Category Archives: Addiction

Addiction, Issues, Municipal

Mayor Banman!

Leave a comment

Your proctologist called – he found your head.

That is the politest comment that came to mind after reading Mayor Banman’s comments on Fraser Mental Health and Substance Use’s [FMH&SU] presentation at the harm reduction forum on Tuesday January 29, 2013.

It is also reflects the obtuseness of Mayor Banman’s comments.

“If you want cooperation, you don’t start with threats,” said Banman.

FMH&SU didn’t start with threats. The statement about exploring legal options was made in response to a direct question from the audience.

The representatives from FMH&SU are bureaucrats not politicians, so while a careful choice of words, spin and gobbledegook were to be expected, outright lying remains the purview of politicians.

The panellists were from, specifically, Fraser Mental Health and Substance Use [FMH&SU] and Mayor Banman and any council members present should have been listening to what was being said, rather than being focused on listening for what it was they wanted to hear.

To those who listened, the representatives from FMH&SU conveyed an abundance of  information about the state of affairs within FMH&SU, within Fraser Health and the Ministry of Health.

That the Mayor and Council apparently didn’t hear the useful information being conveyed is not surprising in light of their well demonstrated selective hearing and that, when it comes to the City’s most vulnerable and marginalized citizens, City Council has shown it does not want to hear it, has no interest in the reality of poverty and homelessness in Abbotsford and has no interest in understanding or addressing the issues in an effective manner.

City Council has excelled at using buzzwords and the Social Advisory Committee to sound politically correct…… while accomplishing nothing.

Well, nothing of any positive value. They have managed to let poverty, affordable housing, homelessness and other social issues fester and worsen.

While the colour of the current notices posted by the City remains bright orange, the date reflects the passage of a decade or more while the wording is more politically correct.

The individual is unchanged from a decade ago and remains just as ‘hard to house’. City council’s choices and actions have ensured that, despite the passage of a decade or more, Abbotsford still lacks any accommodations capable of housing ‘hard to house’ individuals. Which continues to leave, as it has for the past decade, those who are ‘hard to house’ no option but to seek out a new location at which to establish their camp, their housing, their home..

Over the decade the zeal with which the City pursues the homeless, the pointless, wasteful chase, has increased to a level of unrelenting harassment that inflicts physical and mental damage on these marginalized citizens, injury that puts the lives of the ‘hard to house’ at risk at levels and in ways they were not at risk a decade ago.

“If you want cooperation, you don’t start with threats,” said Banman.

But extortion by Abbotsford’s politicians is acceptable Mayor Banman? Holding hostage the lives and health of the vulnerable and marginalized citizens harm reduction is   designed to help, in order to get what Mayor Banman and the City want from FMH&SU, is acceptable Mayor Banman?

“They’ve actually made matters worse. The council was expecting some better solution from Fraser Health than what we heard.”

If Mayor Banman had bothered to listen he would have know FMH&SU has neither the funds nor the resources to pay the ransom Mayor Banman demands since, unlike Mayor Banman and Abbotsford City Council, FMH&SU cannot simply reach into taxpayers pockets taking dollars as they want.

Mayor Banman words draw attention to his attempt to use the health and lives of vulnerable and marginalized citizens to extort what he wants from FMH&SU. In hounding the homeless across the City, while impeding any other option for these individuals but homelessness, Mayor Banman and council have increased the risk of mental and physical health injuries – and death.

I would suggest that before Mayor Banman point fingers and question FMH&SU’s behaviour; he and council might want to bring their own behaviour up to at least a minimal ethical standard.

Addiction, Consider, Issues

Harm Reduction Forums – Session 1

Leave a comment

I attended the January 22, 2013 public forum on harm reduction at Matsqui Centennial Auditorium,  where local service providers were sharing their experience with those using illegal drugs and getting members of that population to take the first step, treatment, on their long journey to recovering their lives.

A copy of the information about the speakers handed out at the forum is appended at the end of this commentary.

Disclosure: Readers should know that I support harm reduction. This support of harm reduction comes from 1) years of experience with, and listening to, those dealing with addictions (whether legal or illegal; involving drugs or not) and mental health issues. 2) a willingness to hear what they want to say, rather than insisting on hearing what I want to hear. 3) an open mind so that one hears what is actually being said, especially when what is being said does not support what you believe to be the reality (or want the reality to be) and requires changing your mind. 4) an understanding that because it is an issue that involves human beings there is no single solution and that addressing the issue will involve messy, uncomfortable choices. 5) an acceptance of Tradition 1: “Our common welfare should come first; personal progress for the greatest number depends upon unity”. Will harm reduction have negative consequences for someone? Yes. Given that this is a matter involving humans it can be assumed there will be negative consequences. Whether the negative consequences affect 1 individual or 1 – 2% of the individuals involved we cannot know. What we do know is that any policy/program will negatively affect an individual or individuals. Either we do nothing or we accept reality and act on “…progress for the greatest number…”  As uncomfortable as it may be, in making decisions when every policy will have negative consequences for someone – policies involving human beings –  one must look at the forest rather than individual trees.

The forum started with a brief overview of the history of the bylaw preventing harm reduction; that it was passed in 2005, that in 2010 Fraser Health requested a review and change of the bylaw and that forum(s) in 2013 were being held as part of City Council’s review of the bylaw.

