There's a difference between junkies and drunk drivers: junkies overdosing only kill themselves; drunk drivers kill others. Take a logic pill.

The has been on talk shows in the lower mainland for some months. It seems that the recovered addicts, hookers, etc are in complete agreement with Clement. The social engineers just can't accept it.

They (the social engineers) have "scientific studies" that it is working ... there you go.

As always Kate you offer the most sensible commentary of all on the topic of the day.

The CMA's response is not surprising given their track record.

Iberia I think you missed the point entirely.

What are you smoking, lberia? Drug addicts rob, injure, and kill people every day. Some of them do it from behind the wheel, as well.

" Between June of 2007 and June of 2008, 222 users overdosed at the East Hastings clinic and received immediate intervention. Some of those users might otherwise have died in a back alley."

I wished the hell they had ALL died from overdoses. I have a business in Vancouver near the downtown eastside and I have been victimized by junkies on numerous occasions. So I have to pay double for these derelicts.

I have a relative who is a Vancouver cop who works in the downtown eastside. He thinks Insite is a waste of time and money. He also thinks the mayor of Vancouver is a fool.

Additionally my son owns a construction company that has been doing construction in that area.When they started the job there he took me around to his site.There were numerous junkies hanging around and, being somewhat more liberal(well, much more liberal) that I, he felt sorry for them and diaagree with my solution to the problem(which was to move them from the area and disperse them to different areas). Now after a year his SOLUTION is the euthanize them.

Go to this guy's blog. He is a REAL expert on treating junkies.

thebernermonologues.blogspot.com

Horny toad

You have once again cornered the hypocrites that make a business out of other people's misfortunes and advocate treatment (for ever) over definitive measures; because their own bank accounts depend on 'treating' rather than curing.

Have any of the medical practitioners offered their homes to service their 'clients' yet? Your posters are breathlessly awaiting the first care driven offer.

As for sda's record of speaking for the people of Sask. - see asterisk. Thank-you Kate!

Iberia- Heroin addiction is definitely not a victimless crime. Everything from shoplifting to home ivasions, to muggings can be directly related to drug addictions. It's also the number one reason women get involved in the sex trade.

BTW, when are the people (err Dippers) of Sask going to demand safe, WARM tobacco smoking booths for nicotine addicts? And free cigarettes when we cannot afford to pay for our addiction? Player's cigarette labels claims that tobacco is more lethal than heroin or cocaine so our NEED is much more critical.

Oh I forgot ...Dippers, as did Hitler, believe that only 'loose women, Jewish people and Indians smoke'! I'm not sure what catagory Hitler put King Corge V and Sir Winston Churchill in...probably created one...anyway Guess I answered my own question.

dp "It's also the number one reason women get involved in the sex trade."

Sex trade? We used to call them whores ... like ... it's the number one reason women became whores.

"What are you smoking, lberia? Drug addicts rob, injure, and kill people every day. Some of them do it from behind the wheel, as well."

Posted by: Kate at August 21, 2008 2:24 AM

You are trying to compare the damage caused by drunk drivers vs. addicts...perhaps you can provide some comparative statistics. Prove that a junkie using a safe injection site is as bad or worse than a drunk driver. Otherwise it's just your opinion (and more Con propaganda).

This is shaping up to be an excellent post and thread...

Oh, and put me down for "Close the shoot-up shacks".

More posts like this one, please, Kate.

It seems like Iberia thinks that someone completely spaced-out on heroin would be perfectly safe to get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Iberia, prove that they're not nearly as dangerous as drunks are behind the wheel.

Iberia, you're telling us that someone like the shirtless, fallen-and-can't-get-up guy in the photograph... he's ok to drive?

Gotcha.

Wrong location Kate. Not their homes but the foyer of City Hall. That way they can spend all day with them and will have to come up with imaginative replys to visitors.

Maybe co-locations? Sorta like bring your kid to work days? Work days at City Hall and they get to take em home at night?

I have no doubt there would be more deaths in the short term, and that's tragic. But I am more concerned with the lives that will be destroyed in years to come if we keep helping people shoot drugs.
What's the message? Drugs are bad...but, what the heck, if you need help with it....

This woman is obviously a health nut. A trans fat free diet and daily yoga sessions on the street getting plenty of fresh air. We should all aspire to be like her. This is what a leftie government can do for you.

Where's the logic, where's the common sense to funding the tools to shoot up ILLEGAL drugs to keep the addicts addicted?

How is that going to stop them from harming themselves or others from other activities known to spread disease?

How is their mental state when under the influence of these drugs going to make them and us safe on the streets?

It's just so mind boggling it's hard to believe we're living in the 21st century as enlightened human beings with information all around us on all manner of things. It's insane.

Our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan to, among other things, destroy the production of heroin that ends up in our country. When it gets here we enable people to use this drug. What is wrong with this picture?
We have become enablers of a deadly practice--something the CMA supports, all the while whining they cannot provide healthcare to Canadians. What has the CMA been smoking or shooting up?

Iberia:

While most junkies while shot up a probably not so dangerous as a drunk driver - at that moment - I think 20 min down at the police station talking to people who deal with: Murders, theft, assault will reveal that a very large fraction of those crimes are committed by drug users in the course of finding money for their habit or in the course of the "business dealings" to acquire more junk. Wanna bet that that kills and injuries _at least_ at the same % rates as drunkeness?

Personally I'm all for this idea, free drugs fromthe government all of your (short) remaining life. The hitch being that the "safe injection site" will be a camp somewhere in the boonies, surrounded by barbed wire and nice people with "hand held high speed copper-lead injection devices", if you try to leave. However, with lots of high purity medical grade drugs chances are your be worn out or OD'ed within weeks.

Unlike the gulag, in my idea if you actually "clean up" on your own, you can eventually get out.

Wrong location Kate.

I agree -- they need to be a prominent demonstration sport in the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. After all, why not share our caring, compassionate solution with the entire UN and the worldwide "addicition community"?

Wonder how much coverage Mansbridge would give it?

"Murders, theft, assault will reveal that a very large fraction of those crimes are committed by drug users in the course of finding money"

Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels) says its the other way around...criminals slide into drug use.

What are you smoking, lberia? Drug addicts rob, injure, and kill people every day. Some of them do it from behind the wheel, as well.

Posted by: Kate at August 21, 2008 2:24 AM

Yep and as the addiction get's worse they'll kill for a tooney because their need for drugs is the only thing they think of.

Personally I think these safe injection sights are useful to the leftards, it employs them to commit social experiments on junkies whilst feeling ever so good about their tolerant selves.

The first step to curing an addiction is admiting you have one, harm reduction is a fluffy term used by those that think addicts are victims of a social condition and must be coddled. The entire thesis that safe injection sights save lives is bogus, but they know we don't have the stats to debunk them so they scream we're aiding the victim to prove they work.

In essense we are funding an addicts addiction, dear me what would AA and ala-non think of that?

How does closing safe-injection sites help curb addicts driving under the influence?

At least addicts can be monitored and their dosages regulated through safe-injection. Closing safe-injection sites moves addicts back to the fringes of society, unwatched and unregulated.

Furthermore, how is it cheaper to put an addict in jail, and have taxpayers fund their entire existence rather than simply fund their drug rehabilitation?

I for one don't want to pay for addicts to live in jail when with the proper assistance, they're perfectly capable of quitting drugs and functioning in society. I thought this group were advocates of lower taxes. I guess I was wrong.

These words, ""is something in which we believe.", are not from lberia, aka Stalin's executioner, they are from Citoyen Dion, aka leader of the socialist-Liberal Party of Canada.
...-

"Without being asked about it, he [Citoyen Dion] told the crowd of about 150 students that Canada's only safe injection site -- known as Insite and situated in the Downtown Eastside -- "is something in which we believe."
http://tinyurl.com/5krba9 (ctv)

Pish and tosh, the solution is so obvious. Keep Insite and open a free drinking establishment for those who are want to drink and drive. All we need is doctors and nurses to supervise the drunks and a lot of taxis on standby.

OK having solved the drunk driver problem where do I sign up for my Order of Canada and maybe even my Nobel Peace Prize?

