eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I think most of you have missed the point that in this case, what the court did was to say that NOT providing or allowing a government program for people was unconstitutional. This decisions is actually binding on the provincial government now, as well. Suppose they decided to stop funding this clinic. Well, they can't. That would be unconstitutional. The SC have, in effect, ordered government to pay for a clinic so illegal drug users can conduct their illegal habits more safely, and ordered government not to arrest them for doing so. That is patently ludicrous. They didn't say that at all. What they did do however is clearly far more threatening. The precedent that the ruling on Insite established requires that the government's policies be founded on real scientific evidence instead of the moralistic fear-based crap that Harper has been peddling. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Somehow I doubt it. Why? From what I can gather most people who live near Insite are quite supportive. Things have obviously gotten better not worse. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted October 16, 2011 Author Report Posted October 16, 2011 Why? From what I can gather most people who live near Insite are quite supportive. Things have obviously gotten better not worse. That wouldn't have anything to do with the large numbers of police which have been assigned to that area, would it? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 16, 2011 Author Report Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) They didn't say that at all. Oh yes, they very clearly did. The precedent that the ruling on Insite established requires that the government's policies be founded on real scientific evidence instead of the moralistic fear-based crap that Harper has been peddling. There was no actual scientific evidence that the clinic provides any value whatsoever to anyone anywhere. There was just some junk science submitted by ideologues of the far left. The government did a lousy job of fighting this in court. Edited October 16, 2011 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why the money isn't going into mandatory rehabilitation. Furthermore, where do we draw the line in the name of 'looking out for the health and well being of those breaking the law while they're breaking the law?' It's illegal because we define it as illegal, while it only inflicts self-harm. The illegality of it is actually the reason for related harms, such as street-level violence, theft, etc. So we make possession illegal because we want to protect people from harming themselves, presumably. Yet, when there's a program that has proven effective in mitigating the harm of shooting up in the streets and not only saving lives but putting people that wouldn't otherwise go into contact with recovery programs, you can't understand why money isn't going into those recovery programs. Figure it out. Mandatory recovery does not work. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 There was no actual scientific evidence that the clinic provides any value whatsoever to anyone anywhere.Petition your MLA or MPP to have the hospitals in your province re-use needles. It will save the province money and there isn't "any value whatsoever to anyone anywhere" in using clean medical supplies. Quote
scribblet Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I agree, I really don't support enabling drug users to use illegal products. Surely the money would be better spent on rehab and so on. Should make the drug traffickers happy I guess. I don't get why people think it's okay to enable drug users but would like to see cigarettes banned... Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why the money isn't going into mandatory rehabilitation. Furthermore, where do we draw the line in the name of 'looking out for the health and well being of those breaking the law while they're breaking the law?' You probably can't now. You should have toed that line back when you repealed the prohibition of alcohol. That said it's probably never too late to repeal the repeal and officially outlaw the sin of recreationally altering one's mind. Good luck with that, I understand humans have been doing this ever since we fell out of the trees from eating fermented fruit. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 That wouldn't have anything to do with the large numbers of police which have been assigned to that area, would it? No that's probably the result of some moralistic crap handed down from on high. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Surely the money would be better spent on rehab I keep seeing this from you guys. It's as if you're just throwing around your opinion, but don't actually have any idea whatsoever what the hell Insite does. Quote
scribblet Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I keep seeing this from you guys. It's as if you're just throwing around your opinion, but don't actually have any idea whatsoever what the hell Insite does. Insite is meant as harm reduction, but it enables drug addicts and illegal activities, detox facilities would be a better option IMO. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Insite is meant as harm reduction, but it enables drug addicts and illegal activities, detox facilities would be a better option IMO. http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/services/ Start there. Pay close attention to the parts where they underline the fact that "InSite was not designed to be a stand-alone facility." Quote
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Just out of curiosity, are you guys aware of Onsite's activities at Insite? Quote
eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I don't get why people think it's okay to enable drug users but would like to see cigarettes banned... Do you get why the repeal of prohibition and getting the state off people's back's is a good idea? What I don't get is how the state can enable the use of drugs with one hand while arresting people for using drugs with the other. It's enough to drive one to sobriety. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Mandatory recovery does not work. I repeat. Evidently it does in Portugal. Quote