If City Council wants to squander millions of taxpayer dollars subsidising a professional hockey team, squander $300 million taxpayer dollars to fix a ‘problem’ that is not a problem or give $17.5 million to the Y when the only benefit of that profligate spending is to ensure Council’s work load stays light enough they do not have to return to meeting every week – BAM, it takes only months. But on a matter of health care for an unpopular health care issue for an unpopular group of citizens it takes years – three so far – to make a decision.

A person involved in politics and around in 2005 shared the information that Fraser Health came in demanding rather than seeking to work together. Fraser Health’s behaviour got Abbotsford City Council’s nose out of joint and Voila – the bylaw preventing harm reduction health care was passed. Health policy based on tit-for-tat; both sides deserve                (fill in the blank) for behaving like children.

While discussing harm reduction we need to be very clear it is a health care policy. While it provides benefits in getting people into treatment and recovery it is not about treatment or recovery – it is about health care.

Having government – in this case Abbotsford City Council – deciding who will receive health care and what type of health care they will receive, is not a slippery slope I have any interest in venturing out onto. Especially when the specific health care denied is denied to specific and unpopular set (group) of people.

Warm Zone – Women’s Resource

Dorothy Henneveld: “Harm reduction keeps all of our health safer.”

Michele Giordano: “You cannot help a dead body.” Michele also raised the point that, if your goal is to truly help people to recover their lives, you need to provide support, not to judge and condemn.

Erica Thomson: “Harm reduction kept me alive until I could become the person I am today.” She spoke of how intimidating the system was for her and how building a trust relationship with street nurses and other front line workers allowed her to ask for their help in seeking treatment and recovery.

Kinghaven

Milt Walker: “the most important thing is getting them in the door.” Mr. Walker also raised several other important points to keep in mind: 1) know the person, the individual, is important; 2) you need to care about where the individual is going – and you must make sure they not only understand but KNOW that you care; 3) never give up; 4) there is always an opportunity, the possibility, to change these lives; 5) need to help/support them coming to care/like for themselves.

Life Recovery.

Tim Williams spoke of the need to help individuals “deal with deep inner issues that have them using” and the fact that those abusing substances are the “most vulnerable and hurting people in the community.”

After all of the local service providers had been given 10 minutes to address the audience the floor was opened for questions.

Brian Gross, the Executive Director of Impact Youth Substance Use Services, spoke of how clients are afraid they are going to get a lecture and not the support and help needed to recover their lives. He raised the important point that a spectrum of services is needed because there is no one way that works.

James Fairbanks (Kinghaven) spoke of how individuals are not forced to go to Kinghaven for treatment. Now if he meant people were not grabbed off the streets, hauled to Kinghaven (or other treatment facilities) and held behind bars……then he is correct – people are not forced to Kinghaven (or other treatment facilities). But what about court choices of treatment or jail, of employees who either go to treatment or lose their job, or parents who have to go to treatment to keep or get back their children, or individuals who have pressures other than their desire for recovery that drive them to a treatment facility?

One can be ‘forced’ to treatment in a variety of ways or from a variety of external pressures.

The question is how does this affect, or does it affect, what is required for these individuals to make it through treatment. More importantly how does this affect what these individuals need to do to succeed in finding recovery?

Kinghaven’s opening 10 minute statement included the information that Kinghaven had, over its 42 years of existence, provided treatment to tens of thousands (25,000) of individuals. What wasn’t asked or addressed is how many of these individuals had found recovery through their time at Kinghaven.

According to long term members of AA in Abbotsford only about 3% are sober and in recovery at the end of their first year; and that the 3% continues to decline over time. In interviews Dr. Gabor Maté, sought after as a speaker for his expertise in addiction, spoke to the fact that in his practice in the downtown east side of Vancouver a 5% success (individuals still in recovery) was outstanding.

The problem is not Kinghaven per sae. Kinghaven does an excellent job at what its role really is – getting individuals sober. Do I wish there was more emphasis placed on the fact that Kinghaven is about getting sober and that individuals face the need of years of work to find and stay in recover after they leave Kinghaven? Yes, but without the community based supports and resources to help individuals seeking recovery I can understand why this is not something Kinghaven (or other treatment programs) focus on. Without those supports and resources in place, focusing on the reality that recovery involves a long term commitment, can well be seen or considered as pointless.

As James Fairbanks (Kinghaven) noted: “Drugs are not the problem, it is the underlying emotional and mental issues.”

On that point Michele Giordano (Zone) pointed out that the problems that drive people to use drugs as a (poor choice of) coping mechanism took a long time to develop and because of this there is no quick easy fix – it requires time, a long time, to deal with this (these) problem(s).

Erica Thomson (Zone) raised the point that addressing issues and supporting recovery is complicated by the reality that people are so diverse.

When she stepped up to the microphone Gerda Peachey asked/raised/shared several points and shared that she cared for these individuals.

Love and caring come without conditions or restrictions; caring and love require the letting go of judgement. As Mother Teresa noted, if you judge people, you have no time to love them.

Gerda spoke of how women she was driving from jail to their destination, who had drug addiction issues, all told her that harm reduction is wrong. – told Gerda what it was she wanted to hear. It is no surprise to me, nor should it surprise anyone else when someone in your car, someone you are providing a ride they need, tells you what you want to hear. This is why I cited an open mind and willingness to hear what is actually being said as important factors in my arrival at a support for harm reduction.

While harm reduction can, and will, have negative consequences for a limited number of individuals, we cannot allow that to prevent us acting to the “greatest good”.

