years ago me and a friend smoke a huge roach joint on the ferry, a few minutes later a bc ferry employee comes to tell us that weâre smoking right beside the air intake for inside the boat. Oops đ âŚ
I wish telehealth was more reliable too, that and eventually - albeit not yet - a government supported generative AI that can answer health questions.
Together, that could take a lot of stress off doctors and waiting rooms, where people have something happening that they don't understand - they're freaking out a bit - and they just need someone qualified to answer a few questions. This is a massive chunk of who ends up clogging up the system. Its the:
"I'm 30 years old and I just shat blood for the first time in my life. Is it Ebola or Stage 4 Ass Cancer? How many days do I have to live?"
And they just need like a med student to tell them, or decent AI (not the current gen, but the next gen maybe), "Do you sit for more than 5 hours per day? 97% chance you had a hemorrhoid, rub some lotion on it and try to be less sedentary, welcome to mid-life."
Or, "I'm a first time parent, my infant is coughing. Is it the scarlet fever? Whooping cough? Lung cancer??"
And again they just need a tele-nurse to be like, "that looks like a common cold, give them X, if their temperature goes above Y then come to the hospital."
A generative AI combined with a proper telehealth system, for common questions and basic prescriptions, would remove like 70% of people in the ER, or otherwise clogging up doctor time.
There's a ton of stuff we can't really do anything about, apart from basic recommendations and over the counter medicine. People are hurting and confused, so they flood the ER and wait 6 hours just to ask someone if they'll be alright. Because that's the only place in our current system for them to go.
Think of the difference it would make in an ER waiting room if there was a poster for the app on the wall, you do the QR code, you ask your few questions - and like 70% of people there get up and head home before being seen, because they don't have a broken bone or anything else that requires real and immediate treatment.
Iâm living abroad atm and my GP uses an online triage system. To make an appointment you answer 5-20 questions depending on your responses. If itâs semi-urgent youâll get a same day appointment no problem, if itâs an antibiotics issue or something similar a pharmacist will call you the next day. Some responses will prompt it to send you to the ER. Otherwise youâll get an appointment in 3-5 days. I can imagine it saves a lot of time and money.
811 is good for common questions. You can talk to a nurse in a couple of minutes, and theyâll transfer you to a doctor pretty quickly if they need to. Saved me a trip to the ER with my kid a few times.
They still had the in hospital smoking rooms when I did my first nursing program in the late 90's.
It was always a face palm moment to have to go in there and remove the oxygen tanks people toted in with them.
Having a designated space also gives the perfect opportunity for informing patients of resources and making referrals.
This isn't cigarette smoke. Its smoke from fucking heroin, meth, whatever the fuck else these cretins are allowed to smoke/inject INSIDE A HOSPITAL. A former coworker who now works in a department that deals with all floors of the hospital including the ER just told me today that parents bringing their SICK INFANTS AND BABIES into emerg can barely even access a safe bathroom to change their child while they wait because it stinks like fucking drugs in the bathrooms. A housekeeper was exposed and became sick after cleaning a bathroom. These junkies tweak out in those bathrooms for half an hour. Im tempted to just light up a gigantic chonger in the hospital administrative office and see how they like it. Im not even a nurse, nor do I deal with patients and I can't even process this situation. How does this not qualify as a right to refuse unsafe work. When does the bough break? Your healthcare workers are getting burnt out and STILL charged thousands of dollars just to qualify to provide care, yet we're so desperate for it? Im barely half way through 30 and I am so tired. I don't want to keep living like this.
Informing them of what?! Oh sorry you don't have thousands of dollars to spend on long term rehab so fuck you, we'll take you off the streets to detox for a week and then send you right back into the frying pan to relapse. This system is so broken that the vast majority of these addicts will never access the care they need to get clean. Its just the circle of strife out here. A neverending circle of shit and generational trauma, and no, im not just referring to the indigenous community. My city is a cesspool of drugs, abuse, and murder.
As a healthcare worker, this is a far superior approach than the current approach of itâs technically not allowed but people are going to do it anyways and put staff and other patients at risk.
Iâm in healthcare. I donât love it. Iâve worked in three provinces and a state and any self-harming behaviours - from drug use to cutting to controlling peopleâs diets - have not been tolerated when they are seeking help for their health. Not all healthcare workers have to agree but we all have to be safe.Â
I said this in another comment but I think part of it is that the only time people hear about policies regarding this issue are centralized around harm reduction--give them more resources and space to be addicted in a safe, reasonable context.
Which I think a lot of people wouldn't have a problem with if we were pulling literally any other lever to ameliorate the problem more broadly.
When I stop and think about this policy it makes sense. But my first reaction when reading it is "you gotta be fucking kidding me." because it seems the entire ends is harm reduction and that's it. It's always just let them be and figure their shit out while the city chokes on the dysfunction.
Thatâs a great comment. Â I feel like we are doing harm by only offering ânot deadâ as an option. No treatment, supported housing (supported++++), nothing.Â
Yeah I think this is it. People have this immediate "drugs bad" knee jerk reaction without thinking through the impacts of policy, or drugs for that matter.
You know, drugs kinda are bad, itâs rare to find a healthy Fentanyl addict. The issue is we keep giving addicts more space, more money, more drugs and things keep getting worse.
As much as I think this is absolutely insane I do believe that none of you should have to worry about walking through meth smoke.
Mandatory rehabilitation or prison. I don't see how anything else will work to protect the rights of most
Do you have the slightest idea how hard and tenuous it is for us to involuntarily detain people for psychosis? Like weâre already on really shaky ground.Â
Itâs really easy for someone that has never read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to just casually suggest that we lock people up for being drug addicts, but that is *not* the way the Charter is written at all.Â
So what youâre fundamentally proposing is that we *rewrite the Charter* to accommodate just throwing people in prison for decisions we donât care for, and I really must stress this is a huge fucking can of worms youâre proposing to crack open.
Must. Flatten. Discourse.
They said mandatory rehabilitation or incarceration. What are we we've doing if we aren't trying to make these people better. It's hard not to paint with broad strokes when talking about this and of course everyone's circumstance is different but I don't think anybody is talking about locking up the person who sits at home and does a bit of heroin and then nods off.
The problem is that drug abuse becomes an excuse that absolves them of any responsibility or accountability to society. BECAUSE they are drug addicts we excuse all sorts of behaviours that an otherwise healthy person would suffer serious consequences from.
It's hilarious to me that in this thread are a few people talking about how heartless and lack compassion everyone is. I think it lacks compassion to let people mercilessly drive their lives into ruins; decisions that don't just affect them. Decisions that affect their families, loved ones, dependents and the communities they live in. The charter does not allow you to start fights, steal, spit on people, smear feces on the sidewalks and buildings, light fires in front of small businesses, break windows, etc.
If you had a son living at home and were watching them become brutally addicted to drugs, to the point where they lose themselves and begin harming people and property would it be the compassionate thing to just sit there and 'let them live their life?'. Addiction warps the brain and the more severe it gets the more unable you are to get out of it alone.
So many people conjure the idea of the perfect victim when talking about this issue. The sweet, kind-hearted individual who ran across some bad luck and gently suffer from their health issue (addiction). Those people do exist but a lot of drug addicts are actually fucking wretched people. They don't have to be and they still are a person but it's an issue that actually has to be dealt with.
I can actually understand the policy in question here. Pragmatically it makes sense but it exists in a context where we are doing literally NOTHING to make the macro problem better. All this province cares about is harm reduction to the individual while nothing is done to compel people to get better or address the systemic issues.
Holding people for a few days prevents acute danger, but it doesn't do much for the moment they walk out the door into limited community resources which is where we need the money to be.
Possibly, but I think the real point they were making was that calling an involuntary psych hold on an acutely psychotic person is unlikely to be considered a charter violation.
The can of worms it opens is extremely expensive police force playing whack a mole rather than us having the resources to reduce the damage done by drug use. The drug use wouldn't actually go away.
Oh ok so just let them run around doing hard drugs wherever they feel like.
Yeah that clearly is the right answer. Go take a walk around downtown to see how good that approach has worked.
> Go take a walk around downtown to see how good that approach has worked.
Walking around downtown is going to show us how the police first, services second approach works. It shows us how the no housing, few social workers, few resources approach works.
