Canadians fed up with government's soft on crime and drugs approach

[blackbird]

The solution to the opioid crisis is not free drugs for everyone who wants them.

The solution is a spiritual one because drugs, like many things, is a spiritual problem.

"The Bible itself is the most valuable source of help in facing the problem of drugs in our lives. It really can be a good life if we want it to be despite all the problems it presents. 2 Peter 1:3 tells us that God hath given us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness"."

In my years of working with drug dependents and alcoholics, I have developed a set of guidelines which I stress to each one and which I try to live by myself. I know that these things can help if you will use them in your life as you face the temptation to use drugs or misuse your life in any way.

Think Positive: Life is not dull. Everything that is fun is not a no no. You can enjoy life and feel good about it by using the Word of God as your guideline. A negative attitude can destroy you, but tell yourself you can do whatever you set your mind to, including being drug free. If you are not sure of yourself, you are in trouble.

Fill Your Life With Joy: Don't go around with your chin dragging the ground. Hold your head up with enthusiasm. Don't let life drag you down.

Get Involved: You get out of anything exactly what you put into it. If you are not willing to sacrifice, don't expect life to be a rose garden. That's why religion is dull to some people, they don't put anything in it.

Discipline Yourself: Bring your body in subjection. Control your own life. Don't allow a chemical to rule you.

Be your own person not a reactor to others.

Handle everything with prayer.

By applying these guidelines to your life you won't need drugs. If you have any doubts about the right or wrong of drug abuse, answer these questions honestly.

Are you always asking others opinions about it?

Do you feel guilty when you do it?

Can you thank God for the privilege of doing it?

It's your life, no one can force you to do anything against your will. Do you really want to use drugs or do you want the good life? It's up to you."

Drugs and the Bible: E, Shrooms, Cocaine, Crack, Marijuana

It is not far off to believe that the enemy of mankind would like to turn as many people as possible into drug addicts.

Edited June 16, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not sure if you are serious and really believe that or just playing the Devil's advocate.

"4. Illicit drugs destroy the body and are condemned: 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19.

5. Illicit drugs are condemned because its fruit is rotten. Matthew 7:17ff. Frequent drug users are losers with messed up lives constantly shooting themselves in the foot. Eventual loss of family, wealth, jobs, friends and life itself. Drug users are associated with biker gangs, going to bars, immoral sexual activity, illegal activity. Successful people do not use drugs. Take a look at the people who use drugs and line them up with people who do not... big difference! Look at the lives of 5 people you know who use drugs. Generally they have many chums, but few close friends, high rate of changing jobs and are often unemployed, are absentee parents who party all night while their teens are left home unsupervised, are irrational in their logic and thinking pattern being plagued with poor judgement. They have many sexual partners, are often unfaithful to their spouses and are violent and irrational with their children. They tend to be selfish and unable to exercise self control in any area of their lives. When confronted with such facts, they simply deny the truth and accuse you of being crazy, when in fact they are the crazy ones. They are hurting and unhappy but they don't know why... just as the Bible says:

Proverbs 4:18 perfectly describes the difference between drug users and Christians who do not: "But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, That shines brighter and brighter until the full day. The way of the wicked is like darkness; They do not know over what they stumble."

6. Drug use is outright condemned in the Bible: Gal 5:20."

Drugs and the Bible: E, Shrooms, Cocaine, Crack, Marijuana

 

Thank you for your comments.  The Bible doesn't matter.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

The Bible doesn't matter.

"

The Bible claims to be the Word of God and proves it.

The Bible consistently claims to be the word of the one and only true God (Genesis 1:1; Revelation 22:20-21). From beginning to end, prophets appear in its pages claiming to speak the word of God. They not only make this claim, but they offer multiple miracles to their listeners and multiple prophecies to their readers to back up what they are saying is from God. The miracles they do are clearly in the category of what only God can do. They create life from non-life (Exodus 8:19) and raise the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24). They include predictions hundreds of years in advance (Daniel 9:25-27). Such signs are unmistakable from the true God. Such miracles and prophecies are used to back up the spoken and written word from the prophets (see Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Jesus and Paul). The true God would never allow real miracle or prophecy to be done through a false teacher or false religion. So, the religion that contains true miracles is the true religion. This is what separates Christianity from other religions and their books.

The Bible is historically accurate about Jesus’s life, death and resurrection.

We know the Bible is historically accurate because it was faithfully copied from the originals and the content, what it says occurred, happened much of which can be verified. The number of hand-written manuscripts is more than enough to establish a text that is faithful to the originals. These manuscripts show a direct line very close to the time the originals were written and the vast numbers (over 5,000) allows experts to compare them and come to the most reliable reading. It is a true saying, that if we are to doubt the text of the Bible, we must throw out all the works of antiquity as well.

