Pressure rises to shut down Granville Street SROs with emergency calls up 822%, HVA says : r/ilovebc - "Those of us against them more than 10 years ago were called NIMBY's ... the outcome is exactly what we expected. Ta da! Involuntary institutionalization. Every single one. Giving them a condo in prime real estate is not going to magically make them kick a drug habit, shake their mental illness and become productive members of society. All the money spent on building these would be better spent building / staffing a singular location where they can get help. How many tens if not hundreds of millions are being syphoned from first responders and hospitals. I personally know many first responders and it's not uncommon to bring the same person back to life five times in one day. What do they call it... compassion exhaustion. Enough is enough, this isn't working, time to try something else. Maybe then life, business and culture will restore the vibrancy Granville and other areas were once known for. Anyone advocating for SROs etc either a) doesn't live in the city, b) financially benefitting from these programs (developers etc.), c) doesn't have children d) mentally ill themselves."
"We’re definitely reaching that point. Even the science has caught up to them as study after study has failed to show any improvements to addictions rehab beyond the very basic reduction in overdose risk. Researchers are so desperate to prove that these initiatives work that they’re now counting increased life expectancy as an increased chance of rehab success since you can’t rehab if you’re dead. Thats how little these initiatives move the needle for the homeless population with severe drug addiction, that stopping them from accidentally killing themselves is considered a win. Institutionalization is needed now."
Woke Canadian lawmaker says children should NOT be discouraged from using drugs - "A Canadian lawmaker opposed a bill aimed at discouraging students from using drugs because she is 'deeply concerned' by the prospect of shaming people. British Columbia Legislative Assembly member Stephanie Higginson spoke in opposition of the Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act on Monday. The bill calls for drug use prevention education and mandatory anti‑drug messaging in schools. Higginson, who is a member of the social democratic political party BC NDP, said she is 'deeply concerned' about 'explicitly discouraging drug use' in schools. 'I believe this bill takes a misguided and potentially harmful approach that could do more damage than good,' she said. 'The approach outlined in this bill is not only outdated. And in fact, it reminds me of the 1980s era "Scared Straight" that was in place when I was young. 'The bill mandates a curriculum that explicitly discourages drug use and promotes stigma against drug use as a deterrent. This language is deeply concerning.' Higginson argued that stigmatizing drug use will discourage students from asking for help... Higginson represents the Ladysmith-Oceanside district on Vancouver Island. A recent report from the British Columbia Coroners Service found that some of the highest number of unregulated drug deaths in 2025 thus far were in Vancouver and Central Vancouver Island, which includes Higginson's district."
Oppose open drug use? Rack it up to colonialism, says B.C. report | Toronto Sun - " If you oppose widespread drug open use in society, it’s likely due to colonialism and racism. That’s what British Columbia’s Human Rights Commissioner wants you to believe and it’s what she’s telling provincial politicians in B.C. in a new report. Kasari Govender claims that she is pushing for a science and fact-based approach to dealing with the opioid crisis. Instead, she’s pushing a far-left wing ideological approach that has only resulted in more people dying. “Beyond challenges within the health-care system, this crisis is also rooted in colonial approaches that prioritize individualism over community, wealth over health and power over empathy,” Govender wrote in a new report... Here’s the problem with her claim: The hard numbers, specifically the number of deaths, don’t back up her claims. British Columbia has long been at the forefront of liberalizing drug policy and always with the claim that it would save lives. Yet, over the 10 years between 2014 and 2023, the number of opioid overdose deaths in B.C. went up sevenfold from 370 to 2,589. During that time, the provincial government adopted policy after policy to add safe injection sites, to add so-called “safer supply,” and even lobbied the federal government to decriminalize all drugs in the province, starting in January 2023. Over that same time period, the number of opioid overdose deaths in Ontario rose from 676 deaths to 2,593, or 3.75 times greater. In 2023, Ontario, a jurisdiction with a population three times greater than B.C.’s, had just four more overdose deaths. The difference is Ontario didn’t go as far down the drug advocate rabbit hole as B.C. Both provinces were hit with the scourge of fentanyl at around the same time, and both provinces were subject to the federal government’s failed “safer supply” policy that made things worse, but B.C. went further. It became so bad, the stories of rampant drug use in public, the increase in petty crime, the horror stories of parents describing children’s play parks as unusable, prompted Premier David Eby to pull back the decriminalization policy... “This decision was not supported by the evidence available; rather, it was based on unsubstantiated public perception that street disorder increased under decriminalization, of which there is no data to support,” Govender wrote in her report. To back up this claim she turns to police data showing no significant rise in the number of disturbing the peace calls across British Columbia during the decriminalization period. Let me point to the death statistics once again, including that 199 more people died from opioid overdoses in 2023 compared to 2022. The numbers started falling after the decriminalization was repealed. We cannot let advocates and activists drive drug policy, and Govender is clearly an activist. Govender is a former board member of the Pivot Legal Society, a group that pushes for decriminalization and argued that B.C.’s decriminalization efforts didn’t go far enough. Govender calls her policy proposals a human-rights based approach to drug policy. What it really is a rehash of the same failed policies pushed by activists for years wrapped up in a nice new package, but that will only lead to the same results – more people dying."
