25959 replies to this topic

[Dietrich]

I smell a poverty pimp...

[JoshRH]

It's sort of a which came first, "the chicken or the egg" scenario. Did abusing drugs cause the mental illness, or did the onset of a mental illness lead someone to abuse drugs? There is a world of difference.

There's a lot of gray area in between too. For example, drug use can accelerate a genetic predisposition to mental illness. 

 

I just don't understand the lack of compassion for people who end up mentally unwell as a result of drug abuse. It's not as though that was there plan, or they wanted it to happen. We take care of people who are unable to work due to all sorts of medical ailments brought on by decisions that they made, so why the special lack of empathy when drugs are involved?

[On the Level]

People lack empathy because of oversimplification. The term "Homeless", while well meaning, is very destructive.

By magically making the issue only about residential affordability/availability, you're setting up society with a feel good message. We then get discouraged or outraged when those that are on the street don't accept the goodwill being offered and then start making unrealistic demands.

Some of the street population can be offered housing, but other portions can't or won't accept it. We have just witnessed this with many at tent city that felt they were not homeless and refused to leave. Even with recent events, many will in society will ignore the facts and focus back at the homeless narrative. It's an unhelpful cycle.

[Awaiting Juno]

Josh -

There's an unhealthy divide that's developing.  Here's the problem, those paying taxes are seeing *millions* of dollars thrown at a population that has no intent of actually contributing towards society, while at the same time seeing public education systems scraping by, waits to access health restoring procedures stretching into months and years, and even relatively minor needs (epipens, other pharmaceuticals) going unmet.  As a result - it appears that the only way to extract benefits from the system is to completely opt out of contributing to it.  According to the math - if we can *save* $44k per person with a housing first strategy, we must be spending at least $65k to $70k per year on those same people in the absence of a housing first strategy.  Imagine getting a $350k public payout every 5 years and not having to contribute one thin dime.  Meanwhile, your middle class person earning $100k per year is paying at least $35k a year in taxes, and can't even get an epipen or a $15k surgery if and when they need it - need an MRI and want it in a timely way? Expect to pay out of pocket. Meanwhile, that same person has their views completely dismissed as being "lay-people" even though many have had far more first hand experience with the "difficult to house" or "impossible to house" than the person who has just dismissed them.  In many circumstances the money that is being thrown at the issue is a black hole of enablement cloaked in the costume of "harm reduction".  No one would begrudge investing in programs that give people a hand up - that truly bail out those who fall on hard times.  What is begrudged is the misguided notion that the answer to the problem is to just provide hand-outs to those who refuse to contribute to their own well being.

 

If you want to win people over to your utopia - you might be well served to get your head out of the ivory tower.  Take in an addict.  Try to give them what you view is needed to "get them on the right track".  And watch as that person selfishly prioritizes their addiction over everything and anything else and continually make astoundingly awful choices even when better choices are apparently.  Watch as they take all that they can, and then ask for more.  Watch as they destroy any thread of compassion you may have once had for people in their plight - as it dawns on you that for far too many, they were the architects of their own fate.  Maybe talk to the parents of some of the people you seem to think are worthy of the sacrifice being asked - talk to their brothers, their sisters.  Their sons and their daughters.  Then think about whether or not depriving all of the other things (healthcare, education, economic development) including the things that might well be a hand-up when needed is really worth it.  Perhaps even talk to a few reformed addicts - and ask them what made them change.  I very much so doubt that any of them changed while being enabled in their behaviour.  For many, it was the stark reality that they would die if they continued on the path they are on.  

 

Lastly, it would be very good to quit confusing taxes with charity.   

[JoshRH]

Josh -

There's an unhealthy divide that's developing.  Here's the problem, those paying taxes are seeing *millions* of dollars thrown at a population that has no intent of actually contributing towards society, while at the same time seeing public education systems scraping by, waits to access health restoring procedures stretching into months and years, and even relatively minor needs (epipens, other pharmaceuticals) going unmet.  As a result - it appears that the only way to extract benefits from the system is to completely opt out of contributing to it.  According to the math - if we can *save* $44k per person with a housing first strategy, we must be spending at least $65k to $70k per year on those same people in the absence of a housing first strategy.  Imagine getting a $350k public payout every 5 years and not having to contribute one thin dime.  Meanwhile, your middle class person earning $100k per year is paying at least $35k a year in taxes, and can't even get an epipen or a $15k surgery if and when they need it - need an MRI and want it in a timely way? Expect to pay out of pocket. Meanwhile, that same person has their views completely dismissed as being "lay-people" even though many have had far more first hand experience with the "difficult to house" or "impossible to house" than the person who has just dismissed them.  In many circumstances the money that is being thrown at the issue is a black hole of enablement cloaked in the costume of "harm reduction".  No one would begrudge investing in programs that give people a hand up - that truly bail out those who fall on hard times.  What is begrudged is the misguided notion that the answer to the problem is to just provide hand-outs to those who refuse to contribute to their own well being.

