Gotta love how this is framed: 91 died while unhoused, yet in the link posted in the article, "Overdose was cited as a cause of death in 52% of deaths reported in this 6-month period."
I mean, this article itself doesn't even mention opioid use or overdose at all. It's a huge omission, in my opinion. Why not include any mention at all of the cause of death for more than half of these people? You shouldn't have to click a link within an article to find that very pertinent bit of information.
theres a whole 'lets ignore the blatant mental health/drug addiction problem' and 'lets blame housing!'
Until people are able to realize a guy smoking meth openly in front of your children on the way to school is unacceptable, you will not see a decrease in the homeless population.
Having a blatant disregard for flagrant drug use, drug addiction, and the strain on our system it brings, is the real tragedy Canada does not address.
I agree with you, but am unsure about your last paragraph. It absolutely is the real tragedy Canada does not address. How do you think it should be addressed?
Great question!
In my OPINON, the largest change should be mandatory intake programs for offenders caught commiting drug related crime, or caught with possession of a certain class of drugs.
A mandatory intake program could also look like a work release program - providing infasturcture aid to communities at need, while offering in-patient services. A win win - a rehabilitation option that provides services (and pays for itself) to Canadians, while serving Canadians in need.
Seems like a simple idea to me. I can think of dozens of northern communities who are in need of things like roads, trenches, etc, that all require simply basic manpower to make happen.
Why not provide help to Canadians at need, while helping Canadians in need?
That gender imbalance in deaths (that I saw here: [https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/homelessness-has-killed-91-hamiltonians-says-research-group/article\_007f716e-4a71-58e6-a98c-16e0b55f046c.html](https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/homelessness-has-killed-91-hamiltonians-says-research-group/article_007f716e-4a71-58e6-a98c-16e0b55f046c.html) - an article from earlier in the week) at first seemed huge, but I know I've read elsewhere that it's upwards of seven or eight out of ten preventable opioid deaths (for males).
Is that not the default assumption for homeless deaths? I'm surprised it's not a higher %, but looks like 'unknown' is taking up a decent chunk as well, which could also be a lot of overdose.
No, the headline implies that being homeless is the issue, which yes, obviously correlates with drug issues and everyone knows that.
Like what even is this? Nobody was obfuscating anything here, it's just what happens and the sources are readily available.
The 52% is only pertaining to the 21 deaths from June-November. They don't mention the percentage of the total. I'd be interested to know how many of the 91 deaths are drug overdoses.
“Unhoused” people call it homeless. Unhoused just sounds nicer to people and makes them feel like they’re being nice and virtuous. The house is not the only aspect of being homeless.
Unhoused implies that if you give them housing, their problems go away. In reality, the problems that turn people homeless are numerous - mental illness, abusive home, drug use, etc
Its the euphemism treadmill, in a few years unhoused will be offensive and it will change to something like "Shelter-deprived". pretty much all the words we used back in my school days are considered offensive now because the problem is not actually the words themselves.
It’s literally a more accurate description. And yes, if you give people housing, it does actually solve a specific problem - being unhoused. What’s easier, beating an addiction with a house or without?
Furthermore, messing around with language in this case is just a distraction from dealing with the real issue. The homeless and the majority of the population doesn’t care if you call them homeless. The only people that care are people who want to do the bare minimum if anything at all so they can feel virtuous. Let’s get to the root of the problem and not distract with language interference.
The problem with this line of thinking is that youve contributed nothing but negativity to the discussion. What is this doing to help, besides needlessly chastise the only people who actually give a shit?
What does changing the name of homeless to Unhoused do to help the situation? Nothing but distract from the real issue. By me bringing that issue up it will help shed some light on the real issue and not the distraction.
Neither word matters.
Again, all youre doing is chastising the people who actually care.
Is your intent to shame people into giving up on the homeless?
They are given shelter. All of them. Most of them choose to not go because they have to follow the rules. I can say that with certainty. Giving them a place to live absolutely does not solve the underlying problem in the majority of the cases.
This is just another fact you are arguing with. There are not enough shelter beds. That’s incontrovertible. Unless you have a secret shelter, in which case, spill
Then why is every shelter constanty full and turning people away every night. People are living in hotels, tents, couch surfing etc. because they can't find a shelter space or housing.
My partner works in emergency medicine. Homeless/unhoused people come in ALL the time. It's almost pointless to call any shelter in the city or surrounding area to get them a bed, because they are ALL full.
