Bob

Yeah, since every person living with heart disease lives in a retirement home. I cannot continue this conversation with you. You've gone above my threshold of tolerance for stupidity. I mean that.

Yes of course, feel free to take a broad and unsubstantiated statements as indicating an "economic benefit".

What about people who suffer from heart disease? Are we now going to guarantee that they have quick access to a medical emergency team in the event of them having a heart attack? Let's make sure there's a dedicated team of paramedics in every building where at least 10% of the residents have heart disease and/or are over the age of 65. Don't you see how ridiculous this expansion of Section 7 "rights" is? Of course I'm going to ridicule you when you perpetuate these lies that are destroying this country. And now the SCoC is in on it, with the full support of dedicated leftists like yourself who feel that drug addicts are now entitled to services that other Canadians don't receive.

I love this, the barely literate leftist tells me to "mind my own business" as if somehow he's more Canadian than I am, and tells me that everything is just fine and dandy with the Canadian healthcare system. Yeah, it's sure easy to get a family doctor in Ontario right now. It only takes a few days to see most specialists. When going to the emergency room there's no need to bring a book and a pillow. MRIs and CAT scans are available within days. Yeah, everything is peachy and only getting better. Remember, McGuinty told us that medical wait times are going down, so it must be true! Apparently Ontario also has the shortest wait times in Canada, because McGuinty said so!

So Canadians aren't dying from healthcare shortages? Canadians aren't waiting years for "non-emergency" surgeries? Canadians aren't waiting months to get essential diagnostics? I'm imagining family friends who elected to go the USA instead of wait two years for a shoulder surgery, while an ex-friend of mine waited over a year for a knee surgery? The mother of my closest friend didn't go through years of waiting for several surgeries on her hips and knees? My friend isn't waiting right now for nine months in order to have a certain laser procedure done to remove plantar warts?

Scientific research to tell you that having a dedicated medical intervention team at a drug use centre saves the lives of drug users who are present when overdosing. Gotcha. We sure needed a study for that.

I know Insite doesn't provide drugs. You completely missed the point of what I was saying. Your problem, not mine.

I've already acknowledged that, and you don't need a study to ascertain that having a dedicated emergency response team for drug users in a drug use site will save people from killing themselves via overdose. I love how robots like you who can't think for yourselves need a "study" to tell you something so obvious. Of course less drug users will die from overdose if they use drugs in the presence of a dedicated medical intervention team! The question is whether or not the money spent towards saving these people is worth it. Should we have a dedicated emergency response team for all people with serious heart problems? How about in any apartments building that has a certain proportion of residents over the age of 65? Leftists like you don't grasp that public money is a limited resource, and it needs to be allocated efficiently, not emotionally or ideologically. We have Canadian suffering and dying today because of healthcare shortages yet somehow money spent towards giving drug users a "safe" place to get high is justifiable.

So you think Insite has reduced the amount of addicts in any meaningful way? And if so, was it efficient? If you're going to spend money on drug rehabilitation, which many folks wouldn't even accept as a worthwhile expenditure of public money, put into drug rehabilitation centres, not drug use centres. Basically, you're implying that giving them a place to get high is a "bonus way to treat them".

It's sad how you can't grasp a simple truth about the singular nature of public funds. Spending public money is about choices, if you spend in one place, you can't spend it in another, don't you get that? The two million dollars the province of BC spends on Insite is a choice, and I know many people out there agree with me that there are more worthwhile expenditures within the realm of healthcare, notably the wait times for many medical procedures for people of all ages. Are you that dense to not realize that people who need surgeries aren't all retired seniors? You think joint repair/replacement surgeries are only for old fogies in the nursing home? Do you live in such a small bubble that you don't know people who've had to wait two or three years to get such a procedure done? When I see such dumbfounded responses from people like yourself I wonder if the majority of MLW members on the left have a circle of friends of two people. Go out there, talk to people, see what's going on. You live in a world of assumptions, until the day comes that you need a serious medical procedure and need to wait months or years.

Come on folks, don't you all know how the most successful rehabilitation centers for drug addicts provide free drugs and clean needles? Oh wait...

Call it whatever you want. Clearly the SCoC is greatly expanding the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the CCRF, acting as if the prosecution of drug addicts (for which no standard has been set towards establishing what defines the "drug addict") for crimes related to the possession and trafficking of drugs somehow violates these rights.

