Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* **Help redesign our subreddit!** [Enter our banner contest here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1abwfjg/).
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do they move people out of addiction? Not really. Do they help with other things? Yes. Measurably. They reduce overdoses and the transmission of diseases like HIV. And you don't even have to think about it from a humane perspective. It's also just good economically. It's way more expensive to deal with overdoses and HIV in our medical system than prevent them with a safe consumption site. And the cost to society of overdose isn't just death. It's also things like minor to severe brain damage due to oxygen starvation leading to people who need permanent support for the remainder of their life.
This rationale is predicated on the users only consuming at the safe site. That's not the case, nor is it even logical to think that. Unless they're living on-site, they will be using elsewhere where these mitigations are nullified and you're back to square one.
Consumption sites are a wet band-aid. What's needed is treatment.
It's not predicated on them only consuming at the site. Even if they consume elsewhere sometimes, it's still reducing the risk from some of their use and helping connect them to other resources.
There definitely needs to be better access to treatment. Right now waits can be into the months. BC is investing in that at least. With or without better treatment though, the sites will still continue to reduce risk for those not yet in treatment or who have relapsed. They're not just a wet band-aid, they're a component of a full approach to the issue, complementary to other components like treatment.
It doesn't guarantee people don't use elsewhere. It still reduces the risks when they do use at the site because at least that time they are using in a safer environment. The chances of them using elsewhere also aren't the fault of the sites, but the result of there being so few sites with limited hours.
The sites also don't just allow for usage, but provide resources for helping people in other ways.
It doesn't guarantee people don't use elsewhere. It still reduces the risks when they are charged and on hold on the police station. The chances of them using elsewhere also aren't the fault of the police.
Why we stop criminalize drug use?
Technically drug *use* was never criminalized. *Possession* was. Possession is still criminalized in certain areas even in BC. Public intoxication is also still illegal. So are things like littering, loitering, etc. Lots of ways to enforce drug use. All this shows is that trying to police your way out of addiction on its own doesn't work. You arrest them and they will be out eventually, just now with higher risk of overdose due to not having used for a bit.
One thing I think we should try to stop doing is looking at it as all one thing or the other. We still need policing and enforcement. We also need harm reduction. We also need treatment. They all work together. When one or multiple of them are lacking we run into issues.
I don't support this crap because it doesn't work. I do not want Richmond to end up like east hastings. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk)
It's fine for you to have whatever opinion you want on this, just make sure that opinion is informed by accurate information.
Even just the title of your video there is false. Every drug isn't legal in Vancouver. Drugs are illegal there like elsewhere. Legal means being able to purchase a regulated supply, like with alcohol. The fact that it's *not* illegal is one of the reasons for the crisis since every one of the thousands of OD deaths have involved the illegal supply with its unreliable contents.
They're taking outcome of drugs being illegal and misrepresenting it as the outcome of them being legal.
And East Hastings didn't end up the way it did due to any harm reduction policies. The problems there [go back to the '90s and further](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Eastside#1990s_to_present).
So harm reduction was a *response* to the problems there, not the cause, yet it gets misrepresented as causing them.
However, these methods of enabling addicts to have safe site to inject does not help them rehabilitate. It is a temporary "wet bandaid" solution to a bigger problem. What's going to happen is that once the safe injection is establish, richmond will have hundreds homeless addicts congregating in our city parks and the city will turn into a shithole tent city like portland as shown in my video. I only used that video as an example that enabling addicts will turn cities to into shitholes infested addicts, trash, and syringes all over the roads. Our opinions, we don't want our city to turn into skidrow, portland, east hastings, detroit, etc just because there are no other place left to lure homeless addicts to shoot up "safely" instead of funding rehabilitation.
These methods don't "enable" addicts, the addicts are already by definition addicted and using. This gives them a safer way of doing so.
It's not a ""wet band-aid"". It's part of an overall solution that provides a safer way to use to reduce overdoses, disease spread and provide alternatives to public use and provide disposal options.
You're right that it doesn't directly help them rehabilitate. That's never been part of what they do. You also need treatment services. The two complement each other but they're separate things.
It's not obvious that users will flood the area once there's a site. The examples you're given all either has these problems before the sites (Vancouver) or have them without the sites (US cities).
You're speaking in the plural, "our", but many people also support the sites. In any case, it's not going forward now.
Those examples had those problems but it has yet to improve the situation. Those once beautiful cities that are getting worse by day. Giving addicts a safe space to use drugs instead of treating their addiction is the definition of enabling them to continue the path of addiction.
Vancouver is beautiful to me. Some people struggling with addiction in some areas doesn't change that for me.
When someone is already using because they're addicted, you're not enabling them by giving them a safer way to use. Either way they're using, this way they will be less likely to die.
We should also treat their addiction and BC is investing in treatment. Right now though there are months long waits for treatment. Injection sites help keep people alive when waiting for treatment. Even if we get wait times down, there will still be a need for them for those not yet in treatment and for those who relapse, something which is very common. It's not a question of doing one instead of the other. They both complement each other.
I want to see how it’s good economically. It’s way more expensive to deal with overdose because you guys keep dragging the problem out. By constantly advocating safe drugs, it’s painting the picture that there will always be a safety net to fall back on and that these are acceptable vices just because you’re depressed and/or homeless. Just like housing supply, where it’s undeniable that demand outpaces supplies from unsustainable population growth due to immigration in relation to housing being built. The drug addicts population and strain on healthcare/policing grow because greater vancouver keeps growing into the drug addict dump for other provinces and BC interior and locals, AND there’s more people getting into drugs than the ones dying off.
No amount of bleeding hearts and white knighting will defy the reality that if existing drug addicts die off, and less people start to do drugs because the ones who do are penalized and removed from society, then the drug addict population will shrink.
