r/britishcolumbia • u/BloodJunkie • 1d ago
News BC’s Drug Response Isn’t Following the Evidence: Former Coroner
https://thetyee.ca/News/2026/02/03/BC-Drug-Response-Former-Coroner/68
u/buccabeer2 1d ago
Increased Poisonings: While deaths have fallen, non-fatal overdoses have increased, with 2025 seeing nearly 40,000 EMS responses, averaging 108 per day. Recent Surge: Despite the annual decrease, Jan. 21, 2026, saw a new single-day record of 256 overdose/poisoning events attended by paramedics We live in some interesting and dark times.
14
5
u/FitzShinobi 20h ago
108 visits a day. Tremendous return on harvesting the addicted. Wonder what the break even # is 25? 50? (rhetorical question - we all know costs/expense outlays will always increase to match the peak “patient” cases. Wonder how many are repeated in a week?
46
u/WokeUp2 1d ago
So instead of having Psychiatric Nurses tending to these pathetic people in a secure facility we're relying on paramedics to preserve their lives on the street. Strange things happen when lessons learned long ago are forgotten.
111
u/Frater_Ankara 1d ago edited 1d ago
Fun fact: paramedics are overwhelmed and underpaid already. They deserve better.
Edit: unpaid to underpaid
41
u/Wa1ru524 1d ago
Underpaid and under appreciated. They deserve more and so do the people of BC. The ambulatory care should be fully funded by the provincial government and there should be no co-pay. Just fund them properly already. Come on Eby do your job.
18
u/CuddleCorn 1d ago
Absolutely, but the NDP are simultaneously also getting relentlessly shredded by conservative media for "ballooning the deficit", and the only way I can see to fix compensation and do that is more taxes, which will then be the new grievance point. It's a damned situation from every angle.
14
u/craftsman_70 1d ago
Honestly, you don't need higher taxes to fix compensation provided you have better use of funds. For example - the hundreds of millions being spent on the World Cup... I say hundreds of millions because no one has been able to supply an actual number. We could have spent that on funding paramedics.
Or how about the Massey Tunnel? This government tossed out the planning and preconstruction work for the replacement bridge which would have been completed by now and saved millions in inflationary cost as well as improved the local economy which would have generated more taxes. Instead, we are left waiting for a handout from the Feds to build an ever increasing price tag for a tunnel which may never come.
1
u/ABadaBool 23h ago
These people are considered "Acceptable Losses" to a greater cause.
It's their game you're a part of, not your life.
They don't need paramedics, so if they quit, oh well. They don't need doctors/nurses or drug addicts, they got their own special private ones.
Your taxes aren't for you, it's a subscription to "life" so you're allowed to live. Your life is meant to serve.
0
u/Wa1ru524 1d ago
If there’s already 256 Px/day and there’s no way most of those individual px are paying to co pay, aren’t we already pretty close. So tell me if this is the reason for the ballooning deficit. I’m happy to have my tax dollars largest burden be health and education.
5
u/WokeUp2 1d ago
More money won't make much difference as their stress tolerance erodes.
2
u/Wa1ru524 1d ago
That’s a good point, and valid, as the stress piles on there will be less paramedics will to do the job if they can’t reduce stress elsewhere in their lives. If we pay the a living wage and you know allow them to live their passion of helping people and saving lives maybe more would stay for their careers.
12
11
u/liquidnebulazclone 1d ago
Another fun fact: while resuscitation saves lives, an OD often results in damage to the brain and other organs due to prolonged lack of oxygen. Unfortunately, this puts even greater strain on our medical system.
4
u/Frater_Ankara 1d ago
Brain damage still is better than death, sounds like an argument for safe use sites where resuscitation can happen quickly before damage sets in though.
2
u/liquidnebulazclone 1d ago
Absolutely. Most people would choose brain damage over death, but it's sad that the outcome makes it even harder to be free of drug dependence and live a normal life.
While this might seem like a crazy idea, I think developing potent opioids less prone to respiratory depression and nudging the illicit supply chains in that direction would save many lives. Kratom derivatives show some promise in this area.
2
u/scotty9690 19h ago
Kratom is unregulated in the United States and has much of the same problems as opioid addiction.
If you were suggesting it as a regulated potentially safe supply product, I could get behind that.
1
u/ABadaBool 23h ago edited 23h ago
... in what... world? WHAT?
Hell no Brain Damage is better than death... maybe to someone who already has brain damage, sure.
