Categories
Lethbridge SCS

My response to “SCS isn’t to blame for crime problems”

Yesterday, someone wrote a letter to the editor of the Lethbridge Herald. This person is dealing with drug addiction and was providing some insight from that perspective on the benefits of the supervised consumption site, as well as addressing some myths.

Naturally, the online version of the letter received negative feedback, many with the same, tired myths and rhetoric. I thought I’d address some of them here. 

The quoted material is taken from one comment, the longest. I have not corrected the original spelling or punctuation.

“Prior to the SCS, the addicts here shot up wherever and whenever they wished. After the SCS the same is occurring but now because we have attracted more addicts, we now have more shooting up then attend SCS.”

This wording makes it seem as though the number of people using drugs in Lethbridge was stable prior to the SCS opening up. But drug usage has increased in Lethbridge consistently over the last 5 years before, and the SCS opened just last year. Drug usage was already rising prior to last year, and there is no evidence that the SCS accelerated that rise. If we do have more people using drugs in Lethbridge, it wouldn’t be that surprising, but that would’ve been the case even if the SCS hadn’t opened.

“What we now have is 300-500 addicts visiting the SCS ( assume our original 300-500) and the new 1000 NOT visiting the SCS.”

I don’t know where they get the idea that there are 1,000 people in Lethbridge using drugs but not in the SCS. How do you even keep track of that number? Is there a special census taker going around looking for people taking drugs? Are they all over the entire city at once to make sure they capture everyone in their enumeration, even in private homes?

“Residents still find needles all over the place”

This is just plain false. I, personally, have found a single needle in the year and a half that the SCS has been opened. If needles are all over the place, surely, I should be seeing more than that. 

“find more people than before the SCS shooting up in bathroom stalls, malls, stores, behind stores etc etc.”

I doubt that data exists that has measure this empirically, so I’m taking this claim with a grain of salt. Even if it’s true, that number would be *much* higher if the SCS wasn’t open. There have been roughly 300,000 instances of drug use at the SCS since it opened, about 660 per day. If the SCS wasn’t opened, those instances would’ve been in public. The increase this writer claims has occurred would be significantly higher.

“Because Spearman gave up way too early and decided he would use his massive intelligence in this field and volunteer us as the “Regional Hub for addicts””

This is also just plain false. Chris Spearman never volunteered Lethbridge as a regional hub for drug addiction. First, the SCS was established through applications to the federal government and through Alberta Health Services. And second, Lethbridge was already experiencing the drug crisis at disproportionate amounts prior to the SCS opening. That’s what happens when you are the third largest city in the province but lack the treatment facilities that the two larger cities have.

“we have garnered about 1000 new visitors to Lethbridge all having your “dependency”.”

Again, I don’t know where the writer got this number, nor how it was calculated. This number seems difficult to determine.

“Now its well known that the 1000 that appeared did not come with a dowry from daddy, nor did they come here as self made millionaires.”

Is it? Well known how? Was there a study done? Was the data published somewhere? Or are you referring to what people simply believe?

“So this 1000, plus the ones who visit SCS all need money.”

Yes. Just like everyone else in the city. We live in a capitalist society, and it requires us to have money, for food, shelter, clothing, and even drugs.

“Where do you think they are getting it from”

Some of them will use money from their jobs. Some may borrow it from friends or family. Some may pawn their possessions. Some may steal.

“is that just a sidebar to your demand that Lethbridge residents just surrender their money, property, downtown, piece and serenity, and anything else a Meth Head needs?”

Of course not. But I’m glad your recognize that this is a poverty issue. If we can implement solutions that address poverty, we can reduce drug-related crime, especially property crime.

“Now let me explain why we do not want an SCS IN OUR CITY. First of All Patricia, if you frequent the SCS as you do now, then you could continue to do so but just NOT IN OUR CITY.”

If Lethbridge indeed is a regional hub for drug use, then how does it make sense to move the SCS outside of Lethbridge? As you point out earlier, not every person who uses drugs in Lethbridge does so at the SCS, and it’s already here in the city. Move it out of the city, and usage will drop. The location of the SCS was determined, in part, because of its proximity to the highest concentration of public drug usage. Getting rid of it will not stop people from using in the city.

“You could seek treatment if you want to or, continue to destroy your own life, that’s entirely up to you! But we want to remove your option of destroying our community, our homes and our property. So its not that we do not want you getting help, we just don’t want you getting it in our city.”

If you’re serious about reducing drug-related crime, I hope you’re advocating for solutions that prevent drug-related crime. Here are 5:

  1. Universal basic income
  2. Decriminalize all drugs
  3. Transfer funding for drug enforcement to treatment and prevention programmes
  4. Implement universal pharmacare
  5. Make drugs available in pharmacies and covered by pharmacare

This will put put drug dealers out of business, it will improve the quality of the drug supply, it will prevent more deaths, it will prevent more addictions, and it will reduce crime. 

Increasing law enforcement certainly won’t work. We’ve been trying it for decades, and drug crime is worse now. Lethbridge Police Services receives 1 out of every 5 dollars of the municipal operating budget, receiving the most tax dollars of any single city-funded entity. 

Law enforcement is reactive. We need proactive solutions. We need solutions that will finally address the issues behind the drug crisis. 

“No one owes you a living, no one owes you their property, or their lives, because you chose to be a drug addict!”

No one chooses to be addicted. Heck, not even everyone who gets addicted chooses the drugs that start them on the path to addiction. Some people are prescribed those drugs by a licensed physician. And they take them without even realizing that they could become addicted to them.

This is the problem with people who are opposed to the SCS. To them it’s all about choice: people choose to be addicted, people choose to be poor, people choose to steal. And because they steal, they have less moral fortitude than the people criticizing them. And that’s why they feel entitled to treat them inhumanely.

“Now, before you suggest I do not know drug addicts, I have been around them (by employment) longer than you have been alive (a guess). “A choice was made by you, “I will stick this drug in my arm or sniff this up my nose”. I was around these people in every port,”

Every port? Like in the entire world? This writer has been to every port in the entire world? Canada alone has nearly 250 ports. This seems unlikely.

“I chose NOT to stick anything in my arm or sniff anything up my nose!”

It’s an easy choice to make when you don’t have an addiction.

“Now the next statement is most important, re-read it twice if you do not understand it:
“Society is more than willing to help but, Not at the cost of the society that’s helping”. If you do not understand that, then there is no hope because you obviously believe society owes you, and if it means the destruction of our society to get what you want, well that’s okay, or, do you think differently?”

It’s possible to address addiction responsibly, meaningfully, and successfully, without society needed to be destroyed in the process. Unfortunately, none of our governments are willing to do what it takes to address the causes of the drug crisis.

“The SCS should be in the region but should be on the border with the Blood Reserve.”

This makes no sense. No one will use it. It would be in the middle of the prairie (or on the bank of a river). And we will just get an increase of public drug usage in Lethbridge, as well as an increase in overdose deaths.

“Housing facilities should be set up and detox/intox as well.”

This is a point you and I agree on. These are facilities Lethbridge sorely lacks.

“Then you, and the rest of “our” society would be on the same page. But if you think you will get law abiding people to agree to an SCS, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.”

Law-abiding people already agree to the SCS. The hundreds that showed up to the counter rally. The hundreds that have shared my pro-SCS posts. The hundreds that have thanked me in person and through messages.

“I have been around drug addicts for over 50 years of my life. I have seen these Consumption sites all around the world”

Sure you have. Just like you’ve been to all the ports in the world.

“and the one common theme of an SCS is it creates the opportunity for like minded drug addicts who steal and mug for a living to meet up and co-ordinate that function.”

Nah. They can do that already. Like, literally, there are plenty of places for people to meet. They don’t need a consumption site to make plans. The one common them of consumption sites all around the world is that they save lives and reduce public drug usage. They improve the health and safety of the community, as well as that of those who use drugs.

“Now if the brilliance in City Hall had decided to learn that early perhaps we would not be here, but they know everything, so we are where we are!”

No, we’re where we are because despite knowing drug usage was on the rise in the province (and the country for that matter), governments refused to respond to it broadly. That’s why, in Lethbridge, we still lack the health care services we need to both prevent and treat addiction.

“You said it your self, addicts go to and use the SCS site,”

Well, yeah. That’s its point.

“however you incorrectly suggest that means they do not do drugs elsewhere.”

She never suggested this at all.

“The facts are they are doing drugs everywhere in this city!”

No, they’re not. No one is doing drugs in my house. Or in the aisle of the grocery store when I’m shopping. Or in the waiting room of the doctor’s office when I’m there. Or at Casa while I’m waiting for my children’s music lessons to finish. Or nearly everywhere I go in this city. 

“Dealers are now more plentiful because of Spearmans narrow minded thinking”

Nope. They’re more plentiful because of supply and demand. As more people get addicted, the demand for drugs goes up. As the demand goes up, so does the supply. As the supply goes up, so does the number of people distributing the supply. It’s basic economics, and has nothing to do with the mayor.

“I am a guy who believes in every other aspect Spearman has been good for this city but he has built his legacy, for one stupid uniformed decision he will go down in history as “the Mayor that killed Lethbridge!” He will be remembered by the residents for nothing else! Unfortunately, rightfully so, out of all the fiasco’s I have seen in Scotland, Ireland, England, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Portugal, Eastern Seaboard of USA, Lessor and Greater Antilles, Mexico, Rio, etc etc…. Lethbridge is “the greatest fiasco”, led by the clueless, executed by the uninformed. Harsh but true.”

Spearman is not killing Lethbridge. If Lethbridge is being killed, why is it the top city in Alberta for business investment? The uninformed are people like you, fuelled by ideology, myth, feelings, and rhetoric.

“So here is what “your SCS” did for the residents of Lethbridge. It attracted 1000-1200 addicts that were not residents of Lethbridge to our city through clueless policy and immunity from police arrest. That number will balloon too 1700+ by fall of 2020.”

This is simply unprovable.

“Why did they come? Lethbridge declared that if you had illegal drugs on you and it was for personal use, you could do so unimpeded by the LAPD.”

Well, that’s probably because the LAPD is 2,300 kilometres away.

“Elsewhere you would have been arrested/harrassed and your high would have been ruined!”

This just isn’t true. There is an exemption in place, but it’s not for the entire city, and that federal exemption applies to all consumption sites in Canada, not just Lethbridge. Ottawa, for example, has four. Why isn’t this the case there then, since they have so many?

“so they came in droves!”

False.

“It did not “solve” OUR problem because a smaller percentage of the drug addicts now use the SCS then were on the streets before the SCS!”

This makes no sense. The people who use the SCS make up a smaller percentage than the people who were on the streets prior to the SCS? What were the people on the streets a percentage of? 

“It appears to have solved YOUR problem but not Lethbridge’s.”

The SCS isn’t designed to solve the drug crisis. It’s designed to keep people alive and reduce the risk to public health and safety. Hats off to the ARCHES staff though, who have taken on more responsibility than they had originally planned, and are doing far more to help people who are addicted than just keeping them alive. Even so, without the other services you mentioned earlier, the drug crisis isn’t going anywhere soon. Even if we get rid of the SCS.