Listening to Gerda speak of her conversations with these women, experience had me wondering what the fate of these women has been, how are they faring now?

Gerda then spoke with passion about going after the criminals who profit from our decision to have an illegal drug trade.

However this is an entirely separate discussion and has no place in a discussion about harm reduction. I say no place in the discussion because the focus of harm reduction is the health of the individuals; of keeping individuals alive until they find their way into the pursuit of recovery and providing a gateway for them to enter into the pursuit of recovery.

When addressing issues that involve people I always try to keep in mind the words of Brazilian writer Paulo Coelho “We can never judge the lives of others, because each person knows only their own pain and renunciation. It’s one thing to feel that you are on the right path, but it’s another to think that yours is the only path.”

Once you fall into the trap of thinking yours is the only path, you vision narrows to the point you see only what agrees with your point of view, failing to see either flaws with the ‘supporting evidence’ or the portions of the ‘supporting evidence’ that in fact do not support one’s ‘only path’; ‘only path’ thinking can cause you to misunderstand or miss the point of issues such as harm reduction; ‘only path’ denies the complexity of issues, ignoring the reality that when addressing an issue where human beings are the central component there is no ‘one size fits all’; the ‘only path’ serves the wilful denial of uncomfortable realities or truths one does not want to see.

Tim Williams (Life Recovery) cited the “Bruno Study of Montreal” as proof positive against harm reduction. He did not refer to any of the reviews of the Bruno Study that challenged the study or its conclusions. Michele Giordano (Zone) was quick to point out that there many studies that show the efficacy of harm reduction.

I would like to recommend “How to Lie with Statistics”. It is a book written by Darrell Huff in 1954 presenting an introduction to statistics for the general reader that is so well written that many introductory statistics courses use it as a text book.

In a world where statistics are thrown around as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ of every and anything, the understanding of statistics and what it means (doesn’t mean) and can do (or cannot do) is invaluable for anyone who is confronted with statistics as ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’.

Reading this book will not only give you an understanding of statistics, it will have you taking statistics offered as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ with multiple grains of salt. It will also arm you with an understanding of the questions one should be asking or considering.

Statistics can be a useful and powerful tool. But as Mark Twain noted in stating “There are lies, damned lies and statistics” statistics are not only subject to misuse but are often misused.

Consider: we all know that if you flip a coin 100 times you should get 50 heads and 50 tails. So, you flip a coin then flip it again and continue until you have flipped the coin one hundred times. Should you have 50 heads and 50 tails? Did you impart the exact same amount of energy, the same angle of launch to the coin in every flip? Not very likely for a human being, I certainly not only don’t but can’t.

The use of statistics as a tool for understanding complex human behaviour issues is an area rife with problems, inaccuracies and misinformation – even where the best of intentions are present.

I did find Tim Williams (Life Recovery) constant statement that Life Recovery’s program is about abstinence, implying those who support harm reduction are against abstinence or that harm reduction and abstinence are mutually exclusive, you can have harm reduction or abstinence but not both, disturbing.

Harm reduction is a health issue, an issue about keeping people alive and providing a gateway to treatment and (hopefully) recovery. The only connection harm reduction has to treatment and recovery is keeping people alive and healthy enough to be able to move on to treatment and recovery when they are ready to do so.

Abstinence is part of treatment and recovery. My brother John made several trips through different treatment facilities and programs.

The major factor in my moving to Abbotsford was my brother’s need to attend the 6:40 AM meeting at the Alano Club as a key part of his continued abstinence; a key he found during/after his last (needed) trip through Kinghaven. The importance of that key was demonstrated by the fact that attending the 6:40 AM meeting as a key part of his recovery action plan, helped John be successful in recovery and abstinence, for over a quarter century, until his recent passing.

Experience and personal family history make me fully aware of the importance of abstinence. It also makes me aware of how important surviving until someone is ready to do the work to be able to sustain abstinence is. My brother survived until he found abstinence as part of ongoing recovery. Our cousin Terry died in his early twenties, of health issues, before he found recovery – at an age before that at which my brother found recovery (and abstinence).

Yes, abstinence is important in recovery. Living long enough to find recovery is more important. As Michele Giordano (Zone) was quoted stating earlier: “You cannot help a dead body.”

Mr. Williams (Life Recovery) also stated that there is no need for needle distribution or exchange because illegal drug injection users could simply walk into any pharmacy in Abbotsford and purchase a supply of clean needles.

Reality check: Perhaps Mr. Williams can walk into any pharmacy and purchase a supply of clean needles? The only clients I am aware of who can purchase a supply of clean needles at pharmacies in Abbotsford are those who have a prescription for insulin. A quick survey of people in the audience would have shown Mr. Williams the reality that walking into a pharmacy to purchase gets you a refusal and request to leave, not a supply of clean needles. Just as an afterthought: even should pharmacies be willing to sell clean needles to anyone requesting them, would it not be against Abbotsford’s harm reduction bylaw for them to do so?

I raise an uncomfortable thought for Mr. Williams to consider.

Despite Mr. Williams oft repeated assertion that Life Recovery was about abstinence, listening to Mr. Williams description of the Life Recovery program leaves one thinking that the program is not about abstinence but about substitution. Instead of the individual continuing to use an illegal substance to deal, more accurately to avoid dealing in a constructive way, with whatever the underlying issues that have them abusing drugs to cope, Life Recovery substitutes religion as the coping mechanism – a socially acceptable substitution in the manner of a workaholic.