Bravo, bravo - not only is it the #1 reason women become whores, it is also the #1 reason mothers and fathers send their 11 year old daughters out to become whores so that they can get money to buy drugs. yeah, like that is a lifestyle choice my taxes need to pay for!!!

its simple , drug injection sites and drug social services have become an industry unto itself. keeps the social service folks employed.downtown vancouver has become a large scale flophouse and the social welfare types love it.

if you want more of something subsidize it.

lberia- hobbema is a fine example of drugs even outdoing booze as a killing mechanism.

Iberia said: "junkies overdosing only kill themselves"

This is the opinion of Iberia, pillar of the morally superior Progressive Left? The same crusaders who have made smoking in your own car illegal? Inconsistent, to say the least.

No man is an island, Iberia.

By the time a normal human has become a junkie and killed himself/herself, they've done a f--- of a lot more damage than just to themselves. Leaving aside the stealing and the murders and the beatings and the shootings and the corrosive effects of prostitution on the rest of us, they've done horrific damage to their own families.

We have to live in the same world with them, Iberia. You like tragedy and destruction so much you want it living next door? Personally I prefer loud teenage parties next door, at least you can fix that by calling the cops. Hard for the cops to fix a crushed and silent family who's lost a teenager to the ruination of drugs and prostitution.

I prefer junkies receive -effective- treatment, safe injection sites are not that. They are just cleaner than an alley, allowing junkies to die of drug induced organ failure and AIDS instead of a nice, quick staff aureous infection.

Forced detox, THAT'S effective. Repeat offender idiots get to live on a farm in the woods, waaaay far away from the rest of us.

Either that or just stop pretending we give a rip what happens to these people. Legalize it all, baby. Let the chips fall where they may.

I wish all those brilliant social engineers would advocate safe injection sites for diabetics for type 1 insulin dependents who are trying to stay healthy!! My home is a safe injection site for my son's type 1 diabetes.

Insite just gives governmental approval to drug abuse and does precisely nothing to help those addicted to get off their habit.

The addicted are there because they have suffered abuse, come from broken families, have mental health issues, etc. etc.

Insite merely sanitizes an otherwise broken life; and cannot be properly identified as true help.

It is the governmental equivalent of applying a band-aid to a gushing artery; the end result is you are probably going to die sooner rather than later. But if it assuages one's precious social governmental conscience, by all means help them into the hereafter.

I mean what would the Hell Angel's do if they didn't have customers to flog their wares to?

Help a pusher today, open up another Insite.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

Yep, I'll bet there are a lot of ex-junkies out there that wish that instead of rehab and recovery, they had been assisted in their illness and thereby remained a homeless drug addict begging,stealing or selling themselves in order to fund their habit. Their numbers are probably equal to the number of people who want to see an injection site in their neighborhood. As you note, the advocates are not affected by either the junkies themselves or the Insite locations so they do not have to deal with those consequences. After all, to a progressive, nothing shows you care for others quite like flooding their streets with criminals and drug addicts.

Insite might be better than doing nothing at all but it is certainly not the cure to the problem. Removing the drug addicts to a secure facility where they can get drugs and counseling is the more humane answer. It gets them off the streets into protective custody, cleans up the drug neighborhoods making it safer for residents, reduces robberies/prostitution and dries up the dealers clientele. I would think that any parent would rather see their addicted kids in safe custody getting forced treatment than being on the street remaining addicted at the hands of well meaning enablers.

Weaning the government employees and progressives off their need to create new programs like Insite is by far the more difficult addiction to break.

Wooooow, steady up there Kate! I was just about to hit up the gummint to set up some ‘recovering alkyholik kliniks’. I was justify it by using the same logic that the ‘misery industry’ used to set up the shooting galleries.
Like junkies we simply can’t function at all without a coupla shots, if you know what I mean? I was thinking, an unpretentious little bar with a good selection of single malts served in sterilized glasses, and maybe if it wasn’t too much; a baby grand in one corner for itinerant piano players?

Drunk drivers only kill others when they run into others. Then they are charged with manslaughter. You can still get arrested for drunk driving without having been in an accident.

We should give drunk drivers free beer and provide them with free Toyota Priuses which they would use to deliver free needles to drug addicts.

A 3 for 1 progressive solution!

MSM does not mention Conservative Minister Clement's name in this report.
While Ontario Minister of Health, Minister Clement set up the "SARS detection system".
Go, Minister Clement.
...-

"SARS detection system uncovered listeriosis outbreak

CTV.ca News Staff
Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health is crediting the system put in place following SARS with detecting the current listeriosis outbreak."

I for one don't want to pay for addicts to live in jail when with the proper assistance, they're perfectly capable of quitting drugs and functioning in society. I thought this group were advocates of lower taxes. I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: Chuck at August 21, 2008 8:39 AM

Yea we wouldn't want to protect society from addicts would we. You do realise they'll kill another human being for a fiver right? People like you never have to live with the damage you do to society, those of us who have loved ones who are addicts can only shake our head at the suffering you are willing to enforce on society to appease your need to feel oh so "Tolerant". Giving junnkies a place to shoot up is by far the stupidest idea ever to flow out of the dark matter that passes for brain cells.

The stats say safe injection sites work, really where's the studies for back allys and crack houses? Oh right yea like we're going to further fund the leftardeds stupid social experiments. Junkies belong on the fringes of society, that's what happens when you become a portion of society that isn't deemed acceptable. Obsolving junkies of reponsibility and consequences of their actions is just stupid. If the leftards have their way no one will ever be forced to grow up and accept the consequences for their actions, their utopia sounds like an awful place to live. Where junkies and drunks get their addictive substances for free, rapist and pedophiles will never see the inside of a jail cell and society as a whole will be made up of freaks and perverts.

Oh dear how intolerant of me, tisk tisk.

Not sure if it's politics in general or Leftist mentality that dulls the mind and screws up the thought process.

Caroline Bennett, Liberal health critic or something, is an MD, believe it or not, who thinks shoot-up sites are the way to go. She also thinks having our Health care delivered by private clinics using our health card is wrong. She doesn't get what's been proposed by the new head of CMA who thinks private delivery with our health card would be cheaper and more efficient. She says it would be wrong for anyone to get to the head of the line, hello, that's not what this is about.

Why would it matter if someone had the money to get faster care to relieve pain or save their lives somewhere else and pay for it themselves?
It follows that person would be getting out of the line and the line would be shorter.

Common sense, where art thou?

Clement is right, that's why we're hearing from the social engineering industry. Another chord was struck by yet another Conservative MP.
Tough. Keep the truth coming, they can slag it but they can't deny it.

Interesting comments. Let me just interject,as a recovering alcholic,who also had an impaired charge 20 years ago,that there really is not that much difference between a druggie and a drunk.A drunk will go to almost the same lengths to obtain his/her "hit" as a druggie. Big difference is,most of us drunks are to stumbling stupid and tired to hold up somebody.Yet we get behind the wheel and drive,when we can't even see 2 feet in front of us. Why? I really don't know. We are stupid and can't even begin to think rationally.We have ingested a mind altering substance,the same as a druggie. BOTH are dangerous,immoral. BUT,a lot of people can drink responsibly,and don't drive.But I have yet to see a druggie take a hit responsibly.
They are not diseases,they are failings in our moral selves.But with a little help,we can take our lives back and be contributing citizens.God knows it is not easy,but it can be done.Giving druggies free shots,or alcholics free beer accomplishes only one thing: it keeps the socialists in a job,which in MHO is far worse then any alkie or druggie.

There is a controversial procedure known as "instant detox" or "rapid detox". The addict is put under anaesthetic and administered an opiate antagonist. You can read about it here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/detox.html

I believe we should be looking at this as a better alternative to the ridiculously mis-named "safe injection" sites.

Give 'em three trips through the "instant detox" mill. Next time they are caught, they get a one-time-only hot lead injection (or, for the squeamish, a permanent room at one of H.M. prisons).

Illegal drugs will always be with us until we control the demand side of the equation. It's pure folly to try to attack it from the supply side.

Think outside the box people.

1- Why do people consume drugs?
Humans have enjoyed getting high since the beginning of time. It gives them a sensation of well being, strength, superiority and relieves fear. Relieves stress and psychological problem for many but not all. Many if not most consumers are functional members of society who just consume for pleasure. Drugs can be nicotine, alcool, cafeine, chocolate, paxil, valium along with the Chech and Chong subject varieties.
Drugs can be the body's own adrenaline where hardcore thrill seekers get their fix going down a dangerous mointain, bungie jumping, parachuting...Lot's of tax dollars are spent yearly "rescuing" these addicts too.
Drugs can be purely for narcissistic purpose: Body builders with steroids or the Olympic athlete wanting the fame of a medal using performance enhancers.

