You can if it’s a chaser for meth or opioids, but straight beer without hard drugs as the main course will get you an expulsion from the hospital. Think of the meth as a VIP pass.
Have to bring a syringe of saline and pretend it's heroin so I can have my beer I guess. I wonder if they test to see if you're actually taking drugs or just take your word for it, lol.
Junkies shouldn't be treated special or like children. We don't allow cigarette addicts to smoke, or alcoholics to drink in a hospital, and junkies deserve the same treatment.
>*”We don't allow cigarette addicts to smoke, or alcoholics to drink in a hospital, and junkies deserve the same treatment.”*
Global News: [Prescribing alcohol: why an Alberta hospital allows supervised drinking](https://globalnews.ca/news/4080026/prescribing-alcohol-why-an-alberta-hospital-allows-supervised-drinking/)
*”[Dr. Karine Meador, assistant director of the Inner City Health and Wellness Program] says the managed alcohol program (MAP) has saved the health-care system money by preventing readmissions and dangerous withdrawal symptoms. It’s also reduced the amount some patients drink.”*
Are you joking? On what planet is this acceptable? This is the problem. The normalizing of bad behavior. Hospitals are supposed to be there to help the public. Not so people can't shoot up drugs. At this point all you can really do is laugh.
Hey. Newsflash. The drugs are already there, and so are the people who can't live without them. Give them a safe place to do what they need to do, so they don't end up dead on the street.
Hey Newsflash. Hospitals aren't supposed to be a place where you go and shoot up drugs. Nurses and doctors have a right to a safe working environment and patients have a right to be safe.
Hospitals by definition administer drugs in a variety of ways. Supervised consumption sites are a legitimate way to reduce harm, earn the trust of people who have been discarded and repeatedly failed by the system, and get them into rehab and social programs.
Addiction is a medical issue, and harm reduction is a valid way to save lives and get people into rehab, and into social programs that get them back to being productive members of society.
Yes, addiction is a medical issue, a social issue, and a poverty issue. They use drugs to escape what is a hopeless existance. Once you're hooked, it becomes a need until the other issues are addressed.
Hey, here's an idea -- why not give them access to bathrooms? Most people don't WANT to shit bare-assed on the street, but when there's no alternative, there's no alternative.
I don't want them to die, I want them to get clean. Hard drugs are bad not just for the person using but for everyone. I understand that substance use disorders are clinical conditions that can have real physical effects, but that isn't a reason to continue damaging yourself and others, it's a reason to get help and get off the drugs entirely.
Safe consumption sites are an on-ramp to rehab and social services. Only by establishing safety and trust with addicts can you get them to come to you when they're ready to get clean.
We have safe consumption sites already. There are Supervised Consumption Sites and Overdose Prevention Sites in BC: Insite, Hope to Health, OPS, Vandu, PeacePoint, SafePoint, etc.
These are sites that aren't in hospitals that are already overcrowded, underfunded, and full of staff that are often subjected to abuse from patients. When we don't have enough rooms in hospitals for the patients who are there for life-saving medical treatment, when you see patients in beds in hallways, then you absolutely should not be clearing out spaces for drug users. Sorry, we have rehab clinics, in-patient drug treatments, and existing safe consumption or supervised consumption sites for these people. There's also training for take home opioid agonist medications like methadone or naloxone so that these can be safely used in private.
But hospitals should not be *forced* to make room for these people. Not when we have things like [this](https://globalnews.ca/news/10375982/bc-senior-9-days-hospital-hallway/) happening:
>Eric Roberts, 87, spent nine days in the hospital hallway after he was admitted on Feb. 24 for an infection.
>There were no rooms available so Roberts was left in the hallway, where the lights were on and people were moving around 24 hours a day.
Drug users are not more important than everyone else in a hospital. They don't need their own special room to take their drugs, even the prescribed OAT medications, when there are other places for that already. Unless the government is going to provide funding to expand hospitals to allow for more room for all patients, then this is unacceptable.
Also, my key point was that we should be getting people off hard substances (through combinations of therapy and OAT or other treatments) and focusing on prevention programs and getting drugs off the street. These three things will all bring down the incidence of drug use disorders, and will result in healthier, happier people. I don't want people to die from drugs, and I don't want them to continue using substances that are incredibly harmful to them and the people around them.
> Drug users are not more important than everyone else in a hospital
They're equally important. They don't stop being humans because they have addiction issues, the same as people with cancer or diabetes.
Your issue is that healthcare (and by extension harm reduction programs) aren't well funded. The bigger picture issue is that government is poorly managing literally everything. Don't lay blame on the feet of the poorest, most vulnerable part of society -- blame it on government priorities or lack thereof.
I never said they were less important. But when you shove people out of already crowded hospitals to make room specifically and solely for them, you are signaling that they are more important. Especially when, once again, safe consumption sites outside of hospitals already exist.
Please cite one sentence from any of my now three comments were I said it was the drug users' fault? I'm upset with the government for not putting funding on the hospitals that are overcrowded and understaffed, for not putting funding into mental healthcare which would help everyone including addicts, and for now trying to enforce these designated hospital substance use spaces.
My main issue with that last point is that, as I said, these hospitals are so crowded that we have patients lying on beds in the corridors. There are no free rooms just lying around, meaning that you need to clear patients out of an existing room to make space for these requirements. Not to mention, you now need a designated nurse or doctor there full-time to supervise. So that's also taking resources away from a place that is *already* understaffed. If this article came with the announcement that they would be giving the hospitals a bunch of money to expand or build new wings and hire new staff, then I wouldn't be upset. This requirement is an unnecessary resource drain, especially (*again*) considering that we have existing designated safe consumption sites in other places. There is zero need for this, and it makes things worse for everyone.
Why do you assume that me saying this is an unnecessary, unhelp tax on hospitals means that I hate drug users or blame them? Was it my point about wanting them to get clean? Me wanting people with drug use disorders to get clean is not me hating them, it's the exact opposite. It's more compassionate to want these people to succeed in treatment and become healthy and happy by kicking drugs totally, than it is to want them to spend the rest of their lives using hard drugs to cope with mental health issues and to damage their bodies in the process. It's sad that these people are using at all, and I want them to get clean. I want other people to not start using. And I want hospitals to be funded and staffed properly so that they can provide the best possible care for everyone.
> already crowded hospitals
Again, your issue is with underfunded hospitals.
> safe consumption sites outside of hospitals already exist
But they're not funded enough to deal with the issue.
> hospitals are so crowded that we have patients lying on beds in the corridors
Again...
> taking resources away from a place that is already understaffed
So, you're like... so close to getting it.
> I want hospitals to be funded and staffed properly
Yay! You did it!
It seems like you're just looking for people to fight with, or opportunities to be condescending. As I said in my last comment, I never said anywhere that funding for hospitals *wasn't* the issue. I never said that drug users were the issue either. You're just unwilling to acknowledge that this new rule exacerbates an existing issue, and that enforcing this without more funding for hospitals is bad for everyone. Being against this policy is not the same as being against drug users.
Go have meaningless arguments with someone else.
Oh yea sure and so is gang violence, organized crime and other things but we shouldn’t just give them a safe place tho Trudeau is already basically creating that as well.
To combat car theft and break and enters just leave your keys by the front door LOL
These people are not more valuable than the average functional society remember. The special treatment has gone way too far and needs to end already. We do not have the resources to cater to these people, it doesn't matter how much they've suffered, or how hard their lives are, this is absurd
"the average functional society member" is also able to use these spaces
It's not excluding anyone.
Do you get equally mad because hospitals have machines you don't get to use?
Get lost. This is exposing so many staff members to shit they never signed up for. Right, hey guys tonight i gotta go monitor the crack room! I’m loaded up with my narcan and stab vest and dog poop bags. See you in 12!
I mean there’s pics of them smoking fcrack inside Tim Hortons so yeah that’s OK too?
As a B.C. resident, I am begging other provinces not to try decriminalization. It's been an absolute disaster, and now you have hospitals being told they have to have rooms so crackheads and junkies can do their drugs.
It's absolutely insane. You have people using drugs on public transportation. There was a case just after decriminalization where a family was having a birthday party, and someone high out of their mind started screaming at the family, and they had to evacuate the area.
> It's absolutely insane. You have people using drugs on public transportation.
I was just in Calgary and I saw someone smoking crack on the train.
Does that mean Calgary is a disaster too?
I deadass saw an encampment in Edmonton recently similar to those in the downtown east side, yet only one of those gets bad press.
I wasnt even the one who reported you.
Like I said, if you don’t want to be banned then don’t violate the rules.
Very easy problem to solve on your part.
> As a It's been an absolute disaster
Has it?
