What does DTK need?

[ac3r]

We simply can not lock people up who have not committed a crime.

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact we do lock people up who have not committed crimes? Legislation in all of our provinces and territories permit a person with sufficient authority to involuntary commit an individual to a hospital, including the ability to fully restrain them to a bed. Each day, thousands of Canadians across the country are in such a situation.

Indeed, we can argue that a drug addict is not equal to an individual deemed to be a harm to themselves (suicidal ideations, self-harm) but is an addicts reason faculties not just as unreasonable as the psychiatric patient? The addict is actively hurting themselves - potentially others - and could very well die. Using drugs that knowingly harm is not a normal state of being, so can you not argue they are of unsound mind, a danger to themselves and require some form of intervention, even if that requires an involuntary commitment? If not, then how do we ethically just carry on the way we are as a society and let them do this to themselves?

You also mention the obvious reality that more homes (which assumes they are easily available for everyone) equal less homelessness. That's an obvious truth, but overly simplifies the problems. Not all homeless are addicted to drugs or suffering from severe psychiatric issues, but a huge number of them are. Those are complex factors to take into consideration. Let's say we round up every homeless person with a substance abuse problem and/or psychiatric issues and give them an apartment. Do you think that would fix them of those problems? Certainly not.

Yes we need more homes for every Canadian, but these issues are much deeper than that. An addict with an apartment is still an addict. It's a big reason why the concept of transitional housing exists. Most people who get into transitional housing have participated in rehabilitation programs first. As they get clean and get reintegrated into the routine of "normal life", they may end up in transitional housing. From there they continue rebuilding who they are, perhaps finding work or need skills then finding their own place.

Viewing all these problems through the lense of urban planning is missing the point. This really has nothing to do such things like parking lots and culture wars. It's a massive public health issue that can only be solved by fighting on numerous fronts. And when it comes to helping those homeless who are on the streets because their mental health is in shatters or they have addictions - which is a lot of them - the solution starts first at treating that. It's hard, but maybe that's where the idea of obligatory rehabilitation programs can come in, rather than the laissez-faire approach we take now which boils down to "you can only help those who want it". I think in such cases that's a nonsense statement because going back to how we can and do involuntarily commit people for psychiatric problems, we already use the ability to intervene and attempt to help someone even if they don't want it.

We can build plenty of housing, but we also need bigger and better designed hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, transitional housing and everything in between.