Fair enough, I am thinking of decriminalization that’s being moved away from, which is further along the spectrum.

I kind of see your analogy, but driving a car has utility, and is much safer (although I would like to prevent some car driving as well). Fentanyl addiction is not a natural course.

Anyway I don’t think we will agree, so I’ll take a separate tack. Yes, prevention and treatment is a separate issue. It also has wider support, so my wish would be that government can get some consensus here and take action.

I don’t disagree that having professionals nearby can prevent overdose / accidental death.

My concerns are: Safe consumption sites are controversial, and their support causes broader backlash. Usage rates are low and not a good use of resources.

Proponents are misusing data:

users of SCS would tend towards wanting help anyway and don’t speak to broader efficacy.

‘Lives saved’ don’t take into account any increase in use from a system perspective. That is to say, reduced stigma I believe increases drug use and death. Studies I’ve seen look at a micro level but not macro level. Example, “we prevented 10 deaths”, but they dont take into account any increase in drug use from its normalization.

It’s OK to feel shame for being addicted to drugs. But I also get we don’t want people hiding away and dying. Stopping use should be the goal.

The people on the front lines have an important perspective, but they aren’t seeing the whole story.

Aren’t cities moving away from SCS because it’s not working?

I don’t think Dofo is taking the right approach, but sanctioned consumption sites I don’t think are the way to go.

We shouldn’t be normalizing drug use, and they are very controversial.

My preference is to lean into voluntary treatment centers. Make space available so the moment someone decides they need help, space is available for them.

Agressively advertise treatment options in areas trafficked by addicts.

We need to work to shut down the use and availability of fentanyl and related opiates.

Prices are coming down, it may take a bit of time to shake out.

Students, affordable housing, starter homes, some retirees will see a downsize opportunity, reducing overcrowding in some homes.

Lots of utility at the right price.

At least some of that is because Alberta has the highest percentage of working age population - a share of the population is transient.

Seniors are less likely to retire in AB, and AB imports educated Canadians from other provinces.

Which also speaks to why equalization payments make sense (Atlantic provinces have to bare the cost of more retirees for example).

Latest quarterly population data has growth back down to historic norms.

No thanks. I would prefer more grocery options not less