3843 replies to this topic

[Love the rock]

I now have visions of diabetics breaking into
homes ,steeling boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios
before getting on their bikes riding off to case another neighbourhood .Diabetic Mayhem at its finest .

Edited by Love the rock, 13 September 2019 - 09:44 PM.

[Greg]

Diabetics and smokers aren't usually causing mayhem and damage to the downtown core, they also don't need to be artificially revived if they have one too many cigarettes one day.

 

Yes, different diseases have different symptoms. (And nobody debates the value of resuscitating a smoker whose heart stops, or a diabetic who lapses into a coma.) 

 

Look, I think we should be enforcing the bylaws downtown. And I think we need the other pillars of dealing with addiction, in addition to harm reduction. But it is unhelpful (IMHO) when trying to convince others on these issues, to castigate addicts and the mentally ill. I think it is more productive to treat this as a medical issue, and to argue that we aren't providing the appropriate medical response if all we are doing is offering safe injection sites without the accompanying prevention, treatment, and enforcement.

 

When the argument is framed in this manner, it becomes a discussion of how to best help the addicts *and* the community, rather than pitting them against one another. I also think you are more likely to convince others of the need to broaden the approach, when the position being argued is not seen simply as "hating" on addicts. Just my two cents.

[Love the rock]

One different is Greg is that most smokers and diabetics can work and function in society. Smokers and type #2 also usually pay for their own poison .After many have spent time in the workforce contributing to OAP and CPP
their lifespan is cut short . They pay into plans they don’t get full use of . Smokers and overweight people are often fat shamed and shunned for their addiction. Passed over for jobs .They are often thought of as dirty and lazy . Smokers and obese people suffer .These are only observations as I am neither .Not all type #2 diabetics have weight issues either .

[Victoria Watcher]

also safe injection sites are not the only way to prevent deaths.  users can just not use alone and that's one way to prevent death. your partner has the naxalone.  

 

 

the mainland and victoria overdose death rates are higher than other communities that do not have injection sites.  so there is nothing magical about them.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 September 2019 - 03:03 AM.

[LJ]

Yes, different diseases have different symptoms. (And nobody debates the value of resuscitating a smoker whose heart stops, or a diabetic who lapses into a coma.) 

 

Look, I think we should be enforcing the bylaws downtown. And I think we need the other pillars of dealing with addiction, in addition to harm reduction. But it is unhelpful (IMHO) when trying to convince others on these issues, to castigate addicts and the mentally ill. I think it is more productive to treat this as a medical issue, and to argue that we aren't providing the appropriate medical response if all we are doing is offering safe injection sites without the accompanying prevention, treatment, and enforcement.

 

When the argument is framed in this manner, it becomes a discussion of how to best help the addicts *and* the community, rather than pitting them against one another. I also think you are more likely to convince others of the need to broaden the approach, when the position being argued is not seen simply as "hating" on addicts. Just my two cents.

We don't offer smokers free cigarettes and a nice quiet to have their smokes. We don't encourage diabetics to eat lots of sugary drinks and eats.

 

I also am in favour of treating addiction like an illness, treat it the same we did smoking, stigmatize it, give them fewer and fewer places to use, and get more rehab facilities not no barrier shelters.

[Mike K.]

That’s what the war on drugs was about.

But it has been decided by many jurisdictions that it is no longer a war worth fighting once the drugs are inside our borders and in our communities.

Once in, drugs (personal use amounts) are not an issue for police in our region. 20 years ago even a small amount would have landed a possession charge and a legal guagmire. Ultimately where this all stems from is an overburdened court system.

[DustMagnet]

We don't offer smokers free cigarettes and a nice quiet to have their smokes. We don't encourage diabetics to eat lots of sugary drinks and eats.

 

I also am in favour of treating addiction like an illness, treat it the same we did smoking, stigmatize it, give them fewer and fewer places to use, and get more rehab facilities not no barrier shelters.

 

The thing we didn't do with smoking is ban it outright and bust heads where we saw people doing it.

