this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
39 points (91.5% liked)

Canada

10792 readers
332 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

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


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

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

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


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems so simple. So basic of an idea that you wonder why it has not been implemented yet.

It is involuntary care.

As communities across the province grapple with street disorder and a sense of insecurity, involuntary care is seen by many as a solution. Politicians of all stripes have offered it up to concerned residents and businesses as a path forward.

The problem is it is unlikely to be what people are expecting. The expectation is that it will be a panacea; the reality will be quite different.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 20 points 1 day ago

It's really just institutionalization by another name. While homeless people are in involuntary care, the people who don't want them around will have their wish, and from their point of view, having the homeless cycle back into the system within a few months of release is a feature, not a bug. It doesn't actually do anything to curb substance abuse, but it isn't really meant to.

[–] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Used to be that mentally ill and addicted people could still afford cheap (flop) housing.

The problem of homelessness is caused by property owners, investors and government policy - not by its victims.

Involuntary addiction treatment can be helpful at times - sometimes required of physicians, and pilots with substance use problems with great success.

But punishing the poor is just a distraction from the fact that we have homelessness just so landlords can keep raising your rent.

[–] Threeskittiesinatrenchcoat@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Sometimes I think this homeless class of people is supposed to be an ever present threat. If you don't want to engage with the capitalist economy, then you end up on the street, seen as less than by the majority of society.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 hours ago

Not to be a "this^" commenter, but you sure said the quiet part out loud. Great insight

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anyone with any experience with addiction understands that the desire to beat it has to come from within the addicted or it won't stick.

Addiction is one side of it. Another side is severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. Unfortunately, the story for this one is quite tragic. The medications we have, antipsychotics, are effective at treating the symptoms but they come with heavy side effects that get worse over time. This means a lot of people stop taking their medication because they don’t want to deal with the side effects anymore.

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Another weak, sentiment-based opinion with no real positive ideas.

Take it from somebody that works in the system and has for many years... What we are missing are actual services.

Like 10 times more detox beds. Dedicated treatment centers staffed by psychologists and therapists. We need social housing.

Nothing is ever going to work with any form of forced healing, until the services are in place so that when a person voluntarily wants to obtain healing, it's actually available to them.

[–] LycanGalen@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

100%. And if we're actually trying to keep these folks from relapsing we need additional supports past the acute detox stage. Additional essential care (low cost/free food, clothing, health insurance, etc.) mental health supports, OT supports because adulting is fucking hard, and social supports.

In my area, we've lost a huge number of our free/low cost third spaces, which isolates the folks who need that social safety net the most. It also means the spaces available that don't involve alcohol, which can be a gateway back to other substances, are dwindling.

Anyway, we can't just release people into the world and go "you're cured!" There's a reason they turned to substance use in the first place.

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

You have to want to recover from addiction. If you have any kind of mental disorder, you have to want to be treated.

Both of these things are true but are unlikely to be solved with people living on the street or bunched up in dirty SROs in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

Riverside Hospital should be expanded to house multiple layers of homeless and mentally ill patients, each layer needs to be handling different issues.

Those who are down on their luck and managed to become homeless but dont have the means to get back to secure housing, they should be given training if needed and social workers to get them out of the provided housing and reintroduced into the work force.

A layer of the system should work on those with substance abuse issues, with therapy and withdrawal support then work them into the above layer.

Those with mental issues that can be treated with higher levels of therapy until moving them out into the housing and training layer.

Those with harder to treat mental issues should be held in stricter care that may have to be involuntary. This involuntary care should be under peer review regularly to make sure people aren't being put in this care unnecessarily but there is a segment of people that cannot safely be out in the world through no fault of their own.

We as a society need to pay for these kinds of care because the cost of not doing it is too high, in lives lost and safety of the people living on the street.

It should also be said that companies and employers should be paying more to their employees and as taxes to keep people out of poverty as that is what can lead to more people on the streets.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

Nobody thinks involuntary care will fix anything except having to see homeless people. The people advocating for involuntary care know what they're doing and they're despicable. If this doesn't work they'll just send them to jail.