“So needles, muggings, thefts, B&Es rose because we became the GOTO place for addicts because of Spearman’s/Phillips inability to think farther than next week.”

This is plainly false. Crime in Lethbridge has been climbing for years. The SCS opened during the rise in crime rate. Even so, crime has been rising it a slower rate since the SCS came in. To say that it’s responsible for crime is just ignoring the data.

“Now Bourgue/ARCHES will argue the comment but I have seen that argument before as well, its not valid and never has been valid.”

Facts and science have always been valid, even if they don’t prove your feelings.

“Crime Index Severities are rarely skewed by petty thefts which tends to replace for the first few years, crimes of a higher severity ranking but that all departs when you enter the third phase of this fiasco which starts next summer.”

What on earth is this person babbling about? How does anyone take seriously anything in this comment?

“Trust me on this one, SCS is an enabler, they are the gasoline on the fire that is to be lit this summer.”

SCS doesn’t enable. People used drugs before they opened. People use drugs without it. And people would use drugs if it shut down. People use drugs independent of the SCS.

“Bourgue and Manning will continue to use pie and squiggly line charts to say they are not, but they are and they know it! Why? Because I know it, been there, done this, got 31 Tee Shirts, before either of them were born!”

They know they’re enabling because the writer knows they’re enabling? How is their knowledge tied up in his knowledge? And what exactly is “this” that he supposedly did and got 31 t-shirts for before Bourque and Manning were born? Opened and ran a consumption site?

“SCS now has the equivalent of the 300 users that the Chief of Police would not lock up. However based on his STUPIDITY we now have 1000-1200 more and growing every day that do not use the SCS.”

Again, no proof of this. You can’t keep tabs on how many people are using drugs in Lethbridge. It’d be a logistical nightmare.

“Here is the bottom line:
MOVE THE SCS OUT OF OUR CITY! You will still have access to services but ruining Lethbridge, as a City, will be removed from you.”

Again, no one will use it, and the problems you’re complaining about will worsen.

“Question for the Drug Users of Lethbridge :
“Do you think the DTES of Vancouver is a Ghetto because it was always destined to become one or, because they plopped all the services for drug addicts there 26 years ago?” Simple question, give it some thought.”

East Hastings is the way it is because of poverty, because we place enforcement higher than prevention and treatment, because we treat addiction as a crime instead of as a disease.

“In fact I encourage LETHBRIDGE give it some thought because once Spearman gets his Detox/Intox, Lodgings, etc…we are the DTES!!”

Oh, please. Lethbridge will be nothing like East Hastings.

“So is it “your dream and vision” that downtown Lethbridge become another DTES (Downtown East side)? Because its not the residents of Lethbridges dream! If Spearman/Phillips get their way, we will be, “absolutely guaranteed” and I mean ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED” we will be a DTES in 5 years. There is nothing they can do to stop it, if they continue down this path, period! Change or suffer the consequences of your foolishness, Now! Write that down, because its FACT!”

It’s not a fact. It’s a made up claim based on your feelings.

“PPS- You opened your letter with “I am sick and tired of hearing that the SCS facility is doing nothing but bad things to this community.” Do you know what I am sick and tired of? I am sick and tired of “Users and Non Profits” that make millions of dollars running these sites, telling me they do not ruin a city, when I have watched them ruin 31 cities before, that’s what I am sick and tired of!”

You have not seen consumption sites ruin 31 cities.

“I am tired of Council’s and Mayor’s and elected MLAs/MPs who consult with experts that have destroyed their own cities, and assume they are “truly experts or for that matter even have the slightest clue” , then do as the experts have done, and commence ruining our city?”

Our city is not being ruined by experts and politicians. Well, not in the way you think they are anyhow.

“I joined the Navy in the 60’s and let me tell you this so you can write it down in your forecast for Lethbridge. We are about 5 years from Rock Bottom on what the 2000 addicts will do to this city.”

What does being in the navy have to do with this prediction. Let alone enlisting 50 years ago? And where did the 2,000 number come from? And if you truly want fewer people with additions in Lethbridge, then I hope you’re putting as much effort into petitioning governments for treatment and prevention services as you are into typing angry comments at 6:00 in the morning.

“In 5 years from now Residents would give a testicle/ovary to be where we are today, thats how bad this City will get.”

No, it won’t. 

“If a drastic reversal in approach is not taken in the next 4 months, its over!”

Agreed. Well, on the drastic reversal in approach, anyhow. See my 5 recommendations above.

“Thanks goes directly to Spearman, Council, Phillips and Fitzpatrick. I don’t blame Bourgue and Manning, all they did was see a cash cow that could be hidden under the guise of a “non-profit” while working the “Caring Lethbridge Card”!”

You know how non-profits work, right? They don’t run a profit. How can it be a cash cow if their expenses use up all their revenue?

This sort of rhetoric just goes to show how misinformed people are on this topic. They are completely ignorant to the science, data, and research on harm reduction. They ignore the facts of crime rates in favour of the impressions of their friends. The think that safety is important only for those who already have it, that health is important only for those who already have it.  

If we’re going to see some real change, if we’re going to see some solutions that do more than just the superficial, there will need to be drastic action. And dealing with facts instead of feelings is a good place to start.

If you found this response helpful, please become a supporter for as little as $1/month. It will help me take time to develop other responses like this in the future.

Like this story?

By Kim Siever

I live in Lethbridge with my spouse and 5 of our 6 children. I’m a writer, focusing on political news, social issues, and the occasional poem. My politics are radically left. I recently finished writing a book debunking several capitalism myths. My newest book writing project is on the labour history of Lethbridge.

I’m also dichotomally Mormon. And I’m a functional vegetarian: I have a blog post about that somewhere around here. My pronouns are he/him, and I’m queer.

50 replies on “My response to “SCS isn’t to blame for crime problems””