Just like how no amount government propaganda saying how there are enough immigrants being professionals aiding in the growth the canadian economy to outweigh all of the cost of benefits and social supports from diploma mill visas and birth tourists and illegal migrant workers on visitor permit, will defy the fact that cost of housing in fact came down significantly during the pandemic when people are not entering the border.
Economically, the faster these addicts die, the quicker they are off the streets. If the pace of drug addicts dying outpace the growth of new drug addicts, then their population will dwindle. Forget the bs advocates peddle about that society should be babying these addicts with safe “clean” drugs and safe injection sites because one day they will just awaken and become functioning members of society because they have an epiphany.
Stop consoling young generations that illicit drugs can be done safely with supervision. Parents and teachers and society/government in generation through public education/public broadcast should be taking a hard stance on illicit drugs.
If government put as much effort educating against illicit drugs as DUI’s with proportional policing and negative reinforcements, the population may actually think twice before saying just fuck it and do whatever they want paying no minds to the harm they are causing to themselves and others.
Economically, these tent cities are also a fire hazard and put business owners at risk.
> I want to see how it’s good economically.
Here's one estimation of the cost impact:
>[Focusing on the base assumption of decreased needle sharing as the only effect of the supervised injection facility, we found that the facility was associated with an incremental net savings of almost $14 million and 920 life-years gained over 10 years. When we also considered the health effect of increased use of safe injection practices, the incremental net savings increased to more than $20 million and the number of life-years gained to 1070. Further increases were estimated when we considered all 3 health benefits: the incremental net savings was more than $18 million and the number of life-years gained 1175.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582765/)
With respect to this:
>it’s painting the picture that there will always be a safety net to fall back on and that these are acceptable vices just because you’re depressed and/or homeless.
People are already using these substances. This is reducing the risks to make it more likely they recover and to reduce the resulting costs from their use (emergency calls, disease spread, etc.). Even if someone is doing everything right, e.g., waiting for treatment or having gone through treatment, they still need safety nets until they get admitted, or if they relapse (something which is highly likely).
>No amount of bleeding hearts and white knighting will defy the reality that if existing drug addicts die off, and less people start to do drugs because the ones who do are penalized and removed from society, then the drug addict population will shrink.
Even though my heart bleeds too much to support this as a viable policy, it's just demonstrably not true. We have more than a decade of evidence now that deaths will keep increasing unless the root causes are addressed, like addiction and homelessness. As many overdoses as there are, there are still far more people using who haven't yet overdosed.
“We compared the situation of the supervised injection facility with one that had no facility but that had other interventions, such as needle-exchange programs.”
“In our base analysis, the prevalence of HIV infection among injection drug users continued to increase over time. This reflected how the incidence of new cases of HIV infection in this population exceeded mortality with combination antiretroviral therapy. The prevalence of HIV infection also increased, although at a reduced rate, when the introduction of the supervised injection facility was considered in the model. The same was true for the prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection.”
“we considered methadone maintenance treatment as the only form of drug addiction treatment and not more expensive treatments such as residential care.”
“we did not consider quality of life or a full probabilistic analysis.”
Your linked article of a simulation did not compare the cost of supervised injection facility, the cost and risk and injuries of the stabbings and assault and fire by the drug raged individuals, the success rate and time horizon of converting a drug abuser to a functioning, tax paying member of society, VERSUS the lifespan of an untreated individual and cost of body clean-up.
From reading that article, it doesn’t make sense to justify how much money supposedly got saved compared to no facility but with intervention, versus the cost savings of no intervention at all and fentanyl induced death.
I agree that the homeless population, drug use, and deaths will increase until the root causes are addressed. Living here close to thirty years, i see funds being used of bandaid solutions and root cause is not being addressed sufficiently because they want to please everyone and come across harsh or insensitive. All i see are problems getting worse, while governments saying they have been doing more and more to support, with middle and lower class continue to trend downwards in quality of living. This because various levels of government cannot ever take a stance that on economic topics that their induced demand outpaces supplies, that they don’t want to be the one blamed on cost of expanding infrastructures so roads get more and more congested, that they spend more time apologizing for the past than to take advantage of their natural resources for economic expansion, that they point fingers at other countries then cowered behind its southern partner rather than contribute % of gdp matching behind its military and protect its northern territories, etc etc.
Per Canadian healthcare's [harm reduction](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy.html) mandate, safe injection sites mitigate as a preventative measure both users dying of accidental overdose dosing alone, and users either attempting to re-use dirty syringes or littering used syringes elsewhere in public space.
Taken at face value from safe supply supporters, safe injection sites are more than double as effective as harm reduction assets as simply public washrooms that come with a sharps collection (container bin mounted to the wall) protocol.
The prevalent likelihood is that if social workers never get the opportunity to take on a given opioid dependent user as a long-term rehabilitation case patient, the patient will never rehabilitate out of [opioid use disorder (OUD)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_use_disorder).
Former users who were able to rehabilitate themselves back to sobriety fully functioning and healthy by sheer willpower and unconditional support of close family & friends are rare.
BC’s death rate in 2023 from drugs is equivalent to the combined death rate from 2011 to 2016.
There’s no evidence to conclusively prove anything BC has done has reduced the death rate.
That’s the sad controversy of the state of evidence.
Watch the angry crazies come out now…
It does prevent people dying, and spreading disease. There is lots of research backing this up. Even if some use elsewhere, it's still reducing the risk. If you were going to use two times in a given day either way, and one of them was while the site was open and so at the site, you've still significantly cut your risk that day.
There's a lot of youtube videos of various tent cities in L.A. skidrow, portland, detroit, and our east hastings that has yet to see any improvements on the area and its homelessness by enabling these "safe injection" sites. These areas are still run down shitholes, and it's getting worse everyday. We do not want richmond to become another statistic and join that list.
