Harper manipulating the scientific process

[Cliffy]

I have no issue with helping people who want help to improve.

I do have an issue with helping people who don't want to change their behaviour.

Do you really think the mentally handicapped people who are the junkies know that they have a choice? They were living in a stupor in the institutions, now they are living in a stupor on the street. I worked with mental patients. The mental health ministry is just a legal bunch of drug pushers. It is the government that got many of the junkies wired in the first place. Now they are abdicating their responsibility. Street dealers have just taken up the slack where the government left off.

Either we take proper care and responsibility for our mental patients or we screen them in the womb and abort them before birth. Which do you prefer?

 

[Unforgiven]

I see that the fact that most of the addicts down on Hastings are mental health patients that were turned out of institutions because the government didn't want the expense of taking care of them. They are easy pray for dealers and are usually already addicted to pharmaceutical drugs, which is why they can be so easily manipulated by the dealers. The health problems caused by lack of care and housing costs far more than Insite, but hey! Who cares if you can save millions in health care, you just don't want your money going to help junkies. They are the scum of the earth because you saw some news footage of some meth head stealing cars, now all junkies should be treated with a base ball bat. Talk about not thinking. There is no humanity here. It would be a lot cheaper if we just overdosed the whole lot of them and got it over with. This is a society worth fighting for, eh!

That's the mentality. Or to cut to the chase, kill off all those who oppose us. How far behind this can Eugenics be?

 

[Unforgiven]

I have no issue with helping people who want help to improve.

I do have an issue with helping people who don't want to change their behaviour.

Part of Insite's mandate is to be there when an addict has that moment of clarity and provide the hand to help them start the long battle to become clean and sober.
As there is no way to predict when that moment will be, it's the smart play to wait and be ready for when it does.

 

[TenPenny]

Part of Insite's mandate is to be there when an addict has that moment of clarity and provide the hand to help them start the long battle to become clean and sober.
As there is no way to predict when that moment will be, it's the smart play to wait and be ready for when it does.

Well, having been the compatriot of several people with mental health issues and addictions, you can have it. After being taken advantage of and/or screwed over by multiple pretentions to wanting to clean up, I have no more patience for being taken for a sucker by someone with no intention to clean up.

You go right ahead. I'm done with it.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me seven times, **** you.

 

[Unforgiven]

Well, having been the compatriot of several people with mental health issues and addictions, you can have it. After being taken advantage of and/or screwed over by multiple pretentions to wanting to clean up, I have no more patience for being taken for a sucker by someone with no intention to clean up.

You go right ahead. I'm done with it.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me seven times, **** you.

Yeah but you don't mind that someone else tries right? No one is asking you to go and do the work, just that you get out of their way so they can get to it.

Very very few people quit smoking on their first try. No reason to punch them in the mouth and toss them in jail for a couple of weeks when they go to buy a pack of butts.

 

[CDNBear]

There is only one so far. Have you heard of East Hastings? Property values are not the first thing that comes to mind when you see it for the first time. ;-)

That's supposed to make it less relevant in other areas?

I am pretty sure he means myopic in the scense of seeing drug users as criminals only.

I'm pretty sure I knew what he meant, and just didn't care.

That only harsh punishment will cure someone of addiction and once they have been punished enough to suit a taste, they can be dumped back out on the street and expected to toe the line with their new life and all the stress of poverty, pushers making sure they are plugged back into the cycle and living in the awesomely fantastic place that East Hastings was before Insite opened.

There's always forced medication.

I think the main problem is that most people don't seem to understand the purpose of Insite.

Not true. I just don't care for the hug them ideology. I think if you want to fix people, who for the most part can't or won't fix themselves, we should just do it for them. But hey, they have civil liberties that out weigh the rest of the populations.

It's not to "cater to drug users" nor is it there to reduce the number of junkies.

Then it's just a waste of money isn't it.

It is there to reduce the overall harm that drug addiction places on society as a whole, most importantly the spread of disease. And in that respect, it is working well.

Look, if they all get sick and die, the problem is gone.

Any increase in addicts going into treatment is a bonus, and there is some of that.

Not enough to make my money well spent.

Burying our heads in the sand over drug addiction does not serve the interest of the greater public.

Putting the rights of the lowest aspect of society, over that of the rest, is not in the best interest of the greater public either.

The Balmoral hotel, the Sunrise, the Brandiz, the Regent and the Washington hotel all house hookers and deralects and those who can't manage much beyond that. It's not like the places do any sort of a tourist trade.

And your point?

Home values are affected by tons of stuff. Look at Queen St, West. While it was once an area similar to East Hastings in a number of ways, now you couldn't afford to buy a place there.