I doubt you will post this Siever but I will give it a shot.
I will only address my comments and not others from your blog post.
Lets start with your circular argument that if the data is not true then everything else is questionable shall we.
You said in your rant- I quote ” I don’t know where they get the idea that there are 1,000 people in Lethbridge using drugs but not in the SCS. How do you even keep track of that number? Is there a special census taker going around looking for people taking drugs? ”
All you had to do was google or read, one or the other so I will help you this one time.
1300- you have no worldly idea how anyone could determine this number. Well if you had checked with Bourgue or Spearman you would have found it came from ARCHES/SCS. Here is a quote for you. ““Clearly, we have one of the most severe issues in the province. I think having the Supervised Consumption Site has put us in contact with 1300 addicts and users and getting those people on the road to treatment and recovery is important,” he said.” For your reference : https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2019/09/12/lethbridge-hosts-alberta-mid-sized-mayors-and-caos-caucus/
So now that I have allayed your fears that number was incorrect. Let me move to the next number. When interviewed by a local station Bourque stated that users were coming more than once to use their services and estimated they see about 350ish (I cannot remember exact number but thats close, and I cannot find the video at the moment) So that meant that about 80% of the users visited twice a day to get 667ish visits.
Now I realize you have issues with “distortion” so I will try to be more exact. If 350ish are 667 then what is 1300? Well 1300 using the same 80ish% ratio would be 2300 visits a day. So, because we do not have 2300 visits a day and we have 667ish, that means that we have 950ish addicts not using the SCS and shooting up 1600 times a day “elsewhere”.
You don’t like the numbers but to be sure you understand I really don’t care if you do or not “tough”, it is what it is. You then suggest that numbers were rising prior to the SCS arriving. That is true and if you had delved into the issue more thoroughly you would have found that because of the Blood Tribe Police policy in 2016/2017 to not allow ANY vehicles that were not Blood Tribe vehicles on their land, what they were actually doing is searching every unknown vehicle and ensuring the Drug Dealer could not operate on Blood Reserve Land. That caused the wholesale migration of addicts from the Blood Reserve to Lethbridge. Now of course you will interpret it as racist, but using factual situations does not make one a racist!
I said: “Because Spearman gave up way too early and decided he would use his massive intelligence in this field and volunteer us as the “Regional Hub for addicts””
Your abbreviated reply: This is also just plain false. Chris Spearman never volunteered Lethbridge as a regional hub for drug addiction.
Actually he has stated on two occassions that when he gets his way, and he will. We will be the only full service facility in Southern Alberta. So any drug addicts wanting treatment from Medicine Hat to Coutts to Pincher Creek will come here. So by the mere fact he is applying for intox/detox/housing etc etc he has created a Southern Region Treatment facility in downtown Lethbridge. Again, you may not like the interpretation but “TOUGH”!
I said:“we have garnered about 1000 new visitors to Lethbridge all having your “dependency”.”
Your response: Again, I don’t know where the writer got this number, nor how it was calculated. This number seems difficult to determine.
My response: Get off your ass and talk to the people that you say are doing a great job, they are the source of my numbers!
You stated: ………But I’m glad your recognize that this is a poverty issue. If we can implement solutions that address poverty, we can reduce drug-related crime, especially property crime.
My response: This is not a poverty issue, it is people who are homeless because they spend their or our money on drugs. If they did not spend that money on drugs they would not be homeless. Which raises the term “homeless” which I would like to address. The true homeless of Lethbridge are being beaten, and stolen from by “Bourgues Clients”. Some no longer go to the Soup Kitchen because of the violence from the addicts. So people like you who use homelessness to draw the sympathy vote do so with the idea of creating one bundle of people who deserve help. I say, NO, I say help the homeless and do so separately from people that choose to piss away $2500 a month to support a habit. I do not do “the bundling that your ilk likes too do”!
Your comment: If you’re serious about reducing drug-related crime, I hope you’re advocating for solutions that prevent drug-related crime. Here are 5:
Universal basic income
Decriminalize all drugs
Transfer funding for drug enforcement to treatment and prevention programmes
Implement universal pharmacare
Make drugs available in pharmacies and covered by pharmacare- end comment!
This is another tactic of those that feel the need to save people from themselves. Its much like the 1.6% GHGs that Canada Generates. Somehow its our 1.6% that is killing the planet and what gets washed into the ditch is the sidebar that includes 98.4%! Suddenly now to try to solve Lethbridge problems with a situation that was created by the Blood Tribe Police in 2016, I must now solve Canada Policy Issues? The same tactic is employed by Bourgue when she uses her selecitive answers to questions. ie. How many addicts are indigenous? Ans: ARCHES serves the population and the ratio is about 55/45%. That was not the question. The question was how many addicts are indigenous. The answer is 90-95% but thats a problematic number for Bourgue because she needs to keep the focus away from the issue to keep the SCS running.
Why does that matter? Well you are a philosophical person who likes to delve into “reasons why” shit happens. How about delving into this one. “Never again will the white man have any input to the direction of our youth”!! This was uttered as a warning from the First Nations Chief that now they would take charge of their youth and NO ONE ELSE would control them again. Well that lasted about 15 minutes, didn’t it! I have no doubt in 10 years from now we will have some First Nations Leader stand up and insist the white woman killed off their youth and “we have done it again”! Preposterous? no more preposterous then the proclamation by the First Nations and then ignoring whats happening to Lethbridge now!
You said: No one chooses to be addicted. Heck, not even everyone who gets addicted chooses the drugs that start them on the path to addiction. Some people are prescribed those drugs by a licensed physician. And they take them without even realizing that they could become addicted to them.
My Response: ahh the catchall theory of why addicts are addicts. Unlike yourself I served 28 years in the Navy and saw addicts move from Marijuana to cocaine to heroin etc etc. Yes there are a few and I mean a FEW that got hooked on Oxy but that does not allow you or anyone else to pull the sympathy card for everyone that is addicted. Oxy and other strong drugs were introduced in 1998, and because you actually furnish no proof of what you say, but just utter opinion, I can offer my opinion. Before Oxy, drug addicts were becoming drug addicts because they wanted to experiment with higher and higher highs. So to relieve them of the burden of their OWN RESPONSIBILITY we created the “its Oxy’s fault for 100% of the addicts. Again, a sympathy card player only!
You said: This is the problem with people who are opposed to the SCS. To them it’s all about choice: people choose to be addicted, people choose to be poor, people choose to steal. And because they steal, they have less moral fortitude than the people criticizing them. And that’s why they feel entitled to treat them inhumanely.
My response: Yes distort the actual issue by introducing more sympathy based issues and do not blame anyone other than the person sacrificing his/her society. But by all means use homelessness or poor too try to get more sympathy for the addict who steals, mugs, and pilfers society to get his/her next hit. Do you think the people driving around on stolen bicycles at 4AM are out doing snow removal. You are naive’ and are going to watch the destruction of this city and will do so espousing global “caring platitudes” that mean nothing.
I said: “The SCS should be in the region but should be on the border with the Blood Reserve.”
You said: This makes no sense. No one will use it. It would be in the middle of the prairie (or on the bank of a river). And we will just get an increase of public drug usage in Lethbridge, as well as an increase in overdose deaths.
My response: ahhh yes it does. Just like addicts won’t get off drugs, (which brings me to my next favorite topic) they won’t use detox either! When the “Guru Society” of drug savers publishes their results, they always combine Alcohol, and other substances with Hard Drug use. I have found a few papers over my 30 odd years of reading crap on the internet that isolates hard drugs and the results of hard drug rehab is about .02% or 1/5th of 1%. Of course the DTES’s of the world all insist they are doing good things etc etc. But facts are never forthcoming. In fact Bourgue even uses numbers, when questioned, like 20-22% recovery rates. But its like her indigenous numbers, they do not add up and if you actually study opioid recovery you would know that the numbers are dismal. In fact so dismal that you have to wonder why we pursue the program we have….which brings me to your stupid and uniformed knowledge on “non-profit”. Unicef CEO (head of a non-profit) makes $1.7million a year. Value Village CEO (non profit) makes over $1million a year….I will say no more but you have NO CLUE what a non-profit actually means! So when the United Way (non Profit) gets all their donations and grants all the money goes to charitable thingys…right Siever? I got news for you United way gives .08c away of every dollar recieved…. not $1.00 or anywhere near it, so I highly suggest you BONE UP on Non Profits!
You said: “I have been around drug addicts for over 50 years of my life. I have seen these Consumption sites all around the world”
Sure you have. Just like you’ve been to all the ports in the world.
My response: A) I never said I had been to every port in the world but when you have no facts behind you its best to distort anything and everything a person you do not agree with, says, right? I spent 28 years in the Navy, tied up in every drug infested port that the submarine or ship visited and the waterfront is where the addicts were. So you can question my credibility but I can assure you Mr Siever your extensive knowledge of Southern Alberta does not make you an authority, it makes you cloistered!
I said Spearman is killing Lethbridge, you responded why is Lethbridge at the top of Commercial Investment. Had you actually been reading what I have said since 2017 on the Lethbridge Herald website instead of cherry picking you would have realized I am and was referring to downtown. Everyone of the cities that I have said I watch deteriorate to near zero are doing exactly what Spearman says he is not doing but he is. They all relented and gave the addict their downtown, then created mini downtowns elsewhere (West side/South side) then after the addict destroyed “old town” it took places like Copenhagen Antwerp etc, 10 years to reclaim their Old town. So the proper approach is NOT to give up your downtown in the first place.
I said: “So here is what “your SCS” did for the residents of Lethbridge. It attracted 1000-1200 addicts that were not residents of Lethbridge to our city through clueless policy and immunity from police arrest. That number will balloon too 1700+ by fall of 2020.”
You said: This is simply unprovable.
So, you cannot make the leap because its unprovable, yet you have no issue stating putting detox, housing and killing downtown and the businesses there is going to yield results. Results that be current estimates yield 2 addicts rehab’d after 2 years from a group of 1000. Lets say those rehab numbers are wrong. Lets take 2% of 1000, thats 20 people off drugs every year, while Lethbridge grows by 30 every month. But you don’t see an issue with that, right?
Part of your circular argument, read above again for the REAL NUMBERS
I said:“It did not “solve” OUR problem because a smaller percentage of the drug addicts now use the SCS then were on the streets before the SCS!”
You said: This makes no sense. The people who use the SCS make up a smaller percentage than the people who were on the streets prior to the SCS? What were the people on the streets a percentage of?
My response: so your entire rant was based on debunking the numbers then once you said they were not believable everything else was wrong…circular stupidity, all you had to do was read or google!
I said: “Crime Index Severities are rarely skewed by petty thefts which tends to replace for the first few years, crimes of a higher severity ranking but that all departs when you enter the third phase of this fiasco which starts next summer.”
You said: What on earth is this person babbling about? How does anyone take seriously anything in this comment?
My response: Because you do not understand, does not make it untrue. Crime Severity Indexes use a scale of severity attached to each crime. So you could have 2,000 B&Es for an example but have one less killing and the majority of those 2,000 are obliterated because the killing severity Index number drops drastically the severity of the crime in the area. Why I have to explain this too you I have no idea! So to be callous 1 killing may equal 2,000 B&Es on the severity index scale that moves the needle. I realize thats an exaggeration but because you had NO CLUE I thought I would explain by using numbers you may understand
I said: “SCS now has the equivalent of the 300 users that the Chief of Police would not lock up. However based on his STUPIDITY we now have 1000-1200 more and growing every day that do not use the SCS.”
You said:Again, no proof of this. You can’t keep tabs on how many people are using drugs in Lethbridge. It’d be a logistical nightmare.
My response: another piece of circular logic…if you disbelieve Bourgue Furnished Numbers, then the whole rant is bad, right Siever?
I said: “In fact I encourage LETHBRIDGE give it some thought because once Spearman gets his Detox/Intox, Lodgings, etc…we are the DTES!!”
You said: Oh, please. Lethbridge will be nothing like East Hastings.
My reponse: Do you ever offer proof or is it just others that have to offer proof…..is your opinion proof, I am sure it is to you!! But you are wrong and I will jam it back at you in 5 years. There will be no difference between DTES and Galt gardens downtown area in 5 years. Write that down!
I said: telling me they do not ruin a city, when I have watched them ruin 31 cities before, that’s what I am sick and tired of!”
You said:You have not seen consumption sites ruin 31 cities.
My response: Because you say it, its true? I have seen 31 cities die, then slowly take their cities back over my 70 years on the planet. Copenhagen is the poster child, it took them 10 years to realize they had screwed up, took another 10 to get it back where people could walk the waterfront and look at the mermaid after midnight without being mugged. You are a child Mr Siever, you know nothing but obviously think you have the wisdom of people who spent their life circling the globe and saw things first hand. So I expect you not to believe Bourgues Numbers, Spearmans Failings or my record, it works best if you do not, you get to live in your fantasy world!
So now Mr Siever we see if you post this response….try to stay with facts and not attack because you do not like the opinion, but so far you do not deal well with facts, so we will see if you publish this LOL Just in case you don’t I will post it on Lethbridge Herald.