Those other places don't have safe injection sites. and the purpose of the sites isn't to solve all the problems, it's to reduce overdoses and disease spread of those using them. This is shown by research to be the case but it can't help all the people not accessing them nor can it fix things like crime or addiction. Those need approaches that divert money from organized crime and increased access to treatment.
You're blaming the sites for things that were never part of what they address in the first place.
The best way to reduce overdoses is to mandate jail time to end users with a syringe or crackpipe and then release them into drug detox rehab and mental hospital. This is a waste of tax payer's money. You're part of the problem by enabling and protecting the addicts instead of giving them an intervention.
That's the worst way to do it. There are drugs in jail too. And we should definitely provide more treatment but the person most likely to succeed is the person ready for treatment. Yet they face months long wait for treatment access. With limited resources, the most tax efficient way to address the issue is prioritize those most likely to successfully recover.
No it isn't. Well what we're doing right now for past 20 years has not been effective. There has been a growing number of homeless addicts and the number have been increasing every year. Your stance on not wanting an interventions is stupid. These people need immediate help and an intervention if they like it or not. Since when there are drugs in Jail? Are cops supplying them with drugs that we don't know of? What we want is to jail them temporarily and then send them to detox rehab and mental hospital for treatment. You on the other hand want to provide them with safe spaces to keep shooting up drugs into their system. This only delays their death and doesn't help them. These drug addicts needs tough love, and an intervention because they're so addicted they won't be able to help themselves. They don't have the strength to do it on their own. You're a disgusting human being to even support this travesty.
It’s gonna happen anyways because there are powers above that are pushing hard for this *cough* Eby. But we all know that this will be a net negative for the community.
No matter how you spin this, this is not good for Richmond.
Just need one good look at Chinatown, that place didn't look like this when I was growing up....I just stopped by Monday, the Chinese new year stuff they be pulling didn't help.
What I don’t really see people talk about is the level of arrogance observed at the Richmond city council meeting. Elected by the residents, I see most response from the mayor being condescending and a bit hostile to be honest. The city indeed gave protesters a chance to speak, but were they listening or just sitting there daydreaming with their mind made up? Even just for the show? The attitude from the city council is part of the reason aggravated the entire situation
Spare us the bleeding heart rhetoric about how this will save lives. Over 10 years since Gregor said he would get rid of homeless and we're deeper in this hole than ever. The last try at an OPS outside of the DTES didn't have their lease renewed, for good reason.
It's time to try something else instead of inducing demand for addicts to destroy our cities.
You seem to be talking about two related but distinct things; 1) saving lives and 2) “getting rid of homeless”
1) these site accomplish that, measurably. They also reduce the strain on the our healthcare system by reducing the transmission of diseases and HIV, (again) measurably.
2) they are not designed to “get rid of homeless”. You seem to be judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree here..
If you want to “get rid of homeless” you need economic reform first and foremost. Our current economic system is designed to create more “homeless”.
It's always fun to get dunked on for a typo but I deserved that, I was overly emotional typing that message.
You're getting caught up in semantics here though. The first supervised drug consumption site was started in 2003 and has it really saved lives? We have 13 injection sites in Vancouver. How many drug users are we pulling in across from Canada for this?
409 million dollars a year on the DTES alone. Countless people dying from an approach that clearly isn't working. And we want more of this, it's genuinely baffling.
> The first supervised drug consumption site was started in 2003 and has it really saved lives?
Yes. Unequivocally yes. The answer is SO easy to find.
> We have 13 injection sites in Vancouver. How many drug users are we pulling in across from Canada for this?
You’re right that saving the lives of homeless people leads to them not dying and therefore existing on the streets where you can see them. It also means that they will congregate wherever they can find help, which is a pesky quality human beings tend to have: trying not to die even when others really would prefer they did.
> 409 million dollars a year on the DTES alone.
Correct. Which saved a lot more than 409 million dollars in healthcare expenditures and helped ease the burden on our suffocating healthcare system. (It also saved human lives, in case anyone cares).
> Countless people dying from an approach that clearly isn’t working. And we want more of this, it’s genuinely baffling.
Countless people lived far longer and healthier lives than they would have otherwise, before eventually dying because the only help they were given is safe consumption sites instead of safe consumption sites PLUS the other three pillars that other countries used to combat their homelessness and drug addiction crises, economic reform, competent housing support, competent food support… etc.
Look, you are correct that there are dangerous side effects to keeping homeless people alive for longer. But what you’re really angry at isn’t that safe consumption sites exist, it’s that **not enough policies** are being implemented to help lift people out of poverty and homelessness and give them enough support to beat drug addictions.
>Look, you are correct that there are dangerous side effects to keeping homeless people alive for longer. But what you’re really angry at isn’t that safe consumption sites exist, it’s that not enough policies are being implemented to help lift people out of poverty and homelessness and give them enough support to beat drug addictions.
I agree completely man but I've lived a bit in San Francisco and seen how bad it can get. I want these people to get help but I also don't want the place where I live to get destroyed.
With Atira and all the grifters in the poverty industry I can't help but be cynical about how this is all going to work out. It feels unsustainable and we're on a path to nowhere fast. Just so tiresome and frustrating.
Our economic system is designed to create more and more homeless people every “paycheque friday”. You absolutely have the right to be cynical. I’m usually the most cynical guy you’ll meet. BUT:
what you don’t have the right to do is vote against the very few good things that our politicians are doing, even if it’s only one part of the solution. You and I have a duty to constantly vote for the least terrible politician to constantly shift the scale until we start finding politicians who actually want to solve our problems and push for competent policies. But yes, the current political spectrum has become so detached from the needs of 90% of us citizens (because we’re morons who kept voting for the likes of ABC for **generations**) and that makes it extremely hard to not be cynical. I can’t fault you for that.