Substituting Religion for the drug abuse in the same manner that an addiction to Methadone is substituted for an addiction to Heroin; the addiction to methadone being socially acceptable as it involves a doctor’s prescription.

Wilfully ignoring the facts that 1) if you take away the methadone the individual will either have to purchase methadone on the street (yes methadone is part of the drug trade – as are many prescription drugs) or score and use heroin; 2) some individuals user heroin so they can get onto methadone – getting their drug fix of pharmaceutical grade drug paid for by the government; 3) methadone is suppose to be used short term to withdraw from narcotics use, not for year after year, decade after decade, generation to generation usage; 4) that methadone has harsh physical side effects on the human body; 5) every clean, abstaining heroin addict I have met who had the misfortune to have experienced methadone, states with passion that if anything should be illegal it is methadone.

To the gentleman who was concerned about needles and condoms in his yard. There is no solution to this matter. Or perhaps that should be there is no neat, tidy, quick or easy solution to this type of issue. Of course the major roadblock to addressing these issues is the self interest of politicians who benefit from the status quo and seek to avoid the negatives that come with leadership on issues such as these, the self interest of the special interests that benefit from our current policies and the voters who have demonstrated their unwillingness to set policy rationally based on fact, not belief, or to demand that policy and programs be designed around what is known rather than what is believed or ‘that’s the way we do it’.

I would note that surveys show a decline (up to 50% in some cases) in the number/amount of needles etc dropped on the aground after the implementation of a harm reduction program. The only practical advice I can offer for the short term is a sharps box (for used needles) and a garbage can (used condoms etc) in a location that permits and/or encourages using them. That and protecting yourself with the purchase of puncture proof gloves.

To the gentleman whose voice conveyed the pain involved in losing not stuff, which can be replaced, but items (heirlooms) with memories and emotions attached which are irreplaceable, all I can say is that this type of loss is one of the numerous negative consequences of continuing our current policies of using the legal system to fail miserably to address what is, at its root, a medical issue. Assuming your assumption that you were robbed by someone seeking money to purchase drugs is correct.

Governments, society, voters ignore the reality that the drug trade is pure capitalism, capitalism gone feral. In ignoring  or denying the capitalistic reality of the illegal drug business we ignore the consequences that flow from it being capitalism gone feral. More importantly, we ignore what economics tells us is the approach we should be taking while continuing to pursue policies that economics (and human nature) tell us will not succeed as we suffer the negative consequences economics predicts will flow from our chosen course of action.

Policies we continue to pursue despite the decades of evidence as to the failure and futility of these policies; policies pursued out of fear, misinformation, superstition and myth, wilful ignorance and special interests who reap economic benefits from the continued support of these policies that are not simply unsuccessful but add to the problems and issues.    

Three final thoughts on the forum.

There was a great deal of irony in the fact that the most disruptive individual at the forum was someone abusing the legal drug alcohol. Alcohol – the drug that is legal by our choice, yet causes more harm and destruction than the few drugs we have chosen, no accepted, as illegal do in total..  

There was also a great deal of irony in the fact that the best example of the time and support needed to deal with drug addiction from Michele Giordano (Zone)was her (and many others) addiction to nicotine (cigarettes), her struggle for abstinence and the part drug maintenance therapy (the patch) now plays in trying to withdraw from nicotine (cigarettes). In an aside about nicotine, a study published in the Lancet medical journal that assigned values to drugs (legal and illegal) based on the harm done to the individual and the harm done to society, nicotineplaced between cocaine (on the low side) and crack cocaine.

During the afternoon prior to the forum I ran into an old acquaintance who was bright eyed and bushy tailed in his sobriety. Who made the surprising statement that he attributed his wellness to a car accident. The trauma of the accident led him to cognitive therapy to deal with the trauma. As part of the process of dealing with the trauma he found it necessary to deal with “…the underlying emotional and mental issues” [ James Fairbanks (Kinghaven)]. It took time and hard work but he felt that this time and hard work was what was responsible for his state of wellness. He also felt that this type of hard work and investing the time it takes were necessary for everyone who wants to get solidly onto the road to and into recovery.

Hmmm. A bicycle/car accident and a badly broken leg got someone i know sober. A traumatic car accident got someone else I know to invest the time and hard work required to deal with the issues and find wellness. Rather interesting treatment plan suggested by those outcomes n’est pas?

 

Speaker information

Public forums about harm reduction

Matsqui Centennial Auditorium, Abbotsford BC

MODERATOR

Dr. Adrienne Chan is the (Acting) Associate Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies, and a Professor in the School of Social Work and Human Services at the University of the Fraser Valley (UF. For over 20 years, Dr. Chan has worked as an instructor, researcher, and community and adult educator in the areas of diversity, equity, harassment awareness and prevention, anti-racism, multiculturalism, and social justice.

She has been teaching and conducting research at UFV since 2004 and has a Doctorate from the University of Kent at Canterbury, England. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and a Masters of Social Work. Dr. Chan has moderated a number of debates and forums on social development topics.

JANUARY 22: LOCAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

Women’s Resource Society of the Fraser Valley! Warm Zone

The Women’s Resource Society of the Fraser Valley fWRSFV) is a respected non-profit society that provides innovative programs and partnerships to address issues of domestic violence in Abbotsford and Mission. WRSFV provides emergency shelter with a transition house in Abbotsford and in Mission, a first stage house (Penny’s Place for women in active addiction), second stage housing (Santa Rosa and Christine Lamb residence) outreach, emotional support, advocacy, referral, individual counseling and support groups for women, children and youth who have experienced violence in Abbotsford and Mission. WRSFV also runs a police-based Victim Services Program embedded with the Mission RCMP, as well as a social enterprise women’s boutique, Fronyas.