Welcome to my site, Dennis.
“Lets start with your circular argument that if the data is not true then everything else is questionable shall we.”
Nowhere did I argue that if the data is not true, then everything else is questionable. Also, that’s not what a circular argument is.
“All you had to do was google or read, one or the other so I will help you this one time. 1300- you have no worldly idea how anyone could determine this number. Well if you had checked with Bourgue or Spearman you would have found it came from ARCHES/SCS. Here is a quote for you.”
The quote you included from the Lethbridge News Now doesn’t say that there are 1,000 people using drugs in Lethbridge but not at the SCS. That 1,300 people are those who use the SCS, not those who don’t use it.
Since your analysis of the “350ish” number is built on your misunderstanding of the cited quote, I see no point in addressing that analysis.
“You then suggest that numbers were rising prior to the SCS arriving. That is true and if you had delved into the issue more thoroughly you would have found that because of the Blood Tribe Police policy in 2016/2017 to not allow ANY vehicles that were not Blood Tribe vehicles on their land, what they were actually doing is searching every unknown vehicle and ensuring the Drug Dealer could not operate on Blood Reserve Land. That caused the wholesale migration of addicts from the Blood Reserve to Lethbridge.”
If this May 2017 ban was the cause of the increase in crime in Lethbridge, why has crime been climbing every year since 2014? Why was the rate of increase in CSI for 2014 52% higher than it was in 2017?
“Now of course you will interpret it as racist, but using factual situations does not make one a racist!”
When will “using factual situations” start?
“Actually he has stated on two occassions that when he gets his way, and he will. We will be the only full service facility in Southern Alberta.”
Which two occasions?
“So any drug addicts wanting treatment from Medicine Hat to Coutts to Pincher Creek will come here. So by the mere fact he is applying for intox/detox/housing etc etc he has created a Southern Region Treatment facility in downtown Lethbridge.”
He isn’t applying for intox/detox/housing.
“Get off your ass and talk to the people that you say are doing a great job, they are the source of my numbers!”
Which people? Arches staff? Where has Arches said that there are 1,000 new visitors to Lethbridge?
(Also, FYI, I’ve been to the SCS more than once and have spent several hours talking to staff, so I’m not sure why you think I haven’t talked to them.)
“This is not a poverty issue, it is people who are homeless because they spend their or our money on drugs.”
Right. But if they had enough money for housing and drugs, then this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s a poverty issue. People exist in Lethbridge who have their own home and use drugs. Not everyone who does drugs in Lethbridge is homeless, so obviously being addicted isn’t what causes homelessness; otherwise more people who use drugs would be homeless.
“The true homeless of Lethbridge are being beaten, and stolen from by “Bourgues Clients”. Some no longer go to the Soup Kitchen because of the violence from the addicts.”
How do you know that those committing the violence are SCS clients? Are all the 1,422 clients of the SCS committing the violence? You’re making a lot of assumptions.
“So people like you who use homelessness to draw the sympathy vote”
I don’t understand what this refers to. What vote am I trying draw? What am I trying to get them to vote for?
“I say, NO, I say help the homeless and do so separately from people that choose to piss away $2500 a month to support a habit.”
That doesn’t surprise me. The way I look at it, using broad-based solutions helps more people.
“The question was how many addicts are indigenous. The answer is 90-95% but thats a problematic number for Bourgue because she needs to keep the focus away from the issue to keep the SCS running.”
Where did you get this number?
““Never again will the white man have any input to the direction of our youth”!! This was uttered as a warning from the First Nations Chief that now they would take charge of their youth and NO ONE ELSE would control them again.”
Which chief?
Also, this didn’t actually answer your own question of why the 90–95% figure matters. I am curious, however—now that you brought it up—as to why the 90–95% figure matters? Why does it matter—assuming your figure is actually true—that 90–95% of SCS clients are Indigenous? Just because 90–95% of the SCS clients might be Indigenous doesn’t mean 90–95% of Indigenous people are SCS clients. For your analysis of this uncited quote to be accurate, the number of Indigenous people in general who use drugs would need to be higher than those who don’t. The ratio of SCS clients doesn’t prove what you think it does.
“Unlike yourself I served 28 years in the Navy and saw addicts move from Marijuana to cocaine to heroin etc etc. Yes there are a few and I mean a FEW that got hooked on Oxy but that does not allow you or anyone else to pull the sympathy card for everyone that is addicted.”
I never said that it was a majority of people who get addicted to their prescriptions, so I’m unsure as to why you’re pointing out that it’s not a majority. I was using that as an example of how not everyone chooses the drugs that they end up addicted to.
Also, I’m not sure why you brought up the navy again or the fact that you were in it for 28 years. I fail to see the relevance.
“Oxy and other strong drugs were introduced in 1998, and because you actually furnish no proof of what you say,”
Oxy was introduced in 1995. You seem to have a habit of using incorrect dates and data to support your claims.
Even so, I take responsibility for not including proof. I had assumed that it was general knowledge that oxy resulted in addiction. How about this for proof? Is it sufficient?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02686-2
“So to relieve them of the burden of their OWN RESPONSIBILITY we created the “its Oxy’s fault for 100% of the addicts.”
Nowhere did I claim oxy accounted for all addictions. I didn’t even mention oxy by name.
“Do you think the people driving around on stolen bicycles at 4AM are out doing snow removal.”
No. I’m not sure why you’re asking me this.
“Just like addicts won’t get off drugs, (which brings me to my next favorite topic) they won’t use detox either!”
Of course they will. Otherwise, there would be no detox services anywhere.
“I have found a few papers over my 30 odd years of reading crap on the internet that isolates hard drugs and the results of hard drug rehab is about .02% or 1/5th of 1%.”
I’d love to see these papers. Do you have links to them, by any chance?
“Unicef CEO (head of a non-profit) makes $1.7million a year. Value Village CEO (non profit) makes over $1million a year….I will say no more but you have NO CLUE what a non-profit actually means!”
It seems that you don’t understand what non-profit means. It certainly doesn’t mean that staff all volunteer their time. It means they don’t run a profit: their revenue doesn’t exceed their expenses.
“So when the United Way (non Profit) gets all their donations and grants all the money goes to charitable thingys…right Siever?”
No, some of it goes to salaries, some of it to office supplies, some of it goes to utilities, some of it goes to rental or leasing costs, and so on. But paying for expenses doesn’t mean they’re posting profits.
“I got news for you United way gives .08c away of every dollar recieved…. not $1.00 or anywhere near it”
Assuming this is true, and I’m starting to take all of your figures as baseless, that doesn’t mean that the remaining 92¢ is profit.
“I never said I had been to every port in the world”
You literally said, “I was around these people in every port”. Every port.
“I spent 28 years in the Navy”
Yeah, I picked up on that.
“So you can question my credibility”
I have no idea if you are credible or not; I don’t know you and have never met you. All I have to go on is what you wrote.
“your extensive knowledge of Southern Alberta does not make you an authority, it makes you cloistered!”
I didn’t realize that I had an extensive knowledge of Southern Alberta. And for whatever it’s worth, I’m not from here. I’ve lived in 3 provinces and 3 states. I’ve been to 6 provinces, 24 states, and 3 countries. It’s no 28 years in the Navy, but I’d hardly count it as cloistered.
“Had you actually been reading what I have said since 2017 on the Lethbridge Herald”
I’m not your fan. Not only do I not regularly read the Lethbridge Herald online, I rarely read the comments, let alone specifically read yours so I can keep track of your rhetoric over the last two years.
“you would have realized I am and was referring to downtown.”
Yeah, like I said, I can only go one what I saw in this one comment. I’m not going to search the Internet for all your past comments to provide me context to something you said.
“Everyone of the cities that I have said I watch deteriorate to near zero”
What does “deteriorate to zero” mean?
“They all relented and gave the addict their downtown, then created mini downtowns elsewhere (West side/South side)”
Creating urban centres is just good city planning. Requiring everyone in a city of 100,000 people to travel downtown for services makes no sense. Having multiple urban centres reduces traffic, saves the city on infrastructure costs, and improves the environment. Also, Varsity
Village was planned over 40 years ago with town centres in mind, long before the SCS came along.
“ you have no issue stating putting detox, housing and killing downtown and the businesses there is going to yield results.”
I said nothing about “killing downtown”.
“Results that be current estimates yield 2 addicts rehab’d after 2 years from a group of 1000.”
I’d like to see this data. I’m just super uncomfortable taking you at your word when it comes to figures.
“ Lets take 2% of 1000, thats 20 people off drugs every year, while Lethbridge grows by 30 every month.”
Where do you get the idea that Lethbridge has 30 new drug users every month?
“read above again for the REAL NUMBERS”
It remains to be seen that you are actually providing real numbers.
“so your entire rant was based on debunking the numbers then once you said they were not believable everything else was wrong”
Where did I say that once the numbers are unbelievable, everything else is wrong? Also, my response was about more than just numbers.
“because you had NO CLUE I thought I would explain by using numbers you may understand”
I didn’t understand not because of the numbers but because your language didn’t make sense. It takes a great deal of effort to try to sift through the many grammatical and punctuation errors to understand your message, but sometimes, like the quote you reference here, it’s just impossible.
“another piece of circular logic…if you disbelieve Bourgue Furnished Numbers, then the whole rant is bad, right Siever?”
Again, that’s not what circular logic means. Even so, it’s not that I disbelieve Borque’s numbers; it’s that I don’t think they say what you claim they do.
“Do you ever offer proof or is it just others that have to offer proof”
The way this works is that the person who makes the claim provides the proof. Since you claimed that Lethbridg will be the new Downtown Eastside, then the burden of proof—if we’re looking for proof—lies with you.
“But you are wrong and I will jam it back at you in 5 years.”
I’ll be waiting.
“There will be no difference between DTES and Galt gardens downtown area in 5 years. Write that down!”
Lethbridge will be nothing like East Hastings in 5 years, and Galt Gardens will be nothing like Pigeon Park.
Also, I don’t need to write it down; you already did.
“Because you say it, its true?”
I could easily ask this question of you.
“I have seen 31 cities die, then slowly take their cities back over my 70 years on the planet.”
Which 31 cities? And which time periods for each city? And how do you define “die”; what measures do you use to determine whether the city qualifies as dead? And how do you know when the city has sufficiently taken the city back?
“You are a child Mr Siever”
Okay, boomer.
“you know nothing”
I fully acknowledge that I lack knowledge, but I don’t think I’d go so far as to say I know nothing.
“obviously think you have the wisdom of people who spent their life circling the globe and saw things first hand.”
You’re not the arbiter of facts, empiricism, or objectivity. your own experience cannot be used as the basis of fact. All your own experience proves is that you experienced it. If your experience counted as objective fact, scientists wouldn’t conduct research; they’d just shoot you an email instead.
“so far you do not deal well with facts”
I’m still waiting for you to use facts.