No, but the SCoC's moral concerns about justifying judicial activism, with argumentation that is essentially "more good than bad" (which isn't even true), is totally fine with you. The mentioning of the hip replacement is entirely relevant, as public money is public money. If the two million dollars that went into operating Insite instead went towards hip replacements, grandpa and grandma perhaps wouldn't have to wait three years for their surgeries. And perhaps they wouldn't have to sit on disability while they waited. And perhaps that's a more worthwhile expenditure of healthcare dollars than giving drug users a nice place to shoot up complete with a dedicated emergency response team (that could be out assisting other people in need of such services, for example staffing an ambulance on call) should they be a little too adventurous with their heroin.

Unless these drug users are always using new pins every time they shoot up and not sharing them when they get high outside of Insite, then they're still spreading disease. Moreover, why do I care? Those diseases aren't going to get to me, I certainly don't go around getting high with infected needles. Meanwhile, other Canadians are suffering and dying while the healthcare service in this country can't provide them with the services they need in a timely fashion. Yet of course two million dollars a year is magically found to assists drug users rather than buying a new MRI machine or hiring a few more specialists where we have shortages.

And now, the idea of a trash can is too ugly, given environmental concerns. So now we have a progressive recycling bin. Leftism has even invaded our OS-GUIs!

Why not require a drug user to prove that he or she is an addict before provisioning him or her with clean pins and new tubes, as well as a fancy air-conditioned place to get high with an emergency response team on deck to deal with you in the event that you overdose? Suddenly, every drug user is now an addict, and "entitled" to a "safe injection" site at the expense of the taxpayer, while grandma and grandpa wait years for a hip replacement while suffering from pain and limited mobility.

Well, rich and expensive neighbourhoods tend to have lower proportions of Muslims than the broader Canadian population. Just like Aboriginals and Caribbeans. The reasons for that should be obvious.

Except for the fact that Western Jews are much, much, much more modern, educated, and democratically inclined than our Muslim counterparts. It will be a rare case indeed to find a Rabbi preaching revisionist history or hate-filled anti-Western politics while taking charitable donations to funnel them to terrorist organizations. When Rabbis in funny black hats and with long sideburns starts flying planes into buildings and taking two-year hiatuses from work in order to fight alongside the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in order to murder Canadian soldiers, you'll have a point. Until then, you're doing what you do best, drawing false parallels.

Yeah, ignore everything I just said, ignore everything that the "Palestinians" are, and just say I "hate" them because they have different religious beliefs.

There is no valid "science" to support any of this "harm reduction" silliness advanced by the left in support of Insite and the SCoC's decision. The only statistics with any validity are the number of overdoses that occurred on Insite premises that received emergency medical intervention that would have otherwise likely killed the drug user. Some of us may not consider that a useful public benefit, anyways. We have ordinary Canadians dying while they wait too long to receive the medical care they need, while we provide drug users with their very own personal emergency response team should they shoot up too much heroin. It's unfathomable.