2- Is the war on drugs working?
No. Drugs of all kinds are more abondant and easier to get, somewhat cheaper and of higher quality around the world.

3- Who benefits from drugs being illegal?
Directly: Street pushers all the way up to drug cartels who finance much of the terrorists in some areas of the world BTW.
Have I covered all of point 3?
No.
Benefits indirectly: Justice system including police, lawyers, prison guards. SOCIAL WORKERS IN SAFE INJECTION SITES and other branches of social networks. This is a massive industry: (Check link below)

4- Why do addicts often resort to crime in order to satisfy their habit?
Because of the risk associated with dealing illegal substances by their supplier source = Extremely high prices.

5- What would be the benefits and the risks if all drugs were made legal?
Benefits: - A serious (Really serious if not deadly) blow to organized crime. (BTW: Organized crime are the biggest financing advocates again'st illegal drugs = You do the math)
- A tremendous relief from government taxes currently financing the "indirect benefitters" which some includes for Canada the Afghan mission at this moment.
- A steep drop in city violent crime rates from out of business gangs and the addicts themselves as drugs would be more "affordable".
- Less homelessness because of more money for rent and food (Maybe there are kids suffering in that household).
- More tax dollars for R&D on the chemical aspects of the addiction on the brain and finding solutions and/or replacement drugs that provides the same high without the nasty addiction.

Risks:
- An increase in addicts? That's debatable. Has the amount of alcoolics increased in the states since the prohibition ban was lifted?
When something is legal it is more publicly exposed and people get more info of the perils than when something is underground.
- More high drivers? Maybe: But this is where much tougher sentences could work. You drive high and get caught. 1st offence: 5 years with no license and must prove absolute cleanliness before renewal. 2nd offence: 2 years in jail and driving ban for life.

My own conclusion:
All drugs should be made legal. Tougher laws with no loopholes should also be put in place at the same time for harm done to others by users: What you put in your body is your own business BUT...

It would not increase our tax burden it would actually reduce it. Check this out:
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

It will happen eventually. The first US President who will have enough courage (A bounty will be put on his head) thus is not corrupt will open the trend worldwide. Canada will never do it before the US does. It would be economic suicide.

Who am I? A Conservative supporter (With his libertarian slip showing here ;-)) with lot's of "experience".

Wait a minute , Kate - the CMA is like our union and of course the people who gravitate towards being active in the "union" are the nuttiest of left wingers. Most doctors I hang out with think the "safe" injection sites are as stupid and pointless as the methadone programme. Implying that most doctors support this is as ignorant as saying that most communities support these programmes - it simply is not true.

Anybody knows that has had this problem in their families; "brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, aunts, father or mother", that the safe injection site is not the answer. These people will scam anybody anywhere, commits acts of assaults, sell themselves, sell their children, basically do anything in order to get the next high.

If these people can get it around any conner, how is safe injection sites going to help. First and foremost is to get the drugs off the street. As far as I know in Alberta, you can find it in every small town, city or community. It is easier to find crack and meth than it is to find a good restaurant.

Applying the law of supply and demand might help rid of us of much of the drug problem.

Wherever there is a demand there will be someone willing to fill it.

Reduce demand. Instead of spending millions trying to put the dealers out of business, redirect those funds.

Here's how. Every time you see a use on the street you pick it (I'll use it rather than gender distinctions.) you put it in a cell to dry out. Just a wet towel and a place to puke would be plenty.

After two or three days, let it out with an offer of either a bus ticket home or some basic life skills training.

If it refuses, set it free then wait a day or two until you see it high again on the street, repeat the process.

I guarantee that after two or three horrible dry out sessions, that user with either stop using or it will leave the area hopefully to die elsewhere.

Once the junkies know this routine, they will leave your community and thus take the demand for drugs with them.

The dealers will leave too.

The way it now is ... we are helping the dealers continue to move their product and they are grateful.

I know how to stop drunk driving too, but I'll save that for another time.

Right on familydoc! You mention "safe" injection sites to most doctors and they laugh. Leaving aside all morality and social questions, the notion that giving people the right equipment makes it safer to do something inherently destructive makes intelligent people giggle.

There are some who start sputtering about social responsibility. These would be the same ones that think the OHRC should be the source of moral decisions for physicians in Ontario, not the individual conscience of the doctor on the scene.

Those people are the reason I don't practice physiotherapy in Ontario. It is safer to climb thirty foot ladders and paint for a living than to deal with such people. More satisfying too.

"You have once again cornered the hypocrites that make a business out of other people's misfortunes and advocate treatment (for ever) over definitive measures; because their own bank accounts depend on 'treating' rather than curing."

YUp!

I must be a bad person but I have NO sympathy for drug addicts, and I couldn't care less about their well being. I will reserve my sympathy for those who deserve it like veterans and handi-cap people living in poverty by no fault of their own. Other people I don't have sympathy for are: addicted gamblers, alcoholics and historically disadvantaged people who can not seem to make it in the softest country in the world. PATHETIC!

This isn't New York it's Canada, if you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere!

I'm all in favor of clean needle distribution to slow down HIV and Hep C transmissions. It doesn't require medical personnel to distribute them. I don't see the point of medical personnel overseeing addicts injecting themselves with unknown dosages of unproven substances. It's bad medical practice with lots of risk and liability. People aren't allowed to bring pills from home to a hospital and use them there for the same reasons.

Safe injection sites aren't a very smart idea.

Iberia, read this and tell me junkies only harm themselves you s**t for brains retard:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406762,00.html

LAKE HAMILTON, Fla. — A Florida man was arrested after allegedly going on a violent rampage after a minor fender-bender, slashing and stabbing the occupants of a car, then running over and killing a woman who had been riding in another nearby vehicle.

Casey Weldon Till, 26, of Haines City, faces murder and carjacking charges after the attacks involving family members traveling in two vehicles.

...

The violence apparently unfolded after Till's minivan slammed into a stopped car being driven by Cespedes' daughter, 19-year-old Ivon Despaigne, and her boyfriend, 21-year-old Angel Gonzalez, of Kissimmee. When the couple got out to check the damage, Till allegedly slashed Gonzalez's throat and stabbed Despaigne in the neck.

Investigators say Till then got into the couple's car and repeatedly rammed the vehicle ahead, occupied by Cespedes, her husband, 41-year-old Mario Despaigne, and their 6-month-old granddaughter.

The couple got their granddaughter out of the car seat and Cespedes was trying to flee with the baby in her arms when she was killed, Mario Despaigne said in an interview with The Ledger, which was conducted through an interpreter.

Mario Despaigne said Till drove over his wife's leg, then ran over her again after seeing she was still moving. Despaigne said he grabbed the baby. Then Gonzalez got into Till's van and hit him, then tried to back over him, but Till rolled out of the way, according to the arrest report.

...

Till told police he was high on crack at the time.

Penny - you should review the needle exchange stats for Saskatchewan.

They're handing them out in buckets - literally. Over 2 million in the city of Regina alone - a city of 200,000.

In short, they're subsidizing drug dealers, who load up the free needles and resell them.

Oh, as far as the CMA link goes:

1) most doctors practice medicine, not activism. Ergo, while the few leftards hang out at CMA union meetings, most doctors are busy working 60-80 hour weeks treating patients. They don't have time to go off to a CMA meeting and vote for a "policy" they couldn't give two s**ts about.

2) any union is unrepresenative of it's members who are forced to pay for it. Even at auto plants, there are more conservatives than dippers. It's just the dippers who run the unions. Most members hate their unions. Doctors are no different.

CHUCK

"I for one don't want to pay for addicts to live in jail when with the proper assistance, they're perfectly capable of quitting drugs and functioning in society. I thought this group were advocates of lower taxes. I guess I was wrong."

If I accept your premise for conversations sake you can consider this: Some of us are not willing to sacrifice our values to save some $$. I for one am willing to pay for quarantining junkies from society( our sons and daughters), just like some of us think that no price tag is too high to have some creeps(pedophiles) executed.

I can't wait for some safe smoking sites to provide a buffer against the smoking nazis!

