Canadian Politics Thread

[Junkyard Dog]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

when you think of the kind of thing Bieksa did with mental health awareness, that kind of thing can do so much good. I'm sure he turned some folks around on the issue.

 

I think the same kind of thing can be done on this issue. Again, you can't convince everyone but you don't need to. Some people will always think one chemical is more moral than another, and you just have to work around them. 

 

Speakers and commentators are super beneficial but there can also be some that go against what you personally want. 
 

Media altogether can and has skewed opinions on drugs general speaking. Even factual information people can let skew their opinion a certain way. That moral aspect of this they helped create. 
 

People/society tend to think drugs are bad. So if they see a certain one causing more addiction, overdose, deaths they may tend to lean a certain way on that drug compared to others. 
 

I think media tends to have a hold on the average persons opinion on drugs, not just con/lib/etc voters. The opinions derived from it gets passed on to parents/schools/everybody. Especially in the last 40ish years. Generations view of drugs passed down. Decades of media publicity engraved into people’s minds. 
 

I think what you’re asking is a tough thing to accomplish and will take more than just moderate cons.
 

I think that the SoCons base and maybe the PPC base have the real universal stance on drugs where you’ll know for certain where they stand given how strong they view the “morality” of things. I think every other political demographic and the average person who isn’t following politics will vary immensely on their view on drugs. 

[bishopshodan]

Suboxone.

 

Very popular at my work. 

 

 

And you will never stop drug use.

I might remind us all that we turned our liquor stores into essential services.  Withdrawl from that celebrated drug is one of the worst due to the risk of seizures etc..

[Gurn]

2 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

its worth looking at who is dying: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2021002/article/00003/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm

 

36% of people were employed in 2016 that died from an overdose. 

 

In 54% of deaths people were not on social assistance.

 

These are not criminals, they are the guy building your condo or serving you at a hotel. 

 

Or guys writing articles for the sports pages in a local newspaper, that also did radio talk shows.

[Miss Korea]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Why not?  Isn't that what everyone else does?

 

Also, hard drug use has only been "de-criminalized" in BC.  Not in the rest of Canada or any other part of North America.

 

In Oregon, they de-criminalized hard drugs in 2020.  They were the first state to do it.  Guess what, they just re-criminalized them this year.  Why is that?

 

Why Oregon is recriminalizing even small amounts of illicit drugs : NPR

 

Three years after Oregon became the first state in the country to decriminalize drug use - that's including drugs like methamphetamines and fentanyl - the experiment now appears to be dead. State lawmakers sent a bill last week to Oregon's governor that would once again make it a crime to possess small, personal-use amounts of drugs.

 

What's happening in Oregon could end up reshaping the national debate over how to respond to America's deadly fentanyl crisis. NPR addiction correspondent Brian Mann and Oregon Public Broadcasting reporter Conrad Wilson have been following this and join us now. Hey to both of you.

 

CONRAD WILSON, BYLINE: Hi, Ailsa.

 

BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: Hi there.

 

CHANG: So, Conrad, I want to start with you because I need you to catch us up here. Go back in time and explain why Oregon voters decided to decriminalize personal drug use in the first place.

 

WILSON: So the idea was to make addiction something that, in Oregon, would be almost entirely dealt with as a public health issue. So, you know, think clinics with doctors, nurses. And really, the hope was to sever the connection between substance use and the criminal justice system. So when voters passed ballot measure 110 in 2020, there was a lot of hope that Oregon could try something different to keep people out of prisons and jails. Not only did measure 110 decriminalize small amounts of hard drugs. It also dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to expand treatment. That part isn't going away.

 

CHANG: Right. OK. Then fast-forward three years to today, and Oregon is abandoning the decriminalization part of this whole experiment. Why the shift?

 

WILSON: Well, a lot of Oregonians blame Measure 110 for the rise in overdose deaths and a worsening homelessness crisis. But Oregon has long had a shortage of affordable housing, and some researchers say fentanyl is to blame for the spike in overdose deaths. The opioid entered the state's drug supply at roughly the same time voters passed Measure 110. Still, lawmakers went into this legislative session under a lot of pressure to recriminalize drugs. The debate around the bill on both sides was really heated. Jesse Merrithew is a civil rights attorney in Portland. He told lawmakers that decriminalization - it might reduce the street problems, but it isn't going to help people who are struggling with addiction.