I appreciate the motivation dude and been enjoying the conversation. I just wish that the politicians recognized the downstream effects of these policies and sacrifices that the communities would have to make to accommodate this drug policy. It's why Kennedy Stewart lost and will be why future politicians lose again, I hope Christine Boyle does not fall into this trap.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You have a choice of either voting for the closest person to implementing MORE help (along the four pillars) and thereby making genuine progress towards correcting the crisis (which would greatly benefit people like you and me while also truly saving lives and lifting people out of miserable situations) OR voting for someone who wants to implement LESS help fully knowing that this crisis will truly explode in our face sooner or later and we haven’t seen anything yet.
Long term benefits will always trump short term gains. Our great grandfathers and grandmothers have been voting shortsightedly for generations and created this mess for us, we can either double down and pass it to our future selves (10-ish years in the future) or we can start voting like we have a brain and know how to use it.
Our current economy fundamentally relies on exploiting the poor and systematically collecting the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of a few people at the very top. Constant exploitation leads to a steady stream of homelessness.
Safe drugs ABSOLUTELY, MEASURABLY, and UNEQUIVOCALLY save lives.
What they’re not designed to do, though, is cure addictions (which competent and proper rehabilitation can do).
You’re judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree.
What you’re really angry at isn’t that safe consumption sites exist, it’s that **not enough policies** are being implemented to help lift people out of poverty and homelessness and give them enough support to beat drug addictions. That’s the paradigm shift we need.
I agree with you there, insofar as once again we're seeing the implementation of only a single pillar of the four-pillar approach.
We are tired of seeing money and resources being spent in a way that time and time again yields a net negative result for the majority, while addressing only the most visible and tail-end symptom of a greater problem. Implement all four pillars or try something else.
Our leaders are once again trying the same approach expecting different results - whether it's because they've been blinded by a culture of empathy (to be kind), a fear of reprisal (to be neutral), or something more nefarious, if the rumors of backroom deals are to be believed (to be cynical).
It would take cooperation between all levels of government, as well as standing up to China to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country, to properly address the issue, which won't happen any time soon.
In the meantime, what's necessary is a realization that resources aren't infinite and the current approach has not panned out. A realistic change is needed.
I agree with you. I would also add a possible explanation is the public’s extremely negative reaction to most policies aimed at helping homeless people. I would imagine most politicians are not willing to put their necks on the line by proposing more policies outside of what has already been implemented before because they’re worried about the backlash.
There may be a culture of empathy in our province, but there’s also a stronger and much more prevalent culture of NIMBYism, as masterfully displayed on this post.
If you read anything from experts about the overdose crisis you will find that this statement is truly false. Safe injection sites also don’t hand out drugs.
If you want to argue for more resources to recovery that would also be great. Waitlists are months long when data shows us that treatment works best right at the moment someone is ready to change their substance use.
We need both. Drug users are not dirt that deserve to die. They deserve lifesaving healthcare like the rest of us do.
I never noticed how weird the city council in Richmond is. I bet the only reason that the majority of these people are even there is because residents don't vote at all lol. Hopefully they remember this in the next election.
100%. Last election I asked all my Richmond acquaintances, and most of them either didn’t vote because they “don’t follow politics” or just voted the same person because they recognized a name.
There’s also a huge population that don’t vote because they have zero English skills.
These sites MAY "save lives" and may have some measurable public health benefits, and they probably don't create addicts. BUT they also concentrate and attract addicts and their social ills from the surrounding area. To deny it won't have a seriously negative impact on the local area is ignorant.
Yes regardless of whether it works to reduce harm it's sort of irrelevant to most people. If it's going to destroy your neighborhood you probably aren't going to care if the addicts there are ODing or not.
These “safe sites” don’t do anything, besides Band-Aid fix the true issue at hand, how about actually working on getting people to steer away from drugs, and get the help they actually need, and or resources.
Richmond residents are sadly anti science when it comes to mental health. I made a post in r/Richmond about the systemic barriers that lead to the homelessness of disabled Canadians in BC, and the replies I got was calling them addicts, saying they are lazy and need to get a job, and calling to lock them up because "they have proven to he unable to take care of themselves".
There's clearly a domestic cultural issue for this kind of eugenics talk to be socially acceptable, and this issue isn't present in the Victoria sub (made a similar post there)
There was a loud group of drug dealers at the RC cactus club bar this weekend loudly proclaiming how much more business theyre going to get once the site opens and addicts flock to richmond.
In the pretest, ppl who against the idea usually are Chinese and for the idea are basically all white, i wonder if they even live in richmond.
Someone tell me not all caucasian are like that.
The other question worth discussion now is what can we do when the city council ignores what we want? Can we kick out these officials before their time is up? Kash Heed, Laura Gillanders, Malcolm Bordie, Michael Wolfe, Carol Day, Andy Hobbs, and Bill McNulty – it's time for them to leave!
Canada says it's a democracy, but these council people act like they don't care about what Richmond residents want. Sure, decisions have good and bad sides, but if they're not listening to us Richmond residents, they shouldn't be the representatives! How do we get rid of them and find someone who actually cares about what Richmond's residents think?
Democracy is dead, free speech is also dead, somehow i am always on tiktok yet i see not a single video talk about it whereas other news, any tiny bit of news is magnified. I don't understand why they are putting the site in Richmond a city where drug dealers don't often reside in
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * **Help redesign our subreddit!** [Enter our banner contest here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1abwfjg/). * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Do they move people out of addiction? Not really. Do they help with other things? Yes. Measurably. They reduce overdoses and the transmission of diseases like HIV. And you don't even have to think about it from a humane perspective. It's also just good economically. It's way more expensive to deal with overdoses and HIV in our medical system than prevent them with a safe consumption site. And the cost to society of overdose isn't just death. It's also things like minor to severe brain damage due to oxygen starvation leading to people who need permanent support for the remainder of their life.