Dan Mazier on X - "“If you give me the foil and crack pipe to do the drugs, you may as well give me a bullet and gun to kill myself” That is what a recovered addict told me in British Columbia. The next day I walked up to a vending machine that dispenses pipes and paraphernalia for drugs like fentanyl. I used it myself to see how easy it was. No ID. No questions. A toddler could use it. There are no barriers anymore. Instead of helping addicts recover, the government is promoting and normalizing lethal drug use. This has to stop."
But not giving drug addicts free drugs violates their human rights!
Adam Zivo: Wab Kinew's worthy plan to lock up meth addicts - "“People who are suffering from meth addiction do not have the right to determine how the rest of us are going to live in our society,” declared Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew last week, ahead of passing a bill permitting the involuntary detainment of drug-intoxicated individuals for up to three days. The move is a step in the right direction to restoring order on public streets, even if more work needs to be done on treatment... In Canada, a small number of prolific, often drug-addicted offenders seemingly cause the bulk of public disorder. A 2022 letter from the B.C. Urban Mayors’ Caucus, for example, indicated that only 40 individuals in Vancouver were responsible for 6,385 “negative police contacts” in one year. The city of Kelowna similarly found that, in 2024, just 15 people were responsible for 1,335 police files... Drug addictions are tough to break, which is why involuntary treatment in the United States, for example, often lasts for weeks , if not months... While Manitoba’s reforms should be lauded as an improvement, the better route would be to further criminalize public intoxication and give addicts the chance to avoid incarceration through structured, long-term treatment. This would not only give people a better chance of rehabilitation, it would more stably segregate anti-social individuals — as opposed to relying on cycles of discretionary, short-term detentions. Even so, Marshall Smith , architect of Alberta’s recovery-oriented addiction strategy, spoke highly of Kinew’s reforms and said that, although some academics and activists criticize involuntary care in all its forms, it is clearly better than providing no care at all. “I am just happy that the people who are dying under overpasses and being incinerated in homeless encampments are going to be able to get the care that they need,” he said."
B.C. Human Rights Commissioner says stigmatizing drug use is a violation - "British Columbia's rights watchdog has criticized the province for stigmatizing people who use drugs, calling it a violation of their human rights to treat their health issues as "moral failings." Kasari Govender said in a position statement issued by her office Thursday that B.C.'s recent focus on involuntary care and "criminal justice responses" to the toxic drugs crisis is driven largely by stigma... "Absolutely, governments drive their decisions from the people, and there's incredible value to that … in the democratic system," she added. "(But) we also live in a constitutional democracy where it's not only about majority rules. We also have protections in place which protect our fundamental human rights." Lapointe said in February that she was disappointed by the province's overhaul of its safer-supply program, saying the move to a "witnessed-only" model, in which people are supervised while consuming their prescription drugs and aren't allowed to take them home, appears to ignore scientific evidence... "Treating people who use drugs as if their health issues are moral failings is a violation of their human rights,” she said in her statement... Govender contrasted the handling of the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. "As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, any other health problem with massive fatalities would be treated with the utmost urgency," she said."