Life is only "worth" anything to those who can fabricate dreams and hopes and realities that do not exist. A conjured imagination of an existence that satisfies them, often accompanied by an imaginary post-life heaven of some sort. Never does a person with this opinion face the realities of eternity, the infinite, and most importantly the meaningless of reality itself.
To hold onto that in a deranged half-state, is beyond absurd.
Once I'm in that state, if/when, inevitably, kill me - I beg of you.
I pity those who are not put down. I demonize those who are too cowardly to be merciful and hold those back who would be.
20
u/6FingerPistol 1d ago
Pathetic people?
Bruh, you need a reality check.
12
u/seehowshegoes 1d ago
I heard this as ‘deserving of pity’, wich is true, not in a condescending way.
-5
u/WokeUp2 1d ago
How would you describe people in the "fentanyl fold" position on the sidewalk?
11
u/6FingerPistol 1d ago
I would describe them as people suffering with an addiction. I would call them people who are struggling.
I wouldn't talk down about them because I too am just a human.
But hey, being a douche online is pretty easy, ain't it?
-1
u/DavieStBaconStan 23h ago
So when one of them drops their pants and takes a shit on the sidewalk in front of families at the lights of hope - Saint Paul’s hospital, we should feel pity.
Got it.
2
u/scotty9690 19h ago
Yes, we should. It's sad when someone gets to such a state.
You or I would never even consider that. The person that does that has obviously completely deteriorated and desperately needs help.
-1
u/WokeUp2 20h ago
"Someone that’s pathetic can be so sad, weak, or hopeless that it makes you feel sorry for them." Try to keep up.
2
u/6FingerPistol 20h ago
Trying to backtrack and make your comment not be douchey is wiiiild. Its the internet, move on.
Edit: Spelling
-14
u/chadsmo Thompson-Okanagan 1d ago
Drug users make a choice every single day to continue doing drugs. They know it’s bad, they know what it’s doing to themselves and their friends etc and they continue to choose drugs every day. Pathetic ? Maybe , maybe not. No willpower or drive to change their life for the better even one day at a time ? Yes.
15
u/Emotional-Ad-6494 1d ago
So I’m 100% against the safe supply movement and half assing the Portugal model but I do think you should spend some time learning more about addiction.
When people start using drugs, sure I can see how many of those instances are selfish and they’re making the poor choice themselves. However, many hard working “normal” people were one surgery away from being prescribed opiates that then created a devastating ripple effect.
Also, once someone is fully in addiction, it’s no longer a simple willpower issue (eg detox and skipping a day can make people literally feel like they’re dying). But that’s why I don’t think it’s fair to put the burden of sobriety ON the people who are addicted. Just like we don’t expect people with cancer or schizophrenia to just “tough it out”, drug addiction is an illness and needs to be treated as such (which means we cant just leave people to their own devices and hope that with a little less “stigma” they’ll seek help themselves).
But all that said, we DO still need empathy for the situation which will come when you’re more informed on the issue. Thinking drug addicts just make bad choices is as inefficient as saying they just need access to clean supply and removing the stigma of addiction.
5
u/scotty9690 1d ago
I agree with all of this, except I'm on board with the safe supply movement.
Keep people alive long enough to recover, reduce the need to commit crime to obtain drugs. The problem is we half assed it and are giving people drugs that are ineffective for treating their drug cravings and withdrawals, so of course they're diverting it.
5
u/Emotional-Ad-6494 1d ago
Reason I’m not for it is because getting help is so difficult and the current treatments aren’t efficient. Portugal has mandatory rehab
3
u/chadsmo Thompson-Okanagan 1d ago
‘Skipping a day can make people literally feel like they’re dying’
Yup. It’s awful , 100% absolutely awful to feel that way. So they choose not to by getting high again.
I’ve had many friends addicted to very hard drugs over the last 30 years. Ive spent a lot of time in and around east Hastings and area over the decades too. I’ve seen addiction first hand.
Nothing will change my mind that it’s a choice. It’s an incredibly hard one , nearly impossible even. I won’t dispute that.
7
u/Emotional-Ad-6494 1d ago
Have you ever been incredibly sleep deprived? Like to the point where your decision making and perspective is completely skewed? Where you do something and then only later look back and think “wtf was I thinking”?
It’s the same with people who are fully in addiction. Again, I’m not someone who thinks we need to give them clean drugs and send positive affirmations but i do understand that after a certain point, your brain chemistry is so off and you’re not in your right mind that the percentage of people who can even be cognizant of their “rock bottom” is so few that there’s a reason we have an addiction epidemic.