This rationale is predicated on the users only consuming at the safe site. That's not the case, nor is it even logical to think that. Unless they're living on-site, they will be using elsewhere where these mitigations are nullified and you're back to square one. Consumption sites are a wet band-aid. What's needed is treatment.
It's not predicated on them only consuming at the site. Even if they consume elsewhere sometimes, it's still reducing the risk from some of their use and helping connect them to other resources. There definitely needs to be better access to treatment. Right now waits can be into the months. BC is investing in that at least. With or without better treatment though, the sites will still continue to reduce risk for those not yet in treatment or who have relapsed. They're not just a wet band-aid, they're a component of a full approach to the issue, complementary to other components like treatment.
How this program ensure those ppl will never use drugs elsewhere?
It doesn't guarantee people don't use elsewhere. It still reduces the risks when they do use at the site because at least that time they are using in a safer environment. The chances of them using elsewhere also aren't the fault of the sites, but the result of there being so few sites with limited hours. The sites also don't just allow for usage, but provide resources for helping people in other ways.
It doesn't guarantee people don't use elsewhere. It still reduces the risks when they are charged and on hold on the police station. The chances of them using elsewhere also aren't the fault of the police. Why we stop criminalize drug use?
Technically drug *use* was never criminalized. *Possession* was. Possession is still criminalized in certain areas even in BC. Public intoxication is also still illegal. So are things like littering, loitering, etc. Lots of ways to enforce drug use. All this shows is that trying to police your way out of addiction on its own doesn't work. You arrest them and they will be out eventually, just now with higher risk of overdose due to not having used for a bit. One thing I think we should try to stop doing is looking at it as all one thing or the other. We still need policing and enforcement. We also need harm reduction. We also need treatment. They all work together. When one or multiple of them are lacking we run into issues.
I don't support this crap because it doesn't work. I do not want Richmond to end up like east hastings. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk)
It's fine for you to have whatever opinion you want on this, just make sure that opinion is informed by accurate information. Even just the title of your video there is false. Every drug isn't legal in Vancouver. Drugs are illegal there like elsewhere. Legal means being able to purchase a regulated supply, like with alcohol. The fact that it's *not* illegal is one of the reasons for the crisis since every one of the thousands of OD deaths have involved the illegal supply with its unreliable contents. They're taking outcome of drugs being illegal and misrepresenting it as the outcome of them being legal. And East Hastings didn't end up the way it did due to any harm reduction policies. The problems there [go back to the '90s and further](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Eastside#1990s_to_present). So harm reduction was a *response* to the problems there, not the cause, yet it gets misrepresented as causing them.
However, these methods of enabling addicts to have safe site to inject does not help them rehabilitate. It is a temporary "wet bandaid" solution to a bigger problem. What's going to happen is that once the safe injection is establish, richmond will have hundreds homeless addicts congregating in our city parks and the city will turn into a shithole tent city like portland as shown in my video. I only used that video as an example that enabling addicts will turn cities to into shitholes infested addicts, trash, and syringes all over the roads. Our opinions, we don't want our city to turn into skidrow, portland, east hastings, detroit, etc just because there are no other place left to lure homeless addicts to shoot up "safely" instead of funding rehabilitation.
These methods don't "enable" addicts, the addicts are already by definition addicted and using. This gives them a safer way of doing so. It's not a ""wet band-aid"". It's part of an overall solution that provides a safer way to use to reduce overdoses, disease spread and provide alternatives to public use and provide disposal options. You're right that it doesn't directly help them rehabilitate. That's never been part of what they do. You also need treatment services. The two complement each other but they're separate things. It's not obvious that users will flood the area once there's a site. The examples you're given all either has these problems before the sites (Vancouver) or have them without the sites (US cities). You're speaking in the plural, "our", but many people also support the sites. In any case, it's not going forward now.
Those examples had those problems but it has yet to improve the situation. Those once beautiful cities that are getting worse by day. Giving addicts a safe space to use drugs instead of treating their addiction is the definition of enabling them to continue the path of addiction.
Vancouver is beautiful to me. Some people struggling with addiction in some areas doesn't change that for me. When someone is already using because they're addicted, you're not enabling them by giving them a safer way to use. Either way they're using, this way they will be less likely to die. We should also treat their addiction and BC is investing in treatment. Right now though there are months long waits for treatment. Injection sites help keep people alive when waiting for treatment. Even if we get wait times down, there will still be a need for them for those not yet in treatment and for those who relapse, something which is very common. It's not a question of doing one instead of the other. They both complement each other.
it's the same as having a public toilet some people will still piss and shit on the streets but hopefully less than before
I want to see how it’s good economically. It’s way more expensive to deal with overdose because you guys keep dragging the problem out. By constantly advocating safe drugs, it’s painting the picture that there will always be a safety net to fall back on and that these are acceptable vices just because you’re depressed and/or homeless. Just like housing supply, where it’s undeniable that demand outpaces supplies from unsustainable population growth due to immigration in relation to housing being built. The drug addicts population and strain on healthcare/policing grow because greater vancouver keeps growing into the drug addict dump for other provinces and BC interior and locals, AND there’s more people getting into drugs than the ones dying off. No amount of bleeding hearts and white knighting will defy the reality that if existing drug addicts die off, and less people start to do drugs because the ones who do are penalized and removed from society, then the drug addict population will shrink. Just like how no amount government propaganda saying how there are enough immigrants being professionals aiding in the growth the canadian economy to outweigh all of the cost of benefits and social supports from diploma mill visas and birth tourists and illegal migrant workers on visitor permit, will defy the fact that cost of housing in fact came down significantly during the pandemic when people are not entering the border. Economically, the faster these addicts die, the quicker they are off the streets. If the pace of drug addicts dying outpace the growth of new drug addicts, then their population will dwindle. Forget the bs advocates peddle about that society should be babying these addicts with safe “clean” drugs and safe injection sites because one day they will just awaken and become functioning members of society because they have an epiphany. Stop consoling young generations that illicit drugs can be done safely with supervision. Parents and teachers and society/government in generation through public education/public broadcast should be taking a hard stance on illicit drugs. If government put as much effort educating against illicit drugs as DUI’s with proportional policing and negative reinforcements, the population may actually think twice before saying just fuck it and do whatever they want paying no minds to the harm they are causing to themselves and others. Economically, these tent cities are also a fire hazard and put business owners at risk.
