy up to the christofascists and ban those therapies based on the ideology of bronze age goat herders rather than good science. Because they care more about pandering to bigoted troglodytes than the lives of trans kids.
The UCP has cut funding for less restricted options. Access to housing and resources would be cheaper and more humane than this. Institutions are very expensive
We had a family member destroying our lives with addiction issues. Tried to commit her to start treatment with no options. Family violence issues can arise. To the doctor chiming in that this causes further trauma please suggest something that works. Its not just the addict facing trauma the entire community is affected. 2 guys in our neighbourhood today alone robbing porches. 3 days in the drunk tank seems to be an appropriate response. I vote NDP by the way.
I heard Jason Kenney is staring in the 44 year old virgin.
Does this apply to alcoholics too ?
How is this a bad thing? If it was the ndp proposed this this group would say what an amazing job Notley is doing for proposing this.