B.C.'s 'safe supply' drugs being sold by organized crime across Canada: RCMP

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Cite.

Why? it's not like you care if the people live or die, as long as you get to do your social experiments. So you're going to be unhappy either way.

I mean  the whole OP is a cite. We have MORE deaths than we used to but now we're paying for drug crime gangs to sell drugs to kids.  That's objectively worse.  So - your cite was right at the beginning and you still didn't care about it.

 

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why?

Because it's the way educated people do this.

[herbie]

You're arguing with hard core Can'tservatives.

If you can't solve 100% of the problem in one move, you're stupid to take the first step.
I mean they're playing the "Why try harm reduction" when it doesn't 100^ solve the addiction problem song? And have no alternative to even suggest.

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, herbie said:

You're arguing with hard core Can'tservatives.

Well, certainly the one who speaks the loudest for them around here. He's done wonders to differentiate the hard-boiled dingbats from ordinary conservatives . I hope he's putting his talents to work as one of Poilievre's team.

He's like the Katie Britt or Marjorie Taylor Green of the forum. 

[herbie]

Look more deeply at the number that share that philosophy.

Vaccines weren't 100% effective 100% of the time so they must be no good at all.
EVs don't solve 100% of climate change so it's no good.
Carbon tax didn't eliminate 100% of CO2 already, it's useless
Dental & Pharmacare didn't cover everything for everyone all at once, it's a bad idea
etc. etc. etc. etc.

Can'tservatives that find the pettiest items pushed as reasons that 'prove' their Negative Nellie core values. Progress is just bad no matter how slowly it happens.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, herbie said:

Look more deeply at the number that share that philosophy.

I know and I think your last comment is the more fundamental philosophy they share.

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

Progress is just bad no matter how slowly it happens.

Maybe the sheer mindlessness of the arguments you've listed will give people pause to consider. It seems it might be if the number of rational conservatives being cancelled as woke lefties in this forum and elsewhere these days is anything to go by.

The surreal nature of it all is even giving lefties cause to pause.

Take me for example, I'm feeling more like this when it comes to my incredulity at the right-wing's response to Putin.

[herbie]

When anything stubbornly clings to tradition for no other reason than to cling to tradition it's condemned as woke. No matter how wrong it might be. The original meaning of woke has been trashed by overuse into anything they don't like.

The premise of this thread is that a product available in location A is being sold by some people in location B, so therefore it is a bad idea and should be ended. No logical alternative like suggesting stricter controls on who can obtain it, just condemnation of the practice as an overall failure.
 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Because it's the way educated people do this.

Yes but you're the one asking so again - why?

Again - the entire article originally posted is a cite.

Do you have anything to refute it? Are deaths ACTUALLY going down? Are they not selling the drugs? Anything?

 

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, certainly the one who speaks the loudest for them around here. He's done wonders to differentiate the hard-boiled dingbats from ordinary conservatives . I hope he's putting his talents to work as one of Poilievre's team.

He's like the Katie Britt or Marjorie Taylor Green of the forum. 

So you can't refute ANY of the claims teh article makes and somehow once again its my fault   ROFLMAO

I see you've conveined a meeting of the "cdnfox made me cry" club to help you through the embarrassment  

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Look more deeply at the number that share that philosophy.

Ok.

The numbers say - deaths are up.  Substantially.

The numbers say expenses are also up  with no results.

The numbers also say the crime gangs are selling massive amounts of drugs WE paid for to young people, so addictions are going up.

 

Did you have a number that will somehow magically turn this into a GOOD idea?

No? Just pissed that yet another left wing woke program has failed?  Fair enough  

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes but you're the one asking so again - why?

Again, because you've refused to post a cite that says harsher laws and punishment are a better option - why?

Quote

Again - the entire article originally posted is a cite.

The cite in your OP doesn't say a single thing about harsher laws and punishment being a better option.  What it says is;  “It might mean how we regulate our safe supply might need a sober second glance.”  I suggested, quite soberly I might add, the tried and true Liquor Control Board model.

Your cite also underscores a conclusion I pointed out; Some of the recipients of the safe supply narcotics are apparently not satisfied with the government’s products. These folks want to see Keith Richards endorsement on the label.

Sorry Katie but your article does the very opposite of what you intended...it actually substantiates what I'm saying.  

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Again, because you've refused to post a cite that says harsher laws and punishment are a better option - why?

I posted one that shows that relaxing the law made things worse - which is the same thing  Sorry if you coudln't comprehend that

Meanwhile you've posted nothing at all.  Why?

Quote

The cite in your OP doesn't say a single thing about harsher laws and punishment being a better option. 

They show that the relaxed laws and no punishment is a much worse option. If that's worse - the other is better.

Sorry - i realize this involves logic,

But here you go if you want more:

https://www.nber.org/digest/jan02/favorable-effects-imprisoning-drug-offenders

Annual expenditures of approximately $10 billion on drug incarceration almost pay for themselves through reductions in health care costs and lost productivity attributable to illegal drug use, even ignoring any crime reductions associated with such incarceration.

Eyeball - how do you see this ending for you? You already look like a  total loser trying to defend a program that has clearly utterly failed. You haven't posted a single thing to show that bc's program is actually producing any long term results or reducing costs or cutting deaths.

ANd the reason for that is  it hasn't.

You don't give a shit about dead drug addicts. You just care about the virtue signalling.

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Again, because you've refused to post a cite that says harsher laws and punishment are a better option - why?

 

What a liar.  My original one is fine.

Again - you don't give a shit about dead addicts, you ONLY care about your tribe's virtue signalling. Kind of disgusting there big guy.

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Meanwhile you've posted nothing at all.  Why?

Because you provided the cite that did the job in your OP.

