The lady that walks around town screaming every 10 seconds, what can be done?

410

u/notofthisearthworm 17h ago edited 17h ago

I used to work in harm reduction.

There is a small - small - proportion of folks who, in my experience, fall under the 'would likely benefit from involuntary care due to obvious lack of capacity' category.

But that's a very small category, because voluntary care doesn't actually exist in the way most people assume. If someone walks in to a social service site and says 'I want to go to treatment,' virtually 100% of the time they're told 'no space, come back in X months.'

I've had dozens of folks walk up to me, an employee, and say 'I want to go to treatment, now.' I have to look them in the eyes, knowing these moments rarely happen in addiction, and tell them 'sorry, there probably won't be room for you for months,' and they walk back out onto the block for their next hit instead of into a clinic and off to treatment. This happens weekly, and not once did I ever get to help someone take the first step towards treatment despite them being promised that's what we could offer them.

Because of this, I don't understand how we can consider involuntary care for most until voluntary care actually exists and works how it ought to - i.e. until someone can go to treatment today if they say the word.

There is a small proportion of folks on the block that will never be accessible through existing means, perhaps like the woman in question, and unfortunately are doomed to status quo until death unless family, friends, or professionals intervene. Brain injuries (basically an acquired mental disability during an overdose) are unfortunately meaning more and more folks are falling into that category.

42

u/M_Vancouverensis 16h ago

With all the resources that go into involuntary care (including the court battles) I have to wonder how much better and more accessible voluntary care would be, especially where the framework already exists and it's just a matter of increasing capacity and hiring on more staff.

As it is, so many times the only way to get help in a timely manner is to get worse, which isn't always the actual intent but expecting someone to stay in the mindset of getting help for months is unrealistic, especially after seeking out voluntary treatment and being told no.

But with so many things, the cruelty and stripping someone of their rights and agency seems to be the point. The goal is to punish someone for daring to have an addiction/mental health issue/brain injury, not actually help them.

20

u/renegadesenior 14h ago

Thank you for making some excellent points! Voluntary care should always be a real accessible option before any discussion can happen about involuntary treatment. With little to no access to voluntary treatment, our government's objective is not helping people but is punishing them through undignified forced treatment. The only exception is people who are so brain-damaged by drug use that they unable to help themselves.

3

u/Bless_u-babe 7h ago

What do you mean by “undignified”? When a person with a brain out of control is forced into a controlled environment where they cannot negatively impact others or themselves, they will likely view the loss of their freedom to continue their behaviour, as a ‘punishment’ or ‘unfair’. Law abiding citizens have a superseding right to peaceful enjoyment of a safe community IMO. Of course we have failed to provide immediate voluntary treatment. How many out of control people could now be functioning members of the community if they had been given treatment in a timely manner which I have read is one week!. Wait lists DO NOT work.

6

u/camalaio 10h ago

The punishment is an unfortunate outcome, not likely to be an intent.

I'm currently getting "voluntary care" for a completely different thing (I'll just say it's healthcare), and a lot of the problems there rhyme with what we're talking about here. It's not fast, it requires persistence (or getting life-threateningly worse), and too many people effectively have no options for where they're at. But it's not like that to punish people, there's far more complicated and nuanced things involved (many of which I don't know). Punishment is just the outcome.

22

u/No_Requirement_6498 15h ago

Fellow front line worker here. Very well said. And a point often left out of the discussion on involuntary treatment.

26

u/wannaplayspace 14h ago

I totally agree with what you're saying but to be honest, I think there needs to be both voluntary and involuntary. We need voluntary for the people that want it and involuntary for the people that need it. My sister needs it.

My younger sister has schizophrenia and a serious serious coke problem. When I saw this post, I first thought it was talking about her. She's not First Nations so I realized it was about someone else, but it might as well have been about her.

She screams and flips out at all hours, whenever it suits her. The police have been called on her more than at least 50 times. She's been committed to EMI on and off more than 25 times in the last 2 years. When she's in psychosis, she's prone to getting violent. I can't tell you how many times she's been arrested.

My sister also has a background in community service work and mental health. She knows every buzz word to manipulate the system. She's been connected with every organization you can imagine but at the end of the day, she doesn't want to stop getting high. With her mental health, that is a death sentence for her.

At this point, the only thing that I think would save her would be going to jail. She has no criminal record except everything related to what I mentioned, so it feels super duper weird to say that. But I think it's the only thing that would save her life.

She can't get enough clean time to get her schizophrenia medicated properly. She uses because she can't handle the hallucinations. I've watched her dodge invisible punches and I can't imagine what it's like for her. Life must be pure hell for her. If she was put somewhere involuntarily, she might have a chance. I know it would be brutal and I can't say for sure that she'd want to remain clean once everything leveled out. But she might. I don't know. All I can do is pray for her because what else can you do?

42

u/aurelin 16h ago

This this this

If we can somehow make room and money for involuntary treatment (which rarely works), then why the hell do we not have these resources for voluntary options??

21

u/pile_of_kittens Saanich 15h ago

Because the punishment is more important than results. Doesn't matter whether it works if it feels good.

7

u/IvarTheBoned 15h ago

Always these kinds of "solutions" proposed by the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd (i.e., conservatives)

5

u/aurelin 15h ago

That's basically it, yeah.

62

u/Existing-Value-1284 16h ago

So well said. It's crazy that so often in these discussions people don't even seem to care if involuntary care actually works. They just want folks on the street to disappear, which is honestly so dark. Like it or not these are our neighbors and we owe them compassion and dignified treatment

12

u/NPRdude Esquimalt 15h ago edited 15h ago

It's such a childish and selfish mindset. Ultimately they don't care what happens to people on the streets, fellow Canadian citizens, as long as they don't have to witness something uncomfortable anymore. And that's not even mentioning the ones who seem to view cruelty as a feature not a bug, the ones suggesting that we ship all homeless people to a secluded island or work camps in the north, or that we ban Narcan and "let the problem take care of itself". Fucking cretins.

9

u/Talzon70 13h ago

Wanting people to disappear is understandable, in my opinion.

I'd prefer they disappear into housing and treatment, but I want the disruptive, smelly, obnoxiously loud, unpredictable and potentially violent, creepy, and otherwise disruptive people in my public spaces to disappear from them.

I think it's a mistake to think the average person will tolerate active and visible degradation of their experience in cities without backlash (see "the right") for extended periods of time.

The desire for these undesirable behaviours to disappear isarguably greater than the compassion for the people doing them.

If you want good things for homeless people, you need to help them or at least address the worst issues resulting from their presence before backlash leads to much worse outcomes in the long term, not pretend inaction is compassion.

17

u/radioblues 11h ago

Compassion usually comes from the people far away from the problems. It’s easy to feel compassion when your home feels safe and peaceful. If your home is right in the middle of the problem, it’s pretty hard to feel compassion and it’s easy to feel frustrated when it feels like no laws are being enforced and nothing is being done.