"It's pure folly to try to attack it from the supply side."

Any drugs in Saudi Arabia ??

Ron,

Damn right there are drugs in Saudi.

Several of my friends have worked there. It's not the ex-pats who are doing it either. If you are even remotely connected as a Saudi citizen, you do whatever you like. It's the peasants and non-citizens who are killed for it.

All this trouble can be sourced back to Liberal permissiveness over the past forty years.

Before that, tough love was the way things got done and it worked. Make people take responsibility for themselves or let them die.

We don't need safe injection sites, we need safe dry-out sites. You might be surprised at how many druggies would like to dry out.

Ron in Kelowna, I agree, no drugs in Saudi Arabia, but absolutely no freedom either. I think there is a mid ground where we have a free society, but not one that tolerates dangerous zombies all over the place scaring people and spreading disease.

The Oh-so tolerant and caring left are the authors of today's social horrors. They are the enablers.

I guess it's better than having a competitive private sector job. Plus looking after the weak and stupid, makes them look smart and strong.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Ahh, the pious righteousness of it all. From the ignorant, to the Puritans of the Temperance Wagons, the difficulty of discussing drug policy with any moralist is revealed.

Faced with a free society, I guess it keeps cognitive dissonance down, don't-cha know?

A valid (and scientificly proven) addiction treatment measure is to keep the patient alive until they 'mature out' - the terminus of use. Minimizing blood borne disease in them through needle exchange and safe injection sites is the idea. In the long run, this is less cost that having an 90% hepititis rate, or several hundred more HIV positive intravenuous users to deal with.

Besides, these people are going to do it anyway. How did the the whole 'Just Say No' campaign work out there? Huh? Any of you armchair Deities out there wave your magic hand and stop people from using substances to alter conciousness? No?

And better face up to it, alcohol is the most destructive recreational drug in terms of social and economic harm. Period.

Yet I suppose hipocrisy is always present, especially among the 'conservatives' here. Y'all ain't conservative, you're passing Puritans desperately needing to control as you see fit. Especially with some of the spit flecked rants above.

You're a bunch of fakes.

I think a lot of people have a fundimental misunderstanding about 'junkies' which makes Liberal people far too sympathetic and Conservative people far to cold hearted.

A lot of these hard-drug users had amazingly abusive childhoods and were pretty broken children that looked for the 'oblivion' provided by drugs at a very young age. Generally speaking, their awful childhood provides them with very little emotional maturity or empathy and the 'hunger' from drug abuse pushes people to break just about any personal boundry they have.

As 'Junkies' lose their ability to generate the income they need to feed their adiction (and as their addiction needs greater ammounts of money to be fed) they generally progress downwards in what they're willing to do to generate the necessary income. As long as they remain an addict (which is as long as they have access to drugs and don't face their demons) they will fall further and further, and it is only a matter of time before they walk into a Subway and crush an 18 year old woman's head to get the $20 that is in the cash register; it may (in fact) end up being your daughter's, sister's or neice's head that is crushed for petty cash.

Making a drug illegal or fighting a drug war will do nothing to stop these junkies from existing, and will only drive up the price of the drugs which will progress them into worse crime earlier.

At the same time, funding these drug users addiction (and not allowing over-doses and jail to lower the population of junkies) will only lead to an ever growing population of junkies who will place more demand on your public service then it can supply; the 'Junkies' which can not have their needs met will eventually go down the path that other 'Junkies' have followed which ends with jail or an overdose.

The only solution to actually fix this problem is to stop producing broken children.

I retract. Everyone here is a bunch of fakes except for NoOne, who appears to have some action happening between the 'ol ears.

Hence a war on drugs is a war by a nation on its' own people. Drug use is a social and health care issue. Not a criminal one.

Anyone want to guess the great conservative thinker who said that? Any of you know? Nah, conservative thought won't strike many of you in your lifetimes.

hardboiled

You're kind of a twit, aren't you?

You can be against making drugs illegal (the libertarian argument) and against injection sites at the same time.

It's been known a lot longer than your foolish pseudo-scientific sociologist BS that a drunk or druggie most often needs to hit "rock bottom" before they are in a sad enough state that the discomfort of change is outweighed by the discomfort of continued addiction.

Anything that prevents an addict from hitting rock bottom enables them to continue their addiction. When a family member continues to "enable" of the individual addict, the shrinks, sociologists and social workers decry this as a bad thing but when the state "enables" millions, it's sound public policy.

And alcohol is only more damaging due to numbers. A crack addict does more damage than a drunk. There just isn't as many of them.

It's you and your hypocritical idiocy that show "cognitive dissonance." Take your attitude and put it in a pipe and smoke it.

Here's a stat for you Iberia..in just one year, without hundreds of thousands of dollars in life saving help ,over 200 people would be dead from just one clinic!..

That is over twice the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan in a 6 year period of war, and the enemy is armed with modern weapons!

What about the other clinics? What would the total be if we added them all up?

What would the death toll be if there were no intervention? 1500+ a year?..more?

They are not safe injection sites, they are houses of horrors where the taxpayer gets to be part of an experiment in which they witness a race to see who will win the game first, the drugs or the health care workers , who really only postpone the inevitable.

Is the CMA collectively on drugs themselves? Whatever happened to the oath of 'do no harm'? Allowing people to inject poisons into their veins in a controlled environment smacks of abuse, and should not be tolerated.

Warwick - cite your arguments rather than making them up. While looking them up, you'll learn something.

Any first year psych text.

And yours?

It's quite amusing to see lberia and hardboiled rail about their perceived one size fits all view of conservative/right wing thought, all the while accusing them of being bigots/prejudiced.

Delicious irony and quite pathetic all at the same time.

NoOne's suggestion of the basic cause of drug addiction to be 'abusive childhoods' is naive. It's similar to the equally naive supposition that poverty is the root cause of crime.

The naivete of this focus on an abusive childhood is that it assumes that there is only one way to deal with an abusive past: drugs. Making a positive life for yourself as an adult is a far better choice. And it is a choice. Admittedly, declaring that one CAN make choices, would unemploy most of the social services bureaucrats who make a very nice salary and benefits, feeding off their assumptions about families and psychology.

This equally ignores that many drug addicts move into drugs because of wealth (all those pop stars, models and etc); because of boredom and feelings of insecurity which have nothing to do with childhood abuse - and - the fact that the drugs are chemically addictive. Once you are in, you are trapped within the addiction. Therefore, the original spurious 'cause' is almost irrelevant.

hardboiled - drug use is a criminal issue. Why? Because the use of the drugs is addictive. Therefore, once you, the dealer, make your population addicted to your product, they MUST purchase it. Is Tim Horton's addictive? Krispy Kreme donuts? If your product is addictive, then, you attempt to maintain a monopolistic control over supply and delivery. That makes you very wealthy.

Is the CMA collectively on drugs themselves? Whatever happened to the oath of 'do no harm'? Allowing people to inject poisons into their veins in a controlled environment smacks of abuse, and should not be tolerated. Posted by: Kursk at August 21, 2008 1:04 PM

Somehow, I trust a doctor rather than some foaming at the mouth moralist on their way to a temperance rally. Or a politician.

Doctors come just a little higher on my list of trust factor than either of those.

Better grab your tamborine Kursk, get on'er.

And hey Warwick - cite away. From what I recall from 1st year psych, it was an easy A with multiple choice all the way through. Didn't you learn how to cite references properly?

Gritgrinder

What about the burden on our commie-care system?

This is the argument time and time again used to restrict our personal rights and choices. It is not your body to do with what you like, all of Canadian society has a stake in your well-being.

If your product is addictive, then, you attempt to maintain a monopolistic control over supply and delivery. That makes you very wealthy. Posted by: ET at August 21, 2008 1:18 PM

You're a smart person ET. By your post, naturally, you can reconcile your argument to the following four statements:

Cigarettes are legal because.....

Contin class pharmaceuticals are legal because....

Marijuana is illegal because....

Harm reduction for addicts is not an applicable strategy because...

I found the comment here:
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1217746#1217746
interesting...

Singapore's system works very well. They moved to a Long Term Inprisonment (LTI) strategy in the early 1990s.

Traffiking gets the same penalty as 1st degree murder -- in Singapore, that is death by hanging. Cheaper than life in prison, but either will do.

