"Hit the Road" Jack!

[Hollus]

I'll read your link, but before I do ...

Mabye its just my opinion, but I think its better to read the links first. That way, you have a better chance of understanding the 'piont in question' rather than reliterate what you've already said... Just my opinion though

I'll repeat for you. If these people really wanted to make a change they would use the services available to them, of which there are many. You can keep leading these horses to water, but unless they want to take a drink you'll never be able to help them. There's already plenty of services available to help these people out there, but unless they want the help and they see it through they'll keep reverting back. I say the efforts of the scientists were misdirected because there are already services available. We don't need more. Their time would best checking where the direction of thw existing system is off or why people aren't successful. I guarantee you a drink a day is not the solution. There needs to be a systemic solution, not an alcoholic one. I submit that more drugs is not the answer, rather teaching those in question how to exist without them.

Okay man, get ready... You might want to sit down, maybe hold on to somthing... Im going to purpose a radical idea... Lets say you have a group of people that are drianing our system by stressing or police force, our justice system, our hospitols, our storefronts. There's programs available for these people, but why dont they use them? Surely any right minded person can atleast keep themselves off the street right? So these people obviously are not interested in the current help thats available. Maybe instead of ignoring them and breeding an underworld that puts stress on public services in our cities, and drains our tax dollars... ...Maybe we should provide a service that reduces the amount of stress they have on public services and teaches them how to better manage their addictions, giving them a better chance of actually making self-change.

Alas, there's only so far we can go before we deem that people are beyond help. While I think that the hearts of people that propose such programs are in the right place, and their compassion is world class, they're failing to understand there's got to be a line where we stop until people willingly participate in their own rehabilitation because they want to beat whatever problems they have, not because they know there's another drink, another injection, a warm bed or a hot meal in it for them. Please understand that I am sympathetic to their plight. But I fail to see how wasting time, money and other resources on those who aren't helping themselves helps anything. For those that want to help themselves, the resources are already there. Perhaps homeless advocates should be out there fighting to make homeless people are aware of the resources at their disposal and assisting them in getting started instead of starting still more programs.

I believe you have a good hart too Hicksey(figuratively I mean). But I dont think you have an accurate understanding of what its like to be in the talons of addiction, otherwise you would understand my perspective. To give up on these people will be to give up on thousands of peoples sons, daughters, dads, moms, uncles, cousins, highschool friends,etc... Innovative approaches like the Managed Alcohol Program are what we need.

[Hicksey]

Maybe what we need isn't more programs and more spending, but rather more flexibility built into the system to respond to the changing challenges to the system.

[Hollus]

Maybe what we need isn't more programs and more spending, but rather more flexibility built into the system to respond to the changing challenges to the system.

And how do you suppose we build more flexibility into the system without more spending and programs?

But your starting to understand The Managed Alcohol Program is a perfect example of building more flexibility into the system, and its responding to the challenges as we best understand them.

[Hicksey]

Maybe what we need isn't more programs and more spending, but rather more flexibility built into the system to respond to the changing challenges to the system.

And how do you suppose we build more flexibility into the system without more spending and programs?

But your starting to understand The Managed Alcohol Program is a perfect example of building more flexibility into the system, and its responding to the challenges as we best understand them.

We need to re-examine the system and check needs at certain intervals and re-divert resources toward programs that work the best from those that aren't effective. We need to focus our resources toward the areas we can best affect meaningful results. But I think at this point, considering there are many people like me that just can't afford more taxes, we need to focus on using the resources we have more efficiently before we consider injecting further funding. I don't think a vastly underfunded and in all likeliness ineffective daycare program (Harper,Layton,Martin they're all woefully inadequate) is the answer. If we're not going to fund real solutions, we should incentive the private sector to do so and start funding real solutions.

I'm not averse to social programs if they're going to be run efficiently and they deal with the problems they're designed to solve with results. But to give us a bunch of half baked programs that in themselves solve nothing is think is counter-productive and generally wasteful.