Yep, so why should we right off one area, just so some hop heads can get it on with impunity?

As for appropriate money use, :roll:.

Roll your eyes all you want. Me supplying a hop head with fresh needs, is a crime, if I were to do so on my own. So why should I pay for them and have someone else hand them out.

If you like the program, by all means, fund it out of your pocket, leave mine alone.

Sure there is. Independantly reviewed research confirms this is so.

Not for what Ton claimed there isn't.

Many over doses have been prevented and immediate life saving response when it does happen is proof of the effectiveness of Insite in reducing harm caused by IV drug addiction.

Saving an over dose victim isn't winning me over Unf. If you asked me, I'ld just stand by and watch it, play itself out.

Those self appointed bleeding hearts were the ones watching as your system of do nothing, punish those that can be caught and dump them back on the same block once they have suffered cold turkey in jail so they can return to maintaining their addiction and provide the stats and a few graphic pictures for the job of securing a larger budget.

Umm, I guess you missed my ideas on how to deal with drug users?

That method only made things worse. It was in full swing in the 70s 80s and 90s so the results are irrefutable. Now that Insite has come along, proving through research that the methods you seem to think is molly coddling, works to reduce many problems associated with IV drug use.

BS, the only problems it's fixing are the ones in that community.

It's been proved that this system works best.

For them. It doesn't solve the problem. It's a band aid at best.

Because the research says so.

No it doesn't, it shows the peripheral problem areas are diminished. The underlying cause is not being addressed.

You can't force anyone to do anything, you should know that.

You can with the barrel of a gun.

Who else?

Can.com'ers?

The health problems caused by lack of care and housing costs far more than Insite, but hey! Who cares if you can save millions in health care, you just don't want your money going to help junkies.

That's cuddling junkies, help sometimes requires tuff love or worse.

They are the scum of the earth because you saw some news footage of some meth head stealing cars, now all junkies should be treated with a base ball bat.

Talk about braindead assumptions, you should stop trying to emulate your hero Joey. You end up looking more foolish in the long run.

I was once a junkie asshat.

Talk about not thinking.

So that's what's wrong with you.

There is no humanity here.

Humanity should end when the people you seek to help, have no humanity for themselves. let alone anyone else.

It would be a lot cheaper if we just overdosed the whole lot of them and got it over with.

Now yer talking!

This is a society worth fighting for, eh!

Yep.

I have no issue with helping people who want help to improve.

I do have an issue with helping people who don't want to change their behaviour.

Bingo!

Do you really think the mentally handicapped people who are the junkies know that they have a choice?

Nope, so we should make it for them. Oh wait. You can't, saving them from a putrid life of addiction would violate their civil liberties.

They were living in a stupor in the institutions, now they are living in a stupor on the street.

So no one was helping them at any time. My plan is different.

I worked with mental patients.

I see they rubbed off on you.

The mental health ministry is just a legal bunch of drug pushers.

:roll:

It is the government that got many of the junkies wired in the first place.

:roll:

Now they are abdicating their responsibility. Street dealers have just taken up the slack where the government left off.

:roll:

People themselves hold no responsiblities at all?

:roll:

Either we take proper care and responsibility for our mental patients or we screen them in the womb and abort them before birth.

I like that idea!!!

Which do you prefer?

Your abort idea.

That's the mentality. Or to cut to the chase, kill off all those who oppose us.

BS.

How far behind this can Eugenics be?

Hopefully not far.

 

[Niflmir]

It was the summer of their first sitting when Steve's government first showed its true colors.

In the face of evidence that they would be making Canada a more dangerous place to live, to push their consevative ideology on crime, they forced a "tough on crime" amendment through parliament (by buying the help of the NDP).

Proving that Steve is more than willing to screw Canadians over in the long run, as long as he looks good in the short run.

This is just more of the same, as far as I am concerned.

 

[TenPenny]

Yeah but you don't mind that someone else tries right? No one is asking you to go and do the work, just that you get out of their way so they can get to it.

No, but you seem to want me to help pay for it.

 

[CDNBear]

It was the summer of their first sitting when Steve's government first showed its true colors.

In the face of evidence that they would be making Canada a more dangerous place to live, to push their consevative ideology on crime, they forced a "tough on crime" amendment through parliament (by buying the help of the NDP).

Proving that Steve is more than willing to screw Canadians over in the long run, as long as he looks good in the short run.

This is just more of the same, as far as I am concerned.

A politician and his party lied?

OMG say it isn't so...:roll:

 

[Niflmir]

A politician and his party lied?

OMG say it isn't so...:roll:

In your own words, "Miss the point much?"

