Fixing What Harper Broke: A to-do list

[cybercoma]

Are you seriously arguing that a large number of women who spend their time trolling for johns on street corner are willing and able to hold a regular job? I am pretty sure the ones that work for escort services would be fine but they are not in the "at risk" category which will be supposedly helped by legalizing brothels.

You haven't read much about this issue if you think that escorts aren't at risk. I suggest reading the accounts of the women from the hearings. They're public record.

[cybercoma]

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/legally-mandated-treatment-effective

No study. No soources, just an American government website proclaiming that it works. I'm sure they might be right, but I'd like to see some credible research on the topic. The US government has an interest in maintaining the "war on drugs."

[Smallc]

No study. No soources, just an American government website proclaiming that it works. I'm sure they might be right, but I'd like to see some credible research on the topic. The US government has an interest in maintaining the "war on drugs."

I have no interest in the war on drugs. I do have an interest in people bettering their lives. Generally, unless people have to do something, they won't do it.

[Smallc]

http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/addiction-treatment/mandatory-treatment-work/

[webc5]

A lot of people clueless on this subject. Nice to see people referring to "Escorts" as "Street Workers". Escorts are NOT Street Workers.

[angrypenguin]

A lot of people clueless on this subject. Nice to see people referring to "Escorts" as "Street Workers". Escorts are NOT Street Workers.

Finally.

[msj]

A lot of people clueless on this subject. Nice to see people referring to "Escorts" as "Street Workers". Escorts are NOT Street Workers.

I once had a "lady of the night" in my office as I was doing her tax return.

Me: what should I put down for your business?

LOTN: chicken farmer.

Me: chicken farmer?!?

LOTN: yeah, I raised over a thousand c*cks last year....

Bah dum.....

Edited October 31, 2015 by msj

[G Huxley]

An extensive list which reminds just how much damage Harper has done. Never forget.

[angrypenguin]

An extensive list which reminds just how much damage Harper has done. Never forget.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I don't know much about sex industry but I see that there are some people even worse than me lacking knowledge so just to clarify there are different categories of sex workers.

Escorts, mostly high class sex workers and working on line some having guards and drivers regretfully some with pimps too. They are coming from same category of life as any other female in this country. Some of them work for agencies and some are independents. Those with agencies receive room and protection in exchange for large portion of their income.

Masseuses - Although officially they provide massage but most of them provide sex or sexual activities as well and they work in massage parlous and a minority work out of private houses or condos.

Nude dancers mostly classified as entertainers rather than sex workers..

Street walkers - work on streets and were the target of LE before bill C-36. They are mostly drug addicts and with pimps and come from abusive families or run away.

Bill C-36 endangers all above categories for the reasons I explained in details in my previous posts (except maybe nude dancers if they remain as club dancers only). The Harper regime and his injustice minister forced this bill abusing their majority in a manipulative manner that they usually did everything since they took over this country and the reason was political gains that is to satisfy their core religious support without any consideration for the safety of tens of thousands of the citizens. Now that we have a democratic caring government of Justin Trudeau this bill must be repealed and replaced by another bill which would decriminalize the industry and regulate prostitution (the New Zealand model is favored by those in industry) in order to protect our fellow citizens.

Edited October 31, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[socialist]

An extensive list which reminds just how much damage Harper has done. Never forget.

A bad treaty like TPP rigs the terms of trade to favor the bankers and the globalists. Open borders favor the Chamber of Crony Capitalists and screws the citizen. Free trade would work, but we haven't seen free trade since 1913.

[cybercoma]

I have no interest in the war on drugs. I do have an interest in people bettering their lives. Generally, unless people have to do something, they won't do it.

That's nice, but my post was about the source of the information. Do you know what studies they're referring to there? Because there are absolutely no references there.

[cybercoma]

http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/addiction-treatment/mandatory-treatment-work/

Again, it's self referential. The people enforcing the mandatory treatment programs are presenting arguments about why they should continue doing that. It's a better source, but it doesn't refer to any independent peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of mandatory treatment.

I'll see what I can find when I get a moment because I want to know if my assumptions about mandatory treatment are wrong, but I don't find these sources you've provided to be credible nor do they have the kind of depth and rigour that I would expect from a study on the subject.

[cybercoma]

I have no interest in the war on drugs. I do have an interest in people bettering their lives. Generally, unless people have to do something, they won't do it.

There's evidence that drug treatment courts work, which I don't dispute. These are courts that provide people with an opportunity to get clean, as opposed to sending them to jail. Essentially, they're still treating drug use as a crime but focusing on getting drug users the healthcare that they need. That's fine. I don't dispute that. If the choices are strictly a) go to jail or go into mandatory rehab, then of course I support the latter.

My argument, however, was about the difference in success rates between mandatory and voluntary drug treatment. The courts and state/federal US governments are of course going to say that mandatory treatment is effective because it is when you're comparing it to the alternative of throwing people in prisons flooded with drugs and drug offenders.

In this study from 2002, they interviewed 415 people in treatment programs and categorized them in groups based on their own perceived reasons for entering treatment. Those groups were:

Financial and Social Coercion: These people did not want to go into treatment, but were forced due to negative pressure from non-family relationships or financial situations.

Financial: These folks were not necessarily in treatment against their will, but were there to improve their financial situations.

Legal Coercion: These people were in treatment exclusively because they were mandated to be there by the legal system. This is the dimension of treatment were talking about here when we say court ordered treatment. This is also the group of people I'm talking about when I assumed that mandatory treatment is ineffective. For these folks, they're not entering the treatment programs from court with the perception that they actually want treatment, but they're entering it against their will. There is another group of people who are not coerced by the courts, but offered treatment and they take it. This would be the group (as well as others who enter treatment on their own or by choice) that I'm comparing mandatory treatment against, as opposed to the links that you provided which compare all participants of court ordered treatment against those who go to jail.

Medical/Psychiatric: These people choose to enter treatment for mental and physical well-being.

Family: These people enter the problem because of their family due to either positive pressure (because they care about their families) or negative pressure (because their family forced them into treatment).

The study goes on to show that those who entered treatment due to coercive social pressure and severe financial problems were the most successful in their programs, not those who were forced into treatment by the legal system. This is likely because the former "hit rock bottom," as they say, while forcing someone into treatment before they see the need to change their life is not as effective. In fact, the poorest outcomes, as reported by the therapists themselves, were from those court ordered into therapy. This may be due to therapist bias against those involved in the criminal justice system, but this study did not delve further into that, since it would be a topic of a full study on its own.

Anyway, this is what I mean. I don't think we can make a blanket statement about court-ordered therapy. It seems to be less effective than voluntary therapy, even though it's more effective to end recidivism than simply throwing drug users in jail, isolating and punishing them, then hoping that they somehow learn their lesson out of thin air.

Edited October 31, 2015 by cybercoma

[ReeferMadness]

The study goes on to show that those who entered treatment due to coercive social pressure and severe financial problems were the most successful in their programs, not those who were forced into treatment by the legal system. This is likely because the former "hit rock bottom," as they say, while forcing someone into treatment before they see the need to change their life is not as effective. In fact, the poorest outcomes, as reported by the therapists themselves, were from those court ordered into therapy. This may be due to therapist bias against those involved in the criminal justice system, but this study did not delve further into that, since it would be a topic of a full study on its own.

Anyway, this is what I mean. I don't think we can make a blanket statement about court-ordered therapy. It seems to be less effective than voluntary therapy, even though it's more effective to end recidivism than simply throwing drug users in jail, isolating and punishing them, then hoping that they somehow learn their lesson out of thin air.

I'm of the view that it would be both cheaper and more humane to simply give drugs to addicts at supervised safe injection sites. Fewer people would be stealing to support habits and you would drain funding from organized crime. Addicts will find their own motivation for turning their lives around (or not) and drug courts or jails won't affect that.

[The_Squid]

I'm of the view that it would be both cheaper and more humane to simply give drugs to addicts at supervised safe injection sites. Fewer people would be stealing to support habits and you would drain funding from organized crime. Addicts will find their own motivation for turning their lives around (or not) and drug courts or jails won't affect that.

I agree. Harm reduction is the way to go. Keep them from having to steal or prostitute themselves for drugs. It would be cheaper in the long run with less money spent on hospitals, ambulances, policing and all that.

[G Huxley]

A bad treaty like TPP rigs the terms of trade to favor the bankers and the globalists. Open borders favor the Chamber of Crony Capitalists and screws the citizen. Free trade would work, but we haven't seen free trade since 1913.

Agreed.

[socialist]

Agreed.

Do you also agree with the UN dictating to Canada what should and should not be done. Watch at the Paris Climate Conference as the Canadian government slowly surrenders our sovereignty to the clowns running the global farce, better known as the United Nations.

[G Huxley]

If they tell us we need to do a better job on the environment then we should take action to do a better job.

[-TSS-]

Somerimes when I read this site I forget that Canada is a federal state where the provinces have very large powers to influence their matters. I mean these posts about how a new government in Ottawa could change Canada.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Somerimes when I read this site I forget that Canada is a federal state where the provinces have very large powers to influence their matters. I mean these posts about how a new government in Ottawa could change Canada.

The bills (C-51, C-36, .....) are in Federal jurisdictions. The past federal regime imposed them and the newly elected majority government can repeal them. Nothing to do with what provinces want as they had no say when they were forced down our throats.

Edited November 1, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

The bills (C-51, C-36, .....) are in Federal jurisdictions. The past federal regime imposed them and the newly elected majority government can repeal them. Nothing to do with what provinces want as they had no say when they were forced down our throats.

BUT WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY BACK NOW! OH THANK GOD! THANK GOD! THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, FREE AT LAST!!

[socialist]

The bills (C-51, C-36, .....) are in Federal jurisdictions. The past federal regime imposed them and the newly elected majority government can repeal them. Nothing to do with what provinces want as they had no say when they were forced down our throats.

" When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed..."

Francisco's speech excerpt, Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

[dre]

BUT WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY BACK NOW! OH THANK GOD! THANK GOD! THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, FREE AT LAST!!

Actually you thank Canadian voters for that. Not "god almighty". The policies of the Harper government were soundly rejected, and a lot of these laws SHOULD be repealed.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Actually you thank Canadian voters for that. Not "god almighty". The policies of the Harper government were soundly rejected, and a lot of these laws SHOULD be repealed.

Hear hear. Well stated comments.