The Warm Zone began six years ago recognizing there was no service for street engaged women. It serves women who have significant barriers in accessing health and protective supports because of addictions, mental health issues, and barriers associated with living in poverty. The program not only addresses basic needs, but also fosters social inclusion through public awareness events, workshops, art shows, advocacy and supported referrals.

Dorothy Henneveld is the Executive Director of the Women’s Resource Society of the Fraser Valley, a respected non-profit society providing vital community housing including the Christine Lamb residence, shelter support with two transition houses, and outreach and counselling services to women and children who have had or are currently experiencing violence in the Abbotsford and Mission communities. Dorothy has a Masters in Counselling Psychology.

 

Michele Giordano is the Coordinator of the Warm Zone, which provides support to women who are often active in their addiction, living with mental illness, and who may be working the sex trade. Michele has worked for Women’s Resource Society for seven years, and holds a Masters in Criminal Justice from the University of the Fraser Valley, and her thesis is called: “Exiting Prostitution Programs – What Works?”

Erica Thomson is from Vancouver Island where she attended high school. She then completed three years towards a liberal arts degree at Capilano College and Malispina University. Ms. Thomson suffered from a drug addiction during these years. Her life as an addict has helped her understand the struggles and barriers addicts face in their daily lives, and provides her with the passion and commitment to help others who experience similar struggles. She works as an Outreach Worker at the Warm Zone. Erica has completed her certification in Concurrent Disorders through the Centre of Addictions and Mental Health (CAM H) and continues with her university education attending the University of the Fraser Valley’s Social Work program. She is on the Board of Directors for Pacific Hepatitis C Network and Positive Living of the Fraser Valley.

Kinghaven Peardonville House Treatment Centres

Kinghaven has been providing addiction service to men for 41 years. Peardonville House has been providing addiction service to women and children for 25 years. Both facilities are funded by Fraser Health Authority and both are licenced by Community Care Licensing. Both facilities practice a modified harm reduction model in that they provide methadone maintenance programming and clients are not automatically discharged for using drugs. Both facilities also offer stabilization and transitional living programs for the most chronically addicted as well as detox services under the auspices of Fraser Health’s Riverstone detox program.

Milt Walker has been with the organization for 30 years in various roles, most recently as the Executive Director since 2000. He is a member of Fraser Health’s Substance Use Steering and Planning Committee as well as a member of the Abbotsford Social Development Advisory Committee. He is responsible for all aspects of the day-to-day operation of Kinghaven and Peardonville House.

James Fairbanks is the Clinical Director and has been involved in the addiction recovery field for a number of years as a counsellor and clinical supervisor. Prior to joining Kinghaven in 2010 he was on staff at Maple Ridge Treatment Centre for 8 years. He is responsible for all clinical aspects of the program, supervision, and training of clinical staff and over-site of client’s individual treatment plans.

LIFE Recovery

LIFE Recovery Association is a Christian residential drug rehabilitation center for women. Since opening in 1999, approximately 1100 women have been through our program. At LIFE Recovery a high percentage of our graduates continue to live in freedom and remain sober upon leaving the home.

Our house is located at 2693 Braeside Street and has the capacity for up to 18 women. Our mission is to be a safe, structured and supportive environment for women who have decided to replace a lifestyle of drug and alcohol abuse for freedom from addiction.

LIFE Recovery strives to:

• Provide a safe, caring and Christian home for recovering drug and alcohol addicts • Provide therapy (group and individual) and other rehabilitation services

• Introduce or re-introduce residents to the 12 Step program (M and NA)

• Introduce or re-introduce residents to the Word of God and to Christian beliefs and principles

• Provide follow-up service and an after-care program

• Help with transition and re-integration into society and the local church, after completion of the program.

• Be a place where graduates may return for love, understanding and support.

LIFE Recovery helps women achieve and maintain a substance-free state and improve their overall quality of life. We provide residents with a warm, family-like atmosphere as they travel the road to recovery. Qualified, compassionate and experienced staff and volunteers are called to minister to our clients in truth and love.

Patricia Watson is the Executive Director of LIFE Recovery. She has a Bachelor of Arts in Business Management and a teaching diploma in Information Technology. Her role is to oversee the staff and programs of LIFE and reports to the board of directors. She has a strong desire to see women coming into freedom and recognizing their value and significance. Patricia has been involved in the non-profit sector for many years and is married with 2 adult Sons.

Tim Williams is the Board Chairman of LIFE Recovery Association. He has served on the boards of several non-profit organizations and corporations. Tim is originally from Australia and moved to Abbotsford 12 years ago. Apart from Tim’s business, corporate and family interests, he devotes a significant amount of his time volunteering with and for drug addicts and prisoners. He has been a pastor of Northview Community Church as well as the Executive Director of LIFE Recovery immediately prior to Patricia Watson being hired.

Addiction, behaviour, Hmmm, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Leave a comment

Do we need more detox beds in Fraser Health?  Yes.

Is the (un)effectiveness of Fraser Health’s mobile detox programs, succinctly summed up in the words of those seeking  detox: “they [Fraser Health] are not looking for people needing detox, they [Fraser Health] are looking for people already detoxed”? Yes.

