[Northern Light]

The province has an anti-crime bill or two coming.......and it looks like involuntary addiction treatment will factor into one of them.

Ontario eyes involuntary addiction treatment for people in jail, on parole, probation

The Canadian Press has learned that the government will make that announcement today.

www.thestar.com

In reading what seems to be coming, it looks like it will be based around the new BC model (from the NDP) and does not seem unreasonable; though I'm sure Doug's presser will make it seem such.

 

[lenaitch]

The province has an anti-crime bill or two coming.......and it looks like involuntary addiction treatment will factor into one of them.

Ontario eyes involuntary addiction treatment for people in jail, on parole, probation

The Canadian Press has learned that the government will make that announcement today.

www.thestar.com

In reading what seems to be coming, it looks like it will be based around the new BC model (from the NDP) and does not seem unreasonable; though I'm sure Doug's presser will make it seem such.

Much will depend on the particular legislation and how the courts and follow-on systems deal with it. All the various pieces of legislation will have to survive challenges and that will take time to work through the systems. Empowering judges to include treatment as a sentencing provision has merit, and a greater chance of legal success than more draconian measures some want so people can be scooped off the street and sent for treatment. Couch it in whatever terms they want, sending somebody to a facility for involuntary treatment is custody. If it were as easy as requiring somebody to attend the equivalent of AA meetings but is otherwise free to move about, it would have worked a long time ago.

The big challenge will be compliance. Sentencing conditions, probation, etc. are nothing new, and neither is addicts breaking or avoiding them. If the condition is involuntary admission to a treatment or MH facility, there are obvious security and enforcement issues. There are also issued of the medical professionals involved who may view the court orders through the lens of their professional college/regulator/ethics.

When I was a police officer, taking somebody to a MH facility was the easier part. Getting the facility to keep them was the hard one.

 

[Northern Light]

Much will depend on the particular legislation and how the courts and follow-on systems deal with it. All the various pieces of legislation will have to survive challenges and that will take time to work through the systems. Empowering judges to include treatment as a sentencing provision has merit, and a greater chance of legal success than more draconian measures some want so people can be scooped off the street and sent for treatment. Couch it in whatever terms they want, sending somebody to a facility for involuntary treatment is custody. If it were as easy as requiring somebody to attend the equivalent of AA meetings but is otherwise free to move about, it would have worked a long time ago.

The big challenge will be compliance. Sentencing conditions, probation, etc. are nothing new, and neither is addicts breaking or avoiding them. If the condition is involuntary admission to a treatment or MH facility, there are obvious security and enforcement issues. There are also issued of the medical professionals involved who may view the court orders through the lens of their professional college/regulator/ethics.

When I was a police officer, taking somebody to a MH facility was the easier part. Getting the facility to keep them was the hard one.

The much lauded model in Portugal doesn't use involuntary treatment (in respect of addiction) all that much; instead it relies on giving offenders a choice, treatment or jail.

That model will have holes too, they all do.

But I'd like to see us put this one in the window and see how it flies. Lower barrier to entry constitutionally.

Any which way, we need more treatment beds, including those for longer stays (3 to 6 months).

We also need a social program component for those who are housed/employed such that they don't enter treatment only to lose their housing and job.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...just keep in mind (and putting my personal objections to anything involuntary aside) there needs to be a component of willingness with the person being treated. Because it will be all for not if the person goes back to using again in the end.

 

[Northern Light]

...just keep in mind (and putting my personal objections to anything involuntary aside) there needs to be a component of willingness with the person being treated. Because it will be all for not if the person goes back to using again in the end.

While I broadly sympathize with this idea, i do think we need to make some clear exceptions.

The first and most critical is where someone's addiction is resulting is clear, substantive (typically criminal) harm to others. A duty to protect others demands removal of the threat.

Simply throwing an addict who has reached the above point in jail, without treatment, serves no one, particularly where release from jail is inevitable. Equally, ignoring the problem while others are victimized doesn't work either.

Self-harm, is something that society should also seek to avoid, yet, merits a bit more latitude in respect of compulsory treatment (depending on the degree of harm in question.). But where someone is unable to function in society, such that
they have become homeless, or unable to maintain any employment (when of working age), I do think there comes a point where intervention, however uncomfortable for the rest of us that may be, is the only reasonable and compassionate alternative.