[Spike22]

Programs that aren't productive in the federal government come on now. I think they should outsource all administration of these programs. Base the contract on performance goals and if they don't meet them penalize them and then retender the contract.

[geoffrey]

Programs that aren't productive in the federal government come on now. I think they should outsource all administration of these programs. Base the contract on performance goals and if they don't meet them penalize them and then retender the contract.

That doesn't really always work Spike, thats why we have natural monopolies. Sometimes there is just no incentive for the private sector.

[Hollus]

We need to re-examine the system and check needs at certain intervals and re-divert resources toward programs that work the best from those that aren't effective. We need to focus our resources toward the areas we can best affect meaningful results.

There you go dictating to the scientists how to do their jobs again. You said it yourself. These people know more about it than you do. So why are you still insisting that they're wrong? What areas do we need to focus on? What programs are ineffective?

But I think at this point, considering there are many people like me that just can't afford more taxes, we need to focus on using the resources we have more efficiently before we consider injecting further funding.

Who said anything about raising taxes? Not Layton. Not me either. Your right that there is fat to be trimmed, but not from the social programs and low income earners. Layton was going to repeal a fat tax break that was given to big business with no strings attached(no incentive for employment, environment, community support.)

I don't think a vastly underfunded and in all likeliness ineffective daycare program (Harper,Layton,Martin they're all woefully inadequate) is the answer. If we're not going to fund real solutions, we should incentive the private sector to do so and start funding real solutions.

Child care? Where does this come from, we've been talking about homeless.

I'm not averse to social programs if they're going to be run efficiently and they deal with the problems they're designed to solve with results. But to give us a bunch of half baked programs that in themselves solve nothing is think is counter-productive and generally wasteful.

Well good then. But what are these "half baked programs" you speak of?

[SamStranger]

I read those articles several times, and their not gonna change my opinion. "fairy tale land" I think a society that gives free booze and needles to bums is a "fairly tale land"!!! Could you imagine Germany, with their hard work ethic, ever having such a program? No... they get thier bums off the street and into work, like we should do.

[Hicksey]

We need to re-examine the system and check needs at certain intervals and re-divert resources toward programs that work the best from those that aren't effective. We need to focus our resources toward the areas we can best affect meaningful results.

There you go dictating to the scientists how to do their jobs again. You said it yourself. These people know more about it than you do. So why are you still insisting that they're wrong? What areas do we need to focus on? What programs are ineffective?

We've got lots of programs already. I am saying that before we start new ones, we need to examine the ones we have to see if they can solve the problem.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that we should look to what we have first. There may be ways to help these people already built into the system. I'm no expert, but the knee jerk reaction in this country seems always to be more and more programs instead of fixing the problems within the ones we have so they can address the problem.

But I think at this point, considering there are many people like me that just can't afford more taxes, we need to focus on using the resources we have more efficiently before we consider injecting further funding.

Who said anything about raising taxes? Not Layton. Not me either. Your right that there is fat to be trimmed, but not from the social programs and low income earners. Layton was going to repeal a fat tax break that was given to big business with no strings attached (no incentive for employment, environment, community support.)

Fancy dancing around the words tax hike. If you repeal a tax break, those people would pay more taxes, right? So, it is raising taxes.

When we tax the rich they never get affected. We do. It always filters down to the end user. Whether it be job cuts, or higher prices--we lose.

I don't think a vastly underfunded and in all likeliness ineffective daycare program (Harper,Layton,Martin they're all woefully inadequate) is the answer. If we're not going to fund real solutions, we should incentive the private sector to do so and start funding real solutions.

Child care? Where does this come from, we've been talking about homeless.

Its an example of a new, not well thought out social program. I talked about real solutions because I believe, fundamentally, that giving more drugs to an abuser is never a good idea. I know that's not fact, but having seen drugs destroy families and friendships close to me I have come to the opinion that no drugs is the best solution.

