I don't get Liberals sometimes

[Black Dog]

But the main thing is, paying for needles give a message: that you are condoning drug use.

Bullshit. It's recognizing that people are going to do drugs whether you provide them with needles or not. i'd rathe rpay to provide needles to reduce teh spread of HIV, provide clean drugs to reduce deaths from overdoses and offer counselling, rehabilitation and health care services so that people can work on addressing the problem.

Nobody is lobbying to build safe smoking joints for cigarette smokers.....who pay high taxes for their vice!

Sounds to me like you're arguing for drug legalization.

Why should I put the "health" of addicts before that of others who are contributing to society?

How much drop in crime will it be in places like Toronto...if there were no addicts?

Would you rather pay for a safe injection site to give a junkie their fix or have the same junkie rob your house for drug money?

If a person is bent on self-destructing....I think it is impractical to waste our resources concentrating on them. The resources should go where it will be most beneficial for EVERYONE! There are a lot of other programs worthy of more funding.

You've already acknowledged that drug use causes social problems. So helping drug users helps society.

[LonJowett]

When I was a kid I had junkies always hanging in the lobby of my apartment on the Plateau in Mtl. I think I would have rather there been a place for them to go rather than there.

[betsy]

Would you rather pay for a safe injection site to give a junkie their fix or have the same junkie rob your house for drug money?

So the safe injection site is also providing their drugs?

[betsy]

Nobody is lobbying to build safe smoking joints for cigarette smokers.....who pay high taxes for their vice!

Sounds to me like you're arguing for drug legalization.

No. But I'm pointing out the FRIVOLOUS way the liberals decide for what they think is for the "good of society".

[BubberMiley]

No. But I'm pointing out the FRIVOLOUS way the liberals decide for what they think is for the "good of society".

Way to turn an argument on its ear. You support criminalization of a substance to the point that you would break up families and take children away from someone who has used those substances. Then you say your opponents are imposing their morals on others and deciding things for society.

[betsy]

Way to turn an argument on its ear. You support criminalization of a substance to the point that you would break up families and take children away from someone who has used those substances.

Are you trying to tell me that you would not have any problem or concern at all about leaving your own child in the care of someone shooting up heroin or using crack?

[betsy]

No. But I'm pointing out the FRIVOLOUS way the liberals decide for what they think is for the "good of society".

Then you say your opponents are imposing their morals on others and deciding things for society.

Well, it definitely shows the grave inconsistency how the government treated the legal cigarette smokers and the illegal drug users! And I speak as a tax-paying citizen, questioning the motive and senselessness of a government who kow-towed to a lobby group.

The anti-smoking lobby group did not want any form of concessions at all! Not even separate rooms for those who smoke...even though the bar owners were willing to shoulder those extra expenses!

And as provided links showed, the same people were practically behind both campaigns!

WHY ARE THE LIBERALS SUPPORTING THE DRUG LORDS IN THEIR BUSINESS....and yet they harrassed legal business owners?

[betsy]

Way to turn an argument on its ear. You support criminalization of a substance to the point that you would break up families and take children away from someone who has used those substances.

WRONG!

Don't put words in my mouth...or try to twist what I clearly meant to say.

I never referred to reformed/rehabilitated and former drug users!

I said: "I say take the infants and children away from addicts. Help those children!"

[betsy]

Way to turn an argument on its ear. You support criminalization of a substance to the point that you would break up families and take children away from someone who has used those substances.

Sorry BubberMiley, but this is just something that's hard to pass up.

One of the most important reasons the Liberals gave for supporting universal daycares is for the security it provides the children.

I assume then that those liberals who thought that way of universal daycares will undoubtedly understand and support what I had said about children under the care of and/or living with drug addicts.

[gc1765]

Well, it definitely shows the grave inconsistency how the government treated the legal cigarette smokers and the illegal drug users! And I speak as a tax-paying citizen, questioning the motive and senselessness of a government who kow-towed to a lobby group.

I don't think many drug addicts vote, so you can't really call it giving in to a lobby group.

[BubberMiley]

Are you trying to tell me that you would not have any problem or concern at all about leaving your own child in the care of someone shooting up heroin or using crack?

Are you trying to tell me that not leaving your own child in the care of someone is the same as breaking up a family?

I'm pointing out the FRIVOLOUS way the liberals decide for what they think is for the "good of society".