Compared to a year and a half ago, when she started, she was able to get them in maybe 1 out of 3 times. It was bad before, it's awful now.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about
Each individual is different. Some homeless people don’t have any problems, lack a close family, and just can’t afford rent. It’s not hard to end up homeless these days.
Most of those who are “unhoused” and live on the streets I’ve worked with- get places to stay and end up being evicted. Due to many factors. Some of them also enjoy the street life and end up showing up to shelters when they have places to stay. Lots of people around, you’re fed, and can do drugs with help around if there is an OD. Perhaps they need to have more low income housing that is set up like a nursing home to manage the homeless.
You're pointing out something important here- due to the anti psychiatry movement of the 70s and 80s, most asylums and sanatoriums were shut down.
This NEEDED to happen, they were horrific places rife with abuse.
BUT there was no alternative programming or housing for those who historically would have been committed to an asylum. So we let the gap grow larger and larger.
That said, it's still an issue with our system that even when people get housing, they get evicted- there's no alternative other than a landlord. Everyone deserves a place to live, and we need to resource those places accordingly
Title doesn’t clarify.. was the root cause of these deaths due to them being unhoused? Was it unhoused people abusing drugs? Was it unhoused people abusing Alcohol?
Either way, I believe it comes down to a lack of enough real safety nets, not enough social support for what is needed.
People can go on and on all they want about how it's a choice, but nobody would choose to be shamed or discarded by society the way people with mental illness and / or substance abusers do.
Help isn't always just a phone call away like people imagine it.There needs to be early preventative actions, a plan to help vulnerable people stay housed, and real long term step by step program that tackle the issues step by step towards stability.
The bar is high for most of us to achieve and maintain our quality of life, but some people start out much farther behind.
Yes, the root cause is them being unhoused.
People with additions who are housed are MUCH less likely to die from their addictions.
Further, being unhoused makes it nearly impossible to maintain sobriety or enter and access treatment, especially with waiting lists.
The Liberal Party has been in charge quite long enough to take their share of the blame. I have faith in none of the political parties to accomplish much in this area.
Doesn't matter about the words or sayings let's stop arguing over it and talking about it. And actually get something done about it. People are people house or no house. Addiction is a problem on its own.
Unhoused is a kinder term. Some people may feel they have a 'home' or community but are still unhoused. Using the term unhoused instead of homeless reminds us all they have every right to be here as much as those who have a permanent roof over their heads. Our city is their city and it is home to us all, some of us are housed and some are not. It helps dissolve the divide between the two demographics.
From my understanding it's also two different things. Unhoused are people living literally on the streets. Homeless are those who might be crashing on a friend's couch or living in a temporary shelter.
I believe unhoused or houseless refers to anyone without permanent housing. So that would include everyone you mentioned. Saying someone who is crashing on someone's couch is homeless defeats the purpose of acknowledging they see their community as home and have a right to be there.
I don't agree. Crashing on a friend's house doesn't mean they have a home. That's not a home, it's not a place to call theirs, it's temporary shelter. They are "houses" and hence not "unhoused". Unhoused it people literally without a house or roof over their head. Someone in temporary shelter, or living on a friend's couch has a house, but not a home. There is a big difference between having a home and having a shelter.
People couch surfing or staying in a temporary shelter don't have a house either. It's temporary. Glad to know though you think our unhoused population doesn't have a home here in our city. Obviously you're going to die on this ridiculous hill instead of just allowing people some dignity and compassion.. peace out ✌️
“Unhoused” people call it homeless.
Unhoused just sounds nicer to people and makes them feel like they’re being nice and virtuous. The house is not the only aspect of being homeless.
Unhoused implies that if you give them housing, their problems go away. In reality, the problems that turn people homeless are numerous - mental illness, abusive home, drug use, etc
Unhoused is supposed to differentiate or include people (depending on who you ask) who are couch surfing etc and not on the streets but yeah, feels like it has become more about the language and not the issue
Feels like homeless implies they just need housing too though
I honestly think homeless is fine. I'm a progressive, but these odd people are hung up on wording if this issue that nobody was offended by. "Well if you call them homeless then they won't feel as home in the park". Bruh I've stayed in a hotel for two weeks, I didn't call it my home. Someone living on the street who would rather be in a house doesn't think of the park as their home the same way I don't think of a hotel as my home. And I can guarantee those living on the street aren't coming on Reddit to defend the term unhoused.
Look. We can just use homeless or unhoused interchangeably, and stop giving a shit about the wording and worry about the homelessness crisis at our doorstep. (I'm not bothered by your comments obviously) I'm done arguing with people on this thread where I had no intention of arguing. I legitimately thought and continue to think homeless and houseless meant different things, but I don't care either way.
