betsy

Sounds to me like you're arguing for drug legalization. No. But I'm pointing out the FRIVOLOUS way the liberals decide for what they think is for the "good of society".

So the safe injection site is also providing their drugs?

NDP Libby Davies on Question Period. When asked if she thought Harper's non-attendance was really a boo-boo, she said solemnly with those big round eyes, grave expression and studied tone for special effects: "Oh yes. This is a life or death situation." Boy, this harping about his non-attednance has been going on for a solid week...that finally.... ....I do now seriously suspect Harper must be holding the miracle cure. Or... HE IS, the miracle cure! Maybe they want him to line up the sick and start slapping them on the forehead and say the magic cure words: "Voila! You're cured!" But then, the next thing you know, they'll be complaining about his being a televangelist!

I am not advocating...or even suggesting censorship. I am only pointing out the farce of this AIDS Conference. For them to deliberately overlook Hollywood as a venue to promote information WORLD-WIDE, something that wields quite an influence in changing habits, thinking and behaviour is just quite incredible. I come to the conclusion that......this is nothing more than just another....typical posturing....something the liberals are very good at. And what did NDP Libby Davies say on Question Period: "it's a life or death situation" Then, get serious!

Mmmm, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.Yes but most people are blind. Here is a solution: 1) stop wasting money on the illegal-illicit-drug-enforcement industry 2) decriminalize all street drugs 3) if you really care, treat drug addiction as a health problem Call me a Liberal or a Conservative or a Lefty McRighty, I do not care. Drug Rehab centers not good enough? Why should I put the "health" of addicts before that of others who are contributing to society? How much drop in crime will it be in places like Toronto...if there were no addicts? I care for the others MORE than I care for addicts....and I make no apology for I find no wrong in it. I do emphatize however, for those who wish to cleanse themselves out and are having tough luck....and for their families who had to go through hell with them. Most of these addicst have chosen this lifestyle....amidst all the barrage of information warning them about the horrors and dangers of drugs. That they've chosen to ignore all is their choice. That they wish to wreck their lives is of their own choice. Most of these addicts lead dangerous lives....a lot are from the sex trade (as an example). Well if, drugs don't get them, AIDS will....or someone like the pig farmer! If a person is bent on self-destructing....I think it is impractical to waste our resources concentrating on them. The resources should go where it will be most beneficial for EVERYONE! There are a lot of other programs worthy of more funding. I say take the infants and children away from addicts. Help those children!

He did not make that promise. The LIBERALS did! So whether he decides NOT to deliver....or decides to proceed with that promise is Harper's decision. The point is: the LIBERALS are STILL SHAMELESSLY USING AIDS as a political tool....LYING SHAMELESSLY as they do it! They show they have NO COMPASSION at all! FALSE HOPE is what you get with them...but I thought that it only applies to how they maintain their promises to their voters and supporters. I didn't realize it extends to dying AIDS victims in Africa.

Well, they brought out Chretien's skipping time today on Question Period. You know how the Liberal rep spinned it? It's not about the non-attendance of Harper that's deplorable. It's Harper's alleged lack of plan in battling this AIDS. Well, two years ago the Liberals promised a generic drug to Africa. Apparently, NOT A SINGLE pill reached its destination. Talk about deplorable, disgusting and "puke-able". Imagine dishing out FALSE HOPE just for the sake of political gain! The least you can do is send those bloody pills! Shame...shame!

The only way to get Hollywood to do what you want is to re-institute the censor board. Then they could remove the undesireable components that you mention. Instead of ratings then, you would have a group of people ensuring that things don't get into production in the first place. Hollywood has has it before, they can have it again if you pressure them to do so. No one censored smoking in films...and yet Hollywood did its share to support it! Hollywood knows the mastery of HYPE! If you manage to get Hollywood on the bandwagon, you've already got it made!

Mmmm, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye. Liberals are pushing for Euthanasia. Perhaps that's the great plan. Start with the junkies! Get all these junkies euthanized, by OD of their favorite drugs. At least they die happy!

They didn't allow separate smoking rooms for cigarette smokers to get them away from the non-smokers! And yet tobacco is legal! These addicts are your lotus-eaters who hardly contribute anything to society...except problems! Drugs are supposed to be illegal! Nobody is lobbying to build safe smoking joints for cigarette smokers.....who pay high taxes for their vice!

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail? Oh yeah? Only needles? They're already talking building public places...and STAFFING those places! Next will be the nutritional concern for addicts...they'll have a chef ready to whip up a big meal for everyone. Then what happens when someone over-dosed? Resident doctors and emergency teams on standby, right there on each and every public crack safe house! If someone don't have any crack or heroin to shoot up....will someone lobby to provide for those as well? After all, wouldn't it be inhumane to see someone writhing in pain from withdrawal? You bet, anything the Liberals does almost.... always.... escalates out of control. But the main thing is, paying for needles give a message: that you are condoning drug use.