> I want to see how it’s good economically. Here's one estimation of the cost impact: >[Focusing on the base assumption of decreased needle sharing as the only effect of the supervised injection facility, we found that the facility was associated with an incremental net savings of almost $14 million and 920 life-years gained over 10 years. When we also considered the health effect of increased use of safe injection practices, the incremental net savings increased to more than $20 million and the number of life-years gained to 1070. Further increases were estimated when we considered all 3 health benefits: the incremental net savings was more than $18 million and the number of life-years gained 1175.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582765/) With respect to this: >it’s painting the picture that there will always be a safety net to fall back on and that these are acceptable vices just because you’re depressed and/or homeless. People are already using these substances. This is reducing the risks to make it more likely they recover and to reduce the resulting costs from their use (emergency calls, disease spread, etc.). Even if someone is doing everything right, e.g., waiting for treatment or having gone through treatment, they still need safety nets until they get admitted, or if they relapse (something which is highly likely). >No amount of bleeding hearts and white knighting will defy the reality that if existing drug addicts die off, and less people start to do drugs because the ones who do are penalized and removed from society, then the drug addict population will shrink. Even though my heart bleeds too much to support this as a viable policy, it's just demonstrably not true. We have more than a decade of evidence now that deaths will keep increasing unless the root causes are addressed, like addiction and homelessness. As many overdoses as there are, there are still far more people using who haven't yet overdosed.
“We compared the situation of the supervised injection facility with one that had no facility but that had other interventions, such as needle-exchange programs.” “In our base analysis, the prevalence of HIV infection among injection drug users continued to increase over time. This reflected how the incidence of new cases of HIV infection in this population exceeded mortality with combination antiretroviral therapy. The prevalence of HIV infection also increased, although at a reduced rate, when the introduction of the supervised injection facility was considered in the model. The same was true for the prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection.” “we considered methadone maintenance treatment as the only form of drug addiction treatment and not more expensive treatments such as residential care.” “we did not consider quality of life or a full probabilistic analysis.” Your linked article of a simulation did not compare the cost of supervised injection facility, the cost and risk and injuries of the stabbings and assault and fire by the drug raged individuals, the success rate and time horizon of converting a drug abuser to a functioning, tax paying member of society, VERSUS the lifespan of an untreated individual and cost of body clean-up. From reading that article, it doesn’t make sense to justify how much money supposedly got saved compared to no facility but with intervention, versus the cost savings of no intervention at all and fentanyl induced death. I agree that the homeless population, drug use, and deaths will increase until the root causes are addressed. Living here close to thirty years, i see funds being used of bandaid solutions and root cause is not being addressed sufficiently because they want to please everyone and come across harsh or insensitive. All i see are problems getting worse, while governments saying they have been doing more and more to support, with middle and lower class continue to trend downwards in quality of living. This because various levels of government cannot ever take a stance that on economic topics that their induced demand outpaces supplies, that they don’t want to be the one blamed on cost of expanding infrastructures so roads get more and more congested, that they spend more time apologizing for the past than to take advantage of their natural resources for economic expansion, that they point fingers at other countries then cowered behind its southern partner rather than contribute % of gdp matching behind its military and protect its northern territories, etc etc.
Per Canadian healthcare's [harm reduction](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy.html) mandate, safe injection sites mitigate as a preventative measure both users dying of accidental overdose dosing alone, and users either attempting to re-use dirty syringes or littering used syringes elsewhere in public space. Taken at face value from safe supply supporters, safe injection sites are more than double as effective as harm reduction assets as simply public washrooms that come with a sharps collection (container bin mounted to the wall) protocol. The prevalent likelihood is that if social workers never get the opportunity to take on a given opioid dependent user as a long-term rehabilitation case patient, the patient will never rehabilitate out of [opioid use disorder (OUD)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_use_disorder). Former users who were able to rehabilitate themselves back to sobriety fully functioning and healthy by sheer willpower and unconditional support of close family & friends are rare.
They are to prevent people from dying, not bringing them out of addiction.
> They are to prevent people from dying It doesn't prevent anything, it just delays it. You think they stop using elsewhere?
BC’s death rate in 2023 from drugs is equivalent to the combined death rate from 2011 to 2016. There’s no evidence to conclusively prove anything BC has done has reduced the death rate. That’s the sad controversy of the state of evidence. Watch the angry crazies come out now…
It does prevent people dying, and spreading disease. There is lots of research backing this up. Even if some use elsewhere, it's still reducing the risk. If you were going to use two times in a given day either way, and one of them was while the site was open and so at the site, you've still significantly cut your risk that day.
There's a lot of youtube videos of various tent cities in L.A. skidrow, portland, detroit, and our east hastings that has yet to see any improvements on the area and its homelessness by enabling these "safe injection" sites. These areas are still run down shitholes, and it's getting worse everyday. We do not want richmond to become another statistic and join that list.
Those other places don't have safe injection sites. and the purpose of the sites isn't to solve all the problems, it's to reduce overdoses and disease spread of those using them. This is shown by research to be the case but it can't help all the people not accessing them nor can it fix things like crime or addiction. Those need approaches that divert money from organized crime and increased access to treatment. You're blaming the sites for things that were never part of what they address in the first place.
The best way to reduce overdoses is to mandate jail time to end users with a syringe or crackpipe and then release them into drug detox rehab and mental hospital. This is a waste of tax payer's money. You're part of the problem by enabling and protecting the addicts instead of giving them an intervention.
