[QUOTE]This week the Harper government, and the largely Conservative-appointed Senate, will effectively drive a nail into the coffins of thousands of Canadians living with addiction by passing legislation that will block the establishment of supervised injection facilities like Vancouver’s Insite.
Bill C-2, the ill-named Respect for Communities Act, which is likely to pass third reading in the Senate imminently, changes section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Canada’s blanket prohibition on drugs. It establishes 26 new requirements applicants must meet before the feds will even consider an approval to operate a supervised injection facility. These requirements are unwarranted and will be, in many cases, impossible to satisfy.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/06/01/tory-bill-a-death-sentence-for-drug-users.html?fb_ref=Default[/url]
This is seriously disgusting. I lost an uncle to hard drugs because he didn't have access to what he needed, so I suppose he decided it would be easier to kill himself than to die from withdrawal. I don't know how these politicians can call themselves Christians and Catholics when they do disgusting shit like this.
Addictions are medical problems that are genetic and physically effecting on the user. The fact they are going to close stuff like this down is fucking disgusting. It lacks common-sense regarding drug problems, and lacks any willingness to find alternatives for problems that come from drug addiction.
And this bill will also be a nail in the coffin for the Conservatives in the election too. But there's already a whole bunch more ensuring the coffin's kept shut.
At this rate even though I'm not a fan of them even an NDP government would be good enough just to get Harper off the top. Too bad Trudeau's siding with Harper on topics like C-51.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;47872669]there's already a whole bunch more ensuring the coffin's kept shut.
[/QUOTE]
Not with first past the post. we may end up with 30% voting NDP, 30% voting liberal, 5% voting green, and 35% voting conservative, and despite 65% of people voting left, the right wins.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they remain the largest party in power.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;47872718]Not with first past the post. we may end up with 30% voting NDP, 30% voting liberal, 5% voting green, and 35% voting conservative, and despite 65% of people voting left, the right wins.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they remain the largest party in power.[/QUOTE]
I sincerely hope not, I'm sick of this popularity contest style of government and elections that we have. We the people need to make the changes happen, one way or another.
The Supreme Court already upheld the constitutional right of drug users to have access to these facilities. The Conservative Party is knowingly passing an illegal law that will do nothing but waste taxpayer money until the Supreme Court rules on this issue again and strikes down the law.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;47872669]And this bill will also be a nail in the coffin for the Conservatives in the election too. But there's already a whole bunch more ensuring the coffin's kept shut.
At this rate even though I'm not a fan of them even an NDP government would be good enough just to get Harper off the top. Too bad Trudeau's siding with Harper on topics like C-51.[/QUOTE]
No, this is going to bolster support in Harper's base who sees drug users as a drain on society and thinks they should all be locked up. This bill will only anger people who weren't going to vote for Harper in the first place. This adds no nails since it doesn't rile his base, unlike C-51.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47873094]The Supreme Court already upheld the constitutional right of drug users to have access to these facilities. The Conservative Party is knowingly passing an illegal law that will do nothing but waste taxpayer money until the Supreme Court rules on this issue again and strikes down the law.[/QUOTE]
This. and even if they somehow managed to pass the law I doubt the city of Vancouver would do anything about it. we have 80+ illegal marijuana dispensaries and the police/politicians literally don't care
Are we going to address the fact that maybe a lot of people are addicted because they made a stupid decision too?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874643]Are we going to address the fact that maybe a lot of people are addicted because they made a stupid decision too?[/QUOTE]
Of course it's a stupid decision, it was stupid for my uncle to do it in the first place and end up that way. But these people don't deserve to die for such a stupid reason.
[QUOTE=Tophat;47874674]Of course it's a stupid decision, it was a stupid for my uncle to do it in the first place and end up that way. But these people don't deserve to die for such a stupid reason.[/QUOTE]
Why does it mean that tax money should be put towards allowing him to feed his addiction?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874700]Why does it mean that tax money should be put towards allowing him to feed his addiction?[/QUOTE]
It's tax money being put towards keeping him from dying from withdrawal symptoms.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47874744]It's tax money being put towards keeping him from dying from withdrawal symptoms.[/QUOTE]
My question remains. Just because a person's stupid decision has put their life at risk does not mean that official intervention is required.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874700]Why does it mean that tax money should be put towards allowing him to feed his addiction?[/QUOTE]
Besides the obvious "not letting a human being die" of course, its been shown that these facilities reduce the spread of diseases and of drug related deaths.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874762]My question remains. Just because a person's stupid decision has put their life at risk does not mean that official intervention is required.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to play the devil's advocate or are you just an asshole?