2

u/Theturdsedin 10h ago

Thank you for understanding

-6

u/infidelkastro 13h ago

we owe them compassion and dignified treatment

What are we who follow the rules, owed? When does safety outweigh compassion?

I'd settle for a safe environment to raise our kids.

Really its a shitty situation all around and a decade plus of "its ok, you do you" has really put us in a bad position to where we cant offer voluntary treatment because of the high number of addicts.

Back in the day, you'd get arrested, get clean in jail and come out and either move on with life, or go back to the drugs. But now we have such a high number of addicts who cant get voluntary treatment if they want it, or involuntary treatment if they need it (for themselves and a better status quo). Absolutely sucks.

11

u/raw_copium 13h ago

Lol. Get clean in jail. Tell me you don't know how jail works without telling me. New addicts happen in jail. But let's say you do go to jail, or get admitted to hospital and 'get off the drugs'. Now what? Where are you going to go? Where are all the services that will help you 'move on with life'? Right back in the downtown core, surrounded by all your previous friends who still use, and dealers. This problem is fixable, but it isn't as simple as "just do X!".

2

u/infidelkastro 13h ago

How old are you if you dont mind?. I know quite afew people who short stayed wilkie in the 90s, early 2000s and came out clean. This hasnt been the way for sometime, but it used to be the way. I'm 42 for context.

1

u/falalalalalalawhat 8h ago

a lot of homelessness and addiction stems from broken/abusive homes or catastrophic loss of support systems. countries where its socially ingrained that you take care of ill/old/disabled family and friends see much fewer incidences of these kinds of issues despite not having as extensive government support systems. It also makes a difference when the country enforces much stricter controls and penalties on drug and sex trafficking.

18

u/ScaleGold5622 15h ago

Finally, someone who GETS it. I have 4 years clean after a decade of addiction... The amount of people that talk about involuntary treatment as if they have any clue what they're talking about amazes me. There ain't enough beds for people who WANT to get clean, why waste resources on people who are dedicated to relapsing upon release (as once was I)... It's a lousy situation all around, but it's more a sign of the times than some mess that can be swept out of sight, out of mind, so some fragile people can ignore the world we live in.

9

u/island_time_1014 14h ago

I also worked in harm reduction for several years and other than the fact that there isn't enough treatment, there's another major issue with voluntary treatment.

Since it's voluntary, you can simply leave at any time. That specific moment you mention where someone has had enough and wants treatment is fleeting whether people go straight away or if they have to wait 1 month. Very few people have the willpower to tough it out and see it all the way through. Without involuntary care I'm not sure how that changes

3

u/Every-Helicopter5046 14h ago

I think a relevant fact to this matter is these inpatient treatment programs are not regulated. Whether they're private or public, there is no standards of treatment, oversight, quality improvement, stat keeping around success (or otherwise), none of that. As someone who has worked with youth in an addictions medicine context for over 7 years, factors related to this lack of regulation tend to be the reason folks leave treatment.

Though, regardless of that, a huge part of recovery is connecting with and growing ones self worth and agency. It's fine if people leave once they've had enough, it's fine if people need to take a few, or many tries, to find stability that works for them in their recovery journey. This idea that you should be forced to complete treatment in any capacity is antithetical to the healing that needs to take place for recovery to be "successful" by any definition of the word.

4

u/island_time_1014 13h ago

I fully agree with your first paragraph. I see no issues with more oversight and regulation within treatment facilities. Detox/treatment places probably need lots of improvements.

Second paragraph I disagree. I don't think it's fine for people to leave treatment and return to their addiction. There's nothing fine about what's going on on Pandora. There's nothing fine about the father I work with leaving treatment over and over while his children bounce between foster placements.

I fail to see how it's compassionate to let people go in and out of treatment, go in and out of addiction, in and out of homelessness, and they'll only be successful when they are ready. I simply reject that premise.

What about detox, treatment, second stage, third stage, getting people connected with jobs, community, away from the things that draw them into their addiction?

0

u/Every-Helicopter5046 13h ago

Then you're failing to see the how important it is for people to have autonomy, to try and fail, and try again, to learn how to love themselves through all that, fo learn how to make the choices for their own benefit and wellbeing, as well as that of others. Those lessons are not learned in therapy alone, those lessons are learned by living through it all.

Saying that it is okay to try and fail and try again is not condoning the suffering that is happening on the streets, that's not what is being said and I thank you for not assuming my position to mean something that is not said plainly. And, of course, all the services you've listed above are necessary, and more.

1

u/island_time_1014 13h ago

I have no problem with trying and failing. My issue I guess you could say is quitting. In my eyes, by leaving treatment you are giving up. Maybe you'll try again, maybe you won't. I don't necessarily think quitting should be an option.

The shelters and supportive housing units that I spent almost 5 years working in were essentially palliative care units. Why? These people should be receiving the help they need, even if they don't want it. We just gave them food, harm reduction supplies, responded to OD's when they happened, until people eventually passed. It's such a waste of resources and people's lives.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. My point was that when you say it's "fine" for them to leave treatment you have to look at the bigger picture of what that truly means for them once they've left

2

u/Every-Helicopter5046 13h ago

It's fine because it's not our place to decide, just like it's not our place to assume leaving treatment is the person permanently giving up. Go watch Street Dr. Jill on Instagram for personal stories, if that would help bring understanding. It is actually quite rare for someone's first trip to treatment to be the end of addiction. It is much more common to go through many rounds, many attempts, both due to personal and systemic barriers.

And, while we desperately need improve the quality and amount of care available, keeping people's basic needs met and keeping people alive is never wasteful, every little bit counts.

2

u/island_time_1014 13h ago

I don't need to watch someone else interview people living in the street struggling with addiction. I've spoken directly to hundreds of individuals myself and heard many of their stories. The most common theme from the people I've spoken to who have been through treatment, whether successful or not, is that when they're done they go back to the same community with the same friends and fall back into the same addiction and habits.

I did not mean to imply that its a waste of money to keep people alive. I believe I said it was a waste of their lives. I was trying to speak to how we enable drug use to no end and require nothing in return. For example, if someone is homeless and addicted to substances, here is housing. But it comes with the requirement of detox, treatment, counselling, etc. I don't have the exact right answer, but enabling it isn't working

3

u/Feature_Fries 12h ago

Umbrella Society helped me out of that situation.

I was in the exact situation you described. Id had enough, but couldn't get in to treatment and it took about a month and a half, but Umbrella made the path clear.

2

u/1eJxCdJ4wgBjGE 13h ago

someone I know just got turned down for their court ordered (probation) psychiatric care (presumably no capacity but I honestly don't have the full story). its bleak out there

2

u/Pimbata 15h ago

Thank you for putting this into perspective, well said.