scribblet Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I have read that Insite staff actually like the idea of providing addicts with pharmaceutical grade drugs, courtesy of us (tax payers) perhaps methadone would be better. However, provincial health care funds are scarce so I would object to our health care funding supporting illegal drugs by facilitating destructive illegal behaviour. and I bet many of the more incorrigible addicts who use Insite aren't interested in quitting. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Insite is meant as harm reduction, but it enables drug addicts and illegal activities, detox facilities would be a better option IMO. Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along. It would do the most good in the long run. I'm not saying leave them to die in the streets - but if it were one of my children, I'd much rather the government put time, money, and effort into rehabilitating him/her than into helping him/her illegally use. There's a lot of harm in continued use. Quote
Argus Posted October 16, 2011 Author Report Posted October 16, 2011 I keep seeing this from you guys. It's as if you're just throwing around your opinion, but don't actually have any idea whatsoever what the hell Insite does. It helps enable the illegal use of illegal drugs by criminals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 It helps enable the illegal use of illegal drugs by criminals. Well I guess the only solution to get you people who simply can't abide illegality is to legalize drugs. Would that make you go away? I suspect it would given I don't see any of you marching up and down protesting safe ingestion sites or the various liquor control acts the government uses to enable them. Why is that by the way? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Well I guess the only solution to get you people who simply can't abide illegality is to legalize drugs. Nope. The more logical solution is to have everyone abide by the laws. Why should those using Insite get a pass? What about drug users who have no such facility at their service? They're just criminally out of luck. Seems like an odd, totally unfair way to enforce the law. Would that make you go away? No more than I suspect you are about to "go away." I suspect it would given I don't see any of you marching up and down protesting safe ingestion sites or the various liquor control acts the government uses to enable them. First of all, the government doesn't provide the "safe use of liquor." There are no "free rides," literally, for those who drink and drive. I guess their "well being" isn't a priority. Yet think of the lives it would save. As for not marching, protesting against safe injection sites, some of us cannot interrupt our lives to fly to Vancouver to protest. Evidently that means we don't have a right to air our views? Why is that by the way? Quote
scribblet Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 I certainly wouldn't fly anywhere to protest, I would write my MPP and MP to voice an objection. I might go out and protest if it was in my backyard. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 Nope. The more logical solution is to have everyone abide by the laws. How do you do you propose we get everyone to buy into that? I'd suggest a consistent principled approach myself. You seemed to think earlier that simply putting certain drugs into your body was in and of itself illegal but no such law exists and it is perfectly legal for people to artificially alter their mental states. Perhaps if society first addressed this directly we'd have a better staring point from which to begin solving the problems this causes. Why should those using Insite get a pass? What about drug users who have no such facility at their service? They're just criminally out of luck. Seems like an odd, totally unfair way to enforce the law. Why should those using a bar get one? No more than I suspect you are about to "go away." My going away ins't going to change a thing. First of all, the government doesn't provide the "safe use of liquor." There are no "free rides," literally, for those who drink and drive. I guess their "well being" isn't a priority. Yet think of the lives it would save. What about all the lives that would be saved if it was illegal to use it for altering your mind? As for not marching, protesting against safe injection sites, some of us cannot interrupt our lives to fly to Vancouver to protest. Evidently that means we don't have a right to air our views? Yes but would you even have an opinion if all drug use was legal? All to often the message seems to be that it's simply illegal as if that were the end of it and no more discussion was required. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
olp1fan Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 First of all, the government doesn't provide the "safe use of liquor." There are no "free rides," literally, for those who drink and drive. I guess their "well being" isn't a priority. Yet think of the lives it would save. Americanwoman, we have a program called The rides program and every weekend they pick up drunk people and drive them home for free Quote
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 The government doesn't provide the safe use of liquor? Really? They just sell it. They are the drug dealers in that case. Irony being that you'll excuse that, but not their efforts to try to get people off drugs. Interesting. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2011 Report Posted October 16, 2011 First of all, the government doesn't provide the "safe use of liquor." There are no "free rides," literally, for those who drink and drive. I guess their "well being" isn't a priority. Yet think of the lives it would save. Americanwoman, we have a program called The rides program and every weekend they pick up drunk people and drive them home for free I can't find any information on it - do you have a link? Thanks. And is Insite just open on the weekends? Quote
.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.