 

JESSE MERRITHEW: The difference now is that instead of leaving people on the street to suffer in public, you're going to leave people in jail cells to suffer. But there, they'll be out of sight and out of mind.

 

WILSON: But others testified it was the criminal consequences or the threat that helped them stop using drugs. Renee Peffer (ph) now works with law enforcement, helping people struggling with addiction, and says she's been sober for 20 years.

 

RENEE PEFFER: I had a choice. I could go to prison, or I could go to treatment. I actually spent enough time in jail for my head to clear out, and I'm very grateful that I was given the opportunity to go get treatment instead of going to prison.

 

WILSON: And that's what got us to last week, where the legislature's Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly voted to recriminalize drugs.

 

CHANG: OK. Well, Brian, can you just expand the scope here? Like, why is the backlash against this experiment in Oregon kind of a big deal nationally?

 

MANN: Yeah. Ailsa, this is being watched really closely all over the country, in part because drug deaths are so grim right now, topping 112,000 fatal overdoses a year. There was hope Oregon's experiment would offer some answers and offer a roadmap also for how to dismantle the so-called war on drugs. That's the set of really tough state and federal crime laws that punish people with addiction, hitting Black and Hispanic families especially hard. Researchers now say the science is clear that when you criminalize addiction, it does help a small number of people, but a lot more are actually likely to die from overdoses. I spoke about this with Dr. Nora Volkow, who heads the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She's the federal government's top expert on addiction.

 

NORA VOLKOW: The data show much more detrimental effects. It's at least thirteenfold higher risk of dying when these individuals are released from jail or prison, extremely high rates of mortality.

 

MANN: The reason that happens, experts say, is people get out of custody without getting drug treatment. They often go back to using, and that's when they're really vulnerable to fatal overdoses. Now it appears likely Oregon is going to go back to this policy of sending people to jail for addiction.

 

CHANG: Well, do you think this shift in Oregon will have an effect on the wider debate over drug decriminalization, then?

 

MANN: Yeah, that's what I'm hearing from public health experts. They had hoped that success in Oregon would help the rest of the country shift in a new direction. Now that hope is gone. I spoke about this with Kassandra Frederique. She heads the Drug Policy Alliance. That's one of the national groups that backed Measure 110 in Oregon.

 

KASSANDRA FREDERIQUE: It's a disappointing setback for a hard-won bill. It was not easy to do in Oregon. It won't be easy now, right? We are experiencing a major backlash for drug policy. Yes, this is a setback.

 

MANN: So what's happening in Oregon is echoing for a lot of smaller experiments around the country trying to shift the addiction response toward health care and treatment, away from police and incarceration. And now, Ailsa, a lot of those smaller projects are facing the same kind of backlash and loss of political support we're seeing in Oregon.

 

CHANG: But it is worth mentioning that despite recriminalizing small amounts of drug possession, Oregon is still on track to spend a lot more money than it has in the past on addiction care, right, Conrad?

 

WILSON: That's right. Lawmakers appear committed to funding treatment and really even boosting it. During the past three years, treatment has slowly expanded. But right now many communities in Oregon still don't have enough space in rehab and recovery programs, even for people who want and are desperately seeking addiction care. So in theory, this bill that's been sent to the governor gives people a choice between criminalization and drug treatment, but experts say that kind of health care system just doesn't exist yet. They think a lot of these very ill people will simply wind up in jail.

 

CHANG: That is Conrad Wilson with Oregon Public Broadcasting in Portland, along with NPR addiction correspondent Brian Mann in New York. Thank you to both of you.

 

It's insane that you would read this transcript and think recriminalization is the right thing to do.  It's truly insane.  Do Wilson/Mann seem happy with this outcome to you??

Edited March 15 by Miss Korea

[Bob Long]

32 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Why the absolute hell is addiction, mental health issues now a lefty/righty thing?

 

Is there any aspect of life people will not politicize or draw political lines across?