Welcome to my site, Dennis.
“Lets start with your circular argument that if the data is not true then everything else is questionable shall we.”
Nowhere did I argue that if the data is not true, then everything else is questionable. Also, that’s not what a circular argument is.
“All you had to do was google or read, one or the other so I will help you this one time. 1300- you have no worldly idea how anyone could determine this number. Well if you had checked with Bourgue or Spearman you would have found it came from ARCHES/SCS. Here is a quote for you.”
The quote you included from the Lethbridge News Now doesn’t say that there are 1,000 people using drugs in Lethbridge but not at the SCS. That 1,300 people are those who use the SCS, not those who don’t use it.
Since your analysis of the “350ish” number is built on your misunderstanding of the cited quote, I see no point in addressing that analysis.
“You then suggest that numbers were rising prior to the SCS arriving. That is true and if you had delved into the issue more thoroughly you would have found that because of the Blood Tribe Police policy in 2016/2017 to not allow ANY vehicles that were not Blood Tribe vehicles on their land, what they were actually doing is searching every unknown vehicle and ensuring the Drug Dealer could not operate on Blood Reserve Land. That caused the wholesale migration of addicts from the Blood Reserve to Lethbridge.”
If this May 2017 ban was the cause of the increase in crime in Lethbridge, why has crime been climbing every year since 2014? Why was the rate of increase in CSI for 2014 52% higher than it was in 2017?
“Now of course you will interpret it as racist, but using factual situations does not make one a racist!”
When will “using factual situations” start?
“Actually he has stated on two occassions that when he gets his way, and he will. We will be the only full service facility in Southern Alberta.”
Which two occasions?
“So any drug addicts wanting treatment from Medicine Hat to Coutts to Pincher Creek will come here. So by the mere fact he is applying for intox/detox/housing etc etc he has created a Southern Region Treatment facility in downtown Lethbridge.”
He isn’t applying for intox/detox/housing.
“Get off your ass and talk to the people that you say are doing a great job, they are the source of my numbers!”
Which people? Arches staff? Where has Arches said that there are 1,000 new visitors to Lethbridge?
(Also, FYI, I’ve been to the SCS more than once and have spent several hours talking to staff, so I’m not sure why you think I haven’t talked to them.)
“This is not a poverty issue, it is people who are homeless because they spend their or our money on drugs.”
Right. But if they had enough money for housing and drugs, then this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s a poverty issue. People exist in Lethbridge who have their own home and use drugs. Not everyone who does drugs in Lethbridge is homeless, so obviously being addicted isn’t what causes homelessness; otherwise more people who use drugs would be homeless.
“The true homeless of Lethbridge are being beaten, and stolen from by “Bourgues Clients”. Some no longer go to the Soup Kitchen because of the violence from the addicts.”
How do you know that those committing the violence are SCS clients? Are all the 1,422 clients of the SCS committing the violence? You’re making a lot of assumptions.
“So people like you who use homelessness to draw the sympathy vote”
I don’t understand what this refers to. What vote am I trying draw? What am I trying to get them to vote for?
“I say, NO, I say help the homeless and do so separately from people that choose to piss away $2500 a month to support a habit.”
That doesn’t surprise me. The way I look at it, using broad-based solutions helps more people.
“The question was how many addicts are indigenous. The answer is 90-95% but thats a problematic number for Bourgue because she needs to keep the focus away from the issue to keep the SCS running.”
Where did you get this number?
““Never again will the white man have any input to the direction of our youth”!! This was uttered as a warning from the First Nations Chief that now they would take charge of their youth and NO ONE ELSE would control them again.”
Which chief?
Also, this didn’t actually answer your own question of why the 90–95% figure matters. I am curious, however—now that you brought it up—as to why the 90–95% figure matters? Why does it matter—assuming your figure is actually true—that 90–95% of SCS clients are Indigenous? Just because 90–95% of the SCS clients might be Indigenous doesn’t mean 90–95% of Indigenous people are SCS clients. For your analysis of this uncited quote to be accurate, the number of Indigenous people in general who use drugs would need to be higher than those who don’t. The ratio of SCS clients doesn’t prove what you think it does.
“Unlike yourself I served 28 years in the Navy and saw addicts move from Marijuana to cocaine to heroin etc etc. Yes there are a few and I mean a FEW that got hooked on Oxy but that does not allow you or anyone else to pull the sympathy card for everyone that is addicted.”
I never said that it was a majority of people who get addicted to their prescriptions, so I’m unsure as to why you’re pointing out that it’s not a majority. I was using that as an example of how not everyone chooses the drugs that they end up addicted to.
Also, I’m not sure why you brought up the navy again or the fact that you were in it for 28 years. I fail to see the relevance.
“Oxy and other strong drugs were introduced in 1998, and because you actually furnish no proof of what you say,”
Oxy was introduced in 1995. You seem to have a habit of using incorrect dates and data to support your claims.
Even so, I take responsibility for not including proof. I had assumed that it was general knowledge that oxy resulted in addiction. How about this for proof? Is it sufficient?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02686-2
“So to relieve them of the burden of their OWN RESPONSIBILITY we created the “its Oxy’s fault for 100% of the addicts.”
Nowhere did I claim oxy accounted for all addictions. I didn’t even mention oxy by name.
“Do you think the people driving around on stolen bicycles at 4AM are out doing snow removal.”
No. I’m not sure why you’re asking me this.
“Just like addicts won’t get off drugs, (which brings me to my next favorite topic) they won’t use detox either!”
Of course they will. Otherwise, there would be no detox services anywhere.
“I have found a few papers over my 30 odd years of reading crap on the internet that isolates hard drugs and the results of hard drug rehab is about .02% or 1/5th of 1%.”
I’d love to see these papers. Do you have links to them, by any chance?
“Unicef CEO (head of a non-profit) makes $1.7million a year. Value Village CEO (non profit) makes over $1million a year….I will say no more but you have NO CLUE what a non-profit actually means!”
It seems that you don’t understand what non-profit means. It certainly doesn’t mean that staff all volunteer their time. It means they don’t run a profit: their revenue doesn’t exceed their expenses.
“So when the United Way (non Profit) gets all their donations and grants all the money goes to charitable thingys…right Siever?”
No, some of it goes to salaries, some of it to office supplies, some of it goes to utilities, some of it goes to rental or leasing costs, and so on. But paying for expenses doesn’t mean they’re posting profits.
“I got news for you United way gives .08c away of every dollar recieved…. not $1.00 or anywhere near it”
Assuming this is true, and I’m starting to take all of your figures as baseless, that doesn’t mean that the remaining 92¢ is profit.
“I never said I had been to every port in the world”
You literally said, “I was around these people in every port”. Every port.
“I spent 28 years in the Navy”
Yeah, I picked up on that.
“So you can question my credibility”
I have no idea if you are credible or not; I don’t know you and have never met you. All I have to go on is what you wrote.
“your extensive knowledge of Southern Alberta does not make you an authority, it makes you cloistered!”
I didn’t realize that I had an extensive knowledge of Southern Alberta. And for whatever it’s worth, I’m not from here. I’ve lived in 3 provinces and 3 states. I’ve been to 6 provinces, 24 states, and 3 countries. It’s no 28 years in the Navy, but I’d hardly count it as cloistered.
“Had you actually been reading what I have said since 2017 on the Lethbridge Herald”
I’m not your fan. Not only do I not regularly read the Lethbridge Herald online, I rarely read the comments, let alone specifically read yours so I can keep track of your rhetoric over the last two years.
“you would have realized I am and was referring to downtown.”
Yeah, like I said, I can only go one what I saw in this one comment. I’m not going to search the Internet for all your past comments to provide me context to something you said.
“Everyone of the cities that I have said I watch deteriorate to near zero”
What does “deteriorate to zero” mean?
“They all relented and gave the addict their downtown, then created mini downtowns elsewhere (West side/South side)”
Creating urban centres is just good city planning. Requiring everyone in a city of 100,000 people to travel downtown for services makes no sense. Having multiple urban centres reduces traffic, saves the city on infrastructure costs, and improves the environment. Also, Varsity
Village was planned over 40 years ago with town centres in mind, long before the SCS came along.
“ you have no issue stating putting detox, housing and killing downtown and the businesses there is going to yield results.”
I said nothing about “killing downtown”.
“Results that be current estimates yield 2 addicts rehab’d after 2 years from a group of 1000.”
I’d like to see this data. I’m just super uncomfortable taking you at your word when it comes to figures.
“ Lets take 2% of 1000, thats 20 people off drugs every year, while Lethbridge grows by 30 every month.”
Where do you get the idea that Lethbridge has 30 new drug users every month?
“read above again for the REAL NUMBERS”
It remains to be seen that you are actually providing real numbers.
“so your entire rant was based on debunking the numbers then once you said they were not believable everything else was wrong”
Where did I say that once the numbers are unbelievable, everything else is wrong? Also, my response was about more than just numbers.
“because you had NO CLUE I thought I would explain by using numbers you may understand”
I didn’t understand not because of the numbers but because your language didn’t make sense. It takes a great deal of effort to try to sift through the many grammatical and punctuation errors to understand your message, but sometimes, like the quote you reference here, it’s just impossible.
“another piece of circular logic…if you disbelieve Bourgue Furnished Numbers, then the whole rant is bad, right Siever?”
Again, that’s not what circular logic means. Even so, it’s not that I disbelieve Borque’s numbers; it’s that I don’t think they say what you claim they do.
“Do you ever offer proof or is it just others that have to offer proof”
The way this works is that the person who makes the claim provides the proof. Since you claimed that Lethbridg will be the new Downtown Eastside, then the burden of proof—if we’re looking for proof—lies with you.
“But you are wrong and I will jam it back at you in 5 years.”
I’ll be waiting.
“There will be no difference between DTES and Galt gardens downtown area in 5 years. Write that down!”
Lethbridge will be nothing like East Hastings in 5 years, and Galt Gardens will be nothing like Pigeon Park.
Also, I don’t need to write it down; you already did.
“Because you say it, its true?”
I could easily ask this question of you.
“I have seen 31 cities die, then slowly take their cities back over my 70 years on the planet.”
Which 31 cities? And which time periods for each city? And how do you define “die”; what measures do you use to determine whether the city qualifies as dead? And how do you know when the city has sufficiently taken the city back?
“You are a child Mr Siever”
Okay, boomer.
“you know nothing”
I fully acknowledge that I lack knowledge, but I don’t think I’d go so far as to say I know nothing.
“obviously think you have the wisdom of people who spent their life circling the globe and saw things first hand.”
You’re not the arbiter of facts, empiricism, or objectivity. your own experience cannot be used as the basis of fact. All your own experience proves is that you experienced it. If your experience counted as objective fact, scientists wouldn’t conduct research; they’d just shoot you an email instead.
“so far you do not deal well with facts”
I’m still waiting for you to use facts.

So you are demanding proof of what I say. First of all, you have to agree that Bourgue furnished Spearman with documented addicts totalling 1300
Once you do that your rant once again falls apart. Addicts need a fix every every day. So please explain to your viewers of this blog (at least 2 people) you, and I how you get 667 visits a day from 1300 addicts who need a hit every day. Take your time because so far I have not seen “Half People walking in and out of the SCS”
Once we get beyond that, we will address one issue at a time because so far you are great at not answering or accepting data. So the challenge is, if you do not accept the data provided by Bourgue/Manning and Spearman, whose data do you accept, your own?

So you are demanding proof of what I say. First of all, you have to agree that Bourgue furnished Spearman with documented addicts totalling 1300
Once you do that your rant once again falls apart. Addicts need a fix every every day. So please explain to your viewers of this blog (at least 2 people) you, and I how you get 667 visits a day from 1300 addicts who need a hit every day. Take your time because so far I have not seen “Half People walking in and out of the SCS”
Once we get beyond that, we will address one issue at a time because so far you are great at not answering or accepting data. So the challenge is, if you do not accept the data provided by Bourgue/Manning and Spearman, whose data do you accept, your own?

Another of your random statements proved wrong, I quote
“DETOX BEDS
On Wednesday, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced that the provincial government would fund 4,000 addiction recovery beds over the four years, in a measure to combat the ongoing opioid crisis.
Spearman commented on that, saying he hopes that Lethbridge will receive a significant number of beds. His hope is to see at least 200.” enquote
Your comment? Look above at your reply too my comment
I said: “So any drug addicts wanting treatment from Medicine Hat to Coutts to Pincher Creek will come here. So by the mere fact he is applying for intox/detox/housing etc etc he has created a Southern Region Treatment facility in downtown Lethbridge.”
YOU SAID: He isn’t applying for intox/detox/housing.
Do you read any of the reference material I gave you?

“So you are demanding proof of what I say.”
Well, of course. Are you suggesting that everyone just take your word for it every time you claim something? Unless you’re some authority in the area you’re discussing, I don’t see this as a reasonable expectation.
“First of all, you have to agree that Bourgue furnished Spearman with documented addicts totalling 1300”
Sort of. I agree that Spearman claimed that ARCHES has put the city in contact with 1,300 addicts and SCS users. But your point wasn’t that ARCHES has 1,300 users. Your point was that there are 1,000 people in Lethbridge who are addicted to drugs but don’t use the SCS. The number you keep citing doesn’t prove that claim.
“Once you do that your rant once again falls apart.”
I don’t know what this means. My entire response didn’t revolve around the fact that ARCHES put the city in contact with 1,300 clients. Especially since you never made that claim in your original Herald comments.
“So please explain to your viewers of this blog (at least 2 people) you, and I how you get 667 visits a day from 1300 addicts who need a hit every day.”
I don’t know where you’re getting 667 visits per day. From opening day until 27 August 2019, the SCS saw 285,884 visits from 1,422 people. That works out to a little more than 201 visits per day.
“so far you are great at not answering or accepting data.”
I’m more than willing to accept accurate data, but you’re either keep misrepresenting data or completely making it up.
“ if you do not accept the data provided by Bourgue/Manning and Spearman”
I accept the data provide. What I don’t accept is the way you use it to prove a point that it doesn’t prove.
“Do you read any of the reference material I gave you?”
I sure did. But Spearman saying he hopes Lethbridge will get some of those 4,000 beds isn’t the same as his applying for intox/detox/housing, which is what you claimed he had done. Hoping for something is not the same thing as applying for it.

