Canadians prefer Trump over trudeau
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Here is an article illustrating that LIE-berals are aiding and abetting drug addicts in their destructive lifestyle. One has to ask if some tough love- such as forced treatment to deal with the ugly withdrawal symptoms that addicts so often want to shun. With some comments of my own in brackets):
Addicts fed their poisons — but safely — in public park
By Sue-Ann Levy. Published: November 20, 2017. Updated: November 21, 2017 8:34 AM EST
Filed Under: Toronto SUN/ News/ Toronto & GTA
TORONTO — It’s the perfect setup for hard-core addicts. There’s a special tent for crack smokers.
There’s another tent to provide safe injections of illegal drugs like heroin, fentanyl and opiates and handouts of Naloxone (an antidote for opioid overdoses) — the tent now winterized with the generous assistance of the health ministry.
Overseeing the “military-grade equipment” that provides heating and lighting are two staff with the ministry’s emergency medical assistance team (EMAT). Cost is unknown at this point because the “deployment is ongoing,” says Laura Gallant, spokesman for Health Minister Eric Hoskins.
(In other words- they are hiding the costs and trying to decide if keeping the “emergency” operation going into spring will offend the public?)
Ministry contractors also provide 24/7 security — not for those adults and children who might want to use the public park — but to protect the “assets on site,” says Gallant.
(Oh- small kiddies and addled addicts? Sounds like a great mix!)
On Monday afternoon, CUPE Ontario — feeding into the hug-a-drug-addict mentality — also announced it was donating a winterized trailer to the trailer to keep the volunteers warm. Agh.
A discarded needle on Bond Street just blocks between The Works and Moss Park. (STAN BEHAL/TORONTO SUN PHOTOGRAPHER)
Let’s not forget in the midst of all the hyperbole about people dying on the streets, this is a public park used by families in what is becoming slowly a gentrified area of spanking, new condos.
When photographer Stan Behal and I recently arrived 15 minutes before the 4 p.m. opening time, we were given a quick tour as the makeshift tents and supplies were set up and then politely but firmly asked to leave the public park before the clients arrived. (They’re open daily from 4 p.m.-10 p.m.)
Sarah Ovens, a social worker by day and volunteer with the Moss Park Overdose Prevention site by evening, said they’re seeing between 30-40 clients in their injection tent and about 30-60 per day in their “smoking facility.” Many are homeless or come from the nearby shelters, she said.
They also distribute supplies — clean needle, crack smoking and Naloxone kits — to “hundreds” daily.
“I think we’ve been hugely successful,” she said, contending they’ve reversed 94 overdoses in 95 days.
“We’ve supervised over 2,000 injections … we’re able to keep them safe and keep them alive,” Ovens added.
We've supervised over 2,000 injections ... we're able to keep them safe and keep them alive
Sarah Ovens
(But have they done anything to stem the tide of dangerous addiction?)
She said they plan to be there as long as junkies require their attention or until they are able to move the site into the neighbouring Fred Victor Centre — which would be funded to the tune of $500,000 by the health ministry.
As noted, these are all volunteers who already have day jobs. Aside from the health ministry EMAT team assistance, they get no government money, having raised their funding online through donations.
But the problem with this whole operation is that, like it or not, trendy harm-reduction efforts essentially keep addicts alive by continuing to feed them their poisons, but safely.
I will no doubt be attacked — as I have been in the past — for suggesting that it is not only enabling illegal drug use but an entire industry is slowly but surely thriving. Those now part of the harm reduction industry, like the homeless industry, do not really want addicts to get off the street because it would mean no work for them.
(There are schools of thought that suggest that both criminals and addicts can be scared straight- but that will not happen in our happy homeless world of poverty pimps and free give aways of everything from food to drugs!)
When I asked Ovens whether they talk to the clients about rehabilitation and getting off illegal drugs, she said somewhat abruptly: “We have all kinds of conversations with people … we talk about all sorts of things with them.”
(Yeah- I bet most conversation is about best places to get drugs! Its not like hord core addicts have jobs to gossip about!)
Dramatically increased provincial investment is needed in a drug treatment program
John Tory
(I suggest that drastically increased police activity to prevent drug production and smuggling would be better! In the course of searching for drugs we can expect that cops will also find guns and stolen credit cards and other stuff!)
