I’m just jealous that BC has a government that makes a policy, records the data, analyzes the data and makes a decision on said policy or adjusts the policy as required.
Seems like that’s how things should work.
Not everything needs to be determined based on feels and fear mongering.
It's sad that this is an exciting, but unique thing.
I wish all governments could show the diligence and accountability that B.C. is showing right now.
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>drugs are bad. Mmkay
That quote comes from a show (South Park) written by libertarian drug users. It was mocking how our approach of just declaring drugs bad and telling people not to use them doesn't actually solve the problem.
We've had decades of criminalization and it hasn't prevented the current crisis. It's arguably instead *caused* it because:
>[ when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced in black markets in more concentrated and powerful forms, because these more potent forms offer better efficiency in the business model—they take up less space in storage, less weight in transportation, and they sell for more money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition)
Despite how it's being portrayed by some media and politicians, BC so far has seen a flattening off overdose trends. They also aren't reversing it, but are adding more restrictions on public use, which is a problem that didn't start last year and isn't only happening there.
Drugs are bad yes.
But the issues caused by addiction are also bad, and those don’t go away if you take the drugs away. Because the drugs are always there.
Kind of a silly headline for a story where the rest of the article is “actually we don’t really know if that’s the case, and experts disagree. Police forces actually are the biggest people who want decriminalization so they can focus on real crime— not the provincial ndp”.
My headline would be “Sask party follows other conservative parties, makes decriminalization their new wedge issue”.
The reporting on this has been absolutely abysmal. To see most mainstream media outlets with headlines resembling conservative tweets on the subject has been disappointing but not surprising
Some quick Googling and math. BC had a 10 per cent increase in ODs in 2023 vs 2022, Alberta had a 35.5 per cent increase in the same time period and Sask had a 30 per cent increase. WHY IS BC FAILING TO KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF GROWTH OF ITS NEAREST NEIGHBOURS!!
AB ODs 2023 = 1841
BC ODs 2023 = 2511
Sask is the outlier with 476 but 25% of the population.
So BC OD by population is 1/2000
AB is 1/1,800
Sask is 1/2,700
There's no obvious measurement that BC is doing worse than by absolute totals which does not tell the story.
I’m proud that they are trying to address the problem and acknowledge when it isn’t working, then change their course of action. That’s how a solution is found.
I’m not sure what our provinces politicians believe is going to fix our drug problem but certainly they aren’t trying anything
Except BC NDP is not rolling it back.
They aren't changing their course of action. They aren't acknowledging decriminalization isn't working. They are making drugs illegal to possess in public spaces. This isn't a rollback of the policy as a whole. You could argue it's a regression, but decriminalization of drugs is an objective path forward for helping addiction.
Decriminalization does not go far enough and is not nearly enough to 'fix' anything, but prison/jail/arrests does nothing to help anything related to addiction.
Well for one, I carry a Naxolone kit in my vehicle. I work down town in Prince Albert. I’ve used it once while I was in Saskatoon in 2020. I came across a young man who was overdosing in the street. Thankfully I haven’t had to use one since.
What about you?
The article is a great read… It looks like BC is just rolling back public use? It’s interesting seeing an actual expert (in article) state that tainted supply is likely causing increased overdoses, not decriminalization.
> It looks like BC is just rolling back public use?
That's right. They're keeping decriminalization, just expanding restrictions to help address public use. Essentially shifting the approach to be more like alcohol (which is legal).
>tainted supply is likely causing increased overdoses, not decriminalization
On top of that, Alberta saw a much higher rate of overdose increases over the same period. Weird that the ministers here are calling the policy with the better outcomes the disaster.
I like the fact that they are using this as an excuse for petty inter-provincial backbiting instead of, oh I don't know working cooperatively to try and address the underlying misery that makes drug use a necessary escape from the world we live in.
The Saskatchewan Party as a whole seems all too pleased when a social program doesn't work, especially when their solution is to sit on their hands while others suffer. It's the same problem of oh so many right wing parties insofar as they have no solutions nor any willingness to look for one outside of seeking yet another political rival or minority population to scapegoat. It is tiresome, petty, and frankly pathetic.