Unlike other religious books, the Bible provides a strong link between its history and truth claims. This includes historical details such as dates, places, and people in that period (see especially the Gospels and Acts) not easily fabricated. It reveals embarrassing episodes which show authenticity since they are unlikely to be made up (see Peters’ denial of Jesus). It provides descriptions and explanations of historical events acknowledged by former enemies writing independently (see Paul’s letters that affirm many events recorded in the Gospels) and non-biblical writers (that support the basic outline of Christianity). The Bible provides historical facts such as the claim of Jesus to be God, his death on a cross, an empty tomb, the changed lives of the disciples who testified under the threat of death that they saw, spoke and ate with the bodily risen Jesus. All this can only adequately be explained by the greatest miracle of all: God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

The Bible is true because the Son of God teaches that (John 17:17).

I believe the Bible is authoritative because: 1) The God of the Bible exists. 2) Miracles and prophecy offer an unmistakable sign of a true message from God. 3) The Bible is historically accurate concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And finally, 4) Jesus who is God in the flesh taught that the prophets spoke and wrote God’s word (Luke 24:44) and promised this same prophetic ministry for his immediate disciples and prophets (John 14:16-17). Hence, the Bible alone, as acknowledged by a former persecutor of believers, is the only authoritative written record inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).

In short, I believe the Bible because people can reason to God and about Jesus being the risen Savior. The Bible has the authority of the true God, as taught by His one and only Son, and therefore cannot be broken (John 10:35).

So, this Christmas, as we celebrate the truth of God with Us, Emmanuel, let us remember that our hope and salvation which began with the birth of Jesus, and culminating in His resurrection, is a confident hope and sure salvation. It is revealed in the true and inerrant written Word of God and grounded in the love and grace of the Unchangeable God."

Why Believe the Bible? - Southern Evangelical Seminary (ses.edu)

Edited June 16, 2023 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

"Safe supply' Sounds good but it doesn't work.  They're seeing that now in vncouver, where it's actually making the problems worse.

Many medical professionals are speaking out against it with specific data and evidence and also noting that there's a serious effort to silence them. The national post did a huge expose on the problme but many others are reporting it too.

It was a lofty idea but it just doesn't work.

https://archive.ph/8WdxE

Drug fail: The Liberal government's 'safer supply' is fuelling a new crisisw opioid crisis

According to a number of addiction physicians, a significant portion of the safer supply drugs being freely distributed through government-funded programs are not actually being consumed by their intended recipients. Instead, these drugs are being sold on the black market at rock-bottom prices, typically to fund the ongoing purchase of illicit fentanyl. Safer supply programs do not curb the fentanyl market — they subsidize it.

Edited June 16, 2023 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

According to a number of addiction physicians, a significant portion of the safer supply drugs being freely distributed through government-funded programs are not actually being consumed by their intended recipients. Instead, these drugs are being sold on the black market at rock-bottom prices, typically to fund the ongoing purchase of illicit fentanyl. Safer supply programs do not curb the fentanyl market — they subsidize it.

Well, you do have to give people the drugs they want, fentanyl is safe enough if it comes in proper doses.  Of course it stands to reason the government can't supply drugs any more competently than it can stop them. 

Oh well, I guess this is how things will end, incompetently.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Well, you do have to give people the drugs they want, fentanyl is safe enough if it comes in proper doses.  Of course it stands to reason the government can't supply drugs any more competently than it can stop them.

So your argument is as long as the gov't gives people highly addictive drugs that are fatal if taken in the wrong doses that we can trust these people who are drug addicts and frequently criminals to make the right choice and not take more than they should and the problem will go away.

I think that may turn out to be optimistic.

 

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So your argument is as long as the gov't gives people highly addictive drugs that are fatal if taken in the wrong doses that we can trust these people who are drug addicts and frequently criminals to make the right choice and not take more than they should and the problem will go away.

I think that may turn out to be optimistic.

 

No, I'm simply saying that nothing the government does will work. I'm very pessimistic. I mean I understand the point of having a government but I just don't think it makes any difference.  In addition to its natural incompetence there's just too many people who also want it to fail.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, I'm simply saying that nothing the government does will work.

Ahh.  well then you're right and i misunderstood and my bad.

Quote

I'm very pessimistic. I mean I understand the point of having a government but I just don't think it makes any difference.  In addition to its natural incompetence there's just too many people who also want it to fail.

True. A camel is a horse designed by a gov't.