We even allow the sale of regulated, manufactured cigarettes so you don't have to worry if your next smoke is going to kill you because it's laced with too much nicotine (which is fatal in a large enough dose) or something else entirely.

[Victoria Watcher]

you think government regulation keeps cigarettes safe from fentanyl? I think the free market and courts does.

[Mike K.]

We still act as though fentanyl finds its was into the supply against the wishes of the drug trade.

Users want fentanyl. It wouldn’t be used if there wasn’t demand for it. Dealers supply what the users want, and fentanyl is a hot commodity despite its dangers.

[DustMagnet]

We still act as though fentanyl finds its was into the supply against the wishes of the drug trade.

Users want fentanyl. It wouldn’t be used if there wasn’t demand for it. Dealers supply what the users want, and fentanyl is a hot commodity despite its dangers.

 

So the free market would encourage fentanyl-laced cigarettes, but the courts would discourage that.  Checks and balances.

What they don't want is random amounts, which is where regulation comes in.

 

[Victoria Watcher]

regulation is not what regulates the market though. possible legal action does.

[Mike K.]

So the free market would encourage fentanyl-laced cigarettes, but the courts would discourage that.  Checks and balances.

What they don't want is random amounts, which is where regulation comes in.

 

 

I don't want fentanyl in my cigarettes, though, and I certainly would never buy a brand of cigarettes that has fentanyl as an ingredient. That line of thinking applies to 99.999999% of smokers, just like it applies to 99.999999% of coffee drinkers who also do not want fentanyl as an ingredient in their coffee.

[DustMagnet]

I don't want fentanyl in my cigarettes, though, and I certainly would never buy a brand of cigarettes that has fentanyl as an ingredient. That line of thinking applies to 99.999999% of smokers, just like it applies to 99.999999% of coffee drinkers who also do not want fentanyl as an ingredient in their coffee.

 

Yeah, but if you do get some in your cigarettes or coffee your estate can sue.

[Mike K.]

Sure, but that would be the result of a malicious act.

But with today’s drug supply fentanyl is present because many users want fentanyl to be present. That’s a big difference.

[DustMagnet]

regulation is not what regulates the market though. possible legal action does.

 

It's just a clever name.

[LJ]

Sure, but that would be the result of a malicious act.

But with today’s drug supply fentanyl is present because many users want fentanyl to be present. That’s a big difference.

The Chinese father/son duo that was exporting hundreds of pounds of fentanyl to the US advertised his product as able to cause overdoses.

It was a feature not a glitch. People wanted to know that they were getting powerful stuff.

[Mike K.]

It’s not a secret the in-demand supplies are laced.

There’s even a documentary series on Netflix which features a dealer from Baltimore stating if there’s fentanyl in his supply he can’t sell it fast enough.

[Victoria Watcher]

The Green Party would decriminalize all drug possession if elected in October, leader Elizabeth May said Saturday on the campaign trial in Winnipeg.

 

May said legalizing possession of all drugs is necessary to curb the opioid crisis in Canada.

 

"We must stop treating drug addiction as a criminal issue. This is a national health emergency."

 

https://www.cbc.ca/n...ssion-1.5292817

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 21 September 2019 - 04:19 PM.

[rmpeers]

The Green Party would decriminalize all drug possession if elected in October, leader Elizabeth May said Saturday on the campaign trial in Winnipeg.

May said legalizing possession of all drugs is necessary to curb the opioid crisis in Canada.

"We must stop treating drug addiction as a criminal issue. This is a national health emergency."

https://www.cbc.ca/n...ssion-1.5292817

Ah, that carefree feeling when you know you're not actually going to form government and have to do what was promised.

Seriously though, do you think total decriminalization of all drugs is a selling point for the average voter? Even the average green voter?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea in theory.

Edited by rmpeers, 21 September 2019 - 05:22 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

how does it help?

 

are the guys spread out on pandora going "golly i'd get a good job if i could but my criminal record for drug possession is keeping me from getting that job so i guess i'll just keep using".