What a great article you have written! It is spot on in how I look at these problems we are facing today. So often I say, "Look at all the marijuana shops". There are numerous ones even in small towns. Who is funding these? And the safe injection sites and safe this and that -- all put there to dumb us down. Look at the covid scam, small shops were forced to close but the alcohol and drug shops were left open. That should make us all think. I think government (federal, provincial and city/town) is largely responsible for enabling this addiction. If one town/city promotes it, then others follow. Brain cells have shrunk, honestly. All these things that 'catch on' including helmets are there to make you dumber and not think for yourself. As soon as you speak out about the obvious, you are called names as many of us can testify to.
It was interesting to me that marijuana and alcohol sales continued during the same time that AA meetings were "too dangerous" for the government to allow.
I alluded to it above, but in NS (and I think other provinces?) there are no longer government-funded abstinence-based programs for narcotic addiction. The only choice for addicts is "Opiate Replacement Programs" where they get daily doses of methadone and suboxone. It has been sad to watch this evolution.
Exactly, Doc. They want people on as many pharma drugs as possible. I said it years ago - if you had an extended insurance plan - they would gladly cover prescription drugs but try to get Vitamin D covered, nope. Part of the whole racket of health in Canada (which I term 'disease maintenance') is about pushing drugs. Between pharma drugs and now street drugs being so plentiful and easy to get - it can only spell disaster. Now we have government trying to hurt the natural health products and those that practice in natural health modalities. This whole 'health' scenario has never been about health. It has been about creating life long victims and pharma customers.
Yes, the sales of marijuana and alcohol continued all through this 'covid period' (actually sales increased) yet they didn't give a hoot for those who became depressed, suicidal, addicted, divorced, etc. because of their rules and shutdowns. Sad, isn't a strong enough word for what has happened, Doc. It is criminal actually and with so many folks fully asleep and others with barely an eye open, I don't feel overly hopeful that people will wake up to the deceit that this was and history will repeat itself when they conjure up the next big lie.
I spent much of the ‘90s between the edge of Vancouver’s downtown Eastside and Halifax. The poverty industry had already assumed control of Hastings St and things were getting visibly worse every year. Petty crime was out of control of course but the real disaster was the division of the city into two camps; the disposable and the prosperous. You could hear the educated classes speak of the need to “do something” about the despair and rot in their city core. Their guilt of living in million dollar homes while all around them junkies lived in alleys and doorways was a recipe for disaster. They wanted to throw money at the problem and any poverty professional with a “solution” was more than happy to receive it. In about ‘01 I asked a doctor friend here in Halifax if her ER saw many opioid ODs and she said no. I said she would soon enough. Much like the capital flow of Chinese money from West to East, Vancouver through Ontario and onwards to the Eastcoast, driving up asset prices and perceived prosperity in its wake, the opioids were sure to follow. And the “solutions” would follow as well. I’m hearing the same prosperous, guilty classes discussing the same easy solutions and I imagine they’ll get the same inevitable results. Halifax will become a city divided, a poverty industrial complex will grow to service it, and the change will become a permanent feature of the city. As the saying goes, Any bureaucracy created to solve a problem will evolve to perpetuate it. People on the peninsula will install more and advanced security systems while they become accustomed to the crime and homelessness. The police will receive more funding and the hospitals will demand more capacity to deal with the victims of addiction. It will become normalized.
I don't think poverty explains this problem. Most poor people are not criminals. When my parents-in-law were first married they rented a 1-bedroom apartment and subletted the bedroom out to make ends meet. They would sleep in the living area, and had discarded crates for furniture. The didn't steal or take drugs or try to camp in a park, nor did any of their friends living in the same circumstances. They were much poorer than the poor of today's Canada.
A small homeless encampment sprung up just behind the fence of my mother-in-law's condo complex in Moncton a couple of years ago, with the attendant garbage, needles, debris, and sketchy people climbing the fence and cutting through the yard, looking in through people's windows and causing (understandable) concern. The police response was "sorry, not much we're allowed to do to help". It used to be called "vagrancy" or "criminal trespass". Now it is tolerated. We destigmatize and tacitly legitimize this behaviour at our peril.