I don't care if it was a unanimous decision. It was wrong. You think I care how many people see things my way? I find it amusing how you and the rest of the leftists keep referencing these imaginary "studies" that you've never seen. You, just like the SCoC, make claims to "mountains of evidence" and "research" that support this argument of "harm reduction". Of course you're ignoring the fact that the SCoC's mandate is to apply the law, rather than engage in public policy formulation towards what it believes is in the public interest or greater good. You realize that the SCoC is not there to do what it believes is in the public interest or the greater, right? That is not a substantive legal argument for extending, indefinitely, the immunity of Insite's employees and patrons (and all people within its area?) from laws regulating the possession and trafficking controlled substances. You're doing exactly what the SCoC is doing, and pretending that you can interpret the law in a completely new way (extending imaginary "rights" from Section 7 of the CCRF in a ridiculous way) and then stating something to the effect of, "oh well, the law doesn't matter, because shielding people from the law of the land serves a greater public interest". The same argumentation could not be extended to an infinite number of other situations, including the hypothetical example I provided earlier regarding illegally obtained evidence being admitted into a trial in order to convict a guilty person, rather than letting him or her go on such a "technicality". We might as well address this lie of "harm reduction", however, that is constantly advanced by know-nothing leftists who pretend to have read "research" and "studies" and "evidence" regarding Insite's proclaimed benefits. Proponents claim, falsely, that Insite has reduced the transmission of disease via the provision of a "safe" and hygienic location where they can use their drugs. Unless the diseased drug addicts are never sharing their needles with others, which would mean they practically live at Insite, then this is a lie. We know that drug addicts, generally speaking, are the most irresponsible and disgusting people around, and we know they are still spreading disease when getting high in other locations. Personally, this reduction in "disease spreading" certainly will never affect me, as I don't share needles while injecting myself with drugs in order to get high. Moreover, since when was disease spreading via drug users an epidemic worthy of being made a public priority with healthcare dollars? The overwhelming majority of people are not sharing infected needles and getting high, but we do have hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians waiting long periods of time for important medical procedures. Why are we wasting money on provisioning new pins and tubes to drug addicts when we have Canadians waiting years in pain for important joint surgeries? We have so many unfulfilled medical needs in this country, yet somehow we're worried about drug addicts spreading diseases amongst themselves as a result of their own irresponsibility. It's insanity where the drug addicts are essentially being prioritized over thousands of other public health needs that are insufficiently covered (I have a friend who has to wait almost a year in order to have plantar warts removed from his via a laser procedure, and family friends that went to the USA for shoulder surgery rather than waiting over two years in Canada). Somehow, the province of British Columbia could find a spare two million dollars per year to run Insite, rather than buying, for example, a new MRI machine in order to help diagnose people with growing illnesses even faster. Somehow the drug addict is more important than the taxpayer whose cancer gets a few more months to keep growing while she waits at home in fear of what she may have. Then there's this irrelevant benefit of "saving lives". How is it a benefit to save a drug addict from an overdose that would've killed him or her? That is now a public benefit? I certainly don't care about the life of a drug addict, and I certainly have little sympathy for harm that befalls a person due to his or her own poor choices. I feel the same way about alcoholics who suffer from cirrhosis and smokers who get lung cancer, it's particularly disgusting that their behaviour ends up being a huge drain on the public healthcare system. In a country like Canada, where healthcare is a public service, we owe it to one another to be reasonably responsible with our health. Drug addicts are clearly shirking that part of our "social contract" in Canada. We already have Canadians dying because of insufficient healthcare, so why are we prioritizing the lives of drug addicts over non-drug addicts? Because that's exactly what we're doing when we channel limited resources (i.e. money) towards Insite and not towards other unfulfilled needs? What about the ignored harm caused by Insite to its surroundings? You want criminals drug addicts in your neighbourhood? Near your kids? In your businesses? They bring with them crime, as well as the more difficult-to-measure nastiness that they represent. Most drug addicts are disgusting people who you don't want to be around, so why are we not placing "safe-injection" sites like Insite in obscure places, far removed from the regular population? Oh, that's right, we don't want to inconvenience the drug addict who is entitled to have access to places like Insite within a one-hour bus ride. After all, he has "rights" according Section 7 of the CCRF to immunity from drug possession and trafficking laws. He has "rights" to healthcare for health risks he caused himself. Giving a nice place where lowlife drug addicts can congregate has negative externalities, which are of course ignored by the those on the left that idolize loser drug addicts.

Yes, call it whatever you want. Clearly coexistence is impossible with these people. So, separation is the only humane option. I'm not for complete removal of "Palestinians" from Israel, but most certainly most of them must have their citizenship "rights" revoked at a minimum, and ideally - repatriation of many of them to neighbouring Arab countries. I'd say the same thing in Canada if there was some identifiable group that was wholly opposed to core values of Canadian society. Suppose that an identifiable group was, by and large, anti-democratic and engaging in decades of mass murder and terrorist campaigns in attempts to impose their will. I would support revocation of said group's citizenship "rights" in Canada, at a minimum, and ideally mass removal of them from our society. Your "ethnic cleansing" one-liner only seems offensive to the ignorant, who think the "Palestinians" are people just like everyone else. People who share your ignorant and myopic worldview act as if worldwide, all cultures and societies are essentially the same, therefore any differing attitude to one group or another makes people like myself "racist" or "prejudiced" or "intolerant" or "bigoted". Because remember, in the fantasy world that you inhabit (where you've probably never spent much time outside of your own neighbourhood), everyone around the world who compose the many cultures and societies that you pretend to be familiar with, all people, societies, cultures, religions, political systems, historical narratives, and lifestyles are essentially the same - and of course they are all equally valid and worthy of respect.

I don't think they need much defense, they're both on balance good men who have done a lot of good for the world. Some of their unethical business practises bother me (like you said, it's hard to stay on top and perhaps you have to be a shark to hold that coveted position), but hey, that's not enough to take away too much from the good they've done.

That's a good point ans good way to illustrate it. Or, put his ashes in an emptied out Macintosh. Or a first generation iPod Nano.

That's a great list of flops. I recognize a few of those items, and the fact that I don't recognize most is a testament to how bad those flops were. The Motorola ROKR was terrible. What the hell is that Apple Pippin?!