They didn't lie. They knowingly pushed legislation through parliament that all evidence said would be harmful for the country just so they could say they were "tough on crime."

You need to type less and lurk more.

 

[CDNBear]

In your own words, "Miss the point much?"

They didn't lie. They knowingly pushed legislation through parliament that all evidence said would be harmful for the country just so they could say they were "tough on crime."

The proof is in the ad's.

You need to type less and lurk more.

You need to do some remedial reading instruction.

 

[Unforgiven]

No, but you seem to want me to help pay for it.

I help pay for you so what's wrong with you helping pay for someone else?

 

[Tonington]

That by no means is the only place Insight is attempting to open a drug den. Even the hint of one of these places, as is the case with halfway houses, the property values in the area take a hit.

It is the only supervised injection site in North America. If it is successful, I imagine that other cities may want to duplicate Insite's harm reduction methods.

So far as I'm aware, no opponents have yet shown that placing a SIR in a city area already overrun by public drug use contributes to falling property values. I'm very open to education. Do your best. ;-)

The right to have their home values not be affect by such myopic thinking. The right to have their money use appropriately.

What is so myopic about looking at a bigger picture Bear? What I have laid out is the antithesis of myopic.

Nobody is suggesting to place a SIR in a neighbourhood where there is no current drug problem, where property values would actually fall. How much good would it even do there?

There's no proof of that.

Sure there is. You only have to read the studies I linked to. If you have 600 injections in the facility per day, that is 600 fewer to take place in alleys, on street fronts, in abandoned buildings, etc. If there are 600 injections in this facility, that is 600 disposed needles, that aren't tossed aside.

:lol:, Ya ok. Like removing the OD cases and itchy bitches will aliviate that issue.

I never said it would alleviate that issue...it's the same idea as having a private clinic as well as a public clinic in one area that formerly only had the public clinic. When more people use the private clinic, the waiting times in the public clinic go down.

When drug users aren't rushed to the ER, or are even brought in sooner, then there are less medical resources tied up in treating the OD's. Which means other people waiting to get in have less time to wait...:idea:

I never said it panders to drug users.

Not in so many words. It was implicit in your message.

It panders to the self appointed bleeding hearts who think molly coddling is the best course of action.

There's that darn myopic view of yours again. The best course of action is one that gets users into treatment programs, that decreases the burden of drug addiction on our health systems and taxes, that helps stop the spread of infectious disease, and that decreases use of illicit drugs in public.

Feel good do-gooders need to stop pandering to the kneejerk cause celeb and take a good hard look at the real world. They have no clue as to where the money comes from, that's apparent by the fact that they think they can throw it any issue and make it all better. It doesn't work with Native issues, what makes you think it will work with users?

Maybe it's because this type of program isn't simply throwing money at a problem? The program Ron mentioned, giving free syringes to dealers, that is throwing money at a problem. The SIR model comes from successful application in other areas of the world, and improves upon it by offering a more clinical setting as opposed to the centres in Europe.

Like I've said all along, forced rehab, forced chemical therapy and and forced medication to keep them off.

Funny that the local law enforcement doesn't agree with you on this. First, it doesn't stop the problem without throwing gobs of money at it. :lol: Whoever heard of a department that wouldn't jump at the chance to increase their budget? LMAO.

Sometimes, some people are just to stupid to be allowed to think for themselves. Addicts fall into that category.

The sober person who recovers from addiction is nothing like the addict they were. Nobody is trying to rehabilitate them all, it's not possible. But some need help to become a law-abiding citizen. Some people, like me, believe it's a good idea to try to get them there before they do something really stupid, and end up in jail, possibly killing, stealing property, or passing on an infectious disease.

Proactive approaches have time and again, across the spectrum of society, proven their worth. It's a pragmatic philosophy.

 

[CDNBear]

It is the only supervised injection site in North America. If it is successful, I imagine that other cities may want to duplicate Insite's harm reduction methods.

I wish they would implement Cliffy's idea instead.

So far as I'm aware, no opponents have yet shown that placing a SIR in a city area already overrun by public drug use contributes to falling property values. I'm very open to education. Do your best. ;-)

You've got to be kidding?

First off, bureaucratic foresight is none existent. If you think I'm holding my breath while I await to see where they choose to put it, forget it.

What is so myopic about looking at a bigger picture Bear?

Good question Ton, so what's your answer? Mines been answered.

What I have laid out is the antithesis of myopic.

No it isn't. It's central to a single aspect of society and it's ills and infestations.

Nobody is suggesting to place a SIR in a neighbourhood where there is no current drug problem, where property values would actually fall. How much good would it even do there?

