Fentanyl

taxslave
+3 / -1
#211
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

If providing them with housing, and basic necessities is cheaper on the taxpayer than to make them fend for themselves, who wouldn't be opposed to programs meant to help the must vulnerable elements of society.

True. IF it was less expensive. The housing and food alone isn't hugely expensive, but the legions of government and contracted NGOs that have made an industry out of scamming taxpayers is.
 
Girth
#212
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

True. IF it was less expensive. The housing and food alone isn't hugely expensive, but the legions of government and contracted NGOs that have made an industry out of scamming taxpayers is.

I just provided two credible sources that clearly state it is cheaper. How many sources do you need? Can you discredit my statement with facts?

Medicine Hat implemented the Housing First initiative, and almost eliminated their homeless population, as well as saving the Government money.

Medicine Hat said it eliminated homelessness in 2015. Here’s how the city is working to keep it that way


But now, even in Medicine Hat, which Clugston describes as “arguably the most conservative city in Alberta,” getting people off the streets and straight into homes is considered a win for fiscal conservatives, too.

“It’s costing you in emergency room visits or interactions with first responders, police, paramedics ... It costs $80,000 or maybe $100,000 to keep somebody on the street,” Clugston says. “Versus in Medicine Hat you can house them for maybe $20,000 or $30,000. There’s a cost savings to the taxpayer.”

The fears he used to have about the program haven’t been realized, and Clugston now says other cities should stop making excuses about why Housing First isn’t possible.

“All this Band-Aid stuff, that never works. You’ve got to solve the problem, and that’s the Housing First model.”


source: https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2019...-that-way.html
 
Girth
#213
It defies logic how some people would rather have higher taxes, and keep people on the streets, where they are more likely to die of addiction, commit crime, and not receive treatment for mental health issues, than save money by having the Government provide a roof over their head, and resources to treat their addictions.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#214
Taxes will rise either way Girth
 
Girth
#215
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Taxes will rise either way Girth

Did you even read the numerous articles I provided?
 
Twin_Moose
#216
Taxes won't rise?
 
Girth
#217
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Taxes won't rise?

Taxes will fall. Read the three articles. This has been known for at least a decade.

Either that, or contact some social workers or city councilors from Medicine Hat.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#218
So Medicine hat reduced taxes for Canadians?
 
Girth
#219
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

So Medicine hat reduced taxes for Canadians?

Moving the goalposts, I see.

Believe what you want...
 
petros
+3
#220
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

True. IF it was less expensive. The housing and food alone isn't hugely expensive, but the legions of government and contracted NGOs that have made an industry out of scamming taxpayers is.

Property crimes costing all of on our insurance and cost of retail goods. Junkies are thieves.
 
petros
+4
#221
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

Taxes will fall. Read the three articles. This has been known for at least a decade.
Either that, or contact some social workers or city councilors from Medicine Hat.

After the gas crash the city of Medicine Fart had oodles of seized properties for homeless to occupy. They didnt have to buy or build. The exodus of people came in handy.

Next
 
Girth
#222
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

After the gas crash the city of Medicine Fart had oodles of seized properties for homeless to occupy. They didnt have to buy or build. The exodus of people came in handy.
Next

Never ceases to amaze me that people will comment, without reading the sources that are provided.

The oil and gas prices crashed at the end of 2014.

Medicine Hat implemented the Housing First initiative in 2009.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...date-1.3949030
 
captain morgan
+2
#223
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

If providing them with housing, and basic necessities is cheaper on the taxpayer than to make them fend for themselves, who wouldn't be opposed to programs meant to help the must vulnerable elements of society.


I gotta wonder what those numbers look like when you calculate the many years that the support will go on, let alone, the long-term health ramifications and costs related to years of substance abuse.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#224
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

Moving the goalposts, I see.
Believe what you want...