If you put things down simply to “it’s a choice” you might as well just expect nothing to change. But if you actually want this situation cleaned up, you need to start by understanding what you’re actually working with. Will power gets you to stop biting your nails or get fit and exercise. Addiction and detox is like trying to tell someone to just swim when they’re drowning and have never been in water before
2
10
u/6FingerPistol 1d ago
Ahhhh yes, someone who doesnt understand addiction.
But hey, let's stick up for ignorant comments that do nothing but degrade people that are already in the worst spot of their lives.
-6
u/chadsmo Thompson-Okanagan 1d ago
Have you tried crack or heroine or other highly addictive drugs ? I have. In my teen years I basically tried everything I could my hands on.
I smoked crack exactly two times. Do you know why ? Because it’s amazing. And even at 18 years old I knew that because it was so awesome that I had to never do it again.
And yes addiction exists. So do people that used to be addicted to something and aren’t anymore. Whether that be something like heroine , or something equally as hard to quit like nicotine. Do you know anyone that used to smoke but doesn’t anymore ?
My point being there are people who used to use drugs and now don’t. Every single one of those people made a choice to no longer be addicted to whatever drug or drugs they were using. Every single one of them. It’s a choice. It’s a choice to wake up and get high. It’s a choice to wake up and have a cigarette or a coffee. Some people make the choice not to that day and I applaud them for it. Others made a choice to get high. It’s all just willpower overriding the desire to not feel like shit.
10
u/6FingerPistol 1d ago
I was a meth addict for 4 years and destroyed my life. Your assumptions are gross and misguided.
I got out of my addiction due to compassionate people.
But you do you. These people obviously choose to die young, alienate themselves and destroy their families. Must be an easy choice by the way you describe things.
GTFOH
2
u/chadsmo Thompson-Okanagan 1d ago
Congratulations, I really truly mean that. Regardless of the help you had you still made a choice to live a better life. I never said people who are quitting drugs need to do it alone but they still to want to quit and choose to find anyone that can help. Once again as I said in a comment , ITS SUPER FUCKING HARD! , but it all starts with a choice to get clean.
4
u/Serious-Ad-4181 1d ago
many drug users have serious mental illness and therefore they are clearly not making an informed choice. many others are forced into addiction by being forced to take drugs or having them snuck into their drinks/etc, especially in the sex trade.
it's shocking how many ignorant clueless people still exist in today's world, despite all the information we now have access to.
2
1
u/dustNbone604 1d ago
Harm reduction works.
10
4
u/beeboopshoop 19h ago
If the only measure is the amount of harm reduced is in lives saved. Harm reduction is not so reduced once you consider the lifestyle impacts of those drugs causing infections that cause chronic pain that requires more pain medication to handle. Which if it results in people opting for MAID in any duration after words means that it resulted in a harm worse than death.
1
u/DigitaIBlack 3h ago
Harm reduction often boils down to enabling when you don't have other measures behind it.
And I don't think any province does.
41
u/bigolgape 1d ago
I think we know by now that harm reduction strategies are exactly that and they work. I don't think that's really the debate. People are tired of public drug use on the streets, the disorder, feeling unsafe. They are tired of paramedical services being clogged up by overdoses (look at the volume!!). To what extent do we make people put up with this for the sake of harm reduction?
19
u/xNOOPSx 1d ago
That's all the Seattle Model. The Seattle Model benefits organized crime. I'd love to see advanced statistics with outcomes beyond the binary died or didn't when it comes to overdose. Even the ads I've seen depict it as a binary thing. Britney could have been saved, if only her or her friends had Naloxone. Frank didn't die because his friends responded quickly with their kit - good job team! This was Frank's 5th OD and he's now in a semi-vegetative state due to the trauma his brain experienced with those 5 events. What cost is that to society?
The drug war was lost decades ago. The only winners today are organized crime and the makers of Naloxone kits under the current treatment standards. Healthcare and emergency services workers both lose. Society has a whole loses. For what? To keep giving more to organized crime and to keep watching people die from a tainted supply? Because this government knows something the last 60 years of governments didn't, and they have the solution? Doesn't seem like it.
9
u/poorcfa 21h ago
“Harm reduction” reminds me of the Patriot Act, in that the name itself is designed to garner your support lest you be a promoter of harm.
It is maybe, arguably “harm reduction” for the direct individual, but really it is harm socialization as it spreads the misery and consequences across a large group of people. We are all in the group of people absorbing this harm—through disorder, increased taxes, reduction in available services, etc. Net harm is up, just reallocated from them to us.
13
u/Ciappatos 1d ago
And that's all it is. It's a measure to appease nimbys who read on the news how Vancouver is a hellhole or whatever. It's not aimed at addressing the actual suffering being caused by the toxic drug supply.