If I as a homeowner/taxpayer want to build a large shed on my own property, I have to adhere to strict rules, pay and apply for a permit, and have it inspected. If not I get fined. If I'm addicted, and build a shack with some old tin and found boards in a local park where the kids play, nothing happens. I find this dichotomous response to be quite deranging: law-abiding taxpayers are smothered with taxes and regulations, while we allow addicts to take over our parks and downtowns by tying the hands of police.
My good friend recently moved out of Vancouver to Saltspring Island. He LOVED the city for 20 years, but over the last few years he got sick of stepping in hu-poo, having his car and shed broken into again and again, and feeling unsafe whenever he tried to walk anywhere through much of downtown. It is sad that we have allowed this.
I can't agree more, Doc. We live in an upside down world these days. What used to be considered wrong is now, just turn a blind eye. Now there are people wanting to defund the police too - so on top of tying their hands, they want them tied period. Honestly, can it get more crazy? Quick answer - YES!
Sheldon, I totally agree with you. Our country is already divided on other issues too. Sad, how many turn to the government saying "do something" when it is the government that causes so much of this in the first place.
Humans need a purpose in life, either/or careers, families, art, faith, whatever it may be. But we can't impose a purpose onto a person, the state of despair comes from deeper down, and can't be superficially fixed.
Our entire society is in a horrible state, and Canada is one of the worst, as a nation of humans completely detached from the natural world (we may have the most "nature", but most Canadians think parks are "nature" or that a walk in the woods is "nature".)
The real meaning of living in balance or knowing nature should be a life with some degree of autonomy within one's geography, autonomy in the sense that we don't rely on government for our existence. I would posit that Canadians have the lowest amount of autonomy of any democratic nation.
Brilliant article. Thank you so much for stating so eloquently (and colourfully) what needs to be said. Your analysis should be required reading for every leader in the addiction arena. Many of the folks setting wrong-headed drug-addiction policies have done so without malevolence... most sincerely want to help... but I'm put in mind of the old quote from T.S. Eliot: "Most of the evil in the world is done by people with good intentions."
One of the things I think is unfortunate with all the political polarization is that it has morphed these discussions from being practical arguments (ie: I think this works, here is why. I don't think this works, here is why.) to political/tribal (ie: if you say this doesn't work it proves you are a bad person). The latter type of thinking is anti-scientific. And more than being unhelpful, it is actually destructive as it is a discussion-preventer.
Just catching up back in NS. Thanks for another excellent article. You mention Dalrymple's seminal 'Life at the bottom' in comments....his 'In praise of prejudice' also hits a nail. The Gunn film is a triumph. Doing my retired old fart schtick, I first worked in the field in 1985....'controlled drinking' was a fashionable treatment concept back then....some managed it, and whatever it was it wasn't normal drinking however defined, but of course most lost control! Nothing works as well as AA and abstinence as the aim. The effects of decriminalization and 'safe' supply are evident yet the last but one DNS mag beating the same drum. Shocked to hear about loss of abstinence based programmes here. Difficult to believe it isn't just more neo-Marxist social deconstruction.
Thank You for this article, I struggle with this whole idea as well, and I find myself even more concerned seeing the tents popping up in our local areas-nice tents -supplied by social services- much to ponder in what you have written. Much to ponder in this whole issue. I particularly like the concept of “drilling a hole in the boat”- brilliant!
Even in little ol' Sydney NS we are now seeing tents in parks, used needles in children's playgrounds, and rough-looking people with their pit bulls who are clearly impaired taking over stoops and streetcorners downtown, as well as panhandling (sometimes rather aggressively). I see this as impacting women more. I know several people who now feel uncomfortable to go for a run or walk in local parks. Guys for obvious reasons have less to worry about. It's a sad trend. I HIGHLY recommend Aaron Gunn's documentary that i reference.
Gunn's documentary is excellent. I do agree that the homelessness problem is very much a drug problem, but the source of the drug problem is a separate question.
One aspect that makes all this harder for women is the simple act of peeing. Peeing in public is illegal, but guys can get away with it by leaning in a corner and whipping it out discreetly, but it's much harder for women to pee in public discreetly.