 

If you want to win people over to your utopia - you might be well served to get your head out of the ivory tower.  Take in an addict.  Try to give them what you view is needed to "get them on the right track".  And watch as that person selfishly prioritizes their addiction over everything and anything else and continually make astoundingly awful choices even when better choices are apparently.  Watch as they take all that they can, and then ask for more.  Watch as they destroy any thread of compassion you may have once had for people in their plight - as it dawns on you that for far too many, they were the architects of their own fate.  Maybe talk to the parents of some of the people you seem to think are worthy of the sacrifice being asked - talk to their brothers, their sisters.  Their sons and their daughters.  Then think about whether or not depriving all of the other things (healthcare, education, economic development) including the things that might well be a hand-up when needed is really worth it.  Perhaps even talk to a few reformed addicts - and ask them what made them change.  I very much so doubt that any of them changed while being enabled in their behaviour.  For many, it was the stark reality that they would die if they continued on the path they are on.  

 

Lastly, it would be very good to quit confusing taxes with charity.   

 

I'm sorry, but epipens? That's not even a Canadian problem, you're getting scared by American problems. 

Your speech was nice, but bankers in suits and politicians beholden to corporations are why we have long medical wait times for elective procedures, it's not because of mentally unwell drug addicts. And the poor middle-class people that you lament over are costing the healthcare system so many billions of dollars in self-inflicted cardiovascular disease, to the point where they become heart-attack and stroke victims unable to work, requiring the full support and care of society. Unfortunately, thanks to years of failed drug policy, we still have a huge segment of the population that believe harming yourself with a needle deserves judgement, but harming yourself with a fork or spoon does not. 

 

And again, first-hand experience interacting with street people does not elevate one above layperson status when discussing mental health or homelessness. 

 

lay·per·son

ˈlāˌpərs(ə)n/

noun

• a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.

[Love the rock]

Everything in moderation, right? 
 
Tobacco use disorder is a real thing, with real criteria. If you're curious, here's a link: https://www.porticon...sment-diagnosis
 
So yes, if you try crack, and then you can't stop using it, to the point that it ruins your life and you can't hold down a job or afford shelter, that's a mental disorder. I'm not sure why that isn't obvious?

I agree it is a mental disorder but many people with mental disorders are productive members of society
Not all alcoholics drink no all addicts do drugs
They fight their way out of that paper bag and if and when they relapse they get back on their feet and fight again as soon as possible.

[Nparker]

...What is begrudged is the misguided notion that the answer to the problem is to just provide hand-outs to those who refuse to contribute to their own well being...

This.

[Love the rock]

I'm sorry, but epipens? That's not even a Canadian problem, you're getting scared by American problems.
Your speech was nice, but bankers in suits and politicians beholden to corporations are why we have long medical wait times for elective procedures, it's not because of mentally unwell drug addicts. And the poor middle-class people that you lament over are costing the healthcare system so many billions of dollars in self-inflicted cardiovascular disease, to the point where they become heart-attack and stroke victims unable to work, requiring the full support and care of society. Unfortunately, thanks to years of failed drug policy, we still have a huge segment of the population that believe harming yourself with a needle deserves judgement, but harming yourself with a fork or spoon does not.

And again, first-hand experience interacting with street people does not elevate one above layperson status when discussing mental health or homelessness.

lay·per·son

ˈlāˌpərs(ə)n/

noun



[LIST][*]


a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.


[/*]
[/LIST

Ivory Tower Educated professional someone who thinks you can ONLY have "specialized knowledge "in a particular subject through the university education system.

Edited by Love the rock, 01 September 2016 - 11:43 AM.

[VicHockeyFan]

So Don Evans of Our Place was a former cocaine addict.  Was he, or is he mentally ill?

 

Evans escaped by excelling at school and working hard. He had a paper route and odd jobs, even selling nail polish door-to-door. In Grade 12, he worked full time and went to school. By 22, he had made and lost his first million. He owned a body shop, gas station, tire shop, car wash, but went broke trying to keep two restaurants afloat.

At 26, he became the single father of a three-year-old girl after a relationship ended. In 1990, he moved to Vancouver — “for love” — and became a successful stockbroker with a waterfront home, a couple of Jaguars and a powerboat.

Evans loved the fast pace and the intensity of his work. But cocaine was part of the lifestyle, and addiction almost destroyed him.

“It took everything from me — except my daughter.”

 

In 1998, the 36-year-old enrolled his daughter in private school and went into recovery.

 

- See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.F542JZC9.dpuf

[Greg]

One sign of an "ivory tower" perspective is the willingness to denigrate the opinions of those actually footing the bills (taxpayers in this case) as laypersons who aren't educated enough to have an opinion. You don't see that as often out in the real world. If a developer, or a biotech executive, or a restaurateur decides to dismiss the opinions of their investors or shareholders as "uninformed laypersons" the story ends with their unemployment, rather than their self-absorbed smugness.