Those neighbourhoods do not have walls on them and their borders are not miles wide.

Sure there is. You only have to read the studies I linked to. If you have 600 injections in the facility per day, that is 600 fewer to take place in alleys, on street fronts, in abandoned buildings, etc. If there are 600 injections in this facility, that is 600 disposed needles, that aren't tossed aside.

:lol: And the hours of operation are? And all the junkies are there? Ummm, I think not. Not to mention, it reaches only the junkies in that area. So, by shear commonsense, how many more junkies will this attract from other areas? Thus bring a greater bad element into an already troubled area.

I never said it would alleviate that issue...it's the same idea as having a private clinic as well as a public clinic in one area that formerly only had the public clinic. When more people use the private clinic, the waiting times in the public clinic go down.

Mine and Cliffy''s idea will alleviate the problem.

When drug users aren't rushed to the ER, or are even brought in sooner, then there are less medical resources tied up in treating the OD's. Which means other people waiting to get in have less time to wait...:idea:

:roll: Ya, ok. How about we just stand by and watch the last twitch?

Not in so many words. It was implicit in your message.

No, the message is, it's a crime. Why should I pay to assist criminals commit a crime?

There's that darn myopic view of yours again. The best course of action is one that gets users into treatment programs, that decreases the burden of drug addiction on our health systems and taxes, that helps stop the spread of infectious disease, and that decreases use of illicit drugs in public.

Again, if there weren't any bleeding hearts. The problem could be irradicated in a few short years. This idea on the other hand, is a band aid.

Maybe it's because this type of program isn't simply throwing money at a problem? The program Ron mentioned, giving free syringes to dealers, that is throwing money at a problem. The SIR model comes from successful application in other areas of the world, and improves upon it by offering a more clinical setting as opposed to the centres in Europe.

That's awesome, it's still ading and abeting.

Funny that the local law enforcement doesn't agree with you on this.

Of course, centralising the addicts makes for an easier shift...:roll:

First, it doesn't stop the problem without throwing gobs of money at it. :lol: Whoever heard of a department that wouldn't jump at the chance to increase their budget? LMAO.

:lol:

The sober person who recovers from addiction is nothing like the addict they were.

Tell me about it. I'm not nearly as much fun and not nearly as violent.

Nobody is trying to rehabilitate them all, it's not possible. But some need help to become a law-abiding citizen. Some people, like me, believe it's a good idea to try to get them there before they do something really stupid, and end up in jail, possibly killing, stealing property, or passing on an infectious disease.

And my idea cures them all. So who's idea is better?

Proactive approaches have time and again, across the spectrum of society, proven their worth. It's a pragmatic philosophy.

That's complete BS. I'll site the violence in Toronto as my proof. Even though the province and the city have thrown money hand over fist at the troubled areas. The violence has not been stemmed. Many of the programs failed miserably, and facilities have been vandalised beyond repair.

eta: btw, I think it admirable of you none the less Ton.

 

[Tonington]

You've got to be kidding?

Absolutely not. Show me proof of declining property values in the area immediately surrounding the Insite clinic.

First off, bureaucratic foresight is none existent. If you think I'm holding my breath while I await to see where they choose to put it, forget it.

There is no waiting to see where they choose to put it. It's been operating in it's present location since 2003.

Good question Ton, so what's your answer? Mines been answered.

You haven't answered that. The only bones you've made are about falling property values (not substantiated), and red herrings about placing citizens rights under those of addicts (also not substantiated, and refuted I might add) or other logical fallacies like ad hominems.

The bigger picture is one which I have already detailed.

No it isn't. It's central to a single aspect of society and it's ills and infestations.

Ok...:roll: as opposed to yours which is what then, one quarter of one aspect of society and the ills and infestations?

:lol:

Those neighbourhoods do not have walls on them and their borders are not miles wide.

Yup, and when people are roaming looking to use, they cover more ground than users concentrating in a clinic in one neighbourhood known for high risk drug use, and crime.

:lol: And the hours of operation are?

10:00 to 04:00, seven days a week.

And all the junkies are there?

Nope. But they are running at near capacity every day. Consistently over 600, max capacity in one day is 648.

[/quote]Not to mention, it reaches only the junkies in that area. So, by shear commonsense, how many more junkies will this attract from other areas? Thus bring a greater bad element into an already troubled area.[/quote]

There has been no rise in drug related crime. It has remained consistent since the facility opened, with no change from the time before it opened. The links I provide aren't just to make my posts look pretty like Paradox's...

:lol:

Exactly what do you think I meant by this thread title? These issues have all been documented, and the Government under Harper is trying to overturn valid results.