Are Fraser Health. our Provincial and Federal governments doing a poorer and poorer job of providing the support needed for people to find recovery and wellness even as our understanding of what supports are needed grows? Yes.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s childish ‘I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I do not get my own way’ attitude? No.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s ‘I am taking my toys and going home’ threats? No.

Does this provide an excuse for Abbotsford City Council to continue to ignore the facts about substance use and Harm Reduction? No.

For those who are seeking any excuse to justify their dogmatic opposition to harm reduction? I refer you to the words of Councillor John Smith: “If they aren’t going to give us detox . . . then quite frankly, [the harm reduction issue] is going nowhere with me.”

Then we have the sophistry of “…suggested that if Fraser Health was truly committed to providing harm reduction services in Abbotsford the first thing it should do is step up and fund the Warm Zone.”

I do not recall Council providing leadership, beating the bushes or pressuring senior levels of government to raise funds to keep the Warm, Zone open and operating. Now suddenly they are publically supportive of keeping the warm zone open, concerned about the consequences for those who depend on the Warm Zones services?

But then when the facts, experience and evidence are all against you and you are left clutching at straws, any excuse will do.

City Council’s finger pointing at Fraser Health on this matter brings to mind the quintessential Mom question, ‘if Fraser Health was jumping off the Lion’s Gate Bridge would you jump as well?’

Although……that does bring to mind the question: “what do you call the river bottom under the Lion’s Gate Bridge being littered with the bodies of municipal politicians, provincial and federal politicians and want-to-be ‘same old’ politicians and executives from BC Health? ”

A solid step towards good governance and healthy priorities by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

Detox, the Warm Zone – what healthcare is council advocating Fraser Health cut from services provided to the citizens of Abbotsford? Because when you call on Fraser Health (or any Health Region) to spend money on services, capital projects etc not included in their budgets, you are calling on the Health Regions to cut existing (budgeted) items to free up the funds to pay for the new (non budgeted) spending.

So what healthcare does council want to cut to pay for Detox and the Warm Zone?

Mayor and Council need to remember that Fraser Health can only spend the money the provincial government gives them. Remember that, unlike Abbotsford City Council,  Fraser Health cannot simply create a water crisis and scare/panic taxpayers into borrowing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to cover past, present and future misspending.

As to council’s sudden concern about detox……on my list of programs and services (including appropriate, affordable housing)  required in Abbotsford to help people achieve recovery and wellness, detox is well down my list of priorities. It is a waste of money to push people through detox and treatment without providing the support programs, services and housing that would aid them to remain in recovery more than a few days, weeks or months as is currently the case (less than 5% are substance free one year after ‘graduation’ from treatment)..

The reality of addiction and substance use is reflected in Councillor MacGregor’s statement that the issue of drug abuse needed a “layered” approach and Councillor Barkman stressing there is no “silver bullet” to substance abuse and that building relationships is critical to helping people escape addiction.

Harm: (noun) physical [of or pertaining to the body] injury or mental damage; hurt. (verb used with object) to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt.

Reduction: (noun) the act of reducing [bringing down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number etc.] or the state of being reduced [to become lessened] .

I will be dropping a dictionary off at the mayor’s office to facilitate and encourage council to seek facts and understanding about what Harm Reduction is and is not – and to express my support for Harm Reduction and making Abbotsford a healthier place for ALL who live in the City.

Should you have a dictionary you would like to spare for council………

Addiction, Issues, Municipal

Harm Reduction

Leave a comment

Reading Simon Gibson’s recent comments on harm reduction had me wondering if someone ought to inform Mr Gibson that ‘I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out’ is a Joke, not a statement of reality.

Change is uncomfortable, conspicuously so in instances necessitating changing one’s mind.

It is far more comfortable, far more the usual human way, to let inertia keep us bogged down in what we know – no matter how inaccurate that ‘knowledge’ is.

“Gibson said he worries Abbotsford could end up being a centre for drug treatment programs that support continued addiction without addressing the deeper problem.”

If Abbotsford council were to repeal the bylaw there would be NO flood of people into Abbotsford. For the simple reason that harm reduction is part of healthcare everywhere in BC except Abbotsford, and since people everywhere else in BC already have access to these services they have no need to come to Abbotsford.

While the health of Abbotsford’s citizens should be of concern to Abbotsford City Council, council’s actions make it clear the health of Abbotsford’s citizens is not a matter of concern to council, at least not in the manner an Arena or professional hockey team or paying million dollars subsidies are..

Still, City Council’s anti-harm reduction bylaw is consistent with Council’s policy of profligate mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. Because of the bylaw, dollars for Fraser Health programs containing even the tiniest amount of harm reduction are spent in every Fraser Health community BUT Abbotsford.

“Needle exchange, safe injection sites and free-standing methadone clinics will perhaps be desirable for some addicts but without a full detox facility, they could almost certainly create an environment of social acceptance [for drug addiction],” said Gibson.

Hmmm. I had not realized that there was an environment of social acceptance of alcoholism – despite alcohol being legal. I was also under the impression that cigarettes being legal did not preserved the environment of social acceptance that existed prior to public knowledge of the serious negative health consequences of smoking. Nor did legal status stop the development of an environment of social disapproval/non-acceptance of smoking.

Leaving me wondering how Mr Gibson could conclude that heath care services to address the serious negative health consequences of addiction would in any way encourage social acceptance?

