this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
117 points (98.3% liked)

Canada

7664 readers
817 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter
mp3
117
B.C. becomes first province to provide universal coverage for opioid treatments (www.thestar.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by ininewcrow to c/canada
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A better option to treating the opioid crisis is to help those in need now ... rather than waiting to see how their suffering will affect them and society as a whole.

The costs are always the same ... either be a conservative and villainize these people and let them become a burden on society and costs go towards police, security, emergency health care, judicial and negative social effects from their destroyed lives

.... or ...

Be more socially minded and spend the funds on helping these people now and prevent them from spiralling out of control and negatively affecting their lives further or the lives of others.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ininewcrow 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The problem always seems to be that government and those in power always view these issues from an economic and financial perspective ... rather than as a humanitarian issue that just requires us to take care of one another.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Ironically though, almost every time the humanitarian approach is more economical.

It's more expensive to police people than to help them. It's more expensive to clean up around a homeless camp and deal with all the fallout than it is to house them. It's more expensive to handle the repercussions of ignoring everyone's health than to treat them.

Most of the time, when you cut to the quick of why people don't want to fund something like OAT, you tend to get a response that basically boils down to wanting bad behaviour to be punished.

[–] enragedchowder 6 points 2 years ago

Exactly, I WISH the government would view these issues from an economic perspective, because that would mean actually helping these people and integrating them back into society

[–] someguy3 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You forgot the most obvious that homeless drug addicted people are not employed and paying taxes. It's a double whammy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Oh I didn't forget. It's just that I could write forever and I have to draw the line somewhere.

[–] heyheyitsbrent 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, and seemingly only looking as far ahead as the next election, not what is best for society in the next 20 years.

[–] ininewcrow 1 points 2 years ago

We simultaneously want everything right now with no waiting ... and believe that we will also live forever.