“So you are demanding proof of what I say.”
Well, of course. Are you suggesting that everyone just take your word for it every time you claim something? Unless you’re some authority in the area you’re discussing, I don’t see this as a reasonable expectation.
“First of all, you have to agree that Bourgue furnished Spearman with documented addicts totalling 1300”
Sort of. I agree that Spearman claimed that ARCHES has put the city in contact with 1,300 addicts and SCS users. But your point wasn’t that ARCHES has 1,300 users. Your point was that there are 1,000 people in Lethbridge who are addicted to drugs but don’t use the SCS. The number you keep citing doesn’t prove that claim.
“Once you do that your rant once again falls apart.”
I don’t know what this means. My entire response didn’t revolve around the fact that ARCHES put the city in contact with 1,300 clients. Especially since you never made that claim in your original Herald comments.
“So please explain to your viewers of this blog (at least 2 people) you, and I how you get 667 visits a day from 1300 addicts who need a hit every day.”
I don’t know where you’re getting 667 visits per day. From opening day until 27 August 2019, the SCS saw 285,884 visits from 1,422 people. That works out to a little more than 201 visits per day.
“so far you are great at not answering or accepting data.”
I’m more than willing to accept accurate data, but you’re either keep misrepresenting data or completely making it up.
“ if you do not accept the data provided by Bourgue/Manning and Spearman”
I accept the data provide. What I don’t accept is the way you use it to prove a point that it doesn’t prove.
“Do you read any of the reference material I gave you?”
I sure did. But Spearman saying he hopes Lethbridge will get some of those 4,000 beds isn’t the same as his applying for intox/detox/housing, which is what you claimed he had done. Hoping for something is not the same thing as applying for it.

Again, stick with one issue at a time because you rant endlessly as if you have a clue, and you do not. So you say “Sort of” when it comes to both Proclamations by Spearman and Bourgue that there are 1300 addicts. Why “sort of” why not accept the people in the know, you aren’t I am not, so I take their word for it, why can’t you. Because as soon as you do the “sort of” you immediately go on a tangent hoping that issue is done. So either you believe it or you do not, which is it. Because if you continue to do the “Sort of” you will be talking to yourself. So either YES or NO.

Stick with one issue at a time? I’m responding to thing you’re saying, so if we’re discussing multiple issues, it’s because you bring up multiple issues.
I do accept the stats they provide. I just don’t believe they say what you think they do. I literally explained this in my last comment.

Again, stick with one issue at a time because you rant endlessly as if you have a clue, and you do not. So you say “Sort of” when it comes to both Proclamations by Spearman and Bourgue that there are 1300 addicts. Why “sort of” why not accept the people in the know, you aren’t I am not, so I take their word for it, why can’t you. Because as soon as you do the “sort of” you immediately go on a tangent hoping that issue is done. So either you believe it or you do not, which is it. Because if you continue to do the “Sort of” you will be talking to yourself. So either YES or NO.

Stick with one issue at a time? I’m responding to thing you’re saying, so if we’re discussing multiple issues, it’s because you bring up multiple issues.
I do accept the stats they provide. I just don’t believe they say what you think they do. I literally explained this in my last comment.

Is it still “sort of”?
Statistics
Operating since Feb. 28, 2018, Lethbridge’s SCS is not only the busiest in Canada, but the busiest in North America according to Bourque. The site has on average, 673 visits per day, 21,000 uses per month, and 50 unique users added each month to the total of about 1,300 already using the site.
https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2019/05/18/15-months-and-counting-behind-the-doors-of-lethbridges-supervised-consumption-site/
Yes or No pretty simple really…or is it?

March 1st they had 1300 addicts. with “50 unique users being added per month. I will do this slowly for you
April 1 1350, May1 1400, Jun 1, 1450, July 1 1500
I am saying 1500 based on Bourgues natural ability to attract users from EVERYWHERE. I think my 2000 addicts by October 2020 is a very very very conservative number. I am basing my calculation on 20 unique users being added per month, not 50
So are you still “Sort of” because if you are I am going to write you off as a NUTBAR who probably never worked a day in his life and has been living off “the system”!

But you’re assuming that rate of increase as of March has been the same rate of increase since then. As I already stated, as of the end of August, they were at only 1,422 users. Clearly, they’re no longer getting 50 new users a month

March 1st they had 1300 addicts. with “50 unique users being added per month. I will do this slowly for you
April 1 1350, May1 1400, Jun 1, 1450, July 1 1500
I am saying 1500 based on Bourgues natural ability to attract users from EVERYWHERE. I think my 2000 addicts by October 2020 is a very very very conservative number. I am basing my calculation on 20 unique users being added per month, not 50
So are you still “Sort of” because if you are I am going to write you off as a NUTBAR who probably never worked a day in his life and has been living off “the system”!

But you’re assuming that rate of increase as of March has been the same rate of increase since then. As I already stated, as of the end of August, they were at only 1,422 users. Clearly, they’re no longer getting 50 new users a month

Thats how a typical person avoids talking about an issue, he knitpicks , you say “as of the end of August, they were at only 1,422 users” when I am saying 1500 as of the end of November.
So now your next tactic is to nitpick to try to delay the point of this entire conversation and you do it just like a Good Little SCSer.
So you now agree 1500 users is not an outrageous number, which is a first step, just like the addicts you support, one day at a time Siever.
So now I note, as a good little SCSer you forgot to answer the second point because I posed two comments at once, so , do you now acknowledge that Spearman did apply for intox/detox/housing which you earlier denied?
I do not mind coming back here one post at a time. Its obvious you won’t answer two at a time, so I will stick with one.
Simple question, do you now acknowledge that Spearman has applied for intox/detox/housing. Yes/No

Thats how a typical person avoids talking about an issue, he knitpicks , you say “as of the end of August, they were at only 1,422 users” when I am saying 1500 as of the end of November.
So now your next tactic is to nitpick to try to delay the point of this entire conversation and you do it just like a Good Little SCSer.
So you now agree 1500 users is not an outrageous number, which is a first step, just like the addicts you support, one day at a time Siever.
So now I note, as a good little SCSer you forgot to answer the second point because I posed two comments at once, so , do you now acknowledge that Spearman did apply for intox/detox/housing which you earlier denied?
I do not mind coming back here one post at a time. Its obvious you won’t answer two at a time, so I will stick with one.
Simple question, do you now acknowledge that Spearman has applied for intox/detox/housing. Yes/No

“Thats how a typical person avoids talking about an issue, he knitpicks , you say “as of the end of August, they were at only 1,422 users” when I am saying 1500 as of the end of November.”
That’s not nitpicking. You claimed that there are still 50 new clients coming to the SCS every month, despite that news report being published 8 months ago. You said that based on 50 new clients, you predicted that there would be 1500 total clients by July. I was showing you that by the end of August, it still wasn’t 1500, so your calculations were off. As well, if the SCS were still seeing 50 new clients every month, then it should be at 1700 at the end of November, not the 1500 that you’re now claiming as of your most recent comment.
“So you now agree 1500 users is not an outrageous number”
I don’t think I ever disagreed that 1,500 users is not an outrageous number, so I’m not sure why you’re saying this.
“ you forgot to answer the second point because I posed two comments at once, so , do you now acknowledge that Spearman did apply for intox/detox/housing which you earlier denied?”
No, I didn’t. I literally responded to it in my comment from yesterday stamped as 17:21.

“Thats how a typical person avoids talking about an issue, he knitpicks , you say “as of the end of August, they were at only 1,422 users” when I am saying 1500 as of the end of November.”
That’s not nitpicking. You claimed that there are still 50 new clients coming to the SCS every month, despite that news report being published 8 months ago. You said that based on 50 new clients, you predicted that there would be 1500 total clients by July. I was showing you that by the end of August, it still wasn’t 1500, so your calculations were off. As well, if the SCS were still seeing 50 new clients every month, then it should be at 1700 at the end of November, not the 1500 that you’re now claiming as of your most recent comment.
“So you now agree 1500 users is not an outrageous number”
I don’t think I ever disagreed that 1,500 users is not an outrageous number, so I’m not sure why you’re saying this.
“ you forgot to answer the second point because I posed two comments at once, so , do you now acknowledge that Spearman did apply for intox/detox/housing which you earlier denied?”
No, I didn’t. I literally responded to it in my comment from yesterday stamped as 17:21.

Okay, so you acknowledge the following, correct?
1) 1500 addicts by now (probably) and I had predicted that last summer for end of October 2019, and I further predict 2000 by end of October 2020, however I am just asking you acknowledge that we have 1500″ish” right now.
2) That Spearman is seeking 200 beds that will be intox/detox and housing.
So assuming you acknowledge those two items we can move on.
We can use 1300 or 1500 users, I really do not care for the next exercise.
In Bourgues magical world she creates impressions. ie and I quote “The site has on average, 673 visits per day, 21,000 uses per month, and 50 unique users added each month to the total of about 1,300 already using the site.”
Now, most people reading that would think that 1300 users are using her site every day. But thats not what she is saying. She is saying that out of the 21.000 visits which averaged 673 visits per day there were 1300 different users that composed the visits for the entire month.
The impression of course is she is servicing 1300 users. She is not. Now again, I refer to her Video that she did for (I believe) LethbridgeNewsNow, and I will find it. She states in that video that the 667/673 not sure which (I remember 667) that it was composed of people who were in most cases visiting 2 times a day. Or “the heavy users. Some are there 4 times a day. Thats the part she should not have mentioned because its easy to determine from those comments that at MOST 350ish users visit her site a day and if I could find that Video I would be able to tell you the exact number she stated.
Now on to the point which you blindly believe to be not correct but it is!
350ish users make up the 667-673 visits per day….where are the other 950-1150 Siever? You see thats your problem, you aren’t very good with math. If during the month all of the 1300 visit once then she can say “exactly what she did say” which was they service 1300 users. The trouble is, the remaining 950(if you believe we have 1300 or 1150) ARE NOT VISITING SCS every day.
Which now accounts for the approximately 1000 that I said are NOT using the SCS every every day and they are shooting up elsewhere in the community.
Now whether you like it or not, I know junkies. They need a fix once a day every day. So you can yap, yelp, make bold comments, you can do anything you want, but you cannot beat the math.
So basically your entire rant which is the caption at the top of the page, was you shooting your mouth off knowing NOTHING about of what you speak, those are the facts Siever.
By all means if you want to question me. Then ask SPECIFIC questions with a start and an end not some driveling diatribe that blends 5 or 6 bland statements together making it look like you have a clue when you do not.