When I lived in Ecuador, the native women wore huge skirts, thick and to the ground, even in hot weather, this allowed them to pee discreetly.
Safe supply, clean needles, free drugs and safe injection sites.and Narcan to name a few facets of this problem are all just another piece of the eugenics program, plain and simple.
Getting rid of more of the useless eaters.
These folks need to get straight, not higher. They need help, not more drugs. Breaks my heart. 💔
I have a theory, having run as a candidate and been very active in elections 20 years ago.
People vote for what they want to hear. If a candidate says "We have to cut services, tighten our belts, and start paying down the debt. You will have less services if I get into power", then nobody votes for them. Instead we vote for liars who say that they are going to both cut taxes, AND magically increase services, AND at the same time pay down (or at least not add to) the debt. This is, of course, impossible. But try pointing that out to someone about to go in and mark an X for one of the liars. We don't vote for people who tell us what we don't want to hear.
Mainly I only disagree with the intro. The ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the disappearance of the middle class (look at Canada's horrible Genie coefficient) push people who might be unstable to end up in that horrible homeless drug scene.
The amount of discontent in our society is at an all time high.
And it's pointless for clueless positivists like Steven Pinker to state platitudes like "we live in the best time ever". We don't.
The "best time ever" was pre civilisation, when nature was plentiful, and humans were few, and there was a balance between life and death.
The balance between life and death has been lost. We now demand life at ALL costs in most areas.
How do you explain the stats: that there is far LESS poverty now, but far more addiction? I am not a Pinker fan and do think he gets a lot wrong. I highly recommend reading the Dalrymple book called "Life at the Bottom" if you are keen to think deeply about this issue. The idea that money (or lack thereof) is the cause of addiction and homelessness just doesn't "hold water" (forgive the pun, given the gist of the article)
I grew up downeast and our family didn't have money and yet I never fell to the despair to become an addict. There are numerous reasons for addiction. After witnessing friends and family, some times it stems from feeling hopeless.
Of course, some people are just immune to drug/alcohol addiction. But others are not. There are genetic and/familial traits that contribute to the propensity to addiction.
Same with soldiers returning from wars. Not all get PTSD, even though they live through the same horrors.
And childhood traumas of varying degrees are an additional factor. Most psychological problems are not fixable. Psychiatric Big Pharma is a complete scam.
So the solutions have to focus on preventing mental ill health, rather than pretending to fix problems downstream, that aren't really fixable.
Reality is some persons are just lost to humanity. Our society would do better if we accepted a certain amount of losses.
Teaching responsibility is a must of course, and that should happen in early life.
The problem is that some kids are groomed to think very differently. Authoritarian parents teach the opposite of responsibility. Misbehaving parents create traumatised kids, the brain is rewired, and then it's too late for most to do "responsibility", because the brain is in survival mode.
As with most proposed solutions, they need to start early, they can't fix the problems once underway.
That's Pinker's argument "less poverty", but looking at absolutes is not useful. Brains (not just humans, apes and other mammals too) use comparison, not absolutes, and our gap between rich and poor is worse, that's what drives the perception human value. So it pointless to TELL people "you're not poor, just be happy", it doesn't work.
A wide social gap leads to social unhappiness, that's just how reality is. Those of us not prone to drug addiction can sink to the depths of despair given a poor social context and remain mildly functional, but those with genetic and/or familial addiction propensity will fall.
Conversely, if we didn't demand life at all costs, a life 100% out of balance with nature (Canada is THE worst country for this) there would be way fewer un-fit (biologically) humans and this wouldn't even be an issue.
Where I live, the Salvation Army ran a small old school shelter. Then they got a subsidy to build a giant shelter. The Salvation Army limited who could enter.
Then the Salvation Army couldn't handle the giant shelter, so the government took it over. Now they allow everyone in.
What a great article you have written! It is spot on in how I look at these problems we are facing today. So often I say, "Look at all the marijuana shops". There are numerous ones even in small towns. Who is funding these? And the safe injection sites and safe this and that -- all put there to dumb us down. Look at the covid scam, small shops were forced to close but the alcohol and drug shops were left open. That should make us all think. I think government (federal, provincial and city/town) is largely responsible for enabling this addiction. If one town/city promotes it, then others follow. Brain cells have shrunk, honestly. All these things that 'catch on' including helmets are there to make you dumber and not think for yourself. As soon as you speak out about the obvious, you are called names as many of us can testify to.
