# Your tax dollars at work...



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Over the last few weeks I've crossed the trail of many a story of gov't largesse, stupid & stupider. Here's a thread to air out your issues, whether federal, regional or municipal. Even commercial financial stupidity, as evidenced below.

I predict the tone of this thread to be light hearted, jovial and pretty much negative...

Energy firms... 



> ...will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing.


Brilliant...

Further:



> Earlier this year, The Sunday Telegraph revealed that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.


Coming soon to a shore near you.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Well, I agree that electricity customers should be paying to subsidize research other forms of energy. Oil isn't going to last forever and we need to have something in place before it runs out. Granted, this should be for actual research, not just to subsidize someone's wind farm that isn't doing any work to advance the technology.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Well, I agree that electricity customers should be paying to subsidize research other forms of energy. Oil isn't going to last forever and we need to have something in place before it runs out. Granted, this should be for actual research, not just to subsidize someone's wind farm that isn't doing any work to advance the technology.


One of my relatives is a petrochemical geologist and according to him, that's doubly true because the price of oil will become extremely high long before oil ever runs out due to supply and demand economics as the supply of cheap, easy to obtain oil becomes constrained. Other sources of energy will be substituted when they become economically justifiable as the price of oil rises over time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't agree that any form of energy should subsidize any other. Look at the debacles in Spain and Germany as they have become "early adopters" of green energy. We have no idea which forms of energy generation will be economically viable. Only consumers can make those decisions. Many of them will fail spectacularly. Let alternative energy development be driven entirely by costs.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hydro prices going up like a rocket



> Electricity prices in Ontario are "going up like a rocket," fuelled in part by the Ontario government's Green Energy Act, says a longtime observer of the province's energy scene.
> 
> "You are going to get screwed, and it's going to be painful," said Tom Adams, a Toronto-based consultant and a former executive director of Energy Probe.


How are those giant fans working out for you, Ontario?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

"fuelled in part by the Ontario government's Green Energy Act"

It was my understanding that for years, electricity rates here have been kept very low by being heavily subsidized.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> How are those giant fans working out for you, Ontario?





groovetube said:


> "fuelled in part by the Ontario government's Green Energy Act"
> 
> It was my understanding that for years, electricity rates here have been kept very low by being heavily subsidized.


And that post answers the question posed, exactly how?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> It was my understanding that for years, electricity rates here have been kept very low by being heavily subsidized.


Generally, it's the opposite. Hydro power is so efficient that you can sell it remarkably cheap, yet still make tremendous profits. Here at least, Manitoba Hydro is the one subsidizing the whole provincial budget.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Electricity rates here in Victoria are laughably low compared to what we paid in Florida! Bless BC Hydro I say.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> It was my understanding that for years, electricity rates here have been kept very low by being heavily subsidized.


They haven't been subsidized. The taxpayer used to see the mountainous debt of ill-run Ontario Hydro buried in other tax costs to avoid a scandal. Now we see it on the bill as a debt reduction charge. The price increase is due to McGuinty agreeing to buy electricity at rates multiple times higher than we need to pay. Wind and other energy will be provided at a huge premium. Add to that the mishandling and cost over-runs of our nuclear resources and you've got a perfect storm of incompetence.


----------



## jayman (Jan 4, 2008)

> "You are going to get screwed, and it's going to be painful," said Tom Adams, a Toronto-based consultant and a former executive director of Energy Probe.


The executive director of Energy *Probe* said we're going to get screwed and it's going to be painful. 

Tee hee hee

Sorry its early, need my coffee.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> And that post answers the question posed, exactly how?


it wasn't an answer. I think that's clear.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Ikea invests in lucrative Ontario solar panel subsidy.*

Power failure



> The Swedish retail giant IKEA announced yesterday it will invest $4.6-million to install 3,790 solar panels on three Toronto area stores, giving IKEA the electric-power-producing capacity of 960,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. According to IKEA, that’s enough electricity to power 100 homes. Amazing development. Even more amazing is the economics of this project. Under the Ontario government’s feed-in-tariff solar power scheme, IKEA will receive 71.3¢ for each kilowatt of power produced, which works out to about $6,800 a year for each of the 100 hypothetical homes. Since the average Toronto home currently pays about $1,200 for the same quantity of electricity, that implies that IKEA is being overpaid by $5,400 per home equivalent.


So, I've got this bridge for sale...



> Welcome to the wonderful world of green economics and the magical business of carbon emission reduction. Each year, IKEA will receive $684,408 under Premier Dalton McGuinty’s green energy monster — for power that today retails for about $115,000. At that rate, *IKEA will recoup $4.6-million in less than seven years* — not bad for an investment that can be amortized over 20.


Emphasis mine.

How about those Liberals, Ontario?

Is it starting to hurt, yet?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL: Instead of getting green energy producers to bid on supplying a set quantity of energy for the grid, that idiot McGuinty set the price and just offered it to anyone fast enough to gouge ratepayers. He's an economic moron.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*Our tax dollars blowing in the wind*

I don't really understand the drive towards massive wind farms. The beauty of solar seems to be that it can be collected locally - where it is consumed (like IKEA - although there is no need for inflated incentives - just a connection to the grid and contract to sell at the going rate is incentive enough) - and offers a solution to the inefficiencies and other drawbacks/risks of long distance transmission. 