If you think safe injection sites are frivolous, why do you care that they exist?

Well, it definitely shows the grave inconsistency how the government treated the legal cigarette smokers and the illegal drug users!

Like how a person who engages in tobacco use is free to do it in their own home (and even in the same room as their children, potentially killing them with second-hand smoke) without punishment, despite the fact that it is dangerous and addictive, but a drug user is criminalized and persecuted, fired from their job, fined, and put in jail? Yeah, speaking as a tax-paying drug user, I agree the government is inconsistent.

The anti-smoking lobby group did not want any form of concessions at all! Not even separate rooms for those who smoke...even though the bar owners were willing to shoulder those extra expenses!

And you don't want any concessions at all, even imposing a fine for possession of small quantities of cannabis.

WHY ARE THE LIBERALS SUPPORTING THE DRUG LORDS IN THEIR BUSINESS....and yet they harrassed legal business owners?

Why are YOU SUPPORTING THE DRUG LORDS IN THEIR BUSINESS by making sure that the black market status quo is maintained so they can continue to flourish?

WRONG!

Don't put words in my mouth...or try to twist what I clearly meant to say.

I never referred to reformed/rehabilitated and former drug users!

I said: "I say take the infants and children away from addicts. Help those children!"

That's very generous of you. Are you calling for an army of social workers to start interviews and character checks to make sure all parents are clean?

[betsy]

I don't think many drug addicts vote, so you can't really call it giving in to a lobby group.

Can you prove that claim...that many addicts don't vote?

[betsy]

Are you trying to tell me that you would not have any problem or concern at all about leaving your own child in the care of someone shooting up heroin or using crack?

Are you trying to tell me that not leaving your own child in the care of someone is the same as breaking up a family?

I asked a straight question that requires a straight answer.

"Are you trying to tell me that you would not have any problem or concern at all about leaving your own child in the care of someone shooting up heroin or using crack?"

Yes or no.

[betsy]

Are you trying to tell me that not leaving your own child in the care of someone is the same as breaking up a family?

I'd gladly give the answer however, your question doesn't seem to make any sense.

".....not leaving your own child in the care of someone is the same as breaking up a family?"

[betsy]

If you think safe injection sites are frivolous, why do you care that they exist?

For the simple reason that it is tax-payers money that the Liberals want to spend quite FRIVOLOUSLY for this project.

If Liberal and NDP supporters will personally fund this project all the way through.....I have no beef with that. I think your money is better spent that way than donating it to those two parties.

[betsy]

Well, it definitely shows the grave inconsistency how the government treated the legal cigarette smokers and the illegal drug users!

Like how a person who engages in tobacco use is free to do it in their own home (and even in the same room as their children, potentially killing them with second-hand smoke)

Oh don't worry, somebody's already making noises about children "trapped" in smokers' homes....it's coming!

So how come no safe smoking sites for these smokers to freely light up with a coffee or drinks?

These people are paying taxes for their cigarettes. They help keep the hospitality industry robust!

The tobacco industry is shelling out dough to our economy. This vice is considered LEGAL.

Why is there no concessions made AT ALL....to try to accomodate them?

[betsy]

but a drug user is criminalized and persecuted, fired from their job, fined, and put in jail? Yeah, speaking as a tax-paying drug user, I agree the government is inconsistent.

Which surgeon will you prefer to operate on you: A cigarette smoker or a heroin/crack user?

Which teacher will you prefer to teach your child: A cigarette smoker or a heroin/crack user?

Which nurse will you prefer give you medication: A cigarette smoker or a heroin/crack user?

Which paramedic do you want to give you first aid: A cigarette smoker or a heroin/crack user?

Which 9/11 operator will you prefer to take your call: A cigarette smoker or a heroin/crack user?

Which cook back in the kitchen will you prefer to prepare your meals: A cigarette smoker or a heroin/crack user?

To be continued....

[betsy]

Like how a person who engages in tobacco use is free to do it in their own home (and even in the same room as their children, potentially killing them with second-hand smoke) without punishment, despite the fact that it is dangerous and addictive, but a drug user is criminalized and persecuted, fired from their job, fined, and put in jail? Yeah, speaking as a tax-paying drug user, I agree the government is inconsistent.