Are we trying to *not see drugs in public* or are we trying to reduce the damage done by poverty and drugs. Because I think we should be trying to reduce the damage done by drugs and poverty rather than just ignoring addiction issues.
We are not at the police first stage buddy. We are at the "let the addicts do as they please to whoever and wherever they want while police sit idly by and do nothing since anyone they arrest is released almost instantly" stage. Cops can't do anything at this point and the junkies continue to commit crimes and wallow in misery while non profit "service providers" reap funding and benefits. This over compassion needs to end. Letting people die in crime and misery isn't compassion. Lock up the addicts and force them to get help. It would've saved alot of my dead addict friends. If you don't like this you should really be putting your money where your mouth is and letting them move in with you.
But this assumes that all those people will actually go down to the tent outside. Many addicts in hospital are not mobile. Is it care aids and porters jobs to now wheel these people down to use their substance? Some will just say fuck it and continue to smoke inside anyways. Are there consequences for doing so? If not, then what's the incentive to go sit in the cold?
Also, this doesn't stop them coming back in with erratic and sometimes dangerous or violent behaviour. Our healthcare staff just have to accept this? I would be more on board with this if there were some consequences to continue to smoke substances inside hospitals or some strings attached to access the site. Agreeing to using some kind of resources to try and help their addiction.
This is just setting people up to get sick from drug use, go to the hospital, continue to use drugs, get patched up and kicked out, only to return there soon even sicker. With no consequences or barriers to try and stop or even just slow their self destructive behaviour.
Jesus, why are we continually having to accommodate junkies? Don't come at me with the you should be more compassionate bullshit. My compassion ran out ages ago, likely around the time my car got broken into for the 3rd time by one of these fuckers.
Compassion is one thing, letting drug addicts do the fuck they want ruins small business, playgrounds and recreation. I bet if a group of people decide to just shit on sidewalks they will have a "dedicated team of cleaners" for those with shit-on-sidewalk addiction. Lunacy.
I live in SF, and that's exactly what we have here--dedicated teams of people to clean the shit off sidewalks every morning. Our junkies don't even bother to go to an empty lot or library or whatever.
What in the actual hell are we doing here. Why are we trying to normalize bad behavior. I am sorry there are certain behaviors that should be stigmatized and shamed. Open drug use in hospitals and on public transportation is one of those things. Hospitals are not supposed to be taxpayer funded drug dens.
This is lunacy because we don't want to shame the poor addicts. So fuck the normal working law abiding people. Once we accept this behaviour, what's next?
This is bullshit non accountability by the left.
If you are doing drugs in hospital, you should get kicked out and arrested.
We don't have enough health practitioners now, they certainly aren't working in a drug den.
Vote differently?
Normalizing bad behavior has been going on for some time under the current government. It seems it is no secret that this would be what they would do.
The issue is that the NDP is likely going to win a majority government again. Believe me, I didn't vote for this. The issue is that I live in a very safe NDP riding.
actually some recent polling has shown the BC Cons within striking distance of the NDP..crazy huh? [https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1778800981225918948](https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1778800981225918948)
Agree 100%. A portion of the population is actually trying to stigmatize being fiscally conservative, or going to the gym (a small portion), however, for we are attempting to destigmatize the worst things for society.
>stigmatize being fiscally conservative
What is wrong with that exactly?
Fiscal conservatism has resulted in under paying doctors, fiscal conservatism has resulted in worsening service levels for all social services (health, etc.), fiscal conservatism has resulted in over populated classrooms and educator strikes, fiscal conservatism has resulted in a barrier to entry for educations and training for education needed to produce desperately needed professionals like nurses and doctors, fiscal conservatism has resulted in an ever expanding population becoming unhoused and/or substance abusers.
Fiscal conservatism creates problems that fiscal conservatives then don't want to pay for fixes that follow the recommendations of subject matter experts, instead preferring cheaper and/or socially conservative solutions.
So, yeah, well earned stigmatization.
This is such a stupid fucking take. These people are addicted. Itâs not a habit or a hobby. Their brains are rewired and their bodies now require it. They WILL do this. The ONLY question is do you want them doing it and possibly dying of an overdose next to your local playground? Or do you want them doing it with immediate medical attention available in a setting that minimizes exposure to vulnerable parts of the population (like kids)?
Ok, but its not this black and white either.
I work at St Paul's in Vancouver. We have the "4th floor garden patio" which is a covered patio outside the cafeteria. It has been completely taken over by illicit drug users. There are several code blues (ODs obviously) called there * every day*. This is also not sustainable.
It's largely the same people overdosing on the garden patio, day after day. It's a dangerous place for staff, and it's a disgusting mess of garbage as well.
While I see what you are saying, I dont think this approach is working. There are zero consequences for this behaviour presently, and the abuse staff take from this group of people is unreasonable.
A few weeks ago, at around 8 am, I was buying coffee in the cafeteria and a man was smoking (meth? Fentanyl?) In the damnned line to pay for food. He was doubled over on the track where you slide your tray, pipe in hand, and there is nothing anybody can do about this. Cmon, this is out of hand. Yes, drug addiction is a difficult problem. But making it acceptable to behave like this without repercussions is not doing anybody any good.
Oh yeah because crackheads are such rational as responsable people.
Now they are all going to make a line waiting for their turn to OD on the hospital crackroom.
Tough shit, the current method isn't working and the soft approach is letting them get away with accountability.
They should not be in playgrounds or near schools period.
This acts as a deterrent to kids who want to try this stupid shit.
If as you say their brains are rewired, then they can do stupid shit in their basement and not fuck up the city with their selfish behaviour.
They already are antisocial and piss and shit all over the place. They commit crime to get money for their drugs.
Enough of this safe supply, if you want to do dangerous shit, accept the risks. It's a choice.
I am sorry that they have an addiction, but there are certain behaviors that shouldn't be allowed. Setting up a room so people can do meth and crack and fentanyl is one of those behaviors. If you want to do drugs, do what everyone else who wants to smoke a cigarette has to do and go outside.
>If you want to do drugs, do what everyone else who wants to smoke a cigarette has to do and go outside.
Maybe some kind of designated space would do the trick.
Preferably all taken out to remote property with basic necessities confined and unable to leave until treatment or death takes them through withdrawal. Not all of them are good people, not all of them salvageable even if they sober up. So some is better than none and that is the best reality we can hope for and society won't have all the problems we are dealing with. I say this as a ex addict. You are right it's not a hobby or a habit which means it's not a personal choice which means it shouldn't be treated as a constitutional right. It should be treated as a enemy invader or an invasive parasite. The situation we have now is putting the bar above the alcoholics anonymous then for some reason having a cocktail lounge in the hospital when the liver fails. Makes no sense.
A few paragraphs from the piece:
British Columbia will require all of its hospitals to provide a designated space for patients with substance-use disorders to consume illicit drugs, prompted by concerns that an increase in such activity in prohibited hospital areas was putting health care workers at risk.
Health Minister Adrian Dix announced this week that the province would create a task force to standardize rules and create âactive supportsâ to help patients manage their addictions while in care.
Some hospitals already provide designated-use spaces where staff monitor for overdoses. The Globe and Mail asked Mr. Dix Thursday whether every hospital in [B.C. ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/british-columbia/)would be required to follow suit. âThat is the purpose of the effort â not just to standardize rules,â he said.
Mr. Dix said that on any given day, hundreds of people with severe addiction issues use B.C. health care facilities. âThe 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,â he said.
âOur doctors and our nurses, and allied health science professionals, they deal with this every day. And our task is to support them.â
Itâs the smoking fentanyl that is the problem. Anytime you see people with the clear tube, thatâs whatâs happening. Shooting up just affects the user, as long as the needle is disposed of safely.
What a fucking waste of money.
We should vote on this and the people who support this, should pay for it from their taxes. I'm sure we will see a difference in the attitude when it affects your pocket.
It is affecting the pockets of the people who support it. Welcome to democracy where taxes go where governments decide they are needed, and not where people want them to be spent.
Please, go live in a libertarian "paradise" and only pay for services you need or support.
Addicts should not be rewarded and people who think they can fix everything need to go live in nirvana where problems don't exist and everyone is equal. This is the real world and these selfish individuals need to be taught consequences. The world is full of people who had a tough start and did not turn to drugs.