HOWEVER... seems they are changing their minds... August 13, 2010: The OPA has updated the FIT Rules to advise that applications for 10 kilowatts or less are not permitted at this time. So much for micro-brewing your own juice!

Does anyone here have experience with the FiT or microFiT programs?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*CBC execs got big bonuses amid job cuts*

Linky



> As Canadians dealt with the ravages of the recession in 2008 and 2009, CBC’s senior executives continued to rake in big bonuses, some well into the six-figures for a single year.
> 
> In the fiscal year ending in March 2009 — a month when 61,000 Canadians lost their jobs — the top 10 executives at CBC split a performance bonus kitty worth $888,699. The individual bonuses ranged from $4,300 at the bottom end to $165,090 at the top end, which is almost 3.5 times greater than the average Canadian salary, according to Statistics Canada.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*BC HYdro rates will skyrocket*



chas_m said:


> Electricity rates here in Victoria are laughably low compared to what we paid in Florida! Bless BC Hydro I say.


Chas posted that in August, before BC Hydro rates started to go up and up. Even though we in BC still get our electricity fro those hydroelectric structures built in the 60s, long since paid for, we are being forced by our rightwing, capitalist-greedy provincial powers that be to pay more and more right now in December 2010, while the new power from new sources (exempt from environmental review) will be sold to foreign consumers esp. the California corporations, even though they have previously stiffed BC Hydro. The only explanation for all this is corruption at the highest levels, which will not be investigated or even reported on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

klokeid said:


> Chas posted that in August, before BC Hydro rates started to go up and up. Even though we in BC still get our electricity fro those hydroelectric structures built in the 60s, long since paid for, we are being forced by our rightwing, capitalist-greedy provincial powers that be to pay more and more right now in December 2010, while the new power from new sources (exempt from environmental review) will be sold to foreign consumers esp. the California corporations, even though they have previously stiffed BC Hydro. The only explanation for all this is corruption at the highest levels, which will not be investigated or even reported on.


I was laughed at because my water bill--located as we are at Lake Ontario--was triple that of theirs. They live in Phoenix, Arizona.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*CBC withholding buildings lease costs*

Linky



> There were three reasons given for the information being withheld including that to release it would go against the economic interests of Canada.
> 
> CBC also claimed that the cost of their office space was a trade secret “that belongs to the Government of Canada or a government institution and has substantial value or is reasonably likely to have substantial value.”


Ooooooo, trade secrets!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Linky
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chinook coming in, I've got a mild headache and trying to twist my brain around that one is not helping in the slightest.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yeah, calling for 6 tomorrow. Hoping they clear the windrow of snow from our side street today. I can negotiate the bike down the sidewalk & get that far. Here's hoping...

Cross country was good Sun, trails weren't groomed (making it a bit tougher for the littluns). Never warmed up like predicted, it was -9 at the lean to but still very ski-able. 

Hot chocolate courtesy my white gas stove put a smile on everyone's face.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Yeah, calling for 6 tomorrow. Hoping they clear the windrow of snow from our side street today. I can negotiate the bike down the sidewalk & get that far. Here's hoping...
> 
> Cross country was good Sun, trails weren't groomed (making it a bit tougher for the littluns). Never warmed up like predicted, it was -9 at the lean to but still very ski-able.
> 
> Hot chocolate courtesy my white gas stove put a smile on everyone's face.


Sounds like a perfect day. Are those trails really groomed or is it just snowmobile traffic?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

No snowmobiles allowed until you get much further north, towards Dead Man's Pass (wonder if that's where the name came from, a pissed off XC guy spearing a snowmobiler with a pole...).

They actually groom them, one side tracked & the other smooth (for skate technique & herringbone-ing up a hill). It's a great facility. Even ungroomed & with lots of snow like it was the other day. There are over 30k of trails.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Bombardier fined for refusing to train pilot on U.S. watch list*

Gotta love human rights tribunals.

From the Post:



> A Quebec human rights tribunal has ordered Bombardier to pay more than $300,000 for refusing to train a Canadian pilot whom U.S. transport safety officials had labelled a threat to aviation and national security.
> 
> The fine includes $50,000 in punitive damages — the most ever awarded by the tribunal, which also ordered Bombardier to ignore U.S. “standards and decisions” when determining whether a pilot can train in Canada.


One blogger's perspective:



> Why did Bombardier do this?
> 
> Because, as it turned out, the United States considered him to be a "threat to aviation or national security" and refused to allow him to train in the United States.
> 
> Bombardier, after thinking about this for probably less than thirty seconds, decided that if an individual was on the United States' no-fly list (or at least no-flying-training list, reports are a little vague) they probably didn't want to train him to fly jets.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Gotta love human rights tribunals.
> 
> From the Post:
> 
> ...


To keep this all in perspective. Objecting to sexual assaults by TSA thugs will put you on the no-fly list.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

While the TSA is actively participating in sexual assaults, the Canadian justice system is doing nothing to prevent them.