Moving what goalposts? I said taxes will still go up even if they use a cheaper alternative
 
taxslave
+2
#225
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

I just provided two credible sources that clearly state it is cheaper. How many sources do you need? Can you discredit my statement with facts?
Medicine Hat implemented the Housing First initiative, and almost eliminated their homeless population, as well as saving the Government money.
Medicine Hat said it eliminated homelessness in 2015. Here’s how the city is working to keep it that way

But now, even in Medicine Hat, which Clugston describes as “arguably the most conservative city in Alberta,” getting people off the streets and straight into homes is considered a win for fiscal conservatives, too.
“It’s costing you in emergency room visits or interactions with first responders, police, paramedics ... It costs $80,000 or maybe $100,000 to keep somebody on the street,” Clugston says. “Versus in Medicine Hat you can house them for maybe $20,000 or $30,000. There’s a cost savings to the taxpayer.”
The fears he used to have about the program haven’t been realized, and Clugston now says other cities should stop making excuses about why Housing First isn’t possible.
“All this Band-Aid stuff, that never works. You’ve got to solve the problem, and that’s the Housing First model.”

source: https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2019...-that-way.html

Just one that has the facts straight. One has to include all costs, not just the small bit that actually goes to clients. So far you are comparing apples and oranges.
 
taxslave
+2
#226
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

It defies logic how some people would rather have higher taxes, and keep people on the streets, where they are more likely to die of addiction, commit crime, and not receive treatment for mental health issues, than save money by having the Government provide a roof over their head, and resources to treat their addictions.

You also still have to get them into the housing. Not always easy and some have zero tolerance for D&A. Then what do you do?
You are on the right track but there is more to it than meets the eye.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#227
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Just one that has the facts straight. One has to include all costs, not just the small bit that actually goes to clients. So far you are comparing apples and oranges.

So your and Captain Morgan's position is that, because all the costs that could possibly be called related to the Housing First initiative haven't been brought in, you're going to declare it a failure (without, of course, doing any cost analysis yourselves)?
 
captain morgan
+4
#228
As expected, a gross misinterpretation yet again.

Congrats on being consistent though
 
Tecumsehsbones
+4
#229
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

As expected, a gross misinterpretation yet again.
Congrats on being consistent though

Y'know, I gave it a think, and I decide you're mostly right.

You and tax weren't trying to shoot down the idea, you were levelling a fair criticism at Girth's presentation of the idea.

So. . . you were right, I was wrong.

I apologize. To you too, tax.

When I f*ck up, I 'fess up. I'll congratulate myself on being consistent.
 
captain morgan
+3
#230
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Y'know, I gave it a think, and I decide you're mostly right.

You and tax weren't trying to shoot down the idea, you were levelling a fair criticism at Girth's presentation of the idea.

So. . . you were right, I was wrong.

I apologize. To you too, tax.

When I f*ck up, I 'fess up. I'll congratulate myself on being consistent.


In terms of the core issue and possible solutions, I have only an opinion to offer - and I do understand that an opinion is almost as worthless as teats on a bull.

That said, as far as a cost analysis goes, I believe that it's more than fair to judge all the costs related to the short through long term scenarios.

Sadly, the longer that a person struggles with this kind of crippling addiction, the the greater the damage done to their body that (at some point) becomes irreversible... The long term scenario encompasses all of the short term issues and time just adds-on many more issues
 
taxslave
+2
#231
It is a complicated problem and I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution. Also other than creating careers for social workers I don't believe we are going to fix the problem putting band aid over band aid. It will require a multi pronged solution and it will have to be national. Right now Vancouver, being run by socialists has become a drug Mecca because they are giving free drugs and safe injection sites to everyone that wants them. No proof of residency required. Despite this the illegal drug trade is doing a rip roaring business even with killing dozens of customers every month.
I think are best chance is legalize drugs but require and provide mandatory rehab. Illegal drug dealers can be put up against the wall and shot with a hot load of their own product.
 
petros
#232
Nobody is giving free drugs. Where did you get that idea?
 
taxslave
#233
Vancouver city.