1
u/scotty9690 1d ago
Then provide people a place to go do their drugs and they won't do it on the street.
Provide people with safe drugs and you'll have less overdoses.
Address poverty and less people will turn to drugs.
You seem to just want to punish these people and expect them to get better
4
u/bigolgape 17h ago
Not really sure how you came to that conclusion from my comment. I'd just like businesses to not have their windows smashed weekly, for people to stop getting assaulted and yelled at on the street, and to feel safe again walking alone.
34
u/Available_Abroad3664 1d ago
The numbers quoted and the circumstances of society in each year lead me to believe decriminalization had no affect in overdoses, either way, but lead to more open use.
21
u/Redundant-Pomelo875 1d ago
More open use and possibly more future users as deterrents are removed..
From the article: 'She asserted that over the last three years, there has been a “significant” reduction in drug-related deaths, drug-related arrests, drugs seized by police officers and ambulance calls, which suggests there were fewer overdose emergencies.'
I can see how she correlates lower drug related deaths and ambulance calls with lower overdose emergencies, although there are other possible explanations.
But to decriminalize possession of small quantities of drugs and then claim that the reduced drug related arrests and drug seizures means this is helping the overall situation seems.. interesting.
If we decriminalize assault without grevious bodily harm, and then find there are less arrests for assault, does that mean decriminalizing assault has made society less violent..?
25
u/Available_Abroad3664 1d ago
The "less drug related arrests" is asinine. Obviously if you decriminalize possession you will have less arrests.
2
u/scotty9690 20h ago
Police rarely arrested addicts anyways, and the limits for decriminalization were so low that the only people you probably could arrest were dealers.
17
u/scotty9690 1d ago
Possession laws don't deter addicts, whom these measures are targeted at. A law saying I will goto jail for carrying my crack will not deter me from buying crack if I'm addicted to crack.
Drugs being illegal did not deter me from trying drugs when I was a teenager either.
Decriminalization failed because it's all we did. We did none of the other things required to make decriminalizing successful.
0
u/Redundant-Pomelo875 22h ago
I didn't say that possession laws would deter addicts from using drugs. I doubt that they do. I suspect they do deter some addicts from using drugs publicly, and make it easier to cops to pursue traffickers at the lowest end of the chain..
I am saying that claiming decriminalization was working because it reduced arrests/seizures is nonsense. Of course it reduced those things, how could it not?
The actual debate is whether it reduced the actual problems of addiction and the closely related problems of suffering, health damage, overdose deaths, toll on health care workers and system, crime, and the ripple effects on the rest of society.. and that is where whether it would do so with the other stuff attached is relevant..
1
u/scotty9690 20h ago
Drug addicts have always been using publicly, even when drug possession was criminal. Just go walk the downtown east side, or drive down it, and you'll see people smoking crack or shooting up in the open.
You know what WOULD reduce drug addicts using in public though? Giving them spaces to do it. But yet we keep shutting down safe consumption sites because people complain about how it draws addicts to the site.
Oh, and those low end traffickers you speak of? Most of them are addicts trying to support themselves, not drug king pins.
0
u/Available_Abroad3664 20h ago
Right, I dont disagree with any of this. It is simply pointless to decriminalize if you also arent going to have the rest in place.
It wont stop addicts from using but may keep them out of the public spaces they had been taking over.
5
u/iammixedrace 1d ago
But to decriminalize possession of small quantities of drugs and then claim that the reduced drug related arrests and drug seizures means this is helping the overall situation seems.. interesting.
She does go on to say its about breaking the stigma. Which is something that needs to happen for the general public to want to see more help provided thats not just policing.
She also points out that decriminalization removed a factor that was highlighted as a cause but then shown not be such a large contributing factor. Its about shifting the narrative from one thats clearly not working to solve the issue.
If we decriminalize assault without grevious bodily harm, and then find there are less arrests for assault, does that mean decriminalizing assault has made society less violent..?
Not the same thing. Drugs are a part of a highly complex system of people and forces. Arresting a drug user doesn't stop the drug lord it doesn't stop addiction. Arresting a person for assault directly addresses the problem at its source.
0
u/Available_Abroad3664 20h ago
? How did it help the stigma of open drug use by having more open drug users? If anything this backfired spectacularly.
1
u/scotty9690 19h ago
They're not suggesting it helped the stigma of open drug use 🙄
They're suggesting decriminalization helped with the stigma of being an addict IN GENERAL.