Indeed, would not a focus by the health authorities on the negative health consequences of drug use serve to decrease social acceptance of drug use?
Would not a public focus by the health authorities on the serious negative health consequences discourage drug use period?

Harm reduction could act as a disincentive for addicts to seek treatment, he [Simon Gibson] added“

The evidence makes it clear that drug users involved with harm reduction programs such as Insite get into treatment faster. I know it seems counterintuitive, but then substance use is a people issue and people are contrary.

The reality that substance users involved with harm reduction programs seek recovery and wellness sooner is why David Portesi, director of public health for Fraser Health, stated.

“[The bylaw] drives clean needle distribution into the shadows, increases the value of used needles on the street and increases the risk of HIV and Hep C infection.”

“And at the same time, it reduces our ability to engage users in treatment discussions.”

This outcome, people seeking recovery and wellness faster with harm reduction, is consistent with the fact that stable, safe, supportive housing results in people seeking recovery and wellness sooner.

Councillor Gibson went on to state “Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

It doesn’t really matter whether the above statement arises from philistinism or from the wilful ignorance of a closed mind, sealed tight to prevent a single new thought entering and disturbing the mind. What matters is the blindness reflected in the statement and the negative consequences for ALL citizens of Abbotsford.

Harm reduction is not about drug treatment programs it is about healthcare – for the individual substance users/abusers and the other members of the community the users/abusers live in.

The women selling themselves for money for drugs depend on upstanding citizens purchasing sex because those good citizens are the ones with the money they need to feed their addiction.

Have you seen the advertisement for the vaccination against Hepatitis A & B if you are travelling? An advertisement that uses how easy it is to be infected with Hepatitis A or B to scare you into using their product? You don’t have to go to a foreign country to get infected with Hepatitis A or B.

This sobering reality is why I was/am sure to be vaccinated against Hep A & B.

Unfortunately there are no vaccinations for Hepatitis C or AIDS.\

Should you suggest that perhaps we should build some housing for these vulnerable members of our community, given the clear evidence that providing housing gets people into treatment quicker and supports them staying in recovery instead of relapsing, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over needles, needles, needles begins.

Given the litany of citizens worries about dirty needles and the potential negative health consequences of dirty needles, how does council justify refusing to allow programs that reduce the number of dirty needles left lying about?

Negative health consequences do not discriminate, do not play favourites, their nature is to spread everywhere they can.

I suppose it is only to be expected that Councillor Gibson and council gave no thought to the fact that their bylaw would negatively impact healthcare in Abbotsford. Or that Councillor Gibson sees no benefit in council no longer interfering with the providing of healthcare to Abbotsford’s citizens.

“Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

I am driven to abjure any association with the above statement.

The indifference to, the callous disregard for, the state of our fellow citizens, the wellness of our neighbours, evidenced by that statement is anathema.

‘If there ain’t nothing in it for me, then there ain’t no reason for me to care or be benevolent or have concern for the welfare of my neighbour’

While it is not easy, is in fact most times a struggle, both ethics and spirituality mandate an approach to those abusing substances (of any description) based on:

‘………….. The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

Addiction, behaviour, Issues

Rules? There are Rules?

Leave a comment

I was at a meeting focusing on shelter needs in Abbotsford, what the shelter needs of Abbotsford are, whether the shelter needs are being met (are there gaps in shelter services) and what can be done to cover any gaps.

Some members of the homeless community became aware of this meeting and felt their interests needed to represented and protected from any negative consequences resulting from this meeting.

So I found myself attending the meetings to represent one subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community who have concerns about their needs, wants and priorities being misrepresented by another subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community who present their concerns as those of the entire community; when in fact the concerns being discussed at the meeting represent only the point of view of one group whose voice is loud because they have organized and named themselves

At these and other meetings around Abbotsford, claims have been made as to what happens in the shelter. As someone who works at the shelter, who has been a client and who discusses the shelter with clients regularly there are a few comments I would like to share as to the veracity of those claims.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, during extreme weather nobody is turned away for any reason.

However if someone’s behaviour is threatening to other clients in the shelter or staff; if someone’s behaviour is extremely, extremely disruptive and interfering with other clients in the shelter they will be asked to leave.

Being removed from the shelter occurs only after clients have been warned (repeatedly) that they need to modify their behaviour and then only after having been given the choice of going to bed or leaving.

It is also repeatedly claimed that nobody knows what the shelter rules are, yet these same clients demonstrate a grasp of any rules they want to take advantage of.

Everyone staying at the shelter fills out a registration form on the back of which the rules are listed. Clients are instructed to fill out the registration, read the rules, if they have any questions about the rules to ask staff and the rules will be explained; if they understand the rules or once they do understand the rules they sign the registration form to acknowledge they provided the information on the registration form and have read and understand the rules.

During my visits to the shelter as a client I had no trouble knowing the rules – I simply turned the registration form over and read the rules.

I suppose we could ensure the clients have read and studied the rules by giving a quiz about the rules and turning people away if they failed the quiz. But then everyone would be complaining about being forced to study the rules.

In order to address the reality that many clients do not read the rules (thus permitting clients to claim they didn’t know and/or were never told the rules when they violate rules) the rules are read aloud before the shelter opens for intake.