I thought that's what jail time is for possession of illegal drugs?

Because scientists don't communicate as much as they should with sociologists. One of the things the conferences have done is bring scientists of different disciplines together. The cancer researcher talking to the demographer, the demographer talking to the psychologist, etc. For many years, the anti-smoking lobby never looked at TV or film as being connected to smoking. Their initial thoughts were solely on the advertizing of the product. It took a while to look at TV and film content. Does it really needs rocket science to figure out the influence of Hollywood? They don't even need to do massive research on that. Various researches and findings and editorials and news articles had already touched on this subject. They've definitely touched on that when they found young teens were becoming increasingly anorexic....not surprisingly, along with young stars who looked like they've just come out of concentration camps! Bulimia became oh so very much in the limelight! Our kids are emulating bulimic stars! Yeah, the anti-smoking lobby never looked at Hollywood.....but THERE'S NO EXCUSE for the AIDS Conference not to look FIRST and FOREMOST at...and take a very looooong look at Hollywood....thanks to the initiative of the anti-smoking lobby! So, if this AIDS is indeed so dire a situation....I would say the AIDS Conference did not do its homework. It's a hodge-podge. For them to deliberately overlook that venue to promote information WORLD-WIDE, something that wields quite an influence in changing habits, thinking and behaviour......it is nothing more than just another....typical posturing....something the liberals are very good at. Nah. There's nothing to worry if you're not promiscious! And don't share needles. Is all.

I know that not only homosexuals practice anal sex. Some adventurous couples do sodomy....but are you telling me that not all...or most homosexuals do anal sex? Isn't that the only way they can "consumate" their passion?

It probably hasn't even crossed their minds. Perhaps next conference, you can present some peer reviewed research to support your theory and and it will get the exposure it needs. Why hasn't it crossed their minds?

But the big publicity about the crack-down on those stars....the pressure put on them.....it brought the issue to the people. Suddenly, smoking was not associated to "being cool" anymore. And as you said, there is less smoking being portrayed now. And, the character is usually shown trying to quit smoking. A far cry from how smokers were being portrayed on films before the anti-smoking campaign began.

Some stars already have such clauses in their contracts. Which ones? They need to be publicized. That's the whole point. The stars' lifestyles are often copy-catted by the public. It says much about a star as a person if she/he doesn't want to contribute to the glamorization of promiscuity and drug use. I wish them well.

No, you just got me confused for a while. Anyway, condom had proved to be not too successful in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Just look at the problem we still have. So availability does not necessarily mean it will be used! Besides, condoms is not the only method of birth control. We've got the pill, and the IUD. THere's also the rythmn and the aspirin method...the cheapest kind there is!

Fidelity is a great way to stop the spread of AIDS, as long as neither partner is already infected. But as you say, it is one way, not the only way. I don't understand why you are so against promoting condom use as another. I am not against the use of condom. It will help a great way too. I am criticizing this AIDS Conference for refusing to acknowledge...and endorse Fidelity and Abstinence! I am criticizing this AIDS Conference for not being brutally frank in lambasting PROMISCUITY and the decay of moral standards as the number one culprit why we have this....supposedly....humonguous problem. Let's not try to pretend that this is not hugely connected to morality. Band-aid solution is not good enough! There will be other fatal std after AIDS!

I would like to see more big-named hollywood stars refuse to portray glamorization of promiscuity and drug use....like some stars refused to be seen smoking in their roles!

What kind of strong parenting? Everybody meddles on how we parent a child nowadays! The values a parent wants to instill in her child goes out the window as soon as the child steps into school! Then, it is the values of the school that prevails! And we know what values those are! If the Liberals and the NDP will have their way, parents will even lose more ground in instilling their own family values on an infant...as soon as the kid enters a national daycare!

Ha-ha! For a while they had some people "policing" the bars and restaurants just to make sure non-smoking is being enforced....until they realized how stupid it looked. Then they had the nerve to ask the bar-owners to do the "policing" for them!

I am not actually for censorship, believe it or not. My point is: Why are the people behind the AIDS Conference deliberately ignoring the contributions of Hollywood to the problem? It didn't have to end in more legislations. I do not want it to end in more legislations. All I'm waiting is a rebuke (for the glamorization of promiscuity and drug use)...and/or a plea to Hollywood...to come and join the campaign in INFORMING and EDUCATING the people. Hollywood is very powerful in the influence it wields on the public. For the AIDS Conference to overlook this powerful venue makes its credibility laughable. What they suggest is only a "band-aid" solution. They're not really serious about it.

And yet bar owners were held responsible and penalize for "polluting" the lungs of people. Nobody was being forced to enter the establishments.

I thought the law was unconstitutional and as it turns out it was here in Manitoba. The law was thrown out this week because it was inconsistently applied. I didn't hear about that. Nonetheless, we still do not allow smoking in bars and restaurants. Were you in favor of the ban?