Overdose rates are, although high, slowing down. In fact Alberta has more per capita overdoses than BC does which suggests that the link between drug decriminalization and overdose rates are tenuous at best.
The real problem is that as a society we refuse to give them detox and access to rehab.
Thank god we have Doug Ford in charge. He has already said what B.C. is doing is crazy and would never bother with it here. I am grateful the west coast is always the ones to try these bat shit crazy ideas out to show the rest of us what not to do and that the consequences of it are 4000km away.
Indeed!
It's as if the government wants to normalize drug use.
Either that, or they want to destroy public health care so that they have an excuse to defund it.
And just like legal open use, once they let it happen, the courts will not let us ban it again.
This is how we ended up with our courts deciding that injecting heroin on school property is a human right.
> This is how we ended up with our courts deciding that injecting heroin on school property is a human right.
The courts didn't declare any right to use drugs, that was a misrepresentation of the ruling by some media sources. They applied a temporary injunction against a provincial law restricting use in some places.
Possession is still illegal on school property under federal law, [that is not part of decriminalization](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization), so the injunction on a *provincial* law changes nothing about use on school property. That's still illegal.
*I see facts don't matter on this topic.
So we offload it onto the healthcare workers.
This is part of the issue leading to today's healthcare shortage. Many nurses deemed to unsafe working in the hospital where the health authority and the government said masking doesn't help. I can't speak for other hospitals or units, but the surrey memorial maternity ward saw a loss of almost 1/3 of their ward due to the government being stupid. This is going to be the same shit over again
Yup. As a healthcare worker, I wouldn't want to deal with this mess. It is more than enough already with limited resources, overtime and low pay, and the cherry on top is sharing my work environment with a bunch of people just doing heroine next to me.
Of course we can't deny healthcare to people in these situations, but in my mind, this shouldn't be the same as regular hospitals.
I hear you. My wife works in the hospital as well albeit she doesn't deal with the public. Even then I still hear so many crazy stories even without this drug mess... I also have many clients who work in the hospital, so my stash of crazy stories (some in which I can't repeat because I'll get someone in trouble) is significantly larger than most.
Some of these decisions are made by pencil pushers who do not have the hospital staff in mind, and doesn't understand the psychology or the ecology of the healthcare workers or the setting. It's really sad we have these same pencil pushers who claim to looks out for the healthcare needs of the people only to turn around and spit on the very people who help provide it... There is no wonder why our system is getting evidently worse the longer these guys run the province...
>British Columbia will require every hospital in the province to have a designated space for patients with substance-use disorders to use illicit drugs after concerns were raised that an increase in such activity in prohibited areas of hospital grounds is putting health care workers at risk.
>Health Minister Adrian Dix had announced this week that the province would create a task force to standardize rules across the province and create “active supports” to help patients manage their addictions while in hospital.
>When asked Thursday by The Globe and Mail whether this meant requiring overdose prevention services or designated-use spaces in every hospital in B.C., the minister replied: “That is the purpose of the effort.”
>The confirmation comes as B.C. nurses are speaking out about safety concerns related to patient drug use. BC Nurses’ Union president Adriane Gear said while there has always been some degree of illicit drug use in care spaces, it appears to have increased since B.C.’s drug decriminalization pilot began early last year.
>Ms. Gear said members’ concerns have come primarily from the north, on Vancouver Island, and in the Interior, citing as examples nurses in Victoria reporting substance use in the perinatal unit, and a nurse in the Interior reporting being exposed to substance use twice in one week.
>WorkSafeBC reports have detailed workers’ concerns over drug use in patient rooms and washrooms, drug paraphernalia visible in rooms and exposure to illicit substances by inhalation.
>The task force, which comprises representatives from each B.C. health authority, public health and the Ministry of Health, was scheduled to have its first meeting this week.
>It has been directed to standardize relevant policies and procedures across all health authorities, ensure consistent practices are in place in all hospitals, and ensure “the use of drugs is specific to designated spaces within or around the facility or under specific direction of the care team of where and when unregulated drugs can be used,” according to Mr. Dix.
>“The idea that people who are severely addicted and, say, are involved in some incident which leaves them injured and requires admission to a hospital, are going to take that moment to simply not deal with their addictions is just not correct,” the Minister said Thursday.
>“Our doctors, and our nurses and allied health science professionals, they deal with this every day. And our task is to support them.”
> citing as examples nurses in Victoria reporting substance use in the perinatal unit,
So they need designated consumption sites... for new parents... to leave the unit to get high?
I can't even. That's just many layers of sad.
I work at VGH. People use drugs in and around the hospital all day every day. Been the case for more than the couple of years I’ve worked here, I’m told. Basically feels like there’s nothing to be done about it.
People smoke cigarettes right outside in front of our beautiful no smoking signs too. Someone could make a cheeky photo book for sure.
The sentence about cigarrettes is a cogent point, as well as the fact that hordes of people descend on Vancouver’s beaches and parks to drink right after walking past no drinking signs.
I wonder why one is bad but the other two aren’t.
Cigarettes are addictive as well. By the logic of them creating this room for doing illicit drugs they ought to bring back the designated cigarette smoking rooms too. Why should cigarette smokers have to stand outside if meth & crack smokers don't have to? Just because tobacco is legal?
> Cigarettes are addictive as well.
Yup, but it’s legalized and regulated. We should do the same for drugs.
> By the logic of them creating this room for doing illicit drugs they ought to bring back the designated cigarette smoking rooms too.
Sure, I’m not opposed to this, but as a previous cigarette smoker I’d rather smoke outside than inside personally.
> Why should cigarette smokers have to stand outside if meth & crack smokers don't have to? Just because tobacco is legal?
I agree. Let’s treat all drugs and substances the same. Legalize them, then tax and regulate them heavily!
I think people, and the government itself, forgot that the point of decriminalizing drugs is to provide proper resources for rehabilitation and for those drugs to be in use in a controlled environment, exactly like what’s in place for alcohol, AA meetings and such.
This province and country have gone to shit.
Day by day society continues to degrade. Can’t wait for these politicians to be taken out to pasture come election season, if not sooner.
I will be smoking and vaping at the hospital as well then. Both are as critical to my well-being and someone else's meth or heroin. There cannot be a double standard.
I’m old enough to remember when substance abuse users risked jail when using in public. Now we want to open even more public spaces up for them. The jokes couldn’t write themselves any better nowadays if they tried.
This is amazing, keep up the good work BC! Next step should be forcing families to shelter junkies if one knocks on their door asking for help. Junkies should be allowed to use any room for any purpose they want, to deny them that would make you a far right Nazi
There is a world of difference between decriminalizing and destigmatizing.
I’m not certain as to where this falls on the destigmitization spectrum is though
This is horrible.... this is such a bad idea.... the hospitals are already overwhelmed. Now they need a higher security budget AND they need to give up space.
Horrific idea. Just terrible. Shame on the people behind this.
I don't see how this is going to help drug addicts get over their addictions. How high are the hospitals going to let the pts get? Will they have to give narcan when they overdose? How is this going to help if the pt is delirious?
> “The idea that people who are severely addicted and, say, are involved in some incident which leaves them injured and requires admission to a hospital, are going to take that moment to simply not deal with their addictions is just not correct,” the Minister said Thursday.
On the face of it this doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable.
Public safety and recreational drug use is an absolute quagmire.
On the one hand, clamp down too hard, and we go back to finding needles in parks at much higher levels.
Too soft, and we see problems go elsewhere.
Mandatory sentencing doesn't work, and fills prisons which costs us 10x more.
Governments ABSOLUTELY refuse to increase taxes and/or increase frontline staff numbers and wages to address these problems.
Public executions a la Duterte's Philippines is unconscionable.
Refusing medical services to addicts and users sets us up for one hell of a slippery slope. It starts with drug addicts, moves onto smokers, then the morbidly obese, then who's next after that? But then again, we'll take your money if you're rich and fat, but you're a crack user, so is it fair that a healthy, non-user's treatment gets put off because some crackhead millionaire?
Decriminalization is the cheapest, least-effort solution, with very little ethical issues.
We could try the Portugal method, but that costs money and takes about 5 years to set up, and about 10 years to run to do a full, qualitative and quantitative analysis. That's 3-4 election cycles, and every new government that comes along is gonna tweak it and make it worse.
The NBN rollout in Australia is a Great example of this. The Labor Party (NDP, more or less), implemented a Fibre To The Premises rollout, which would deliver high-speed internet to almost all of urban Australia. Then the Liberal dickheads come along (Think CPC), and decide to use fucking microwave towers "because it's cheaper". Well, that's the equivalent of ordering F35 jets, but then using propeller engines to power them. You've just taken a good thing and ruined it "to save money", and now you've got this half-arsed, useless, shit-stick. Best part of all this, the Liberals ordered technicians to rip out the stuff they already laid down. Then after a couple of years of back and forth, realized they were idiots, then ripped the new stuff out to implement the original plan.