I'm not averse to social programs if they're going to be run efficiently and they deal with the problems they're designed to solve with results. But to give us a bunch of half baked programs that in themselves solve nothing is think is counter-productive and generally wasteful.

Well good then. But what are these "half baked programs" you speak of?

General welfare. Its become a vocation. I've lived in a geared to income unit as a market renter and seen people on welfare, getting their rent geared to their income that were better off than I was working. That system breeds abuse. Its just not right that people on welfare can be rewarded for sitting on their butts and doing better than working people. Its not about them having more than me. I don't necessarily care what they have. I care about my paycheck going to pay so they can have a better life on welfare than I do working. Its outright wrong. It seems that people that try to help themselves get punished while those who choose not to work get a free ride. The entitlement is such now that people aren't even ashamed to admit that they're career welfare cases. I've even had one call me a schmuck for working when I could have done better on welfare. I watch them get breaks on their utility bills, while I have to live with my thermostat at 60 degrees so I can afford my gas bills because I make too much to get that same advantage. I watch them misuse daycare so they can go to bingo when they're supposed to be out looking for a job, but I can't access the same affordable daycare because I make too much. Some days I wonder why I bother going to work, but remember that I just could not stand to be such an irresponsible person. Its against everything I stand for.

[Hollus]

Well this is obviously going nowhere You guys want to dance around the issues, and ignore the merrits to such an approach as the Managed Alcohol Program thats fine. But let me ask you this: What if these alcoholics were so desperate for alcohol, that they would stop at nothing to get it? What if they lost all sense of consciense and moral responsibility in their quest to feed their addiction? What if they were breaking in to our homes and tying up our helpless 80yr old mothers and robbing their jewelery cabnets? How would you wiegh the costs then?

[geoffrey]

Well this is obviously going nowhere You guys want to dance around the issues, and ignore the merrits to such an approach as the Managed Alcohol Program thats fine. But let me ask you this: What if these alcoholics were so desperate for alcohol, that they would stop at nothing to get it? What if they lost all sense of consciense and moral responsibility in their quest to feed their addiction? What if they were breaking in to our homes and tying up our helpless 80yr old mothers and robbing their jewelery cabnets? How would you wiegh the costs then?

With a gun.

Nah nah, I'm not Albertan I swear!

Why can they just be thrown into some rehab program?

[Hollus]

I read those articles several times, and their not gonna change my opinion. "fairy tale land" I think a society that gives free booze and needles to bums is a "fairly tale land"!!! Could you imagine Germany, with their hard work ethic, ever having such a program? No... they get thier bums off the street and into work, like we should do.

Germany!?!? Germany "get thier bums off the street and into work"? Go back to the drawing board sammy, whats your next bit of brilliant info?

"The number of homeless in Federal Republic is increasing. The number of people living on the streets, in shelters and in welfare hotels has been estimated at close to one million."http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/.../security5.html

"Just how tough is it being homeless in Germany? According to BAG, in the winter of 1996/1997, 27 people froze to death on the streets of Germany, one of the world’s most prosperous nations."

Ya lets model ourselves after Germany 'cause their making great progress Give me a break.

[Hicksey]

Well this is obviously going nowhere You guys want to dance around the issues, and ignore the merrits to such an approach as the Managed Alcohol Program thats fine. But let me ask you this: What if these alcoholics were so desperate for alcohol, that they would stop at nothing to get it? What if they lost all sense of consciense and moral responsibility in their quest to feed their addiction? What if they were breaking in to our homes and tying up our helpless 80yr old mothers and robbing their jewelery cabnets? How would you wiegh the costs then?

We weren't just talking about this one program though it was the major focus. You asked for examples of both half-baked and wasteful social programs, and I gave you them.

[Hollus]

Well this is obviously going nowhere You guys want to dance around the issues, and ignore the merrits to such an approach as the Managed Alcohol Program thats fine. But let me ask you this: What if these alcoholics were so desperate for alcohol, that they would stop at nothing to get it? What if they lost all sense of consciense and moral responsibility in their quest to feed their addiction? What if they were breaking in to our homes and tying up our helpless 80yr old mothers and robbing their jewelery cabnets? How would you wiegh the costs then?