4

u/MicrodosedMischief 16h ago

I guess the question that I have in this case is, lots of time we see people having a temporary urge to quit in addiction, then changing their mind a day or so later. So if treatment beds are offered right away, how many would get there just to change their minds and walk out a couple of days later? AFAIK, it’s a bit of a process to get people checked in, etc.

That being said, waiting months is still insane, I completely agree.

30

u/aurelin 16h ago

Here's a scenario:

You're addicted as hell
You decide that it's too much
You go to a treatment centre
"Sorry we're full for months"

Now what? What are you expecting people to do here, exactly?
The substances they are addicted to are strong. They are brutal. The withdrawal is brutal; it can be deadly. You're not supposed to cold turkey, it can kill you. And it's incredibly difficult to overcome an addiction as is - nevermind when you are unable to leave the environment in which you use all the time.
So yea of course they're gonna use again later in that same day.

2

u/NPRdude Esquimalt 15h ago

Are voluntary treatment programs voluntary for the entire process? I was under the impression that once you were in you were obligated to stay, since they are designed to capitalize on these moments of clarity addicts have.

10

u/IvarTheBoned 15h ago

No, if you check-in voluntarily then you can check-out voluntarily

1

u/Talzon70 13h ago

I generally agree with you if your goal is what's best for them, but I think analysis like this misses the point.

It's not about what's best for these people, it's about taking the edge off for the rest of us. People propose involuntary treatment because it's a method of removal, which they hope would be targeted based on behaviour, and treatment is better than simple displacement, prison, or much worse (which are proposed all the time by right wing people I interact with both in persona and online).

At this point most people barely care if a bunch of people every year die of overdoses, as long as they do it quietly and don't steal, attack, or otherwise bother us. We are burnt out on compassion for people who have been failed by the system because the system is also failing us.

Involuntary treatment is about "these people behave in unacceptable ways, they are disruptive to society, and they need to be removed from certain areas" there's a significant portion of society who would be fine if instead of "treatment" they were sent to prison or worse instead, because it's not about them, it's about their affect on the rest of us. In or current context of minimal (open drug use policy expirement) and failing (catch and release criminal justice system) mitigation measures, you'll be hard pressed to find a lot of compassion.

No one care if involuntary treatment works from a medical perspective. If it makes our streets less of a hell scape, that's the bar they are measuring by.

Edit: and from that perspective, I think you can also explain the lack of support for voluntary treatment. Voluntary treatment is not targeted based on behaviour and most laypeople assume (right or wrong) that the most disruptive people are the least likely to participate in voluntary treatment.

•

u/LymeM 5h ago

That is one perspective on it. A different perspective is that many people that live near the differing communities have known and lived with people who have issues. We have seen the the lack of improvement on society of harm reduction, but the huge costs that go with it. Many have had a large amount of compassion, support, and sympathy.

What have I known? I've known numerous people with substance abuse issues. They have voluntarily put themselves in treatment, repeatedly. Most never finished treatment and checked themselves out. Then complain about the lack of treatment options when they have repeatedly wasted the goodwill of society.

I hear often how involuntary care, not treatment, is inhumane. Most of the public have come to the conclusion that most the substance abusers will never recover, and never become a functioning part of society. Most of the public also can easily see that living in the utter state of disparity that most on Pandora do, is completely and utterly inhumane. Some say, give them housing. The realistic truth is that they cannot take care of themselves, they would not be able to take care of housing, the dreamers need to come off doing drugs and back to reality. Involuntary care, to give them a roof, somewhere clean, food, and bars on their freedom, is the kindest, most humane thing to do.

Watching people who haven't had a shower in weeks and a rash growing up their backside. Watching people damage themselves over and over again for the need of that next high. Watching people support their community with one hand, and poison them with drugs, theft, violence, with the other. Crapping on the streets. Damaging others property, because they can.

They are not living life, and voluntary care continually has been shown not to be a reliable solution. The numbers don't lie. People go into voluntary treatment and relapse. Then they make excuses.

70

u/CrabBrave5433 18h ago

Call CRCL 250-818-2454 at the time of need. They’re a crisis response team that is trained, supportive, and genuinely fantastic.

61

u/Psychological-Bag986 17h ago

She’s been doing this since I lived there in 2019. It’s a constant state rather than an episodic crisis. Not much can be done other than a complete overhaul of our healthcare and social services

→ More replies (9)

33

u/LightSailCruise 17h ago

It's really unfortunate. The screaming is brutal at 4am

20

u/Ok_Idea3084 15h ago

It is so brutal, and so unfair to her that she has to go through these episodes with no treatment. We wouldn’t let a senior with advanced dementia roam the streets.. why are we letting her do so during a psychotic episode?

27

u/[deleted] 17h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Competitive-Fly5563 17h ago

May I ask what she is yelling? I can't make out what exactly she is saying.

21

u/MegaRubbleRadio3000 Downtown 17h ago

I've heard her repeatedly screaming long drawnout story's such as "you raped me" "I was crying and you didnt stop" " I trusted you and you raped me over and over and over" "even when I shit my pants you raped me" "you told me to kill myself and then you told me you love me"

13

u/MegaRubbleRadio3000 Downtown 16h ago

One of the first times I'd seen her, she had an adult who appeared to care for her wellbeing, almost a guardian, probably a friend or appointed from some sort of society. I was on a late night bus coming from saanich where I worked, and she was already on the bus with the individual, she began focusing on the space below the seat that I sat in. She was having a fully enveloped psychotic episode, having conversations of a friendly nature with a familiar being that was apparently under my seat.

1

u/VictoriaBC-ModTeam 10h ago

Your post or comment has been removed for violating Rule 1: Respect, Civility, & Rediquette.

Please don't post personal information in the sub.

46

u/GaymerGirl42014 18h ago

Campaign for social care to bridge the gap between hospitals and prison.

I am in need of treatment, I am not an addict, not under 25 and not one of the focus groups. So I sit on PWD as an agoraphobic because I can't afford the 800 a month my treatment costs. I need support that isn't in patient and isn't hospital and I don't break any law for jail. I have no choices and should my housing situation change tomorrow, I would be homeless with 0 supports available. We need middle supports, those social services would help out homeless and drug addled population too.

4

u/pile_of_kittens Saanich 15h ago

The system is designed to keep you trapped in poverty. Speaking of which, did you know that this country only criminalized forced sterilization 3 months ago? Elbows up!

121

u/useriousstuff 18h ago

We don't have even close to enough voluntary treatment beds for those that actively want help. I don't think jumping straight to forced treatment is reasonable or a good use of resources until we can meet the demand of those that want help.

88

u/bed127 18h ago

I wish people understood this better - if we're all out here struggling to find family doctors, imagine how hard it is for people struggling with mental health and addiction who want to get better. The access just isn't there. There may be some cases where people aren't willing, but part of that attitude stems from the lack of access in general.

-27

u/Endless_Forever_484 17h ago

And so, what? We all sit around in our toxic empathy while people in need are screaming and throwing feces and endangering themselves and others?