 

Not really. Social media has made it nearly impossible to find common ground.

[4petesake]

3 hours ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

This weekend, there are people who are going to get hammered.  Including teenagers.

 

This weekend there are people who are going to get high.  Including teenagers.

 

The people who are getting hammered are going to do so (almost all) with legally produced, taxed, and regulated alcohol.  When that person, who may be a teenager, opens that can of Kokanee, they know it isn't laced with stuff.  They know the strength of it (5%)

 

The only people getting high who are in the same boat as the people drinking are those consuming legal weed products.  

 

This dynamic has been going on for DECADES.  Yet, we still have people who think more prohibition, more drug wars, is going to work.  It isn't.

 

Legalize, tax, regulate is the only realistic way forward.  Safe supply isn't the problem.  People like Alberta Premier Moron are the problem.

 

In the first 4 months of 2023 there were 814 deaths from drug overdoses. Fentanyl was detected in 80% of the fatalities. That’s about 650 people that might still be alive if they had access to and were using safe supply.

 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

37 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Why the absolute hell is addiction, mental health issues now a lefty/righty thing?

 

Is there any aspect of life people will not politicize or draw political lines across?

It’s insane that some people feel the need to politicize everything. This problem has been around since the 1980’s across multiple provincial governments. Nobody cares enough to do anything about it. Nobody cared enough to fix the underlying issues with drug addiction and build enough affordable safe homes for all of these people. 
 

If you drive down Hastings St. today in the downtown east side it looks just as bad if not worse than it did in the 1980’s. 

[Elias Pettersson]

13 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

It's insane that you would read this transcript and think recriminalization is the right thing to do.  It's truly insane.  Do Wilson/Mann seem happy with this outcome to you??

It was a decision made by both Democrats and Republicans. It was a consensus. The decision to re-criminalize was not political. So why did they do it?  And why has nobody else other than BC tried to de-criminalize hard drugs?  There must be a reason. 

[Sharpshooter]

35 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It’s insane that some people feel the need to politicize everything. This problem has been around since the 1980’s across multiple provincial governments. Nobody cares enough to do anything about it. Nobody cared enough to fix the underlying issues with drug addiction and build enough affordable safe homes for all of these people. 
 

If you drive down Hastings St. today in the downtown east side it looks just as bad if not worse than it did in the 1980’s. 

Worse now than then. It’s also spread across all cities and locales. 
 

 

[Sharpshooter]

37 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

In the first 4 months of 2023 there were 814 deaths from drug overdoses. Fentanyl was detected in 80% of the fatalities. That’s about 650 people that might still be alive if they had access to and were using safe supply.

 

 

I am at the point where I have less empathy. 
 

This is my truth. 
 

I see and deal with it on a daily basis. 
 

Not everyone can be ‘saved’. And I assure you, some of them don’t want to be ‘saved’ or rejoin civilization. 
 

Give them housing, give them money, give them counselling, give them everything money can be thrown at them and still, some folks just want to live that life. 
 

And ‘we’re’ on the hook for it as a society. 

[Warhippy]

54 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Not really. Social media has made it nearly impossible to find common ground.

Dude YOU said lefties.....

[Warhippy]

8 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

I am at the point where I have less empathy. 
 

This is my truth. 
 

I see and deal with it on a daily basis. 
 

Not everyone can be ‘saved’. And I assure you, some of them don’t want to be ‘saved’ or rejoin civilization. 
 

Give them housing, give them money, give them counselling, give them everything money can be thrown at them and still, some folks just want to live that life. 
 

And ‘we’re’ on the hook for it as a society. 