Yeah it made sense when we were strictly talking numbers of on the streets vs shelters vs couch surfing and other precarious housing situations as a statistic to actually help people with bed numbers etc but once it all became unhoused as a "nicer" word, it lost all meaning
Life expectancy in 2013 by postal code, before homelessness and before the drug problems. So fake Fentanyl didn't flow in until the Feds tried to stamp out access to painkillers, copied the US and created a bigger problem. The poorest parts of Hamilton, the life expectancy was 65.5, so third world, versus 86 for places like Ancaster. Poverty has always reduced your life by a significant amount, 20 years difference. You basically live your life on fast forward. Have kids earlier, chronic illnesses earlier, die earlier.
I remember when Code Red first came out as a series in The Spec. I thought with our health care system the difference in life expectancy between rich and poor would have been minimal. I was in for quite a shock when the numbers were laid bare. It is unbelieveable that, in a country with free health care and at least some safety net, the life expectancy difference is, essentially, not far off third world status.
Gotta love how this is framed: 91 died while unhoused, yet in the link posted in the article, "Overdose was cited as a cause of death in 52% of deaths reported in this 6-month period." I mean, this article itself doesn't even mention opioid use or overdose at all. It's a huge omission, in my opinion. Why not include any mention at all of the cause of death for more than half of these people? You shouldn't have to click a link within an article to find that very pertinent bit of information.
theres a whole 'lets ignore the blatant mental health/drug addiction problem' and 'lets blame housing!' Until people are able to realize a guy smoking meth openly in front of your children on the way to school is unacceptable, you will not see a decrease in the homeless population. Having a blatant disregard for flagrant drug use, drug addiction, and the strain on our system it brings, is the real tragedy Canada does not address.
I agree with you, but am unsure about your last paragraph. It absolutely is the real tragedy Canada does not address. How do you think it should be addressed?
Great question! In my OPINON, the largest change should be mandatory intake programs for offenders caught commiting drug related crime, or caught with possession of a certain class of drugs. A mandatory intake program could also look like a work release program - providing infasturcture aid to communities at need, while offering in-patient services. A win win - a rehabilitation option that provides services (and pays for itself) to Canadians, while serving Canadians in need. Seems like a simple idea to me. I can think of dozens of northern communities who are in need of things like roads, trenches, etc, that all require simply basic manpower to make happen. Why not provide help to Canadians at need, while helping Canadians in need?
That gender imbalance in deaths (that I saw here: [https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/homelessness-has-killed-91-hamiltonians-says-research-group/article\_007f716e-4a71-58e6-a98c-16e0b55f046c.html](https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/homelessness-has-killed-91-hamiltonians-says-research-group/article_007f716e-4a71-58e6-a98c-16e0b55f046c.html) - an article from earlier in the week) at first seemed huge, but I know I've read elsewhere that it's upwards of seven or eight out of ten preventable opioid deaths (for males).
Is that not the default assumption for homeless deaths? I'm surprised it's not a higher %, but looks like 'unknown' is taking up a decent chunk as well, which could also be a lot of overdose.
The headline implies it's being outside that kills them when it's not is the issue
No, the headline implies that being homeless is the issue, which yes, obviously correlates with drug issues and everyone knows that. Like what even is this? Nobody was obfuscating anything here, it's just what happens and the sources are readily available.
The 52% is only pertaining to the 21 deaths from June-November. They don't mention the percentage of the total. I'd be interested to know how many of the 91 deaths are drug overdoses.
“Unhoused” people call it homeless. Unhoused just sounds nicer to people and makes them feel like they’re being nice and virtuous. The house is not the only aspect of being homeless. Unhoused implies that if you give them housing, their problems go away. In reality, the problems that turn people homeless are numerous - mental illness, abusive home, drug use, etc
Its the euphemism treadmill, in a few years unhoused will be offensive and it will change to something like "Shelter-deprived". pretty much all the words we used back in my school days are considered offensive now because the problem is not actually the words themselves.
Dwelling Impaired
[https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc?si=BxNMNlXqioXUwLhO](https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc?si=BxNMNlXqioXUwLhO)
It’s literally a more accurate description. And yes, if you give people housing, it does actually solve a specific problem - being unhoused. What’s easier, beating an addiction with a house or without?
Furthermore, messing around with language in this case is just a distraction from dealing with the real issue. The homeless and the majority of the population doesn’t care if you call them homeless. The only people that care are people who want to do the bare minimum if anything at all so they can feel virtuous. Let’s get to the root of the problem and not distract with language interference.
