The Conservatives' Unethical Anti-Drug Strategy

[shelphs]

Please read and view the cited sources before dismissing the videos. Everything contained therein is accurate, and please confirm this for yourself. After you have verified the truthfulness of my argument, please tell others, please tell others of the video.

Comments?

[Bryan]

I strongly support the CPC strategy with respect to illegal drugs. While enabling these addicts may well get them off the street, and make their continued habits less risky, it still remains a poor strategy compared to taking action to reduce illegal drug use in the first place.

[scribblet]

Ditto

[marksman]

I strongly support the CPC strategy with respect to illegal drugs. While enabling these addicts may well get them off the street, and make their continued habits less risky, it still remains a poor strategy compared to taking action to reduce illegal drug use in the first place.

I'm sure that depends on what you mean by taking action to reduce illegal drug use in the 1st place. Pushing mandatory sentences is a poor strategy compared to almost any other strategy out there.

[capricorn]

I agree with the approach taken by the Conservatives on illegal drug issues.

[DrGreenthumb]

I agree with the approach taken by the Conservatives on illegal drug issues.

Doesnt say much for your intelligence, or ability to reason.

funny I have seen all you con supporters just blindly repeat the mantra, "i support the conservative policy" bs without being able to give any reason why, or even aknowledging that you know what that policy includes.

It is typical conservative ideology, and is based on some abstract faith that if you just believe strongly enough it will work. Goes back to the christian fundamentalist roots of the reform party. Heard any other mantras anywhere, care to recite the apostles' creed next maybe or the lord's prayer?

Science not "faith " should shape our drug policies. The government has no right to harm people with their drug laws. All substances should be regulated according to their potential for harm, not by someone's perception's of certain inanimate plants as being capable of good or evil. Conservative drug policy is misguided, harmful, and just plain stupid. Its not like the conservatives to let pesky things like facts, or science deter them from their faith so it doesn't surprise me that their drug policies are misguided and irresponsible.

[capricorn]

Doesnt say much for your intelligence, or ability to reason.

Thank you for that. You have a way of winning friends and influencing people that I can only dream about. Now, how about giving me a tip on how to improve my interpersonal relationships?

[Technocrat]

Drugs and drug addicttion are a public health problems and should be dealt with in that regards. The Unites States has pushed for a stricter drug policy and what has happened? The highest incarceration rate in the developed world, mostly for simple possesion issues is simply stupid.

Conservative dogma regarding drug laws is hardly a substitute for real hard science on how to deal with drug problems. Safe injection sites not only save taxpayers long term medical costs, but provide a point of contact and treatment support for addicts where they can begin to resolve their long term drug problems.

No one is going to be rehabilitated in prison, certainly not for drug problems or addictions.

[DrGreenthumb]

Thank you for that. You have a way of winning friends and influencing people that I can only dream about. Now, how about giving me a tip on how to improve my interpersonal relationships?

Well first of all don't expect civility from someone when you advocate their imprisonment. I have done nothing to harm you, or anyone else. I work and pay plenty of taxes. The policy you support would tear my family apart and leave my three daughters without a father, simply because I choose cannabis over pharmaceuticals or alcohol. You support harming me, and are surprised that that makes me feel hostile toward you?

Like I said doesn't say much for your intelligence.

[cybercoma]

The very first thing Harper says in the video, "we are committing 2/3 of our funding to prevention and treatment."

Then the video is trying to paint the Conservatives in a negative light by saying they refused to grant the facility another 3 years. One could just as easily pain the Conservatives in a positive light by saying, instead of closing down the facility they granted it a 15 month extension.

The news report then goes on to use innuendo as a device for negatively portraying the Conservatives again, when the AIDS doctor says, "whether it's their political ideology, or their religious beliefs, or their moral standards ... you know, I can't really begin to address those issues ... " Clearly, the doctor here is saying he can't address those things, but they included it in the coverage anyway, why? They included it because they want the viewer to think that the Conservative's decision is a result of political ideology, religious beliefs and moral standards. By having a doctor speak to these things, they're appealing to authority to further drive home the message. What most viewers won't remember from the news story is that the doctor actually said he CANNOT address those things.