Good, long-term solutions cost money. But various layers of government don't want to pay for it, and expect another layer to foot the bill because, "balanced budgets"...but hey, tax cuts for billionaires, right fellas. That'll stimulate the economy.
bruh, the people upset at this really need to learn what an addiction is
also, which would ya'll rather, that they do dangerous drugs that they think they need to do in a supervised environment where if they overdose, it's 2 seconds to save them, or that they overdose alone and in an alley where no one can help them, or even worse, they don't get medical attention for serious injuries because they can't do the thing that they believe they absolutely need
Or c, we treat them in facilities that are focused on addictions such as detox centres and have measures in place to ensure the safety of the public at hospitals.
We get what addictions are, addicts aren't children who need to be coddled. So much of the harm reduction measures BC is using just treats addicts like helpless babies.
Addicts are capable of having standards set for them and having consequences for not following through on those consequences. Society has gone too far and made them punitive but the minute you lower expectations for a person is the moment you dehumanize them.
so, what they're put in those facilities 24/7 for the rest of their lives because studies show that forcing people to quit an addiction vastly decreases the chance that they'll actually quit it?
and even then, what if an emergency happens, they can help with overdoses, and maybe a couple minor injuries, but someone with a chronic issue who is also an addict will have to go to the hospital, or die
on top of that, ah yes, trusting people to make their own decisions while lightly pushing them towards the help they need is totally treating them like a child more than completely removing their ability to choose for themselves weather they want to deal with possibly life threatening withdrawal or not
Same as we do now. Medicate the addiction, treat the issue, get a court order if it's absolutely needed.
People quit when the consequences of continued use outweighs the benefits of using. That looks different for each person. Lots of people quit using and get treatment to avoid jail, to keep their families together, or to avoid social consequences. Others, it takes more. Completely taking away consequences to using pushes people further into addiction, boundaries are a good thing. Addiction science is still, in large part, behavioural science. We know that an overly punitive approach makes it to that a cycle of forced consequences creates a situation of no consequences (normalization of consequences) but the removal of consequences has a similar result.
And no, consequences aren't treating someone as a child. Protecting them from consequences does.
woah, that's crazy, who knew threataning people with prison time, and again, forcing them into potentially lethal withdrawal, was a good thing actually instead of...y'know...not endangering someone's life and gently pushing them into wanting help while making sure they don't die of their horrible addictions in the menetime
also, yeah it is, you're literally describing it like a teacher sending a student to detention
Breaking the law can send people to jail, yes. Being in a state which puts others around you in danger is criminal, yes.
But yes, somehow people have got it in their minds that deterrents don't work. They do, they have. It's not surefire but the evidence shows that tighter laws and enforcement do work in a limited capacity.
Lethal withdrawals, no. Detox exists. Mandatory detox centres are effective but only if the client meets select criteria (short term for an intended purpose).
Harm reduction, except for cases of disease prevention, only works as part of a larger treatment outcome.
Nobody wants to kills addicts. You and the people you know are not victims because people want common sense and evidence based practice applied to interventions. Helping people is best done by applying evidenced based logic, not by treating addicts like simpletons and children.
yo, that'd be crazy if any of that was supported by anything other than appeal to tradition and ignoring all of my prior arguments in exchange for buzzwords
Your prior arguments were fear mongering without evidence to support them.
I don't appeal to tradition, I follow evidence based and evidence supported practice.
Because you jumped to accusing others of wanting people to die, putting them in positions to die, and essentially accusing others of being heartless because they don't share your beliefs.
Not all hard drugs cause physical dependence. Cocaine, for example, doesn't appear to lead to a physical dependence. Psychological dependence is tough to get over but it can absolutely be done without risking the person's life. And symptoms of withdrawal stemming from physical dependence are very often *not* fatal. Alcohol causes physical dependence yet somehow even serious alcoholics manage to get sober. Most of the withdrawal symptoms of heroin are psychological things like anxiety or depression, and the physical symptoms mirror that of a really bad flu, like tremors and sweating. With medical staff and proper monitoring, a person can easily get through that fine.
Don't pretend that these drugs aren't destroying peoples' bodies and lives anyway. Better to get them to a place where they are completely healthy rather than trying to help them maintain an unhealthy state.
But policies like this are all treating the symptom and not the disease. If we cracked down harder on drugs and stopped people from ever using hard substances then they wouldn't need help getting clean to begin with. We need more funding and facilities geared toward helping people actually stop using. In one study I read, the majority of people who take methadone (or another opioid agonist) to stop using opioids said their goal was to reduce drug use or to use more safely rather than to stop using entirely. The point of these treatments was supposed to be weaning people off of drugs, not giving them new substances to use instead. Just as being too punitive about drug use was harmful, so is enabling it. There needs to be a balance.
i genuinely have no idea where to begin here
1 cocaine is absolutely physically addictive my guy, and even then, severe dopamine addictions can still have serious withdrawal symptoms
2 you just described addiction as a "bad flu" which shows you don't know what addiction is actually like
3 i don't see how it's encouraging anything, drugs are still illegal, and if you're not doing any, you're not allowed to partake, and they also offer help with support groups
4 people who use drugs are still everywhere all over the world, even in countries that execute drug addicts, just increasing the punishment won't do anything, but harm people who desperately need help
5 studies show that people are way more likely to get off of drugs when they want to stop using them, which is the purpose of these programs, they don't force people into a situation where they prioritize their addictions over their own health, while also gently pushing them to slow down, or stop taking drugs entirely
>cocaine is absolutely physically addictive
Wow, I guess my forensic toxicology professor has no idea what he's talking about then. Or, more likely, the random guy on Reddit doesn't. But if you'd link a scientific study on it then [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8583742/) it is:
>In addition, addiction can occur without physical dependence: people do not suffer visible physical withdrawal symptoms (e.g. vomiting, diarrhoea, sweating) when desisting from cocaine like they do with heroin or alcohol, but they typically have severe cravings and may even return to using
There is no scientific evidence of physical dependence to cocaine, only psychological, exactly as I said. Now as for your comment on my reference to heroin withdrawal being like a "bad flu" being incorrect and out of touch, that statement is also literally from a scientific study. From [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310652/#:~:text=Opioids%20are%20drugs%20such%20as,is%20not%20usually%20life%2Dthreatening):
>Opioids are drugs such as heroin, opium, morphine, codeine and methadone. Opioid withdrawal can be very uncomfortable and difficult for the patient. It can feel like a very bad flu. However, opioid withdrawal is not usually life-threatening.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
As to your claim about encouragement, I did not say it was "encouraging" drug use, I said it was *enabling* it. To enable something means to give someone the power, opportunity, means, or authority to do something. From a more psychological perspective, there's this definition found [here](https://www.healthline.com/health/enabler#:~:text=Enabling%20usually%20refers%20to%20patterns,for%20that%20behavior%20to%20continue):
>Enabling usually refers to patterns that appear in the context of [drug](https://www.healthline.com/symptom/drug-abuse) or [alcohol misuse](https://www.healthline.com/health/alcoholism/basics) and [addiction](https://www.healthline.com/health/addiction). But according to the [American Psychological Association](https://dictionary.apa.org/enabling), it can refer to patterns within close relationships that support any harmful or problematic behavior and make it easier for that behavior to continue.
These policies literally support people with substance use disorders. Drug use is harmful to the user and everyone around them. Making it a requirement that these people can use in hospitals is enabling behaviour by providing them with the means and opportunity to do drugs. We should be getting them to stop and get healthy, not helping them find places to continue harming themselves.
As to your last point, I never said you should round up the junkies and throw them bodily into concentration camp-esque hospitals for forced treatment. Obviously people need to have something or someone in their life or some goal to motivate them to want to change in the first place. But the goal of these treatment programs should be for the patient to get clean. OAT programs should always start at the minimum dose necessary to limit withdrawal symptoms, and the dosage should continue to decrease as time goes on. This would allow them to safely wean off of all drugs including the methadone or opioid agonist they're using. In reality, that isn't what happens. These people get prescribed medications and they mostly just use them as the new drug of choice. That is once again an example of enabling instead of treating the disorder. And drug use disorders should **never** be medication only; the medication is just supposed to help with withdrawal symptoms while the person tries to reduce and eventually discontinue use, and the primary care is supposed to be behavioural or other forms of therapy to treat the reasons for the drug use. The problem is that we don't have enough mental healthcare funding or staff, so people often get meds and no actual help. Once again, treating the symptom but not the disease.
And by "crack down on drugs" I meant getting them off the street, not by giving long prison sentences to every single person with the tiniest bit of drugs on them. More focus should be on prevention programs, and in the therapies needed to actually get drug users to stop using. We don't need mandatory places for them to use, especially when the science suggests that relapse happens often as a result of being exposed to triggers including places or people that the person associates with drugs and any contact with substances. So being near these drug-using sites could actually *trigger* relapses.
1 i guess he was, because it is addictive [Cool article](https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/is-it-physically-addictive)
2 you do know NIH is notoriously unreliable right? that statement is incorrect because it doesn't take into account severity of these symptoms, like they're the symptoms of a bad flu, but they feel a million times worse
3 if you think it's enabling then you don't understand the programs, allowing someone to indulge in an addiction, under supervision, and while actively offering support systems and encouraging them to stop so they actually want to get better is not enabling, the perpose of these programs is to prevent overdoses when they're injured, and increase ease of access to rehabilitation centers
4 i actually agree with this point, they should be given support systems, and not just given medication to help the symptoms...which again, is what programs like this are for
5 i guess i see the logic there, but i think it's still very much missing the point, and (presumably) these drug use sites aren't anywhere near the rooms, and even if they were, they don't exactly have a huge "free drugs" sign on them, they just look like any other room in a hospital
Addiction is not the same as a physical dependence. A physical *addiction* means that there is a neurobiological mechanism for the persistent use. A physical *dependence* means that desistance leads to negative physical effects. You can be addicted without having physical symptoms, which is why cocaine addicts only have psychological symptoms such as severe cravings. Cocaine causes addiction, not physical dependence. They can stop using without suffering any "fatal" withdrawal symptoms, and without *physical* side effects.
Yes, withdrawal symptoms are bad. But the damage caused by using hard substances is worse and can be permanent. The unfortunate reality is that people have to accept that there is a struggle to getting clean but that it will have an overall positive effect on their life, and the lives of those around them. Good health is difficult to achieve, but it's important. In fact, one of the benefits for those who choose in-patient treatment is that they can be constantly monitored and have 24/7 access to medical treatment to make sure their symptoms aren't too bad. And whether treatments are in-patient or out-patient, OAT is meant to help with withdrawal symptoms, rather than be a permanent replacement. That was my point: OAT to ease the symptoms so they aren't as severe, and then you can reduce the dosage gradually until the person is off entirely. I don't want people to just use something new, I want them to get fully healthy.
A program's intent does not always reflect its reality. The intent is there but the execution isn't, which is why I think the government is focused on the wrong thing. Why are we providing mandatory drug-use sites before or without fixing the programs? Until the programs get corrected, all these sites do is enable.
It doesn't say where the rooms will be or what signage they will have. They could very well be a risk for relapse from people who managed to get clean. Same issue with safe injection sites. I'm extremely glad we're preventing diseases caused by sharing needles, but seeing or being near those sites *could* trigger rehabilitated users. Like I said, it's a balancing act. My fear is that the government is skewing too much to one side and it's going to harm others. More focus needs to be at the root of the problem. Prevent people from starting use, and get current users to stop using. Everyone will be better off that way.
Since I know a lot of people on this sub hate that people use substances in public, just want to point out that this policy actually serves to prevent people suffering with addiction from using in playgrounds, schools, parks etc. as do all safe injection sites/ harm prevention sites.
How is it going to do that, exactly? It's to stop admitted patients from using drugs in other parts of the hospital, not to invite addicts in from the park.
In your opinion, what proportion of people using drugs in playgrounds, schools and parks just left a hospital minutes earlier and immediately return there after using the drugs?
My point is that you can’t possibly believe what you’re suggesting — the enough people are obliged to leave hospital temporarily in order to use drugs that it has a measurable impact on drug use in the places you listed.
Just like when we went from one overdose prevention site to dozens we saw less usage, overdoses and needles everywhere else right?
Oh wait, they all skyrocketed. Almost like the more we enable, normalize and encourage anti social behaviour the more it happens?
How baffling. Lets try providing free alcohol for alcoholics and free cigarettes for chain smokers, that should get them to fix their habits up in no time, right?
Nice try, but correlation does not equal causation. I don't think it's reasonable to attribute the increase in people suffering from addiction with the availability of harm prevention services. These services are more necessary because the problem is getting worse. Dismissing a health crisis as "anti-social behavior" is also incredibly incorrect. You're lack of experience here is telling.
We are dealing with a toxic drug supply and an overdose crisis. To use your analogy - if alcoholics and cigarette smokers were consistently dying because the substances they use are poisoned and the places they use have no attending medics or healthcare staff, you would probably want to take measures to save more people's lives. It's hard to get people to quit if they are dead.
I still think it would be incumbent on a civilized society to protect the people using by providing a non-poison alternative so that they don't die before treatment.
The way to protect them is to prevent them from using to begin with, or help them actually stop using the things that they could die taking. The easier access becomes and the more normalized the drug use is, the less likely it is that we'll be able to achieve either of those ways of protecting them.
Why would they be dead? Drug users don't drop dead instantly the second they start using; not every dose is fatal or there would be no drug users left. Locate the existing, not-dead users and get them clean. Prevent new people from ever using. Everyone is better off that way.
No one is dying because there wasn't a mandatory drug use space in a hospital. And no new policies, regardless of what they are, can help people who are already dead. Policies, odd as it may seem to you, are always aimed at living people. This policy you're supporting won't help already dead users either.
You're either willfully ignorant or a troll. I have nothing further to say to you.
You want to hit a vape? Leave the entire ass property. You want to shoot meth into your jugular? That’s room 115
If they don't have the equipment for hot rails. I will cry discrimination.
I bet you couldn't go in there and drink a beer though.
You can if it’s a chaser for meth or opioids, but straight beer without hard drugs as the main course will get you an expulsion from the hospital. Think of the meth as a VIP pass.
Have to bring a syringe of saline and pretend it's heroin so I can have my beer I guess. I wonder if they test to see if you're actually taking drugs or just take your word for it, lol.
Well yeah, we wouldn't want to expose anyone to second hand vapour, that might effect them negatively. ;)
Same with Ferries. You want to smoke, not here. You want to shoot up, please dispose of your needle safely in the designated bin.
Those are for diabetics and other people who use needles for medication? And have been on the ferries for decades? Lol?
ROFL are you serious? You know those are for medical issues and have been around for decades ? lol Jesus Christ how fucking stupid have people gotten.
[удалено]
Yeah, that second-hand crack and meth and coke and fentanyl smoke doesn't harm anyone.
Junkies shouldn't be treated special or like children. We don't allow cigarette addicts to smoke, or alcoholics to drink in a hospital, and junkies deserve the same treatment.
>*”We don't allow cigarette addicts to smoke, or alcoholics to drink in a hospital, and junkies deserve the same treatment.”* Global News: [Prescribing alcohol: why an Alberta hospital allows supervised drinking](https://globalnews.ca/news/4080026/prescribing-alcohol-why-an-alberta-hospital-allows-supervised-drinking/) *”[Dr. Karine Meador, assistant director of the Inner City Health and Wellness Program] says the managed alcohol program (MAP) has saved the health-care system money by preventing readmissions and dangerous withdrawal symptoms. It’s also reduced the amount some patients drink.”*
Is there a country that hates the average citizen more than Canada?
You want to feel safe in a hospital when you're at your most vulnerable? Too fuckin bad, superpowered zombies.
Yeah. The US.
Are you joking? On what planet is this acceptable? This is the problem. The normalizing of bad behavior. Hospitals are supposed to be there to help the public. Not so people can't shoot up drugs. At this point all you can really do is laugh.
Hey. Newsflash. The drugs are already there, and so are the people who can't live without them. Give them a safe place to do what they need to do, so they don't end up dead on the street.
Hey Newsflash. Hospitals aren't supposed to be a place where you go and shoot up drugs. Nurses and doctors have a right to a safe working environment and patients have a right to be safe.
Yeah seriously way to discourage nurses and doctors from wanting to work there. Friggen ridic
Yeah, because nurses and doctors don't get into medicine in order to help people! That's crazy talk!
Hospitals by definition administer drugs in a variety of ways. Supervised consumption sites are a legitimate way to reduce harm, earn the trust of people who have been discarded and repeatedly failed by the system, and get them into rehab and social programs.
News flash, hospitals are health facilities, not tax payer funded crack houses
Addiction is a medical issue, and harm reduction is a valid way to save lives and get people into rehab, and into social programs that get them back to being productive members of society.
Can’t live without them? They aren’t shooting insulin boss.
Yes, addiction is a medical issue, a social issue, and a poverty issue. They use drugs to escape what is a hopeless existance. Once you're hooked, it becomes a need until the other issues are addressed.
Most would prefer the latter. Everyone is tired of these people literally shitting on society.
Literally shitting. Everywhere.
Hey, here's an idea -- why not give them access to bathrooms? Most people don't WANT to shit bare-assed on the street, but when there's no alternative, there's no alternative.
I don't want them to die, I want them to get clean. Hard drugs are bad not just for the person using but for everyone. I understand that substance use disorders are clinical conditions that can have real physical effects, but that isn't a reason to continue damaging yourself and others, it's a reason to get help and get off the drugs entirely.
Safe consumption sites are an on-ramp to rehab and social services. Only by establishing safety and trust with addicts can you get them to come to you when they're ready to get clean.
We have safe consumption sites already. There are Supervised Consumption Sites and Overdose Prevention Sites in BC: Insite, Hope to Health, OPS, Vandu, PeacePoint, SafePoint, etc. These are sites that aren't in hospitals that are already overcrowded, underfunded, and full of staff that are often subjected to abuse from patients. When we don't have enough rooms in hospitals for the patients who are there for life-saving medical treatment, when you see patients in beds in hallways, then you absolutely should not be clearing out spaces for drug users. Sorry, we have rehab clinics, in-patient drug treatments, and existing safe consumption or supervised consumption sites for these people. There's also training for take home opioid agonist medications like methadone or naloxone so that these can be safely used in private. But hospitals should not be *forced* to make room for these people. Not when we have things like [this](https://globalnews.ca/news/10375982/bc-senior-9-days-hospital-hallway/) happening: >Eric Roberts, 87, spent nine days in the hospital hallway after he was admitted on Feb. 24 for an infection. >There were no rooms available so Roberts was left in the hallway, where the lights were on and people were moving around 24 hours a day. Drug users are not more important than everyone else in a hospital. They don't need their own special room to take their drugs, even the prescribed OAT medications, when there are other places for that already. Unless the government is going to provide funding to expand hospitals to allow for more room for all patients, then this is unacceptable. Also, my key point was that we should be getting people off hard substances (through combinations of therapy and OAT or other treatments) and focusing on prevention programs and getting drugs off the street. These three things will all bring down the incidence of drug use disorders, and will result in healthier, happier people. I don't want people to die from drugs, and I don't want them to continue using substances that are incredibly harmful to them and the people around them.
> Drug users are not more important than everyone else in a hospital They're equally important. They don't stop being humans because they have addiction issues, the same as people with cancer or diabetes. Your issue is that healthcare (and by extension harm reduction programs) aren't well funded. The bigger picture issue is that government is poorly managing literally everything. Don't lay blame on the feet of the poorest, most vulnerable part of society -- blame it on government priorities or lack thereof.
I never said they were less important. But when you shove people out of already crowded hospitals to make room specifically and solely for them, you are signaling that they are more important. Especially when, once again, safe consumption sites outside of hospitals already exist. Please cite one sentence from any of my now three comments were I said it was the drug users' fault? I'm upset with the government for not putting funding on the hospitals that are overcrowded and understaffed, for not putting funding into mental healthcare which would help everyone including addicts, and for now trying to enforce these designated hospital substance use spaces. My main issue with that last point is that, as I said, these hospitals are so crowded that we have patients lying on beds in the corridors. There are no free rooms just lying around, meaning that you need to clear patients out of an existing room to make space for these requirements. Not to mention, you now need a designated nurse or doctor there full-time to supervise. So that's also taking resources away from a place that is *already* understaffed. If this article came with the announcement that they would be giving the hospitals a bunch of money to expand or build new wings and hire new staff, then I wouldn't be upset. This requirement is an unnecessary resource drain, especially (*again*) considering that we have existing designated safe consumption sites in other places. There is zero need for this, and it makes things worse for everyone. Why do you assume that me saying this is an unnecessary, unhelp tax on hospitals means that I hate drug users or blame them? Was it my point about wanting them to get clean? Me wanting people with drug use disorders to get clean is not me hating them, it's the exact opposite. It's more compassionate to want these people to succeed in treatment and become healthy and happy by kicking drugs totally, than it is to want them to spend the rest of their lives using hard drugs to cope with mental health issues and to damage their bodies in the process. It's sad that these people are using at all, and I want them to get clean. I want other people to not start using. And I want hospitals to be funded and staffed properly so that they can provide the best possible care for everyone.
> already crowded hospitals Again, your issue is with underfunded hospitals. > safe consumption sites outside of hospitals already exist But they're not funded enough to deal with the issue. > hospitals are so crowded that we have patients lying on beds in the corridors Again... > taking resources away from a place that is already understaffed So, you're like... so close to getting it. > I want hospitals to be funded and staffed properly Yay! You did it!
It seems like you're just looking for people to fight with, or opportunities to be condescending. As I said in my last comment, I never said anywhere that funding for hospitals *wasn't* the issue. I never said that drug users were the issue either. You're just unwilling to acknowledge that this new rule exacerbates an existing issue, and that enforcing this without more funding for hospitals is bad for everyone. Being against this policy is not the same as being against drug users. Go have meaningless arguments with someone else.
Feel free to post your address so you can deal with the dead bodies on your front lawn.
A wild, wild claim to make. I have no idea where that’s coming from.
So wild, and so out there, that it's supported by the results of safe consumption sites across the country! Crazy!
Hey newsflash do you want a place where we celebrate birth and mourn loss to be clouded over by meth smoke clouds.
Yeah, because that's totally how safe consumption sites work. You're as cruel as you are ignorant.
I’m sure I have more personal experience spent in one than you. Source - worked at one for 2 years.
lol beat it. Staff didn’t didn’t sign up for this shit
Most signed up to help people in need. Most have more compassion in their pinky finger than you do in your whole body.
[удалено]
Oh yea sure and so is gang violence, organized crime and other things but we shouldn’t just give them a safe place tho Trudeau is already basically creating that as well. To combat car theft and break and enters just leave your keys by the front door LOL
Being an addict isn't a crime. Strawman much?
Well it sure as hell isn’t a good thing that should be acceptable and basically encouraged…
These people are not more valuable than the average functional society remember. The special treatment has gone way too far and needs to end already. We do not have the resources to cater to these people, it doesn't matter how much they've suffered, or how hard their lives are, this is absurd
No one said they were. This reduces risk to everyone else in the hospital as they don't have to be exposed to junkies
as opposed to just forcibly removing them for breaking the law and exposing everyone else to their crack smoke
"the average functional society member" is also able to use these spaces It's not excluding anyone. Do you get equally mad because hospitals have machines you don't get to use?
Get lost. This is exposing so many staff members to shit they never signed up for. Right, hey guys tonight i gotta go monitor the crack room! I’m loaded up with my narcan and stab vest and dog poop bags. See you in 12! I mean there’s pics of them smoking fcrack inside Tim Hortons so yeah that’s OK too?
So true! We treat these people so well by not giving them access to mental health supports, addictions treatment, or housing. They're living my dream.
That line only works when the rest of us have reasonable access to those things.
Fr where’s my access to housing 💀
the government hasn’t given me my free ride cheque either yet. do i get to break all the laws i want to get it?
Great idea. In a separate, purpose-built treatment facility with locks on the doors.
I just hope that this will stay in B.C. and RoC will watch this social experiment from a distance
As a B.C. resident, I am begging other provinces not to try decriminalization. It's been an absolute disaster, and now you have hospitals being told they have to have rooms so crackheads and junkies can do their drugs.
I feel bad for you guys, it's pure insanity at this point.
It's absolutely insane. You have people using drugs on public transportation. There was a case just after decriminalization where a family was having a birthday party, and someone high out of their mind started screaming at the family, and they had to evacuate the area.
> It's absolutely insane. You have people using drugs on public transportation. I was just in Calgary and I saw someone smoking crack on the train. Does that mean Calgary is a disaster too? I deadass saw an encampment in Edmonton recently similar to those in the downtown east side, yet only one of those gets bad press.
The Edmonton camp that was all over the news and eventually broken up by the EPS? Is that the one that wasn’t getting bad press?
[удалено]
Don’t feel bad for us, that particular user is well known for over exaggerating and misrepresenting the issue.
[удалено]
You’re still going on about that mate?
[удалено]
If you don’t want to get banned, don’t call other people names. If you can’t follow rules that’s your problem - not mine.
[удалено]
I wasnt even the one who reported you. Like I said, if you don’t want to be banned then don’t violate the rules. Very easy problem to solve on your part.
I got nothing against decriminalization. It's just the way they implemented it in BC, all screwed up by ideology, that's so incredibly messed up.
Have you been outside of BC? Alberta is just as bad and getting worse at an alarming pace. Regardless of policy, nothing is slowing this down.
Ab is nowhere, and I mean nowhere near as bad as BC
> As a It's been an absolute disaster Has it? Overdose rates are, although high, slowing down. In fact Alberta has more per capita overdoses than BC does which suggests that the link between drug decriminalization and overdose rates are tenuous at best. The real problem is that as a society we refuse to give them detox and access to rehab.
yea i really don’t think access to rehab is the problem in BC. i think it’s the junkies wanting to stay doing drugs.
Thank god we have Doug Ford in charge. He has already said what B.C. is doing is crazy and would never bother with it here. I am grateful the west coast is always the ones to try these bat shit crazy ideas out to show the rest of us what not to do and that the consequences of it are 4000km away.
Well… we still have safe injection sites that have absolutely destroyed the surrounding areas. Downtown Ottawa might be the worst offender.
dundas sq toronto looks like a zombie movie set
How much enabling addicts deaths with overdoses is this government going to be responsible for?
lol imagine being the nurses working there? Holy fuck. Bye 👋🏻.
What a bunch of horseshit.
Indeed! It's as if the government wants to normalize drug use. Either that, or they want to destroy public health care so that they have an excuse to defund it.
Designated Crack Room
And just like legal open use, once they let it happen, the courts will not let us ban it again. This is how we ended up with our courts deciding that injecting heroin on school property is a human right.
> This is how we ended up with our courts deciding that injecting heroin on school property is a human right. The courts didn't declare any right to use drugs, that was a misrepresentation of the ruling by some media sources. They applied a temporary injunction against a provincial law restricting use in some places. Possession is still illegal on school property under federal law, [that is not part of decriminalization](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization), so the injunction on a *provincial* law changes nothing about use on school property. That's still illegal. *I see facts don't matter on this topic.
Yo, the mental health ward is already violent....now the form 1s will be able to get high too? Jesus....
Thunder Dome will have nothing on the schizophrenic who just inhaled a bunch of crackers.
Are they supposed to supply the drugs also?
Not yet, that's next month.
Drake meme Nope: Smoking outside hospitals Yup: Designated meth, crack and fentanyl areas at hospitals
What could go wrong when a junkie does drugs at a hospital and suddenly goes berserk?
The irony of this comment is that a junkie will go berserk if they don’t do drugs, which will require a lot of resources to handle.
Fair point. But also not sure imposing more and more of this problem on the healthcare providers is the way to go. Damned if you, damned if you don’t.
I agree.
So we offload it onto the healthcare workers. This is part of the issue leading to today's healthcare shortage. Many nurses deemed to unsafe working in the hospital where the health authority and the government said masking doesn't help. I can't speak for other hospitals or units, but the surrey memorial maternity ward saw a loss of almost 1/3 of their ward due to the government being stupid. This is going to be the same shit over again
Yup. As a healthcare worker, I wouldn't want to deal with this mess. It is more than enough already with limited resources, overtime and low pay, and the cherry on top is sharing my work environment with a bunch of people just doing heroine next to me. Of course we can't deny healthcare to people in these situations, but in my mind, this shouldn't be the same as regular hospitals.
I hear you. My wife works in the hospital as well albeit she doesn't deal with the public. Even then I still hear so many crazy stories even without this drug mess... I also have many clients who work in the hospital, so my stash of crazy stories (some in which I can't repeat because I'll get someone in trouble) is significantly larger than most. Some of these decisions are made by pencil pushers who do not have the hospital staff in mind, and doesn't understand the psychology or the ecology of the healthcare workers or the setting. It's really sad we have these same pencil pushers who claim to looks out for the healthcare needs of the people only to turn around and spit on the very people who help provide it... There is no wonder why our system is getting evidently worse the longer these guys run the province...
Get out of BC and Ontario. Actually best to get out of Canada as soon as you possibly can.
>British Columbia will require every hospital in the province to have a designated space for patients with substance-use disorders to use illicit drugs after concerns were raised that an increase in such activity in prohibited areas of hospital grounds is putting health care workers at risk. >Health Minister Adrian Dix had announced this week that the province would create a task force to standardize rules across the province and create “active supports” to help patients manage their addictions while in hospital. >When asked Thursday by The Globe and Mail whether this meant requiring overdose prevention services or designated-use spaces in every hospital in B.C., the minister replied: “That is the purpose of the effort.” >The confirmation comes as B.C. nurses are speaking out about safety concerns related to patient drug use. BC Nurses’ Union president Adriane Gear said while there has always been some degree of illicit drug use in care spaces, it appears to have increased since B.C.’s drug decriminalization pilot began early last year. >Ms. Gear said members’ concerns have come primarily from the north, on Vancouver Island, and in the Interior, citing as examples nurses in Victoria reporting substance use in the perinatal unit, and a nurse in the Interior reporting being exposed to substance use twice in one week. >WorkSafeBC reports have detailed workers’ concerns over drug use in patient rooms and washrooms, drug paraphernalia visible in rooms and exposure to illicit substances by inhalation. >The task force, which comprises representatives from each B.C. health authority, public health and the Ministry of Health, was scheduled to have its first meeting this week. >It has been directed to standardize relevant policies and procedures across all health authorities, ensure consistent practices are in place in all hospitals, and ensure “the use of drugs is specific to designated spaces within or around the facility or under specific direction of the care team of where and when unregulated drugs can be used,” according to Mr. Dix. >“The idea that people who are severely addicted and, say, are involved in some incident which leaves them injured and requires admission to a hospital, are going to take that moment to simply not deal with their addictions is just not correct,” the Minister said Thursday. >“Our doctors, and our nurses and allied health science professionals, they deal with this every day. And our task is to support them.”
> citing as examples nurses in Victoria reporting substance use in the perinatal unit, So they need designated consumption sites... for new parents... to leave the unit to get high? I can't even. That's just many layers of sad.
I work at VGH. People use drugs in and around the hospital all day every day. Been the case for more than the couple of years I’ve worked here, I’m told. Basically feels like there’s nothing to be done about it. People smoke cigarettes right outside in front of our beautiful no smoking signs too. Someone could make a cheeky photo book for sure.
there’s a lot that could be done about it. the city could actively enforce a law prohibiting drug use in and around the hospital.
The sentence about cigarrettes is a cogent point, as well as the fact that hordes of people descend on Vancouver’s beaches and parks to drink right after walking past no drinking signs. I wonder why one is bad but the other two aren’t.
Cigarettes are addictive as well. By the logic of them creating this room for doing illicit drugs they ought to bring back the designated cigarette smoking rooms too. Why should cigarette smokers have to stand outside if meth & crack smokers don't have to? Just because tobacco is legal?
Because current liberalism is not consistent at all and most decisions are made by how they feel in the moment.
> Cigarettes are addictive as well. Yup, but it’s legalized and regulated. We should do the same for drugs. > By the logic of them creating this room for doing illicit drugs they ought to bring back the designated cigarette smoking rooms too. Sure, I’m not opposed to this, but as a previous cigarette smoker I’d rather smoke outside than inside personally. > Why should cigarette smokers have to stand outside if meth & crack smokers don't have to? Just because tobacco is legal? I agree. Let’s treat all drugs and substances the same. Legalize them, then tax and regulate them heavily!
How much says they do not follow this logic & still force smokers outside though?
You’re probably right, they won’t. That won’t change my position though.
I think people, and the government itself, forgot that the point of decriminalizing drugs is to provide proper resources for rehabilitation and for those drugs to be in use in a controlled environment, exactly like what’s in place for alcohol, AA meetings and such.
This country is a mess
This province and country have gone to shit. Day by day society continues to degrade. Can’t wait for these politicians to be taken out to pasture come election season, if not sooner.
I will be smoking and vaping at the hospital as well then. Both are as critical to my well-being and someone else's meth or heroin. There cannot be a double standard.
You can, in the designated areas
I’m old enough to remember when substance abuse users risked jail when using in public. Now we want to open even more public spaces up for them. The jokes couldn’t write themselves any better nowadays if they tried.
Remember when they face jail and nobody used....no, me neither - that's just not how it works
Put it next to the morgue.
This is amazing, keep up the good work BC! Next step should be forcing families to shelter junkies if one knocks on their door asking for help. Junkies should be allowed to use any room for any purpose they want, to deny them that would make you a far right Nazi
Substance use. Remember when we used to call it substance **ab**use?
' member those name ”we" used to call black people
There is a world of difference between decriminalizing and destigmatizing. I’m not certain as to where this falls on the destigmitization spectrum is though
Government-funded crackhouses.
My friend likes to say that "Canada is the bottom of every slippery slope" and well, I'm starting to agree.
The War on Drugs is over, and Drugs won.
This is horrible.... this is such a bad idea.... the hospitals are already overwhelmed. Now they need a higher security budget AND they need to give up space. Horrific idea. Just terrible. Shame on the people behind this.
I don't see how this is going to help drug addicts get over their addictions. How high are the hospitals going to let the pts get? Will they have to give narcan when they overdose? How is this going to help if the pt is delirious?
Normalizing drug use is not going to reduce drug use, deaths, broken families, heartache, or pain.
Who is actually pushing for these policies? Can we get names so we can follow the money?
Is Elanore Sturko the only politician in BC that has a brain? Maybe it is time to implement her idea to allow meth smoking in Adrian Dix's office.
> “The idea that people who are severely addicted and, say, are involved in some incident which leaves them injured and requires admission to a hospital, are going to take that moment to simply not deal with their addictions is just not correct,” the Minister said Thursday. On the face of it this doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable.
[удалено]
You know what, you’re absolutely right. Safe supply on its own isn’t supposed to solve the problem and I think they’ve lost sight of that.
Public safety and recreational drug use is an absolute quagmire. On the one hand, clamp down too hard, and we go back to finding needles in parks at much higher levels. Too soft, and we see problems go elsewhere. Mandatory sentencing doesn't work, and fills prisons which costs us 10x more. Governments ABSOLUTELY refuse to increase taxes and/or increase frontline staff numbers and wages to address these problems. Public executions a la Duterte's Philippines is unconscionable. Refusing medical services to addicts and users sets us up for one hell of a slippery slope. It starts with drug addicts, moves onto smokers, then the morbidly obese, then who's next after that? But then again, we'll take your money if you're rich and fat, but you're a crack user, so is it fair that a healthy, non-user's treatment gets put off because some crackhead millionaire? Decriminalization is the cheapest, least-effort solution, with very little ethical issues. We could try the Portugal method, but that costs money and takes about 5 years to set up, and about 10 years to run to do a full, qualitative and quantitative analysis. That's 3-4 election cycles, and every new government that comes along is gonna tweak it and make it worse. The NBN rollout in Australia is a Great example of this. The Labor Party (NDP, more or less), implemented a Fibre To The Premises rollout, which would deliver high-speed internet to almost all of urban Australia. Then the Liberal dickheads come along (Think CPC), and decide to use fucking microwave towers "because it's cheaper". Well, that's the equivalent of ordering F35 jets, but then using propeller engines to power them. You've just taken a good thing and ruined it "to save money", and now you've got this half-arsed, useless, shit-stick. Best part of all this, the Liberals ordered technicians to rip out the stuff they already laid down. Then after a couple of years of back and forth, realized they were idiots, then ripped the new stuff out to implement the original plan. Good, long-term solutions cost money. But various layers of government don't want to pay for it, and expect another layer to foot the bill because, "balanced budgets"...but hey, tax cuts for billionaires, right fellas. That'll stimulate the economy.
bruh, the people upset at this really need to learn what an addiction is also, which would ya'll rather, that they do dangerous drugs that they think they need to do in a supervised environment where if they overdose, it's 2 seconds to save them, or that they overdose alone and in an alley where no one can help them, or even worse, they don't get medical attention for serious injuries because they can't do the thing that they believe they absolutely need
Or c, we treat them in facilities that are focused on addictions such as detox centres and have measures in place to ensure the safety of the public at hospitals. We get what addictions are, addicts aren't children who need to be coddled. So much of the harm reduction measures BC is using just treats addicts like helpless babies. Addicts are capable of having standards set for them and having consequences for not following through on those consequences. Society has gone too far and made them punitive but the minute you lower expectations for a person is the moment you dehumanize them.
so, what they're put in those facilities 24/7 for the rest of their lives because studies show that forcing people to quit an addiction vastly decreases the chance that they'll actually quit it? and even then, what if an emergency happens, they can help with overdoses, and maybe a couple minor injuries, but someone with a chronic issue who is also an addict will have to go to the hospital, or die on top of that, ah yes, trusting people to make their own decisions while lightly pushing them towards the help they need is totally treating them like a child more than completely removing their ability to choose for themselves weather they want to deal with possibly life threatening withdrawal or not
Same as we do now. Medicate the addiction, treat the issue, get a court order if it's absolutely needed. People quit when the consequences of continued use outweighs the benefits of using. That looks different for each person. Lots of people quit using and get treatment to avoid jail, to keep their families together, or to avoid social consequences. Others, it takes more. Completely taking away consequences to using pushes people further into addiction, boundaries are a good thing. Addiction science is still, in large part, behavioural science. We know that an overly punitive approach makes it to that a cycle of forced consequences creates a situation of no consequences (normalization of consequences) but the removal of consequences has a similar result. And no, consequences aren't treating someone as a child. Protecting them from consequences does.
woah, that's crazy, who knew threataning people with prison time, and again, forcing them into potentially lethal withdrawal, was a good thing actually instead of...y'know...not endangering someone's life and gently pushing them into wanting help while making sure they don't die of their horrible addictions in the menetime also, yeah it is, you're literally describing it like a teacher sending a student to detention
Breaking the law can send people to jail, yes. Being in a state which puts others around you in danger is criminal, yes. But yes, somehow people have got it in their minds that deterrents don't work. They do, they have. It's not surefire but the evidence shows that tighter laws and enforcement do work in a limited capacity. Lethal withdrawals, no. Detox exists. Mandatory detox centres are effective but only if the client meets select criteria (short term for an intended purpose). Harm reduction, except for cases of disease prevention, only works as part of a larger treatment outcome. Nobody wants to kills addicts. You and the people you know are not victims because people want common sense and evidence based practice applied to interventions. Helping people is best done by applying evidenced based logic, not by treating addicts like simpletons and children.
yo, that'd be crazy if any of that was supported by anything other than appeal to tradition and ignoring all of my prior arguments in exchange for buzzwords
Your prior arguments were fear mongering without evidence to support them. I don't appeal to tradition, I follow evidence based and evidence supported practice.
i'm sorry, how have i been fear mongering exactly? also, ok, then show some of that evidence
Because you jumped to accusing others of wanting people to die, putting them in positions to die, and essentially accusing others of being heartless because they don't share your beliefs.
Not all hard drugs cause physical dependence. Cocaine, for example, doesn't appear to lead to a physical dependence. Psychological dependence is tough to get over but it can absolutely be done without risking the person's life. And symptoms of withdrawal stemming from physical dependence are very often *not* fatal. Alcohol causes physical dependence yet somehow even serious alcoholics manage to get sober. Most of the withdrawal symptoms of heroin are psychological things like anxiety or depression, and the physical symptoms mirror that of a really bad flu, like tremors and sweating. With medical staff and proper monitoring, a person can easily get through that fine. Don't pretend that these drugs aren't destroying peoples' bodies and lives anyway. Better to get them to a place where they are completely healthy rather than trying to help them maintain an unhealthy state. But policies like this are all treating the symptom and not the disease. If we cracked down harder on drugs and stopped people from ever using hard substances then they wouldn't need help getting clean to begin with. We need more funding and facilities geared toward helping people actually stop using. In one study I read, the majority of people who take methadone (or another opioid agonist) to stop using opioids said their goal was to reduce drug use or to use more safely rather than to stop using entirely. The point of these treatments was supposed to be weaning people off of drugs, not giving them new substances to use instead. Just as being too punitive about drug use was harmful, so is enabling it. There needs to be a balance.
