Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Yes because forcing people to change always works right? They don't need to want it right? When something is against the law, those breaking the law should be "forced" to change whether they "want" to or not - or suffer the consequences. The law shouldn't be changed to accommodate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Who is supplying drug user's Drugs? What the hell are you talking about? Do you ever try to understand the issues before you comment? Do you have a reading disability? Apparently you would like to just round them up and put them out of their misery? Apparent to you only, due to your reading disability and tendency for hyperbole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 When something is against the law, those breaking the law should be "forced" to change whether they "want" to or not - or suffer the consequences. The law shouldn't be changed to accommodate them. Wouldn't it be wonderful if things were so black/white and that all laws led to justice and peace in the country? What a utopia that would be.... Those damn women should have just gone along with the law that didn't allow them to vote... after all... it WAS the law... The fact is, we as a society learn new and better ways of doing things. Voting right, minority rights, women's reproductive rights, and now harm reduction.... the list of laws that changed because society learned ways to do things better is very long indeed. I would love to round up addicts and force them to get help.... jail every drug dealer... but the FACT that this policy doesn't work really messes with my ideological stance. Hopefully most people are willing to try different strategies to help addicts, even if it makes them uncomfortable, because studies may show that it is a better strategy for dealing with the societal problems. And studies of places like insite have shown that this strategy of "harm reduction" works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Do you have a reading disability? Would we supply smoking addicts cigarettes for as long as it took for them to quit? I've read cigarette addiction is just as bad, if not worse, as a heroin addiction. We've come down hard on smokers with smoking bans and higher taxation yet tobacco is not an illegal product. We've turned smokers into second class citizens because they can't beat their addiction. But it's OK to enable injecting drugs that are illegal to help the addicts stay alive. Who is supplying drug user's Drugs? What the hell are you talking about? Do you ever try to understand the issues before you comment? You are making a comparison to the drug injection site, to smokers. the drug injection site is a place that provides a safe place for drug use, clean needles, and counseling and help to get off these drugs. They don't supply drugs, only needles in order to prevent HIV and other diseases. I don't have a reading disability, but I think you have a moral disability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Wouldn't it be wonderful if things were so black/white and that all laws led to justice and peace in the country? What a utopia that would be.... Those damn women should have just gone along with the law that didn't allow them to vote... after all... it WAS the law... Stop right there. How dare you compare illegal drug use to women not having the right to vote - same as men. How dare you compare illegal drug use to gender inequality. There's nothing comparable with a law that applies to all, for the good of all, to women not having the same rights as men. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 They don't supply drugs, only needles in order to prevent HIV and other diseases. I never said Insite supplied the drugs. In fact, if you read my previous posts in this thread you'd already know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I never said Insite supplied the drugs. In fact, if you read my previous posts in this thread you'd already know that. Well then what does this question have to do with anything? Would we supply smoking addicts cigarettes for as long as it took for them to quit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 This is the way I see this issue: the idea that "safe injection sites" save lives is the reason the government is funding these sites, saying they are legal, even though drug use is illegal. Therefore, there can never be any arrests in Canada for illegal drug possession. If the government is providing a place for people who purchase these drugs to safely take the drugs, then how can anyone ever be arrested for possession? How could some be arrested as others are not only given a free pass, but given aid and the comfort of using said drugs? My next thought is in regards to all of the lives that are lost because of drinking and driving. So rather than arrest people for drinking and driving, following the same mindset, the government should provide hotel rooms for anyone who has been drinking; or at the very least, free transportation. Because the fact is, even though drinking and driving is against the law, that policy just isn't working. And we can't force all the people who drink and drive to change - they have to want it. Bottom line. That would save countless lives. And that's what it's all about, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Stop right there. How dare you compare illegal drug use to women not having the right to vote - same as men. How dare you compare illegal drug use to gender inequality. There's nothing comparable with a law that applies to all, for the good of all, to women not having the same rights as men. :angry: Oh the outrage.... How dare I compare changing one law to changing another?? Why not??? I'll throw slavery in there too!! I didn't say one issue was as important as the other.... But of course the two are related.... in as much as you said When something is against the law, those breaking the law should be "forced" to change whether they "want" to or not - or suffer the consequences. The law shouldn't be changed to accommodate them. I wasn't comparing the two issues, but only rebutting your "the law is the law" approach. That the law breakers should be forced to