Where someone may freeze in the winter, or suffer other ill effects; or be subject to high risks of overdose, repeatedly. I can't see how its more reasonable to say 'but he/she prefers it this way'.

Compulsory treatment should absolutely be a last resort, one where it is demonstrably justified, where all other alternatives have been exhausted, and then, done with as much compassion and kindness as one can in such circumstances.

 

[evandyk]

That's unfortunate, but it does not detract from what I said. That is, electing judges does not guarantee they will comply with the will of the government...which is the narrative of Doug's rant, whether he realizes that or not. And in certain cases, the complete opposite may happen.

True, and Doug would do well to remember that his "majority" government is based on the wishes of around 40% of people who voted. There are 60% of people who mostly disagree with him. Though I would say that within that 60% are probably a bunch of people whose views on criminal justice look a lot like Doug Ford's, but they vote for other parties based on other issues.

 

[SubHuman]

... taking somebody to a MH facility was the easier part. Getting the facility to keep them was the hard one.

That would seem to be at the centre of the problem, presumably here also, not necessarily about needing the laws to be changed.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...r-reviews-mental-health-legislation-1.7523191

... Lo was under the care of a mental health team and "on extended leave" ...
"In this situation, the care team followed established guidelines for a client on extended leave, and there was no indication this person was not following their treatment plan or presented a public safety risk," VCH said in an email to CBC News.

 

[lenaitch]

Self-harm, is something that society should also seek to avoid, yet, merits a bit more latitude in respect of compulsory treatment (depending on the degree of harm in question.). But where someone is unable to function in society, such that
they have become homeless, or unable to maintain any employment (when of working age), I do think there comes a point where intervention, however uncomfortable for the rest of us that may be, is the only reasonable and compassionate alternative.

Where someone may freeze in the winter, or suffer other ill effects; or be subject to high risks of overdose, repeatedly. I can't see how its more reasonable to say 'but he/she prefers it this way'.

Compulsory treatment should absolutely be a last resort, one where it is demonstrably justified, where all other alternatives have been exhausted, and then, done with as much compassion and kindness as one can in such circumstances.

Where the principles of 'free and democratic' and 'civil' societies collide.

In a purely free society, we are free to be as unproductive and addled as we choose so long as we don't interfere with others. But we are not that place. We have things like socialized medicine, welfare, shelters, etc. (you can argue whether they are adequate) where society has determined that public resources should be made available to help those who can't, for whatever reason, help themselves. But they are all voluntary. The issue changes when the power of the State wants to impose itself. Wherever that line is, it remains to be seen what our society is comfortable with.

That would seem to be at the centre of the problem, presumably here also, not necessarily about needing the laws to be changed.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...r-reviews-mental-health-legislation-1.7523191

This tragedy is miles away from drug addicts on the street. In this case, we don't know (or, at least, I haven't read) under what authority he was being held or whether he was a voluntary or involuntary patient. Outside of the justice system (i.e. someone found Not Criminally Responsible or Unfit to Stand Trial), it is very, very high bar to have someone involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility. The current legislation, In Ontario anyway and I suspect other provinces are very similar, cannot be massaged into dealing with homeless addicts.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

While I broadly sympathize with this idea, i do think we need to make some clear exceptions.

The first and most critical is where someone's addiction is resulting is clear, substantive (typically criminal) harm to others. A duty to protect others demands removal of the threat.

Simply throwing an addict who has reached the above point in jail, without treatment, serves no one, particularly where release from jail is inevitable. Equally, ignoring the problem while others are victimized doesn't work either.

Self-harm, is something that society should also seek to avoid, yet, merits a bit more latitude in respect of compulsory treatment (depending on the degree of harm in question.). But where someone is unable to function in society, such that
they have become homeless, or unable to maintain any employment (when of working age), I do think there comes a point where intervention, however uncomfortable for the rest of us that may be, is the only reasonable and compassionate alternative.

Where someone may freeze in the winter, or suffer other ill effects; or be subject to high risks of overdose, repeatedly. I can't see how its more reasonable to say 'but he/she prefers it this way'.

Compulsory treatment should absolutely be a last resort, one where it is demonstrably justified, where all other alternatives have been exhausted, and then, done with as much compassion and kindness as one can in such circumstances.

I get that, but my position still remains the same. And my concern will always be that things can go wrong and very wrong even under most careful of considerations, particularly in the area where civil liberties are put aside to address our social ills. And to put that mildly...

