I don't get Liberals sometimes

[gc1765]

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.

How would you feel if the government made crack legal and charged tax on it (just like cigarettes)?

[Charles Anthony]

How would you feel if the government made crack legal and charged tax on it (just like cigarettes)?

I would feel happy and sad (just like with cigarettes).

Crack should be decriminalized but not taxed (only because I do not think anything should be taxed).

So... does that make me a Liberal or a Conservative??

[lost&outofcontrol]

...

Would the death penalty prevent murder, damn right it would...

During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty.

Link

[BubberMiley]

How would you feel if the government made crack legal and charged tax on it (just like cigarettes)?

I would feel happy and sad (just like with cigarettes).

Crack should be decriminalized but not taxed (only because I do not think anything should be taxed).

So... does that make me a Liberal or a Conservative??

Neither

[geoffrey]

Harm-reduction is a big load of bologna. What harm is reduced when someone is prevented from having a life because of an addiction, one now possibly encouraged and provided by the government? There should be no solution other than removing drugs like cocaine, meth and heroin from our society, completely. Telling people it's safe to use in certain areas is completely misleading. It's not like a junkie can hold a job or pay rent, these are harms and they aren't being addressed by 'safe-injection' sites.

Riverwind, I think it was, suggested a treatment program where you get to choose to be treated, or sent to jail. It's the only solution to the filth on our streets and the burden on our welfare/health system. Allowing people to destroy themselves and providing the means to do isn't moral or even reasonable.

I would also like to see dealers of hard drugs get life sentences for the murder they cause with their products. If a company knowingly produced a car that killed most of it's users, it would be held liable and the executives would spend decades in jail. Why do crack, meth and heroin dealers spend mere months?

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, I think it was, suggested a treatment program where you get to choose to be treated, or sent to jail.

What really scares me is many of those addicts would choose jail over treatment - if that is the case then jail is the best place for them.

What really drives me nuts are the drug addicted advocates that seem to have endless energy when it comes to lobbying politicians for programs yet are not willing to deal with their own addiction problems. They would probably be clean and sober today if they spent their time attending NA/AA meetings instead of chasing politicians and media.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[August1991]

1) Fetuses are not people, so aborting them is up to whoever happens to be carrying one.

Wow, that's an impressive approach to ethical questions. Let me see if I can apply it to other situations.

People in war zones are not civilians, so killing them is an acceptable part of war.

Stealing from big box corporate stores is not theft, so it's alright to do it.

Politicians are not ordinary citizens, so criminal law doesn't apply to them.

Figleaf and August1991 are not legitimate posters, so banning them is up to whoever happens to be moderator.

This is cool. We'll just redefine words and then presto! No ethical problem anymore!

[kimmy]

1) Fetuses are not people, so aborting them is up to whoever happens to be carrying one.

This is cool. We'll just redefine words and then presto! No ethical problem anymore!

Where did he redefine anything? Where does it say that fetuses are people? Is it written down somewhere? Is that the law of the land, or just August's opinion?

Is there an official definition of fetus that implies personhood, or definition of personhood which indisputably includes fetus?

Does the Supreme Court of Canada say fetuses are people? The fact that the Supreme Court has affirmed the legality of abortion kind of suggests that the "fetuses are people" argument has been weighed and rejected, doesn't it?

Perhaps August, and not Figleaf, is the one who is redefining words?

-k

[Figleaf]

ll

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Black Dog]

Harm-reduction is a big load of bologna. What harm is reduced when someone is prevented from having a life because of an addiction, one now possibly encouraged and provided by the government?

Harm reduction means you help people manage their addiction and get treatment for it. It means not having to nick car stereos to buy dope from some shady type who may have laced it with laxative or drain cleaner. It means not overdosing in an alley. It means not sharing needles with other junkies and thus spreading HIV or hepatitis.

There should be no solution other than removing drugs like cocaine, meth and heroin from our society, completely.

Not possible. There never has been and never will be a drug free society.

Telling people it's safe to use in certain areas is completely misleading. It's not like a junkie can hold a job or pay rent, these are harms and they aren't being addressed by 'safe-injection' sites.

You're wrong. If some people are unable to quit using drugs, both users and society at large benefit if these users are able to switch from "black market" drugs of indeterminate quality, purity and potency to legal drugs obtained from physicians, pharmacies and other legal channels. The risks of overdoses and other medical complications decline; the motivation and need for addicts to commit crimes to support their habits drops; addicts are able to access drug treatment and other services, and are more able and likely to stabilize their lives and become productive citizens.

Riverwind, I think it was, suggested a treatment program where you get to choose to be treated, or sent to jail. It's the only solution to the filth on our streets and the burden on our welfare/health system. Allowing people to destroy themselves and providing the means to do isn't moral or even reasonable.

You're missing the point. The basic idea is this: you can't stop people from doing drugs, but you can moderate the damage they do.