Addicts get mandatory rehab -- usually something like 4 years, sometimes longer. The recidivism rate for addicts is

So.... we already know what works. Insite ain't it.

Hardboiled,

If you are too stupid and uneducated that you haven't already learned the concept of the "enabler" prior to spouting off your ignorance of the subject, I really have nothing to offer you.

If you are too lazy to spend 15 seconds googling it for the laymans version, I'm not doing your work for you.

Lastly, don't demand citations when any essay on the topic wouldn't require them as the information is so basic it's taken as a given. It's like demanding cites for Supply and Demand in eco. If you haven't figured that out, you need to find another subject you are capable of understanding.

Especially when you offered none yourself on your own claims. In other words, put up yourself before you demand it of others.

And if you remember taking psych it's too bad you didn't learn anything. I'd demand your money back - you got cheated. All psych classed are easy A's. That is why people use them as their electives (that and psych is where the girls were...)

"The only solution to actually fix this problem is to stop producing broken children."

(This would make Gore, Suzuki and uncle Moe very happy)

I have met many many victims of drugs who came from balanced and well educated families. Some wealthy ones too going to private school.

Hard drugs addiction is not mostly confined to the abused, unloved or less fortunate. That's a myth.

What is true in your analysis is that the visible gutter junkies in back alleys will mostly be the ones you describe because as a head start they had nothing. Nothing includes no pride and nothing to look forward too including wealth...They then just slide down and end up in the gutter which they were already close to being in anyway. It takes lots of money to support an expensive habit and it's only expensive because it's illegal.

How do you explain Keith Richards? Who has been a world champion heroin user for decades. During such time he was still able to create many immortal rock and roll guitar riffs. How about Ozzy Osbourne, Steven Tyler (Aerosmith), Whitney Houston?

Edgar Allan Poe was a well known opium addict most of his writing life. His literature is immortal.

They all had or still have a chance because they are/were rich and more so they had or have something to look forward to or a motivator. Steven Tyler in the early eighties pulled himself out alone. He was almost out of money, alone and paranoid in a slumb hotel on a seedy side of NYC...He came close but he made it back up. Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, Jimmy Hendrix, John Belushi(Was high on coke during SNL) Heath Ledger were not so lucky.

Like anything in life, some are luckier than others, stronger than others, smarter than others.

Want me to start a list of alcoolics who did not end in a back alley?
- My uncle (Died a millionaire)
- W.C. Fields (Died broke but famous)
- Dean Martin (Was drunk on national TV entertaining millions)
And the list goes on.

We are all responsible for our actions.

Except in the LPC's Red Book.

Except in Canada.

The bleeding hearts use compassion as a cover. In reality they do not want the problem fixed. Thousands of their ilk would be out of work.

'The Road To Hell' by Julian Sher & William Marsden shows just who is supplying the drugs that destroy young lives and cause all the problems above. The Angels and the do-gooders.

The sea ports are the key. Why are they porous ? Because some want them to be. Why ? Employment for thousands of social engineers, free spiriters, the latte crowd and HA.

Lastly, don't demand citations when any essay on the topic wouldn't require them as the information is so basic it's taken as a given. It's like demanding cites for Supply and Demand in eco. Posted by: Warwick at August 21, 2008 1:27 PM

Guess things we all 'know' to be true, don't ever need be examined huh Warwick? Maybe repeating something enough times will eventually make it true huh?

And btw, economics and psychology are not sciences Warwick. They are humanities. Best to stick to science. You're starting to sound like the AGW crowd - they just KNOW the planet is doomed....

hardboiled - drug use is a criminal issue. Why? Because the use of the drugs is addictive.

Not it's not. It's a criminal issue because of a bad law, just as prohibition, which organized crime loved, was a bad law and eventually rescinded.

However, as a flexible non-doctrinaire libertarian, I'm open to forced de-tox as a kind of civil defence measure. And I'm sure that 99% of the "clients" and their loved ones would be extremely appreciative of the intervention.

But obviously only in cases where the addiction causes civil disorder and breakdown. If you have legally-obtained means to support your addiction, no problem.

and to your request....

"...public health approach to the problem of illicit drug use and addiction views the problem not as a phenomenon caused by individual psychological (or moral) factors but rather as one causing extensive social problems and threatening public health. Harm reduction theory reflects this attitude and goes a step further, holding that many of the most destructive consequences and refractory problems of illicit drug use are not the results of the drugs per se, but rather of drug policies, i.e., the prohibition of drug use and the criminalization of the drug user. A wide range of individual, social, and cultural factors determine patterns of drug use (from personal curiosity and peer pressure to social and economic deprivation, psychopathology and, possibly, genetic factors). But because of the continued availability and use of increasingly potent drugs, the harm reduction approach addresses the drug problem by altering drug control policies, not the drugs themselves--and certainly not human nature. New and m ore pragmatic drug policies can be powerful tools for minimizing the increasingly adverse consequences associated with the worldwide availability of psychoactive drugs. (1-4)

....

"In a society so zealously (and quixotically) dedicated to being "drug free," there has been little room for compromise and the ideological dispute over needle exchange programs still rages...

....

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcdruck.cfm

....

'Shoot, shovel, and shut up' is not an appropriate public policy response to intravenous drug use. Because the next fashionable cause may beget the same policy.

Freedom in a society is exactly that: free. Free to succeed, free to be mediocre, or free to crash and burn in a pile of human garbage.

Freedom gives us returns, warts and all. And abandoning certain citizens, by not engaging in best practices based upon science, is the realm of the barbarian: selective morality, targetted behaviors, and rigid orthodoxy.

Starts to sound alot like radical Islam, don't it?

And the repudiation of the concept of freedom itself.

Anybody seen my Soma?

You know this one-liner would have worked better if some drug company hadn't actually used Soma as a brand name.

Hardboiled, you think the addiction effect of injectable opiates and cigarettes is equivalent?

You think the harm to the user is equivalent?

Nice straw man you got there. They are as much alike as a bee sting and the bite of a black widow spider. Both are poisonous.

We have been dealing with these types of addictive drugs maybe 150 years here in the West. There are cultures in the world which have been coping with opium and other things much longer. China and India are examples.

You know how the treat addicts in India and China? An opium smoker is treated as dead by his family. He is hounded out of public places by everyone, like a leper. He is not given charity. He is left to die like a dog. The life expectancy of an opium addict is short. As in months. In S. America much the same applies to those who like the coca leaves a little too much.

People in those cultures know from painful history the effects of opiates on people. This has been their adjustment to the problem.

Heroin and cocaine are to opium and coca as beer is to whiskey. The distilled stuff when abused is far more rapid in its destruction of the abuser. You want to spend money helping kids kill themselves with this crap, you go ahead. Me, I'd rather spend it on a nice big jail to dry the stupid b@stards out in for a couple years.

That way they can be alive to hate my guts and call me a square.

Hardboiled, you think the addiction effect of injectable opiates and cigarettes is equivalent? Posted by: The Phantom at August 21, 2008 2:31 PM

Not at all. I was challenging a previous poster, who said "drug use is a criminal issue. Why? Because the use of the drugs is addictive".

I asked about tobacco to challenge that statement, pointing out the hipocrisy and contradiction within current drug laws, whether it be marijuana or simple policy.

I respect ET, and wanted to add to discussion.

Actually, I live at Ground Zero. Right near the DTES, and I advocate injection sites. I also advocate just giving them the drugs. So do most of the people in my neighbourhood - yuppies who probably make more money and pay more taxes than you btw.

You know why? Cuz junkies are going to get the drugs anyway. And they're going to buy them from criminals using my effening laptop. In the process, they'll demean themselves through prostitution, and thieving, thus re-enforcing their belief that they need drugs in order to live with themselves.

Don't get me wrong... I'd also spend money on treatment facilities, and crack down on crime and public disorder, but the current approach doesn't work.

What we need is a little bit more carrot, and a little bit more stick. Both the left and the right are going to have to accept this before we can solve the problem.

I just love all the druggy lovers who say no rules, let everyone do what they want yadda, yadda, yadda.

But let the government set up a druggy rehab house beside where they live and they are Mach 1 Apoplectic before clearing the Tower. Can't have that !!

Kinda like the eco-hypocrites who prevent wind or solar power facilities where they live.

Honestly, what torture logic has to endure in the heads of these people.