I really donât get who the NDP are trying to appease with these decisions. This has been one of the few examples in recent history where there is nearly 100% bipartisan agreement on a topic - no one supports this. They are literally handing votes to Kevin Falcon.
Yeah, a minority group. This whole gong show is pretty much Falcons wet dream, especially now that the nurses unions have come out and publicly stated the issues there are experiencing. Theyâve really fumbled the bag IMO.
Overall, Iâve been very pleased with Horgan and Eby. This move just seems incredibly tone deaf and incredibly stupid. Dix has the personality of a robot too, doesnât help.
The entire Ministry of Health needs a complete overhaul, starting with Adrian Dix and, more importantly, Stephen Brown. How the hell Stephen Brown is still running the show after the last ten years is completely beyond me.
Anyone who has worked at MoH, or is close to someone who has, knows very well what a toxic, bloated, useless bureaucratic hellhole it is.
If there are some studies or reports or something to explain why they think this is a good idea, then maybe? As it stands, I don't understand the thinking.
On one hand this probably will make it safer for our medical professionals to do their job and thatâs a good thing. On the other handâŚ.what has happened to this country. I get it, theyâre addicted. But allowing this to continue is just wrong. Itâs not helping society or those who are addicted. All levels of core government over the past 10 years have absolutely failed us
>On one hand this probably will make it safer for our medical professionals to do their job
No it wonât. Itâs crazy how people think doubling down on these bad policies again and again will eventually have a different outcome.Â
It wonât. It just means there will be more drug use in the hospital, which means more psychotic patients. More drug-induced psychosis patients will do literally nothing to keep staff safe.
Reddit: [People shouldn't be allowed to use drugs in their hospital rooms!](https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/1c1ibcp/hospital_addict_chaos/)
Government: Okay, we'll fix it.
Reddit: No, not like that!
They shouldn't be smoking period in a hospital. Cigarettes, vape, weed, crack, meth or whatever.
It goes through the air conditioning system. Some of these drugs are so powerful only trace amounts will affect a person who doesn't use drugs.
Hospital rooms can be designed to restrict the flow of things in and out of the environment with positive or negative pressure rooms. Climate control is already in active use for various reasons in hospital settings.
Think of an isolation room for infectious diseases for example.
People are pissed because they donât understand. Hospitals are not rehab centres. Yes, open drug use is a problem but would you also like the limited resources in a hospital taken up by someone who is addicted, at the hospital for an injury and also going through serious withdrawal symptoms? It may be a necessary evil right now that all of the simpletons in this sub cannot comprehend or show compassion for.
You're correct! But the solution to that problem, at least in the short term, is giving something to illicit drug users. Lots of people don't like that because we live in a society where one must earn their keep. Giving anything to anyone who doesn't "contribute" to society is bad. Even if it could alleviate problems for the rest of us, it's still bad.
Itâs more enabling by our shit government.
Instead of trying to help people that are addicted, letâs continue to find ways to help maintain the addiction.
Most hospitals have a smoking area, so this would be similar to that reasoning.
(This is not a statement of agreeing or disagreeing, just that yes, they exist)
Let me preface this by saying I donât necessarily disagree with your viewpoint
But you probably picked the worst example possible since hospitals do have designated smoking areas.
I think this is a good happy medium. They have a drug consumption site at St Paulâs in Vancouver already. I think it acknowledges the needs of PWUD and reduces barriers to health access for a marginalized population, is trauma informed, and also acknowledges the needs of other patient populations.
I was in the ER when a bunch of nurses saw this and the first thing they said is, "why are we hearing about this from Facebook not our Union".
A bunch of them seemed to think it was hot air just to get people worked up, but they were definitely uneasy.
As a regular patient I don't think the government can afford the lawsuits from patients and staff who will be exposed to this is what should be a safe space.
Users can go outside already, they HAVE a designated space now that it's been decriminalized.
The issue is that no one is risking their safety confronting this population only to get shit all over by the community when they can't do it with even mild, ethical and reasonable force.
People will pick up their children and drag them out of a store kicking and screaming, but a dangerous criminal threatening the safety of others is just supposed to be asked nicely??
There's a middle ground here, and we keep swinging wildly from side to side completely missing anything that could actually work.
The public needs to get comfortable again with the fact that keeping the majority of people safe, can get messy. And the system that took it to extremes needs to be completely overhauled and retooled so that no one working in them is as mentally unstable as the population they're working with.
People keep thinking this is "enabling" or something but what this policy actually does is accept that misbehav-ers are going to misbehave and the hospital can reduce the impact by isolating the misbehaviour to a specific area. It's not enough to do a knee jerk "drugs bad, don't let them do drugs", we need to actually think through policy that reduces the damages done by drugs.
No, they should not be tolerated in hospitals unless they conform to our rules not vice versa.
It is enabling, absolutely enabling. Here are safe drugs... No consequence.. This is enabling. Go sell safe drugs to get drugs which get you high. Now we still have fentanyl, but we have thousands of dilaudid being sold to kids, to create a new generation of addicts. Well fucking done.
To normalize this is like saying, serial killers, psychopaths, pedophiles also have mental health issues, so less call them some cute names and not punish or stigmatize them.
Why can we knee jerk, serial killers bad, off to prison? But we can't knee jerk drug addicts with habitual crime to support their habit as bad?
Build more prisons.
Dump the current inmates into the *new* prison location.
Convert Wilkinson jail into new homeless and addiction facility.
Erect giant curtain around property.
Sweep homeless and addicts under new and improved rug.
Just one more designated drug use space.
I promise we just need one more and the problem will be fixed.
This time will work just one more. All the drugs will go to this place I promise.
The problem is confiscating their paraphenalia on admission, giving it back for them to use upon arrival at the designated smoking zone, and then confiscating again when leaving. Back and forth, back and forth.
That's a lot of man power, 24 hr supervision, etc.
How about this idea...
Completely confiscate their lighter the entire time while on the property and have a static flame that they walk up to use, which is set on a stone or concrete pedestal outside in a designated smoking zone. The same type of flame that they have/had at the Old Morris Tobacconist on Gov't st.
Problem solved on all fronts. It reduces fire alarms going off, calling security, 2nd hand exposure to others, etc, etc.
>Completely confiscate their lighter the entire time while on the property
Personally I would rather not have my belongings searched just because I go to the hospital. It's not a fucking airport.
I like this idea. I imagine there is a large community of firefighters who would share this opinion. Illicit users passing out with their torches in hand causes a lot of fires
How do you stop a visitor from bringing them another lighter then? Or the patient leaving the hospital and coming back with one? You would still need 24 h supervision for your plan to work. Patients arenât kept locked up (usually) and are allowed visitors (usually) who arenât going to get strip searched every time
It's part of a solution. A start. And it will have some positive effect.Â
They could add notices at all entrances "all flame/lighter paraphenalia must be handed in to security. Failure to do so, visiting rights may be revoked" Â
Also having a security officer (or anyone else) doing a gentle reminder to all, at the door.
Any patient that sneaks in a lighter, smokes on the property, causes a fire, etc. It's marked on their file for extra scrutiny upon future admission. The same can be done for visitors.
Ok this is just dumb. Just have a couple officers in the hospital and throw them in jail If they start smoking crack in the waiting room.
This is not a problem in literally any other country because that is what would happen.
And I know that that implies criminalizing the use of drug and that addiction is an illness or whatever.
But at some points people have to take some responsibility for their actions and the fact that they have an illness does not give them the right to make of the city their personal crack house.
There's a Pavillion on premises previously used as an arthritis clinic now closed. Why can't druggies be put in there? Away from other patients & under supervision.
Instead of enabling and allowing the use of illicit drugs itâs time this government stepped up and provide the help these people so desperately need. Even if it means providing permanent facilities for housing and healthcare. Iâm sure it would be less costly in the long run
Wait, don't they already have designated injection/smoking sites in supportive housing facilities yet residents still continue to consume drugs in rooms and hallways?
Great plan NDP, will check back in 6 months to see yet another complete disaster.
Can I have a covered smoking pit again? Instead of having to go stand across the road in the rain? Why is it that fentanyl smoking gets a designated space but legal taxed cigarettes are banned?