I would also like to see dealers of hard drugs get life sentences for the murder they cause with their products. If a company knowingly produced a car that killed most of it's users, it would be held liable and the executives would spend decades in jail. Why do crack, meth and heroin dealers spend mere months?

It should be noted that even countries with strict, draconian anti-drug measures can't stop drugs.

China's drugs boom

RW:

What really drives me nuts are the drug addicted advocates that seem to have endless energy when it comes to lobbying politicians for programs yet are not willing to deal with their own addiction problems. They would probably be clean and sober today if they spent their time attending NA/AA meetings instead of chasing politicians and media.

Uh, not everyone who supports reforming our drug policies is an addict or even a user.

[Riverwind]

Uh, not everyone who supports reforming our drug policies is an addict or even a user.

I never said that. However, there are some drug addicted activists that show up in the local Vancouver media all of the time and choose to spend a lot of energy trying to get politicians to enable their habit instead of trying to clean up.

BTW: I do know a number of people who are in recovery from drug/alcohol additions and they are are all opposed gov't enabling the use of drugs through "harm reduction". They think it is counter productive and will simply ensure that it will take some people longer before they hit bottom. My anecdotal evidence is not science but I am inclined to put more weight on the opinion of recovering drug users with years of clean time than the opinion of a well intentioned non-drug user/social activist.

[Black Dog]

I never said that. However, there are some drug addicted activists that show up in the local Vancouver media all of the time and choose to spend a lot of energy trying to get politicians to enable their habit instead of trying to clean up.

Gee, kinda shoots down the idea that drug addicts can't be productive members of society.

BTW: I do know a number of people who are in recovery from drug/alcohol additions and they are are all opposed gov't enabling the use of drugs through "harm reduction". They think it is counter productive and will simply ensure that it will take some people longer before they hit bottom. My anecdotal evidence is not science but I am inclined to put more weight on the opinion of recovering drug users with years of clean time than the opinion of a well intentioned non-drug user/social activist.

How about actual science? And the only way to gather data is to try soem of these ideas out. So far, the results have been promising, but more study is needed before we can get a clear picture of whether or not it works. Way I see it is, we've been doing the prohibition thing for a long time and it doesn't seem to be working. It's time to try something else and if that doesn't work, well, we can bang people up in jail again.

[betsy]

Oh well, just heard at the CBC radio hourly news, cops all over the country are urging the government to withdraw its support for this injection site in BC. Apparently there's a deadline....and a cop rep said the public does not know the whole picture.

[Riverwind]

Gee, kinda shoots down the idea that drug addicts can't be productive members of society.

News flash - the overwhelming majority of drug addicts don't need safe injection centers because they can shoot up in the privacy of their suburban homes. The people that use these clinics are in the final stages of their disease.

How about actual science? And the only way to gather data is to try soem of these ideas out.

Don't pick up the first drink or drug and you won't get drunk or high. That is a scientifically proven way to control the disease of addiction. If someone relapses they need support to _stop_ using with detox facilities and treatment centers. The last thing they need a socially sanctioned place to continue using. I would be willing to support these sites if I believed that they help reduce the number of addicts in society. Unfortunately, for every street level drug addict that they help there are likely 5 suburban drug addicts that have one less reason to clean up because they think the gov't will take of them if things get too out of control. That kind of thinking sounds rediculous to non-addicted people but it is the kind of thinking that allows otherwise intelligent, capable people to continue with a path that leads to self-destruction.

[Black Dog]

Oh well, just heard at the CBC radio hourly news, cops all over the country are urging the government to withdraw its support for this injection site in BC. Apparently there's a deadline....and a cop rep said the public does not know the whole picture.

Yeah, you can trust the cops to speak honestly about the war on drugs....not.

News flash - the overwhelming majority of drug addicts don't need safe injection centers because they can shoot up in the privacy of their suburban homes. The people that use these clinics are in the final stages of their disease.

Izzat so? Cite?

Don't pick up the first drink or drug and you won't get drunk or high.

"Just Say No" just worked so well, didn't it?

If someone relapses they need support to _stop_ using with detox facilities and treatment centers. The last thing they need a socially sanctioned place to continue using.

You seem to think SIRs are the modern equivilant of an opium den. Or perhaps a legalized crack house. We're talking about medical facilities here with trained staff, not a bloody heroin dispensaery.

I would be willing to support these sites if I believed that they help reduce the number of addicts in society. Unfortunately, for every street level drug addict that they help there are likely 5 suburban drug addicts that have one less reason to clean up

Well why don't you give it a chance to see if it works before jumping to the conclusion that it won't? Here's another question: these suburban addicts you're talking about: I assume they are people who aren't suffering the ill effects of their addiction yet and are still productive members of society. IOW, these aren't the people SIRs are targeted at. It's not intended as a panacea; the point is to go after the specific problem of public drug use and its various side effects. Complaining that an SIR doesn't help suburban drug users is like complaining that the polio vaccine doesn't do a thing for your cold.