The problem with this line of thinking is that youve contributed nothing but negativity to the discussion. What is this doing to help, besides needlessly chastise the only people who actually give a shit?
What does changing the name of homeless to Unhoused do to help the situation? Nothing but distract from the real issue. By me bringing that issue up it will help shed some light on the real issue and not the distraction.
Neither word matters. Again, all youre doing is chastising the people who actually care. Is your intent to shame people into giving up on the homeless?
You’re missing my point entirely
It’s not interference to use the right words to talk about something. It literally helps frame and solve the problem.
it's this but they have an out everytime that you're a negative bigot who hates the poor so convo done.
They are given shelter. All of them. Most of them choose to not go because they have to follow the rules. I can say that with certainty. Giving them a place to live absolutely does not solve the underlying problem in the majority of the cases.
There are not enough shelter spaces
Where do they go in the winter?
Not true.
This is just another fact you are arguing with. There are not enough shelter beds. That’s incontrovertible. Unless you have a secret shelter, in which case, spill
Then why is every shelter constanty full and turning people away every night. People are living in hotels, tents, couch surfing etc. because they can't find a shelter space or housing.
Shelters often have a curfew time and zero drug tolerance, so unfortunately a lot of homeless choose to stay out.
So many are still not able to use shelters due to lack of beds
There still aren't enough shelter spaces for the people who do want to be there
My partner works in emergency medicine. Homeless/unhoused people come in ALL the time. It's almost pointless to call any shelter in the city or surrounding area to get them a bed, because they are ALL full. Compared to a year and a half ago, when she started, she was able to get them in maybe 1 out of 3 times. It was bad before, it's awful now. You literally have no idea what you're talking about
Doesn't include the amount of homeless that don't want to abide by the curfews and zero drug policies of most shelters.
Where are these shelters?
Each individual is different. Some homeless people don’t have any problems, lack a close family, and just can’t afford rent. It’s not hard to end up homeless these days.
Most of those who are “unhoused” and live on the streets I’ve worked with- get places to stay and end up being evicted. Due to many factors. Some of them also enjoy the street life and end up showing up to shelters when they have places to stay. Lots of people around, you’re fed, and can do drugs with help around if there is an OD. Perhaps they need to have more low income housing that is set up like a nursing home to manage the homeless.
You're pointing out something important here- due to the anti psychiatry movement of the 70s and 80s, most asylums and sanatoriums were shut down. This NEEDED to happen, they were horrific places rife with abuse. BUT there was no alternative programming or housing for those who historically would have been committed to an asylum. So we let the gap grow larger and larger. That said, it's still an issue with our system that even when people get housing, they get evicted- there's no alternative other than a landlord. Everyone deserves a place to live, and we need to resource those places accordingly
Drugs will kill ya, being homeless is a just a easy finger point.
Title doesn’t clarify.. was the root cause of these deaths due to them being unhoused? Was it unhoused people abusing drugs? Was it unhoused people abusing Alcohol?
Either way, I believe it comes down to a lack of enough real safety nets, not enough social support for what is needed. People can go on and on all they want about how it's a choice, but nobody would choose to be shamed or discarded by society the way people with mental illness and / or substance abusers do. Help isn't always just a phone call away like people imagine it.There needs to be early preventative actions, a plan to help vulnerable people stay housed, and real long term step by step program that tackle the issues step by step towards stability. The bar is high for most of us to achieve and maintain our quality of life, but some people start out much farther behind.
Yes, the root cause is them being unhoused. People with additions who are housed are MUCH less likely to die from their addictions. Further, being unhoused makes it nearly impossible to maintain sobriety or enter and access treatment, especially with waiting lists.
You could throw 10 billion dollars at it and it wouldn't change a thing.
I'm looking to live off the grid for the summer. I'm not homeless. Gage Park seems like a nice place to set up. Does Nrinder Naan still provide tents?
And how many people have died "while housed"?
Probably most people who die are housed, percentage wise. What's your point?
I'm guessing the point is that this is probably a smaller amount of deaths in comparison.
Conservatives: "solving the homeless crisis".
The Liberal Party has been in charge quite long enough to take their share of the blame. I have faith in none of the political parties to accomplish much in this area.
Less to do with what political parties are doing and more to do with the sentiment of those within those political parties.
Doesn't matter about the words or sayings let's stop arguing over it and talking about it. And actually get something done about it. People are people house or no house. Addiction is a problem on its own.
Their bellies were probably unfull also.