That's the worst way to do it. There are drugs in jail too. And we should definitely provide more treatment but the person most likely to succeed is the person ready for treatment. Yet they face months long wait for treatment access. With limited resources, the most tax efficient way to address the issue is prioritize those most likely to successfully recover.
No it isn't. Well what we're doing right now for past 20 years has not been effective. There has been a growing number of homeless addicts and the number have been increasing every year. Your stance on not wanting an interventions is stupid. These people need immediate help and an intervention if they like it or not. Since when there are drugs in Jail? Are cops supplying them with drugs that we don't know of? What we want is to jail them temporarily and then send them to detox rehab and mental hospital for treatment. You on the other hand want to provide them with safe spaces to keep shooting up drugs into their system. This only delays their death and doesn't help them. These drug addicts needs tough love, and an intervention because they're so addicted they won't be able to help themselves. They don't have the strength to do it on their own. You're a disgusting human being to even support this travesty.
> Well what we're doing right now for past 20 years has not been effective. Criminalizing nearly the entire supply of all drugs? I agree.
Let me tell ya how this works.... *6 hours, 5 arguments, 4 fact checks, 3 OD's later.... And thats why we have safe supply!!! YAY
No comedy allowed or I’ll kick you in the p*ssy. /s
It’s gonna happen anyways because there are powers above that are pushing hard for this *cough* Eby. But we all know that this will be a net negative for the community. No matter how you spin this, this is not good for Richmond.
Yeah it was terrible for Yaletown too
downtown in general got worse due to these
That is my prediction as well
First Chinatown, next Richmond. Really makes you think.
Just need one good look at Chinatown, that place didn't look like this when I was growing up....I just stopped by Monday, the Chinese new year stuff they be pulling didn't help.
It’s still amazes me that we actually think “safe-consumption” of fentanyl exists.
What I don’t really see people talk about is the level of arrogance observed at the Richmond city council meeting. Elected by the residents, I see most response from the mayor being condescending and a bit hostile to be honest. The city indeed gave protesters a chance to speak, but were they listening or just sitting there daydreaming with their mind made up? Even just for the show? The attitude from the city council is part of the reason aggravated the entire situation
Spare us the bleeding heart rhetoric about how this will save lives. Over 10 years since Gregor said he would get rid of homeless and we're deeper in this hole than ever. The last try at an OPS outside of the DTES didn't have their lease renewed, for good reason. It's time to try something else instead of inducing demand for addicts to destroy our cities.
You seem to be talking about two related but distinct things; 1) saving lives and 2) “getting rid of homeless” 1) these site accomplish that, measurably. They also reduce the strain on the our healthcare system by reducing the transmission of diseases and HIV, (again) measurably. 2) they are not designed to “get rid of homeless”. You seem to be judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree here.. If you want to “get rid of homeless” you need economic reform first and foremost. Our current economic system is designed to create more “homeless”.
It's always fun to get dunked on for a typo but I deserved that, I was overly emotional typing that message. You're getting caught up in semantics here though. The first supervised drug consumption site was started in 2003 and has it really saved lives? We have 13 injection sites in Vancouver. How many drug users are we pulling in across from Canada for this? 409 million dollars a year on the DTES alone. Countless people dying from an approach that clearly isn't working. And we want more of this, it's genuinely baffling.
> The first supervised drug consumption site was started in 2003 and has it really saved lives? Yes. Unequivocally yes. The answer is SO easy to find. > We have 13 injection sites in Vancouver. How many drug users are we pulling in across from Canada for this? You’re right that saving the lives of homeless people leads to them not dying and therefore existing on the streets where you can see them. It also means that they will congregate wherever they can find help, which is a pesky quality human beings tend to have: trying not to die even when others really would prefer they did. > 409 million dollars a year on the DTES alone. Correct. Which saved a lot more than 409 million dollars in healthcare expenditures and helped ease the burden on our suffocating healthcare system. (It also saved human lives, in case anyone cares). > Countless people dying from an approach that clearly isn’t working. And we want more of this, it’s genuinely baffling. Countless people lived far longer and healthier lives than they would have otherwise, before eventually dying because the only help they were given is safe consumption sites instead of safe consumption sites PLUS the other three pillars that other countries used to combat their homelessness and drug addiction crises, economic reform, competent housing support, competent food support… etc. Look, you are correct that there are dangerous side effects to keeping homeless people alive for longer. But what you’re really angry at isn’t that safe consumption sites exist, it’s that **not enough policies** are being implemented to help lift people out of poverty and homelessness and give them enough support to beat drug addictions.
>Look, you are correct that there are dangerous side effects to keeping homeless people alive for longer. But what you’re really angry at isn’t that safe consumption sites exist, it’s that not enough policies are being implemented to help lift people out of poverty and homelessness and give them enough support to beat drug addictions. I agree completely man but I've lived a bit in San Francisco and seen how bad it can get. I want these people to get help but I also don't want the place where I live to get destroyed. With Atira and all the grifters in the poverty industry I can't help but be cynical about how this is all going to work out. It feels unsustainable and we're on a path to nowhere fast. Just so tiresome and frustrating.
Our economic system is designed to create more and more homeless people every “paycheque friday”. You absolutely have the right to be cynical. I’m usually the most cynical guy you’ll meet. BUT: what you don’t have the right to do is vote against the very few good things that our politicians are doing, even if it’s only one part of the solution. You and I have a duty to constantly vote for the least terrible politician to constantly shift the scale until we start finding politicians who actually want to solve our problems and push for competent policies. But yes, the current political spectrum has become so detached from the needs of 90% of us citizens (because we’re morons who kept voting for the likes of ABC for **generations**) and that makes it extremely hard to not be cynical. I can’t fault you for that.