They also know that involuntary care and jails are MORE expensive than housing. They don't care. Suffering is the point.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It seems nobody has a good solution, just disjointed efforts. The only hope I see for changing the creation of people that end up homeless Is early support for abused people, and mental health care for free, so that future generations have better chances of avoiding drugs as a coping mechanism for their demons.

To the articles: There seems to be a point where the drugs in society have become so addictive that it ~100% removes the persons ability to make healthy choices for themselves, and removes joy from life- other than the drug.

It seems to make logical sense to move the people suffering to involuntary care. We bring physically injured people to hospital and perform life saving surgeries on those that are too injured to refuse treatment choices.

As compassionate humans we take injured wild animals against their will and force them into treatment so they can live a proper life, so we try to do the same with our fellow humans.

Maybe its the wrong approach, but the other non barrier methods don't appear to be working.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It seems to make logical sense to move the people suffering to involuntary care. We bring physically injured people to hospital and perform life saving surgeries on those that are too injured to refuse treatment choices.

I think you're making a false equivalence. If you're brought unconscious to emergency after a motor vehicle collision, the docs can legally presume you'd consent to life-saving interventions and give you them before you're conscious. Once you're awake, you're free to decline treatment and leave the hospital. That could be within 24 hours.

Involuntary treatment for substance use probably means 1 to 3 months of involuntary care: not being able to leave a hospital unit, and having most 'resistance' to medical treatment or the hospitalization interpreted as hostility and/or inability to care for oneself (in some eye's justifying ongoing involuntary detention).

Hospitalization is pretty indignifying. If you're on board with the treatment plan, you accept it. If you're there against your will, it feels less like healthcare and more like prison (including for the healthcare staff). From my experience of caring for people involuntarily admitted to hospital for mental health reasons - the experience is more traumatizing for them than it is a foundation to improve their lives. Addiction is a social problem; it needs a social fix: Housing, counseling, employment opportunities are far more needed than medical care.

I also don't believe any drug is 100% addictive. The more stress and trauma and fewer resources and alternative sources of relaxation a person has access to - the more susceptible they are to addiction. These underlying factors are what we need to treat. The only reason involuntary care is popular amongst some politician-types isn't because it's effective, it's because it aligns with their neoliberal values and they don't care about effectiveness. Money for involuntary care would be better spent treating (eg, Housing First) and preventing homelessness

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I have lots of compassion for people without a roof over their heads, and I agree there's no one-size-fits-all solution, and we shouldn't just use this program to move people into a prison or cattle pen away from public view.

And while I support and advocate for tackling the precursors to both addiction and homelessness (affordable homes, secure food supply, safe drug supply, proper care, up-skilling), there's a certain level where those things won't work well anymore and you have to move to treat before things get even worse for them. How can one navigate living on their own if they are on the street bent over from the fent? A program shouldn't treat every homeless person in the same way as an addict, but an individual in the bent over situation needs treatment that they cannot easily obtain on their own, and would make sense to put them in involuntary treatment until they can make their own decisions uninfluenced by drugs.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 hours ago

I believe the evidence is pretty clear that the best method of getting people to achieve long-term self-driven improvements around these issues is offering them health and social care (e.g., wounds, food, shelter, employment info) where they are (eg, using in a safe consumption site, on the street, admitted to emergency or hospital) and building relationships with them, as opposed to temporarily taking away all their decision-making capacity and incarcerating them. Medicalizing the problem is to treat it very superficially and has a revolving door effect on patients, which is costly and associated with worse outcomes. I appreciate the discussion. It's making me realize that I may want to do more work in this area.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

They have proved that meth destroys the dopamine system so the only way you feel pleasure in life is meth.

Recovered people have suggested it takes years for the brains reward syatem to reset. A meth addict is not able to make proper choices for their future quality of life. Oxy seems similar, and add deadly drugs cut into that you have immenent death waiting.

I'm not saying involuntary care is the answer, I'm saying it seems like the answer when you follow logic reasoning, thus why people are for it.