So….. if they refuse, you are going to physically force them?
New_Fuel4749 on
Fuck yes. We need this badly.
Under the mental health act this was already possible if someone was deemed a danger to themselves or others. Using fentanyl is a danger to anyone.
ReplaceModsWithCats on
So the freedom guy doesn’t believe in freedom for everyone?
Bentstrings84 on
I support involuntary treatment for anyone whose addiction makes them a danger to the public or themselves.
PaulWalkerCGIFace on
I don’t believe a word he says, he’ll be the worst prime minister in history
YellowSpecialist4218 on
Good. This should be common sense.. key word being for those who are “incapable” of making decisions for themselves.
ArbainHestia on
Involuntary treatment for anyone isn’t going to work if you don’t also support them afterwards. Everything from ongoing therapy, medical care, housing and meaningful employment.
Curious-Ad-8367 on
We spend about 40K a year per persons in homeless support and services . It would be less costly to the taxpayer , to build affordable housing and a basic income for people who are unemployable
By virtue of mental illness or physical disability
Windatar on
A huge % of the homeless situation is from people needing mental health help. In BC for example, when the BC Liberals shuttered mental health facilities to funnel money into their mafia construction companies they owned stocks in. They created the homeless person boom. People that need help turn to drugs on the street, they can’t help themselves.
Involuntary treatment is needed to help people, the good thing about helping people is that eventually they will be released after they beat their addictions. For those with mental health problems that are so dire that they can’t be released, then they shouldn’t be on the streets to begin with.
“What about freedom! Your taking away their freedoms!”
If someone tries to kill themselves, do you just hand them the gun? If someone wants to jump off a building do you just go. “Alright, but try not to land on someone.”
If someone wants to set fire to their own home they own, would you allow them to do it? No, you would stop them. But then why? It’s their home, they own it so they should burn it. Freedom right?
As for his stance on the “safe injection sites” The idea only words if drugs are legalized and regulated. If you give out free drugs obviously the people on those drugs will take them. But that doesn’t get them off it. They’ll just keep buying illegal drugs.
If you had a store that was regulated and legal that sold cocaine so it was clean and cost money then you wouldn’t need the safe drug supply. However that’s a step too far at the moment.
So you have this weird middle ground. Where drugs are still technically illegal, which means most of the supply for purchase is cut with chemicals that kill people. The only clean supply is from some sites that give it away for free so people don’t even try to get clean.
It would be like making cigarettes free. It would increase the use, however making them stupid expensive with the sin tax has brought back the cigarette black market in Canada that’s worth billions today because 1 pack of smokes is 20$.
Chairman_Mittens on
Anyone who opposes this is probably so far removed from the realities of drug addiction. I invite these people to spend a month living next to an addiction center, or take public transit to their downtown job for a little while.
There are people so deep into addiction that they aren’t even living on the same planet anymore. They can’t think rationally, and they are a danger to themselves and others. They will never just wake up one day and say “this isn’t healthy anymore, I quit!”
Allowing these people to continue killing themselves and cause chaos all around them isn’t a solution.
I_Am_the_Slobster on
Cities have tried decriminalization of possession. Then they tried safe consumption sites. Then the provinces (a few) decided that that was dehumanizing and so they could consume wherever they wanted.
None of this has halted or decreased the rate of consumption, only OD cases. And the safe injection sites are safe only for the users: the neighborhoods they’re in are exposed to higher levels of violence than before the sites were put there. Innocent bystanders were thrown into violent settings because the addict needed a fix.
If the soft approach hasn’t worked, and has arguably made things worse, it’s time for the hard approach. I, for one, am in favour of mandatory rehabilitation. Come on in to a safe site, get one last fix safely, then off to treatment.
Syrairc on
Doesn’t work. Proven many times over. Something like 56% of users who went through mandatory rehab re-use within a month of release.
Unless someone wants to quit, they won’t quit. We already don’t have enough resources available for the people who *want* to escape alcoholism and other drug use, and i’d much rather invest tax dollars into resources for those people first.
• Although the scientifc literature evaluating compulsory treatment is limited, the majority of studies (78%) failed to detect any signifcant positive impacts on drug use or recidivism compared with non-compulsory approaches. Two of the included studies observed negative impacts on recidivism compared with control arms.
Maleficent_Can_5732 on
If you toddler doesn’t want to go to school because he doesn’t feel like it, would you make him go or just cave in 🤔
Cool_Pirate_5770 on
If they become a danger to themselves or others
hawkseye17 on
People who are voluntarily wanting treatment are having trouble getting it so how exactly are we going to do involuntary treatment when we can’t even do the voluntary one right?