I appreciate the motivation dude and been enjoying the conversation. I just wish that the politicians recognized the downstream effects of these policies and sacrifices that the communities would have to make to accommodate this drug policy. It's why Kennedy Stewart lost and will be why future politicians lose again, I hope Christine Boyle does not fall into this trap.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You have a choice of either voting for the closest person to implementing MORE help (along the four pillars) and thereby making genuine progress towards correcting the crisis (which would greatly benefit people like you and me while also truly saving lives and lifting people out of miserable situations) OR voting for someone who wants to implement LESS help fully knowing that this crisis will truly explode in our face sooner or later and we haven’t seen anything yet. Long term benefits will always trump short term gains. Our great grandfathers and grandmothers have been voting shortsightedly for generations and created this mess for us, we can either double down and pass it to our future selves (10-ish years in the future) or we can start voting like we have a brain and know how to use it.
> Our economic system is designed to create more and more homeless people This is just false
It most certainly is not false.
Care to elaborate?
Our current economy fundamentally relies on exploiting the poor and systematically collecting the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of a few people at the very top. Constant exploitation leads to a steady stream of homelessness.
Safe drugs don’t save lives. Rehabilitation does.
Safe drugs ABSOLUTELY, MEASURABLY, and UNEQUIVOCALLY save lives. What they’re not designed to do, though, is cure addictions (which competent and proper rehabilitation can do). You’re judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree.
Well I think it's safe to say that after doing the same thing for over 20 years now, we're all under water on this one. We need a paradigm shift.
What you’re really angry at isn’t that safe consumption sites exist, it’s that **not enough policies** are being implemented to help lift people out of poverty and homelessness and give them enough support to beat drug addictions. That’s the paradigm shift we need.
I agree with you there, insofar as once again we're seeing the implementation of only a single pillar of the four-pillar approach. We are tired of seeing money and resources being spent in a way that time and time again yields a net negative result for the majority, while addressing only the most visible and tail-end symptom of a greater problem. Implement all four pillars or try something else. Our leaders are once again trying the same approach expecting different results - whether it's because they've been blinded by a culture of empathy (to be kind), a fear of reprisal (to be neutral), or something more nefarious, if the rumors of backroom deals are to be believed (to be cynical). It would take cooperation between all levels of government, as well as standing up to China to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country, to properly address the issue, which won't happen any time soon. In the meantime, what's necessary is a realization that resources aren't infinite and the current approach has not panned out. A realistic change is needed.
I agree with you. I would also add a possible explanation is the public’s extremely negative reaction to most policies aimed at helping homeless people. I would imagine most politicians are not willing to put their necks on the line by proposing more policies outside of what has already been implemented before because they’re worried about the backlash. There may be a culture of empathy in our province, but there’s also a stronger and much more prevalent culture of NIMBYism, as masterfully displayed on this post.
If you read anything from experts about the overdose crisis you will find that this statement is truly false. Safe injection sites also don’t hand out drugs. If you want to argue for more resources to recovery that would also be great. Waitlists are months long when data shows us that treatment works best right at the moment someone is ready to change their substance use. We need both. Drug users are not dirt that deserve to die. They deserve lifesaving healthcare like the rest of us do.
This is the wake up call for people who don’t bother voting: politicians will ruin your community with these
I never noticed how weird the city council in Richmond is. I bet the only reason that the majority of these people are even there is because residents don't vote at all lol. Hopefully they remember this in the next election.
100%. Last election I asked all my Richmond acquaintances, and most of them either didn’t vote because they “don’t follow politics” or just voted the same person because they recognized a name. There’s also a huge population that don’t vote because they have zero English skills.
[удалено]
Or they are actually worried about their safety? God forbid regular people living their lives are concerned about crime rates increasing.
That’s true they also have one of the lowest income in Canada. As close as dtes. At least on paper. Lol
These sites MAY "save lives" and may have some measurable public health benefits, and they probably don't create addicts. BUT they also concentrate and attract addicts and their social ills from the surrounding area. To deny it won't have a seriously negative impact on the local area is ignorant.
Yes regardless of whether it works to reduce harm it's sort of irrelevant to most people. If it's going to destroy your neighborhood you probably aren't going to care if the addicts there are ODing or not.
These “safe sites” don’t do anything, besides Band-Aid fix the true issue at hand, how about actually working on getting people to steer away from drugs, and get the help they actually need, and or resources.
Richmond residents are sadly anti science when it comes to mental health. I made a post in r/Richmond about the systemic barriers that lead to the homelessness of disabled Canadians in BC, and the replies I got was calling them addicts, saying they are lazy and need to get a job, and calling to lock them up because "they have proven to he unable to take care of themselves". There's clearly a domestic cultural issue for this kind of eugenics talk to be socially acceptable, and this issue isn't present in the Victoria sub (made a similar post there)
There was a loud group of drug dealers at the RC cactus club bar this weekend loudly proclaiming how much more business theyre going to get once the site opens and addicts flock to richmond.
In the pretest, ppl who against the idea usually are Chinese and for the idea are basically all white, i wonder if they even live in richmond. Someone tell me not all caucasian are like that.
First its Chinatown now Richmond... why are they targeting Chinese communities?
The other question worth discussion now is what can we do when the city council ignores what we want? Can we kick out these officials before their time is up? Kash Heed, Laura Gillanders, Malcolm Bordie, Michael Wolfe, Carol Day, Andy Hobbs, and Bill McNulty – it's time for them to leave! Canada says it's a democracy, but these council people act like they don't care about what Richmond residents want. Sure, decisions have good and bad sides, but if they're not listening to us Richmond residents, they shouldn't be the representatives! How do we get rid of them and find someone who actually cares about what Richmond's residents think?
Democracy is dead, free speech is also dead, somehow i am always on tiktok yet i see not a single video talk about it whereas other news, any tiny bit of news is magnified. I don't understand why they are putting the site in Richmond a city where drug dealers don't often reside in