“Okay, so you acknowledge the following, correct?
1) 1500 addicts by now (probably)”
No, I don’t acknowledge that. The users ARCHES refers to are users of the site, but not everyone who uses the site have addictions. They provide nearly 20 services, only some of which are focused on addictions.
“2) That Spearman is seeking 200 beds that will be intox/detox and housing.”
I acknowledge that Spearman hopes we get 200 beds.
“The impression of course is she is servicing 1300 users. She is not.”
Except they are. Just because they don’t all use it every day doesn’t mean they never use it. I don’t buy gas every day, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a customer at the gas station where I buy gas.
“350ish users make up the 667-673 visits per day….where are the other 950-1150 Siever? You see thats your problem, you aren’t very good with math. If during the month all of the 1300 visit once then she can say “exactly what she did say” which was they service 1300 users. The trouble is, the remaining 950(if you believe we have 1300 or 1150) ARE NOT VISITING SCS every day.
Which now accounts for the approximately 1000 that I said are NOT using the SCS every every day and they are shooting up elsewhere in the community.”
You’re moving the goalposts again. Your original claim was “the new 1000 NOT visiting the SCS”, not that there are 1,000 people who sometimes use the SCS. And even if these were the same thing, again, not all users of the SCS have addictions.
“Now whether you like it or not, I know junkies. They need a fix once a day every day. So you can yap, yelp, make bold comments, you can do anything you want, but you cannot beat the math.”
You can if the math doesn’t support your original claim of new 1,000 users who aren’t using the SCS.
“Then ask SPECIFIC questions with a start and an end not some driveling diatribe that blends 5 or 6 bland statements together making it look like you have a clue when you do not.”
Did you read your original comment on the Lethbridge Herald website? Because if my post above seems disconnected it’s because I was replying to your comment, which was all over the map and full of countless fallacies. If you want more structure to my comments, maybe start having structure in your own.

Okay, so you acknowledge the following, correct?
1) 1500 addicts by now (probably) and I had predicted that last summer for end of October 2019, and I further predict 2000 by end of October 2020, however I am just asking you acknowledge that we have 1500″ish” right now.
2) That Spearman is seeking 200 beds that will be intox/detox and housing.
So assuming you acknowledge those two items we can move on.
We can use 1300 or 1500 users, I really do not care for the next exercise.
In Bourgues magical world she creates impressions. ie and I quote “The site has on average, 673 visits per day, 21,000 uses per month, and 50 unique users added each month to the total of about 1,300 already using the site.”
Now, most people reading that would think that 1300 users are using her site every day. But thats not what she is saying. She is saying that out of the 21.000 visits which averaged 673 visits per day there were 1300 different users that composed the visits for the entire month.
The impression of course is she is servicing 1300 users. She is not. Now again, I refer to her Video that she did for (I believe) LethbridgeNewsNow, and I will find it. She states in that video that the 667/673 not sure which (I remember 667) that it was composed of people who were in most cases visiting 2 times a day. Or “the heavy users. Some are there 4 times a day. Thats the part she should not have mentioned because its easy to determine from those comments that at MOST 350ish users visit her site a day and if I could find that Video I would be able to tell you the exact number she stated.
Now on to the point which you blindly believe to be not correct but it is!
350ish users make up the 667-673 visits per day….where are the other 950-1150 Siever? You see thats your problem, you aren’t very good with math. If during the month all of the 1300 visit once then she can say “exactly what she did say” which was they service 1300 users. The trouble is, the remaining 950(if you believe we have 1300 or 1150) ARE NOT VISITING SCS every day.
Which now accounts for the approximately 1000 that I said are NOT using the SCS every every day and they are shooting up elsewhere in the community.
Now whether you like it or not, I know junkies. They need a fix once a day every day. So you can yap, yelp, make bold comments, you can do anything you want, but you cannot beat the math.
So basically your entire rant which is the caption at the top of the page, was you shooting your mouth off knowing NOTHING about of what you speak, those are the facts Siever.
By all means if you want to question me. Then ask SPECIFIC questions with a start and an end not some driveling diatribe that blends 5 or 6 bland statements together making it look like you have a clue when you do not.

“Okay, so you acknowledge the following, correct?
1) 1500 addicts by now (probably)”
No, I don’t acknowledge that. The users ARCHES refers to are users of the site, but not everyone who uses the site have addictions. They provide nearly 20 services, only some of which are focused on addictions.
“2) That Spearman is seeking 200 beds that will be intox/detox and housing.”
I acknowledge that Spearman hopes we get 200 beds.
“The impression of course is she is servicing 1300 users. She is not.”
Except they are. Just because they don’t all use it every day doesn’t mean they never use it. I don’t buy gas every day, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a customer at the gas station where I buy gas.
“350ish users make up the 667-673 visits per day….where are the other 950-1150 Siever? You see thats your problem, you aren’t very good with math. If during the month all of the 1300 visit once then she can say “exactly what she did say” which was they service 1300 users. The trouble is, the remaining 950(if you believe we have 1300 or 1150) ARE NOT VISITING SCS every day.
Which now accounts for the approximately 1000 that I said are NOT using the SCS every every day and they are shooting up elsewhere in the community.”
You’re moving the goalposts again. Your original claim was “the new 1000 NOT visiting the SCS”, not that there are 1,000 people who sometimes use the SCS. And even if these were the same thing, again, not all users of the SCS have addictions.
“Now whether you like it or not, I know junkies. They need a fix once a day every day. So you can yap, yelp, make bold comments, you can do anything you want, but you cannot beat the math.”
You can if the math doesn’t support your original claim of new 1,000 users who aren’t using the SCS.
“Then ask SPECIFIC questions with a start and an end not some driveling diatribe that blends 5 or 6 bland statements together making it look like you have a clue when you do not.”
Did you read your original comment on the Lethbridge Herald website? Because if my post above seems disconnected it’s because I was replying to your comment, which was all over the map and full of countless fallacies. If you want more structure to my comments, maybe start having structure in your own.

The magic “2000”
So now that you realize I predicted 2000 unique users by October 2020 in June of this year and I predicted 1500 users by October 2019 last summer let me now explain to you why Lethbridge is Fucked!
Portugal (I have been there) decided to make all drugs legal when crime became too much for even the government to tolerate. That crime rate was created by 150,000 addicts. At the time Portugals population was 10million. So the point where Portugal began to dissolve into anarchy was 150,000 addicts! Which coincidentally is 1.5% of their population.
Now I know you have trouble with math so let me state the obvious 150,000 is to 10million as 1500 is to 100,000
So Lethbridge and Portugal are in the non-enviable spot of being “the same” at the time they declared all drugs legal.
Now of course your response, “all the more reason we should make all drugs legal too”, right? Well we do have one small problem with that issue. Portugal is a country that makes its own Rules and Lethbridge is a compromised good two shoes driven fuckin mess waiting to dissolve before your very eyes.
So why 2000 ?
2000 is when the LAPS is overwhelmed and the real drug lords show up and when I mean “Real” I mean the real guys. They don’t walk around with Machetes or knives. Why are they here Siever? I will help you. 400 users doing 3 hits a day is 1200 hits, the remaining 1600 who do 1 or 2 is another 2000. Thats 3200 hits per day, or 3200 drug deals.
At $20 a hit thats $64,000 a day at $30 its $96,000 per day…..thats money, thats real money and some part time machete wielding flip phoner is not going to be in charge any longer.
So moving right along, this summer will be the summer from hell unless there is a change in direction. They could be, legalize drugs or turn this place into a police zone that actively ruins the high of every user in this city until they leave. Those are our choices, there are no other choices.
From summer 2020 to summer 2021 you will see just how bad things can get. How do I know, doesn’t matter because whatever I say you will demand proof and the proof of what happened to Copenhagen when they reached 2% is 50 years old. the proof of Antwerp reaching 2% is 40 years old. The proof of Rotterdam reaching 2% is 40 years old. The proof of Dade County reaching 2% is 40 years old.
But, Lethbridge is not going to like it when Lethbridge reaches 2% anymore than the others did. This is why Spearman is suddenly making comments like he is defending the population from the onslaught…an onslaught he created! You may disagree and personally I do not give a shit if you do. Trudeaus tweet on Refugees and Spearmans policy of “we have to gain trust and “don’t arrest them if they are carrying drugs” created this and its EXACTLY what those other cities did wrong, 40 years ago.

“Portugal (I have been there) decided to make all drugs legal when crime became too much for even the government to tolerate.”
That’s not technically true. Drug usage in Portugal is still illegal for anyone using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. In fact, unlike in Canada, it’s illegal to use marijuana recreationally in Portugal. What has changed is that for cases of possession where the amount is no more than a 10-day supply, the offence is an administrative one rather than a criminal one. However, criminal penalties can still be applied to growers, dealers, and traffickers.
“That crime rate was created by 150,000 addicts.”
All crime in Portugal leading up to 2001 was a direct result of addiction? I’d love to see proof of this.
“At the time Portugals population was 10million. So the point where Portugal began to dissolve into anarchy was 150,000 addicts!”
Portugal was not dissolving into anarchy. The rate of intentional homicide, for example was higher in 2007, at 1.74 per 100,000 people, than it was during the 5 years leading up to the 2001 policy. In fact, in the 18 years since the policy was implemented, 7 of the years saw the rate higher than its highest point during the 5 years leading up to the policy. The intentional homicide rate rose during the 6 years following policy implementation. It levelled off for a few years, and it only started dropping in the last 5 years.
“Which coincidentally is 1.5% of their population.
Now I know you have trouble with math so let me state the obvious 150,000 is to 10million as 1500 is to 100,000”
Are you implying that the 1,500 users of the SCS are committing all the crime in Lethbridge? If so, I’d love to see proof of this.
“Now of course your response, “all the more reason we should make all drugs legal too”, right?”
No, I think they should be decriminalized.
“Well we do have one small problem with that issue. Portugal is a country that makes its own Rules and Lethbridge is a compromised good two shoes driven fuckin mess waiting to dissolve before your very eyes.”
Which is why Canada as a nation needs to decriminalize drugs across the country.
“So moving right along, this summer will be the summer from hell unless there is a change in direction.”
Well, I don’t know about 2020 being the summer of hell, but I do agree that we need a change in direction.
“They could be, legalize drugs or turn this place into a police zone that actively ruins the high of every user in this city until they leave. Those are our choices, there are no other choices.”
I choose the former; although as I pointed out earlier, legalization (or rather decriminalization) isn’t all that’s required.
“From summer 2020 to summer 2021 you will see just how bad things can get.”
I guess we’ll see. The crime rate has already been slowing for the last 5 years. In 2014, the CSI in Lethbridge increased by 24.35%. In no year since then has crime increased that much, not even close. The next highest increase was in 2017, and it was 15.94%. Even if you look at the CSI itself—and not its rate of increase—the 2018 CSI was lower than it was in 1998 and 1999. Crime in Lethbridge is not the most severe it has been over the last 20 years. It’s pretty high, but it’s not the worst its been. It will be interesting to see what the CSI for 2019 will be when Stats Canada releases their data in a few months.
“But, Lethbridge is not going to like it when Lethbridge reaches 2% anymore than the others did.”
We’re already way past 2%. Last year, 4,191 people were charged with a Criminal Code violation. Assuming they’re all separate individuals, that’s 4.2%. Granted, that’s less than the 4,330 in 2017 and 4,630 in 2016. I’m looking forward to when only 2% of the population is responsible for the crime.
“This is why Spearman is suddenly making comments like he is defending the population from the onslaught…an onslaught he created!”
He didn’t create the crime. It’s been rising in Lethbridge for years, long before the SCS opened.

