6 ms·

> Mortality patterns from unintentional poisoning have been of particular interest, as there is evidence in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia that substanc

> Mortality patterns from unintentional poisoning have been of particular interest, as there is evidence in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia that substance use has increased in 2020 compared with previous years, while availability and access to harm reduction programs, supervised consumption services, and in-person support services for substance use may have been disrupted during the pandemic. Deaths from accidental poisoning can include different circumstances such as individuals using substances recreationally along with those who mistakenly ingest too much prescription or over-the-counter medications. Kind of understating things here. There's a toxic drug crisis in this country and it has killed thousands upon thousands in recent years. This was happening well before the pandemic. Literally 5 people every day in British Columbia are dying due to overdoses, directly related from the fact that the drugs are poisoned, not what they appear, and it has become impossible to ascertain a correct dosage. This should be an election issue (Canada is having an election issue atm) but sadly it won't be. BC's health officer, who everyone has listened to during this pandemic, has begged the Federal government (the Province and City of Vancouver also begging) to decriminalize drugs to help with this issue, but the Feds have done nothing.

monkeybutton 5y ago
At this point I don't believe real change will happen until the majority of voters are somehow personally affected by this epidemic of overdoses. Canadian society has a very strong puritanical undercurrent to it that is rarely acknowledged. I've heard in casual conversation people say that addicts overdosing is a "problem that solves itself". Until these peoples' views are changed, the suffering will continue.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  I think, the problem is deeper. People turn towards drugs when something else in their life is terribly broken and they see no way of fixing it. And I suspect that the ongoing erosion of the middle class has something to do with it. I think the current popular viewpoint that we should just be ok with a growing fraction of the population effectively committing a gradual mental suicide, welcome it and make it easier, is totally wrong.
  - monkeybutton 5y ago
    Totally agreed. I don't believe people are born predestined to become addicts; they may or may not have inherited a propensity for it, but circumstances are generally what pushes someone push over the edge into full blown addiction. Viewing addiction as a moral failing rather than a maladaptive coping mechanism for a miserable existence and/or untreated mental illness is holding progress back.
    - katzgrau 5y ago
      I'm not sure I agree. For many, the substance one is addicted to generally starts out as something seen as fun and enjoyable. Take alcohol, the most widely celebrated addictive toxin in the world. Stick with it for a bit, integrate into your life as a crutch (bad social skills, try drinking! need a way to relax, try drinking! bored, try drinking!) and eventually the effects of withdrawal keep you hooked. Even if you think you're not hooked, there's a chance you are. It's a slide that is very difficult to travel in the opposite direction on. Some people will certainly slide further down due to life circumstances, but that's not really the problem, is it? You can't eliminate the fact that life is eventually going to really suck at one time or another. The problem is that we allow companies to profit from addictive and usually harmful substances, and they are incentivized to keep people addicted. Alcohol, tobacco, and opiates - the root of an astounding amount of poor health, financial struggle, and early death among otherwise ordinary people. Addiction isn't a moral failing of the individual as much as it is one of society, but in my opinion, for different reasons. Think about it, there's real truth to it.
      - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
        Your entire 'real truth' doesn't even deal with the fact that many people can use substances without addiction, but some people absolutely cannot. So by your truth anyone who becomes an addict is weak. I see a moral failing here.
        katzgrau 5y ago