I will reiterate and repeat my statement regarding how one major European nation looks at it regarding drug related offences of a "non violent" nature

 

First offence:  6 months mandatory prison, emphasis on mental health and addiction rehabilitation.  Mandatory labour group for major national projects or on the ground addiction services while sober in the drug affected areas they used to reside in doing clean up, needle sweeps and graffiti, human waste clean up

 

Second offence:  1-2 years, mandatory prison, emphasis on mental health and addiction rehabilitation.  Mandatory labour group for major national projects or on the ground addiction services while sober in the drug affected areas they used to reside in doing clean up, needle sweeps and graffiti, human waste clean up

 

Third offence:  3-5 year term forced labour camp, emphasis on mental health and rehabilitation; any additional crimes committed afterwards lead to mandatory 5-10 year mental health lock up

 

All of these offences also rely on multi year monitoring afterwards with drug testing, an assurance that the individual (should they have mental health issues) is taking prescribed medications for any potential bi polar or schizophrenia issues on a probationary style program 

 

We're at a point in which we need to seriously start considering mandatory lock up like river view used to exist for because we have individuals with such severe mental health issues that also result in or contribute towards addiction issues that we can no longer accept or rely on a warehouse solution for them.

[Bob Long]

13 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Dude YOU said lefties.....

 

and? 

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

and? 

And it's not a left v right thing.  Never was never will be it's a tragedy of the human condition.

 

Trying to smear an entire chunk of the population by saying lefties does absolutely nothing for the conversation at hand in regards to helping or progressing it.

 

if anything it makes an individual look like they'd rather point fingers act smug and pretend that the problem can just be blamed on someone else as opposed to addressed as a nation, or a race/species.

[Bob Long]

Just now, Warhippy said:

And it's not a left v right thing.  Never was never will be it's a tragedy of the human condition.

 

Trying to smear an entire chunk of the population by saying lefties does absolutely nothing for the conversation at hand in regards to helping or progressing it.

 

if anything it makes an individual look like they'd rather point fingers act smug and pretend that the problem can just be blamed on someone else as opposed to addressed as a nation, or a race/species.

 

wtf are you on about? I'm not "smearing" anyone Hip. Go look at the news coverage of this issue and yes you will see its very much politicized. 

 

If you actually read my comments closely, you'll see I'm very much in support of all the help we can give. 

 

I have also described myself as a "card carrying liberal" many times on this site. 

 

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

wtf are you on about? I'm not "smearing" anyone Hip. Go look at the news coverage of this issue and yes you will see its very much politicized. 

 

If you actually read my comments closely, you'll see I'm very much in support of all the help we can give. 

 

I have also described myself as a "card carrying liberal" many times on this site. 

 

So here it is.  You're getting your back up and that's fine but try very hard to understand what I am saying here

 

When you say "I think the lefties can hurt the cause as well depending on how they engage in it."

 

it is essentially drawing attention to or blaming a group of individuals base don political affiliation or leaning.  It is similar to  Heffs endless attempts to label the entirety of today's right as nazi's

 

Constantly defaming, pointing fingers, blaming, accusing or insinuating things about people based on their being left or right just furthers the divide.

 

That's all I am saying.  I am not accusing you of anything more than saying the word and now explaining why it is probably not helpful in the long run.

[4petesake]

13 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

I am at the point where I have less empathy. 
 

This is my truth. 
 

I see and deal with it on a daily basis. 
 

Not everyone can be ‘saved’. And I assure you, some of them don’t want to be ‘saved’ or rejoin civilization. 
 

Give them housing, give them money, give them counselling, give them everything money can be thrown at them and still, some folks just want to live that life. 
 

And ‘we’re’ on the hook for it as a society. 

 

I hear you. 
I know one who recovered. One is an infinitesimally small number for most but everything for some.

 

Safe supply is not the answer, it’s just part of the answer. We need far more opportunities for treatment, housing, mental health experts…on and on. Safe supply keeps people alive in the meantime and gives opportunities for outreach programs that can put clients in contact with the right agencies. 

 

The inescapable truth is that society is on the hook for it one way or the other anyway.

 

8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

We're at a point in which we need to seriously start considering mandatory lock up like river view used to exist for because we have individuals with such severe mental health issues that also result in or contribute towards addiction issues that we can no longer accept or rely on a warehouse solution for them.

 

I wanted to quote this part of your post because this is the hard, unpleasant truth. We need to ask ourselves if we are really being kinder to people with severe mental health issues by forcing them out on the streets. 

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It was a decision made by both Democrats and Republicans. It was a consensus. The decision to re-criminalize was not political. So why did they do it?  And why has nobody else other than BC tried to de-criminalize hard drugs?  There must be a reason. 