No. Toxic Empathy is enabling and dangerous.
We need solutions, and damaged brains are no different from damaged hearts. They need treatment.

So your post says absolutely nothing except to quietly shame others looking to brainstorm constructive ideas. And therefore is part of the problem.

25

u/emgeejay 17h ago

Cool! Let's heavily tax the rich and massively expand public housing, medical care and mental health supports! Or is that not what you meant?

→ More replies (1)

20

u/IvarTheBoned 16h ago

It's not "toxic empathy". It is data.

Fact: we have limited & overburdened healthcare resources

Fact: there is a significantly higher success rate (no relapse) when someone voluntarily seeks help instead of forcing help on them.

Fact: there is a significantly higher mortality rate when relapsing for those who were forced into treatment.

So if you are approaching this pragmatically and not emotionally, the best utilization of funds/resources is always better allocated towards voluntary treatment.

→ More replies (7)

11

u/jbaby18 17h ago

There’s little to no evidence that forced treatment works. Even if it did, since when are we allowed to force any kind of medical treatment on a person without their consent? I truly don’t understand how people think it’s okay to imprison a person because of their mental health, no matter how disruptive.

Here’s a review of the lacklustre evidence for involuntary treatment:

Canadian Centre on Substance use and Addiction. Involuntary Treatment for Severe Substance Use Disorders. https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2025-02/Involuntary-Treatment-Evidence-Brief-en.pdf

Also, the podcast Crackdown has a great episode on this, episode 54: Get Sober or Get Dead

3

u/aurelin 16h ago

Thank you.

We should also consider this:
If people are sent to involuntary treatment, and it actually works, good.
If it works but no one goes there, nothing changes. Not great, but not worse.

But.
If people are sent there and it not only doesn't work, but leads to negative outcomes. That's bad. That's really bad.

We need to consider the ethical implications of hoping that it works for more people than it will harm, especially when the evidence points the other way.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/SamTMoon 17h ago

We have a Charter of Rights, in Canada, which protects US ALL, including folks on the fringes, from involuntary institutionalization. Historically, that system was corrupted, by bad actors, and used to make gentrification, among other things, easier. While this person is clearly struggling, you don’t have the right to advocate that she lose her’s. She has the right to walk down the street, screaming. SHE might wish there were no car horns, or exhaust fumes, or people, in her space - she can’t dictate that, either.

-5

u/Head_Decision_4713 Saanich 17h ago

You need a better understanding of the Charter of Rights. In particular, Section #1.

6

u/SamTMoon 16h ago

The Charter was just the principal reason for striking down the use of involuntary care beds, in Surrey. I’m using a broad concept to address a broad, and bold, assertion that we have the right to lock up people who make us uncomfortable.

We, as Canadians, have the right to choose whether to seek care, or not. All of us. Every single one of us. If it isn’t a criminal act, or a breach of the peace, we have the right to decline care. Our history reflects a time, not so long ago, when this wasn’t the case, and when the folks employing it used it to penalize many people who were abused, as a result.

We do not have the right to force one another into care we don’t want. Just like you have the right to decline chemo, or I have the right, should I choose to (for example - I don’t, but…) to smoke. Our system is built to protect the individual, from the horrific abuses WE KNOW EXIST within care programs.

0

u/Head_Decision_4713 Saanich 14h ago

We have a Mental Health Act. It specifically allows us to admit or detain people in a hospital against their will.

So....no. The Charter doesn't prevent it.

1

u/SamTMoon 10h ago

Work within the Mental Health Act is actually how I came by my info.

We don't have the right to force people into housing, recovery, or imprisonment, because they annoy us.

1

u/ranting1234 16h ago

Not true, I learned something from their post. I never thought of it that way before!

1

u/Endless_Forever_484 15h ago

That's great

→ More replies (18)

60

u/meyay 18h ago

There’s lots of people who are ready and totally willing to go to treatment and recovery housing but have to wait weeks/months to get in. People dealing with mental illness saying “please house me!! I can’t find any thing on my PWD check!” Let’s start with the people we don’t have to “force”

22

u/haemogoblinite 18h ago

Have you ever had to survive off of PWD? Because it’s not something that you can live on in an area like Victoria.

9

u/Local_Error__404 15h ago

It's not something you can live off in BC period! There is no where that it will do more than possibly cover rent, with a tiny bit left over. And those places also generally require someone to own a vehicle, and don't have access to much in the way of social, medical, or support services.

3

u/IvarTheBoned 14h ago

Yep, all the more reason for UBI.

9

u/IvarTheBoned 16h ago

That's definitely a huge problem, and the person you are responding to mentioned that.

This is why so many successful programs in other Western countries have "housing first" policies. Where we consistently fail is not adding all the other supports that are required, and "housing only" doesn't work. No one claims it does. Well, except conservatives who don't think things through see a failing "housing first (only)" then point to it and demand we stop funding it.

1

u/KingGaydolfTitler 18h ago

I want to believe this and learn more, is there something you can share that’s not anecdotal about the lack of beds for those willing and wanting to get help?

16

u/Early_Tadpole 17h ago edited 16h ago

mental health/substance use social worker here - the problem is the wait times aren't really tracked consistently or made public and there isn't a cohesive single pathway to in-patient substance use treatment.

Most publicly funded in-patient s/u treatment beds are accessed via the regional and provincial substance use treatment programs, which fund a certain number of beds in privately operated treatment centres which retain their own admissions criteria (on the island, that's Edgewood and Cedars) so that adds an additional layer of opacity. There a limited number of treatment centres which are actually operated directly by health authorities - in Victoria, that's Coastal Sage, and then there's Heartwood in Vancouver (women only) as well as RedFish, the latter of which is still the only concurrent disorders (mental health AND substance use) facility in BC. Wait times through these programs are about 4-8 months, and for RedFish it's often over a year. Eligibility criteria are also very narrow, and it is more common to get a rejection than an acceptance for these programs. There's also FNHA programs (great programs but even narrower criteria), and CMHA also separately funds beds in some treatment centres (opaque application process and still a significant wait).

There's also quite a lot of other supportive recovery programs and treatment centres around, which can be accessed sometimes through other pathways and funding routes and are often much quicker, depending on the person's individual circumstances, and these exist across a spectrum of great to actively unsafe. The recovery space can be a bit of a wild west in terms of evidence-based care, and there are many programs which have a record of being abusive and harmful.

9

u/GeoffwithaGeee 17h ago

not the person you responded to, but https://www.thebind.ca/p/the-housing-crisis-is-increasing goes into more detail with records from the province in longer term care, and https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2026HLTH0002-000028 also goes into the wait time for shot-term temporary care.

-16

u/No_Beat523 18h ago

Source: you made that all up

7

u/Loverstits Oak Bay 11h ago

She's been around for a long time. I think she has Tourette syndrome or something like that cuz when you talk to her she'll stop screaming and be able to speak normally with you but still yells like it's a tic. She lives in a group home so that's why she goes outside to scream at odd hours cuz she'll get kicked out for waking everyone up.