It was interesting to me that marijuana and alcohol sales continued during the same time that AA meetings were "too dangerous" for the government to allow.
I alluded to it above, but in NS (and I think other provinces?) there are no longer government-funded abstinence-based programs for narcotic addiction. The only choice for addicts is "Opiate Replacement Programs" where they get daily doses of methadone and suboxone. It has been sad to watch this evolution.
Exactly, Doc. They want people on as many pharma drugs as possible. I said it years ago - if you had an extended insurance plan - they would gladly cover prescription drugs but try to get Vitamin D covered, nope. Part of the whole racket of health in Canada (which I term 'disease maintenance') is about pushing drugs. Between pharma drugs and now street drugs being so plentiful and easy to get - it can only spell disaster. Now we have government trying to hurt the natural health products and those that practice in natural health modalities. This whole 'health' scenario has never been about health. It has been about creating life long victims and pharma customers.
Yes, the sales of marijuana and alcohol continued all through this 'covid period' (actually sales increased) yet they didn't give a hoot for those who became depressed, suicidal, addicted, divorced, etc. because of their rules and shutdowns. Sad, isn't a strong enough word for what has happened, Doc. It is criminal actually and with so many folks fully asleep and others with barely an eye open, I don't feel overly hopeful that people will wake up to the deceit that this was and history will repeat itself when they conjure up the next big lie.
Eugenics.
They want us dead. Period. Full stop.
I spent much of the ‘90s between the edge of Vancouver’s downtown Eastside and Halifax. The poverty industry had already assumed control of Hastings St and things were getting visibly worse every year. Petty crime was out of control of course but the real disaster was the division of the city into two camps; the disposable and the prosperous. You could hear the educated classes speak of the need to “do something” about the despair and rot in their city core. Their guilt of living in million dollar homes while all around them junkies lived in alleys and doorways was a recipe for disaster. They wanted to throw money at the problem and any poverty professional with a “solution” was more than happy to receive it. In about ‘01 I asked a doctor friend here in Halifax if her ER saw many opioid ODs and she said no. I said she would soon enough. Much like the capital flow of Chinese money from West to East, Vancouver through Ontario and onwards to the Eastcoast, driving up asset prices and perceived prosperity in its wake, the opioids were sure to follow. And the “solutions” would follow as well. I’m hearing the same prosperous, guilty classes discussing the same easy solutions and I imagine they’ll get the same inevitable results. Halifax will become a city divided, a poverty industrial complex will grow to service it, and the change will become a permanent feature of the city. As the saying goes, Any bureaucracy created to solve a problem will evolve to perpetuate it. People on the peninsula will install more and advanced security systems while they become accustomed to the crime and homelessness. The police will receive more funding and the hospitals will demand more capacity to deal with the victims of addiction. It will become normalized.
Thanks - very thoughtful and interesting reply.
I don't think poverty explains this problem. Most poor people are not criminals. When my parents-in-law were first married they rented a 1-bedroom apartment and subletted the bedroom out to make ends meet. They would sleep in the living area, and had discarded crates for furniture. The didn't steal or take drugs or try to camp in a park, nor did any of their friends living in the same circumstances. They were much poorer than the poor of today's Canada.
A small homeless encampment sprung up just behind the fence of my mother-in-law's condo complex in Moncton a couple of years ago, with the attendant garbage, needles, debris, and sketchy people climbing the fence and cutting through the yard, looking in through people's windows and causing (understandable) concern. The police response was "sorry, not much we're allowed to do to help". It used to be called "vagrancy" or "criminal trespass". Now it is tolerated. We destigmatize and tacitly legitimize this behaviour at our peril.
If I as a homeowner/taxpayer want to build a large shed on my own property, I have to adhere to strict rules, pay and apply for a permit, and have it inspected. If not I get fined. If I'm addicted, and build a shack with some old tin and found boards in a local park where the kids play, nothing happens. I find this dichotomous response to be quite deranging: law-abiding taxpayers are smothered with taxes and regulations, while we allow addicts to take over our parks and downtowns by tying the hands of police.