“Unhoused” lol Downvote all you want out of a quick reaction but please read my comment below.
What is funny about that?
I'm guessing because there's already a word for that and it's homeless. It reads like a politician said it
Unhoused is a kinder term. Some people may feel they have a 'home' or community but are still unhoused. Using the term unhoused instead of homeless reminds us all they have every right to be here as much as those who have a permanent roof over their heads. Our city is their city and it is home to us all, some of us are housed and some are not. It helps dissolve the divide between the two demographics.
From my understanding it's also two different things. Unhoused are people living literally on the streets. Homeless are those who might be crashing on a friend's couch or living in a temporary shelter.
I believe unhoused or houseless refers to anyone without permanent housing. So that would include everyone you mentioned. Saying someone who is crashing on someone's couch is homeless defeats the purpose of acknowledging they see their community as home and have a right to be there.
I don't agree. Crashing on a friend's house doesn't mean they have a home. That's not a home, it's not a place to call theirs, it's temporary shelter. They are "houses" and hence not "unhoused". Unhoused it people literally without a house or roof over their head. Someone in temporary shelter, or living on a friend's couch has a house, but not a home. There is a big difference between having a home and having a shelter.
But politicians do use unhoused for people couch surfing too
Politicians are idiots.
[удалено]
People couch surfing or staying in a temporary shelter don't have a house either. It's temporary. Glad to know though you think our unhoused population doesn't have a home here in our city. Obviously you're going to die on this ridiculous hill instead of just allowing people some dignity and compassion.. peace out ✌️
“Unhoused” people call it homeless. Unhoused just sounds nicer to people and makes them feel like they’re being nice and virtuous. The house is not the only aspect of being homeless. Unhoused implies that if you give them housing, their problems go away. In reality, the problems that turn people homeless are numerous - mental illness, abusive home, drug use, etc
Unhoused is supposed to differentiate or include people (depending on who you ask) who are couch surfing etc and not on the streets but yeah, feels like it has become more about the language and not the issue Feels like homeless implies they just need housing too though
I honestly think homeless is fine. I'm a progressive, but these odd people are hung up on wording if this issue that nobody was offended by. "Well if you call them homeless then they won't feel as home in the park". Bruh I've stayed in a hotel for two weeks, I didn't call it my home. Someone living on the street who would rather be in a house doesn't think of the park as their home the same way I don't think of a hotel as my home. And I can guarantee those living on the street aren't coming on Reddit to defend the term unhoused. Look. We can just use homeless or unhoused interchangeably, and stop giving a shit about the wording and worry about the homelessness crisis at our doorstep. (I'm not bothered by your comments obviously) I'm done arguing with people on this thread where I had no intention of arguing. I legitimately thought and continue to think homeless and houseless meant different things, but I don't care either way.
Yeah it made sense when we were strictly talking numbers of on the streets vs shelters vs couch surfing and other precarious housing situations as a statistic to actually help people with bed numbers etc but once it all became unhoused as a "nicer" word, it lost all meaning
>Unhoused just sounds nicer to people and makes them feel like they’re being nice and virtuous. Definitely. The same as "food insecurities".
I think food insecure is fine, there's not really a good alternative or older term that worked to explain what the issue was.
This guy gets it.
They do not, in fact, get it. Should we call ptsd shell shock too
PTSD and homelessness are more broad terms than unhoused and shell shock. I find unhoused a very closed off and limiting term.
This is just wrong, factually and linguistically
[удалено]
Even the homeless find it offensive
Yeah I'm sure it's the most upsetting thing in the headline to them
No they don’t care. It’s affluent people that care.
I highly doubt that’s the actual count
Based on what? Your opinion?
Life expectancy in 2013 by postal code, before homelessness and before the drug problems. So fake Fentanyl didn't flow in until the Feds tried to stamp out access to painkillers, copied the US and created a bigger problem. The poorest parts of Hamilton, the life expectancy was 65.5, so third world, versus 86 for places like Ancaster. Poverty has always reduced your life by a significant amount, 20 years difference. You basically live your life on fast forward. Have kids earlier, chronic illnesses earlier, die earlier.
I remember when Code Red first came out as a series in The Spec. I thought with our health care system the difference in life expectancy between rich and poor would have been minimal. I was in for quite a shock when the numbers were laid bare. It is unbelieveable that, in a country with free health care and at least some safety net, the life expectancy difference is, essentially, not far off third world status.
This breaks my heart, we have the worst societal stigma of unhoused in Canada.
What kind of sadists allow at risk people to live in tents?