Comparing the dangers of cigarette smoking to that of heroin shooting or crack using addicts only clearly proves one thing:

That "BRAIN-LIKE-A-FRIED-EGG" adverstising on tv is definitely NOT WORKING!

Liberals don't see the grave danger of "impaired judgement", "mental collapse", "drug-induced psychosis!"

I guess when an addict goes on a "trip" and wants to see how a child flies from a high rise...that's just like getting cancer from cigarettes. IF YOU GET cancer associated with cigarettes, that is.

[betsy]

And you don't want any concessions at all, even imposing a fine for possession of small quantities of cannabis.

What, you don't call a fine a concession? Would you rather they go straight to jail instead?

The point you seem to deliberately ignore is the fact that illegal drug use is just that, ILLEGAL!

[betsy]

Why are YOU SUPPORTING THE DRUG LORDS IN THEIR BUSINESS by making sure that the black market status quo is maintained so they can continue to flourish?

Eh! That's a racist thing to say!

Are you saying only blacks deal in drugs?

[betsy]

That's very generous of you. Are you calling for an army of social workers to start interviews and character checks to make sure all parents are clean?

What does CAS do anyway?

[betsy]

That's very generous of you. Are you calling for an army of social workers to start interviews and character checks to make sure all parents are clean?

I'll bet that when the time comes that the anti-smoking zealots start going for homes....somebody is going to recommend just that!

[BubberMiley]

Oh don't worry, somebody's already making noises about children "trapped" in smokers' homes....it's coming!

That's too bad. Personally, I'm in favour of people minding their own business and being free to engage in things that give them pleasure in their own homes.

So how come no safe smoking sites for these smokers to freely light up with a coffee or drinks?

I guess because smoking creates a toxic environment that can endanger your health just by entering the room. Besides, the point of safe injection sites is to prevent the spread of disease (a public health issue that affects everyone) and to get them off the streets (and apartment lobbies, as lonjowett pointed out). This improves neighbourhoods and property values. Smokers are free to go outside or to their cars or to their homes. They don't need a designated place to smoke, and it's not in the general public's interest to give it to them as it is with an injection site.

Which surgeon will you prefer to operate on you: A cigarette smoker or a heroin/crack user?

To be continued....

I thought this was about safe injection sites? Who's doing surgery on drugs? Talk about a straw man argument.

That "BRAIN-LIKE-A-FRIED-EGG" adverstising on tv is definitely NOT WORKING!

That's because it's bullshit.

I guess when an addict goes on a "trip" and wants to see how a child flies from a high rise...that's just like getting cancer from cigarettes.

You're creating imaginary scenarios to support your argument. Who's suffering from psychosis?

The point you seem to deliberately ignore is the fact that illegal drug use is just that, ILLEGAL!

Actually, I pointed out the pure hypocricy and the problems created by making it illegal. That's not ignoring it at all.

Why are YOU SUPPORTING THE DRUG LORDS IN THEIR BUSINESS by making sure that the black market status quo is maintained so they can continue to flourish?

Eh! That's a racist thing to say!

Are you saying only blacks deal in drugs?

Either you're trying to be funny (and you usually represent those attempts with copious smiley faces) or you don't understand what you read. Don't you never wonder why the government has an interest in maintaining the current black market?

I'll bet that when the time comes that the anti-smoking zealots start going for homes....somebody is going to recommend just that!

I guess it takes a zealot to know one.

[Black Dog]

So the safe injection site is also providing their drugs?

I don't beleive it is, but I know heroin has been provided in other juridstictions experimenting with similar harm-reduction strategies.

No. But I'm pointing out the FRIVOLOUS way the liberals decide for what they think is for the "good of society".

Too bad your comparison is utterly facile. Cigarettte smokers have "safe smoking" ares. It's calle dteh home, or the street. See, smoking is legal.

Well, it definitely shows the grave inconsistency how the government treated the legal cigarette smokers and the illegal drug users! And I speak as a tax-paying citizen, questioning the motive and senselessness of a government who kow-towed to a lobby group.

I have to laugh at the absurdity of the idea that the government treats drug users better than smokers.

[gc1765]

I don't think many drug addicts vote, so you can't really call it giving in to a lobby group.

Can you prove that claim...that many addicts don't vote?

I didn't claim anything. I said I don't think many drug addicts vote. That is my opinion. I doubt anyone keeps statistics on such a thing.