That's why many modern conservatives border on being almost libertarian in their views, believing the smaller the gov't is the better it is and that it should focus on those things that ONLY a gov't CAN do, like military and diplomatic ties etc.

I don't know if that's being "pessimistic" on your part.  I think that's an unnecessarily derogatory term these days.  I think the saying SHOULD be "A Peessimist thinks the glass is half empty, an optimist thinks it's half full.  A realist keeps half of his water in a redundant glass offsite,"

[SpankyMcFarland]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

I am not sure if you are serious and really believe that or just playing the Devil's advocate.

"4. Illicit drugs destroy the body and are condemned: 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19

You wouldn’t be forced to take drugs yourself, and making something legal doesn’t mean we necessarily approve of it. What we would be trying to do here is reduce harm for drug users and society in general. 

[TreeBeard]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Illicit drugs are condemned because its fruit is rotten.

We will make them not illicit, then the passage doesn’t apply.  

[Legato]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

So what IS reasonable? Do tell us.

I mean what would a Judge know about law & justice anyway? You're already comfortable with political leaders shooting off their mouth with populist trash like Trump instead of acting like a responsible leader.

What has Trump got to do, got to do with it

That name is just a second hand emotion.

[eyeball]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So your argument is as long as the gov't gives people highly addictive drugs that are fatal if taken in the wrong doses that we can trust these people who are drug addicts and frequently criminals to make the right choice and not take more than they should and the problem will go away.

I think that may turn out to be optimistic.

 

Just because these people are addicts doesn't mean they're stupid or don't want to keep living.  Is the government supplying then with the drugs the addicts want or the drugs that the government prefer they use? I suspect it's the latter which is why the safe idea is failing.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Just because these people are addicts doesn't mean they're stupid or don't want to keep living.  Is the government supplying then with the drugs the addicts want or the drugs that the government prefer they use? I suspect it's the latter which is why the safe idea is failing.

We did this comment already didn't we?

It DOES mean they're not responsible or dependable.  And the current overdose death rate is more than enough proof that whether they want to live or not they're not taking it seriously.

If the gov't gives them one thing, teh bad guys will just bring out another drug they prefer. Then the addicts sell the gov't issue drugs to others and take the dangerous street drugs.

the bad guys aren't going away just because the gov't decided to compete.

The strategy isn't working - and it's costing a lot of money for nothing.

[blackbird]

NDP (Socialist/progressive) ideology is a deadly ideology that will not save lives.  It will do the opposite.  The NDP ideology is a humanist ideology based on the belief that if people are given free drugs, they will somehow want to quit and seek rehab.  This is not necessarily the case.  I understand there are lots of people who believe giving people whatever they want will help to solve their problem but this is unlikely to be the case.  People who take drugs don't think straight.  If they were thinking straight they would not be taking drugs in the first place.  Drugs affect the mind and just make their thinking worse.  Many of them are only interested in where they are going to get their next fix.

[antiwoke]

Bill c 75 and bill c5 aim to lower black and indigenous incarceration rates. This is the government's priority over health and safety. The government intentionally places violent perpetrators of serious crime in the name of wokeness. 

 

They also don't want to order people with serious mental health issues to be hospitalized out of " care and compassion". As a result, Canada has become Zombieland with stabbing deaths common place.

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

NDP (Socialist/progressive) ideology is a deadly ideology that will not save lives.  It will do the opposite.  The NDP ideology is a humanist ideology based on the belief that if people are given free drugs, they will somehow want to quit and seek rehab.  This is not necessarily the case.  I understand there are lots of people who believe giving people whatever they want will help to solve their problem but this is unlikely to be the case.  People who take drugs don't think straight.  If they were thinking straight they would not be taking drugs in the first place.  Drugs affect the mind and just make their thinking worse.  Many of them are only interested in where they are going to get their next fix.

Free drugs = less property crimes and more police and emergency resources that can go elsewhere.  
 

Why does a crackhead need to steal your purse if they get the drugs for free? 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Free drugs = less property crimes and more police and emergency resources that can go elsewhere.  
 

But they don't .  As we've seen, that situation actually gets worse

Quote

Why does a crackhead need to steal your purse if they get the drugs for free? 

Because they sold those drugs cheap and want better drugs.

[herbie]

Listen you Bible thumping turds, you know diddly squat about drug addiction or medicine.
All you do know is that criminalization hasn't worked for over 100 years of trying and yet it's ALL you can believe in. I suppose you actually believe you can make people rehab because you say they must as well. Allowing these adulterated street drugs to kill thousands every month is ok because providing safer alternatives is unethical according to your perverted version of Christianity?