The report in the medical journal goes on to tout the benefits of the program and say that there has been no increase in drugs use, etc. If we go back to the beginning and look at the fact that Harper committed 2/3 of the funding to prevention and treatment, why don't we ask what affects those steps have on the indicators the report in the medical journal is using.

At the standing committee meeting, they're trying to show that Tony Clement's points are not valid because his report was not peer reviewed. Of course, they want a quick answer, yes or no in regards to whether it has been reviewed, but no one is actually addressing the valid points Clement has to make. In September, in front of the CMA General Council, Clement has an opportunity to make his point and I think they're worth noting.

He asks, "Is it ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?"

"I believe that greater benefits could be achieved from its $3 million annual cost. ... We have to do more to reach out to our own sons and daughters who are overdosing in [Vancouver's] Downtown Eastside. They need our compassion and they need our intervention, not help simply to shoot up," he says.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/6/...ourcetype=HWCIT

The Standing Committee on Health wants to imply that the safe injection facility has made Vancouver a safer place, but the actual report suggests otherwise. It says, "there were no obvious differences between the two years [the year prior to the opening and the year following the opening of the SIF] with respect to the various indicators of drug-related crime."

http://www.communityinsite.ca/pdf/impact-o...lated-crime.pdf

Kathleen Cummings, the Executive Director of the AIDS Committee of Ottawa, in her own words says, "it is more cost effective to provide prevention". Isn't that exactly what Harper said 2/3 of the funding was going to go towards? The point all along is that perhaps there are taxpayers who feel it is unethical to pay for drug users to be able to get high on the tax-payers' dollars. The Conservative plan, according to the video anyway, is to provide education, prevention, intervention and treatment. Aren't these things vastly more important than simply spending taxpayers' money on a place drug-users to shoot up?

[DrGreenthumb]

The very first thing Harper says in the video, "we are committing 2/3 of our funding to prevention and treatment."

Then the video is trying to paint the Conservatives in a negative light by saying they refused to grant the facility another 3 years. One could just as easily pain the Conservatives in a positive light by saying, instead of closing down the facility they granted it a 15 month extension.

The news report then goes on to use innuendo as a device for negatively portraying the Conservatives again, when the AIDS doctor says, "whether it's their political ideology, or their religious beliefs, or their moral standards ... you know, I can't really begin to address those issues ... " Clearly, the doctor here is saying he can't address those things, but they included it in the coverage anyway, why? They included it because they want the viewer to think that the Conservative's decision is a result of political ideology, religious beliefs and moral standards. By having a doctor speak to these things, they're appealing to authority to further drive home the message. What most viewers won't remember from the news story is that the doctor actually said he CANNOT address those things.

The report in the medical journal goes on to tout the benefits of the program and say that there has been no increase in drugs use, etc. If we go back to the beginning and look at the fact that Harper committed 2/3 of the funding to prevention and treatment, why don't we ask what affects those steps have on the indicators the report in the medical journal is using.

At the standing committee meeting, they're trying to show that Tony Clement's points are not valid because his report was not peer reviewed. Of course, they want a quick answer, yes or no in regards to whether it has been reviewed, but no one is actually addressing the valid points Clement has to make. In September, in front of the CMA General Council, Clement has an opportunity to make his point and I think they're worth noting.

He asks, "Is it ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?"