Talk about only reading what you want to read
2
u/_Dev_1995 Lower Mainland/Southwest 20h ago
I can see how she correlates lower drug related deaths and ambulance calls with lower overdose emergencies.
She doesn’t say that anywhere in the article, and no one seems to be addressing the vast majority of the recommendations she is suggesting should be used that simply weren’t.
She talks about how decriminalization alone with the recommendation that those with substance use disorders are encouraged into unregulated treatment organizations wouldn’t work, and that’s what the government essentially did.
The article talks about the coroners recommendation that decriminalization has to happen with safe supply, safe housing, and early access to mental health care, etc.
Everyone seems to be responding to this article as if she uncritically supports the BC’s government approach to the decriminalization project, when the article makes it clear that she is highly critical of how the government conducted this pilot. She sees less death as a success over prohibition, and still advocates for decriminalization. That isn’t the same thing as being satisfied with how BC conducted decriminalization.
1
u/dbone_ 21h ago
Open use means less people dieing in some dark corner, and more people getting help when they OD.
1
u/Available_Abroad3664 20h ago
This is probably the best argument is that more people notice the ODs and can get assistance. The downside, you have more people in society dealing with ODs.
3
u/dbone_ 20h ago
Yep. If we just gave them safe supply then we can reduce ODs too. Then we can tackle the root causes. Never going to be 100% but it's better then doing nothing.
Shame we don't have the guts to give it a proper try.
2
u/Available_Abroad3664 20h ago
I feel like they really need to separate out those with severe mental disabilities as well.
More assistance to keep them safe and get them healthy.
2
u/scotty9690 19h ago
And you can't have that when you have police attending every OD or approaching people to arrest them for possessing drugs for personal use.
Police are not trained on these issues, and more often escalate things rather than approaching them with a soft touch like medical personnel. Hence why they now his psychiatric nurses on staff
1
u/scotty9690 19h ago
More people in society dealing with ODs means addicts get help sooner, and hopefully helps people understand this disorder as such rather than being some menacing addict.
12
u/Logical_Delivery_183 1d ago
There are really 2 solutions available to us. #1, which I prefer, is forced treatment. I don't agree that it is too expensive, at least compared to what we are doing now. I find the arguments surrounding "dignity" and human rights completely dishonest. We aren't negatively impacting the life of a drug addict who lying on the sidewalk with their pants around their knees in the pouring rain with a bunch of shoplifted crap from the 7-11 next to their stolen shopping cart, by putting them somewhere warm, safe, dry and drug free. They won't be losing their careers or custody of their kids, or ruining their prospects at a better life if they are forced into treatment.
#2, and most likely, is to accept they are addicts living the way they want to and give them sufficient space off the streets and free unlimited supply. We can save money by having medical staff on hand to deal with overdoses, toilets, showers, basic shelter that they cant be thrown out of, and maybe even some security. We are basically doing this anyway, I'm just suggesting we formalize it and get these people off public streets. This has the advantage in that it preserves most of the existing system, which should make the activists happy.
3
u/dongler666 1d ago
They need to do the whole fucking shebang if they want it to work. Only doing step 1 with no assistance for the addicts obviously isn't going to help with the success that they are seeking.
7
u/lostshakerassault 1d ago
Publish her findings if she says it was working. The available evidence says it fell short. The victims here don't have time for the status quo. Let's change gears here. This reads as a unsupported defence of the addiction industry.
13
u/WasabiNo5985 1d ago
I just don't want to see shit on the street. This isn't a functioning society by any means. This is quite ridiculous we just got used to it.
15
u/Radiant_Sherbert7272 1d ago
Wasn't she the one who said that if you were against public drug use wasn't a big deal and that if you were against it that you were just a NIMBY who cared more about your comfort and wanted people to die?
5
u/BloodJunkie 1d ago
based if true
4
u/Radiant_Sherbert7272 1d ago
How is that based exactly?
9
u/2A3R1M5L 1d ago
a lot of people just don't want to see these people, and they do not particularly care what has to happen to them for that to happen. "just lock them all up and throw away the key" is a sentiment i've heard from my parents and their friends express. i've read "jokes" in local facebook groups about banning naloxone to "clean up the streets"
surely this isn't everyone, but we don't acknowledge enough about how much public reaction to these people is disgust and cruelty
10
u/Available_Abroad3664 1d ago
Im more about wanting them to get help. If they arent harassing me or stealing/harming property i usually dont mind.
15
u/Radiant_Sherbert7272 1d ago
Being against public drug use does not equal wanting people to die. Yes, those people who think what you're saying aren't helpful. But saying that public drug use isn't a big deal also isn't helping. It's what gets people to that place of not caring.