Mine and Cliffy''s idea will alleviate the problem.

Well, how about something that isn't fascist? Aborting them in the womb? WTF is that?

:roll: Ya, ok. How about we just stand by and watch the last twitch?

You can do that on the street corner if you like.

No, the message is, it's a crime. Why should I pay to assist criminals commit a crime?

You should see a Doctor about the near sightedness...now follow the bouncing ball...

1. That criminal will commit the crime irrespective of whether or not a place like Insite exists.
2. Many intravenous drug users toss dirty needles, which poses a threat to public safety. Bringing them indoors, and under supervision reduces the risk.
3. Clinics like Insite that treat infections reduce the likelihood that an IV drug user can pass a communicable disease like Hep C onto an innocent victim.
4. Clinics like Insite have drugs available to treat overdoses, which reduces the burden on an already burdened public health system.

I've laid these facts out to you already. How about you tell me why you wouldn't want to reduce the risk of disease transmission, and burden on our healthcare system, on top of bringing some users off the street (to alay your concerns about property crime and property values), for something that is going to happen regardless?

What logic is there in that? As I've already said, the VPD sees the point...

Again, if there weren't any bleeding hearts. The problem could be irradicated in a few short years. This idea on the other hand, is a band aid.
That's awesome, it's still ading and abeting.

I'm no bleeding heart. It's called harm reduction. I'm all for reducing disease, and creating more efficient health care.

Show me some credible proof that your utopian tough on crime approach will actually work. That is pie in the sky.

You think you can cure it all. That is lunacy. Nobody at Insite is claiming they can cure the problem. I'm not. None of the others here are, except for the people proposing unrealistic solutions, if they can even be called solutions. People who claim such certainty have been shown time and again, to be fools.

And my idea cures them all. So who's idea is better?

Delusional.

That's complete BS. I'll site the violence in Toronto as my proof. Even though the province and the city have thrown money hand over fist at the troubled areas. The violence has not been stemmed. Many of the programs failed miserably, and facilities have been vandalised beyond repair.

Well, if you're citing proof, you had better post what the proactive programs were/are. I've never said that throwing money at anything is pragmatic, or proactive.

eta: btw, I think it admirable of you none the less Ton.

I wouldn't have even posted this thread if it weren't for the "overturning science part", which has been mentioned by only a few.

Thanks anyways! :smile:

 

[Cliffy]

Talk about braindead assumptions, you should stop trying to emulate your hero Joey.

CDNBear,

That is a brain dead a$$umption. I don't agree with any of his politics or much else, but if you made that a$$umpton based on the fact that if I do communicate with him at all, that I treat him like a human being and allow him his right to his opinions just like anybody else, then I would have to say that it is you who has the problem. I read your posts and there is little that I agree with. If I do, I say so, if I don't, I say very little. In fact, I think this may be the first.

 

[CDNBear]

Absolutely not. Show me proof of declining property values in the area immediately surrounding the Insite clinic.

Seriously? You are kidding right? This isn't even a commonsense thing Ton. It just happens. I have no idea about the Insight clinic in BC. But in Toronto, whenever an 'outreach' center is opened. Residents lose. Period.

There is no waiting to see where they choose to put it. It's been operating in it's present location since 2003.

I'm not talking about BC Ton...:-|

You haven't answered that. The only bones you've made are about falling property values (not substantiated), and red herrings about placing citizens rights under those of addicts (also not substantiated, and refuted I might add) or other logical fallacies like ad hominems.

:roll:

Ton, I'm not wasting my time digging through mountains of stats on what happens to property values when 'outreach' centers move into neighbourhoods. It's been the same each and everytime. The property values go down in ajoining neighbourhoods. I really don't care if you believe it or not, it's fact. Hell, even foster homes effect home values.

The bigger picture is one which I have already detailed.

It's only bigger to you, because you endorse it.

Ok...:roll: as opposed to yours which is what then, one quarter of one aspect of society and the ills and infestations?

:roll:...pluuulease.

Yup, and when people are roaming looking to use, they cover more ground than users concentrating in a clinic in one neighbourhood known for high risk drug use, and crime.

The remark was to insinuate that crime, like an oil spill, spreads.

10:00 to 04:00, seven days a week.

Wow, I'm glad addicts and there problems, are going to keep bankers hours. :roll:

Nope. But they are running at near capacity every day. Consistently over 600, max capacity in one day is 648.

Awesome, does drop in the pond mean anything to you?

[/quote]Not to mention, it reaches only the junkies in that area. So, by shear commonsense, how many more junkies will this attract from other areas? Thus bring a greater bad element into an already troubled area.[/quote]

There has been no rise in drug related crime. It has remained consistent since the facility opened, with no change from the time before it opened.