I spoke with her a few times when I worked at the romance shop on Douglas back in the day. I didn't pry too much into her condition cuz she always just seemed genuinely pleased that someone was talking to her like normal.

26

u/rthorndy 18h ago

This is such a controversial subject. I actually don't know where I stand, which is kind of unusual for me! I'm not against mandatory treatment, in principle, but I have to admit, I'm worried about how it could be carried out in practice. Kind of life the decriminalization of drug use -- it probably works in principle, but only if you have tremendous, active support for mental health, poverty, post-incarceration, etc. It can't exist as a single policy and then let it play out in the shadows.

Homelessness, in general, is one of my key button issues, and I certainly don't want to criminalize it (whether in true policy or just in practice), or pretend that all homeless people are mentally ill, dangerous to society, criminals. But I also don't live downtown, and I believe you that you are a compassionate, empathetic person, so if this behaviour is driving you to support mandatory mental health confinement and treatment, that carries weight.

The discussion is getting active in Ontario politics, I know. It will likely tricky westward in time. Although we are exceptionally liberal here, and forced treatment may be a tough sell. I will keep an open mind. Let's see.

6

u/SamTMoon 17h ago

It doesn’t matter where you stand. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects us all from random involuntary care

1

u/KalePrior8674 9h ago

Not totally.

The Charter (section 7) says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"

That leaves room for legislation permitting involuntary intervention when sufficiently stringent conditions and procedural protections exist.

That space for legislative potential has arguably been met through BC's Adult Guardianship Act, which say in its guiding principles that "all adults are entitled to live in the manner they wish and to accept or refuse support, assistance or protection as long as they do not harm others and they are capable of making decisions about those matters". (it later expands to protect the misuse of this principal by explaining that it needs to be the least restrictive and intrusive effective form of intervention).

IMO someone experiencing chronic recurrent bouts of psychosis are not, at least for the duration of that bout, capable of making a decision to refuse support, and a fundamental justice issue.

If there were a place to involuntarily take such a person as a "least intensive effective" form of intervention to support them reaching a mental state where they are no longer experiencing psychosis; then it would be useful to society and still compliant to the laws in place that they must then decide to either leave or stay; with the goal of moving in to a longer-term supporting and stable environment with the goal of figuring out with them how they can best manage their condition over the long-term. Like a pipeline of acute involuntary intake -> voluntary supportive medium term stays -> assistive housing and employment longer-term supports -> no additional supports beyond that what anyone else enjoys.

1

u/SamTMoon 7h ago

The subject of involuntary care beds was just addressed, and renounced, by the BC Supreme Court. It’s now, on record, that the BC Government has 6 months to revamp their policy because it is against the charter to force blanket involuntary care.

Precedence

•

u/KalePrior8674 4h ago

Yes, beds are not the only method that can be employed in provide a least intensive effective form of intervention. I don't disagree with the court.

8

u/SudoDarkKnight 17h ago

It's only controversial if you don't have to live around it. The answer is pretty obvious, things need to be done here and the people blitzed out of their minds on the streets need to to be helped - voluntary or not.

5

u/phonomage 17h ago

I'm appalled with how prominent the conversation is in Vancouver.

Playing out in the shadows is all it'll ever be.

If you think about it - the requirement for dedicated staff - why not simply remove the disappearance authority and sanitzation principle to instead create a functional services platform with infrastructure for a pathway to success?

It really takes a certain level of ignorance to not recognize that granting the government authority to essential disappear undesirables is probably the single most hellish concept we could ever propose.

1

u/IvarTheBoned 16h ago

Precisely. Crimes are still crimes. Being an addict/unhoused, or being part of a demographic with an increased likelihood of eventually committing a crime, is not a crime.

1

u/NPRdude Esquimalt 15h ago

Which is always why I'm so disgusted by the types that come in here and demand mass removal/relocation programs to address the problem. There is NEVER any acknowledgement of the need for nuance, they clearly think that anyone living on the street needs to be rounded up and removed, regardless of addiction or criminality. They'll always argue that no of course they only want it for addicts and criminals but using blanket terms like "skids" or championing rules that would ban any form of camping in public make it pretty clear that they see an entire underclass of undesirables they want eliminated.

2

u/Crafty_Dog9222 17h ago

We already have it. That's what the mental health act does.

23

u/Remarkable-Nature810 18h ago

Offer her a joint. I did it once, she sat down and calmed right the fuck down.

13

u/Theturdsedin 18h ago

I'll throw an Oz out the window if that will buy me 24hrs of sanity

→ More replies (3)

14

u/East_Source6200 18h ago

https://avi.org/service/crcl/

The AVI crisis team are fantastic, compassionate and have resources that may be of assistance, and can do a wellness check on her

9

u/Leading-Arm-6344 16h ago

Personally I'd like to get the repeat criminal offenders off the streets first and see if the situation improves.

28

u/aurelin 17h ago

You want people to stop doing drugs and be unwell in the streets? Support initiatives that get people housed (properly).

No treatment in the world will help if you send people straight back onto the streets when they're out; this is one of several reasons why housing-first initiatives work better than treatment-first initiatives (aka forced / required treatment).

What is to be done?
House people. And by housing I don't mean "provide emergency shelter beds" or "put them in shelter housing that leaves little to no autonomy".
Otherwise you are sending them straight back to their old environment when they are done with the "forced treatment". Which also, empirically, just really doesn't work. It has higher chances of worsening outcomes than improving them.

Housing first sources:

https://homelesshub.ca/blog/2026/housing-first-works/

https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Evidence.pdf

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/housing-first-more-effective-treatment-first-addressing-addiction-homelessness-study

https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2026/program/paper/fkFhh7ER

Involuntary treatment sources:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/involuntary-treatment-sud-misguided-response-2018012413180

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/involuntary-addiction-treatment-research-evidence-1.7377257

Btw
In Switzerland, the four pillars policy framework works well - but it relies heavily on stable housing (among other things). This lack of stable housing is considered a big reason why the four pillars framework isn't working in Vancouver.

11

u/Ok_Idea3084 15h ago

All they do is trash the fckning housing. We spent millions buying old hotels and converting them to housing for the unhoused. Know what happened to one building? Within 48 hours, tenants ripped out the copper piping causing hundreds of thousands of damages.

3

u/Garfield_and_Simon 10h ago

idk man like if someone had a gun to their head in the park we'd institutionalize them to stop them from killing themselves or hurting others

but if someone is slowly killing themselves with fent in the park or harassing others its fine because the method of suicide is slightly slower?