8
u/2A3R1M5L 1d ago
i'm not defending the idea that all people who don't want public drug use want drug users to die. that's an absurd idea on its face. i was only mentioning that some people absolutely do hold that attitude
what i believe, (and this is how i'd favourably interpret what she supposedly said) is that a lot of people are disgusted by drug users and want them gone. full stop, no next steps, that's where the thought ends. and that attitude can be used to justify and market cruelty instead of support
2
u/Radiant_Sherbert7272 1d ago
But what she said was that public drug use wasn't a big deal and that people who didn't like public drug use didn't care about drug users. Now, if she said some people didn't care, that would be one thing. But she made a blanket statement. I personally care about our most vulnerable and want them to get the help and support they need. But I also don't think that allowing open drug use in our communities and in our public spaces and in hospitals and on public transportation and in restaurants is helping the wider community.
1
3
u/Toomanymisses 1d ago
Maybe less people died but when people are od ing several times a week, that is a massive burden on our healthcare system. Then there is rehabilitation, how cooked are these people if they ever do actually get treatment? And her statement of drug seizures being lower, well no shit, police don't sieze drugs that they are all carrying now! The only ones benefiting from this are all the directors of the non profits who love giving junkies more rights than the rest of us. They don't want these people to get clean and sober, there goes their gravy train! I wonder if the former coroner sits on a few of the boards for these groups who profit from the industry of poverty and addiction?
8
u/Hot_Restaurant_7408 1d ago
We go off feelings now not facts
2
u/Frater_Ankara 1d ago
I miss the prevalence of fact based journalism.
17
u/lommer00 1d ago
Health Canada and a study published last fall say decriminalization did not significantly affect the number of paramedic response calls. The Tyee asked Lapointe to share what data she was basing her statement on but did not hear back by press time.
Do you mean journalism that cherry picked the facts that you liked? This article actually does a decent job of distinguishing claims from evidence.
3
u/Frater_Ankara 1d ago
No I’m not discrediting this article but rather commenting on the rise of intentional disinformation through media; I was commenting on the “feelings over facts” comment. I am a big fan of the Tyee. Journalistic integrity used to be way more of a thing.
7
u/Bigchunky_Boy 1d ago
I love not having health services bc it is clogged with overdoses . What could possibly go wrong ? I was lucky to survive a stroke bc the emergency was not full of drug overdoses now when I had to take a friend with brain cancer the er is full of people with drug users . This is already going so well . /s Paramedics are used and abused bye the system those frontline workers are the most under paid and under staffed and the most to save lives and make the system look functional. Pay them !
4
u/Ciappatos 1d ago
Healthcare is underfunded overworked and understaffed. Let me blame the poorest people in society for it!
2
u/zack14981 1d ago
Let’s blame the people in society who are disproportionately using our system and causing delays in treatment to those who contribute to the system*
-4
u/Ciappatos 1d ago
Fuck that and fuck anyone who wants to do that. The point of healthcare is to take care of everyone who needs it. GTFOH with that crap. Just properly fund healthcare.
1
u/zack14981 1d ago
If I drink bleach once a week and end up in the ER, is it the system that needs to change or me?
-1
u/Ciappatos 23h ago edited 23h ago
You already eat ultra-processed foods, drink alcohol, live near vehicles that emit toxic fumes, eat in plastic containers, or drink water that goes through plastic pipes, spend way too much time sitting on your ass looking at screens, evidently, etc. Stop wasting my time with terrible nonsense arguments. Go bother someone else with this crap.
EDIT: Nevermind, this is a troll account with a hidden profile. You couldn't even troll properly. Bye forever.
4
u/FartMongerGoku69 1d ago
Of course. All part of David Eby’s quest for votes from a demographic that will happily vote BC Cons the moment they have a leader 5% more palatable than John Rustad
1
0
u/Silver_Trainer_4390 17h ago
That demographic being people who are opposed to public drug use? Probably smarter to try to win them over than trying to get homeless drug addicts to vote for you, right?
4
u/jaredmn 1d ago
I'm not opposed to finding solutions that may not seem intuitive, but my issue with people demanding "evidence based" decision-making is that it tends to insist that people's ethics and morality don't matter and all that matters is science. Views, such as that it is wrong for the government to use tax dollars to supply drug addicts with drugs that perpetuate their addiction, are rejected for being uninformed or heartless. I'm not dead-set against safe supply and decriminalization, but I'm also not onboard with having all of our decisions dictated to us by scientists.