"I believe that greater benefits could be achieved from its $3 million annual cost. ... We have to do more to reach out to our own sons and daughters who are overdosing in [Vancouver's] Downtown Eastside. They need our compassion and they need our intervention, not help simply to shoot up," he says.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/6/...ourcetype=HWCIT

The Standing Committee on Health wants to imply that the safe injection facility has made Vancouver a safer place, but the actual report suggests otherwise. It says, "there were no obvious differences between the two years [the year prior to the opening and the year following the opening of the SIF] with respect to the various indicators of drug-related crime."

http://www.communityinsite.ca/pdf/impact-o...lated-crime.pdf

Kathleen Cummings, the Executive Director of the AIDS Committee of Ottawa, in her own words says, "it is more cost effective to provide prevention". Isn't that exactly what Harper said 2/3 of the funding was going to go towards? The point all along is that perhaps there are taxpayers who feel it is unethical to pay for drug users to be able to get high on the tax-payers' dollars. The Conservative plan, according to the video anyway, is to provide education, prevention, intervention and treatment. Aren't these things vastly more important than simply spending taxpayers' money on a place drug-users to shoot up?

Again anyone who thinks that the anyone needs rehab for cannabis is out of touch with reality. 90% of drug charges are laid for cannabis, and 90 % of the war on drugs budget goes directly to cannabis law enforcement. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that cannabis is NOT Cocaine or heroin. It is dishonest and unethical to use people's fear of hard drugs to criminalize cannabis users. Tell me how someone growing 1 pot plant is a threat requiring a 6 month manaTORY prison sentence. Explain why or how a person growing a pot plant would benefit from rehab? Can one be addicted to gardening? Again our drug laws should be based on fact and science not fearmongering about "evil" plants. How exactly can a plants be evil, or bad? I think vegetation has always been pretty neutral, morally speaking.

Governments should provide factual information about the dangers of drugs and let ppl decide for themselves what risks are acceptable. If you get high on something and commit a crime the drug use should not able to be used an excuse or to make the punishment harsher. A crime committed is the same crime regardless of the state of mind of the one committing it.

[Bryan]

Well first of all don't expect civility from someone when you advocate their imprisonment. I have done nothing to harm you, or anyone else. I work and pay plenty of taxes. The policy you support would tear my family apart and leave my three daughters without a father, simply because I choose cannabis over pharmaceuticals or alcohol. You support harming me, and are surprised that that makes me feel hostile toward you?

Why do you need an injection site to smoke marijuana?

[Wild Bill]

I agree with the approach taken by the Conservatives on illegal drug issues.

Well, I don't! And I do think it will cost them a bit here in Ontario. Their stand has a sniff of "Reefer Madness" to it. I suspect to many urban voters in Ontario it will paint the Tories as more "Deputy Dan" from the 60's than "hip" to today. Oh well, the Tories are not likely to do well in the heart of Ontario cities anyway.

Actually, I would find it hard to believe that the Tory campaign handlers are that naive about pot. I suspect the real basis is more machiavellian. They know that for most people it's not a deal breaker of an issue and besides, people will still do as they have been doing anyway. Nothing will actually change, like how a gun ban does nothing against illegal guns.

What WILL happen is that the social conservative demographic, which has been a bit disappointed with Harper for not jumping to make evangelical christianity mandatory, will think they have been thrown a bone.

As I said, nothing will change but for that stripe of people they will never notice. These are the folks who think that passing another law is the same thing as actually DOING something effective! The Tories will be able to hang on to these voters without them bleeding off to some Ned Flanders party.

[cybercoma]

Cannabis, cannabis, cannabis, cannabis, Harper bad.

I didn't take a position on laws against cannabis.

The video didn't take a position on laws against cannabis.

So, what's your point?

[Keepitsimple]

You've posted this video in another topic but I'll repeat....it starts by saying that Conservatives will be tough on violent drug crime but that fully two-thirds of all money will be spent on Prevention and Mitigation. Almost all of the video goes on to laud the merits on the Insite Harm Reduction site in Vancouver - the only one in North America - and a pilot program at that. Europeans consider Harm Reduction to be of minimal value and are backing away from expansion of these programs. The United Nations actually considers these sites to be in violation of UN international drug policy. I find the Conservative approach to be classic compassionate Conservatism - tough on the bad guys and a helping hand to those who need it and want it. Unfortunately, our Charter of Rights prevents us from forcing chronic drug users who harm themselves or others from going into rehab.