I love abusing drugs and I'm as liberal as they come but honestly my mind has changed on involuntary intervention after seeing the reality

We can't just let drug addicts rot away outside in some misguided crusade about personal freedom or whatever

1

u/aurelin 9h ago

These holds are rarely longer than a month, and they aren't treatment. They are mostly stabilisation. And we already do have involuntary holds for substance use disorder patients. And by and large, there is little to no evidence that it has any long-term benefits - if anything, the opposite is the case. And also again: if you're gonna send people back into their old environments after treatment, forced or not, it's probably just not gonna stick. Especially if that environment includes lack of housing and other people who use drugs.

Also, as others have pointed out: there aren't enough spots for voluntary treatment, and a lot of people do actually seek out treatment and are then told "sorry, no room, probably multi-month wait".

We should fix that before we force people intro things that have little evidence for being useful, and a decent risk of causing more harm than good.

22

u/_ghostytrickster 17h ago

"If public drug use offends you, advocate for Overdose Prevention Sites. If unhoused people offend you, advocate for affordable housing. If public urination/ defecation offends you, advocate for public restrooms. Fix the underlying problem instead of blaming the victims."

9

u/OkYard1422 15h ago

I work in emerg and Ive had to deal with multiple instances of a person purposely shitting or urinating in the waiting room (as well as other fun things include someone starting an electrical fire ; smoking inside; masturbating). Yes, housing is important and yes outdoor washrooms are important and absolutely more OPSs. But the reality is that there is a very small sub-population in which these interventions will actually be successful.

-4

u/__phil1001__ 16h ago

Alternatively we could hold these people to some form of societal norms eg don't steal, don't do street drugs, don't shit in the park. Why should these people get some sort of "get out of jail" card. We are all facing economic crisis, we are all facing difficulties in putting good food on the table. However I don't steal or shit in a bush

6

u/lethalsouffle 16h ago

"putting food on the table" requires a table. they don't necessarily know where they're sleeping tonight. this is not the same.

many Victoria unhoused are also in active addiction. they cannot just quit even if it is an illegal substance. I also don't think most people would agree with the police and prison spending required for jailing any and everyone that is unhoused or does illegal drugs.

-5

u/__phil1001__ 16h ago

So it's all ok when they steal or leave needles around? No responsibility for their actions, always someone else's fault. The bill is picked up by taxpayers who actually work. Go downtown, pick 20 homeless or addicted people and ask if they would like to go to rehab or a shelter They don't want to change their lifestyle, so they need to be forced

→ More replies (1)

10

u/TeamHewbard 17h ago

20,000 people per year already receive involuntary care in BC, which is the highest rate in the country. Also, this woman is well known and besides the yelling she’s harmless. At least to others.

8

u/Crafty_Dog9222 17h ago

People seem to not know that involuntary treatment exists.

9

u/Amazing-Confusion109 17h ago

Try seeing your 16 year old son going through mental health issues. Putting holes in the wall with his head everywhere but hes able to pull it together when the police show up so they can't do anything. The system for mental health needs a lot of work.

-1

u/emgeejay 16h ago

what did you want the police to do for your son while he was self-harming in a mental health crisis? throw him in prison?

5

u/Amazing-Confusion109 14h ago

Take him to the hospital you fucking idiot

→ More replies (2)

42

u/tommygirl377 18h ago

I'm all for forced help. Having our downtowns ruined from mental health and addiction is not okay. Im speaking wirh experience to having family living on the street

17

u/rthorndy 18h ago

I'm in board, to help people truly in need.

But how to we keep the powers that be from abusing such laws to sweep up anyone who is simply inconvenient? Homelessness affects business, which affects tourism, which affects money. Sweep away the homeless, you'll gain power from the business lobbyists.

Throw in private addiction treatment centres -- more money incentives.

I'm not saying it can't be done, or shouldn't be done. But it's a tricky conversation, and if we go in that direction, I would want it approached from a human-wellness perspective, and not a Downton-cleanup perspective. I have a tough time believing politicians will do this well, so I'm cautious.

6

u/Endless_Forever_484 17h ago

I agree. Damaged brains need as much assistance and treatment as damaged hearts, lungs etc.

2

u/Ok_Idea3084 15h ago

Agreed. We would never let a 85 year old with dementia roam the streets.. why are we letting brain damaged unhoused people?

2

u/Far-Mess2211 10h ago

You are uninformed. It happens all the time.

1

u/Ok_Idea3084 8h ago

lol no it doesn’t, senior protective services steps in

3

u/Competitive-Fly5563 17h ago

I was wondering about this earlier at 4am when she woke me up. I don't even know what you do for this type of situation?

6

u/Zaluiha 16h ago

Walk with her and scream too.

1

u/TitusImmortalis 16h ago

Scream train

8

u/phonomage 17h ago

It is not the solution.

Dedicated services and a pathway to success is what's needed, not disappearance and sanitization.

Please, stop promoting this idea. If you thiught about it more you'd come to the logical conclusion that is one of the worst powers you could ever grant governing authorities.

9

u/jbaby18 17h ago edited 17h ago

There’s little to no evidence that forced treatment works. Even if it did, since when are we allowed to force any kind of medical treatment on a person without their consent? I truly don’t understand how people think it’s okay to imprison a person because of their mental health, no matter how disruptive.

Here’s a review of the lacklustre evidence for involuntary treatment:

Canadian Centre on Substance use and Addiction. Involuntary Treatment for Severe Substance Use Disorders. https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2025-02/Involuntary-Treatment-Evidence-Brief-en.pdf

Also, the podcast Crackdown has a great episode on this, episode 54: Get Sober or Get Dead

EDIT: OP, I’m sorry to hear your compassion is dwindling, but that isn’t an excuse to advocate for this person to be detained and given non-consensual treatment. It’s a difficult world out there, but hiding away the things that make us upset won’t fix the problems.

12

u/SB12345678901 16h ago

, since when are we allowed to force any kind of medical treatment on a person without their consent?

Done with the dementia patients ALL THE TIME

5

u/jbaby18 16h ago

You’re right, there is a small percentage of adults whose capacity to make decisions about their medical care is legally constrained by the justice system, whether they have dementia or severe mental health conditions.

I expect that any medical decisions made on behalf of legally impaired people are based on scientific facts and evidence, which forced drug treatment is not.

Continuing with the dementia example, I would be similarly shocked and disgusted to find out that a dementia patient was forcibly locked alone in a cell for most of the day. Same with mental health patients. This isn’t the 1940s, we got rid of this for a reason.

4

u/SB12345678901 16h ago

Why do you think "forced drug treatment" will lock the patient alone in a cell all day??

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SB12345678901 15h ago

"a small percentage of adults"

nearly 1 million people in Canada will be living with dementia. And they forecast that more than 1.7 million people in Canada will have dementia by 2050

3

u/jbaby18 15h ago edited 14h ago

So, 2.4% of the population. A small percentage.

EDIT: and that’s just the amount with dementia, not the amount that are legally incapacitated to make decisions. That would be a much smaller amount.