change, not the other way around. My point was that if the law is a bad one, regardless of the issue, it should be changed. Laws have changed over the years, society has progressed... If the FACTS show that it is more effective to have "harm reduction" strategies than to treat this as a law and order issue, then that is the way we should go, even if it makes us feel uncofortable to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Well then what does this question have to do with anything? To make you feel better I'll say it this way. Would we enable addicted smokers to smoke as long as it took for them to quit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) This is the way I see this issue: the idea that "safe injection sites" save lives is the reason the government is funding these sites, saying they are legal, even though drug use is illegal. Therefore, there can never be any arrests in Canada for illegal drug possession. If the government is providing a place for people who purchase these drugs to safely take the drugs, then how can anyone ever be arrested for possession? How could some be arrested as others are not only given a free pass, but given aid and the comfort of using said drugs? My next thought is in regards to all of the lives that are lost because of drinking and driving. So rather than arrest people for drinking and driving, following the same mindset, the government should provide hotel rooms for anyone who has been drinking; or at the very least, free transportation. Because the fact is, even though drinking and driving is against the law, that policy just isn't working. And we can't force all the people who drink and drive to change - they have to want it. Bottom line. That would save countless lives. And that's what it's all about, right? The federal Government is not funding this, I don't know if the provincial is. The government is NOT providing a place for people who purchase these drugs Possession of an illegal drug is currently against the law. Why are you equating giving people a safe place to do drugs to giving drunk drivers a hotel room? Your logic is flawed. Edited September 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 And of course once again we've got leftists, this time manifested in the form of the SCoC, telling us that addicts have "rights" to "safe injection sites", while the burden for the provision of that "right" falls on the taxpayer. Apparently the Section 7 of the charter has come to mean, for drug addicts, that they should be provided with "safe injection sites". And of course we've also got the usual crowd of leftists talking about "science", "reason", "logic", "research", and "evidence" that these safe injection sites reduce crime, rates of addiction, and the spread of disease... without any serious proof of their astonishing claims. I'm sure they're using the safe "evidence" that's been around before Insite ever came into being. Like I said in another thread about Canada's deference to Islam's spread, this is just another example of why in the long run Canada and the broader Western world is finished. The ideology and worldview that is at the core of those who advocate for the maintenance of places like Insite, where the loser is somehow the victim who has special "rights", will be our undoing. We're finished in the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Cap, by the same "toke-in" does it make sense to incarcerate cigarette smokers, if one day tobacco becomes illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 [1]The federal Government is not funding this, I don't know if the provincial is. Insite is a taxpayer-funded operation - that would involve "government." [2]The government is NOT providing a place for people who purchase these drugs Ummm. Yeah. That's exactly who the government is providing a place for. You yourself pointed out that they purchase their own drugs. [3]Possession of an illegal drug is currently against the law. Ummm. Yeah, it is. Hence all of my comments. [4]Why are you equating giving people a safe place to do drugs to giving drunk drivers a hotel room? Because taking illegal drugs is against the law and people are being given a safe place to do said drugs because it saves lives AND drinking and driving is against the law so people should be given a safe place to stay after drinking because it saves lives. Why should those breaking the law in one instance be given a safe haven to save lives while not in the other instance? Your logic is flawed. It's not my logic that's flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 The unelected overruling the elected. Nice system we have here. Coming soon...safe injection sites in all prisons and drug recovery houses, with complimentary government issued drugs of your choice. It's foolish to put all your democratic eggs in the "elected" basket. Don't you understand the concept that our democracy consists of 3 branches of government (executive, parliament, judiciary) so we ahave a system of checks and balances on the power of each and are not always to the whims of political ideology?Our elected representatives are required to govern all of the people fairly, not just those who share their political ideology, and the democratic checks and balances are built in to to the system to protect us from politicians/parties, even even with a strong majority (let alone a spurious one), that might try to destroy or circumvent the democratic rights of the people. Those of you who disdain drug addicts should try living their life sometime, starting with any traumas of their childhood and learning disabilities and including their current living conditions. A group of pro hockey players were taken on a tour of the Downtown Eastside and they learned a lot, like the over $400 cost of a mouldy bug and rodent infested flophouse 'room'. They assumed such a room would cost about $20/mo. Another thing they learned is that there are plenty of former pro athletes living in those circumstances because they got hooked on oxy's (morphine, heroin) as a result of injuries . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) The federal Government is not funding this, I don't know if the provincial is. The government is NOT providing a place for people who purchase these drugs Possession of an illegal drug is currently against the law. Why are you equating giving people a safe place to do drugs to giving drunk drivers a hotel room? Your logic is flawed. Municipal, provincial, federal... who cares? It's tax money. It all comes from the same place. I think BC receives transfer payments from the Federal government, anyways, but it's irrelevant. The SCoC's decision will protect Insite from drug possession laws. So Insite "safe injection sites" are now effectively sanctuaries from criminals, where they enjoy immunity from the law with respect to drug possession and trafficking. That's what this whole story is about. It's funny how you jump so passionately into this discussion, yet you don't even know the fundamentals of today's SCoC decision. Edited September 30, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Would we supply smoking addicts cigarettes for as long as it took for them to quit? I've read cigarette addiction is just as bad, if not worse, as a heroin addiction. We've come down hard on smokers with smoking bans and higher taxation yet tobacco is not an illegal product. We've turned smokers into second class citizens because they can't beat their addiction. Pardon my French but that's fucking bullshit. To make you feel better I'll say it this way. Would we enable addicted smokers to smoke as long as it took for them to quit? We already do by not putting them in jail for smoking. When something is against the law, those breaking the law should be "forced" to change whether they "want" to or not - or suffer the consequences. The law shouldn't be changed to accommodate them. We're talking about a chemical addiction here, not jaywalking. This is the way I see this issue: the idea that "safe injection sites" save lives is the reason the government is funding these sites, saying they are legal, even though drug use is illegal. Therefore, there can never be any arrests in Canada for illegal drug possession. If the government is providing a place for people who purchase these drugs to safely take the drugs, then how can anyone ever be arrested for possession? How could some be arrested as others are not only given a free pass, but given aid and the comfort of using said drugs? Sounds like another argument against drug prohibition. My next thought is in regards to all of the lives that are lost because of drinking and driving. So rather than arrest people for drinking and driving, following the same mindset, the government should provide hotel rooms for anyone who has been drinking; or at the very least, free transportation. Because the fact is, even though drinking and driving is against the law, that policy just isn't working. And we can't force all the people who drink and drive to change - they have to want it. Yes and the government should set up rape camps so rapists can go and rape to their heart's content. If you don't understand the fundamental differences between drinking and driving and drug addiction, if all you can say is "they're both illleeeeegal!" You shouldn't be talking about this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) And of course once again we've got leftists, this time manifested in the form of the SCoC, telling us that addicts have "rights" to "safe injection sites", What rights? Who said rights bob? And of course we've also got the usual crowd of leftists talking about "science", "reason", "logic", "research", and "evidence" that these safe injection sites reduce crime, rates of addiction, and the spread of disease... without any serious proof of their astonishing claims. I'm sure they're using the safe "evidence" that's been around before Insite ever came into being. Quiteb right bob. Here ya go... http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=1246fae9-c844-43a5-804a-20541b543b56 http://bigblog.dukechronicle.com/backpages/supervised-injection-injecting-the-facts/ Edited September 30, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 If you don't understand the fundamental differences between drinking and driving and drug addiction, if all you can say is "they're both illleeeeegal!" You shouldn't be talking about this issue. You don't think drinking and driving ever involves an addiction?? Alcholism is a drug addiction, and I'm sure many a drunk driver was/is an alcoholic. And if you don't understand that, perhaps YOU shouldn't be talking about this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 And of course we've also got the usual crowd of leftists talking about "science", "reason", "logic", "research", and "evidence" that these safe injection sites reduce crime, rates of addiction, and the spread of disease... without any serious proof of their astonishing claims. According to you, proof or evidence is not a prerequisite for a successful argument. Their word should be good enough. I'm sure they're using the safe "evidence" that's been around before Insite ever came into being. Oh you're sure are you? I mean, so long as you're sure you don't have to, you know, do your homework on it or anything. Who needs facts when you've got gut feelings? Like I said in another thread about Canada's deference to Islam's spread, this is just another example of why in the long run Canada and the broader Western world is finished. The ideology and worldview that is at the core of those who advocate for the maintenance of places like Insite, where the loser is somehow the victim who has special "rights", will be our undoing. We're finished in the long term. I would advise you to beat the rush and just kill yourself now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 What rights? Who said rights bob? Quiteb right bob. Here ya go... http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=1246fae9-c844-43a5-804a-20541b543b56 http://bigblog.dukechronicle.com/backpages/supervised-injection-injecting-the-facts/ The SCoC has stated that the "rights" of drug addicts under Section 7 of the CCRF would be violated if the exemption from federal drug laws (possession and trafficking) was not extended, indefinitely, to Insite. Your two links are completely irrelevant and provide no substantial support for the ongoing maintenance of Insite. In my