So in other words, it really hasn't done much? Just leveled out the stats.

The links I provide aren't just to make my posts look pretty like Paradox's...

Ya, I'll agree to that. I read them, but it certainly doesn't pack a whole lot of passion envoking info for me. I could care less if they all OD'd and rotted in ditches. I used to do links, and searches and a whole lot of hard work. It was a waste of time. People don't want reality, they want virtual confirmations, that their thoughts are just awesome. I on the other hand, could care less.

Exactly what do you think I meant by this thread title?

Express you version of hyperbole? He isn't manipulating research, he's dismissing. Manipulation is what you get when someone uses stats, which are easily manipulated. ie; If you light a cigarette in your car and drive off the road in the process, it's considered a smoking related death. Or if you have a heart attack and die at the beach, it's considered a drowning. Two examples I once proved with excerpts from stascan.

So you'll have to excuse me, if you stats and such, don't impress me.

These issues have all been documented, and the Government under Harper is trying to overturn valid results.

No, they're trying to use whatever means necessary, to end the illegal act of ading and abeting, with my money.

Well, how about something that isn't fascist?

Yep, that's me, an old fascist. How about you and you compadres come up with something less criminal and less dependant on my money. How about you fund it with your own money?

Aborting them in the womb? WTF is that?

That was Cliffy's idea, I just liked, it's a bit extreme, but seriously, what kind of life does a severely mentally challenged person really expect to lead?

I mean Cliffy, who's worked with the mentally cahllenged says they can't help themselves. So why don't we just end their suffering? Or prevent it all together.

You can do that on the street corner if you like.

I would, if there were any dying junkies in my neck of the woods. There isn't, that's why I live here.

You should see a Doctor about the near sightedness...now follow the bouncing ball...

Well hell, I just got chastised by 5P for not liking justice, now you're chastising me for wanting to see laws upheld.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

1. That criminal will commit the crime irrespective of whether or not a place like Insite exists.

True, hence my idea of forced reahb.

2. Many intravenous drug users toss dirty needles, which poses a threat to public safety. Bringing them indoors, and under supervision reduces the risk.

Not if they are arrested and forced into an incarcerated rehab.

3. Clinics like Insite that treat infections reduce the likelihood that an IV drug user can pass a communicable disease like Hep C onto an innocent victim.

I like BS jingo's like likelihood. It just covers up the big may it works BS.

4. Clinics like Insite have drugs available to treat overdoses, which reduces the burden on an already burdened public health system.

If they die, the burden is removed. And since the money going to the drugs at Insight, are still being paid for by me, there is no real benefit to moi.

I've laid these facts out to you already. How about you tell me why you wouldn't want to reduce the risk of disease transmission, and burden on our healthcare system, on top of bringing some users off the street (to alay your concerns about property crime and property values), for something that is going to happen regardless?

Like I've said repeatedly, forced rehab. I'ld pay for that.

What logic is there in that? As I've already said, the VPD sees the point...

Maybe if I put it this way, shooting fish in a barrel...;-)

PR?

I don't know, Vancouver produces some pretty messed up people.

I'm no bleeding heart. It's called harm reduction. I'm all for reducing disease, and creating more efficient health care.

My idea produces 100% harm reduction.

Show me some credible proof that your utopian tough on crime approach will actually work. That is pie in the sky.

No it's not, it's a pipe dream. No politician is willing to get that tough on criminal activity.

You think you can cure it all. That is lunacy. Nobody at Insite is claiming they can cure the problem. I'm not. None of the others here are, except for the people proposing unrealistic solutions, if they can even be called solutions. People who claim such certainty have been shown time and again, to be fools.

You'ld be surprised what chemical medication can achieve.

Delusional.

Who is this delusional person?

Well, if you're citing proof, you had better post what the proactive programs were/are. I've never said that throwing money at anything is pragmatic, or proactive.

See my reply to your linksd comment. Read a Tdot daily.

I wouldn't have even posted this thread if it weren't for the "overturning science part", which has been mentioned by only a few.

They're not try to over turn science,this isn't science, this is stats and nothing more.

Thanks anyways! :smile:

I was referring to your humanity and empathy, but you're welcome anyways.

 

[CDNBear]

Talk about braindead assumptions, you should stop trying to emulate your hero Joey.

CDNBear,

That is a brain dead a$$umption. I don't agree with any of his politics or much else, but if you made that a$$umpton based on the fact that if I do communicate with him at all, that I treat him like a human being and allow him his right to his opinions just like anybody else, then I would have to say that it is you who has the problem. I read your posts and there is little that I agree with. If I do, I say so, if I don't, I say very little. In fact, I think this may be the first.