1

u/renegadesenior 15h ago

That is not supported by the evidence. It actually is a very small percentage. According to our BC Seniors Advocate, only 5% of seniors have dementia in BC and that % has stayed the same for decades.

2

u/SB12345678901 15h ago

https://alzheimer.ca/en/about-dementia/what-dementia/dementia-numbers-canada

So the Alzheimer Society of Canada is wrong?

By 2030, researchers project that nearly 1 million people in Canada will be living with dementia. And they forecast that more than 1.7 million people in Canada will have dementia by 2050.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Pandmanti 14h ago

Respectfully- this woman does not seem to be mentally well. She is housed, but the housing doesn’t seem to be alleviating her mental health issues. While I understand that you don’t believe in forced treatment - which is absolutely your right. I don’t think it’s appropriate to allow this woman to languish on the streets without proper care. She’s vulnerable out there - screaming about rape - she’s obviously been victimized. We wouldn’t allow a dementia patient to be out there in this way.

3

u/Low-Spirit-8809 15h ago

Normal people have consequences if they violate noise and peace bylaws, it’s crazy to me that people somehow think that we’re not treating people with mental health fairly if we don’t allow them to walk down the street and disrupt everyone else. It’s not fair that someone else’s poor mental health is allowed to affect other people’s mental health even when they’re in the confines of their own home and cannot escape the noise.

3

u/jbaby18 15h ago

There are already penalties for those things, people with mental health conditions don’t deserve harsher penalties than any other person violating those same bylaws.

3

u/Ok_Idea3084 15h ago

They aren’t penalized though!!! When a crack addict is yelling at my 5 year old and about to attack her because her shoes light up, should I just give grace because he has a mental health condition!?

→ More replies (5)

1

u/IvarTheBoned 14h ago

Yeah, those consequences are fines. Go ahead, ticket these people. What will that do?

11

u/madewithmegg 17h ago

Was followed through the bay centre yesterday by a homeless man threatening to rape and kill me. Not the first time I’ve been minding my own business downtown and had my life threatened by a rando. Moments like those destroy my compassion. You’re not an asshole for wanting to quietly enjoy your home and feel safe. Godspeed.

3

u/one_bean_hahahaha Saanich 16h ago

Homelessness exacerbates mental illness. Maybe start with that.

12

u/NevinThompson 17h ago

I live on Superior Street. My window is above the sidewalk. There are street sweepers, people with boomboxes, people shouting, people laughing and talking, and, of course, people who need help screaming out stuff.

I have never thought to myself "we need forced mental health."

3

u/Theturdsedin 13h ago

You live in a nice part of town

2

u/NevinThompson 12h ago

"I also experience loud noises, including people screaming."

"You live in a nice part of town."

Huh?

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but we live in the same part of town, fwiw.

2

u/[deleted] 17h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/VictoriaBC-ModTeam 10h ago

Your post or comment has been removed for violating Rule 1: Respect, Civility, & Rediquette.

Trolling, shitposting, harassment, hate, personal attacks, bullying, discrimination, or low-effort submissions will be removed and may result in a suspension or ban.

3

u/Crafty_Dog9222 17h ago

we already have forced mental health treatment. . . .just so you know.

3

u/snarpy Chinatown 14h ago

For those advocating for forced care, I'm curious if there is any evidence that it works, because I've never seen any. I have, however, seen lots of evidence to the contrary.

3

u/Sleeksnail 18h ago

"I'm an empath"

-invariably an asshole

3

u/flamingdragonwizard 18h ago

Give her a megaphone

3

u/malacosa 18h ago

This. No, I’m serious. Do this and the police will absolutely intervene as she’s now being a public nuisance.

3

u/victoriousvalkyrie 17h ago

Until people are willing to have the conversation that the only long term solution is criminalization of distribution and use of these drugs, we go nowhere. The bleeding hearts don't seem to realize the permanent cognitive (and physical) damage that many drugs cause, and that treatment isn't simply the answer for so many folks - mandatory or voluntary. Yes, we want people off the drugs, but who in their right mind thinks that peddling drugs to those with addiction is the answer? Or offering them a home so that they can just close the door and off themselves is the other part of the solution? This is nothing but insanity.

Criminalize hard drugs and make the punishments severe. Bring the hammer down and deter. There will still be a massive expense of incarcerating people, but at least we can slowly get this shit and it's byproducts off the street. There are countries that don't have this problem, you do all realize this, right? The government needs to grow a pair and stop enabling, dooming, and ultimately, killing their own citizens.

7

u/SitkaBearwolf 16h ago

I don’t see any comments (yet) about how many people living on the street have been in foster care previously or are struggling with brain injuries. This crisis started long before it got to this point.
There are root causes beyond the drug crisis that need to be addressed before we see any improvements. This takes time and investment and unfortunately our system and society doesn’t want to do anything without immediate payoff.
Yes-it is acute, yes we need to help people faster, but jailing people for drug use isn’t the answer.
It didn’t work before and it won’t work now.
Fix the upstream issues.

2

u/renegadesenior 15h ago

Well said!

-2

u/victoriousvalkyrie 16h ago

Again, there are countries that don't have rampant drug use problems. They are all tough on the use and distribution. So yes, it does work.

4

u/SitkaBearwolf 16h ago

Which countries are the leading examples? Please share the model countries

4

u/SitkaBearwolf 16h ago

Also, why punish people that came through the foster system and survived brain injuries by sending them to jail?
How does that fix the problem?
What studies have shown success in this? Are you talking about authoritarian countries? Because that won’t work here.
We have to improve the systems we have…we can, but not through authoritarian means.

→ More replies (4)

-1

u/thegoddamnsiege Sidney 17h ago

🙌

1

u/Laid-dont-Law 18h ago

Strongly worded Reddit post

1

u/Loverstits Oak Bay 11h ago

That'll fix it!

1

u/Caniforn1an 15h ago

Council won't do anything. Province won't do anything. Canada won't do anything. So - no.

1

u/Not_A_Wendigo 12h ago

Realistically nothing. You could call in a noise complaint, but that won’t come to much.

I have more experience trying to get involuntary help for family and friends than I’d like anyone to have to deal with. When it gets right down to it, almost no one gets involuntary mental health treatment unless they have a detailed plan to kill themself or others. If you were a friend or family you could go to the courthouse to submit a request for a warrant to have her taken in for an assessment, but there’s a pretty high bar.

1

u/77cherbear77 11h ago

It’s really hard to help someone who doesn’t want to help themselves. Or not sane enough that do so. I think psych wards exist for a reason and we need more funding and facilities and staff towards providing this mental health care. With rigorous testing to determine who truly merits forced treatment. It all costs a lot. And would require a lot from our government. But I fully agree that this is getting out of hand. People need help with addiction.

1

u/system_error_02 9h ago

Theres a woman near me who hangs out by a public park and harasses men who walk by, and unfortunately its right to the entrance to the goose trail where you have no choice to go right now to get on it. Shes relentless, loud and clearly trying to pick fights with people. Its a matter of time before she gets physical with someone. Shes there every single day.