DoktorKross on
What’s there not to support.
LATABOM on
“involuntary addiction treatment” means incarceration.
So the headline should be “Poilievre says he supports incarcerating minors for drug abuse”.
The 2 questions any good journalist should ask him at the next opportunity:
1: Who decides which drug abusing minors get incarcerated? The Parents? The Police? An involuntary addiction treatment panel of judges? How will safeguards be put in place to make sure the ones spared incarceration don’t skew rich and/or white?
2: How does he plan to fund thousands or tens of thousands of new “involuntary addiction treatment” cells and the thousands of “involuntary addiction treatment” wardens and medics that will be required to do so. And will any of these projects have ground broken on them within the 4 years of his presumptive electoral victory?
3: Will he be making major changes to the criminal code and/or charter (and what are those changes?), or will he just start jailing kids and deal with the legality later?
Goatse_Is_Taken on
And he’s gonna fund that treatment too amirite??
If not this is another hot fart in an elevator that his supporters are going to insist we need to praise after earnest whiffing.
ZalmoxisRemembers on
Kingsman: Golden Circle becoming more and more prophetic with each passing day.
wet_suit_one on
Wasn’t this the guy prattling on about making Canadians the freest people in the world or something?
Forced treatment = free now does it?
Hmmm…
lIlIllIIlIIl on
Tell me you know nothing about addiction treatment without telling me you know nothing about addiction treatment.
RainDancingChief on
That’s great, but who’s paying for it? I have no problem with my taxes going towards it, personally, but this seems counter to the PCs/provincial Cons (UCP) and their bases MO.
You can’t cut healthcare spending and dump a bunch of addicts on the healthcare system involuntarily at the same time.
BrianSpillman on
Other countries have figured out better strategies and in the west we are still bashing our heads against the wall.
WinteryBudz on
Pointless and even harmful if it is not accompanied with support systems for life after treatment. And we know how much conservatives believe in support systems so I am very skeptical of such ideas. I don’t believe there’s much evidence at all that involuntary treatment is even effective in the first place, so it just becomes another form of incarnation and punishment. And what standards and thresholds will be used to determine who gets such treatment forced on them? Do we have the capacity to even think about such treatments? Many questions that need answers before we can jump to such actions.
GoingGreen111 on
theres teenagers doing fentanyl in young and dundas square every weekend. start there Pierre because the cops dont care.
26 Comments
So….. if they refuse, you are going to physically force them?
Fuck yes. We need this badly.
Under the mental health act this was already possible if someone was deemed a danger to themselves or others. Using fentanyl is a danger to anyone.
So the freedom guy doesn’t believe in freedom for everyone?
I support involuntary treatment for anyone whose addiction makes them a danger to the public or themselves.
I don’t believe a word he says, he’ll be the worst prime minister in history
Good. This should be common sense.. key word being for those who are “incapable” of making decisions for themselves.
Involuntary treatment for anyone isn’t going to work if you don’t also support them afterwards. Everything from ongoing therapy, medical care, housing and meaningful employment.
We spend about 40K a year per persons in homeless support and services . It would be less costly to the taxpayer , to build affordable housing and a basic income for people who are unemployable
By virtue of mental illness or physical disability
A huge % of the homeless situation is from people needing mental health help. In BC for example, when the BC Liberals shuttered mental health facilities to funnel money into their mafia construction companies they owned stocks in. They created the homeless person boom. People that need help turn to drugs on the street, they can’t help themselves.
Involuntary treatment is needed to help people, the good thing about helping people is that eventually they will be released after they beat their addictions. For those with mental health problems that are so dire that they can’t be released, then they shouldn’t be on the streets to begin with.
“What about freedom! Your taking away their freedoms!”
If someone tries to kill themselves, do you just hand them the gun? If someone wants to jump off a building do you just go. “Alright, but try not to land on someone.”
If someone wants to set fire to their own home they own, would you allow them to do it? No, you would stop them. But then why? It’s their home, they own it so they should burn it. Freedom right?
As for his stance on the “safe injection sites” The idea only words if drugs are legalized and regulated. If you give out free drugs obviously the people on those drugs will take them. But that doesn’t get them off it. They’ll just keep buying illegal drugs.
If you had a store that was regulated and legal that sold cocaine so it was clean and cost money then you wouldn’t need the safe drug supply. However that’s a step too far at the moment.