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47874770]Besides the obvious "not letting a human being die" of course, its been shown that these facilities reduce the spread of diseases and of drug related deaths.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure giving away free stuff would reduce burglaries too, the question is not so simple as keeping people from dying right now, the question is what our stance on drug use should be.
Injection centers, while keeping a portion of an already tiny amount of deaths from occurring, encourage normalization of drug use. This brings it into the public sphere and out of a more hidden underworld., where it should stay
If people do not have to fear the immediate effects of drug use or a negative social stigma attached to it, what reason is there to not use drugs (from a personal perspective)?
Harper is complete trash, since he was elected he's done nothing but cause a 60 billion dollar deficit and passing bills and laws that cause damage to the people who live here and the environment around them. I really don't see why someone would vote for him at this point, there isn't even an argument for conservative values because he's a reformist.
I'd love to see a healthier government after the upcoming election
[QUOTE=flamehead5;47874830]Harper is complete trash, since he was elected he's done nothing but cause a 60 billion dollar deficit and passing bills and laws that cause damage to the people who live here and the environment around them. I really don't see why someone would vote for him at this point, there isn't even an argument for conservative values because he's a reformist.
I'd love to see a healthier government after the upcoming election[/QUOTE]
It seems like in my experience the more certain it is that the conservative party has fucked up too hard to get elected, the more likely they are to get elected. It happened here in America, it happened in the UK, and it will happen in Canada.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874762]My question remains. Just because a person's stupid decision has put their life at risk does not mean that official intervention is required.[/QUOTE]
Huh yes it does? Are you serious right now? If a human life is at risk it's the government's job to help them, mistake or not, it's why we got shit like Hospitals and Fire Departments.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874829]I'm sure giving away free stuff would reduce burglaries too, the question is not so simple as keeping people from dying right now, the question is what our stance on drug use should be.
Injection centers, while keeping a portion of an already tiny amount of deaths from occurring, encourage normalization of drug use. This brings it into the public sphere and out of a more hidden underworld., where it should stay
If people do not have to fear the immediate effects of drug use or a negative social stigma attached to it, what reason is there to not use drugs (from a personal perspective)?[/QUOTE]
Except that doesn't happen at all? Smokers and alcoholics also get help when they need and the rate of both has been going down, especially smoking.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47874864]Huh yes it does? Are you serious right now? If a human life is at risk it's the government's job to help them, mistake or not, it's why we got shit like Hospitals and Fire Departments.[/QUOTE]
The state has a clear interest in keeping physical infrastructure from being destroyed and otherwise competent people from dying.
The state does not have a clear interest in helping drug addicts stay addicted.
[QUOTE]Except that doesn't happen at all? Smokers and alcoholics also get help when they need and the rate of both has been going down, especially smoking.[/QUOTE]
What state organizations are currently helping smokers and alcoholics? It strikes me as odd that the government would pour money into programs to ween people off of drugs that they tax.
bIgFaTwOrM12, you do realize that at the clinics they're not always giving away the stuff for free right? It is cheaper than the street prices, but it's still kind of costly, at least from what I've heard from a methadone user in BC.
[QUOTE=Tophat;47874952]bIgFaTwOrM12, you do realize that at the clinics they're not always giving away the stuff for free right? It is cheaper than the street prices, but it's still kind of costly, at least from what I've heard from a methadone user in BC.[/QUOTE]
It's still a publicly funded establishment with public staff working in it. I was not aware that certain clinics charged addicts for drug-related paraphernalia, though that makes little difference unless it can be established that the revenue can counter-act the effects of normalizing drug use in one's society.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874918]The state has a clear interest in keeping physical infrastructure from being destroyed and otherwise competent people from dying.
The state does not have a clear interest in helping drug addicts stay addicted.
What state organizations are currently helping smokers and alcoholics? It strikes me as odd that the government would pour money into programs to ween people off of drugs that they tax.[/QUOTE]
people will shoot up, clinic or no clinic. the difference is, clinics make for more people getting remission instead of dying. we have the money, we have the resources, we're ethically obligated to do something
[QUOTE=masterbateman;47874969]people will shoot up, clinic or no clinic. the difference is, clinics make for more people getting remission instead of dying. we have the money, we have the resources, we're ethically obligated to do something[/QUOTE]
Why should the state be interested in this in the presence of potentially larger problems that affect more of the population? Just because we can does not mean we are morally obligated to do so.
