Any comments on survey?
This survey was difficult to complete as it does consider crimes that are committed by drug users to obtain money to purchase drugs. Harm reduction strategies do not remove the illicit drug market or guarantee a steady safe supply. Safe communities and effective law enforcement go hand in hand. Crimes committed for the purpose to obtain drugs still requires law enforcement intervention, user accountability and mandated treatment to avoid criminal punishment. Addiction on it's own should not be constitute leniency with the courts without mandated treatment. While I agree hard drug use should be treated as a medical condition in most instances, drug related crimes can not be exempt. Additionally, drug trafficking should be dealt with much more seriously, including severe punishment as a result of the impact hard drugs have on our society, individuals, their families and the cost to the taxpayers to administer treatment. Drug addiction and mental health are closely linked in many cases. We need to fund many additional mental health and medical resources in order to establish timely and sustained access to medical care and treatment or we will not be effective in saving lives or making our communities safer.
Many questions required black and white answers but the real world is more nuanced.
Survey was very long and lots of similar questions. I suspect it was deliberate but by end not sure I was reading as carefully.
I think they were overall good questions
So interesting and thought provoking- thank you for the opportunity to complete this and share my opinion
I feel depending the severity of the addiction and the crime committed, if any, need to be taken into consideration
No "one size fits all" some PUD respond to one approach, while others respond to another. For example, some have found success with court mandated/drug courts.
Criminalizing drug use simply exacerbated the social experience in which drug users find themselves. It’s an impediment to both rehabilitation and social integration.
i tried to keep selections to literal statements in survey. eg responsibility for actions "agree" but responsibility doesn't, nec, mean legal; i'm not a medical person so effectiveness items are simply my assumptions (eg. tmt and HR are not same, but both better than legal)
Prevention is key—help people before they lose everything, everyone and self respect—target young abusers for intervention
Connections between drug use and the criminal justice system are multifaceted and connect with broader social issues related to economics and and social support. I think consideration of those factors are important when designing questions about attitudes on drugs
Questions were very weighted one way or the other. Some middle ground questions might be helpful. For example, decriminalization of some hard drugs but discouraging use in public.
I think the survey could have benefited from defining terms and giving some examples at the onset. For instance, many questions asked about harm reduction strategies but without a clear definition I think it could be interpreted differently depending on the respondent.
I felt some of the questions were repetitive, asking the same thing in different ways.
I think that the topics were covered well.
No definition of harm prevention policies is given. It taints the survey. Some questions are phrased in a biased way.
Portugal is doing the right thing, everybody should carry naloxone, harm reduction is based. I think we should replace 98% of the police force with social workers and health resources. Equity >
Neutral and no opinion I think are different. Neutral means I don’t care. No opinion means I don’t have enough knowledge on the question to answer.
I think me need safe injection center which also require them.to.go to meetings to help with problems too
The term “addict” is stigmatizing language unless the individual using drugs identifies that way
Decrminalizing personal amounts of hard drugs ought to have been the very last policy implemented. In the absence of appropriate, accessible, available and robust drug addiction support structures, mental health treatments and a number of other pathway so care, decriminalization has not proven effective at reducing illicit drug overdose deaths or reducing the number of people engaging in illicit drug use. The decriminalization pilot in BC has been an abject failure. The government pandered to illicit drug users who wish to normalize drug use.
I think there are broader aspects to consider than just the pointed questions and statements in the survey, but that’s also a failure of some current drug policies. They only address the result rather than the underlying causes that put people on the path of drug use (mental health, insecure housing, lack of access to resources, lack of education, disproportional treatment of marginalized groups, etc.). However, it’s also why I liked the survey, it highlights how these aren’t “simple” questions to answer and this is an issue that needs to be looked at with a broader lens. Great survey!
The language in the questions is heavily biased toward favoring harm reduction. Language with strict language like “only” or “just” make the respondent feel as if there should only be one answer. The questions should be open ended.
Given determinants of health are often at the root of problematic substance use, it would have been helpful to list the various factors to see which ones rank the highest to lowest, i.e., income and social status, childhood trauma, education, gender, race, sexuality, etc.
Drug policies must include a full range, such as Canada's Drug Strategy, and not focus on one aspect disproportionally. In other words, SIS are great but there must be sufficient resources available for those seeking help with addictions, and not unreasonable relays in actually accessing these services. Sometimes users resort to violence and in those cases incarceration may be necessary - not for the drug use itself, but for the violent behaviour sometimes used to support the habit. Harm Reduction is a key component of effective drug policy, but not in isolation.
Drug addicts do not have the ability to make decisions for themselves. Tax payers should have a choice where their tax dollars go. Part of harm reduction fuels the criminal element of the illicit drug trade.
At some point, people needs to take responsibility for their actions. Yes, if they want to be drug free, support should be available.
regardless of policy, downstream health pathways of care need to be establishesd
I’m a amputee ( with wcb) they promote hard drugs to try get the person off of wcb and back in the work force, thus a person gets hooked on pharmaceutical drugs, this needs to be stopped, as wcb does not care about the person only money
I am not sure whether the question regarding reducing the need for police was pro,anti, or value neutral. I am not sure what is considered a hard drug, my definition would not include things like psychedelics. Other considerations include the cost to the public of the war on drugs and recidivism
The questionnaire presupposes that the survey recipient is knowable about decriminalization and what is included in drug treatment/harm reduction programs. The amount of knowledge of two issues could impact the survey recipient answers.
Survey questions were comprehensive. I believe you covered the main points to consider.
I have serious doubt about the success of any decriminalization of hard drugs, like cocaine, heroin, and fantanyl. It will only encourage continued drug usage.
if we are to treat drug addiction as an illness and give free treatment and needles, we need to consider giving free needles to diabetics and others who are medically ill in our communities. I also don't see this as an "either or" discussion. the current situation in BC is an epic failure of harm reduction implementation. there must be treatment available, not just free needles and lip service to kids warning them not to do drugs.
the connection of drug and opioid use to issues related to social problems more widely
There seems to be two different rules when it comes to addictions. Drugs versus alcoholism. One can be a criminal offence where as with the other it seems we are trying so hard for it not to be considered criminal. Both destroy not only the user but also many people around them. How many times so we treat someone that has overdosed multiple times. Is there not some kind of treatment that can be administered after the first overdose instead of treating them on the street and then just letting them go until next time.
Drug addiction is a disease compounded by a complicated set of social, behavioural and mental health issues IMO.
The survey encompassed all the major issues and concerns that people have about addicts.
I think one thing to address around safe injection sites would be that if there are sufficient sites, then there would be no reason for it to "bring drug users to other communities". It only leads to lots of people going to a safe injection site when there is only a few for an entire city.
These people need help. Should be triaged for psych also.
How do we as a society address street living? Should drug policies be tied to the housing policies as well?