IN EVERY case of doing it wrong, this is the footprint
1) Gotta save lives
2) Panic and install Consumption Rooms (Europe/USA) SCSs Canada
3) Lives saved
4) Federal and Provincial Gov then procrastinate with services, after all, if they are saving lives, then no deaths will be attributed to our failed Provincial or Federal policies.
5) Copenhagen began “studies” to determine what should be done. That “time” created the influx of drug addicts from outside areas close to Copenhagen because of the “fear of dying” from the wrong drug, and the Consumption site will save me if I take the wrong thing!
6) Because now the fear of dying had been removed more flocked to the “consumption site” in Copenhagen. When the residents objected, the consumption site responded that it was just Copenhagen’s addict and there “was no truth that the addicts were coming from elsewhere”.
7) A group of citizens then decided to walk down to the consumption site and talk to the Addicts. Suddenly it was found over 40% of the addicts had come to Copenhagen from as far as Odense which was two hours away but most were from “outlier communities” or less than 1 hour from Copenhagen city limits.
8) When confronted with the new info. Consumption Site just replied, they were saving lives and it did not matter whose life they were saving. The point was, the Consumption Site in Copenhagen stated they HAD NOT attracted anyone but their own, but when confronted it was found they had not “polled” their own addicts to find out where they came from. Why? They did not want to know the answer and could deny it until FORCED to come up with the answer. It was found that over 65% had never been Copenhagen residents and had never lived in Copenhagen when the census was taken.
9) Meanwhile as the Consumption Site grew in size so did the petty thefts and suddenly after 2 years of dealing with ever increasing addicts requiring to feed their $1000 a month habit (1972), crime suddenly moved from the small leagues to the big leagues. Copenhagens population was about 650,000 in 1970, the addicts totalled 14,000 (there’s that 2% thingy again)
10) Suddenly the police force with “their watch” and Community Police officers started to affect violent crime and “violent crime started to dip” but what went ballistic was petty crime, B&E etc etc. When looking at the Crime Severity Index “of the day” the Consumption site claimed no increase of crime because of “us”…..just like Bourgue!
11) Trouble was, it was a living hell living in Copenhagen in the early 70’s everyone had to do bars on windows, double locked doors etc etc but the Consumption site said “isn’t us” and produced the glossy diagrams quoting the “stupid self interpretation of its not us”….it was them and it was, in every other city as well. So you will have to pardon me for laughing at you Siever, but much like others, you have no idea what you are talking about and are being a good little Boy child/puppy dog in regurgitating Bourgues party line. Year 3 is the killer!
This will be my last post, I am tired of catering to easily influenced people.

IN EVERY case of doing it wrong, this is the footprint
1) Gotta save lives
2) Panic and install Consumption Rooms (Europe/USA) SCSs Canada
3) Lives saved
4) Federal and Provincial Gov then procrastinate with services, after all, if they are saving lives, then no deaths will be attributed to our failed Provincial or Federal policies.
5) Copenhagen began “studies” to determine what should be done. That “time” created the influx of drug addicts from outside areas close to Copenhagen because of the “fear of dying” from the wrong drug, and the Consumption site will save me if I take the wrong thing!
6) Because now the fear of dying had been removed more flocked to the “consumption site” in Copenhagen. When the residents objected, the consumption site responded that it was just Copenhagen’s addict and there “was no truth that the addicts were coming from elsewhere”.
7) A group of citizens then decided to walk down to the consumption site and talk to the Addicts. Suddenly it was found over 40% of the addicts had come to Copenhagen from as far as Odense which was two hours away but most were from “outlier communities” or less than 1 hour from Copenhagen city limits.
8) When confronted with the new info. Consumption Site just replied, they were saving lives and it did not matter whose life they were saving. The point was, the Consumption Site in Copenhagen stated they HAD NOT attracted anyone but their own, but when confronted it was found they had not “polled” their own addicts to find out where they came from. Why? They did not want to know the answer and could deny it until FORCED to come up with the answer. It was found that over 65% had never been Copenhagen residents and had never lived in Copenhagen when the census was taken.
9) Meanwhile as the Consumption Site grew in size so did the petty thefts and suddenly after 2 years of dealing with ever increasing addicts requiring to feed their $1000 a month habit (1972), crime suddenly moved from the small leagues to the big leagues. Copenhagens population was about 650,000 in 1970, the addicts totalled 14,000 (there’s that 2% thingy again)
10) Suddenly the police force with “their watch” and Community Police officers started to affect violent crime and “violent crime started to dip” but what went ballistic was petty crime, B&E etc etc. When looking at the Crime Severity Index “of the day” the Consumption site claimed no increase of crime because of “us”…..just like Bourgue!
11) Trouble was, it was a living hell living in Copenhagen in the early 70’s everyone had to do bars on windows, double locked doors etc etc but the Consumption site said “isn’t us” and produced the glossy diagrams quoting the “stupid self interpretation of its not us”….it was them and it was, in every other city as well. So you will have to pardon me for laughing at you Siever, but much like others, you have no idea what you are talking about and are being a good little Boy child/puppy dog in regurgitating Bourgues party line. Year 3 is the killer!
This will be my last post, I am tired of catering to easily influenced people.

Just thought I would come back to remind you of your stupid comment that “Non Profit” means no one really makes any money because its all spent in support of those they serve. Guess who makes the $200K-$249K a year? If you guessed anyone but Bourgue, you’d be wrong! https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=ARCHES&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=127799039RR0001&dsrdPg=1&fbclid=IwAR3sb9F4D30iNknmLa_yk8uxVc4Wd9jA8tDSszTSeNbgD0VvoR7ry0BPIo8

Just thought I would come back to remind you of your stupid comment that “Non Profit” means no one really makes any money because its all spent in support of those they serve. Guess who makes the $200K-$249K a year? If you guessed anyone but Bourgue, you’d be wrong! https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=ARCHES&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=127799039RR0001&dsrdPg=1&fbclid=IwAR3sb9F4D30iNknmLa_yk8uxVc4Wd9jA8tDSszTSeNbgD0VvoR7ry0BPIo8

Strange, because this is exactly what you said ” You know how non-profits work, right? They don’t run a profit. How can it be a cash cow if their expenses use up all their revenue?”
Now you are saying “I never said that “nonprofit” means that no one makes any money.”
I realize you do not know how a non-profit works so again I will help you! They apply for loans and beg for money. At the end of the year they expense everything, so they show they used up all they collected. This then allows they to ask for more Federal/Provincial Money, meanwhile Bourgues wage goes from $80K to $200-$249 and Mannings and one other goes to $100K+
Then next year they re-apply for Fed/Prov money and pay the top three people about $450K if they manage to scrimp on supplies they may then bump their wages again. By the time this fiasco is finished Bourgue will be the highest paid “Executive” in Lethbridge. The more addicts she attracts, the more money she can apply for, the more she can pay herself. THAT’S HOW NON PROFITS WORK!

Nowhere in that quote did I say that “nonprofit” means that no one makes any money.
And everything you just explained about wages is expenses, not profit. I wonder if you understand the difference.

You said: “And everything you just explained about wages is expenses, not profit. I wonder if you understand the difference.”
Man, you really like working threads of hope here. Splitting hairs, demanding proof of others is what SCS supporters do. They spend all their time defending the indefenceable by misdirection, using play on words, and deflection and oh yes demands for proof.
When proofs are produced its once again more and more deflection. Your latest is a feeble attempt to work an argument around to a point where you knew all along that SCS is a Cash Cow for those that run it, and you knew all along that we had 1500 addicts when it was pooh poohed in your original no knowledge rant, questioning me!
So yes I do understand that wages are an expense. Wages that are garnered at a rate that they burden tax payers because they are paying for Bourgue’s life style, a life style she created by pulling in as many addicts to Lethbridge as quickly as she could.
It does not tank a brain to figure out if you provide free food and lodging services to people who do not work, who steal and who mug and B&E for a living, they will come!
So between Bourgue, Manning, and the Mayor and Council, they collectively decided to make the Downtown of Lethbridge the Center for Drug Addicts of Southern Alberta. So we went from 300 to 1500 addicts and I am on record predicting 2000+ by October 2020
Now for uninformed people like you, you suggest more SCS’s and no doubt more Sleeping quarters, more food services and more needles and pipes be provided.
But nowhere in that scenario do you care that Bourgue, Manning and the Addicts are the only ones that “Profit” from this fiasco. Bourgues best scenario is 2000-3000-4000 addicts. The more that come, the more money she makes. Do you see anywhere in that scenario Lethbridge Downtown Businesses profit? Do you see anywhere where Downtown Real Estate benefits? Do you see anywhere where Residents that are subjected to constant thefts, and must spend more money to lock down their property, benefit? Or is it just a one sided Goody Two Shoes proposition to you? Is your solution the same as Bourgues, gotta save addicts, no matter what it does to this city and its residents?
What drives me up a wall is I have seen the outcome of this, you have not, yet you pretend like the Mayor and Phillips Bourgue and Manning that things will be just fine. They won’t and Lethbridge is so far from prepared for whats to come its almost laughable, they and you have no idea.

It‘s not splitting hairs to differentiate between expenses and profit. It’s basic accounting.

It is splitting hairs when you “expense deeply” to increase personal profit, and that is what is happening here. It is splitting hairs when one tries to justify a windfall profit for a “non-profit” as being just another expense. Will it be just another expense when she gets us above 2000 addicts and she raises her wage to $300K, according to you, yes!

No, it‘s not splitting hairs. You’re conflating employee salaries with organization profits.
And assuming the one position, which you claim is Bourque, is at the high end of the reporting range, that’s only 4.7% of all salaries paid out and 3.6% of total expenses. If Bourque is in this for her own benefit, why is more than 96% of the expenses not going to her? Shouldn’t she be taking home more money?
You’re straining at a gnat.

So, you are defending the fact that she isn’t taking all the money and needs employees to cater to the drug addict? You say you understand how Non-Profits work but I actually now doubt you know how any business works. You need employees and volunteers to make money off of government and your community. The only people that benefit from this fiasco is Bourgue, Manning and the other exec + the employees and the addict. The losers are Lethbridge Residents, and as I said, they have seen nothing yet.

So, you are defending the fact that she isn’t taking all the money and needs employees to cater to the drug addict? You say you understand how Non-Profits work but I actually now doubt you know how any business works. You need employees and volunteers to make money off of government and your community. The only people that benefit from this fiasco is Bourgue, Manning and the other exec + the employees and the addict. The losers are Lethbridge Residents, and as I said, they have seen nothing yet.

Comment on this story

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.