[QUOTE=The golden;47874989]It's federal law in US and Canada that medical emergencies cannot be turned away from getting treatment.
This isn't about "helping addicts get their hit" it's about providing them with supervision and care should anything go wrong. Like it or not these people are going to shoot up regardless if these facilities exist so the point is to try and save lives if possible. OD'ing (on the nastier shit) is pretty serious and can very easily be fatal if untreated. With these facilities they can get that treatment and actually live to see the next day if something goes horribly wrong.
Do you think their lives are worth less and are not worth saving or something? Every other medical emergency center will provide treatment no matter what, even to dangerous criminals. It's the law.[/QUOTE]
When you put it that way you could consider using a chainsaw a medical emergency as the user could potentially require medical assistance if something goes wrong.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874918]The state has a clear interest in keeping physical infrastructure from being destroyed and otherwise competent people from dying[/QUOTE]
Implying drug users are incompetent?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874918]What state organizations are currently helping smokers and alcoholics? It strikes me as odd that the government would pour money into programs to ween people off of drugs that they tax.[/QUOTE]
The point of what I said was that helping these people does not increase the rate, doesn't matter if it's a government program or not.
Also:
[quote]The state does not have a clear interest in helping drug addicts stay addicted.[/quote]
[quote]It strikes me as odd that the government would pour money into programs to ween people off of drugs that they tax.[/QUOTE]
Kinda contradicting yourself here?
The state has no interest in keeping drug addicts addicted yet they wouldn't pour money into a program to keep people off drugs that they tax? The later sentence implying that the state DOES have an interest in keeping people addicted?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874965]It's still a publicly funded establishment with public staff working in it. I was not aware that certain clinics charged addicts for drug-related paraphernalia, though that makes little difference unless it can be established that the revenue can counter-act the effects of normalizing drug use in one's society.[/QUOTE]
It's a publicly funded establishment that has provably lowered addiction rates in addition to the rates of HIV due to dirty needles
The net gain for society, and for the economy, (a lifetime of HIV is expensive) is positive
I don't think you realize these aren't just junkies you find in a corner of the street, these are also people that work just like everyone else. The only difference is that they go to this center to get a shot every day instead of doing it themselves.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47875008]Implying drug users are incompetent?[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that most drug addicts lead perfectly normal productive lives?
[QUOTE]The point of what I said was that helping these people does not increase the rate, doesn't matter if it's a government program or not.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how removing the physical and social consequences of drug addiction will keep people from getting addicted. Generally when you make a behaviour easier, more people will engage in it.
[QUOTE]Kinda contradicting yourself here?
The state has no interest in keeping drug addicts addicted yet they wouldn't pour money into a program to keep people off drugs that they tax? The later sentence implying that the state DOES have an interest in keeping people addicted?[/QUOTE]
Just re-read what you said, my mistake. Most people who buy alcohol are probably not alcoholics, as for smoking, that is an example of where the state profits off of addiction. While a problem, smokers are probably a lot more productive than say, heroin addicts.
[editline]blah[/editline]
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47875027]I don't think you realize these aren't just junkies you find in a corner of the street, these are also people that work just like everyone else. The only difference is that they go to this center to get a shot every day instead of doing it themselves.[/QUOTE]
What percentage do "junkies" make up of drug addicts then?
[QUOTE=The golden;47875037]You are basically putting "worth" to human lives and caring only for cold hard numbers. It's fucking disturbing.
Where is your goddamn human empathy.[/QUOTE]
My interest is in upholding a certain cultural standard of morality by discouraging destructive behaviour and dealing with human vice in the most productive way possible.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47875058]My interest is in upholding a certain cultural standard of morality by discouraging destructive behaviour and dealing with human vice in the most productive way possible.[/QUOTE]
As cold as you're being, I can see where you're coming from. You want the laws of nature to be enforced in a "survival of the fittest" sort of manner, right? Well there's a lot of problems with that, given the nature of present human society, if we were to do everything with that mindset, I suppose we'd kill off the elderly too right? I mean they're pretty much incompetent and useless by your standards, same with people who have mental and physical disorders, etc? You're really making a lot of assumptions without seeming to have observed and understood society and culture.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