One idiot at the Globe site, thinking himself clever, said, "How exactly does In-Site encourage drug use? Does a hospital encourage broken legs?"

Well, no. You see, people go to the hospital to get their broken legs fixed, whereas people go to Insite to have their legs broken, metaphorically speaking, again and again and again.

You have to be an idiot to support Safe Injection Sites, to imagine that there's something "safe" about injecting addictive poison into your blood.

hardboiled

What "science" is responsible for explaining human behavior? Oh, right, that isn't science's job.

And I don't think I should have to comment on your lack of understanding between concepts which are too basic for citation and what are old wives tales.

And I await your own "proof" which you so far haven't offered while condescending to those who fail to waste their time "Citing" scientific unknowns such as which direction the sun rises.

Socialist moonbats, forever sucking at the public teat, NEVER advocate tough love: That would cut them off THEIR addiction, which is providing care for chronically untreatable parasites--made "untreatable" by the leftie politicians' and social/public health workers' fawning, enabling policies. It's cash for life for the socialist bureaucrats.

I'm totally with Tony Clement, and keep meaning to write him to give him support. (Write him at:
Clement.Tony@parl.gc.ca)

The moonbats and their allies in the MSM will do everything they can to paint Clement as a mean, unfeeling, CONSERVATIVE stuffed shirt when all he's doing is pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes and that Shoot-Up Clinics simply prolong the long, slow suicide--now government-assisted (isn't there a law against this?)--of their users.

I think it's time for some Orwell wannabe to write a book called "2008."

batb,

I don't have a problem with funding for rehab as this would be "hand-up" help rather than a prolonging of the problem.

Making it easier for an addict to keep using is counter-productive.

I live close to ground zero,about a thirty minute walk.We are the target of choice for junkies,property crime is inevitable.But being robbed at knife point by a couple of junkies who seemed to enjoy the experience a little too much to the point that had my wife and I wondering if this is THE DAY has left me a little jaded.I grew up in a welfare drug infested district in Montreal,and having lost my way as a result of this fact I became one of these people,homeless and addicted,willing to do almost anything to get a fix. I had to get out and thank god I knew this or I would be dead or one of the walking dead,trying to figure out where my next fix was coming from.Had I had access to injection sites I would have set up camp right on the spot,instead I joined the army for ten years,got my head straight,finished high school,have worked and paid taxes for the last twenty years for the same employer and through some lucky and wise investment ,live comfortably.I think injection sites make it too easy for the addict to stay addicted,and having my wife's and my life threatened while out for a walk in daylight no less leaves me feeling not so charitable.

Rehab is OK with me too. Afterall, anyone with an addiction needs help--but not the kind of help the moonbat do-gooders are supporting in the "safe (sic) injection sites."

What's the difference between doing a Kevorkian at someone's bedside and slowly killing them every time they shoot up with heroin? Both are assisted suicides, IMO, and I thought there was a law against this in Canada.

"Safe" injection sites aren't safe in the same way that "safe" sex--"just use a condom"--isn't safe.

It's time we say what we mean and mean what we say. Lives are lost otherwise.

"Caroline Bennett, Liberal health critic or something, is an MD, believe it or not, who thinks shoot-up sites are the way to go. She also thinks having our Health care delivered by private clinics using our health card is wrong."
Libspeak- Universal Healthcare
Actual Meaning- Only unionized government employees are capable.

"The moonbats and their allies in the MSM will do everything they can to paint Clement as a mean, unfeeling, CONSERVATIVE stuffed shirt when all he's doing is pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes and that Shoot-Up Clinics simply prolong the long, slow suicide--now government-assisted (isn't there a law against this?)--of their users"

Don't worry, junkies don't vote and socialists always vote Left. So nothing really changed for the Conservatives today. No better. No worst.

hardboiled, there is no comparison between the use of drugs and the use of tobacco. Yes, both are addictive, though hardly of the same degree. But there are other variables than 'addiction' to consider.

Drug use destroys your capacity to think. and not just during the time it's in your system, but permanently. Tobacco use doesn't do that.

me no dhimmi - I maintain that drug use is a criminal offense, for several reasons.

The first is that it removes the individual from participating in society as a responsible and accountable individual. That's because it destroys the mind.

The second is because, since it is addictive as well as mentally destructive, this mindless individual then becomes the ward of society; we taxpayers have to support them. The individual is incapable of constructive work in the society. A society can only afford to support a small ratio of non-contributing members.

The third is, because it is addictive, it moves the drug into being a 'necessity'. Since the individual is mentally destroyed, they cannot themselves work and provide for their own drugs. They resort to crime - everything from theft to prostitution.

So, on three factors - this individual is not only unable to contribute to society, but requires constant care by the society, and in addition, harms individuals and businesses of that society. That's why I consider it a criminal issue rather than an individual libertarian - do what you want - issue. Because choosing to take drugs isn't confined to you, but involves many other members of the society in harmful ways.

ET,

What is the difference between weed and alcohol and explain why one should be illegal while the other is not.

you make a choice and it's a bad one. tough shit.

I didn't say "Hard-Drug" users, I said "Junkies" and there is a difference ...

The 'Well Adjusted' middle-class kids who get caught up in drugs typically hit their own personal 'Rock-Bottom' well before they're living on the street and haning around a safe-drug-injection site.

ET, lots of people takes lots of drugs, and live quite normal lives. I'm quite sure it's not good for them, but then again neither is not exercising, eating junk food as a staple, and freaking out about Dubya every five minutes.

Some drugs, like crystal meth, rock cocaine and I'm sure many others, manifest themselves quickly in an addiction, which absolutely ruins their lives.

I remember one of my poli sci profs talking about opiates in society while discussing Marx's views about religion. He said opiates, obviously defined loosely, could include having a VCR.

Maybe that's where the term "Crackberry" comes in.

When MADD came into the picture, drunk driving became a target of politically correct demonization. Thus, logic and critical thinking goes straight out the window.

A very lovely local woman I knew divorced her wealthy husband and took up with a real estate guy, but bucks up, living in the wilds of central Nebraska. Turns out he was dealing meth to maintain cash flow. She got hooked and the rest is history. Pictures in the local paper [front page, how humiliating] showed a woman that appeared to be her grandmother. When I knew her, she ran five miles every morning. Now, I doubt she could cross the street on her own.

What I want to know is why Americans feel the need to pursue that lifestyle? Many people experiment when they're young, but what keeps so many consuming drugs to the extent police officers and government officials are being slain in Colombia and Mexico? It is a tragedy we need to solve.

shamrock - I don't think that taking drugs is in any manner comparable to eating junk food or not exercising. Neither of the latter are addictive and it is your choice to act in such a manner.

Nor is it a trivial phase during one's teens.

If it were either, it wouldn't be the enormously lucrative economy that it is. Lucrative, that is, for the sellers. Disastrous to those who are addicted and to those who must support and look after addicts.

warwick - by 'weed' I presume you mean marijuana. What's the difference between its use and alcohol use? Not much, and ingestion of both to the extent that you cannot think and be responsible is, in my view, a criminal act. It's the result that I am concerned about. Can you, as an adult, behave as a responsible person? Yes or No.

The hard drugs that engender deep addictive dependency are pure criminal acts, in selling and using.

ET, my point was that many people who, for instance, smoke pot, are far more healthy than "clean living" people who eat poorly and don't exercise.

Habits and addictions are not the same thing, but they share characteristics. Lots of people have harmful habits not related to drug use.

I thought I was clear that I was not talking about the hard drugs - heroin, crack/cocaine, meth, etc.

I support the legalization of marijuana - controlled, licensed and taxed by government - for adults. They should be subject to the same constraints as alcohol - no driving. But, to test people for use, rather than impairment, as the police do now, is dead wrong.

If we take marijuana off the grid of enforcement (ie-deploy law enforcement towards hard drugs, and treat addiction as a medical issue), that would be a good thing, IMO. Then the social cost of smoking marijuana could be recovered through the tax system. Instead, people go to pushers who introduce them to harder stuff. IOW, marijuana is a gateway drug all right - to pushers to harder drugs.

Too bad you missed the nuances of my post - oh well, I thought it was quite clear. Perhaps you should read my posts in more detail before commenting - that would be a good thing.

BTW, I don't think it's up to you to define "responsible behaviour." You have some strong opinions that some object to (though I think you have a valid right to air them). Some of them might decide that is not "responsible behaviour."