She said sometimes people are interested in learning about detox facilities and she, given her experience, can help them navigate those resources. But she left the impression that happens only if addicts ask.
Mayor John Tory, who has permitted the illegal site to continue since August — even three legal ones will be open this month — contended his key focus is on “saving lives” which can then be rebuilt.
“These sites alone will not solve the drug problem, in particular. Dramatically increased provincial investment is needed in a drug treatment program … which are far too few in number,” he said.
Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, who is vehemently against harm reduction, said Monday it is never safe to encourage people to take drugs.
“We’re on the verge of experiencing something we’ve never seen before,” he said. “The amount of government money being spent encouraging people to take drugs– instead of trying to get them off drugs — is unprecedented.”
Slevy at postmedia
(I tend to agree. All manner of people laughed when Cartman on South Park tv show mocked “crack hoes” for degrading themselves in exchange for drugs and yet our govt caters to crack addicts who desperately need a new life- and not to be aided in staying stoned in the old one! LIE-beral minded politicians never saw a vote they did not want to buy- no matter the price!)
He is trying ..so far he hasn't managed to take away Obama care. Nice not see elderly people in wheelchairs so much as greeters because they need health care. That was disgraceful. So if you are with evangelicals in thinking Trump is great and has been given the right to screw all but rich Americans ...fine ....your President ..your problem.
Have you volontarilly given up your CANADIAN health care in support of Trump .....bet not.The poor snowflakes.
... I love it!!
what i truly love is the 75 year old caretaker my Canadian travel insurance is paying to help me while my broken shoulder is healing. She is a sweetheart.
Last edited:
IT IS NOT FREE HEALTH CARE It is universal. The Canadian idea is to provide for those who cannot always pay for themselves. i realize there are many who feel as you do from the snickering responses given by some. So far there are still those who do not resent paying for those less fortunatate amongst us. They do make up the majority of us still. It is what makes a great nation.
But we have to distinguish between a compassionate healthcare policy and an ideological one. If you look at the Singaporean and most if not all European systems, they are mostly two-tiered and yet benefit the poor more than the Canadian mostly-one-tiered system does. The reason for this is that their systems allow the wealthy to pay their own way if they want to and so bow out of the line for faster service. This provides more funding into the system which in turn shrinks the wait times for the poor too.
In the Canadian system, we're less concerned about benefiting the poor and more about maintaining an ideologically pure mostly one-tiered system that does not allow the rich to get private services that the public system provides without flying abroad to do so. That thus pushes Canadian private funding out of the country. This in turn means that the somewhat well off who can't afford to fly abroad for it though stay in the waiting line and so force the poor to wait longer too. There is a difference between a compassionate system and an ideologically motivated one.
You should just forget about all the "extra curricular" stuff that has little to do with politics. There's often separate agencies to take care of that crap - the courts not the least of which! As far as changing his mind goes...........no biggie......you have to change as conditions change. Apparently many Americans weren't pleased with the previous administration as Hillary can likely attest to. You should just back off so Trump can do the job he was elected to do.
You still can't admit that Hillary won the majority of the popular vote and the Trumpster lost until the corrupt electoral college decided to vote against the people. Trump stole the election and is not supported by the majority of Americans. This fall he will probably lose both houses because he is destroying the country, giving it to his rich friends to exploit without regulations or oversight, deregulating banks and Wall Street just like Dubbya did and caused the 2008 economic crash so they could give trillions to the bankers and WS goons, trash the middle class. Not to mention give Big Phama and Big Oil control over heath and the environment.
Universality would simply guarantee access. Canada's system offers unlimited access without any kind of responsibility attached.
And as far as this horseshit about those who cannot always pay for themselves, seeing how no one pays, exactly who are the people that cannot always pay for themselves?
So what you're saying is that trudeau has left Canada in a position where the majority qualify as the less fortunate... Thanks tater tot, well done!
On a more generalized note, enough with the woe-is-me bull shit and your justification that because you classify the majority of Canadians are 'the less fortunate', it's the 'right thing to do' in not expecting any kind of responsibility from them at all
I'm all for helping the poor, but I absolutely agree that there is a big difference between helping the poor and throwing money at the poor. For example, if I were a poor gambling addict and needed social assistance, I wouldn't want the social worker to just throw taxpayer money at me. I'd want her to block me from access to casinos and gambling tickets. If I were an alcoholic, I'd want her to block my access to alcohol. Same if I were a smoker or a heroin addict.