With a gun.

Nah nah, I'm not Albertan I swear!

Why can they just be thrown into some rehab program?

The idea, geoffrey, is to give these extreme cases(the ones who have proven incapable of change through current practices) a place to hang-out and drink, under controled supervision. This is by no means a luxurious rehab program, it provides a general room for them and just enough alcohol to keep them content(like 3oz of sherry or 5 of wine each hour from like 7am to 10pm). This puts people that would otherwise be tying up or overworked policemen, public lawyers, ambulences, hospitol beds etc. in a controled environment where their health, self-estem, ambitions etc, can be cultivated. To have a location were these people can go and not have to focus all their available coherence on their day to day survival of street life, is paramount in the process of them making the decision for a better life. But even if they sit and drink for the rest of their lives, I'd prefer that over having to hire a police force to deal with the unruly, who we wont let into shelters cause they're drunk.

[BubberMiley]

It beats having guys drinking Lysol and cough syrup on your apartment doorstep.

[geoffrey]

The idea, geoffrey, is to give these extreme cases(the ones who have proven incapable of change through current practices) a place to hang-out and drink, under controled supervision. This is by no means a luxurious rehab program, it provides a general room for them and just enough alcohol to keep them content(like 3oz of sherry or 5 of wine each hour from like 7am to 10pm). This puts people that would otherwise be tying up or overworked policemen, public lawyers, ambulences, hospitol beds etc. in a controled environment where their health, self-estem, ambitions etc, can be cultivated. To have a location were these people can go and not have to focus all their available coherence on their day to day survival of street life, is paramount in the process of them making the decision for a better life. But even if they sit and drink for the rest of their lives, I'd prefer that over having to hire a police force to deal with the unruly, who we wont let into shelters cause they're drunk.

Ok I see. But I don't know if I can be ok with promoting just less of an bad thing?

If these people are actually beyond any other help, then I guess its pretty reasonable to isolate them and keep them out of trouble, as not to waste the rest of our time.

As long as its cheap wine too. Next thing ya know, someone will be saying they are entitled to a $50 bottle because thats what the rest of us drink.

[SamStranger]

You people are blinded by Jack Laytons "car commercial". The NDP does NOT produce good results. He is already contesting the GST tax cut which will help us. He is also contesting the child care allounce which helps all parents with pre school kids, not just the ones who use day care. He is gonna try to stop all the tax cuts.

In jack Laytons platform their is not ONE tax cut. In a speech he gave a few days before the election he said "harper is offering tax cuts, is that really what we want?" YES!!!! YES IT IS!!! Jack Layton has a golden spoon up his damn ass. Theirs no way he relates to the common man, because the common man hates taxes, and would love tax cuts. I really can't stand the NDP's ideology of "steal from the rich and give to the needy" (I know ive said this before... several times ) But... I really want people to see my point.

Come April when parliment starts reviewing the budget... If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.

[uOttawaMan]

You people are blinded by Jack Laytons "car commercial". The NDP does NOT produce good results. He is already contesting the GST tax cut which will help us. He is also contesting the child care allounce which helps all parents with pre school kids, not just the ones who use day care. He is gonna try to stop all the tax cuts.

In jack Laytons platform their is not ONE tax cut. In a speech he gave a few days before the election he said "harper is offering tax cuts, is that really what we want?" YES!!!! YES IT IS!!! Jack Layton has a golden spoon up his damn ass. Theirs no way he relates to the common man, because the common man hates taxes, and would love tax cuts. I really can't stand the NDP's ideology of "steal from the rich and give to the needy" (I know ive said this before... several times ) But... I really want people to see my point.

Come April when parliment starts reviewing the budget... If Layton and his democrats start slashing the tax cuts, then that is a majour sign to us that Layton does not understand what we want. Don't let that jackass win a single seat next time-- please.

Cry more...