My good friend recently moved out of Vancouver to Saltspring Island. He LOVED the city for 20 years, but over the last few years he got sick of stepping in hu-poo, having his car and shed broken into again and again, and feeling unsafe whenever he tried to walk anywhere through much of downtown. It is sad that we have allowed this.
I can't agree more, Doc. We live in an upside down world these days. What used to be considered wrong is now, just turn a blind eye. Now there are people wanting to defund the police too - so on top of tying their hands, they want them tied period. Honestly, can it get more crazy? Quick answer - YES!
Hu-poo!? 🤣
🚶♀️🚶♂️💩
Sheldon, I totally agree with you. Our country is already divided on other issues too. Sad, how many turn to the government saying "do something" when it is the government that causes so much of this in the first place.
Humans need a purpose in life, either/or careers, families, art, faith, whatever it may be. But we can't impose a purpose onto a person, the state of despair comes from deeper down, and can't be superficially fixed.
Our entire society is in a horrible state, and Canada is one of the worst, as a nation of humans completely detached from the natural world (we may have the most "nature", but most Canadians think parks are "nature" or that a walk in the woods is "nature".)
The real meaning of living in balance or knowing nature should be a life with some degree of autonomy within one's geography, autonomy in the sense that we don't rely on government for our existence. I would posit that Canadians have the lowest amount of autonomy of any democratic nation.
Brilliant article. Thank you so much for stating so eloquently (and colourfully) what needs to be said. Your analysis should be required reading for every leader in the addiction arena. Many of the folks setting wrong-headed drug-addiction policies have done so without malevolence... most sincerely want to help... but I'm put in mind of the old quote from T.S. Eliot: "Most of the evil in the world is done by people with good intentions."
Again, bravo on an excellent piece.
One of the things I think is unfortunate with all the political polarization is that it has morphed these discussions from being practical arguments (ie: I think this works, here is why. I don't think this works, here is why.) to political/tribal (ie: if you say this doesn't work it proves you are a bad person). The latter type of thinking is anti-scientific. And more than being unhelpful, it is actually destructive as it is a discussion-preventer.
Just catching up back in NS. Thanks for another excellent article. You mention Dalrymple's seminal 'Life at the bottom' in comments....his 'In praise of prejudice' also hits a nail. The Gunn film is a triumph. Doing my retired old fart schtick, I first worked in the field in 1985....'controlled drinking' was a fashionable treatment concept back then....some managed it, and whatever it was it wasn't normal drinking however defined, but of course most lost control! Nothing works as well as AA and abstinence as the aim. The effects of decriminalization and 'safe' supply are evident yet the last but one DNS mag beating the same drum. Shocked to hear about loss of abstinence based programmes here. Difficult to believe it isn't just more neo-Marxist social deconstruction.
Thank You for this article, I struggle with this whole idea as well, and I find myself even more concerned seeing the tents popping up in our local areas-nice tents -supplied by social services- much to ponder in what you have written. Much to ponder in this whole issue. I particularly like the concept of “drilling a hole in the boat”- brilliant!
Even in little ol' Sydney NS we are now seeing tents in parks, used needles in children's playgrounds, and rough-looking people with their pit bulls who are clearly impaired taking over stoops and streetcorners downtown, as well as panhandling (sometimes rather aggressively). I see this as impacting women more. I know several people who now feel uncomfortable to go for a run or walk in local parks. Guys for obvious reasons have less to worry about. It's a sad trend. I HIGHLY recommend Aaron Gunn's documentary that i reference.
Aaron Gunn hit the nail on the head, for sure!
Gunn's documentary is excellent. I do agree that the homelessness problem is very much a drug problem, but the source of the drug problem is a separate question.
One aspect that makes all this harder for women is the simple act of peeing. Peeing in public is illegal, but guys can get away with it by leaning in a corner and whipping it out discreetly, but it's much harder for women to pee in public discreetly.
When I lived in Ecuador, the native women wore huge skirts, thick and to the ground, even in hot weather, this allowed them to pee discreetly.