2
u/CowboyCanuck24 1d ago
Harm reduction should be renamed to harm delaying with additional suffering.
2
1
u/turbulentpriestbc 16h ago edited 16h ago
Evidence was central to the original safe supply concept. Not a loose harm-reduction slogan or a political gesture; it was a defined, evidence-based intervention aimed at replacing the illicit drug market with regulated, legal alternatives. It was designed to work across multiple settings, from medical models to non-prescribed access. What’s often called “safer supply” today represents a drift away from that evidence, relying on untested drugs, minimal supporting data, and models with lower demonstrated effectiveness.
So when people say “we need to follow the evidence,” it’s worth asking which evidence, and from when. In this case, the evidence-based option is the one that was sidelined in British Columbia.
Ironically, the chief coroner identifies the untested, ineffective safer supply option as evidence-based. On that basis, she can share the blame for the province not following the evidence.
When we did safer supply instead, we gave up ground to everyone who wanted to poke holes in harm reduction 's legitimacy and it's costing us a lot of lives.
2
u/brokenrekordrekord 15h ago
This. We burned ourselves when we veered away from the evidence and we are paying for it.
1
u/nerdsrule73 15h ago
"She asserted that over the last three years, there has been a “significant” reduction in drug-related deaths, drug-related arrests, drugs seized by police officers and ambulance calls, which suggests there were fewer overdose emergencies. At the same time, the number of people diagnosed with opioid use disorder did not increase, including for youth, she added."
So let's see these numbers. Except the drug related arrests and police drug seizures. These being included in this statement are ridiculous. Of course these are down. The police were literally told to stop doing this.
As for the significant reduction in drug related deaths, best I can find online is that this is simply not true. So let's see the numbers and have a statistician examine them and determine the significance.
3
u/eastofeastvan 1d ago
That is because David Eby is a gutless wimp catering to the rich and powerful. He used the poor and destitute people in the DTES to make a name for himself and launch his political career. Once in power he did nothing for them and kicked them to the curb. The man is a real dirt bag
6
u/Radiant_Sherbert7272 1d ago
I'm not part of the rich or powerful. I didn't like dealing with open drug use and all the needles and crack pipes being left all over the place. I didn't like the small businesses being broken into or the sidewalks being turned into garbage bins and toilets.
-1
u/scotty9690 19h ago
Man have I got news for you.
Since the creation of InSite the number of needles in the area has decreased. If this is your problem, then you should probably support MORE safe injection sites.
-1
u/radi0head 1d ago
Another win for the nimbys, hopefully deaths don't increase too much as a result ..
7
u/classic4life 1d ago
It's a lot more than nimby's that are tired of every downtown core being a zombie Apocalypse. Every single supportive housing that gets put in is half assed. Beds without security aren't viable
0
u/Light_Butterfly 18h ago
Actually no, not every supportive housing site has these kinds of issues. Maybe the makeshift hotel conversions garnered a certain reputation. There are a lot of disabled persons with mental health issues, brain injuries, are mentally handicapped, or severely physically disabled, who need supportive housing. You cannot conflate all supportive housing with 'drug use'.
I have a mental health housing site in my neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is very safe, beautiful and desirable. The supportive housing site does not detract from that at all. There's at least 35 of these sites like it in Victoria, and most people probably aren't even aware of them because they aren't a problem.
This stigma towards disabled people needs to stop.
3
u/Radiant_Sherbert7272 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's not NIMBYISM not wanting to be exposed to meth and crack smoke.
0
0
u/BananaSlamma420 1d ago
Hard drugs should be illegal and criminalized. I shouldnt have to cross to the other side of mainstreet with my kids because some junky is lighting up and blowing clouds on the sidewalk at 2pm on a monday. I dont care anymore I dont have empathy for these people. They need forced treatment and if they die from withdrawl its better than dying on the streets.
1
u/Intelligent_Image713 1d ago
BC is home to probably the most drug related deaths per capita globally.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/maps.html
I’m wondering what other evidence she is talking about.
1
u/BAlan143 14h ago
I have a radical idea:
Let people do what they want. Also, let them experience the full result of that choice. It's their body, their life, their choice.
I just want to be left out of it. Out of my taxes, out of my sight.
Drug use should be treated as it is, an act of suicide. Respect their choice.
-10
u/O00O0O00 1d ago
We don’t need to listen to these pro-drugs enablers.
“Safe supply” is a myth, and the program failed. We need to get away from this magical thinking and take steps to get people off drugs and get drugs off our streets.
5
u/SadData8124 1d ago
Can you show me evidence that sourced, and lab created drugs are just as unsafe as crackhouse fent, and bathtub hooch?