        > many people can use substances without addiction My stance is that the majority of people regularly using some substance probably sit somewhere on the spectrum of addiction. Most people just never bother to quit, because it hasn't caused too much of an interference. Or if it has, they say they'll "cut back." Soon enough they're right back where they started. Addiction can exist in very subtle ways. It creeps up. It's also highly stigmatized, so nobody wants to admit that they're dependent on a substance. With the exception of caffeine of course. Most people will openly admit their addiction to caffeine.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Drug addiction and overdosing are related but separate problems. While some solutions may impact both, they really should be treated very differently. Overdoses happen because people are doing hard drugs while alone and/or are getting bad drugs. Prevention of overdosed means not locking up addicts for basic possession. Safe injection sites. Basic communication services such as handing out cellphones to addicts can make a huge difference (the cost of one ER visit will buy 100 cellphones). These things can be done now. Stopping people from becoming addicts is different. It requires societal change so that people don't land in situations where they are likely to turn to drugs. That means employment programs. That means post-hospital monitoring of patients. That means decent affordable housing. That means much more expensive and long-term efforts.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    That assumes drug addicts are not employed and need housing. Those are poverty signals. While many in poverty are drug addicts many in regular society are as well. The long term solution must include all drug addicts.
lemmox 5y ago
FWIW since I started referring to this as poisonings (instead of overdoses) I've found folks to be much more amenable to conversation. Nobody likes the idea of the wicked poisoning the vulnerable.
- unraveller 5y ago
  How do folks respond when they find out many addicts clearly choose to take the "poison" for more complex highs? despite knowing the risk, despite cheaper priced "non-poison" offerings. The dosage makes it poison, so it is an overdose if a properdose was sort and personally misjudged.
  - lemmox 5y ago
    With nuance, I guess? Depends on the conversation. I'd say that there's more agreement than disagreement. Here 70% of the overdoses are related to drugs cut with unpredictable levels of fentanyl. I'd say I've seen consensus on that being a "bad thing(tm)", and consensus that the criminals cutting street drugs with fentanyl are "bad guys(tm)". I guess to your point about junkies making bad decisions, my peer group skews older, we've already said everything we can say about junkies making bad decisions 30+ years ago. It's true, but it makes for stale conversation and seems kind of orthogonal to, or at least adjacent to, the current fentanyl situation.
jdhn 5y ago
>BC's health officer, who everyone has listened to during this pandemic, has begged the Federal government (the Province and City of Vancouver also begging) to decriminalize drugs to help with this issue, but the Feds have done nothing. Alright, I'm going to poke the bear. How would decriminalization help? I'm assuming that by decriminialization, you mean legalizing the consumption, but not sale of drugs. If so, that doesn't solve the problem of the production of drugs, which IMO won't result in the changes that you want to see (drug users dying).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lemmox 5y ago
  My wife actually asked this of some professionals working in this space yesterday at a local awareness event (she works in community services, unrelated to drug policy). The answer (paraphrased) was it doesn't directly stop the poisonings. It's in the spirit of harm reduction to open up more support channels. One example given was about going to the hospital and honesty with health professionals. Currently there's disincentives for an addict to disclose their addiction due to legal actions that get triggered upon disclosure. Removing those legal triggers could (would?) allow for more supervision without legal consequence to hopefully reduce the overall harm. It gave us something to chat about.
  - jdhn 5y ago
    I'm curious, what rules exist? Are they at a federal or state level?
    - lemmox 5y ago
      One example provided, which I've not fact-checked and might be limited to BC, was that disclosing addiction during a hospital visit opens up a file with child welfare services.
    - II2II 5y ago
      I don't know if the federal government plays a role here, but the duty to report type laws for professionals are typically at a provincial level. That being said, as far as I know, they are fairly consistent across provinces.

