You must log in or # to comment.
Then what will solve the drug problem? I can get the compassion side but disagree with the opinion of having no sticks.
I can understand opposition to Bill 6 and opposition to fining residential landlords for drug use but I support fines/action against venues that allow drug use and drug users to enter. Venues should be allowed and encouraged to discriminate against drug users.
Decriminalization works well, to a lesser extent having safe use sites.
It allows treating the addiction so people stop using them rather than just having people hide it until they die or get thrown in jail waiting to use again once they get out.
Venues already could kick people out for anything, this doesn’t relate to that.
Drugs are not the problem. Treating addiction directly is like giving someone Tylenol without setting the bone.
Can you flesh out your explanation. I do not understand. If drugs are not the problem than what is?
Treating addiction directly is like giving someone Tylenol but not setting the bone, then what is setting the bone? Furthermore, how did the bone get displaced in the first place?
I see acquiring drug use as a social phenomenon. More people socially smoke than smoke regularly but social smoking is a step towards regular smoking.
So in my view the bone was moved not by an accident but by social interaction.
The same happens with obesity. It can and has been modeled as a social virus.
In this viewpoint, stopping social use prevents others from starting on their journey, i.e. to use your metaphor to stop braking bones.
What is your viewpoint? How does it work? And what would you do to stop it?
You subscribe to the disease model of addiction. That addictions are acquired from incidental exposure to drugs; that once you are addicted, the addiction is self-sustaining and will cause you to seek more drugs all on its own.
This model was considered progressive 50 years ago, but it is widely disavowed today. It’s easy to get there by extrapolating with people’s common experience with nicotine, but when we look at addiction in general, we find most addictions just do not work that way. An addiction does not even require a substance to abuse.
If you want to get into our modern understanding of the hows and whys, and what can be done to help people suffering addiction, I recommend reading the article “Drugs, addiction, deviance and disease as social constructs” linked in a previous comment on this subject. I would be very happy to discuss it with you once you have some background on the subject.
Thank you for the response. Also thank you for providing a trusted source, the source being the UN. There are references in the reference section of the article. I will read it later this week. Will get back to you when I do.
For now:
In short, what does cause addiction?
What is substance abuse addiction? How is nicotine different? If nicotine does at surface level follow the disease model of addiction but really does follow the same pattern as others, how does it work?
How do you know someone is a drug user?
If they have drugs on their person, or if they use them?
But what is the alternate solution? There has to be a solution to this.
The goal should be to get drug users to stop using drugs. The goal should not be to create a safe space for indefinite use.
Why don’t you take your energy to advocate for more access to safe supply.
I do argue for safe supply. But again the goal of such programs, and it is sometimes stated as such, should be to stop using drugs at some point.
Such programs are framed as a step to rehab.
Safe supply should not mean that people should use/be free to use drugs indefinatly.
Safe supply is different from Bill 10. I can be in favour of safe supply and be in favour of fines for venues that allow drug use on premises.
Same thing with any illness. Stop the spread (prevent public use in social gatherings), quarantine (safe supply in supervised locations), cure (rehab), and finally future prevention (suppress supply and social need for it).
No one is saying someone should use drugs indefinitely that is not the intended goal of safe supply. Serious addictions take time and support to wean off. It’s about saving lives and keeping families together.
I agreed with your statements.
But again, safe supply is different from Bill 10.
Why should venues (and communities) have to allow and accomodate drug users, when it should be the reverse? Drug users should understand there are things they cannot do while they use or are recovering from drug use.
Once they are weaned off, I’m more than happy if they come back.
Again same with any illness.
Safe supply is a step to the cure but a step to a cure available does not allow spreading illness.
How does safe supply relate to Bill 10? Why are you defending drug use in public areas and social gatherings?
wow. this is actually what people think “compassionate care” looks like. “Why should communities have to allow drug users have safe consumption.” BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS DEAD PEOPLE WE LOVE.
You have strong opinions. But do you have a strong motivation to educate yourself? You think that “common sense” is enough to give you something helpful to say. But we all have the same stupid brain and everyone also started from your same stupid ideas.
How do you know if someone has used drugs or has them on their person when they enter a venue?
You search the person.
I think your point here is that searching one’s person is a violation one’s rights, wich I agree.
You would then have to search every person because doing “random searches” would be profiling (of one kind or another).
I did not consider this angle as I have been searched myself before entering venues. So I would like for those searches to continue.
This incurs extra costs on the venue and reduces the initial experience of the event attendee.
Which I again agree with.
The solution of searching everyone to a stated reasonable search plus security in the event could be used to absolve the venue, as the same standard of care argument is used elsewhere.
The problem lies fundamentally at classifying drug use as wrong and assigning a burden and responsibility to remove it.
It goes to show that drug use has an individual benefit but a social cost.
Stating the social cost is not in and of itself an argument against needing social action to stop spreading drug use.
My point is that venues already take these measures. At best, this is grandstanding as being “tough on crime” and at worst this is a tool for gentrification, including removal of supportive housing.