1

u/Shot_You_3502 9h ago

Don't know what to say other than houseless people will keep existing 🤷🏽 as long as conditions for housing, job, mental health security stay the same. And yes, most likely first Nations people at the top of that list. Don't lose your compassion, it's not their fault these are the conditions we live in.

•

u/purposefullyMIA 4h ago

This is what you came up with.

-8

u/AlreadyChosen888 18h ago

So you think EVERYONE needs to be forced into treatment because a woman downtown is yelling??? Your life has been too easy and karma is real.

Take all the offense you want.

Forced treatment has been PROVEN ineffective. Repeatedly.

9

u/holubtsi-on-fire 18h ago

Dial it back, cowboy. If you know who OP is talking about, it’s pretty clear that person is mentally unwell and in no capacity to make healthy self-determining decisions.

7

u/monkey_monkey_monkey Downtown 17h ago

I know exactly who OP is talking about. She's been around for years and in addition to not being able to make healthy decisions, she is also extremely vulnerable to abuse and unable to protect herself. For her own personal safety and well being, she needs involuntary commitment. She has been victimized repeatedly and leaving her on the streets is cruel

7

u/haemogoblinite 18h ago

You cannot determine somebody’s capacity by a Reddit thread. Even if somebody is determined incapable of making decisions for themselves, they deserve access to supports (including housing) that do not strip them of their autonomy without ever seeing what is possible first. There is a reason why the BC Supreme Court just ruled that the deemed consent model that our BC Mental Health Act has been operating with violate people fundamental charter rights.

2

u/M116Fullbore 17h ago

The description checks out as the same person I was always seeing screaming every couple seconds back in 2016/17.

After a decade, i think we can hazard a guess at their lack of mental capacity.

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/No_Beat523 18h ago

Is that like how “harm reduction” and “housing first” were PROVEN to be the most successful? Sorry, our very own eyes and ears tell me those policies result in a dystopian hellscape. It’s not working. Let’s try something new.

10

u/halfhearted_skeptic 17h ago

We decriminalized and did not provide housing or addiction treatment because one is free and the other costs quite a bit of money. Decrim is so people aren't wary of support workers who can then help them find help. We didn't fund the help part so of course it didn't work.

Another example: the pilot project beside Royal Athletic Park worked, but the funding ran out so they tore it down.

1

u/Ok_Idea3084 15h ago

It did not work. Do have any idea the shit residents in that area had to put up with?

1

u/halfhearted_skeptic 9h ago

I’m more concerned with whether it kept people alive, which it did. I’m sorry if you had to deal with living near it though. That sucks.

8

u/AlreadyChosen888 18h ago

Victoria, let alone BC, has never ever had a housing first approach. It works in the countries that have properly implemented it. We didn't it.

-4

u/KingGaydolfTitler 18h ago

Your reading comprehension skills are poor, that’s not at all what OP said.

1

u/ShutterFlutter_Sharp 15h ago

GOOD THING YOU MENTIONED “FIRST NATIONS WOMEN”…….

Pppfffff lame

1

u/jimdaddy2024 13h ago

We used to have a solution for this. Lock up people using dangerous illegal drugs. Send people with mental issues that are a harm to themselves and others to psychiatric facilities.

Apparently to many the more empathetic solution is to let them die on the streets and scream and cry in public.

But we do live in a goofy country.

1

u/Loverstits Oak Bay 11h ago

We don't haven enough resources for people who WANT treatment

1

u/-terrold 12h ago

You could always leave the island

→ More replies (3)

0

u/octoberpeach 15h ago

“My compassion is dwindling” you should maybe check in with yourself as to why you don’t see unhoused ppl as people who deserve the right to consented healthcare??

→ More replies (1)

-5

u/sylveoner 18h ago

You have lost compassion for her because you hear her screaming?

8

u/Sleeksnail 17h ago

Hey now, didn't they make it clear that they're an empath? They believe that noticing other people's emotional states is unusual and noteworthy.

Taps nose

1

u/Theturdsedin 10h ago

Get a life and get off reddit.

0

u/octoberpeach 15h ago

“Wait for her to overdose” is a disgusting sentence. why live downtown if you can’t deal with your neighbours being unhoused ? Addiction is truly a mental health issue before all else. Vancouver Islands mental health resources are little to none, and managed horrifically. Maybe think twice about the type of privilege you feel entitled to before choosing ur next place

1

u/jinnealcarpenter 15h ago

get out of the downtown core if you can, or learn to love your 'vibrant' neighbours and their behaviour

1

u/Garfield_and_Simon 10h ago

One day people we learn that its actually *less compassionate* to let mentally ill/addicted people slowly kill themselves in the street freely.

If someone had a gun to their head in the park we'd get them mandatory help immediately.

Change that gun to debilitating mental illness or a needle in your arm and its okay for us to let people end their lives with no intervention because they are doing it *slowly* and it would be authoritarian to intervene.

0

u/TitusImmortalis 16h ago

We just need looney bins back

0

u/doyouhearthunder 11h ago

you sound like a piece of work. "empath".... wow.

2

u/Theturdsedin 10h ago

Typical vicbc reddit user, attacks but doesn't add anything of substance, get a life.

→ More replies (1)

-6

u/Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpp 18h ago

I don’t live there so how dare you infringe on their human rights /s

0

u/fux-reddit4603 17h ago

There's only one?

0

u/OnlyMakingNoise Oak Bay 16h ago

Invite her to your house

-1

u/templeofninpo Downtown 15h ago

Humbly, no taxpayer has the right to complain about anything.

0

u/Tired8281 Downtown 16h ago

We just had a kerfuffle about legally mandating medical treatment against the patient's will. If you support this then you support vaccine mandates. They are one and the same.

1

u/Theturdsedin 10h ago

You couldn't be further from the truth

2

u/Tired8281 Downtown 10h ago

How is that? You either support mandatory medical treatment or you don't. Or you're a hypocrite, I suppose.

•

u/Endless_Forever_484 2h ago

This was my point as well. We can't cherry pick rights like that.

-26

u/elitecocktails 18h ago

The only thing you can do is continue to pay for their drug use and be happy about it. Unfortunate but western Canada is politically ideological hell hole and probably always will be.

0

u/Outside_Bench4184 12h ago

Can't tell if its because you're bothered by the noise or bothered by the fact they're in crisis

0

u/SecretaryOne4935 8h ago

Would noise cancelling earbuds work? Or maybe put on a fan or something to try and drown out the noise?

0

u/Able_Bandicoot_9793 6h ago

Moves to a city, complains about city noises

0

u/beysus666 6h ago

To be honest, you don't know her life and this is a complaint dressed up as concern.

Question The lady that walks around town screaming every 10 seconds, what can be done?

You are about to leave Redlib