As a pharmacist I was taught that all drugs have a benefit and all can be toxic. Dose and delivery is what makes the difference. Nicotine appears to prevent Parkinson's disease and maybe Crohn's disease. Marijuana increases the risk of schizophrenia but prevents nausea, etc, etc

Heroin and cocaine take very small doses and if given intravenously or smoked cause a massive effect in the brain very quickly in less than 5 minutes. This makes it relatively easy to get habituated then addicted. This is why they are illegal while the related drugs morphine and Ritalin are not, though you can of course get habituated and even addicted with those. But it takes more.

Psychiatrists I work with think that addiction is a matter of will; that is the drug abuse takes away free will. I think this is the paradigm many in health care and social work believe. I for one, think that is an illusion. Otherwise no junkie or alcoholic would ever recover.

As for testing for marijuana in drivers (like for alcohol) can't yet be done. It's because a joint smoked a week or more ago shows up in the urine and can't be associated at the time of your arrest.

WHY NO SAFE INJECTION IN REGINA?
BECAUSE THE VOLUME OF HEROIN IN THE CITY IS MINISCULE COMPARED TO HONGCOUVER. I WONDER IF IMMIGRATION MIGHT ACCEPT SOME RESPONSIBILITY HERE.
OOPS DID I SAY THE "R" WORD? SORRY, SO SORRY. I'M SORRY.

Valencia, there was a recent change in law that allows police to force you to submit a blood sample to test for marijuana, if officer believes you are impaired by the drug. If you refuse to submit, then you will receive a $1000 fine, and still be charged with impaired driving.

The rub is that marijuana is illegal, so police think that justifies this action. Obviously, this test cannot prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, since marijuana can be detected at least 30 days after ingestion.

How this will survive a Charter challenge is unclear to me.

BTW, marijuana is NOT addictive, it is, however, habit forming.

Islam is the best solution for this problems

1) never made or produce the alchole

2) never allow selling alchol

3) Never allow drinking any alchol for all ages

4) then do not worry about drink and drive issure

because you are ban to drinking it for all the time.

when alchol cause your bain act different and taht time you are nto You who act normal it is drunk person therefore this is danger chemicla you are drinking

when red light is ON you can not pass it saying for your execuses

you can creat alchol flavor and use some kind of relax chemical or tea inmix wiht it or some engery to it but not made you drunk

druge and drinking is go bck to mental ill ness and destroy your cell brain

after you get old if you eat little drinking still it affect your body in old age or if you drunk problems in sooner time before you get old in young age

I always tell myself when i saw old men and woman with too many wrinkdle tehy must be drinking so much alchol swhen they were young

alchol affect skin and brain and behviour

then why you are not stop drinking like stop smokcing

some goverment rules is funny I went to shell gas station and I saw they cover the section of smoking to not motive peopel buy the cigar

i told them why are fool yourself then stop selling cigar in all hte time not hide it but resolve your problmes

There is not benefit of doing alchol all those adulty is affect of drunking all rapesis becaue of drinkign problmes abuse woman abuse is cause of drinking problems

I think government must stop the alchol and replace it with similar taste aclhol flavor with not affect of alchol in it. it save life of too many people

and those are mental illness to help them

I have notice from time to time, the people from the left switch over to the right. Dennis Miller is one example, David Horowitz is another. I know of several in my personal life. Yet, I have never met a conservative who became a liberal.

Why is that?

I remember when I was young, everyone was a liberal, but now many of those people are conservative.

Perhaps it has something to do with actually growing up. Perhaps Liberals are simply a bunch of kids who refuse to grow up.

Makes sense.

New contact info for Tony Clement:

Clement.T@parl.gc.ca

Right now I'm drinking Churchill's Crusted Port (1988), smoking a blend of half Balkan #1 and half Corsair in a Stanwell #124 (Diplomat) pipe, and eating some optimally ripe Shropshire Blue, and frankly my dears, I don't give a danm what you think. Let them inject cake, I say!

How many here have quit smoking recently ?

azphiks asked, "Why no injection sites in Regina?"

There aren't any, and as you say the amount of trash on the streets is miniscule for one very simple reason.

They would freeze to death in about an hour in the middle of winter. Junkies may be high, but in their rational moments they aren't too stupid.

see how the so called religion of peace deals with its addiction problem... and it's a UN report too, so you know the left simply has no argument with it... it's as though an ayatollah himself had written it.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3805

... 20% of Iran's adult population was somehow involved in drug abuse"

I have, Cat, 6 months ago. What's your point?

"A lot of these hard-drug users had amazingly abusive childhoods and were pretty broken children that looked for the 'oblivion' provided by drugs at a very young age. Generally speaking, their awful childhood provides them with very little emotional maturity or empathy and the 'hunger' from drug abuse pushes people to break just about any personal boundry they have."

Thank god someone has explained that its really NOT the junkies fault.

Now if you could just tie it into GEORGE BUSH somehow........

Horny Toad

Took me six tries , Tenebris , haven't had one in two and a half years . The point is , I did it myself .

When the "right" offers scientific data to bolster its position, the left doesn't care, and ignores/rejects it; yet when the left has a position to push, they'll be only too happy to say, "look, scientific data proves we're right", regardless of the veracity of fraudulence or whatever of the proffered data.

Very clever... using convenient scientific data, particularly statistics, to cloud, muddy, confuse and distract from the issue so as to force acquiescence and acceptance or at least crush opposition.

No amount of "scientific data" can change the plain, basic, common-sense truth, which is that drugs are harmful no matter how you view and treat the issue, and that the best solution is to help people to stop using them, not to help them to keep using them. This plain, undeniable truth cannot and must not be forgotten, no matter how inconvenient to the misguided proponents of state-funded free-drug outlets.

What next?? We're going to build playgrounds for pedophiles so they feel at home! What a F$%&@* up society!!

Anyone read "Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy", by Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels)?

@iowavette:
"What I want to know is why Americans feel the need to pursue that lifestyle? Many people experiment when they're young, but what keeps so many consuming drugs . . ."

It's not complicated. The reason people drink or use drugs is that it FEELS GOOD. It takes the "pressure" off. It reduces anxiety. It's easier to get gooned than it is to deal with stuff. And, further, crack cocaine makes for good sex. So, forget about your troubles and get laid with some juicy old bag all for less than 50 bucks - what's not to like about the lifestyle?

Here's a 1-minute film that every NDP'er should watch. Makes a similar point as Kate was making, in a thought-provoking way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWF-wWV06jI

shamrock - No, your 'lots of people take drugs' wasn't clear that you referred to marijuana.

And yes, it is up to me to define responsible behaviour. I am a member of the society, and therefore, as a reasoning person, it is up to me to both participate in the debate, discussion and final definition of 'what is responsible behaviour' and to abide by the rule of law about such behaviour.

It is not up to me as an individual, just as it is not up to you as an individual, to declare and authorize what is responsible behaviour. That is up to the larger community of which both you and I are a part.

For marijuana to be legal, you and those who think like you, would have to convince, by rational argument, those who do not think like you, of the merits of your position.

Furthermore, setting up three variables: smoking pot, eating junk food and not exercising is an invalid comparison, for you are suggesting that they are mutually exclusive. They aren't. As Vitruvius has pointed out, he's doing three such activities all at once (more or less) - though I'd hardly define his cheese and port as junk food.

As for my having strong opinions, so what? Are you suggesting I ought to have wimpy opinions? Are you suggesting that my opinions should only be those of the majority? What's your point?

He11, I wouldn't define my tobacco as junk food either!

Since when did carbon monoxide become food?

Yet it remains the case that I, speaking as a scientist, need only a single counter-example to invalidate any over-generalized conjecture, and, sorry to ruin your day, folks, I am a single counter-example to many of your conjectures.

Funny how that works, isn't it.

Call for John Stuart Mill, white courtesy telephone, please.

Scratch a conservative, find a hypocrite. That is all you know, and all you need to know.

No, Manny, that is all you know. Speak for yourself, sir, you do not own me.

I used to be stupid, but I quit , and became a conservative:-)))))

Remember the stats quoted by the Vancouver Chief of Police about his 378 top drug users. They had over 14,000 criminal convictions with over 26,000 court appearances. One user he cited had a $240,000 annual drug habit which took between 1-5 million dollars of theft to supply involving 4,000 people robbed of their possessions.