Not giving drug addicts free drugs violates their fundamental human rights, and judges need to be very clear about that. Non-drug users do not have human rights, so they can be ignored. All negative social outcomes are due to "stigma", "discrimination" and "poverty"
Given the disaster of the covid response, calling for drugs to be treated more like covid is a recipe for disaster. Ironically, they're not going to push coerced treatment despite drawing this parallel, because somehow that's against drug addicts' human rights
Kash Heed: We cannot arrest our way out of B.C.'s drug problem | Vancouver Sun
Clearly, the solution is to promote drugs
Toronto condo suing charity next door for $2.3 million - "Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2058, the official name for the board of CASA Condos at 33 Charles St., filed a legal proceeding against Sanctuary Ministries Toronto, at 25 Charles St., just east of Yonge Street... The board is alleging that Sanctuary has “permitted illegal, illicit, disruptive, interfering and egregious conduct to occur on its property,” leading to a reputation that the drop-in centre is a “free-for-all haven and/or destination for illegal and illicit activity.” The statement of claim makes more than a dozen specific allegations regarding illegal activity on Sanctuary’s property that it says has sometimes led to the condo’s residents being subjected to “aggressive” and “violent” behaviour. Aside from seeking more than $2 million in damages, the condo board wants the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to grant them an injunction to prohibit and restrain anyone who occupies or frequents Sanctuary from trespassing on their property, or causing, creating, or permitting any “nuisance that interferes with the use or enjoyment” of it by owners and residents. This order is also looking to bar anyone who threatens, harasses, annoys, assaults, or abuses the 421-unit condo’s residents, workers, or others present from 33 Charles St. Lastly, it is calling for Sanctuary to “maintain in good order and condition” its own property, and prevent the use of drugs and “violent, dangerous and disruptive conduct” there. Earlier this week, Condo Board President Peter McDonald told CP24 that Sanctuary is “not a good neighbour,” calling the church it operates a “cult.” “Personally, I don’t feel Sanctuary is a church. They’re in the business of helping enable homeless drug addicts,” said McDonald, who has lived in the building since it opened 15 years ago and has served on its board for that entire period. “We knew going into this (that) it’s going to be a difficult situation because we’re suing a charity.” The condo board president went on to say that the residents of 33 Charles ultimately want improved safety in their neighbourhood. “The number one issue is that people are afraid to walk along Charles Street,” McDonald said. “We’re not against The Sanctuary. … What we want is a change in the way (it) operates.” McDonald said the myriad problems they have with Sanctuary are more than a decade in the making and efforts to address them, which have involved hiring a lobbyist along with additional security, aren’t working... Among other things, CASA Condos, in its statement of claim, says Sanctuary is engaging in and/or allowing “illegal, illicit, disruptive, interfering and egregious conduct to occur on its property,” open drug use and drug dealing/trafficking as well as alcohol consumption, which in turn is resulting in “repeated physical alterations, overdoses, harassing, threatening and violent conduct” towards condo residents, workers, and those on the abutting sidewalk... the documents do also allege that the charity is “permitting and allowing” its clients to trespass onto the condominium’s property “to cause damage,” including by intentionally triggering fire alarms, removing cable and other infrastructure, and “causing damage to personal property of the condominium residents, including vehicles.” In the statement of claim, lawyers for the condominium board say it has “repeatedly appealed” to Sanctuary to “take meaningful action” to no avail... Luisa Sotomayor, an associate professor at the University of Toronto and the director of its planning program, said the lawsuit launched against Sanctuary is “wild, but not surprising.” “We have residents of luxury condos redefining what it means to live downtown. … It’s clearly an exercise in power and privilege,” said Sotomayor. “They want the location, the specific lifestyle but seeing poverty is not part of that equation. It doesn’t align with the gentrified aesthetic values.”
Toronto condo's lawsuit against street ministry is deeply cruel
If you don't enable crime, you're a bad person.
When left wingers talk about "gentrification" they mean a lack of drug use, crime and harassment. No wonder they hate "gentrification" so much
Ont. PI’s surveil safe consumption sites: findings revealed - "An affidavit filed by private investigators retained by the province to surveil supervised consumption sites says they observed apparent drug transactions, public intoxication, discarded drug paraphernalia, physical altercations and public drug use in their vicinity. But harm reduction advocates and the people who run the sites say they paint a misleading picture. “All they have here is more evidence of people trying desperately to survive a drug poisoning crisis,” said Sarah Ovens, an organizer with the Toronto Overdose Prevention Society. In particular, she said the numerous pictures contained in the affidavit of people holding glass pipes show how the city needs more sites where people can smoke potent drugs under supervision... The reports recommended boosting community safety supports to address concerns of neighbouring residents, but keeping them open, maintaining funding and expanding harm reduction, including consumption sites."
Damn heartless Doug Ford wanting drug addicts to die! The solution is to give out even more free drugs and let people use them with government support. Trust the Experts!
Ontario hired private investigators to surveil safe consumption sites. Here’s what they reported : r/toronto - "This is an issue with no easy solution because even the advocates don’t really deny that consumption sites bring social disorder, the argument then becomes how much anti social behaviour is a society willing to tolerate in the hopes it will be solved in the long run."
‘Who wouldn’t want pure cocaine?’: the radical plan to prevent overdoses with better drugs - "Near Dulf’s office, a doctor named Christy Sutherland prescribes it free of charge at the center of a neighborhood in which thousands of people use drugs openly on the street with the government’s consent. Sutherland stops by to talk shop with the Dulf people that day. Mostly she and Nyx discuss how it is hard to source as much fentanyl as they need; for the 100-plus people Sutherland sees, she needs kilos. There are not enough legal, regulated manufacturers of the stuff."