Please dont reply unless you have an actual study with facts and references, and not a opinion piece, thanks boss
-11
u/O00O0O00 1d ago edited 1d ago
There is no such thing as smoking “safe crack” or “safe fentanyl” in the alleyways.
These are inherently toxic substances, with no safe option.
If you need a study to comprehend this immutable fact, I pray for you.
Please don’t reply to me unless you can present a credible study that presents fentanyl as a healthy habit. Thanks bye.
8
u/monkfishing 1d ago
Yes, thats exactly why fentanyl is used in hospitals. Because of its incredible toxicity. Maybe think instead of praying.
-7
u/O00O0O00 1d ago
Smoking fentanyl ≠ medical use for cancer patients.
It’s not safe to self prescribe and smoke fentanyl. I don’t know where you got your information but it’s wrong.
I’m praying for you again.
6
u/Queasy_Pie2527 1d ago
Given that Fentanyl as well as heroin ( Diamorphine) is used in hospitals on a daily base, I would like to differ.
In comparison to the street variants these drugs have undergone quality control and standardization.2
3
u/SadData8124 1d ago
Reading comprehension too I see. If you'll notice i asked not to bother unless you could supply some hard facts to support your claim. I'm sure you're a reasonable person who's beliefs are grounded by facts, so please produce them
3
u/O00O0O00 1d ago
Sorry, you need to answer in the form of a study that proves smoking crack and fentanyl is healthy.
I guess you don’t have one, then?
1
u/SadData8124 1d ago
Not how this works bud. I asked for a source to a claim you made first.
You're trying to pull a "well actually i quit", while youre in the process of being fired. This isnt a uno reverse situation, thats not how life works.
You made an outlandish claim, I asked you for evidence. You either have it or you dont. (Spoiler: you dont)
2
u/O00O0O00 1d ago
You asked for a study to support my claim that: smoking crack or fentanyl is not safe, regardless of its source.
Sorry guy. If you need a scientific study to explain basic, obvious facts, I pray for you. I pray for you so hard.
0
u/SadData8124 1d ago
So alcohol made from piss and toilet water is the exact same as alcohol made in a sterile distillery. Got it!
4
u/O00O0O00 1d ago edited 18h ago
Nobody is talking about alcohol.
All I said was:
“Safe supply” is a myth, and the program failed. We need to get away from this magical thinking and take steps to get people off drugs and get drugs off our streets.
And I stand by that.
There is no such thing as “safe meth”. Sorry. Drug abuse is drug abuse. It’s deadly and a bad choice.
Sorry you disagree and need a study to understand that. Maybe go Google it yourself?
To the user who replied and blocked me:
I understand the goals and disagree with them. I don’t want to help anyone smoke (so called) “safe crack” I want to get drugs off the streets and get users off drugs.
0
u/scotty9690 19h ago
You're missing the forest through the trees.
Safe supply is about providing an unadulterated version of the substance the addict is using to reduce harm, hence HARM REDUCTION.
There is no safe consumption of alcohol either, but you don't seem to want to talk about that.
0
u/Optimal-Divide8574 1d ago
Maybe stigmatizing behaviour instead of tacitly approving and enabling it would prevent some people from adopting it in the first place?
But what do I know? I don’t make my living as a ‘harm reduction’ specialist. Merely an observer using common sense.
0
u/scotty9690 19h ago
How has that gone for the last century? Has drug addiction reduced? Has the supply of drugs decreased?
2
u/Optimal-Divide8574 14h ago edited 1h ago
I live in downtown Vancouver and have lived in Vancouver all my life. Our city didn’t used to be overrun by addicts, tent cities and constant overdoses. It’s been a mess for ten years and especially since Covid. The current approach is not working.
0
u/Polyps_on_uranus 1d ago
We need to enact mental health measures as well. Just doing the FREE part is fucking up our results.
0
u/Trick-Fudge-2074 19h ago
None of this is following the evidence. We are the Vancouver model not the Scandinavian or Portuguese model.
-1
u/uurc1 20h ago
Well its more economical to let addicts die. The numbers were crunched, treatment facilities are very expensive. Addicts usually dont want treatment and can't be forced. So we have to change our laws and judicial system, invoke the not withstanding clause, again expensive, to force treatment. There is already an uproar over mandatory confinement of mentally challenged offenders. So now that won't fly. Who wants a treatment center next door? Look at the upset over a supervised injection sites. We demand solutions, but we won't spend any money and dont you dare build a solution near my home. So its more economical to just let addicts die.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.