Mining more salt...

Mike Riemer

thumbs-up 37
46 thumbs-down
Ex-addict says abstinence treatment works, BC's illicit drug strategy offers 'zero incentive' to quit
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
Free drug testing should be available to everyone in the province so that they can choose what drugs they want to use. That would "weed out" the suppliers of the most deadly mixtures, and save lives.
20
11
4(years)+2(years)=6(years). So the City might have supported a 2 year extension of the same use? Did anyone consider this solution to not violate the City's own procedures? I am available as a free "math" consultant for these complex calculations. If the City procedures require consultants to be "paid", I will donate my fee to any recovery house that requires abstinence.
5
3
Recognizing "DRIPA" as "law" does not cause the current indecisive economic future of BC. Politics and the policy of not making meaningful treaties in a reasonable time is to blame. Treaties were "promised" and must be made. Our government, or the next, could remove the confusion over "Private land ownership" by acknowledging that regardless of the Court appeal decision, private land owners will retain ownership. If another "group" is deemed the "owner", by our Courts, the government should negotiate/calculate the "compensation" owed. Rather than waiting for our costly and slow legal system to rule, potential investors would realize that it is safe to buy into projects in BC. Government can remove the barriers to investment that "appears" to exist.
5
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
5
Bitumen(undiluted) by rail to the west coast is cheaper and safer than Dilbit and a "pipeline". Where are the proposals for Refineries in northern Alberta, which could be built as quickly as a pipeline and a port.
2
2
This seems a fair and just end to the encampment. There will still be "homeless" persons overnighting in various parks and public spaces but if the morning curfew is enforced it should not cause a lot of problems. Illegal activities still need enforcement but that has always been true. It would be unreasonable, for instance, to require homeless persons to travel long distances to access the specified "overnight" shelter site.
4
4
I have not heard any discussion involving the conflict between wildlife and "free roaming" dogs. It would be great if we could have a wildlife viewing park-like environment with off-leash dogs that are trained to ignore "their own instinct to chase moose, deer, bears ,etc.. That is not currently possible. It is not logical to have to enforce wildlife laws by mailing penalty fine notices to dog owners in an off-leash area. Will we be hiring more Bylaw Officers to enforce ridiculous newly created mistakes like the City did when it imposed monetary fines on homeless(no income) residents, all the while knowing there was no possibility of collecting fees owed? I have always been in favour of employing enough Bylaw Service employees so we can enforce the currently ignored rules, but that should happen before the City creates new rules that cannot be enforced due to budget constraints.
1
1
If we give up on clean electricity, Alberta could burn their" bitumen" to produce power. A transmission line is preferable to a pipeline.
4
3
The group should consider working together to find funding for a mobile drug testing lab to provide free testing of drug samples for anyone. If "addicts " had enough information to choose the "supplier" of less lethal mixes, the illicit market would regulate itself to some degree. This would be far superior to the notion of government regulation of currently "illegal drugs" which only addicts and advocates believe is possible.
2
1
Some facts that aren't apparent to everyone. The encampment was only protected by the Court because the City abused their authority in trying to removing structures and personal items. The City is responsible for allowing the encampment to grow in the first place. High rents and homelessness is the cause of persons needing to shelter somewhere, not prescribed medications(free drugs). Overnight "sheltering" is not "camping" and is allowed in public parks and spaces by a Court decision. The City has had plenty of time to arrange plans so that the encampment wouldn't be needed by winter.
2
3
Are we going to use the bike lanes to store snow again this year. Advise drivers that it is not the cyclist's fault that they ride in the traffic lane. Let's also advise residents that they cannot have an off leash area and a wildlife viewing area together. They will need to chose one.
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
The City has no reason to allow continued violations of the bylaw that doesn't allow the storage of "rubbish" on residential properties. In 2010 BC Supreme Court decided that any items stored for more than 9 months, unused and unmoved, can be considered rubbish. I lost my home because of this "error" but it set a precedent that the City is well aware of. They spent in excess of $50,000 of tax dollars to "win" this ruling. Enforce the "rule" on someone else, or admit the error. A lot of christmas decorations are "rubbish" by definition, and are in violation of the "storage of rubbish" bylaw.
1
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
1
I agree that the responsibility belongs with the government. They should have lived up to the promise to negotiate treaty's long ago. The courts decide based on truth and proven facts. They will be repeating the fact that many indigenous groups have never "ceded" their right to land, and have use/ownership rights. The government will need to negotiate tax dollars to compensate first nations on land that was wrongly given/sold to others.
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
1
Pipelines are a huge cost and a huge gamble for the same reasons you noted. Refineries would add value and decrease the volumes transported by pipeline.
PrinceGeorgeCitizen
1
The best and cheapest thing that BC can do to give addicts a chance to live is to offer free drug testing everywhere in the province. When the addicts know what is in their "purchase", they can choose to change "suppliers" if it is not a safe combination of drugs, or if it contains lethal amounts of fentynal or other. This is a good way to "out" the suppliers of lethal drugs, and would "self regulate" the illegal supply.
1
Overnight "sheltering", not camping, is a more appropriate term. Arrive at or after 7 PM with your tent and bedding, leave by 9 AM. Suggestions; 1) All "overnighters" should be ID'd and names shared with the provincial Ministry to assure they are not claiming "Shelter Allowance" fraudulently. You cannot claim this allowance without proving shelter costs(receipts for rental, etc.). 2) Toilet facilities must be provided(or rolls of TP should be available in all nearby treed areas), Shower facilities should be considered. 3) Parking for those that live in their vehicles should be considered.
The facilities being suggested are going to take a long time. Free drug testing can be available quicker and cheaper than the long-term fixes that are needed. More addicts will live long enough to receive treatment and rehabilitation if they have a way to know what they are buying. By choosing non-lethal illegal drugs the sellers of the more "toxic" supply would lose their "customers". That would "self regulate" the supply of illicit drugs faster than the border security or the police and courts.
If this was a case of "hoarding" the Court should require a Psychiatric assessment before deciding the case because it is now considered an "illness".
The article states that more than 16 months from now, 51 additional units of housing will be available for support of persons who are now homeless, or are at risk of becoming homeless. Can I, as a person with disabilities for 36 years, currently too old to be disabled, apply now for a unit, knowing I will be homeless by that time? I am willing to start an addictive lifestyle if necessary to meet the proposed criteria, although my psychiatric record suggests I should avoid most drugs. When does the waiting list of potential "clients" start, and how do I apply?
Overnight sheltering in public places is essentially a "legal right" in BC at this time. Designating a "specific" site is the City's way to control where it will happen. If anyone knows of a better site, please advise the City.
I hope that the current residents of the shelter get first chance at the new "homes". Then there is more room at the shelters for the "campers. The persons that require "no rules" should remain at the flats in the donated "tiny homes".
Mining more salt...