Democrats and Republicans?  Wrong country.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

So here it is.  You're getting your back up and that's fine but try very hard to understand what I am saying here

 

When you say "I think the lefties can hurt the cause as well depending on how they engage in it."

 

it is essentially drawing attention to or blaming a group of individuals base don political affiliation or leaning.  It is similar to  Heffs endless attempts to label the entirety of today's right as nazi's

 

Constantly defaming, pointing fingers, blaming, accusing or insinuating things about people based on their being left or right just furthers the divide.

 

That's all I am saying.  I am not accusing you of anything more than saying the word and now explaining why it is probably not helpful in the long run.

 

Its about the discourse. Of course people on both side of the spectrum can bring unproductive ideas to this. My point has been that we need to find a way to rise above all of this regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, and focus on treatment. 

[Warhippy]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

Its about the discourse. Of course people on both side of the spectrum can bring unproductive ideas to this. My point has been that we need to find a way to rise above all of this regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, and focus on treatment. 

See below

 

21 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I will reiterate and repeat my statement regarding how one major European nation looks at it regarding drug related offences of a "non violent" nature

 

First offence:  6 months mandatory prison, emphasis on mental health and addiction rehabilitation.  Mandatory labour group for major national projects or on the ground addiction services while sober in the drug affected areas they used to reside in doing clean up, needle sweeps and graffiti, human waste clean up

 

Second offence:  1-2 years, mandatory prison, emphasis on mental health and addiction rehabilitation.  Mandatory labour group for major national projects or on the ground addiction services while sober in the drug affected areas they used to reside in doing clean up, needle sweeps and graffiti, human waste clean up

 

Third offence:  3-5 year term forced labour camp, emphasis on mental health and rehabilitation; any additional crimes committed afterwards lead to mandatory 5-10 year mental health lock up

 

All of these offences also rely on multi year monitoring afterwards with drug testing, an assurance that the individual (should they have mental health issues) is taking prescribed medications for any potential bi polar or schizophrenia issues on a probationary style program 

 

We're at a point in which we need to seriously start considering mandatory lock up like river view used to exist for because we have individuals with such severe mental health issues that also result in or contribute towards addiction issues that we can no longer accept or rely on a warehouse solution for them.

 

[Bob Long]

15 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

See below

 

 

 

I'd have to really sit down and evaluate this to agree or not if its right for BC, but I do know if something this far reaching is just presented by Eby e.g., it will be railed against by the opposition parties. 

 

Something this reaching and important needs to be presented by an all-party committee, imo otherwise if/when the Libs/BCC gets back in they'll likely change it to suit some policy or wedge issue related to it, as we know there's really nothing the parties won't use to win if at all possible.

 

[Hammertime]

On 3/8/2024 at 12:26 PM, Wiggums said:

 

Well religious people aren't protesting out of ignorance, they're protesting out of faith, so they're either bigoted or they're not.  Which is it?

ignorance

[Gurn]

Riverview Hospital was closed, but there were not, and still are not enough support structure for the people they turfed out.

Without having those supports it was a huge mistake to close the place.

 

 

[Sharpshooter]

21 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Riverview Hospital was closed, but there were not, and still are not enough support structure for the people they turfed out.

Without having those supports it was a huge mistake to close the place.

 

 

Dumbest decision by the BC Liberals that has lasted further than their name and negatively affected the Lower Mainland and Province for years.

 

BC Liberals = BC United. New name, same shit. 

[4petesake]

19 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Dumbest decision by the BC Liberals that has lasted further than their name and negatively affected the Lower Mainland and Province for years.

 

BC Liberals = BC United. New name, same shit. 

 

And yet ironic that B.C. United is against the harm reduction (safe supply) strategy promoted by the NDP and now proposes involuntary treatment; (sounds like Riverview to me, no?)  Maybe like Jimmy suggests set politics and come up with a combined strategy.

 

BC United’s drug plan focuses heavily on treatment rather than harm reduction, proposing free treatment on demand, more treatment beds, and involuntary treatment for the most at-risk youth and adults.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/9709239/bc-april-2023-overdose-deaths-safe-supply/