...that said, I can agree this is probably a better approach than the more draconian methods they currently use today.

However, if you want my personal opinion on this...they should least look at rewarding good behavior over punishing bad ones. Our love for "law and order" is way too punitive focus, currently. As we should be also looking at the reasons why folks who become a physical threat need to be restrained and removed. And it really has nothing to do about spanking them for being naughty...just saying.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

True, and Doug would do well to remember that his "majority" government is based on the wishes of around 40% of people who voted. There are 60% of people who mostly disagree with him. Though I would say that within that 60% are probably a bunch of people whose views on criminal justice look a lot like Doug Ford's, but they vote for other parties based on other issues.

We're speaking of bike lanes which likely have a larger support for them than Doug thinks, particularly in vote rich downtown urban areas...

...either way though, my point still remains. As I am sure electing judges will not go the way Doug thinks it will if that where to ever happen. Hopefully for reasons stated in this discourse, not.

 

[Northern Light]

The Ford Government will drop the provincial budget on May 15th, two weeks from today.

Doug Ford’s Tories will table Ontario budget on May 15 as Trump’s threats loom

Bethlenfalvy will introduce the budget against the backdrop of economic threats to Canada from U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs.

www.thestar.com

Beyond some generalizations, the Minister isn't letting too many specifics out just yet.....

The opposition parties must respond, of course, as they should..........

But while the leaders of the NDP and Greens responded as you might think they would, in line w/the general POV of their parties......

This is what the Liberal leader had to say:

Seriously? Ontario has zero income tax on those who earn less than $50,000 per year.

If you earn over, then you pay ~5% on any income above $12,399 within the first tax bracket.

This is the lowest rate on an entry level bracket in Canada.

Meanwhile the small business tax rate (income) is 3.2% (for businesses with total income under $500,000), and the general corporate tax its lowest in 3 generations.

All that and this strategy worked so well for the Liberals in the last election. Sigh.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The Ford Government will drop the provincial budget on May 15th, two weeks from today.

Doug Ford’s Tories will table Ontario budget on May 15 as Trump’s threats loom

Bethlenfalvy will introduce the budget against the backdrop of economic threats to Canada from U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs.

www.thestar.com

Beyond some generalizations, the Minister isn't letting too many specifics out just yet.....

The opposition parties must respond, of course, as they should..........

But while the leaders of the NDP and Greens responded as you might think they would, in line w/the general POV of their parties......

This is what the Liberal leader had to say:

View attachment 647670

Seriously? Ontario has zero income tax on those who earn less than $50,000 per year.

If you earn over, then you pay ~5% on any income above $12,399 within the first tax bracket.

This is the lowest rate on an entry level bracket in Canada.

Meanwhile the small business tax rate (income) is 3.2% (for businesses with total income under $500,000), and the general corporate tax its lowest in 3 generations.

All that and this strategy worked so well for the Liberals in the last election. Sigh.

How will the province pay for maintaining its highways? Or for the tunnel under the 401? Since they lowered the Ontario fuel tax and electric vehicles don't pay a fuel tax.

 

[Northern Light]

How will the province pay for maintaining its highways? Since they lowered the Ontario fuel tax and electric vehicles don't pay a fuel tax.

How do we pay for anything? We borrow, of course! LOL

Its only interest on the debt..........

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

How do we pay for anything? We borrow, of course! LOL

Its only interest on the debt..........

I prefer that over to gut and cut anyday...

...but yeah, that's not being responsible by reducing the tax base while announcing pie-in-the-sky infrastructure projects either there, Doug (and Bonnie).

 

[lenaitch]

However, if you want my personal opinion on this...they should least look at rewarding good behavior over punishing bad ones. Our love for "law and order" is way too punitive focus, currently. As we should be also looking at the reasons why folks who become a physical threat need to be restrained and removed. And it really has nothing to do about spanking them for being naughty...just saying.

I'm not sure how you envision that. In a free and democratic society like ours we are all free to do and be whatever we want within the bounds of the law. How would law abiding persons get rewarded? If something is within the bounds of the law, the reward is you get to do it.

I fully agree that the factors underlying the circumstances that lead to drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness, etc. should be examined and, where within the powers of the State, rectified. I know, and I'm sure many of us on here know someone who had everything positive in their life, but decided to stick something in their arm or up their nose and that was the beginning of the end.