this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
483 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
41
Canadian provinces seek to treat more drug users against their will (www.reuters.com)
submitted 1 month ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With illicit drug use, homelessness and untreated mental illness reaching a crisis in parts of Canada, the governments of at least three provinces want to treat more people against their will, even as some health experts warn involuntary care for drug use can be ineffective and harmful.

This month, British Columbia's premier, whose party is in a tight race for reelection in the province, said his government would expand involuntary treatment for people dealing with mental illness combined with addiction and brain injuries due to overdose. Some would be held in a repurposed jail.

The Alberta government is preparing legislation that would allow a family member, police officer or medical professional to petition to force treatment when a person is deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others because of addiction or drug use.

And New Brunswick has said it wants to allow involuntary treatment of people with substance use disorders, although it, too, has yet to propose legislation. A spokesperson for the governing Progressive Conservative party, which is also running for reelection, called this "compassionate intervention."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I understand the view that in rehabilitation from addiction, drugs are not the only factor to consider. But they are absolutely a factor that needs to be considered. Ask anyone who has tried to quit smoking, drinking, or using any drug.

If someone overdoses and almost dies, or harms someone else, I think the state has a responsibility to get that person help that they may not have the ability, knowledge, or desire to seek, as opposed to turning them back out onto the street and waiting for it to happen again. The situation right now where I live is that businesses and homes are stocked with naloxone kits, and citizens are administering lifesaving healthcare to people on death's door, on the sidewalk. Everyone I know who lives downtown has seen a dead body on the street in the past year. That's not good, and practical solutions are needed immediately. I'm not convinced that a Swiss bulletin from 1999 which tents its argument on examples from the Vietnam War and the American Civil War really gets to the heart of the current issue and set of circumstances.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ok. There are hundreds of overdoses EVERY DAY in shelters in my town. Have fun with that.

You can't just lock people in a room until they are out of physical withdrawal and call them cured. They are still addicts. The causes of the addiction still exist. They will continue to seek drugs to help cope with life. This makes things worse.

But it takes resources away from people who want to get better. In my town, there are two to FIVE YEAR waiting lists for resources. But go ahead, institutionalize every person who a shelter worker has to shoot with Naloxone. You can fuck them and people trying to get better at the same time. Hurting all the right people, perhaps.

You are arguing from a place of ignorance, and that's exactly what these politicians are counting on. You're arguing from the needs of people who don't want to see overdoses in the street, not from the needs of people with addiction. That's the point of this entire program; addressing the relatively unimportant desires of non-addicts who vote.

[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

You're making personal assumptions about me, and the internal mental states of others that I think are unfair.

I don't want to see overdoses in the street, nobody should. Not because I want it to happen in private, but because I don't want it to happen. For the record, and not that you asked, but, I've also never said that I'm an advocate for mandatory rehab, or that it's some kind of magical cure-all. I'm not here carrying water for these initiatives. All I'm saying is that there's a serious problem, and a need for solutions and sincere discussion. I don't think anything is gained for any position by browbeating others and fabulating their inner thoughts.

This was course material to a post grad university course on the subject of addiction and recovery taught THIS MONTH. It discusses the entire history of opiods.

Interesting. Can you link the course? I'd be curious to see the syllabus and learn more.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’m not convinced that a Swiss bulletin from 1999 which tents its argument on examples from the Vietnam War and the American Civil War really gets to the heart of the current issue and set of circumstances.

This was course material to a post grad university course on the subject of addiction and recovery taught THIS MONTH. It discusses the entire history of opiods.

I think we should both be able to agree that it is more informed than you are.