Fentanyl

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,567
7,076
113
Washington DC
sorry everyone. I was drunk last might, and I posted irresponsibly. I have a headache and will never drink again.
For values of never again = 24 hours.

Good news is you were funny and didn't say anything to be embarrassed about.

It's all good. Just, for your own sake, make sure it's always you holding the bottle, and not the bottle holding you, amigo.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Being one of the few places in the country that offers free drugs and a place to use them without proof of residency will tend to do that.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,302
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
The policies on drug use are 1,000 times better than the US "War on Drugs" during the 80s and 90s.
Yeah, letting them freely kill themselves while someone gets rich is great.

Junkies create jobs. In DTES there are two paid junkie babysitters for every junkie.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Well, let them kill themselves than. The alternative is sending them to prison, where it costs Canadian taxpayers nearly $100,000/year per inmate to hold an inmate. If you enjoy having your taxes raised to cage non-violent drug offenders, then that's your prerogative, I guess.
It's been proven time and time again, that the war on drugs is ineffective, and a waste of money. Most substance abusers have underlying mental health issues. Why not attempt to treat them, so they can become productive members of society?
By the time they are addicted it is mostly too late. Brains are fried and can't be unfried. It is possible to get them unaddicted and some heroin addicts can even be productive afterwards. I don't believe there is any coming back for jibrats.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,302
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
Well, let them kill themselves than. The alternative is sending them to prison, where it costs Canadian taxpayers nearly $100,000/year per inmate to hold an inmate. If you enjoy having your taxes raised to cage non-violent drug offenders, then that's your prerogative, I guess.
It's been proven time and time again, that the war on drugs is ineffective, and a waste of money. Most substance abusers have underlying mental health issues. Why not attempt to treat them, so they can become productive members of society?
$100K in prison a year is cheaper than all the property crime, hospitals, soup kitchens, policing, and the two fulltime babysitters earning BCGEU rates to have them wander freely.

Just let the f-ckers die in the filth of their choice.
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
It's cheaper to provide homeless people with mental health and substance abuse problems (with often overlap each other) a bachelor pad, enough food for the month, a bus pass, and medication for problems, than it is to do nothing and let them fend for themselves, when one considers the cost of running shelters, EMT costs, Police interaction, incarceration, etc.
It is also beneficial to the individual who has mental health/substance issues, as they are far more likely to get treatment with a roof over their head, than being left in survival mode.
Often their medications are a large part of the problem.Some antidepressants cause suicidal tendencies. Schizophrenic meds that destroy the liver. The list is long. One of the hotels in Victoria our government squandered several million dollars for housing homeless on has had fire set in it three times that I know of. The worst is that BC is known as drug Mecca across the country because we provide free drugs without proof of residency. How much do you want to do for people that are not willing to help themselves?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
If providing them with housing, and basic necessities is cheaper on the taxpayer than to make them fend for themselves, who wouldn't be opposed to programs meant to help the must vulnerable elements of society.
True. IF it was less expensive. The housing and food alone isn't hugely expensive, but the legions of government and contracted NGOs that have made an industry out of scamming taxpayers is.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,302
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
True. IF it was less expensive. The housing and food alone isn't hugely expensive, but the legions of government and contracted NGOs that have made an industry out of scamming taxpayers is.
Property crimes costing all of on our insurance and cost of retail goods. Junkies are thieves.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,302
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
Taxes will fall. Read the three articles. This has been known for at least a decade.
Either that, or contact some social workers or city councilors from Medicine Hat.
After the gas crash the city of Medicine Fart had oodles of seized properties for homeless to occupy. They didnt have to buy or build. The exodus of people came in handy.

Next
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
If providing them with housing, and basic necessities is cheaper on the taxpayer than to make them fend for themselves, who wouldn't be opposed to programs meant to help the must vulnerable elements of society.


I gotta wonder what those numbers look like when you calculate the many years that the support will go on, let alone, the long-term health ramifications and costs related to years of substance abuse.