[Riverwind]

News flash - the overwhelming majority of drug addicts don't need safe injection centers because they can shoot up in the privacy of their suburban homes. The people that use these clinics are in the final stages of their disease.

Izzat so? Cite?

http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/tcenter/t...tish%20Columbia

Call any of these centers up and ask them what percentage of their clientele are drug addicts (80%+) and what percentage are 'street level' addicts (likely 10-30% depending on the center). These centers cost money so that excludes many people living on the street but we are still talking about 100s of suburban drug users going through treatment each year in BC (the link I provided does not have all of the centers in BC). In other words, the number of suburban drug users is as signficant as the number of users living on the downtown eastside.

"Just Say No" just worked so well, didn't it?

Works better than "Don't worry, Be Happy".

It's not intended as a panacea; the point is to go after the specific problem of public drug use and its various side effects. Complaining that an SIR doesn't help suburban drug users is like complaining that the polio vaccine doesn't do a thing for your cold.

What you are missing is the suburban drug users today are the ones that will become the street level addicts tomorrow. To use your anology a SIR is like a polio vaccine that actually induces polio in people that would not have otherwise contracted the disease. MY bigger concern is this debate over the SIRs actually takes resources away from what is really needed: on demand detox + treatment.

[betsy]

Just on the CTV Newsnet today:

A city in Quebec (Montreal I think), is cracking down on the squatters in public places, such as parks. They're no longer allowed to stay overnight. Most of these squatters are drug addicts.

The problem is, they don't want to to go to shelters for the night....because they're not allowed to bring in booze and their drugs. So an addict who was being interviewd said: "so we stay roaming the streets and some end up doing some types of crimes."

Talk about manipulation! I guess that should be our cue to stop and listen, huh? These injection sites should then be transformed into motels for druggies!

Then on another news, the drug advocates criticizing the cops for suggesting that the money should be spent on treatment instead of encourageing the abuse: "what's the point of having treatment if the addicts are dying off on the street at a faster rate?"

I say, let them die off then!

Who knows....it might be part of the "rush"....the "thrill" to play a russian roulette with your drugs of choice. We have no right to deny them that, do we? They've got the right to do as they please!

[yam]

Vallium anybody?

[August1991]

Where does it say that fetuses are people? Is it written down somewhere?

Where does it say that fetuses are not people?

Is there an official definition of fetus that implies personhood, or definition of personhood which indisputably includes fetus?

Does the Supreme Court of Canada say fetuses are people?

Oh, that solves the problem. We'll just defer to a panel of nine experts for all our moral questions. If they say it's OK, then we can go on our merry way. (BTW, just because an act is legal does not mean it is moral.)

-----

It is fallacious (and potentially horrific) to solve a moral question by redefining words. The Nazis justified the holocaust by arguing that Jews were not people. Slavery was justified because blacks were not considered human.

This does not mean that I am against abortion. On the contrary. I merely think that the question of abortion should be approached in a different way than the lazy solution of saying "a fetus is not a person".

[yam]

. . . . some link up the debate to life after birth say if the child is severely handicapped etc.

Trouble is all of these issues are circular. Perhaps there is no definitive conclusion concerning the rights and wrongs . . . of moral issues. Life would be much simpler if there was. But then we'd all run the risk of stagnation in our capacity to progress.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Black Dog]

Call any of these centers up and ask them what percentage of their clientele are drug addicts (80%+) and what percentage are 'street level' addicts (likely 10-30% depending on the center). These centers cost money so that excludes many people living on the street but we are still talking about 100s of suburban drug users going through treatment each year in BC (the link I provided does not have all of the centers in BC). In other words, the number of suburban drug users is as signficant as the number of users living on the downtown eastside.

And which group is more of a problem group for HIV/AIDS, Hep C, crime, overdoses etc.?

Works better than "Don't worry, Be Happy".

And who's saying that? No one.

What you are missing is the suburban drug users today are the ones that will become the street level addicts tomorrow.

Which is why SIRs are just part of a comprehensive drug strategy.

Supervised injection sites (SISs) are an immediate harm-reduction measure – the first in a number of steps that need to be taken to build an integrated system of care that has the capacity to address a range of drug addiction issues. Vancouver has moved ahead with harm reduction and the SIS to help prevent the ongoing spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and drug overdoses and deaths in the city. SISs function as an important first point of contact for marginalized drug users who cannot be reached by health care providers through traditional means.

SIS FAQ

To use your anology a SIR is like a polio vaccine that actually induces polio in people that would not have otherwise contracted the disease.

So now you're saying that SIRs actually create street addicts? Evidence?

MY bigger concern is this debate over the SIRs actually takes resources away from what is really needed: on demand detox + treatment

Again: evidence?