dsdp.ca
A group of physicians who care for people who use substances and advocate for safer, more compassionate, evidence-based healthcare policies.
215 posts
1,142 followers
371 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
đ
comment in response to
post
đ« Featuring:
@4bharmredux.bsky.social
Association Québécoise pour la promotion de la santé des personnes utilisatrices de drogues (AQPSUD)
@candrugpolicy.bsky.social
Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy
@dsdp.ca
Frontline Baddies
comment in response to
post
Edit button when.
comment in response to
post
Interesting choice of focus when so many are desperate for voluntary mental health and addiction services.
comment in response to
post
Fentanyl is a molecule, it does not compel people to use it and if it suddenly disappeared from the unregulated drug supply, people would still use drugs.
Interdiction is a game of whack-a-mole: fix your gaze on fentanyl too long, then nitazenes arrive.
stories.northernhealth.ca/news/drug-ad...
comment in response to
post
Meant that the piece itself was a good summary. Minister could do much more, yes. Could be worse though.
comment in response to
post
đ« Featuring:
@4bharmredux.bsky.social
Association Québécoise pour la promotion de la santé des personnes utilisatrices de
drogues (AQPSUD)
Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform
@candrugpolicy.bsky.social
Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy
@dsdp.ca
Frontline Baddies
comment in response to
post
Weâll work on some hard numbers for you, but hereâs another good starting point:
www.psychiatrymargins.com/p/an-introdu...
comment in response to
post
As an amuse bouche though, weâd start here:
www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj...
comment in response to
post
It is not as if âdoing nothingâ is the alternative one should compare a carceral approach to.
comment in response to
post
There are lots of studies on the outcomes of involuntary care/secure care/forced abstinence. Happy to follow-up.
But the proper comparison to make is not vs. âliving on the streetâ it is vs. robust investment in housing, treatment in the community, social services, and harm reduction.
comment in response to
post
You got us. No such polling data exists that we know of. Just relying here on extensive conversations with a large professional network. There is, however, a petition by health professionals against involuntary care for substance use disorders, with a lot of signatures. Weâll dig that out later.
comment in response to
post
Especially those of us who are experts in addiction.
The expansion of mental health act use is favoured by a tiny number of ideologically driven psychiatrists, who for some reasons seem to have the premierâs ear.
comment in response to
post
It is complex, but if even an open-minded and fairly liberal city councillor has been caught up in the consent manufacturing process, that is perhaps emblematic! Letâs talk. We will reach out.
In the interim, please know that the vast majority of health professionals are against this expansion.
comment in response to
post
This is great to hear! We could have sworn you were promoting âsecure care,â one the governmentâs preferred euphemisms for forced abstinence. As CMHA has pointed out, BC already has amongst the highest rates of mental health act use in the country. We overuse it, instead of funding services.
comment in response to
post
đ
comment in response to
post
OoooâŠDave we need to talk then. Thatâs not what weâre saying.
comment in response to
post
This is an important read from @picardonhealth.bsky.social; where he refers to the recommendations from the coronerâs inquest as âcommon-sense adviceâ, I would argue they reflect an underwhelming bare minimum.
www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/b...
comment in response to
post
Sidney died from a toxic, unregulated drug supply contaminated w/ unwanted and unpredictable adulterants.
Her and her friends thought they were using cocaineâinstead it was cocaine + fentanyl.
She is a victim of our ongoing unwillingness to address the drivers of this emergency.
#bcpoli
comment in response to
post
Can we attend?!?
comment in response to
post
Harm reduction reduces harms. Period. Thatâs why itâs called that. We have decades of data. There are mountains of evidence showing that it does not increase drug harms (a pure fallacy) & does not increase drug use. Most of the data actually shows harm reduction interventions LOWER rates of drug use