Look, if you can't take the heat, don't volley hunny.

Hell I agreed with your idea about aborting the mentally challenged. What more do you want.

 

[TenPenny]

I help pay for you so

Based on the amount of taxes I pay every year, I doubt that very much.

 

[Tonington]

Seriously? You are kidding right? This isn't even a commonsense thing Ton. It just happens. I have no idea about the Insight clinic in BC. But in Toronto, whenever an 'outreach' center is opened. Residents lose. Period.

Just because all the apples you've ever seen are red, doesn't mean that all apples are red Bear. We're talking about a specific case here, or at least I am. The thread wasn't intended to be a debate about the merits of harm reduction or supervised injection sites, but that's what it's become. There is one such place in Canada, scratch that, North America. I've shown that crime hasn't increased as a result. I'm asking you to prove your assertion that this somehow is going to negatively effect property owners in a drug denizen enclave already. Put up.

I'm not talking about BC Ton...:-|

There is no other supervised injection site Bear. Not on this continent. Placing another one, in any other place than a known drug ghetto will fail miserably. The whole point of these clinincs is to attract high risk users. High risk users aren't known for large migrations.

If they were putting it in an area where it isn't already a problem, then you might have a point. But tis not the case now, and I doubt very much it would be so in the future.

Ton, I'm not wasting my time digging through mountains of stats on what happens to property values when 'outreach' centers move into neighbourhoods. It's been the same each and everytime. The property values go down in ajoining neighbourhoods. I really don't care if you believe it or not, it's fact. Hell, even foster homes effect home values.

It's not an outreach center Bear. If it was, they wouldn't need an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

You haven't even shown that more users are migrating to the place. There's a lot of assumptions you haven't shown here. This is a unique situation, no matter how you try to lump it in with other community centers.

It's only bigger to you, because you endorse it.

Whatever Bear. It's bigger because the goals are bigger. You seek to eradicate the addicted. You haven't shown anything that is rooted in reality. You haven't addressed the public health issue. You haven't addressed the reduced public consumption. What have you addressed. You've admitted to being too lazy to back up anything you say with but one single link...

:roll:...pluuulease.

See above.

The remark was to insinuate that crime, like an oil spill, spreads.

It does, though as I said already, if you read the links you'll see that crime rates have not gone up. Insite, which attracts the local users acts like a sorbent. You're making points for Insite here..

Wow, I'm glad addicts and there problems, are going to keep bankers hours. :roll:

ROFL

On what planet is 1000 to 0400 banking hours. Perhaps you've been out of the military too long Bear, that would be 10 am to 4am. They are open for 18 hours a day...:lol:, closed from 4:01am until 9:59 am.

Awesome, does drop in the pond mean anything to you?

That's 1 million needles that didn't get discarded on the street Bear, since 2003. drop in the bucket, how about denigrating something you don't agree with?

So in other words, it really hasn't done much? Just leveled out the stats.

No, so in other words, with the reductions in dirty needles and infectious diseases, referrals to addictions services, lowered pressure on local emergency departments, and reduced public consumption of illicit drugs, there still has been no rise in crime.

This is the definition of harm reduction, and is why the VPD was on board as a group fighting to get this program.

Ya, I'll agree to that. I read them, but it certainly doesn't pack a whole lot of passion envoking info for me.

It's not supposed to evoke passion. These are findings of fact. They're meant for you to temper your opinion once you realize the things you think are concomitant here, well they really aren't at all.

I could care less if they all OD'd and rotted in ditches. I used to do links, and searches and a whole lot of hard work. It was a waste of time. People don't want reality, they want virtual confirmations, that their thoughts are just awesome. I on the other hand, could care less.

You just like the arguing. I like educating. Some people when confronted with situations that conflict with their pre-conceived notions can have moments of epiphany. I just like to be there when they happen. Doesn't happen much, which is why I'm not going for a Bachelor of Education. Happens far less on the net. But I also like the debates.

Express you version of hyperbole?

When the title isn't long, I reprint the title from the publication it originates from. That would be an Op-Ed in The Star.

He isn't manipulating research, he's dismissing.

The correct word is process. Research is only one part of the scientific process. It's the process he is manipulating. They said more research was needed to justify keeping the Insite clinic open, and then put a moratorium on all such sites. They say there is growing academic debate, where there is not. That is manipulating the scientific process. It's also manipulating public comprehension, by creating false controversy.