monkeybutton 5y ago

At this point I don't believe real change will happen until the majority of voters are somehow personally affected by this epidemic of overdoses. Canadian society has a very strong puritanical undercurrent to it that is rarely acknowledged. I've heard in casual conversation people say that addicts overdosing is a "problem that solves itself". Until these peoples' views are changed, the suffering will continue.

john_moscow 5y ago
I think, the problem is deeper. People turn towards drugs when something else in their life is terribly broken and they see no way of fixing it. And I suspect that the ongoing erosion of the middle class has something to do with it. I think the current popular viewpoint that we should just be ok with a growing fraction of the population effectively committing a gradual mental suicide, welcome it and make it easier, is totally wrong.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  Totally agreed. I don't believe people are born predestined to become addicts; they may or may not have inherited a propensity for it, but circumstances are generally what pushes someone push over the edge into full blown addiction. Viewing addiction as a moral failing rather than a maladaptive coping mechanism for a miserable existence and/or untreated mental illness is holding progress back.
  - katzgrau 5y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. For many, the substance one is addicted to generally starts out as something seen as fun and enjoyable. Take alcohol, the most widely celebrated addictive toxin in the world. Stick with it for a bit, integrate into your life as a crutch (bad social skills, try drinking! need a way to relax, try drinking! bored, try drinking!) and eventually the effects of withdrawal keep you hooked. Even if you think you're not hooked, there's a chance you are. It's a slide that is very difficult to travel in the opposite direction on. Some people will certainly slide further down due to life circumstances, but that's not really the problem, is it? You can't eliminate the fact that life is eventually going to really suck at one time or another. The problem is that we allow companies to profit from addictive and usually harmful substances, and they are incentivized to keep people addicted. Alcohol, tobacco, and opiates - the root of an astounding amount of poor health, financial struggle, and early death among otherwise ordinary people. Addiction isn't a moral failing of the individual as much as it is one of society, but in my opinion, for different reasons. Think about it, there's real truth to it.
    - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
      Your entire 'real truth' doesn't even deal with the fact that many people can use substances without addiction, but some people absolutely cannot. So by your truth anyone who becomes an addict is weak. I see a moral failing here.
      - katzgrau 5y ago
        > many people can use substances without addiction My stance is that the majority of people regularly using some substance probably sit somewhere on the spectrum of addiction. Most people just never bother to quit, because it hasn't caused too much of an interference. Or if it has, they say they'll "cut back." Soon enough they're right back where they started. Addiction can exist in very subtle ways. It creeps up. It's also highly stigmatized, so nobody wants to admit that they're dependent on a substance. With the exception of caffeine of course. Most people will openly admit their addiction to caffeine.
sandworm101 5y ago
Drug addiction and overdosing are related but separate problems. While some solutions may impact both, they really should be treated very differently. Overdoses happen because people are doing hard drugs while alone and/or are getting bad drugs. Prevention of overdosed means not locking up addicts for basic possession. Safe injection sites. Basic communication services such as handing out cellphones to addicts can make a huge difference (the cost of one ER visit will buy 100 cellphones). These things can be done now. Stopping people from becoming addicts is different. It requires societal change so that people don't land in situations where they are likely to turn to drugs. That means employment programs. That means post-hospital monitoring of patients. That means decent affordable housing. That means much more expensive and long-term efforts.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  That assumes drug addicts are not employed and need housing. Those are poverty signals. While many in poverty are drug addicts many in regular society are as well. The long term solution must include all drug addicts.

lemmox 5y ago

FWIW since I started referring to this as poisonings (instead of overdoses) I've found folks to be much more amenable to conversation. Nobody likes the idea of the wicked poisoning the vulnerable.

unraveller 5y ago
How do folks respond when they find out many addicts clearly choose to take the "poison" for more complex highs? despite knowing the risk, despite cheaper priced "non-poison" offerings. The dosage makes it poison, so it is an overdose if a properdose was sort and personally misjudged.
- lemmox 5y ago
  With nuance, I guess? Depends on the conversation. I'd say that there's more agreement than disagreement. Here 70% of the overdoses are related to drugs cut with unpredictable levels of fentanyl. I'd say I've seen consensus on that being a "bad thing(tm)", and consensus that the criminals cutting street drugs with fentanyl are "bad guys(tm)". I guess to your point about junkies making bad decisions, my peer group skews older, we've already said everything we can say about junkies making bad decisions 30+ years ago. It's true, but it makes for stale conversation and seems kind of orthogonal to, or at least adjacent to, the current fentanyl situation.

jdhn 5y ago

>BC's health officer, who everyone has listened to during this pandemic, has begged the Federal government (the Province and City of Vancouver also begging) to decriminalize drugs to help with this issue, but the Feds have done nothing. Alright, I'm going to poke the bear. How would decriminalization help? I'm assuming that by decriminialization, you mean legalizing the consumption, but not sale of drugs. If so, that doesn't solve the problem of the production of drugs, which IMO won't result in the changes that you want to see (drug users dying).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lemmox 5y ago
My wife actually asked this of some professionals working in this space yesterday at a local awareness event (she works in community services, unrelated to drug policy). The answer (paraphrased) was it doesn't directly stop the poisonings. It's in the spirit of harm reduction to open up more support channels. One example given was about going to the hospital and honesty with health professionals. Currently there's disincentives for an addict to disclose their addiction due to legal actions that get triggered upon disclosure. Removing those legal triggers could (would?) allow for more supervision without legal consequence to hopefully reduce the overall harm. It gave us something to chat about.
- jdhn 5y ago
  I'm curious, what rules exist? Are they at a federal or state level?
  - lemmox 5y ago
    One example provided, which I've not fact-checked and might be limited to BC, was that disclosing addiction during a hospital visit opens up a file with child welfare services.
  - II2II 5y ago
    I don't know if the federal government plays a role here, but the duty to report type laws for professionals are typically at a provincial level. That being said, as far as I know, they are fairly consistent across provinces.