Just try to imagine the cost in courts, lawyers, social workers, police, prisons, insurance, and the heartache and time of the victims of these addicts. The CMA and the feel-good lefties running this enabling clinic could care less about this as its all about the safety of their charges as they destroy the surrounding neighbourhood.

If I can remember right only about 10,000 addicts die from overdozes annually in the US. The only choice society really has is either legalize all drugs or do what Singapore does. The war on drugs is lost, time to move on.

Three things cause heroin-related deaths:

1. Overdoses due to variation in the strength of the drug.
2. Poisoning from impurities in the drug.
3. Diseases spread by the sharing of needles.

Prostitution and theft accompany heroin use because the drug is very expensive.

Murders are related to heroin trade because the drug is distributed by criminal gangs who use violence to gain market share.

All these bad things result from the fact that heroin use and trade are illegal.

So when discussing all the evils associated with heroin, it's important to recall that most of them are caused by prohibition.

Likewise are most of the "harms" being "reduced" by "harm reduction" programs caused by drug prohibition.

It seems like both sides are really engaged in expensive social-engineering. They should be simply having a technical disagreement about which paternalistic policies are more effective.

Creating and staffing "programs" to solve "problems" identified by the "media" to allow politicians to "look good" is a gross waste of our resources. A dollar spent on an addict is a dollar not spent on dialysis for a single-mother, or a dollar not spent on rehabilitating an industrial accident victim, or a dollar not spent on ... well, you get the picture. And before a leftie says there is lots to go around, we can do it all, I would suggest a glance in my wallet, which is empty at the moment, thanks to dollars being taken out of it, away from my family that needs those funds, to pay for a "program" that employs social "workers". The resources in my wallet are finite, you see. There is no more to take. Prioritize, in other words. Drug addicts are not a priority. To make them a priority presents a moral hazard that lays waste to dollars pissed away on DARE "programs". How clever... spend money on advocacy to not undertake a harmful activity, and then take away the risk of that harmful activity with the other hand. All the while, depriving me of money I need to raise my family.

Let them die. I could care less.

Im all for cutting off the supply.
Magic Blue(oppium coming from the golden triangle
through Bangkok. American Gangster and Mr untouchable,two movies depicting two very large dealers,busted and in jail,supply cut off.
Next.

I can't help thinking that the term "safe injection site" is an oxymoron.

When I go to my doctor's office and get a flu shot
in November, I consider that a "safe injection site".

And don't forget, it's safer to inject in a site in, say,
your arm, than in, say, your eyeball.

So I don't see how it's an oxymoron, per se.

I am a marihuana smoker of 30+ years who has been a steady taxpayer since 19, card carrying Conservative member, father of 2, grandfather of 1.
At a younger age I experimented with LSD, mescaline, mushrooms, speed then later cocaine and once snorted heroin.
Of all of the harder drugs above, cocaine was the one that was most 'difficult' for me to shake off, it is to note that at that time (mid 80's to early 90's) it was real fashonable and was prevalent in bars full of 'friends'.

Through all this, i also consumed alcool moderately.

Through all this , I was able to raise kids with both my wife and I working and nobody ever suffered in any way. Drug money was only available when absolutely everything else including activities with and/or for the kids were covered.
The wife and I never played golf or any other (Sometime expensive)personal hobbies. We just enjoyed sociolising with friends and get high.
I know of other people/couples just like us.

Today, we enjoy our 2 joints per day, in the evening to unwind before going to bed often for some great sex as weed is a terrific sensual enhancer. Seldom do we drink anymore especially to get high with it as it is much more toxic to our bodies and not just the hangover effect.

Reading some of the above opinions makes me laugh and/or cringe as it is obvious some are purely speculating and have never even experimented with any of these drugs but they feel they can recommend solutions many based on pure exagerated propaganda.

To the "wrong" person with the "wrong" brain either be from weakness associated with the body's chemical imbalances and simply lower intellect, different raising or just lack of willpower, drugs of any kind including pharmaceuticals, pot and alcool can be detrimental to one self or to their surrounding. PERIOD.

I have studied this social problem closely and I can attest without any doubt that the best solution is to stop PROHIBITION, give the large pharmaceutical co. the mandate to sell these drugs under strict controls, tax them (But not overboard like tobacco is because again a black market will start). Force these pharma co.'s to devellop alternatives that can be ingested and be none/less addictive so that no body 'damage' from snorting, smoking or injecting occurs.

The only drugs that cannot be tolerated and are atrociously dangerous is crystal meth and the designer dance drugs which are related...These need to be stamped out and the only way to do this is by legalising the others (Or at least devellop safer alternatives) so they are affordable. The kids and the welfare classes go for this shit only because it's super cheap and the intense high lasts long. These drugs would all but dissapear if others were legal. It exists only because of prohibition.

Lastly, some commentors are saying that pot should not be legal, I'll say this: I'll agree only if alcool also is made illegal.
Then both you and I can pay more money to some back alley guy to get our drug of choice.
Sounds fair?
If your rebuttal is that alcool has been part of mankind for the longuest time, i'll answer that my drug was put on earth by design. It is part of nature. Alcool is man's invention.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, vitrivial, I'm just making an observation that is self evident when one reads this post and the comments from the usual small dead-minded right wing loons. You may be the rare exception of a "conservative" who walks the talk, but I doubt it. Scratch a con, find a phoney.

ET, my point is that, IMO, marijuana should be legalized and taxed, so its social cost is recovered. The argument that it is can be harmful is invalid, otherwise junk food should be banned. They are different substances, but both are harmful to you when ingested. Should junk food be banned because some people eat it and smoke marijuana too? C'mon, I'm not trying to make some deep philosophical argument - get over yourself, will ya!

@You don't know ...
The cheap legal drinking & drugging and cheap sex for everybody is what you already get in Haiti and Jamaica. But the society you get is like Haiti. Is that what you want? Cheap thrills in a stupid 3rd world country? Your kids grow to be gun-toting 3rd world idiots? Everybody here (except yourself) seems to know this how the cheap/legal drugs scenario plays out. As some would say,"What have you been smoking?"

Quick! To the ramparts! Get the re-education centres established, and incarcerate everyone who does not behave exactly how YOU THINK JJJoseph.

Gads, those four horseman are coming over the horizon quick man, get to the panic room RIGHT NOW!!!

(And please ignore the millions of responsible persons who use marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco who are well adjusted contributors to society. Ignore the man behind the curtain)

@hardboiled:
"please ignore the millions of responsible persons who use marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco who are well adjusted contributors to society"

Oh, yeah, right - in their own minds! They may think they're well-adjusted contributors. But to those of us who have to live with them, they're just dead-end grumps with a lot of bad habits - and their offspring are terminal losers. Dream on!

to JJJoseph :

you can not simpley stop them or ask them to stop alcohol, cigar and other druges

you need to help them and some times taht is not your job to do but can educate society how to help those people

when you park you car and suddenly those stoges come and ask money they are not poor they are mentaly ill
they need help real help

by provide pscycological help to those people
some can get help some need more money to help them

those people are not healthy peopel they are menaly ill people if you understand this fact they are not ok and
some time you must give them motive yes you can change and you can be some body else to put them back from that elution they are in

most of those come from abusive and harsh time in their life not able to cope with it this is big team work insocity that all people must join to help this people by ban seeling alchol and smoke as first step and provide community to cure them some not understand theyneed to help
and thier family member are nto care to learn how to help these people get cured they can if they want and society helped at least 80% can save thier life and other who are victim by them

to JJJoseph :

you can not simpley stop them or ask them to stop alcohol, cigar and other druges

you need to help them and some times taht is not your job to do but can educate society how to help those people

when you park you car and suddenly those stoges come and ask money they are not poor they are mentaly ill
they need help real help

by provide pscycological help to those people
some can get help some need more money to help them

those people are not healthy peopel they are menaly ill people if you understand this fact they are not ok and
some time you must give them motive yes you can change and you can be some body else to put them back from that elution they are in

most of those come from abusive and harsh time in their life not able to cope with it this is big team work insocity that all people must join to help this people by ban seeling alchol and smoke as first step and provide community to cure them some not understand theyneed to help
and thier family member are nto care to learn how to help these people get cured they can if they want and society helped at least 80% can save thier life and other who are victim by them