Manipulation is what you get when someone uses stats, which are easily manipulated. ie; If you light a cigarette in your car and drive off the road in the process, it's considered a smoking related death. Or if you have a heart attack and die at the beach, it's considered a drowning. Two examples I once proved with excerpts from stascan.

Manipulation is manipulation. See above.

So you'll have to excuse me, if you stats and such, don't impress me.

I don't have to excuse you for denigrating the ones I'm providing, with you having none...

You know that's the other half of the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Most people think it means that you can show anything with statistics. The other half of that phrase is attributable to people who do as you do, and crap on statistics when they don't fit your well with your position.

No, they're trying to use whatever means necessary, to end the illegal act of ading and abeting, with my money.

It's not illegal. See my post where I linked to the Act. That they try to do so with whatever means necessary, is precisely what I'm talking about.

Yep, that's me, an old fascist. How about you and you compadres come up with something less criminal and less dependant on my money. How about you fund it with your own money?

I don't know if you're old, but what you submitted fits the definition of fascist! :lol:

It isn't criminal, and money from Alberta pays for healthcare in Quebec, and money from Nova Scotia pays for Ontario's nuclear power. It all goes around. Some people resent having their tax money spent on roads and military. So what?

The BC portion of the Health transfer is their's to do with as you wish. If you really care that much, write to Harper and tell him he's doing a good job. Or try to claim an expense of $0.01 from Revenue Canada every year, or go for broke and ask for the retroactive amount. Don't spend it all in one place!

That was Cliffy's idea, I just liked, it's a bit extreme, but seriously, what kind of life does a severely mentally challenged person really expect to lead?

I wouldn't know. I doubt the fetus expects anything.

I mean Cliffy, who's worked with the mentally cahllenged says they can't help themselves. So why don't we just end their suffering? Or prevent it all together.

You have yet to say how you would prevent drug addicts. I'm all ears, but I don't think it's going to be something I'd agree to given the past exchange.

I would, if there were any dying junkies in my neck of the woods. There isn't, that's why I live here.

And why they wouldn't build a clinic like Insite there. :lol: Who would show up!

Well hell, I just got chastised by 5P for not liking justice, now you're chastising me for wanting to see laws upheld.

They have an exemption under the law. The law is being upheld. The VPD still is making arrests for possession of narcotics...

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Not at all.

True, hence my idea of forced reahb.

Not on my tax dollars. LMAO.

I like BS jingo's like likelihood. It just covers up the big may it works BS.

No, it means that when a thousand incidents (n) of this one event (i) take place, there is a probability (P) of another event (j) happening. You can change j by altering conditions in i.

What it means Bear, is that drug users are using drugs anyways. They already purchased them. The folks in Vancouver charged with public health and order can't stop it all, but they can focus on the highest risk, and try to limit the damage to the public good.

If they die, the burden is removed. And since the money going to the drugs at Insight, are still being paid for by me, there is no real benefit to moi.

The same goes for me if you should end up with Heart Disease as a result of a a diet you shouldn't be eating. I don't gripe about that though.

Like I've said repeatedly, forced rehab. I'ld pay for that.

That works for the ones you can arrest...you also said you could eradicate the problem, though I don't know how you plan on getting them all.

Maybe if I put it this way, shooting fish in a barrel...;-)

The people at Incite would probably help you shoot up some fish too. :lol:

PR?

What PR? You mean the plummeting values of real estate? Why would they want that? :lol:

I don't know, Vancouver produces some pretty messed up people.

Every place produces messed up people. It's human nature, not geography, except where local contaminants interfere with regular population ecology.

My idea produces 100% harm reduction.

So you say, we still don't know how you plan on finding all of the drug users. Erosion of personal liberties isn't harm reduction.

No it's not, it's a pipe dream. No politician is willing to get that tough on criminal activity.

Except Harper, through any means necessary, as you said. Even if it is sure to increase crime rates, as the link NIf supplied points out.

You'ld be surprised what chemical medication can achieve.

Not really. I know what chemical dependence can achieve. I know my biochemistry adequately enough to fill in the blanks.

Who is this delusional person?

The person who thinks they can cure it all, or them all rather.

See my reply to your linksd comment. Read a Tdot daily.

Oh don't be so intellectually lazy. If you're going to call bull ****, you could at the very least try to show one program that someone called proactive which could be described as pragmatic that didn't work.

They're not try to over turn science,this isn't science, this is stats and nothing more.

Have you ever seen science that didn't involve stats? All science involves stats. This specifically is a interdisciplinary approach by medical professionals, law and order, and humanities. Social science, medical science and stats.

I was referring to your humanity and empathy, but you're welcome anyways.

Ahhh. Well I have that. Thanks. Maybe some of mine will boost yours someday :lol: