I will preface this with the statement that, on purely philosophical grounds, I support the right of adults to put whatever drugs they want into their body, up to and including Heroin, Fentanyl and Meth. Your body is your property and you should have the right to destroy your property if you want to. However, that can't work in a universal health care system because you have to take some of my property to allow you to continually attempt to destroy yours. My wife works in harm reduction and probably saves a life or two on every shift. I know something of the cost and problems associated with harm reduction, especially when dealing with the chronically unhoused. As a result my views on harm reduction are complicated and a at little at odds with my libertarian leanings.
The problem with suggesting the Darwin option is that it is incredibly hypocritical. How many of us wouldn't be alive if we were left to our natural healing abilities? I understand the frustration of throwing money at a seemingly unsolvable problem but you could also say that about the almost 30 percent of Canadians who are now considered obese. The way I see it the problem with harm reduction isn't the harm reduction, it is that nothing is done to actually solve the problem of increased addiction. I think most people would be on board attempting to help these people if they thought there was a reasonable chance of them getting clean and rejoining society. I think to many people, keeping these people alive seems less humane than letting them die. I don't know anyone who would let a dog live in the condition many of these people are in. For most people, it isn't that they don't care, it's that they don't want there tax dollars going to something that seems to make things worse rather than better. However, there are a lot of people who would gladly give up some of their money to keep these individuals alive, even if that's all that gets accomplished. That is why I approve of Harm Reduction as a charitable cause but not a governmental program.
Where the government is concerned, I think they need to focus on treatment. The reason for this is two fold. First, as government is charged with healthcare, and addiction treatment is healthcare, the resources are controlled primarily by the province. The second is that only the Government has the authority to deny a person liberty. For many, if not most, of these people, if they are in a situation where getting drugs is a possibility, they will do the drugs. And while they are on the drugs, or attempting to get drugs, they can be a danger to society. By the time people are shooting up in the street and sleeping where ever they took their last hit, they are not capable of deciding not to do drugs. They are more like children in their level of impulse control than a rational adult. The government (probably provincial with federal laws) needs to be able to remove these people from their situations and clean them up against their will. Get them clean (if possible) and part of a regular treatment routine and then transition them a locked institution to gradually more "free" situations like various levels of supported living. In many cases, part of recovering from addiction is relearning how to be an adult. In some cases, thee people have never learned how to be one, especially if their addictions started early. We don't let children decide important things in their lives for a reason, they haven't developed the necessary tools to make those decisions. In hard core addicts, they may have the tools but all or most of them are broken.
Now before anyone accuses me of saying we should sweep up all the junkies and put them in an institution, I am not. I think this could be a sentence for criminal behavior. Instead of throwing them in jail where a) drugs are easy for them to get, b) doesn't typically keep them long, and c) isn't focused on defeating the addiction that put them there in the first place; we need an alternative stream where addicts are sentenced to forced treatment. Maybe some individuals don't need in patient treatment and they could be sentenced to day patient status? I don't know the how the specifics would work but I think it should be fairly flexible to allow for a more tailored approach. The important thing is that the force of law is behind it. For example, if a person get sentenced to day patient status and doesn't show up, it could be like a parole violation and they be sentenced to a more restricted form of treatment. The benefit is the addict gets treatment instead of incarceration where their recovery isn't a priority.
If we had a robust system of voluntary, and forced, treatment available, I would be more willing support a governmental safe injection site, or harm reduction funded through taxes. As it stands, it makes the problem worse. Less dead addicts means greater demand for products, which in turn feeds the organized crime elements who supply it. It also leads to an increase in homelessness, open air drug markets and all the crime associated with the above. Show me there is a path to a reduction in rates of addiction, show me there is hope for these people and I won't feel as negatively to tax money keeping them alive and prolonging their suffering.
That is a lot of words to say I support harm reduction as a concept but I think the government should focus on providing a way out given the finite amount of money available. Harm reduction without treatment is less like a bandaid and more like constantly reopening a cut to make sure it stays clean and doesn't get infected. You prevent the infection but your never actually heal the wound.
The problem with suggesting the Darwin option is that it is incredibly hypocritical. How many of us wouldn't be alive if we were left to our natural healing abilities? I understand the frustration of throwing money at a seemingly unsolvable problem but you could also say that about the almost 30 percent of Canadians who are now considered obese. The way I see it the problem with harm reduction isn't the harm reduction, it is that nothing is done to actually solve the problem of increased addiction. I think most people would be on board attempting to help these people if they thought there was a reasonable chance of them getting clean and rejoining society. I think to many people, keeping these people alive seems less humane than letting them die. I don't know anyone who would let a dog live in the condition many of these people are in. For most people, it isn't that they don't care, it's that they don't want there tax dollars going to something that seems to make things worse rather than better. However, there are a lot of people who would gladly give up some of their money to keep these individuals alive, even if that's all that gets accomplished. That is why I approve of Harm Reduction as a charitable cause but not a governmental program.
Where the government is concerned, I think they need to focus on treatment. The reason for this is two fold. First, as government is charged with healthcare, and addiction treatment is healthcare, the resources are controlled primarily by the province. The second is that only the Government has the authority to deny a person liberty. For many, if not most, of these people, if they are in a situation where getting drugs is a possibility, they will do the drugs. And while they are on the drugs, or attempting to get drugs, they can be a danger to society. By the time people are shooting up in the street and sleeping where ever they took their last hit, they are not capable of deciding not to do drugs. They are more like children in their level of impulse control than a rational adult. The government (probably provincial with federal laws) needs to be able to remove these people from their situations and clean them up against their will. Get them clean (if possible) and part of a regular treatment routine and then transition them a locked institution to gradually more "free" situations like various levels of supported living. In many cases, part of recovering from addiction is relearning how to be an adult. In some cases, thee people have never learned how to be one, especially if their addictions started early. We don't let children decide important things in their lives for a reason, they haven't developed the necessary tools to make those decisions. In hard core addicts, they may have the tools but all or most of them are broken.
Now before anyone accuses me of saying we should sweep up all the junkies and put them in an institution, I am not. I think this could be a sentence for criminal behavior. Instead of throwing them in jail where a) drugs are easy for them to get, b) doesn't typically keep them long, and c) isn't focused on defeating the addiction that put them there in the first place; we need an alternative stream where addicts are sentenced to forced treatment. Maybe some individuals don't need in patient treatment and they could be sentenced to day patient status? I don't know the how the specifics would work but I think it should be fairly flexible to allow for a more tailored approach. The important thing is that the force of law is behind it. For example, if a person get sentenced to day patient status and doesn't show up, it could be like a parole violation and they be sentenced to a more restricted form of treatment. The benefit is the addict gets treatment instead of incarceration where their recovery isn't a priority.
If we had a robust system of voluntary, and forced, treatment available, I would be more willing support a governmental safe injection site, or harm reduction funded through taxes. As it stands, it makes the problem worse. Less dead addicts means greater demand for products, which in turn feeds the organized crime elements who supply it. It also leads to an increase in homelessness, open air drug markets and all the crime associated with the above. Show me there is a path to a reduction in rates of addiction, show me there is hope for these people and I won't feel as negatively to tax money keeping them alive and prolonging their suffering.
That is a lot of words to say I support harm reduction as a concept but I think the government should focus on providing a way out given the finite amount of money available. Harm reduction without treatment is less like a bandaid and more like constantly reopening a cut to make sure it stays clean and doesn't get infected. You prevent the infection but your never actually heal the wound.