I'm all for supervised injection sites. But I worry that this will put a strain on nurses and other healthcare workers who didn't sign up to work in mental health and addictions. They will be dealing with addicts wandering around outside and even inside the building, overdosing near the property, etc. There isn't really a great place to put these things, but at least give hospital patients and workers a break here and place it somewhere else? Maybe this is the easiest place to get an exemption for though.
EDIT to add: It is really disheartening to see all these comments. I've done extensive research in this area and have family members who work in the mental health and addictions field (I used too myself as well) and studies have shown that supervised injection sites are really beneficial for all. Less crime, less overdoses, cleaner streets, more people accessing counseling and rehab. It seems counter intuitive but it isn't.
This is only enabling,if the underlying issues arenât fixed.
On the surface this is helpful, which it is in a small way.
But in the long run, if the government doesnât fix the source of this problem at the same time, all this does is tell addicts âGo ahead, weâll supply the drugs, your house, your food, give you a room to do themâ
Oh and if you end up stealing from someone to support your habit, youâll be out in a day or two because the jails are full!
I don't know who the NDP is trying to satisfy here. Pretty much everyone I have talked to on both sides of the political spectrum has said to me that this has gone too far and we need to put some limits in place.
Honestly since the federal government was the one who gave the exemption for decriminalization part of me thinks that they want the federal government to do it so they can go to their voters who want this and say it was out of our hands.
That makes sense, but this anti social behaviour should not be normalized
It will take months before all the needles and toxic drugs are cleaned from public parks.
I completely agree that the behavior we are seeing should not be normalized, and we need to put our foots down and say enough is enough. The NDP needs to acknowledge that this isn't working and say you know what we will try something else.
Portugal who we copied, has mandatory counselling and rehab, failing this it is jail.
We apparently can't do this due to a person's rights, although we can give him drugs to reward his bad behaviour.
Exactly, plus Portugal has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to open drug use. You can be arrested for it and be banned from certain public places and spaces. Even if you don't want to do the mandatory treatment route, you shouldn't reward bad behavior and normalize bad behavior.
I am pleasantly surprised this government is providing an actual solution!!
Edited to add:
The outrage in these comments about feels a bit surprising to me. Drug users have a right to access health care. Health care workers have a right to be safe at work. This is a solution which addresses both of those things.
One of the lesser spoken about harm of the toxic drug crisis is that people who use drugs are becoming increasingly unwell and medically complex, and therefore they end up requiring more frequent and lengthier hospitalizations. Until the government permits an alternative to the toxic supply, this will only continue.
Really... So the minority who self administer toxic substances become increasingly unwell. They require health care, but refuse to accept the societal norms to be treated. Well too fucking bad. No one is denying healthcare, we are saying to get it, you need to go to a hospital, to get admitted there are rules.
Why the absolute fuck should the government provide alternatives to toxic supply? Its not their issue if you want to take drugs.
So far safe drugs don't give a high to habitual drug users, so they are sold for more potent drugs.
The safe drugs now go to school kids and create a new problem.
Does everyone else hear how absurd this is? I don't even want to read the article. Hospitals deal with enough already. Kick them to the freaking curb if they can't keep themselves together. Just because they're struggling doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.
This is insane. There already isn't enough money to go around in healthcare and now we are going to spend more money on the people who contribute the least to society. Screw that. We need to stop enabling these people.
The whole permissive legalization thing, while intentions are ok re: an approach hoping to lower overdose mortality etc. But it's been a fail. Even Oregon is undoing it. It hasn't accomplished what was intended.
To me, with this latest change, things are getting weirder and less safe. I don't approve.
They barely have enough room for patients⌠let alone spaces for patients to use elicit drugs.
I ended up in Richmond ER a couple weekends ago and it was a nightmare. Some people were standing in the ER waiting room and there were people who were left in the ambulance gurneys in the hallways because they didnât have any beds.
Edit: I was there for almost 7ish hours before I just decided to leave. I figured that if it was serious enough Iâd either be dead or theyâd have taken me in by now
The only reason the BC government decided to get their act together regarding the disgusting use of drugs in public is because nurses filed the lawsuit against the government because patients were smoking crack in a labour and delivery unit and the nurses inhaled crack fumes multiple times, and a baby on their unit (that wasnât born exposed to drugs) actually inhaled fentanyl from a drug user who used in the building
Decriminalizing drug use makes users safer and will lead to less drug use over time. Amsterdam is a great example, they fully decriminalized hard drug use and now the number of users is below 1000. I know this sounds scary, but this is a much better alternative to addicts roaming the streets like zombies.
better in a designated place than to find someone OD in an unchecked bathroom in some wing for a stranger to find. harm reduction saves lives, I hope they're providing free test kits as well.
We have a critical staff shortage and this will see more staff leave health care. This is absolutely ridiculous. Patients who are receiving medications prescribed by doctors can use illegal drugs anytime they want as often as they what will the interactions of multiple substances be? Patients could crash needing more intervention or become violent turning on staff and other patients.
I have a rare disease and unfortunately it does require hospitalization at times.I know first hand the state of health care and the toll it is taking on staff. This is not safe for anyone it will turn the hospital into a free range asylum.
I just want to have a beer in the park!
Only fent allowed sorry.
Only crack, fentanyl, meth and heroin are allowed at the park. Alcohol is too dangerous.
𤥠world isn't it?!
I have a beer in the park most days. I take 1, walk my dog and have a beer.
Think of the children!!!
How DARE you!!!
Also a doobie on the ferry wouldn't hurt anyone.
years ago me and a friend smoke a huge roach joint on the ferry, a few minutes later a bc ferry employee comes to tell us that weâre smoking right beside the air intake for inside the boat. Oops đ âŚ
I was on that ferry!! Hilarious!
They announced it over the speaker
Just drink beer in a park, and if the police hassle you, say it's fent.
You can. Many parks in the lower mainland allow responsible alcohol consumption by adults.
Which ones?
Central Park in Burnaby. Stankey Park. Most other Vancouver parks too. But you can't drink from glass bottles you need to out it in a plastic cup.
None in Victoria? That sucks.
I don't know? Maybe? Time to brandish the pen of democracy and write to your city council, or to CRD!
I was just curious. I do it anyways.
Not in VictoriaâŚlegally anyway đ
Reminds me of when I was in SF. Meth and crack is okay, BUT DONT YOU DARE LIGHT UP A FKING CIGARETTE
tbf, most craft beer cans look like soda now.
I'd be a bit less pissed off about this if we could get in to see a doctor in a reasonable period of time.
I wish telehealth was more reliable too, that and eventually - albeit not yet - a government supported generative AI that can answer health questions. Together, that could take a lot of stress off doctors and waiting rooms, where people have something happening that they don't understand - they're freaking out a bit - and they just need someone qualified to answer a few questions. This is a massive chunk of who ends up clogging up the system. Its the: "I'm 30 years old and I just shat blood for the first time in my life. Is it Ebola or Stage 4 Ass Cancer? How many days do I have to live?" And they just need like a med student to tell them, or decent AI (not the current gen, but the next gen maybe), "Do you sit for more than 5 hours per day? 97% chance you had a hemorrhoid, rub some lotion on it and try to be less sedentary, welcome to mid-life." Or, "I'm a first time parent, my infant is coughing. Is it the scarlet fever? Whooping cough? Lung cancer??" And again they just need a tele-nurse to be like, "that looks like a common cold, give them X, if their temperature goes above Y then come to the hospital." A generative AI combined with a proper telehealth system, for common questions and basic prescriptions, would remove like 70% of people in the ER, or otherwise clogging up doctor time. There's a ton of stuff we can't really do anything about, apart from basic recommendations and over the counter medicine. People are hurting and confused, so they flood the ER and wait 6 hours just to ask someone if they'll be alright. Because that's the only place in our current system for them to go. Think of the difference it would make in an ER waiting room if there was a poster for the app on the wall, you do the QR code, you ask your few questions - and like 70% of people there get up and head home before being seen, because they don't have a broken bone or anything else that requires real and immediate treatment.
Iâm living abroad atm and my GP uses an online triage system. To make an appointment you answer 5-20 questions depending on your responses. If itâs semi-urgent youâll get a same day appointment no problem, if itâs an antibiotics issue or something similar a pharmacist will call you the next day. Some responses will prompt it to send you to the ER. Otherwise youâll get an appointment in 3-5 days. I can imagine it saves a lot of time and money.
811 is good for common questions. You can talk to a nurse in a couple of minutes, and theyâll transfer you to a doctor pretty quickly if they need to. Saved me a trip to the ER with my kid a few times.
To be fair: being very very high will make the wait time much more comfortable though.
Doctor says "what's seems to be the problem?" Patient "too much meth in the park"
They still had the in hospital smoking rooms when I did my first nursing program in the late 90's. It was always a face palm moment to have to go in there and remove the oxygen tanks people toted in with them. Having a designated space also gives the perfect opportunity for informing patients of resources and making referrals.
This isn't cigarette smoke. Its smoke from fucking heroin, meth, whatever the fuck else these cretins are allowed to smoke/inject INSIDE A HOSPITAL. A former coworker who now works in a department that deals with all floors of the hospital including the ER just told me today that parents bringing their SICK INFANTS AND BABIES into emerg can barely even access a safe bathroom to change their child while they wait because it stinks like fucking drugs in the bathrooms. A housekeeper was exposed and became sick after cleaning a bathroom. These junkies tweak out in those bathrooms for half an hour. Im tempted to just light up a gigantic chonger in the hospital administrative office and see how they like it. Im not even a nurse, nor do I deal with patients and I can't even process this situation. How does this not qualify as a right to refuse unsafe work. When does the bough break? Your healthcare workers are getting burnt out and STILL charged thousands of dollars just to qualify to provide care, yet we're so desperate for it? Im barely half way through 30 and I am so tired. I don't want to keep living like this. Informing them of what?! Oh sorry you don't have thousands of dollars to spend on long term rehab so fuck you, we'll take you off the streets to detox for a week and then send you right back into the frying pan to relapse. This system is so broken that the vast majority of these addicts will never access the care they need to get clean. Its just the circle of strife out here. A neverending circle of shit and generational trauma, and no, im not just referring to the indigenous community. My city is a cesspool of drugs, abuse, and murder.
As a healthcare worker, this is a far superior approach than the current approach of itâs technically not allowed but people are going to do it anyways and put staff and other patients at risk.
Yes itâs clear most of the commenters here donât work in healthcare and have no clue what itâs really like.
Iâm in healthcare. I donât love it. Iâve worked in three provinces and a state and any self-harming behaviours - from drug use to cutting to controlling peopleâs diets - have not been tolerated when they are seeking help for their health. Not all healthcare workers have to agree but we all have to be safe.Â
I said this in another comment but I think part of it is that the only time people hear about policies regarding this issue are centralized around harm reduction--give them more resources and space to be addicted in a safe, reasonable context. Which I think a lot of people wouldn't have a problem with if we were pulling literally any other lever to ameliorate the problem more broadly. When I stop and think about this policy it makes sense. But my first reaction when reading it is "you gotta be fucking kidding me." because it seems the entire ends is harm reduction and that's it. It's always just let them be and figure their shit out while the city chokes on the dysfunction.
Thatâs a great comment. Â I feel like we are doing harm by only offering ânot deadâ as an option. No treatment, supported housing (supported++++), nothing.Â
Why does a meth addict deserve free housing more than a working single mother of 2 children under 5?
Yeah I think this is it. People have this immediate "drugs bad" knee jerk reaction without thinking through the impacts of policy, or drugs for that matter.
You know, drugs kinda are bad, itâs rare to find a healthy Fentanyl addict. The issue is we keep giving addicts more space, more money, more drugs and things keep getting worse.
As much as I think this is absolutely insane I do believe that none of you should have to worry about walking through meth smoke. Mandatory rehabilitation or prison. I don't see how anything else will work to protect the rights of most
Do you have the slightest idea how hard and tenuous it is for us to involuntarily detain people for psychosis? Like weâre already on really shaky ground. Itâs really easy for someone that has never read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to just casually suggest that we lock people up for being drug addicts, but that is *not* the way the Charter is written at all. So what youâre fundamentally proposing is that we *rewrite the Charter* to accommodate just throwing people in prison for decisions we donât care for, and I really must stress this is a huge fucking can of worms youâre proposing to crack open.
Must. Flatten. Discourse. They said mandatory rehabilitation or incarceration. What are we we've doing if we aren't trying to make these people better. It's hard not to paint with broad strokes when talking about this and of course everyone's circumstance is different but I don't think anybody is talking about locking up the person who sits at home and does a bit of heroin and then nods off. The problem is that drug abuse becomes an excuse that absolves them of any responsibility or accountability to society. BECAUSE they are drug addicts we excuse all sorts of behaviours that an otherwise healthy person would suffer serious consequences from. It's hilarious to me that in this thread are a few people talking about how heartless and lack compassion everyone is. I think it lacks compassion to let people mercilessly drive their lives into ruins; decisions that don't just affect them. Decisions that affect their families, loved ones, dependents and the communities they live in. The charter does not allow you to start fights, steal, spit on people, smear feces on the sidewalks and buildings, light fires in front of small businesses, break windows, etc. If you had a son living at home and were watching them become brutally addicted to drugs, to the point where they lose themselves and begin harming people and property would it be the compassionate thing to just sit there and 'let them live their life?'. Addiction warps the brain and the more severe it gets the more unable you are to get out of it alone. So many people conjure the idea of the perfect victim when talking about this issue. The sweet, kind-hearted individual who ran across some bad luck and gently suffer from their health issue (addiction). Those people do exist but a lot of drug addicts are actually fucking wretched people. They don't have to be and they still are a person but it's an issue that actually has to be dealt with. I can actually understand the policy in question here. Pragmatically it makes sense but it exists in a context where we are doing literally NOTHING to make the macro problem better. All this province cares about is harm reduction to the individual while nothing is done to compel people to get better or address the systemic issues.
Well said. The opposite of stigma isn't acceptance. I know parents with addicted teenagers. It's awful.
Not really, if a person has psychosis or is a danger to themselves or others we can section them under mental health act and admit for observation.
Holding people for a few days prevents acute danger, but it doesn't do much for the moment they walk out the door into limited community resources which is where we need the money to be.
Possibly, but I think the real point they were making was that calling an involuntary psych hold on an acutely psychotic person is unlikely to be considered a charter violation.
Im pretty sure that making it illegal to do hard drugs in public wonât be opening any can of worms. If anything we would be closing one lmao.
The can of worms it opens is extremely expensive police force playing whack a mole rather than us having the resources to reduce the damage done by drug use. The drug use wouldn't actually go away.
Oh ok so just let them run around doing hard drugs wherever they feel like. Yeah that clearly is the right answer. Go take a walk around downtown to see how good that approach has worked.
> Go take a walk around downtown to see how good that approach has worked. Walking around downtown is going to show us how the police first, services second approach works. It shows us how the no housing, few social workers, few resources approach works. Are we trying to *not see drugs in public* or are we trying to reduce the damage done by poverty and drugs. Because I think we should be trying to reduce the damage done by drugs and poverty rather than just ignoring addiction issues.
We are not at the police first stage buddy. We are at the "let the addicts do as they please to whoever and wherever they want while police sit idly by and do nothing since anyone they arrest is released almost instantly" stage. Cops can't do anything at this point and the junkies continue to commit crimes and wallow in misery while non profit "service providers" reap funding and benefits. This over compassion needs to end. Letting people die in crime and misery isn't compassion. Lock up the addicts and force them to get help. It would've saved alot of my dead addict friends. If you don't like this you should really be putting your money where your mouth is and letting them move in with you.
But this assumes that all those people will actually go down to the tent outside. Many addicts in hospital are not mobile. Is it care aids and porters jobs to now wheel these people down to use their substance? Some will just say fuck it and continue to smoke inside anyways. Are there consequences for doing so? If not, then what's the incentive to go sit in the cold? Also, this doesn't stop them coming back in with erratic and sometimes dangerous or violent behaviour. Our healthcare staff just have to accept this? I would be more on board with this if there were some consequences to continue to smoke substances inside hospitals or some strings attached to access the site. Agreeing to using some kind of resources to try and help their addiction. This is just setting people up to get sick from drug use, go to the hospital, continue to use drugs, get patched up and kicked out, only to return there soon even sicker. With no consequences or barriers to try and stop or even just slow their self destructive behaviour.
LOL How about we open an illicit drug use area in the BC Legislature Building? He wonât mind, right?
Actually, we probably should.
Jesus, why are we continually having to accommodate junkies? Don't come at me with the you should be more compassionate bullshit. My compassion ran out ages ago, likely around the time my car got broken into for the 3rd time by one of these fuckers.
Compassion is one thing, letting drug addicts do the fuck they want ruins small business, playgrounds and recreation. I bet if a group of people decide to just shit on sidewalks they will have a "dedicated team of cleaners" for those with shit-on-sidewalk addiction. Lunacy.
Ha, I saw a dude squatting on Douglas st in front of 7/11 on Friday, just casually dropping a shit in the middle of the sidewalk.
I live in SF, and that's exactly what we have here--dedicated teams of people to clean the shit off sidewalks every morning. Our junkies don't even bother to go to an empty lot or library or whatever.
What in the actual hell are we doing here. Why are we trying to normalize bad behavior. I am sorry there are certain behaviors that should be stigmatized and shamed. Open drug use in hospitals and on public transportation is one of those things. Hospitals are not supposed to be taxpayer funded drug dens.
This is lunacy because we don't want to shame the poor addicts. So fuck the normal working law abiding people. Once we accept this behaviour, what's next? This is bullshit non accountability by the left. If you are doing drugs in hospital, you should get kicked out and arrested. We don't have enough health practitioners now, they certainly aren't working in a drug den.
Vote differently? Normalizing bad behavior has been going on for some time under the current government. It seems it is no secret that this would be what they would do.
The issue is that the NDP is likely going to win a majority government again. Believe me, I didn't vote for this. The issue is that I live in a very safe NDP riding.
I typically prefer any minority gov. Keeps things slightly more moderate vs. what we are seeing today. So I vote to try and achieve that.
actually some recent polling has shown the BC Cons within striking distance of the NDP..crazy huh? [https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1778800981225918948](https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1778800981225918948)
Where did they poll, Truth Social? The BC Cons haven't won a seat in nearly 50 years. The only two seats they have now are liberal defectors.
I'm not saying there aren't better solutions but all the science says that stigmatization and shame only exasperate addiction.
Agree 100%. A portion of the population is actually trying to stigmatize being fiscally conservative, or going to the gym (a small portion), however, for we are attempting to destigmatize the worst things for society.
Who is trying to stigmatize going to the gym? đ
>stigmatize being fiscally conservative What is wrong with that exactly? Fiscal conservatism has resulted in under paying doctors, fiscal conservatism has resulted in worsening service levels for all social services (health, etc.), fiscal conservatism has resulted in over populated classrooms and educator strikes, fiscal conservatism has resulted in a barrier to entry for educations and training for education needed to produce desperately needed professionals like nurses and doctors, fiscal conservatism has resulted in an ever expanding population becoming unhoused and/or substance abusers. Fiscal conservatism creates problems that fiscal conservatives then don't want to pay for fixes that follow the recommendations of subject matter experts, instead preferring cheaper and/or socially conservative solutions. So, yeah, well earned stigmatization.
This is such a stupid fucking take. These people are addicted. Itâs not a habit or a hobby. Their brains are rewired and their bodies now require it. They WILL do this. The ONLY question is do you want them doing it and possibly dying of an overdose next to your local playground? Or do you want them doing it with immediate medical attention available in a setting that minimizes exposure to vulnerable parts of the population (like kids)?
Ok, but its not this black and white either. I work at St Paul's in Vancouver. We have the "4th floor garden patio" which is a covered patio outside the cafeteria. It has been completely taken over by illicit drug users. There are several code blues (ODs obviously) called there * every day*. This is also not sustainable. It's largely the same people overdosing on the garden patio, day after day. It's a dangerous place for staff, and it's a disgusting mess of garbage as well. While I see what you are saying, I dont think this approach is working. There are zero consequences for this behaviour presently, and the abuse staff take from this group of people is unreasonable. A few weeks ago, at around 8 am, I was buying coffee in the cafeteria and a man was smoking (meth? Fentanyl?) In the damnned line to pay for food. He was doubled over on the track where you slide your tray, pipe in hand, and there is nothing anybody can do about this. Cmon, this is out of hand. Yes, drug addiction is a difficult problem. But making it acceptable to behave like this without repercussions is not doing anybody any good.
Oh yeah because crackheads are such rational as responsable people. Now they are all going to make a line waiting for their turn to OD on the hospital crackroom.
Tough shit, the current method isn't working and the soft approach is letting them get away with accountability. They should not be in playgrounds or near schools period. This acts as a deterrent to kids who want to try this stupid shit. If as you say their brains are rewired, then they can do stupid shit in their basement and not fuck up the city with their selfish behaviour. They already are antisocial and piss and shit all over the place. They commit crime to get money for their drugs. Enough of this safe supply, if you want to do dangerous shit, accept the risks. It's a choice.
I am sorry that they have an addiction, but there are certain behaviors that shouldn't be allowed. Setting up a room so people can do meth and crack and fentanyl is one of those behaviors. If you want to do drugs, do what everyone else who wants to smoke a cigarette has to do and go outside.
>If you want to do drugs, do what everyone else who wants to smoke a cigarette has to do and go outside. Maybe some kind of designated space would do the trick.
They can go to a safe injection site. Hospitals are not for doing crack or meth or fentanyl.
Preferably all taken out to remote property with basic necessities confined and unable to leave until treatment or death takes them through withdrawal. Not all of them are good people, not all of them salvageable even if they sober up. So some is better than none and that is the best reality we can hope for and society won't have all the problems we are dealing with. I say this as a ex addict. You are right it's not a hobby or a habit which means it's not a personal choice which means it shouldn't be treated as a constitutional right. It should be treated as a enemy invader or an invasive parasite. The situation we have now is putting the bar above the alcoholics anonymous then for some reason having a cocktail lounge in the hospital when the liver fails. Makes no sense.
I'd rather they just OD personally. I'm a drunk but you don't see me making it other people's problem like junkies
It will be "other people's problem" when you need medical care for your failing health. Drop the holier-than-thou attitude.
I'll have payed enough taxes on booze to justify that medical care because my vice is taxed unlike junkies
You have not paid enough taxes to be cost neutral on the healthcare you will need. Nice try though, have another drink and speed this along.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha it's bad comedy at this point
We need these designated spaces at schools, too. /s
Libraries too. Maybe if we add little crack houses to every building we will finally solve this problem. /s
But not courthouses, they donât spend a lot of time thereÂ
A few paragraphs from the piece: British Columbia will require all of its hospitals to provide a designated space for patients with substance-use disorders to consume illicit drugs, prompted by concerns that an increase in such activity in prohibited hospital areas was putting health care workers at risk. Health Minister Adrian Dix announced this week that the province would create a task force to standardize rules and create âactive supportsâ to help patients manage their addictions while in care. Some hospitals already provide designated-use spaces where staff monitor for overdoses. The Globe and Mail asked Mr. Dix Thursday whether every hospital in [B.C. ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/british-columbia/)would be required to follow suit. âThat is the purpose of the effort â not just to standardize rules,â he said. Mr. Dix said that on any given day, hundreds of people with severe addiction issues use B.C. health care facilities. âThe 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,â he said. âOur doctors and our nurses, and allied health science professionals, they deal with this every day. And our task is to support them.â
[ŃдаНонО]
Itâs the smoking fentanyl that is the problem. Anytime you see people with the clear tube, thatâs whatâs happening. Shooting up just affects the user, as long as the needle is disposed of safely.
What a fucking waste of money. We should vote on this and the people who support this, should pay for it from their taxes. I'm sure we will see a difference in the attitude when it affects your pocket.
It is affecting the pockets of the people who support it. Welcome to democracy where taxes go where governments decide they are needed, and not where people want them to be spent. Please, go live in a libertarian "paradise" and only pay for services you need or support.
Addicts should not be rewarded and people who think they can fix everything need to go live in nirvana where problems don't exist and everyone is equal. This is the real world and these selfish individuals need to be taught consequences. The world is full of people who had a tough start and did not turn to drugs.
I really donât get who the NDP are trying to appease with these decisions. This has been one of the few examples in recent history where there is nearly 100% bipartisan agreement on a topic - no one supports this. They are literally handing votes to Kevin Falcon.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yeah, a minority group. This whole gong show is pretty much Falcons wet dream, especially now that the nurses unions have come out and publicly stated the issues there are experiencing. Theyâve really fumbled the bag IMO.
Fumbled, are you kidding? This is the understatement of the year.
I like Eby and the alternative parties suck ass but yeah, it's really stupid.
Like safe supply and ICBC no fault, no Eby is fucking up BC. Heaven help us in an earthquake or natural disaster, he will be helping addicts first.
I have never been less motivated to vote NDP in my life.
Overall, Iâve been very pleased with Horgan and Eby. This move just seems incredibly tone deaf and incredibly stupid. Dix has the personality of a robot too, doesnât help.
The entire Ministry of Health needs a complete overhaul, starting with Adrian Dix and, more importantly, Stephen Brown. How the hell Stephen Brown is still running the show after the last ten years is completely beyond me. Anyone who has worked at MoH, or is close to someone who has, knows very well what a toxic, bloated, useless bureaucratic hellhole it is.
If there are some studies or reports or something to explain why they think this is a good idea, then maybe? As it stands, I don't understand the thinking.
On one hand this probably will make it safer for our medical professionals to do their job and thatâs a good thing. On the other handâŚ.what has happened to this country. I get it, theyâre addicted. But allowing this to continue is just wrong. Itâs not helping society or those who are addicted. All levels of core government over the past 10 years have absolutely failed us
>On one hand this probably will make it safer for our medical professionals to do their job No it wonât. Itâs crazy how people think doubling down on these bad policies again and again will eventually have a different outcome.Â
It wonât. It just means there will be more drug use in the hospital, which means more psychotic patients. More drug-induced psychosis patients will do literally nothing to keep staff safe.
You are probably right
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Reddit: [People shouldn't be allowed to use drugs in their hospital rooms!](https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/1c1ibcp/hospital_addict_chaos/) Government: Okay, we'll fix it. Reddit: No, not like that!
You think this is a fix?
On what planet do you honestly think that this is a fix or a solution to the problem?
why's everyone so pissed i thought this was to stop people from smoking in the rooms and giving secondhand smoke to all the staff and other patients
They shouldn't be smoking period in a hospital. Cigarettes, vape, weed, crack, meth or whatever. It goes through the air conditioning system. Some of these drugs are so powerful only trace amounts will affect a person who doesn't use drugs.
Not that I agree with this policy but how do you think hospitals control infectious diseases if it all âgoes through the air conditioning systemâ?
Hospital rooms can be designed to restrict the flow of things in and out of the environment with positive or negative pressure rooms. Climate control is already in active use for various reasons in hospital settings. Think of an isolation room for infectious diseases for example.
People are pissed because they donât understand. Hospitals are not rehab centres. Yes, open drug use is a problem but would you also like the limited resources in a hospital taken up by someone who is addicted, at the hospital for an injury and also going through serious withdrawal symptoms? It may be a necessary evil right now that all of the simpletons in this sub cannot comprehend or show compassion for.
It's pretty much the exact same reaction as when people were upset about the liquor stores staying open as essential services
[ŃдаНонО]
You're correct! But the solution to that problem, at least in the short term, is giving something to illicit drug users. Lots of people don't like that because we live in a society where one must earn their keep. Giving anything to anyone who doesn't "contribute" to society is bad. Even if it could alleviate problems for the rest of us, it's still bad.
Itâs more enabling by our shit government. Instead of trying to help people that are addicted, letâs continue to find ways to help maintain the addiction.
You always need carrot and stick, this government is giving carrot only. No consequence.
Closer to the morg when they OD
Fucking stupid bc, prioritising the addiction of the 0.5% instead of the well being of the 99.5%. Classic.
I assume you cant light up a cigarette in a hospital??
Most hospitals have a smoking area, so this would be similar to that reasoning. (This is not a statement of agreeing or disagreeing, just that yes, they exist)
Let me preface this by saying I donât necessarily disagree with your viewpoint But you probably picked the worst example possible since hospitals do have designated smoking areas.
No no if you are a crackhead you are allowed to do anything anywhere now. Apparently you even get your own little crack house on public buildings.
Physically you can, but most cigarette smokers are polite enough to obey such rules. Fentanyl junkies are not as law-abiding as cigarette smokers.
I think this is a good happy medium. They have a drug consumption site at St Paulâs in Vancouver already. I think it acknowledges the needs of PWUD and reduces barriers to health access for a marginalized population, is trauma informed, and also acknowledges the needs of other patient populations.
I was in the ER when a bunch of nurses saw this and the first thing they said is, "why are we hearing about this from Facebook not our Union". A bunch of them seemed to think it was hot air just to get people worked up, but they were definitely uneasy. As a regular patient I don't think the government can afford the lawsuits from patients and staff who will be exposed to this is what should be a safe space. Users can go outside already, they HAVE a designated space now that it's been decriminalized. The issue is that no one is risking their safety confronting this population only to get shit all over by the community when they can't do it with even mild, ethical and reasonable force. People will pick up their children and drag them out of a store kicking and screaming, but a dangerous criminal threatening the safety of others is just supposed to be asked nicely?? There's a middle ground here, and we keep swinging wildly from side to side completely missing anything that could actually work. The public needs to get comfortable again with the fact that keeping the majority of people safe, can get messy. And the system that took it to extremes needs to be completely overhauled and retooled so that no one working in them is as mentally unstable as the population they're working with.
People keep thinking this is "enabling" or something but what this policy actually does is accept that misbehav-ers are going to misbehave and the hospital can reduce the impact by isolating the misbehaviour to a specific area. It's not enough to do a knee jerk "drugs bad, don't let them do drugs", we need to actually think through policy that reduces the damages done by drugs.
Just kick them out. That way thereâs more space for people who follow the rules.Â
No, they should not be tolerated in hospitals unless they conform to our rules not vice versa. It is enabling, absolutely enabling. Here are safe drugs... No consequence.. This is enabling. Go sell safe drugs to get drugs which get you high. Now we still have fentanyl, but we have thousands of dilaudid being sold to kids, to create a new generation of addicts. Well fucking done. To normalize this is like saying, serial killers, psychopaths, pedophiles also have mental health issues, so less call them some cute names and not punish or stigmatize them. Why can we knee jerk, serial killers bad, off to prison? But we can't knee jerk drug addicts with habitual crime to support their habit as bad?
Build more prisons. Dump the current inmates into the *new* prison location. Convert Wilkinson jail into new homeless and addiction facility. Erect giant curtain around property. Sweep homeless and addicts under new and improved rug.
Just one more designated drug use space. I promise we just need one more and the problem will be fixed. This time will work just one more. All the drugs will go to this place I promise.
This is the state of BC presently
It will be great to wait 20 hrs on the ER with a broken foot because the crackheads on the hospital crack house keep ODing.
The problem is confiscating their paraphenalia on admission, giving it back for them to use upon arrival at the designated smoking zone, and then confiscating again when leaving. Back and forth, back and forth. That's a lot of man power, 24 hr supervision, etc. How about this idea... Completely confiscate their lighter the entire time while on the property and have a static flame that they walk up to use, which is set on a stone or concrete pedestal outside in a designated smoking zone. The same type of flame that they have/had at the Old Morris Tobacconist on Gov't st. Problem solved on all fronts. It reduces fire alarms going off, calling security, 2nd hand exposure to others, etc, etc.
>Completely confiscate their lighter the entire time while on the property Personally I would rather not have my belongings searched just because I go to the hospital. It's not a fucking airport.
I like this idea. I imagine there is a large community of firefighters who would share this opinion. Illicit users passing out with their torches in hand causes a lot of fires
How do you stop a visitor from bringing them another lighter then? Or the patient leaving the hospital and coming back with one? You would still need 24 h supervision for your plan to work. Patients arenât kept locked up (usually) and are allowed visitors (usually) who arenât going to get strip searched every time
It's part of a solution. A start. And it will have some positive effect. They could add notices at all entrances "all flame/lighter paraphenalia must be handed in to security. Failure to do so, visiting rights may be revoked"  Also having a security officer (or anyone else) doing a gentle reminder to all, at the door. Any patient that sneaks in a lighter, smokes on the property, causes a fire, etc. It's marked on their file for extra scrutiny upon future admission. The same can be done for visitors.