Of course the government can do only so much to block a person from access but there are things it could do. As an example:
To buy gambling chips or lottery tickets or alcohol or nicotine or even a massage (often a front for prostitution), you would need to present a passport or some other government ID. If you want to put yourself on a five-year auto-renewable national self-exclusion list, you could do so and have your fingerprints and ID registered on the list. A seller would need to scan your print or ID to show you're not on the self-exclusion list before they can legally sell to you (under threat of a major fine and losing their license otherwise and undercover officers should enforce the rule).
We could force some people to add themselves to the list against their will such as people convicted of a crime relating to gambling, alcohol, nicotine, prostitution, etc. as well as anyone applying for social assistance. This is not to judge or blame the addict. Some people have had tough lives and have suffered major traumas that cold lead them to addiction. However, however much we can empathize with an addict's plight, clearly throwing money at him is not the way to help him. Yes we may need to give him money, but we also need to help him off the addiction that might have driven him to poverty in the first place. That's true compassion.
We might also want to designate addiction-free zones in our cities. As an example, a city might designate any area within a kilometre of its riverbanks an addiction-free zone where, except for a grandfather clause, no business could sell gambling, alcohol, or nicotine products or massage services etc within that zone. If a person struggles with addiction and moving into that zone helps him, he'd be welcome to move there. That zone could even prohibit drinking and smoking and gambling in public too again maybe with a grandfather clause for already-established residents.
Of course it would need to work on the details, but it could be an idea to actually help the poor rather than just throw money at them like the left wants to do.
Of course the government can do only so much to block a person from access but there are things it could do. As an example:
To buy gambling chips or lottery tickets or alcohol or nicotine or even a massage (often a front for prostitution), you would need to present a passport or some other government ID. If you want to put yourself on a five-year auto-renewable national self-exclusion list, you could do so and have your fingerprints and ID registered on the list. A seller would need to scan your print or ID to show you're not on the self-exclusion list before they can legally sell to you (under threat of a major fine and losing their license otherwise and undercover officers should enforce the rule).
We could force some people to add themselves to the list against their will such as people convicted of a crime relating to gambling, alcohol, nicotine, prostitution, etc. as well as anyone applying for social assistance. This is not to judge or blame the addict. Some people have had tough lives and have suffered major traumas that cold lead them to addiction. However, however much we can empathize with an addict's plight, clearly throwing money at him is not the way to help him. Yes we may need to give him money, but we also need to help him off the addiction that might have driven him to poverty in the first place. That's true compassion.
We might also want to designate addiction-free zones in our cities. As an example, a city might designate any area within a kilometre of its riverbanks an addiction-free zone where, except for a grandfather clause, no business could sell gambling, alcohol, or nicotine products or massage services etc within that zone. If a person struggles with addiction and moving into that zone helps him, he'd be welcome to move there. That zone could even prohibit drinking and smoking and gambling in public too again maybe with a grandfather clause for already-established residents.
Of course it would need to work on the details, but it could be an idea to actually help the poor rather than just throw money at them like the left wants to do.
That's NOT the way the system works, Cliffy, just like in Canada popular vote can at times mean nothing. (And it's actually a good thing it does work that way) How would you like it if the election was decided by the vote in 5 or 6 states including California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania?
I'll suggest that you're killing a fly with a 50lb hammer.
If an individual has zero self control (physically addicting drugs requiring a specific conversation) that they will fritter away the mortgage/rent or food then attempting to legislate their behavior is a fool's errand
Notice how your buddy blamed Clinton's loss on the corrupt Electoral College... Remarkably enough though, when his preferred candidate in Obama was elected, well, the Electoral College was a pillar of a successful democratic system
I remember an election in B.C. when people were screaming where most of the seats went one way and so did the province, but one riding which included West Vancouver and Howe Sound (loaded with the filthy rich) mostly voted the opposite which was enough to give them the popular vote, but it turned out to be the votes of the ignorant unwashed that ran the province for the next 4 or 5 years. I was just gloating that day! :lol:
Are you more or less important to , an NHL hockey player , a police officer , a politition an actress or a government employee ? If the answer is equal , why do the above receive healthcar3 before you ?
Have they started the clear cut yet ?