But me, I love my pants.
Super article! Very informed opinions and facts.
Safe supply, clean needles, free drugs and safe injection sites.and Narcan to name a few facets of this problem are all just another piece of the eugenics program, plain and simple.
Getting rid of more of the useless eaters.
These folks need to get straight, not higher. They need help, not more drugs. Breaks my heart. 💔
Thanks for taking the time to write this!
I often ask myself, with so many supposedly smart people around, how can government be so fecking stupid?
I have a theory, having run as a candidate and been very active in elections 20 years ago.
People vote for what they want to hear. If a candidate says "We have to cut services, tighten our belts, and start paying down the debt. You will have less services if I get into power", then nobody votes for them. Instead we vote for liars who say that they are going to both cut taxes, AND magically increase services, AND at the same time pay down (or at least not add to) the debt. This is, of course, impossible. But try pointing that out to someone about to go in and mark an X for one of the liars. We don't vote for people who tell us what we don't want to hear.
Mainly I only disagree with the intro. The ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the disappearance of the middle class (look at Canada's horrible Genie coefficient) push people who might be unstable to end up in that horrible homeless drug scene.
The amount of discontent in our society is at an all time high.
And it's pointless for clueless positivists like Steven Pinker to state platitudes like "we live in the best time ever". We don't.
The "best time ever" was pre civilisation, when nature was plentiful, and humans were few, and there was a balance between life and death.
The balance between life and death has been lost. We now demand life at ALL costs in most areas.
How do you explain the stats: that there is far LESS poverty now, but far more addiction? I am not a Pinker fan and do think he gets a lot wrong. I highly recommend reading the Dalrymple book called "Life at the Bottom" if you are keen to think deeply about this issue. The idea that money (or lack thereof) is the cause of addiction and homelessness just doesn't "hold water" (forgive the pun, given the gist of the article)
I grew up downeast and our family didn't have money and yet I never fell to the despair to become an addict. There are numerous reasons for addiction. After witnessing friends and family, some times it stems from feeling hopeless.
Of course, some people are just immune to drug/alcohol addiction. But others are not. There are genetic and/familial traits that contribute to the propensity to addiction.
Same with soldiers returning from wars. Not all get PTSD, even though they live through the same horrors.
That is why I said there are numerous reasons for addiction.
And childhood traumas of varying degrees are an additional factor. Most psychological problems are not fixable. Psychiatric Big Pharma is a complete scam.
So the solutions have to focus on preventing mental ill health, rather than pretending to fix problems downstream, that aren't really fixable.
Reality is some persons are just lost to humanity. Our society would do better if we accepted a certain amount of losses.
The zero approach is never useful.
Glanced at the book.
Teaching responsibility is a must of course, and that should happen in early life.
The problem is that some kids are groomed to think very differently. Authoritarian parents teach the opposite of responsibility. Misbehaving parents create traumatised kids, the brain is rewired, and then it's too late for most to do "responsibility", because the brain is in survival mode.
As with most proposed solutions, they need to start early, they can't fix the problems once underway.
and by "I only disagree with intro" I meant I totally agree with the rest of the article ;)
That's Pinker's argument "less poverty", but looking at absolutes is not useful. Brains (not just humans, apes and other mammals too) use comparison, not absolutes, and our gap between rich and poor is worse, that's what drives the perception human value. So it pointless to TELL people "you're not poor, just be happy", it doesn't work.
A wide social gap leads to social unhappiness, that's just how reality is. Those of us not prone to drug addiction can sink to the depths of despair given a poor social context and remain mildly functional, but those with genetic and/or familial addiction propensity will fall.
Conversely, if we didn't demand life at all costs, a life 100% out of balance with nature (Canada is THE worst country for this) there would be way fewer un-fit (biologically) humans and this wouldn't even be an issue.
But I'll look up "Life at the Bottom". Thanks
Where I live, the Salvation Army ran a small old school shelter. Then they got a subsidy to build a giant shelter. The Salvation Army limited who could enter.
Then the Salvation Army couldn't handle the giant shelter, so the government took it over. Now they allow everyone in.
Thank You I shall seek it out!