If you want to justify taking money from one group of people (taxpayers) and giving it to another (homeless or mentally ill) you should make convincing arguments to articulate the benefit to the funders. Use your "special knowledge" to educate rather than dismiss. But remember, some of those laypersons actually have genuine skills in things such as measuring the objective outcome of investments, so you need to actually demonstrate benefit, you can't get by with "white papers and hand waving."

[Awaiting Juno]

Josh - your problem is that you are so eager to dismiss others.  It's not about whether or not they are or are not, lay-people, it's about whether or not their opinion still holds some merit.  You seem content to accuse those here of dismissing the "homeless" - yet are at the same time very content to be dismissive of the very people you are expecting to pay for the programs to serve that same population.  That is what is repugnant.

 

Further, there's more than a few "experts" out there, who have all the credentials in the world, and still, lack the grounding to actually understand the problems with which they are trying to contend.  I'd argue, that really, the mark of a professional skilled in their field is the willingness to accept what they do not know, the possibility that they could be wrong in their view.

[Mike K.]

I just don't understand the lack of compassion for people who end up mentally unwell as a result of drug abuse.

 

Oh there's plenty of compassion for the downtrodden, Josh, but only a fool believes that enabling someone to continue on unabated with a severely destructive lifestyle, and one that often harms other individuals and the community at-large, is compassion.

 

Victoria's laissez faire attitude towards hardcore drug use is anything but compassion.

[JoshRH]

I'm sorry that the laypeople are upset that the social scientists, researchers, doctors, and medical community at large disagree with your ideological standpoints, but trying to throw your weight around as a taxpayer is absolutely silly. I pay a lot of taxes too, but I do so with the understanding that our elected leaders will use research and best-practices in guiding the policy that will see those tax dollars spent. 

[sdwright.vic]

^ {yawn} I could almost swear Ben Issit was in this forum now.

Edited by sdwright.vic, 01 September 2016 - 12:10 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

I pay a lot of taxes too, but I do so with the understanding that our elected leaders will use research and best-practices in guiding the policy that will see those tax dollars spent. 

 

We already went over that.  You make a living directly from our taxes.  We give you X amount, you give 40% back in taxes.    Even a layperson can see you don't generate money in the economy.

[VicPushedOver]

Cherry picking report snippets to reinforce you’re belief, is NOT science. In fact, it’s the opposite of science. I am not in the mental health profession, but I can see how statistics can be twisted to obfuscate the truth, and it is quite easy to spot the sematic manipulation in the report you quoted.

The mental illness numbers are high because the author states that drug addiction is a mental illness.

 

I wonder if the considers other addictive behaviour mental illness, drinkers, smokers, those who drink 5 cups of coffee a day, prescription drug users, gamblers, persons addicted to participating  on online forums, etc.

 

There's a difference between an illness and a personality disorder.

[Mike K.]

Scientists argue that marijuana use among youth is damaging to the brain and causes mental health complications later in life.

 

Meanwhile the City of Victoria, one of only a tiny handful of jurisdictions in the world, is openly supporting the existence and proliferation of unregulated marijuana dispensaries that are operating to push a product in volumes as large as possible to as many recipients as possible.

 

Mental health problems, therefore, are being encouraged by local government, it would seem, who then turn around and tell their tax payers that mental health problems are an epidemic and lead to homelessness.

[Greg]

I'm sorry that the laypeople are upset that the social scientists, researchers, doctors, and medical community at large disagree with your ideological standpoints, but trying to throw your weight around as a taxpayer is absolutely silly. I pay a lot of taxes too, but I do so with the understanding that our elected leaders will use research and best-practices in guiding the policy that will see those tax dollars spent.

Your working definition of layperson seems to be "someone who disagrees with me". Your assumption that laypeople have ideological standpoints, but that experts do not is weak, but your assertion that politicians rely only on data-driven research and not their own ideological perspective is just laughable.

[Awaiting Juno]

I have a Master's Degree in a Social Science - therefore my opinion must carry some wait.  Oh wait, without considering the diverse backgrounds of those in this forum you have decided to just dismiss all of them.  Further, having worked with data - there's a big difference between what the data says and understanding why something is actually happening.  Don't be blind to what is happening, to what people are saying is happening, because that is what gives depth to the data being observed - that is what enables a person to either validate or question the data.  Sometimes when what the data has to say, and what people have to say don't coincide, there are good reasons for that and often its a case of "bad data".

[Mike K.]

Funny, Juno, you just jogged my memory.

 

One of the few things ( ) I remember from my university education (in the medical field, no less) is this:

 

Data /= wisdom. Data doesn't even equal information.

 

What we decipher from data depends entirely on who is tasked with the deciphering, who pays their bills, and what outcome they want to achieve.