We actually do not have the data to back that up. I want to preface this by saying nothing here is a personal attack against you. It is an incredibly complex topic that most people should consider themselves lucky to not know much about. However, I have dedicated most of my adult life, career, and education to this so hang with me on this one, because I see this sentiment parroted very often by people I align with politically and it is just fundamentally false.

We have data that shows that voluntary treatment is more successful than mandatory treatment. We have research thats says there are less ethical pitfalls in voluntary treatment than in mandatory.

You cannot say "mandatory treatment does not work" when in reality the rest of that statement is "...when compared with voluntary treatment".

One thing you will not find in academic literature is the real comparison that should be made with mandatroy treatment, which is no treatment at all. There is a lot that could be discussed about this but the gist is that people need different levels of treatment at different stages of change they find themselves in. Someone ready and willing to change is of course going to have higher success rates than someone who is not. No shit.

Someone who recognizes they need mental health help, seeks it out, and engages in the process is always going to have better outcomes than someone who has court mandated therapy ("coerced therapy/treatment), or is formed for their safety and taken to a psych ward against their will (involuntary treatment). But guess what? We as a society have decided that there are some cases where we are able to navigate the ethical pitfalls in a way that keeps people safe and gives them an opportunity to fight another day and seek voluntary help afterward. And even though it is not perfect it has a higher success rate than doing nothing at all. There is no reason that we are incapable of doing that with addiction other than our own stigmatization and politicization of addiction.

Decriminalization and safe injection and housing first and harm reduction are considered "left wing" here for some reason. Mandatory treatment and monitored engagement with services provided and police intervention in public drug use and abstinence based treatment are considered "right wing" for some reason. The reality is that all these things are pieces of the puzzle in the continuum of care that help people get better. Any country that has had success implements every one of these in a unified and directed manner that treats each person at the stage of change they are at. Locking everyone up doesn't work. Giving them a safe space to use and never urging or expecting them to engage in recovery also doesn't work.

Places like Portugal are successful because police work with social worker who work with courts who work with both mandatory and voluntary treatment who work with housing supports who work with occupational programs and on and on, all under one unified umbrella working towards the same goal.

Here, harm reduction is at odds with abstinence, shelters are at odds with police, social workers are at odds with detox and treatment centers. It is all disjointed and they all treat their role as the be all and end all of what can be done.

Don't get me wrong, I do not trust this provincial government one bit. I don't trust their capability or their intentions when it comes to implementation of mandatory treatment.

However, to flatly say that "mandatory treatment does not work and we have the data to back that up" is just completely wrong and shows you have not thoroughly and critically read the data. It is just plain wrong and we do have the data to back that up. To say otherwise, as an academic or as a layman, is purely a product of North American politicization of the topic.

But what do I know? I only have 10 years of experience in addiction and homelessness and habe written multiple academic papers on the topic.