I do not want to give the impression that all, or even most, clients are rule challenged. Other clients demonstrate an ability to either read the rules on the back of the registration form; listen, hear and comprehend the rules read aloud every night to clients before the shelter is opened; ask for clarification of the rules “can I ….” Or “what happens if……or “how would I……”

I have long lost count of the number of clients who repeatedly claim not to know a rule (or rules) you have specifically discussed with them before or repeatedly before – sometimes mere minutes before. Or clients who are overheard laughingly telling other clients about ‘almost getting caught’ smoking pot, crack, drinking or disobeying some rule. Who acknowledge knowing their behaviour violates the rules, but then explain why the rule does not or should not apply to them; or who argue the rule is a stupid rule, should not be a rule and thus they do not have to abide by the rule(s). Or had incorrectly assumed they would not get caught and would get away with ignoring the rule(s). Or – the #1 favourite excuse – claim not to have known the rule(s).

When the latest Cold Wet Weather status ended someone who was over their nights and needed to wait 30 days before getting their next 5 nights in the shelter was standing there protesting they did not know about only having 5 nights, even though they had been on a plan (he was no longer on a plan because he had not kept the terms agreed to in order to remain on his plan).

On Sunday nights staff make sure to remind those who are on night 4 or 5 that if they need more than the 5 nights they need to sign up and see Case Management Monday. For those whose fifth night was Saturday night, we grant a grace night and remind them that they must talk to Case Management to get more nights or wait 30 days for their next 5 nights. The shelter at large is reminded several times throughout the evening that those needing more than 5 days need to see Case Management to get more than 5 days.

Case managers always remind clients that they need to do what they agreed to do as their plan and be at the shelter gate when the shelter opens at 6 pm. To provide motivation case management reminds clients that they need to carry through on these points because they have used up their five nights and if they are not at the shelter at the 6 pm opening time or they do not carry through with the actions they promised to perform, they are off their plan and will need to wait the 30 days until they get a new 5 nights.

And claiming you do not know about the 5 night rule is not going to work very well when you are making that claim to a staff member who had made sure to warn you that you had been given a grace night so that you could talk to Case Management on Monday morning if you needed more nights because you had used your 5 nights up on Saturday night.

Most ignorance is evincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to.  Aldous Huxley

While on the subject of rules, just how detailed do the rules need to be? Does every little detail need to be spelled out? What about a little common sense (which is admittedly not so very common)?

Is it really necessary to spell out that standing in the middle of the shelter screaming at the top of your lungs is unacceptable behaviour? Or that you need to take a shower and have your clothes washed when the odour you emit renders the air of any room you are in non-breathable? (The shelter provides sweats for those with only the clothes they are wearing – at least as long as loaner clothing can be replaced faster than it is being stolen). Or that Smoking pot or crack or consuming alcohol is not permitted?  Or that if you need to urinate you use the washroom, not the corner of the room or another client and their bedding or a garbage pail or a cup? Is it really that hard to understand what a sign marked ‘Staff Only’ means?

And whatever happened to Personal Responsibility?

Homelessness/addiction/mental illness/poverty does present people with barriers, problems and issues. It does not absolve them of personal responsibility for their behaviour.

On a bad head day, the fact mental illness has me wanting to scream, act out or strike out at others is not an excuse or permission to do so.

I and many others who accept personal responsibility for our actions have (or had) no difficulty with the shelter rules or staff. Of course we also acknowledge that we are not ‘special’, that the rules apply to us as well as to others.

Some claim others get treated better than they do. But why would anyone be surprised that being polite, saying please and thank you, gets a friendly response while screaming, cursing and verbal abuse gets a less positive response?

Then there are the clients who complain they are ‘picked on’ when they keep repeating the same self-defeating behaviour and end up under review for repeating their behaviour time after time after time.

Should you mention AA’s “if you are happy getting what you are getting, keep doing what you are doing; if you are not happy getting what you are getting, stop doing what you are doing” daring to suggest they need to change their behaviour to get different outcomes – you are cursed at and heaped with verbal abuse for suggesting they accept any responsibility for their behaviour.

Listening to what is said (is claimed) in these meetings about what occurs at Abbotsford’s shelter, gives one the impression that running a shelter is easy. It is not.

Abbotsford’s shelter is in space adapted for, not built for, use as a shelter. Langley’s shelter space was built for the purpose of being a shelter so when clients come in their belongings and clothing are put in a locker and they wear clothing provided by the shelter – ensuring nothing comes into the shelter, that the clients have nothing with them that is not provided by the shelter.

Ensuring staff in Langley do not run the risk, that Abbotsford staff face, of getting stuck by needles carelessly discarded or thoughtlessly left in clothing put into their laundry bags; laundry that is done by staff as a service so clients have clean clothing.

The risk, the close calls that occur, of getting stuck with a client’s used needle from a population infected with Hep C, AIDS, hepatitis A & B et al. As if  it is not enough staff gets lied to, verbally abused and screamed at; has to deal with people who are drunk or have used another substance to achieve an altered state of reality; deal with clients who, based on demands and actions, are under the impression they are more important than all the other clients in the shelter or that they are in a 5 star hotel, not an emergency shelter; get to clean up puke, urine, shit, blood; have to exercise patience, understanding, tolerance and judgement – or the shelter would slowly empty of clients in the hours following intake.

When a shelter opened in a neighbouring community several years ago the new shelter was going to show the staff at Abbotsford’s shelter how a proper shelter was run. This shelter now has more rules and people under review than Abbotsford.

The reality is that it is far, far easier to run or work at a shelter in theory than it is in a shelter in the real world, a wolrd populated with real people.