 

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But here you go if you want more:

https://www.nber.org/digest/jan02/favorable-effects-imprisoning-drug-offenders

The authors stress that their figures are speculative and may not include other relevant costs and benefits. They also do not explore other, potentially more effective ways of reducing drug usage rather than incarceration.

Hmm 🤔 

 

[CdnFox]

Quote

Because you provided the cite that did the job in your OP.

I know -the OP proved that the previous method of punishment was better.  But - that's MY argument. I think you got confused.

 

 

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The authors stress that their figures are speculative and may not include other relevant costs and benefits.

 

So? I gave you a real world example already right here at home.

So now you're just sealioning.  ANd havn't provided anything

 

As usual - you don't give a shit about people dying, you only care about protecting your echo chamber ad virtue signalling.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The numbers say - deaths are up.  Substantially.

So we have a discussion about A not being the cause of B so you reply that it's the cause of C. By picking a random statistic and claiming a causal relationship without being able to show one.
You're welcome to explain to us just how safe drugs to prevent deaths cause more deaths.

[Legato]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

So we have a discussion about A not being the cause of B so you reply that it's the cause of C. By picking a random statistic and claiming a causal relationship without being able to show one.
You're welcome to explain to us just how safe drugs to prevent deaths cause more deaths.

That's already extensively explained in some of the above posts. Go and read them.

Or are you just wanting to foment a result that fits your twisted reality.

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

the OP proved that the previous method of punishment was better.  But - that's MY argument.

It did no such thing at all - your cite doesn't even contain the word punishment you silly twat.

[herbie]

8 minutes ago, Legato said:

That's already extensively explained in some of the above posts. Go and read them.

It is not explained whatsoever it is merely claimed as if it was fact repeatedly.

Post a link of one single death from safe supply use and that would be a start. One single overdose death at a safe injection site.

Edited March 10, 2024 by herbie

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

It did no such thing at all - your cite doesn't even contain the word punishment you silly twat.

It does.  If you learn how to read and comprehend it won't be a problem for you to see it.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

It is not explained whatsoever it is merely claimed as if it was fact repeatedly.

Post a link of one single death from safe supply use and that would be a start. One single overdose death at a safe injection site.

The link above notes that the drugs are being sold to school kids.  Whether they die or not they're now becoming addicts on their own. You don't think that's harmful?

And we still have more deaths since the program started than before

Worse - it's getting methodone users to quit their treatment and go back to the addictive drugs as noted in the previous article i posted on the subject and THOSE people will ALL be at risk of dying as well. So yes - it is killing people

 

Lets take a quick look again. Deaths by overdoes have skyrocketed. They're up 20 percent since the program was fully deployed in 2022.  And this year is apperently on course to beat even last year's numbers

HOW MANY BODIES NEED TO BE PILED AT YOUR FEET BEFORE IT"S ENOUGH FOR YOU???

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It does.  If you learn how to read and comprehend it won't be a problem for you to see it.

The problem is that I speak English not whatever language you had your toaster set to translate.

The word punishment isn't in your cite no matter how hard you try to conjure it into existence.

My god you're so pathetic it's pathetic.

[Legato]

11 hours ago, herbie said:

It is not explained whatsoever it is merely claimed as if it was fact repeatedly.

Post a link of one single death from safe supply use and that would be a start. One single overdose death at a safe injection site.

The links are in the preceding posts, go take a look. That is if your bias lets you. Probably not.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

The problem is that I speak English

Too bad you can't read it. Although i think your general comprehension issues are probably the bigger hindrance.

Safe supply has failed. Utterly. There's no redeeming elements to it that have been put forward. It was substantially better the way it was before and the way it was before was enforcement and rehab. So lets go with MORE enforcement and MORE rehab.

Unless you don't give a shit about druggies dying and living miserable lives and only care about virtue signalling. Then safe supply works fine.

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Safe supply has failed. Utterly.

It seems to work just fine down at the liquor store.

[herbie]

It's not surprising that people who can't do basic math get confused by stats. Even to the point of claiming the stats for A 'proves' they're for B.

Harm reduction, stoopid. When they're using safe supply those ones don't die from fentanyl. So they aren't part of the deaths from it, it prevented some deaths. And what you dimwits can't seem to understand is that:
A -  hardly anybody has access to safe supply. Like fewer people have access to safe supply than the number dying from unsafe drugs.
B- It is one step of Four Pillars policy
You can't rehabilitate dead people.

Or jail them. Do you have the slightest clue how many people that died from overdose just got out of jail and overdosed because they were clean? HINT" it's more than a handful

Edited March 10, 2024 by herbie

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

It's not surprising that people who can't do basic math get confused by stats. Even to the point of claiming the stats for A 'proves' they're for B.

That wouldn't be statistical math. That would be equations.  But - as you say you're easily confused.
 

Quote

Harm reduction, stoopid.

Yes, harm reduction is stupid. ugh uhg.  Why do you talk like that?

Well more accurately it's stupid when it doesn't work

What we're talking about here is harm acceleration.  All the harm of regular methods but with twice the criminal drug selling.

Quote

When they're using safe supply those ones don't die from fentanyl

But they don't use safe supply and they ARE dying of fentynal.  They SELL their 'safe supply' to buy fentynal. Deaths are way up.

Quote

.So they aren't part of the deaths from it, it prevented some deaths. And what you dimwits can't seem to understand is that:

But they are part of the deaths from it and that's the problem.

They get safe drugs. But they WANT dangerous drugs like fentynal. So they sell the safe drugs and buy the dangerous drugs. And then they die.  Meanwhile kids are buying the 'safe' drugs and using them.  Which means more addicts, more harm. more ruined lives and more death.

 

As you say - it's hard for folks with little minds like yours to get your heads around it. But at the end of the day you're killig people. This is a failed experiment that needs to stop before it does any more harm.