Well is liberal leftist NDP Progressive demon worshippers are trying something different that's worked elsewhere. Maybe you're prepared to lose your own kids and friends 'just because they're bad people' but some of us aren't so simple minded.

[herbie]

4 hours ago, Legato said:

What has Trump got to do, got to do with it

That name is just a second hand emotion.

Because that's who's style he is copying. Incessant distraction to gut issues and zero actual platform. Populist appeals to the disgruntled, the uneducated, the fundamentalists.

Just in case you can't see that.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

Listen you Bible thumping turds, you know diddly squat about drug addiction or medicine.

Oh thank god, a medical expert is here   

Quote

All you do know is that criminalization hasn't worked for over 100 years of trying and yet it's ALL you can believe in. I suppose you actually believe you can make people rehab because you say they must as well.

We know decriminalization is killing them just as fast.  Soooo

Quote

Allowing these adulterated street drugs to kill thousands every month is ok because providing safer alternatives is unethical according to your perverted version of Christianity?

They're getting free drugs and killing themselves in record numbers. How is that MORE moral?

Quote

Well is liberal leftist NDP Progressive demon worshippers are trying something different that's worked elsewhere.

But it isn't working here. It's making things worse.

Why are you denying the science?

[blackbird]

23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Free drugs = less property crimes and more police and emergency resources that can go elsewhere.  
 

Why does a crackhead need to steal your purse if they get the drugs for free? 

Free drugs is not reducing crime or overdose deaths.  The claim that it will is a myth.  I am not sure of the reason, but giving free drugs out to people is not the answer.   Free drugs don't solve anything.  People need to quit taking drugs.  That's all there is to it.  But they need to be willing to quit.  Nobody can be forced to quit.

Edited June 16, 2023 by blackbird

[I am Groot]

19 hours ago, herbie said:

So what IS reasonable? Do tell us.

I mean what would a Judge know about law & justice anyway? You're already comfortable with political leaders shooting off their mouth with populist trash like Trump instead of acting like a responsible leader.

What WOULD a judge know about it? He's not hired because he knows or cares about justice, or because of his or her deep store of legal knowledge, acumen, and wisdom. Nor does a black robe grant them any particular insight into the human condition. They're appointed because they're ideologically similar to the government, of the proper geographical location, are bilingual, and preferably have some kind of ethnic or gender background that lets the government brag about its inclusiveness.

None of that suggests the people being appointed are even particularly intelligent, much less have good judgment. They got through law school? Okay, but any halfway intelligent person with a decent memory can read and regurgitate what they've seen. It's literally not rocket science.

Judges have proven more and more as the years advance that the sentences they hand out have little correlation with justice, safety of the public, or what the public believes suits the crimes. I think that ability should be removed from them and handed over to the juries. Or at least that the judge and jury have to consult and agree on the sentence.

[I am Groot]

12 minutes ago, herbie said:

Because that's who's style he is copying. Incessant distraction to gut issues and zero actual platform. Populist appeals to the disgruntled, the uneducated, the fundamentalists.

Just in case you can't see that.

Is that not a mirror of Trudeau's style over substance governing? Not to mention his electioneering. Virtue signal, make grand statements but don't actually do much to fulfill anything you've promised, Distract, divide, get people angry over this or that. Hey, we need to raise gun control again! That's always good to teach that rabble out in the countryside that us liberal arts grads in the cities are in charge! And will someone please find me some transgender people to put on the supreme court!?

[herbie]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We know decriminalization is killing them just as fast.  Soooo

Proof you don't know shit, buddy.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They're getting free drugs and killing themselves in record numbers. How is that MORE moral?

Very few people are getting "free drugs" and of course overdoses are still going up, They just seized umpteen TONS of fentanyl, meaning the missed a lot more. Perhaps if they all got only the 'free drugs' you IMAGINE are rampant and OD's still went up your remark would be valid. They don't so it isn't.

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why are you denying the science?

Why are you claiming your scaremongering bullshit is science?

[I am Groot]

25 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Free drugs = less property crimes and more police and emergency resources that can go elsewhere.  
 

Why does a crackhead need to steal your purse if they get the drugs for free? 

Free food, too. And free housing. How about a free car? I mean, it's only monopoly money, after all. We can just print more.

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You wouldn’t be forced to take drugs yourself, and making something legal doesn’t mean we necessarily approve of it. What we would be trying to do here is reduce harm for drug users and society in general. 

We've been doing our best to 'reduce harm' to addicts for decades and all that's gotten us is more addicts and more crime and more filth in the streets.