How much effort is going into identifying and arresting prolific murderer(s)?

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
How about they cancel the OAS program to fund the war on drugs?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
JLM wants more war on drugs.


You don't?

Selling somebody drugs doesn't cause their death.


You're absolutely right.....................................as long as they just place them on their mantel to look at!

Selling somebody drugs doesn't cause their death.


Yeah, it was just a coincidence.......................it was actually the bacon & eggs they consumed that morning that did them in!
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,166
2,811
113
Toronto, ON
You don't?

Do you think the current war has been effective?

Yeah, it was just a coincidence.......................it was actually the bacon & eggs they consumed that morning that did them in!

Do you think the heart attack somebody has is caused by the pig farmer and the egg farmer which made the bacon & eggs he/she ate?

These people made their own choices to take the drugs. The consequence was death. It is not on anybody but them.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Do you think the current war has been effective?


Pretty hard to tell as we have no way of knowing how many would have died otherwise! :)

Selling somebody drugs doesn't cause their death.



Can't fix stupid, Ski.


So I guess the bottom line is none of the five people who died in Abbotsford on Friday did so as a result of the drugs consumed!

So are Smith & Wesson murderers when one of their guns is used in a homicide?


That's about the stupidest statement on here today. Why don't you include Henry Ford, Walter Chrysler, John Deere?

I never said that. But it is not murder.


Call it what you want but it's just as deadly as murder. I'm not one for getting hung up in semantics!
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,166
2,811
113
Toronto, ON
That's about the stupidest statement on here today. Why don't you include Henry Ford, Walter Chrysler, John Deere?


Actually it parallels your bizarre logic exactly. Is the provider of the weapon or method of death responsible for the providee's actions? You are arguing that the drug dealer is responsible for the death of the user. If a guy buys a gun and blows his brains out, is the gun seller responsible?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Actually it parallels your bizarre logic exactly. Is the provider of the weapon or method of death responsible for the providee's actions? You are arguing that the drug dealer is responsible for the death of the user. If a guy buys a gun and blows his brains out, is the gun seller responsible?


Except there is one basic difference if you can understand it. The guy buying the gun doesn't generally buy it (there are rare exceptions) to blow his brains out. What other purpose besides consumption or resale does the guy buying drugs have?
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa

Probably not a whole lot given how the Robert Picton thing went. He could have easily been caught much sooner. I guess the authorities haven’t learned,

As for overdoses, it’s not like someone forced these people to take these drugs. Also, the dealers do have an incentive to keep these people alive. They need customers to stay in business, just like legal businesses do. So long as there is a supply and a demand this problem won’t be going away,

If there was any crime it would be suicide.

Which isn’t a crime anymore. That was a pointless law if ever there was one. Impossible to enforce.

And these victims just picked their drugs off a shelf in the drugstore?

They did seek out and buy the drugs. Whoever sold it to them is guilty of selling an illegal substance, not murder.

Simple solution, one revival and then just let them remain dead if it happens again. It isn't like the person changes his lifestyle over it.

I doubt doctors and nurses are going to check if the person has done it before. If they do, quite a few first timers will die while waiting for that check to be done. That’s just the impractical part of it. The fact that it’s totally immoral is another thing.

Except there is one basic difference if you can understand it. The guy buying the gun doesn't generally buy it (there are rare exceptions) to blow his brains out.

My step sister did just that.

What other purpose besides consumption or resale does the guy buying drugs have?

Consumption. It’s not like they don’t know the risks. They know the drug may kill them, just as smokers and drinkers know that those legal options may kill them. They still go ahead and buy.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,584
9,177
113
Washington DC
So I guess the bottom line is none of the five people who died in Abbotsford on Friday did so as a result of the drugs consumed!

Precisely. They died of drugs consumed. Not drugs sold.

I'm sorry you don't have the mental wattage to understand the distinction.

Except there is one basic difference if you can understand it. The guy buying the gun doesn't generally buy it (there are rare exceptions) to blow his brains out. What other purpose besides consumption or resale does the guy buying drugs have?
With only rare exceptions, taking a drug doesn't cause overdose.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Precisely. They died of drugs consumed. Not drugs sold.

I'm sorry you don't have the mental wattage to understand the distinction.


With only rare exceptions, taking a drug doesn't cause overdose.


I think when it comes to "mental wattage", Bones, I can compete with you any day. :) :)

Precisely. They died of drugs consumed. Not drugs sold.


Sorry I misunderstood. I was under the misconception that they consumed the same drugs that were sold to them. Mea Culpa!
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
This thread is starting to get a little ridiculous. I was using the practical meaning of the term "murder" not the legal one. Of course any dimwit realizes once it gets to court (if it does) the charges would be diluted to manslaughter or maybe endangering with intent to do bodily harm. One of the reasons why this sh*t continues while kids are dying!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Good one, JLM!


I think so! :) :)
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,166
2,811
113
Toronto, ON
This thread is starting to get a little ridiculous. I was using the practical meaning of the term "murder" not the legal one. Of course any dimwit realizes once it gets to court (if it does) the charges would be diluted to manslaughter or maybe endangering with intent to do bodily harm. One of the reasons why this sh*t continues while kids are dying!
It wouldn't ever get to court as any type of murder charge since it is not murder. And I would be careful about calling people dimwits. You know the saying about living in glass houses.

I think when it comes to "mental wattage", Bones, I can compete with you any day. :) :)

LOL This is a good one.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Great solution but would you just stand by when it happens to your child, wife, girl friend?
By the 3rd time they are damaged enough that keeping them alive has nothing to do with their quality of life, it would be all about trying to avoid the grief and the guilt that goes with them becoming addicts in the first place. You do not get Fentanyl off the shelf in the Pharmacy.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
. And I would be careful about calling people dimwits. You know the saying about living in glass houses.


Who did I call a dimwit? I believe I said I could "match wits".

By the 3rd time they are damaged enough that keeping them alive has nothing to do with their quality of life, it would be all about trying to avoid the grief and the guilt that goes with them becoming addicts in the first place. You do not get Fentanyl off the shelf in the Pharmacy.


Probably for good reason. :) :)
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Which isn’t a crime anymore. That was a pointless law if ever there was one. Impossible to enforce.

I doubt doctors and nurses are going to check if the person has done it before. If they do, quite a few first timers will die while waiting for that check to be done. That’s just the impractical part of it. The fact that it’s totally immoral is another thing.

My step sister did just that.
.
How you going to charge somebody that is dead??

The resuscitation would be done long before they ever got to a hospital and they do keep pretty good records on that kind of thing.

Sorry to hear that and that she didn't get the type of support that would have prevented it. Depending how shitty thing get that might become a lot more common so passing a law might not even be needed anymore.

Probably for good reason. :) :)
You can get a prescription so it isn't that hard and every tow has heroin users so there is always an alternative supply.