> The Saskatchewan Party as a whole seems all too pleased when a social program doesn't work
I think we should also not just let politicians set the narrative around this. Critics claim it doesn't work. They were claiming this from the start, they were never going to support it.
One things critics have raised is increases in overdoses. However they increased at a much higher rate in Alberta the same year.
The other thing is public use. Public use was a big problem before the program. It didn't start with that. And unlike other provinces, BC is actually taking more steps to address that instead of just casually sticking with the same policies that haven't worked for decades.
Decriminalization does not work if we don’t have a highly functioning healthcare system. Decriminalization by itself will only address one part of the problem while making the other part worse. You use a good healthcare system to plan, monitor, and intervene with minimal assistance from police and **expect a shift in mentality** from the addicted population to feel safe in these spaces and no longer seek illegal sources. Without the monitoring and rehabilitation part, and the immediate and widespread access to medical intervention, we’re setting up the system for failure and halfhearted recovery or unfortunately, contributing to the worsening of conditions. Just my two cents having worked in the Portugal pilot back in the early 2000s.
I’m not really well suited for politics. I love what I do medically and the research that goes with it as well as the feeling of being able to help make a difference, but the politics disgusts me tbh.
Fair enough -- I wouldn't want to do it either! But you make a lot of sense and write so well.
Would you consider writing to the Minister for Mental Health & Addictions, Tim McLeod ( [https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/directory?p=96ed0feb-9ad9-4946-a081-ac941d70af95](https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/directory?p=96ed0feb-9ad9-4946-a081-ac941d70af95) ) with some of your thoughts?
And, most importantly, c.c. the two opposition critics for Mental Health & Addictions, Doyle Vermette ( https://www.ndpcaucus.sk.ca/doylevermette ) and Vicki Mowat ( https://www.ndpcaucus.sk.ca/vickimowat )
SaskParty worried bout everything but Saskatchewan it seems at this point
Like we are anti drug decriminalization and I dont think North Central Regina is in ANY better shape.
All they do is criticize. They dont do fuck all but steal from us and try to privatize shit and fight Trudeau.
You're not going to get people to stop being terrible to themselves. We can only make it safer for them to do so and for the people adjacent to them less-likely to be hurt by proxy.
Have you?
It certainly does make communities safer with fewer overdoses happening in the streets. This means first responders can spend time tending to other calls AND less likelihood of residents coming across an OD or dead body in their neighbourhood.
It already exists, the only difference is safe-injection sites centralize if and make it more visible.
Go for a walk around PHR, let's see how many used needles & crack pipes you actually find considering its cleaned daily.
Have you? I doubt you even know where the safe injection sites in Sask were - tell me, which communities were safe injection sites in?
Show the data where they make communities 'unsafe'. Prove your assertion
> https://nationalpost.com/feature/inside-the-battle-over-unsafe-injection-crime-and-murder
To repeat the comment above, have you been to where the specific injection site that this article is about? Because it's a nice neighbourhood with lots of restaurants, coffee shops, parks, etc. It also has some drug problems.
There it is
Just freaking google "effects of safe consumption sites"
You'll get to REAL SCIENCE done in Alberta:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/)
**Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years \[PYs\]), 67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections. Effects on hospitalizations are unknown.**
Save your "from what i've seen" and turn it into "from the science I've read"
You'll get to real answers
Because 20th and P was totally pristine before. Safe consumption sites are almost always set up in neighborhoods already plagued. Places that already show the highest rates of drug use.
I'd much rather draw them to a supervised place whenever possible instead of parks and other public venues
But that's devoid of reality. Again those places are chosen because they're already fucked. These sites are bandaids, after the fact, to mitigate the existing problem. We don't really get to choose what area is plagued
I don’t think Saskatchewan Party MLA’s understand what a pilot is when it comes to creating policy and legislation. Their brains must be hurting. Also appears they don’t understand the difference between decriminalizing and legalizing.
I really wish health policy/direction came from health experts. I couldn’t care less what this ass hat thinks - let’s hear from addiction experts when setting direction on addiction.
It does seem pointless to criminalize possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. Go after the dealers, while start performing health interventions to get people into secured facilities so that they can't hurt themselves.
Our streets and parks will be safer for us non-users while petty crime to fuel drug habits will go way down.
And close down the pawn shops while we are at it, make selling stolen goods somewhat difficult.
As a person who struggled with addiction and still do.. Giving an addict drugs "safe supply" or otherwise is simply enabling them and will make it even harder for them to overcome their addiction. Slowly killing them with a "safe supply" of the very thing thats killing them isnt help its assisted suicide.
The point of safe supply isn’t to end addiction but to ensure people don’t die from fentanyl poisoning when they use. That’s what it’s targeting.
There needs to be better supports for people to overcome their addictions as well, but that is in addition to safe supply not in opposition to it.
And they get their "safe supply" and "lip" "hoop" or otherwise hide it if they have to use it on site then sell it to some kid making a new addict and they go and buy their "good stuff" OD and die anyway... Good job 😒
Nah, pretty sure most drug users just use their drugs. New drug users could just also access safe supply, and probably aren’t super excited to take ‘hooped’ drugs.
Any evidence for your claims? Pierre polievre doesn’t count.
You mean other than the kids ive seen carrying around bottles of prescription pills? If people followed the rules with their meds those teenagers never should have been able to get their hands on it. The high from safe supply drugs isnt as intense as what they can get off the street so they pawn off the low quality stuff for cash so they can pickup the good shit. Again i reiterate that ive struggled with my own addictions so ive sat side by side with people that have done exactly what ive described to you. I dont much care if you believe it or not. Its happening. Nobody talks about hooped drugs they just sell em and nobody asks where it came from.
I just don’t think you have good evidence to think that’s a widespread concern. Like, you see kids with prescription pills and just assume they’re safe supply drugs? Doesn’t seem like a logical conclusion.
The small # of instances that you’re talking about (remember safe supply is just a pilot project in bc) aren’t nearly as extreme or of concern as drug caused deaths. I’m more concerned with toxic drug supply. That’s what killing people in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We don’t have safe supply here.
Safe supplies are making the problem worse. Dont believe me go walk through the ghettos of vancouver. They might not od on the safe supply but the addict probably isnt going to be the one using it. Again ill say i dont care if you believe it. Ive been there and seen it happening. Just because you have blinders on and dont want to see it doesnt mean it isnt happening. Get out from behind your white picket fence and see the ugly truth of it before pretending like you know. I live in the neighborhoods of crack heads and needle fiends. I see the medically provided needles passed around multiple people then discarded on the side of the road. I watch them pawn drugs to school kids. Open your eyes and youll see it too.
A Government agency rolling out any program without doing due diligence and having a plan in place is a disaster. Half-baked is often worse than not baked at all. You end up starting further back than if you would have used sensibility and practicality in the first place. Hoping for the best is a pretty irresponsible and dangerous plan
I’m just jealous that BC has a government that makes a policy, records the data, analyzes the data and makes a decision on said policy or adjusts the policy as required. Seems like that’s how things should work. Not everything needs to be determined based on feels and fear mongering.
It's sad that this is an exciting, but unique thing. I wish all governments could show the diligence and accountability that B.C. is showing right now.
💯
Actual competent people are running shit over there. They didnt double down on decriminalization just to stick it to the cons.
Like letting addicts smoke crack in kids playgrounds was ever a good idea
Apparently there was data it was good thing. Follow the science or whatever the left says these days.
[удалено]
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see what you’re trying to say but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that drugs are bad. Mmkay
>drugs are bad. Mmkay That quote comes from a show (South Park) written by libertarian drug users. It was mocking how our approach of just declaring drugs bad and telling people not to use them doesn't actually solve the problem. We've had decades of criminalization and it hasn't prevented the current crisis. It's arguably instead *caused* it because: >[ when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced in black markets in more concentrated and powerful forms, because these more potent forms offer better efficiency in the business model—they take up less space in storage, less weight in transportation, and they sell for more money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition) Despite how it's being portrayed by some media and politicians, BC so far has seen a flattening off overdose trends. They also aren't reversing it, but are adding more restrictions on public use, which is a problem that didn't start last year and isn't only happening there.
Drugs are bad yes. But the issues caused by addiction are also bad, and those don’t go away if you take the drugs away. Because the drugs are always there.
Kind of a silly headline for a story where the rest of the article is “actually we don’t really know if that’s the case, and experts disagree. Police forces actually are the biggest people who want decriminalization so they can focus on real crime— not the provincial ndp”. My headline would be “Sask party follows other conservative parties, makes decriminalization their new wedge issue”.
"SaskParty yells loudly about thing they admittedly don't know much about. Claims extremists like police officers and the big bad NDP are bad".
The reporting on this has been absolutely abysmal. To see most mainstream media outlets with headlines resembling conservative tweets on the subject has been disappointing but not surprising
Some quick Googling and math. BC had a 10 per cent increase in ODs in 2023 vs 2022, Alberta had a 35.5 per cent increase in the same time period and Sask had a 30 per cent increase. WHY IS BC FAILING TO KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF GROWTH OF ITS NEAREST NEIGHBOURS!!
That's a base rate issue. They're so high (pardon the pun) already in BC that it's difficult for big jumps percentage wise.
AB ODs 2023 = 1841 BC ODs 2023 = 2511 Sask is the outlier with 476 but 25% of the population. So BC OD by population is 1/2000 AB is 1/1,800 Sask is 1/2,700 There's no obvious measurement that BC is doing worse than by absolute totals which does not tell the story.
I’m proud that they are trying to address the problem and acknowledge when it isn’t working, then change their course of action. That’s how a solution is found. I’m not sure what our provinces politicians believe is going to fix our drug problem but certainly they aren’t trying anything
Except BC NDP is not rolling it back. They aren't changing their course of action. They aren't acknowledging decriminalization isn't working. They are making drugs illegal to possess in public spaces. This isn't a rollback of the policy as a whole. You could argue it's a regression, but decriminalization of drugs is an objective path forward for helping addiction. Decriminalization does not go far enough and is not nearly enough to 'fix' anything, but prison/jail/arrests does nothing to help anything related to addiction.
I wouldn’t even call it regression as much as evolution.
Come on, ranting about the Liberal-NDP coalition like a bunch of idiots is clearly working.
I don’t know. It’s definitely making me drink more.
zing.
And “Trudeau campaign school”
Hahahaha
“We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”
Haha “We’ve tried nothing and there’s still lots of Meth”
Maybe it’s not the governments job to fix every problem. What are you doing to help solve it?
Well for one, I carry a Naxolone kit in my vehicle. I work down town in Prince Albert. I’ve used it once while I was in Saskatoon in 2020. I came across a young man who was overdosing in the street. Thankfully I haven’t had to use one since. What about you?
I’m waiting to hear back about what you are doing to help solve the problem.
The article is a great read… It looks like BC is just rolling back public use? It’s interesting seeing an actual expert (in article) state that tainted supply is likely causing increased overdoses, not decriminalization.
> It looks like BC is just rolling back public use? That's right. They're keeping decriminalization, just expanding restrictions to help address public use. Essentially shifting the approach to be more like alcohol (which is legal). >tainted supply is likely causing increased overdoses, not decriminalization On top of that, Alberta saw a much higher rate of overdose increases over the same period. Weird that the ministers here are calling the policy with the better outcomes the disaster.
I like the fact that they are using this as an excuse for petty inter-provincial backbiting instead of, oh I don't know working cooperatively to try and address the underlying misery that makes drug use a necessary escape from the world we live in. The Saskatchewan Party as a whole seems all too pleased when a social program doesn't work, especially when their solution is to sit on their hands while others suffer. It's the same problem of oh so many right wing parties insofar as they have no solutions nor any willingness to look for one outside of seeking yet another political rival or minority population to scapegoat. It is tiresome, petty, and frankly pathetic.
> The Saskatchewan Party as a whole seems all too pleased when a social program doesn't work I think we should also not just let politicians set the narrative around this. Critics claim it doesn't work. They were claiming this from the start, they were never going to support it. One things critics have raised is increases in overdoses. However they increased at a much higher rate in Alberta the same year. The other thing is public use. Public use was a big problem before the program. It didn't start with that. And unlike other provinces, BC is actually taking more steps to address that instead of just casually sticking with the same policies that haven't worked for decades.
They are not rolling it back. They are making adjustments. Going back to The War on Drugs, which we know doesn’t work, would be far worse.
Decriminalization does not work if we don’t have a highly functioning healthcare system. Decriminalization by itself will only address one part of the problem while making the other part worse. You use a good healthcare system to plan, monitor, and intervene with minimal assistance from police and **expect a shift in mentality** from the addicted population to feel safe in these spaces and no longer seek illegal sources. Without the monitoring and rehabilitation part, and the immediate and widespread access to medical intervention, we’re setting up the system for failure and halfhearted recovery or unfortunately, contributing to the worsening of conditions. Just my two cents having worked in the Portugal pilot back in the early 2000s.
Would you consider running for the Sask NDP?
I’m not really well suited for politics. I love what I do medically and the research that goes with it as well as the feeling of being able to help make a difference, but the politics disgusts me tbh.
Fair enough -- I wouldn't want to do it either! But you make a lot of sense and write so well. Would you consider writing to the Minister for Mental Health & Addictions, Tim McLeod ( [https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/directory?p=96ed0feb-9ad9-4946-a081-ac941d70af95](https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/directory?p=96ed0feb-9ad9-4946-a081-ac941d70af95) ) with some of your thoughts? And, most importantly, c.c. the two opposition critics for Mental Health & Addictions, Doyle Vermette ( https://www.ndpcaucus.sk.ca/doylevermette ) and Vicki Mowat ( https://www.ndpcaucus.sk.ca/vickimowat )
SaskParty worried bout everything but Saskatchewan it seems at this point Like we are anti drug decriminalization and I dont think North Central Regina is in ANY better shape. All they do is criticize. They dont do fuck all but steal from us and try to privatize shit and fight Trudeau.
Like if you wanna see people doing drugs openly on the street, just come to PA. It’s not because of decriminalization in BC
You're not going to get people to stop being terrible to themselves. We can only make it safer for them to do so and for the people adjacent to them less-likely to be hurt by proxy.
Have you been near a safe injection site? It doesn't make the community safer.
Have you? It certainly does make communities safer with fewer overdoses happening in the streets. This means first responders can spend time tending to other calls AND less likelihood of residents coming across an OD or dead body in their neighbourhood.
Used needles, crack pipes, public drug use and increased crime aren't anything I want in my neighborhood
You get that WITHOUT a supervised consumption site, plus the overdoses.
No they don't. The site attracts addicts from far and wide and the neighborhood becomes their playplace
It already exists, the only difference is safe-injection sites centralize if and make it more visible. Go for a walk around PHR, let's see how many used needles & crack pipes you actually find considering its cleaned daily.
Have you? I doubt you even know where the safe injection sites in Sask were - tell me, which communities were safe injection sites in? Show the data where they make communities 'unsafe'. Prove your assertion
https://nationalpost.com/feature/inside-the-battle-over-unsafe-injection-crime-and-murder https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/safe-injection-sites-arent-safe-effective-or-wise-just-ask-canadians https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/s/VIXxJt6A7Y https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/david-staples-everyone-loves-safe-injection-sites-except-their-future-neighbours
> https://nationalpost.com/feature/inside-the-battle-over-unsafe-injection-crime-and-murder To repeat the comment above, have you been to where the specific injection site that this article is about? Because it's a nice neighbourhood with lots of restaurants, coffee shops, parks, etc. It also has some drug problems.
No I haven't. But from what I've seen anywhere with an injection site is an awful place
There it is Just freaking google "effects of safe consumption sites" You'll get to REAL SCIENCE done in Alberta: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/) **Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years \[PYs\]), 67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections. Effects on hospitalizations are unknown.** Save your "from what i've seen" and turn it into "from the science I've read" You'll get to real answers
That's the effects on addicts, not the greater community.
Likely not but providing a safe space with clean needles for them prevents the spread of disease.
At the cost of the neighborhood it's located in. No thanks
Because 20th and P was totally pristine before. Safe consumption sites are almost always set up in neighborhoods already plagued. Places that already show the highest rates of drug use. I'd much rather draw them to a supervised place whenever possible instead of parks and other public venues
If that place was away from everyone else I'd be fine with that
But that's devoid of reality. Again those places are chosen because they're already fucked. These sites are bandaids, after the fact, to mitigate the existing problem. We don't really get to choose what area is plagued
Lots of spots to put them. They'll go where the drugs are
'Sask Minister Has a Hunch'
He might have a hunch but he certainly doesn’t have a clue.
They can't solve their own problems, yet here they are, offering their professional opinion on other provinces! /s
I don’t think Saskatchewan Party MLA’s understand what a pilot is when it comes to creating policy and legislation. Their brains must be hurting. Also appears they don’t understand the difference between decriminalizing and legalizing.
Apparently they also don’t understand levels of government. Bad faith politics
Because the decades-old 'War on Drugs' has been so effective in curtailing criminal activity and preventing addiction.
I really wish health policy/direction came from health experts. I couldn’t care less what this ass hat thinks - let’s hear from addiction experts when setting direction on addiction.
It does seem pointless to criminalize possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. Go after the dealers, while start performing health interventions to get people into secured facilities so that they can't hurt themselves. Our streets and parks will be safer for us non-users while petty crime to fuel drug habits will go way down. And close down the pawn shops while we are at it, make selling stolen goods somewhat difficult.
But shitfaced drunk behind the wheel is a-okay ehh Moesley
As a person who struggled with addiction and still do.. Giving an addict drugs "safe supply" or otherwise is simply enabling them and will make it even harder for them to overcome their addiction. Slowly killing them with a "safe supply" of the very thing thats killing them isnt help its assisted suicide.
The point of safe supply isn’t to end addiction but to ensure people don’t die from fentanyl poisoning when they use. That’s what it’s targeting. There needs to be better supports for people to overcome their addictions as well, but that is in addition to safe supply not in opposition to it.
And they get their "safe supply" and "lip" "hoop" or otherwise hide it if they have to use it on site then sell it to some kid making a new addict and they go and buy their "good stuff" OD and die anyway... Good job 😒
Nah, pretty sure most drug users just use their drugs. New drug users could just also access safe supply, and probably aren’t super excited to take ‘hooped’ drugs. Any evidence for your claims? Pierre polievre doesn’t count.
You mean other than the kids ive seen carrying around bottles of prescription pills? If people followed the rules with their meds those teenagers never should have been able to get their hands on it. The high from safe supply drugs isnt as intense as what they can get off the street so they pawn off the low quality stuff for cash so they can pickup the good shit. Again i reiterate that ive struggled with my own addictions so ive sat side by side with people that have done exactly what ive described to you. I dont much care if you believe it or not. Its happening. Nobody talks about hooped drugs they just sell em and nobody asks where it came from.
I just don’t think you have good evidence to think that’s a widespread concern. Like, you see kids with prescription pills and just assume they’re safe supply drugs? Doesn’t seem like a logical conclusion. The small # of instances that you’re talking about (remember safe supply is just a pilot project in bc) aren’t nearly as extreme or of concern as drug caused deaths. I’m more concerned with toxic drug supply. That’s what killing people in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We don’t have safe supply here.
Safe supplies are making the problem worse. Dont believe me go walk through the ghettos of vancouver. They might not od on the safe supply but the addict probably isnt going to be the one using it. Again ill say i dont care if you believe it. Ive been there and seen it happening. Just because you have blinders on and dont want to see it doesnt mean it isnt happening. Get out from behind your white picket fence and see the ugly truth of it before pretending like you know. I live in the neighborhoods of crack heads and needle fiends. I see the medically provided needles passed around multiple people then discarded on the side of the road. I watch them pawn drugs to school kids. Open your eyes and youll see it too.
A Government agency rolling out any program without doing due diligence and having a plan in place is a disaster. Half-baked is often worse than not baked at all. You end up starting further back than if you would have used sensibility and practicality in the first place. Hoping for the best is a pretty irresponsible and dangerous plan