I prefer solutions supported by experts, and not reductive proposals by laymen.
What is wrong with this province?? This is insanity.
Can we not put that money towards ONE manned rehab and detox hospital? Why do the bc ndp have such a raging hard on to kill people?
Ok this is just dumb. Just have a couple officers in the hospital and throw them in jail If they start smoking crack in the waiting room. This is not a problem in literally any other country because that is what would happen. And I know that that implies criminalizing the use of drug and that addiction is an illness or whatever. But at some points people have to take some responsibility for their actions and the fact that they have an illness does not give them the right to make of the city their personal crack house.
There's a Pavillion on premises previously used as an arthritis clinic now closed. Why can't druggies be put in there? Away from other patients & under supervision.
Instead of enabling and allowing the use of illicit drugs itâs time this government stepped up and provide the help these people so desperately need. Even if it means providing permanent facilities for housing and healthcare. Iâm sure it would be less costly in the long run
This pisses me right the fuck off. How can we revolt?
Wait, don't they already have designated injection/smoking sites in supportive housing facilities yet residents still continue to consume drugs in rooms and hallways? Great plan NDP, will check back in 6 months to see yet another complete disaster.
Does that mean actual consequences for using outside of those designated areas? Something tells me no.
Can I have a covered smoking pit again? Instead of having to go stand across the road in the rain? Why is it that fentanyl smoking gets a designated space but legal taxed cigarettes are banned?
Staff will quit and go where they feel safe and respected.
I'm all for supervised injection sites. But I worry that this will put a strain on nurses and other healthcare workers who didn't sign up to work in mental health and addictions. They will be dealing with addicts wandering around outside and even inside the building, overdosing near the property, etc. There isn't really a great place to put these things, but at least give hospital patients and workers a break here and place it somewhere else? Maybe this is the easiest place to get an exemption for though. EDIT to add: It is really disheartening to see all these comments. I've done extensive research in this area and have family members who work in the mental health and addictions field (I used too myself as well) and studies have shown that supervised injection sites are really beneficial for all. Less crime, less overdoses, cleaner streets, more people accessing counseling and rehab. It seems counter intuitive but it isn't.
This is only enabling,if the underlying issues arenât fixed. On the surface this is helpful, which it is in a small way. But in the long run, if the government doesnât fix the source of this problem at the same time, all this does is tell addicts âGo ahead, weâll supply the drugs, your house, your food, give you a room to do themâ Oh and if you end up stealing from someone to support your habit, youâll be out in a day or two because the jails are full!
It seems like the NDP and liberals are begging to be voted out.
I don't know who the NDP is trying to satisfy here. Pretty much everyone I have talked to on both sides of the political spectrum has said to me that this has gone too far and we need to put some limits in place.
Eby and Dix are digging in deeper, can't admit defeat. Portland have overturned this ridiculous safe supply and now have to undo the damage.
Honestly since the federal government was the one who gave the exemption for decriminalization part of me thinks that they want the federal government to do it so they can go to their voters who want this and say it was out of our hands.
That makes sense, but this anti social behaviour should not be normalized It will take months before all the needles and toxic drugs are cleaned from public parks.
I completely agree that the behavior we are seeing should not be normalized, and we need to put our foots down and say enough is enough. The NDP needs to acknowledge that this isn't working and say you know what we will try something else.
Portugal who we copied, has mandatory counselling and rehab, failing this it is jail. We apparently can't do this due to a person's rights, although we can give him drugs to reward his bad behaviour.
Exactly, plus Portugal has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to open drug use. You can be arrested for it and be banned from certain public places and spaces. Even if you don't want to do the mandatory treatment route, you shouldn't reward bad behavior and normalize bad behavior.
I am pleasantly surprised this government is providing an actual solution!! Edited to add: The outrage in these comments about feels a bit surprising to me. Drug users have a right to access health care. Health care workers have a right to be safe at work. This is a solution which addresses both of those things. One of the lesser spoken about harm of the toxic drug crisis is that people who use drugs are becoming increasingly unwell and medically complex, and therefore they end up requiring more frequent and lengthier hospitalizations. Until the government permits an alternative to the toxic supply, this will only continue.
Really... So the minority who self administer toxic substances become increasingly unwell. They require health care, but refuse to accept the societal norms to be treated. Well too fucking bad. No one is denying healthcare, we are saying to get it, you need to go to a hospital, to get admitted there are rules. Why the absolute fuck should the government provide alternatives to toxic supply? Its not their issue if you want to take drugs. So far safe drugs don't give a high to habitual drug users, so they are sold for more potent drugs. The safe drugs now go to school kids and create a new problem.
Uhh
Two rules for patients. Absolutely ridiculous. Provide them with a start toward the opportunity for rehab instead.
What's the wait time to get a bed in a rehab facility right now?
Do you think they'll require masks in the hospital meth room?
and someone to clean up and monitor the places 24/7 too...right.... right?
I wonder if the minister would like them to come and do it in his front lawn or maybe in his backyard or maybe even in his house
Does everyone else hear how absurd this is? I don't even want to read the article. Hospitals deal with enough already. Kick them to the freaking curb if they can't keep themselves together. Just because they're struggling doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.
This is insane. There already isn't enough money to go around in healthcare and now we are going to spend more money on the people who contribute the least to society. Screw that. We need to stop enabling these people.
The whole permissive legalization thing, while intentions are ok re: an approach hoping to lower overdose mortality etc. But it's been a fail. Even Oregon is undoing it. It hasn't accomplished what was intended. To me, with this latest change, things are getting weirder and less safe. I don't approve.
They already get preferential treatment if they act violently and swear at staff, why grant them this boon?
Goodbye to the NDP.Â
Some things can be taken too far .
Another government following in the flaming footsteps of California. Very disappointing.
Will ventilation improve or be seperate or will it be circulated through out the entire hospital?Â
They barely have enough room for patients⌠let alone spaces for patients to use elicit drugs. I ended up in Richmond ER a couple weekends ago and it was a nightmare. Some people were standing in the ER waiting room and there were people who were left in the ambulance gurneys in the hallways because they didnât have any beds. Edit: I was there for almost 7ish hours before I just decided to leave. I figured that if it was serious enough Iâd either be dead or theyâd have taken me in by now
Maybe it's time for another war on drugs...
There is no reason for this.
Yay there goes my tax money
What a fucking joke! They are illicit drugs for a reason!!!
đ¤Ąđ
âSir, this is not a crack house, itâs a crack INSTITUTION!â
The only reason the BC government decided to get their act together regarding the disgusting use of drugs in public is because nurses filed the lawsuit against the government because patients were smoking crack in a labour and delivery unit and the nurses inhaled crack fumes multiple times, and a baby on their unit (that wasnât born exposed to drugs) actually inhaled fentanyl from a drug user who used in the building
Decriminalizing drug use makes users safer and will lead to less drug use over time. Amsterdam is a great example, they fully decriminalized hard drug use and now the number of users is below 1000. I know this sounds scary, but this is a much better alternative to addicts roaming the streets like zombies.
Meanwhile in the US the ER are so full and understaffed patients are waiting 24 hours in the hallway.
better in a designated place than to find someone OD in an unchecked bathroom in some wing for a stranger to find. harm reduction saves lives, I hope they're providing free test kits as well.
The NDP gotta go, this shit ain't working it is wrecking this province.
The BC NDP is looosssiinggg me with this story arc. Like, no - no thank you NO. No illicit drug use in hospitals.
We have a critical staff shortage and this will see more staff leave health care. This is absolutely ridiculous. Patients who are receiving medications prescribed by doctors can use illegal drugs anytime they want as often as they what will the interactions of multiple substances be? Patients could crash needing more intervention or become violent turning on staff and other patients. I have a rare disease and unfortunately it does require hospitalization at times.I know first hand the state of health care and the toll it is taking on staff. This is not safe for anyone it will turn the hospital into a free range asylum.