So you have this weird middle ground. Where drugs are still technically illegal, which means most of the supply for purchase is cut with chemicals that kill people. The only clean supply is from some sites that give it away for free so people don’t even try to get clean.
It would be like making cigarettes free. It would increase the use, however making them stupid expensive with the sin tax has brought back the cigarette black market in Canada that’s worth billions today because 1 pack of smokes is 20$.
Anyone who opposes this is probably so far removed from the realities of drug addiction. I invite these people to spend a month living next to an addiction center, or take public transit to their downtown job for a little while.
There are people so deep into addiction that they aren’t even living on the same planet anymore. They can’t think rationally, and they are a danger to themselves and others. They will never just wake up one day and say “this isn’t healthy anymore, I quit!”
Allowing these people to continue killing themselves and cause chaos all around them isn’t a solution.
Cities have tried decriminalization of possession. Then they tried safe consumption sites. Then the provinces (a few) decided that that was dehumanizing and so they could consume wherever they wanted.
None of this has halted or decreased the rate of consumption, only OD cases. And the safe injection sites are safe only for the users: the neighborhoods they’re in are exposed to higher levels of violence than before the sites were put there. Innocent bystanders were thrown into violent settings because the addict needed a fix.
If the soft approach hasn’t worked, and has arguably made things worse, it’s time for the hard approach. I, for one, am in favour of mandatory rehabilitation. Come on in to a safe site, get one last fix safely, then off to treatment.
Doesn’t work. Proven many times over. Something like 56% of users who went through mandatory rehab re-use within a month of release.
Unless someone wants to quit, they won’t quit. We already don’t have enough resources available for the people who *want* to escape alcoholism and other drug use, and i’d much rather invest tax dollars into resources for those people first.
Compulsary treatment has been shown time and time again not to be effective.
[https://cdpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The_effectiveness_of_compulsory_drug_treatment-one-pager.pdf](https://cdpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The_effectiveness_of_compulsory_drug_treatment-one-pager.pdf)
• Although the scientifc literature evaluating compulsory treatment is limited, the majority of studies (78%) failed to detect any signifcant positive impacts on drug use or recidivism compared with non-compulsory approaches. Two of the included studies observed negative impacts on recidivism compared with control arms.
If you toddler doesn’t want to go to school because he doesn’t feel like it, would you make him go or just cave in 🤔
If they become a danger to themselves or others
People who are voluntarily wanting treatment are having trouble getting it so how exactly are we going to do involuntary treatment when we can’t even do the voluntary one right?
What’s there not to support.
“involuntary addiction treatment” means incarceration.
So the headline should be “Poilievre says he supports incarcerating minors for drug abuse”.
The 2 questions any good journalist should ask him at the next opportunity:
1: Who decides which drug abusing minors get incarcerated? The Parents? The Police? An involuntary addiction treatment panel of judges? How will safeguards be put in place to make sure the ones spared incarceration don’t skew rich and/or white?
2: How does he plan to fund thousands or tens of thousands of new “involuntary addiction treatment” cells and the thousands of “involuntary addiction treatment” wardens and medics that will be required to do so. And will any of these projects have ground broken on them within the 4 years of his presumptive electoral victory?
3: Will he be making major changes to the criminal code and/or charter (and what are those changes?), or will he just start jailing kids and deal with the legality later?
And he’s gonna fund that treatment too amirite??
If not this is another hot fart in an elevator that his supporters are going to insist we need to praise after earnest whiffing.
Kingsman: Golden Circle becoming more and more prophetic with each passing day.
Wasn’t this the guy prattling on about making Canadians the freest people in the world or something?
Forced treatment = free now does it?
Hmmm…
Tell me you know nothing about addiction treatment without telling me you know nothing about addiction treatment.
That’s great, but who’s paying for it? I have no problem with my taxes going towards it, personally, but this seems counter to the PCs/provincial Cons (UCP) and their bases MO.
You can’t cut healthcare spending and dump a bunch of addicts on the healthcare system involuntarily at the same time.
Other countries have figured out better strategies and in the west we are still bashing our heads against the wall.
Pointless and even harmful if it is not accompanied with support systems for life after treatment. And we know how much conservatives believe in support systems so I am very skeptical of such ideas. I don’t believe there’s much evidence at all that involuntary treatment is even effective in the first place, so it just becomes another form of incarnation and punishment. And what standards and thresholds will be used to determine who gets such treatment forced on them? Do we have the capacity to even think about such treatments? Many questions that need answers before we can jump to such actions.
theres teenagers doing fentanyl in young and dundas square every weekend. start there Pierre because the cops dont care.