Amazing whitewashing of the disaster that is BC's pro-drug policies, branded as "compassion", and blaming problems on not being radical enough. Maybe if it had been written a few years earlier there could've been some plausible deniability but in 2025...
This being The Guardian, of course it's written by an activist and misleading. And attacking capitalism, naturally.
WATCH: Eby admits he was 'wrong' on drug decriminalization - ""I was wrong on drug decriminalization and the effect that it would have," Eby said. "I wasn't alone — but it wasn't the right policy." He went on to explain that the decision to take that route came at a time of rising overdoses and was made with the hopes that offering a "safe supply" of drugs would allow addicts to live long enough to seek treatment and eventually be weaned off illicit substances altogether. "What it became," Eby continued, "was a permissive structure that, in the effort to reduce stigma that it was ok to use drugs anywhere, resulted in really unhappy consequences not just in British Columbia but other jurisdictions that attempted this." He noted that at the beginning, chiefs of police offered their support, but it "very quickly" became apparent that it "wasn't working" and the government reversed course. Eby touted the new involuntary care beds being set up in facilities across the province, saying this would help those who are "unable to ask for help, or unwilling to ask for help but absolutely require it." BC decriminalized drug possession in January 2023. Since then, studies have shown that it resulted in not only more overdoses, but more diversion of the drugs."
How ignorant. He needs to read The Guardian
Amy Hamm: Unlike Vancouver, Boston isn't a drug hellscape. Here's why - "Much, if not all, of this failure can be laid at the feet of radical harm reduction activists who’ve overtaken addiction discourses within academia and health-care institutions. Boston is a vision of what Vancouver could be, were it not for the policies pushed by these activists. Both Vancouver and Boston have roughly similar populations, just shy of 700,000. Boston is within a blue (Democrat) state, and Vancouver is within an orange (NDP) province. Boston declared a public health emergency in 2021 regarding addiction and homelessness . Before that, in 2014, then-Governor Deval Patrick declared an opioid epidemic and public health emergency . Sound familiar? At one point, opioid overdose deaths were more numerous in the state of Massachusetts than in the province of B.C. (where we have approximately 1.4 million fewer residents). Today, B.C. has more overdose deaths — despite having a smaller population... Boston was clean, and felt safe and calm. Including the “ Boston Common,” known as the “rough” area of the city. It was nothing like Vancouver. I saw a single homeless tent, but not one homeless or intoxicated street person, during my visit. There were no discarded needles, and no one on the nod in a back-alley alcove, let alone on the sidewalk in front of shops in broad daylight. The alleys and side streets didn’t reek of urine like they do in Vancouver — unbearably so when there are days or weeks between rain. There were no addicts attempting to hawk stolen wares on the outskirts of tourist areas. Boston is clearly also struggling with an opioid epidemic — the state has the overdose death numbers to prove it — but it lacks the escalating chaos and filth that one finds in all corners of Vancouver, resulting from our parallel opioid epidemic. Where does the answer lie? Massachusetts, like B.C., promotes “harm reduction.” However, the state also places a significant focus on recovery — something that the harm reduction activists of Vancouver and B.C. seem unwilling to do. The province bankrolls an endless list of harm reduction services that enable addicts to stay sick and keep using. When our addicted want treatment, they’re forced to wait weeks or months, typically, to enter a recovery program — at which point they’re often no longer interested. I saw this occur countless times when I worked as an outreach nurse in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. It caused moral distress that was partly responsible for my decision to return to a hospital job. How can we claim to be helping anyone when we keep them mired in addiction via hundreds of millions in government funding? The forward to a “ harm reduction toolkit ” released by Boston city officials in 2021 leads with an explanation that the city has a “long and proud history of providing services to people struggling with substance use. We are home to countless treatment programs, ranging from detox to recovery housing.” B.C.’s harm reduction activists, meanwhile, become enraged at policy changes such as the province’s move to witnessed , versus take home, “safe supply” drugs. They react similarly to suggestions that we place more focus on treatment and recovery, particularly when the proposed treatment is involuntary . Years ago, someone I went to nursing school with was hired as a nurse at InSite, one of Vancouver’s supervised injection sites. She told me that harm reduction was a “sexy” area of nursing to work in. I assumed that she meant it was cool, all the rage, progressive and contributed to one’s reputation as a sort of elitist saint. Her assertion quite ironically smacked of the “white privilege” she was fond of discussing at length. There is nothing “sexy” about Vancouver’s failed harm reduction experiment, which is not just ineffective , but barbaric."