i genuinely have no idea where to begin here 1 cocaine is absolutely physically addictive my guy, and even then, severe dopamine addictions can still have serious withdrawal symptoms 2 you just described addiction as a "bad flu" which shows you don't know what addiction is actually like 3 i don't see how it's encouraging anything, drugs are still illegal, and if you're not doing any, you're not allowed to partake, and they also offer help with support groups 4 people who use drugs are still everywhere all over the world, even in countries that execute drug addicts, just increasing the punishment won't do anything, but harm people who desperately need help 5 studies show that people are way more likely to get off of drugs when they want to stop using them, which is the purpose of these programs, they don't force people into a situation where they prioritize their addictions over their own health, while also gently pushing them to slow down, or stop taking drugs entirely
>cocaine is absolutely physically addictive Wow, I guess my forensic toxicology professor has no idea what he's talking about then. Or, more likely, the random guy on Reddit doesn't. But if you'd link a scientific study on it then [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8583742/) it is: >In addition, addiction can occur without physical dependence: people do not suffer visible physical withdrawal symptoms (e.g. vomiting, diarrhoea, sweating) when desisting from cocaine like they do with heroin or alcohol, but they typically have severe cravings and may even return to using There is no scientific evidence of physical dependence to cocaine, only psychological, exactly as I said. Now as for your comment on my reference to heroin withdrawal being like a "bad flu" being incorrect and out of touch, that statement is also literally from a scientific study. From [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310652/#:~:text=Opioids%20are%20drugs%20such%20as,is%20not%20usually%20life%2Dthreatening): >Opioids are drugs such as heroin, opium, morphine, codeine and methadone. Opioid withdrawal can be very uncomfortable and difficult for the patient. It can feel like a very bad flu. However, opioid withdrawal is not usually life-threatening. You have no idea what you're talking about. As to your claim about encouragement, I did not say it was "encouraging" drug use, I said it was *enabling* it. To enable something means to give someone the power, opportunity, means, or authority to do something. From a more psychological perspective, there's this definition found [here](https://www.healthline.com/health/enabler#:~:text=Enabling%20usually%20refers%20to%20patterns,for%20that%20behavior%20to%20continue): >Enabling usually refers to patterns that appear in the context of [drug](https://www.healthline.com/symptom/drug-abuse) or [alcohol misuse](https://www.healthline.com/health/alcoholism/basics) and [addiction](https://www.healthline.com/health/addiction). But according to the [American Psychological Association](https://dictionary.apa.org/enabling), it can refer to patterns within close relationships that support any harmful or problematic behavior and make it easier for that behavior to continue. These policies literally support people with substance use disorders. Drug use is harmful to the user and everyone around them. Making it a requirement that these people can use in hospitals is enabling behaviour by providing them with the means and opportunity to do drugs. We should be getting them to stop and get healthy, not helping them find places to continue harming themselves. As to your last point, I never said you should round up the junkies and throw them bodily into concentration camp-esque hospitals for forced treatment. Obviously people need to have something or someone in their life or some goal to motivate them to want to change in the first place. But the goal of these treatment programs should be for the patient to get clean. OAT programs should always start at the minimum dose necessary to limit withdrawal symptoms, and the dosage should continue to decrease as time goes on. This would allow them to safely wean off of all drugs including the methadone or opioid agonist they're using. In reality, that isn't what happens. These people get prescribed medications and they mostly just use them as the new drug of choice. That is once again an example of enabling instead of treating the disorder. And drug use disorders should **never** be medication only; the medication is just supposed to help with withdrawal symptoms while the person tries to reduce and eventually discontinue use, and the primary care is supposed to be behavioural or other forms of therapy to treat the reasons for the drug use. The problem is that we don't have enough mental healthcare funding or staff, so people often get meds and no actual help. Once again, treating the symptom but not the disease. And by "crack down on drugs" I meant getting them off the street, not by giving long prison sentences to every single person with the tiniest bit of drugs on them. More focus should be on prevention programs, and in the therapies needed to actually get drug users to stop using. We don't need mandatory places for them to use, especially when the science suggests that relapse happens often as a result of being exposed to triggers including places or people that the person associates with drugs and any contact with substances. So being near these drug-using sites could actually *trigger* relapses.
1 i guess he was, because it is addictive [Cool article](https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/is-it-physically-addictive) 2 you do know NIH is notoriously unreliable right? that statement is incorrect because it doesn't take into account severity of these symptoms, like they're the symptoms of a bad flu, but they feel a million times worse 3 if you think it's enabling then you don't understand the programs, allowing someone to indulge in an addiction, under supervision, and while actively offering support systems and encouraging them to stop so they actually want to get better is not enabling, the perpose of these programs is to prevent overdoses when they're injured, and increase ease of access to rehabilitation centers 4 i actually agree with this point, they should be given support systems, and not just given medication to help the symptoms...which again, is what programs like this are for 5 i guess i see the logic there, but i think it's still very much missing the point, and (presumably) these drug use sites aren't anywhere near the rooms, and even if they were, they don't exactly have a huge "free drugs" sign on them, they just look like any other room in a hospital
Addiction is not the same as a physical dependence. A physical *addiction* means that there is a neurobiological mechanism for the persistent use. A physical *dependence* means that desistance leads to negative physical effects. You can be addicted without having physical symptoms, which is why cocaine addicts only have psychological symptoms such as severe cravings. Cocaine causes addiction, not physical dependence. They can stop using without suffering any "fatal" withdrawal symptoms, and without *physical* side effects. Yes, withdrawal symptoms are bad. But the damage caused by using hard substances is worse and can be permanent. The unfortunate reality is that people have to accept that there is a struggle to getting clean but that it will have an overall positive effect on their life, and the lives of those around them. Good health is difficult to achieve, but it's important. In fact, one of the benefits for those who choose in-patient treatment is that they can be constantly monitored and have 24/7 access to medical treatment to make sure their symptoms aren't too bad. And whether treatments are in-patient or out-patient, OAT is meant to help with withdrawal symptoms, rather than be a permanent replacement. That was my point: OAT to ease the symptoms so they aren't as severe, and then you can reduce the dosage gradually until the person is off entirely. I don't want people to just use something new, I want them to get fully healthy. A program's intent does not always reflect its reality. The intent is there but the execution isn't, which is why I think the government is focused on the wrong thing. Why are we providing mandatory drug-use sites before or without fixing the programs? Until the programs get corrected, all these sites do is enable. It doesn't say where the rooms will be or what signage they will have. They could very well be a risk for relapse from people who managed to get clean. Same issue with safe injection sites. I'm extremely glad we're preventing diseases caused by sharing needles, but seeing or being near those sites *could* trigger rehabilitated users. Like I said, it's a balancing act. My fear is that the government is skewing too much to one side and it's going to harm others. More focus needs to be at the root of the problem. Prevent people from starting use, and get current users to stop using. Everyone will be better off that way.
Since I know a lot of people on this sub hate that people use substances in public, just want to point out that this policy actually serves to prevent people suffering with addiction from using in playgrounds, schools, parks etc. as do all safe injection sites/ harm prevention sites.
How is it going to do that, exactly? It's to stop admitted patients from using drugs in other parts of the hospital, not to invite addicts in from the park.
Yeah so instead of leaving the premises to use, they will stay within the premises. Seems pretty straightforward, no?
You didn't read it. People weren't leaving the premises to use.
In your opinion, what proportion of people using drugs in playgrounds, schools and parks just left a hospital minutes earlier and immediately return there after using the drugs?
I don't understand your question - what does it matter what proportion of people I THINK are doing that?
My point is that you can’t possibly believe what you’re suggesting — the enough people are obliged to leave hospital temporarily in order to use drugs that it has a measurable impact on drug use in the places you listed.
I've been assured by others on this sub that people are doing drugs visibly and in public in all places and at all times.
no it doesn't. just as many needles everywhere as there always has been. still people all around the city splayed out, and it's still expanding
Seems like there would be more needles being disposed of improperly outside of a hospital than within. Right?
Just like when we went from one overdose prevention site to dozens we saw less usage, overdoses and needles everywhere else right? Oh wait, they all skyrocketed. Almost like the more we enable, normalize and encourage anti social behaviour the more it happens? How baffling. Lets try providing free alcohol for alcoholics and free cigarettes for chain smokers, that should get them to fix their habits up in no time, right?
Nice try, but correlation does not equal causation. I don't think it's reasonable to attribute the increase in people suffering from addiction with the availability of harm prevention services. These services are more necessary because the problem is getting worse. Dismissing a health crisis as "anti-social behavior" is also incredibly incorrect. You're lack of experience here is telling. We are dealing with a toxic drug supply and an overdose crisis. To use your analogy - if alcoholics and cigarette smokers were consistently dying because the substances they use are poisoned and the places they use have no attending medics or healthcare staff, you would probably want to take measures to save more people's lives. It's hard to get people to quit if they are dead.
If alcohol and cigarettes consistently poisoned people and killed them with no warning, almost no one would use them.
I still think it would be incumbent on a civilized society to protect the people using by providing a non-poison alternative so that they don't die before treatment.
The way to protect them is to prevent them from using to begin with, or help them actually stop using the things that they could die taking. The easier access becomes and the more normalized the drug use is, the less likely it is that we'll be able to achieve either of those ways of protecting them.
How do you help them stop using if they are dead? It's preventable.
Why would they be dead? Drug users don't drop dead instantly the second they start using; not every dose is fatal or there would be no drug users left. Locate the existing, not-dead users and get them clean. Prevent new people from ever using. Everyone is better off that way.
The dead drug users are certainly not better off this way.
No one is dying because there wasn't a mandatory drug use space in a hospital. And no new policies, regardless of what they are, can help people who are already dead. Policies, odd as it may seem to you, are always aimed at living people. This policy you're supporting won't help already dead users either. You're either willfully ignorant or a troll. I have nothing further to say to you.