view, preventing the deaths of addicts via drug overdose should no be a public health priority. Everything has a cost, including human life, and spending approximately two million dollars a year on the upkeep of Insite in order to save or improve the lives of drug addicts is a complete waste of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 You don't think drinking and driving ever involves an addiction?? Alcholism is a drug addiction, and I'm sure many a drunk driver was/is an alcoholic. And if you don't understand that, perhaps YOU shouldn't be talking about this issue. Sure there's alcoholics. And there's alcoholics who drive while drunk. And there's tremendous social costs to the disease and the act. But drinking is not illegal. In fact, the government generates a nice income from booze. So if you want to kvetch about the seeming hypocrisy, that's a nice place to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Sure there's alcoholics. And there's alcoholics who drive while drunk. And there's tremendous social costs to the disease and the act. So why isn't the government providing free services for these drug addicted alcoholics? To save lives? But drinking is not illegal. In fact, the government generates a nice income from booze. So if you want to kvetch about the seeming hypocrisy, that's a nice place to start. But drinking and driving IS illegal. So I'm sure you support free accommodations or free transportation for those who do drink and drive, right? Rather than arrest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 All Insite can claim, and this is very iffy, is that they reduce the spread of disease somewhat, when addicts who are diseased and otherwise would've recycled needles between one another avail themselves of the Insite services. Beyond that, they've saved the lives of drug addicts who might have died had they overdosed somewhere else. Of course, there are major externalities and opportunity costs involved with the maintenance of Insite. The two million dollars going to Insite every year is the most obvious cost, where there are many other much more worthy recipients of that money than pathetic white trash addicts. Speed up the waiting lines for important procedures like hip replacements, but another MRI machine and hire some staff to operate it 24/7, do something more worthwhile than give a pathetic loser a nicer place to get high. What about the crime is brings about in the neighbourhood? Can you imagine if your moronic city council decided to bring this magnet for human trash into your neighbourhood? It's literally a beacon for the dregs of society. Send them to a Native reserve, don't put them in [/i]my[/i] neighbourhood, where they'll bring with them their crime, diseases, and overall disgusting presence. The new ruling also directly prevents the police from being able to enforce the law. Perhaps law enforcement can get around it, but following these people from Insite (and future "safe injection sites" that are now certainly to spread across the country) to their rat nests and doing their investigations. Anyways, it's just another example of the slow self-destruction of Canada. As "rights" keep on being manufactured which force others, who never consented to such an arrangement, to provision and protect these new "rights". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Therefore, there can never be any arrests in Canada for illegal drug possession. If the government is providing a place for people who purchase these drugs to safely take the drugs, then how can anyone ever be arrested for possession? How could some be arrested as others are not only given a free pass, but given aid and the comfort of using said drugs? The drug laws are changing... simple posession is rarely enforced because it is ineffective to do so... This isn't me saying it... it's the head Vancouver drug enforcement cop.Mr. Kash Heed, Vice Drugs Section, Vancouver Police Service: .... We recognize that many of the people who use or are addicted to drugs must be dealt with outside of the law enforcement system. We are vigilant and somewhat tolerant of clubs that provide cannabis for medicinal claims. Under the auspices of the Medical Marijuana Access regulations, several more ventures that are similar to these clubs are in the works for Vancouver. In practical terms, we have de facto decriminalization or de facto legalization based on the wide margin of discretion afforded to the police. .... With respect to dangerous drugs, we recognize that the people who are addicted to heroin, crack, rock, cocaine derivatives and some of the amphetamine stimulants, should be looked at and treated outside of the law enforcement system. These people need help; they should be directed to agencies that have expertise to deliver the health care and so on. We should not be pushing these people through the system. I focus my resources on the person making a profit, not on the addicted user. We would like to have other systems in our society look after them. ..... Mr. Heed: It depends on the circumstances, but, generally speaking, we do not enforce simple possession charges regardless of what the drug is unless there is extenuating circumstances attached to that. Senator St. Germain: Is that heroin, as well as any drug? Mr. Heed: Yes. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/10evb-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=66 My next thought is in regards to all of the lives that are lost because of drinking and driving. So rather than arrest people for drinking and driving, following the same mindset, the government should provide hotel rooms for anyone who has been drinking; or at the very least, free transportation. You are comparing apples and oranges. A more accurate comparison would be driving under the influence of alcohol versus driving while high on heroin. Both are still illegal and enforced in the same manner. This isn't changing. Another more logical comparison is the legality of drinking versus the legality of other drugs and why there is a difference. But comparing driving drunk versus harm reduction efforts for heroin addicts just is not the same thing. Edited September 30, 2011 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.