[capricorn]

Well first of all don't expect civility

I don't.

Like I said doesn't say much for your intelligence.

See what I mean?

What part of "don't attack the poster, address the poster's position" don't you understand? Oh, I forgot that you don't know the forum rules.

[DrGreenthumb]

Why do you need an injection site to smoke marijuana?

I don't need an injection site, and am not asking for one. What I need is the conservatives to back away from my body and take their laws with them. Please explain why we need a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months in prison for someone who is caught growing as little as one cannabis plant for their own personal use. Please tell me how putting anyone in "rehab" over cannabis makes any sense. Cannabis has been scientifacally proven to be about as addictive as chocolate cake and Less habit forming than coffee. People who use cannabis do so because they like the way it makes them feel, not because of any dependancy on the plant. I do not believe that prohibiting ANY substance has ever made it safer, or stopped anyone who wanted to try it from getting it. After 80 years of failure it is time to try a new approach. That said, we should at the very least be aknowledging that cannabis is not in the same league as hard drugs when it comes to potential for harm, and indeed it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Science has proven this beyond a doubt, and our senate has recommended legalization of cannabis. Seperating the hard and soft drug markets would be of great benefit, and would give us some credibility when we try to warn our kids of the dangers of harder drugs like cocaine and meth. Also if we are really silly enough enough to continue with a war on drugs mentality, don't you think that the resources that we currently waste chasing pot smokers and gardeners would be better spent going after meth labs and coke dealers? Most of the money spent on the drug war is spent on fighting cannabis, not on hard drugs. 90% of drug charges in Canada are for simple possession of marijuana. The number of arrests for simple possession of marijuana has gone up by 30% since Harper has been prime minister. Harper is quoted as having once said of cannabis" I was offered a joint once at a party but I was too DRUNK" If that isn't the height of hypocricy I don't know what is. Harper should remember that alcohol is indeed a DRUG, and a much HARDER DRUG than cannabis.

[cybercoma]

How is the video relevant to your point?

Conservatives are offering education, prevention, intervention and treatment. That doesn't say to me that they're telling you what to do with your body.

[Wild Bill]

How is the video relevant to your point?

Conservatives are offering education, prevention, intervention and treatment. That doesn't say to me that they're telling you what to do with your body.

Of course, they are also offering punishment if you don't do as they say!

Sounds more like a Liberal approach, to me!

[DrGreenthumb]

Conservatives are offering education, prevention, intervention and treatment. That doesn't say to me that they're telling you what to do with your body.

Ok what DO you call it when the government says if you put certain things into your body they will send their armed enforcers to put you in a cage or force you into one of re-education camps(rehab)?

What DOES it say to you when the state is saying that if you use your body in certain ways that harm nobody but possibly yourself they will use force to prevent you from making that decision regarding the use of your own body?

To me it sounds like they ARE telling me what to do with my own body

[cybercoma]

The government has legislated possession and trafficking. There is no drug-use legislation. Furthermore, the current government and the parliament we're voting for on Oct. 14, are not the ones who created that legislation, nor is anyone advocating legislation that prohibits what a person can put into his or her body.

Regardless, the point that you completely missed is that the current Conservatives are advocating education, intervention, prevention and treatment. Tell me what part of that tells you what you can and can't do with your body.

Edited September 22, 2008 by cybercoma

[BubberMiley]

Regardless, the point that you completely missed is that the current Conservatives are advocating education, intervention, prevention and treatment. Tell me what part of that tells you what you can and can't do with your body.

You are seriously arguing that they are not telling you what to do with your body when they have laws against possession of cannibis?

No, you can't be serious.

[cybercoma]

You are seriously arguing that they are not telling you what to do with your body when they have laws against possession of cannibis?

No, you can't be serious.

Who's they?

[BubberMiley]

Who's they?

Currently, the Conservative Party of Canada.

[cybercoma]

Currently, the Conservative Party of Canada.

They made a law banning the possession of marijuana?