> WINNIPEG - Former junior hockey coach and convicted sex offender Graham James has been released on bail and will be living in the Montreal area.
> 
> James was to be in court today to finalize his bail conditions, but documents indicate that a justice of the peace signed off on his release late Friday afternoon.


Link:Former hockey coach Graham James released on bail, living in Montreal - Yahoo!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MPs to investigate CBC



> MPs will investigate the CBC and how the state broadcaster releases -- and sometimes refuses -- to reveal information to the public.
> 
> Conservative, Bloc and New Democrat MPs all voted Tuesday in favour of having the Commons access to information committee study the CBC in the New Year.
> 
> ...


"How the motion came about"

WTF does that mean? 

That they didn't come up with the idea? 

It was an even numbered Tuesday instead of an odd? 

Anyone? 

Bueller?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*The compassionate, intellectual, left...*

Force companies to appoint more women: Liberal senator



> A Liberal senator wants to use the power of Parliament to force women into the boardrooms of the nation.
> 
> Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette, a former Montreal business executive, is behind Bill S-206. The bill would require all publicly traded companies, banks, insurance companies and trust companies to have 50% of their board of directors made up of women.


Once again, it's not the best person for the job. It's the person that the gov't decides is the biggest victim...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Why Iggy, et al, will never form a gov't...*

Free drugs for inmates?



> OTTAWA - Convicts in federal jails could get free heroin or needles if a report from a group of MPs is implemented.
> 
> A report from the Commons public safety committee calls for “harm reduction” which could include an expansion of free drugs for inmates in federal prisons.


Nice.

As one commenter noted, prison should not be about laying around getting stoned...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Free drugs for inmates?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, and then there's this:

Bilingualism isn't a two-way street for Ignatieff


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Fellas, I think this one takes the cake:

Sex ad-seeking bureaucrat keeps job after sending nude photos from work email

Perhaps not the most egregious example of wastage - just so unbelievably jaw-dropping.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yeah, and then there's this:
> 
> Bilingualism isn't a two-way street for Ignatieff


Nice.

He wants divisiveness? He'll get it. But it ain't gonna go the direction he wants...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

chasMac said:


> Fellas, I think this one takes the cake:
> 
> Sex ad-seeking bureaucrat keeps job after sending nude photos from work email
> 
> Perhaps not the most egregious example of wastage - just so unbelievably jaw-dropping.


Guaranteed he got a slap on the wrist & probably a promotion 'cause they couldn't fire his sorry, union protected butt.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Happy New Year FeXL!!!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Well, thank you very much, screature.

And the same to you & yours.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*BC judge rewrites woman's will, awards $5.5 million more to daughter*

Linky.

Ya know, I've been concerned about the cost of doing up a will. Think I'll move to Sparwood & have the gov't take care of it for me...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*NLL Human Rights Commission trolling for business.*

Nice.



> seen found this sign in downtown St. John's this morning. It's one of those signs that bears a second read, and that's the way it's intended. First off, a simple For Rent notice, then there's some odd language in it and then the realization that it's a campaign by the province's Human Rights Commission.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, this was on the CBC website back in mid-November. Very interesting. The house next door to me is owned by a man from China, and is occupied by about 7 Chinese grad students. I am helping them with their English and they are trying to teach me some Chinese. All in all, it is a fine and working situation re renters from a foreign country, at least here in St.John's.

Not sure if they are "trolling for business" as much as making people aware of the situation re renting. Actually, from what I am told by people I meet at the Association of New Canadians, where I volunteer, obtaining a place to rent here in St.John's is not made difficult due to nationality, just availability and location.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Miller's legacy goes on and on and...*

What a deal! $6M in property for $260Gs



> The day before Mayor Rob Ford and Toronto’s new council took office, Toronto Community Housing Corp. quietly transferred the houses to Wigwamen Inc, selling nine well under market value and giving five away essentially for free.
> 
> The houses, all left vacant and dilapidated for years — and originally paid for with taxpayer dollars — were sold for whatever was left owing on their mortgages, nine of them sold for an average of $29,000, and five had a mortgage balance of $0.
> 
> The 14 houses are among 20 the TCHC is transferring over to Wigwamen after receiving approval from Toronto’s outgoing David Miller-led council back in May.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> What a deal! $6M in property for $260Gs


_"After it was approved by council." _

There was nothing 'quiet' about this. It was *voted on* by council. The same council that Ford sat on I do believe. 

I'm not saying I approve of this but it's no more Miller's legacy than it is Ford's.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"It is the kind of thing that drives taxpayers crazy — a senator charged with fraud in 2007 is barred from the upper chamber, but today continues to charge over $10,000 a month in expenses on top of his $132,000 annual salary."

Read more: CBC News - Politics - Lavigne's expenses: Senate's hands tied

tptptptptptptptp


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "It is the kind of thing that drives taxpayers crazy — a senator charged with fraud in 2007 is barred from the upper chamber, but today continues to charge over $10,000 a month in expenses on top of his $132,000 annual salary."
> 
> Read more: CBC News - Politics - Lavigne's expenses: Senate's hands tied
> 
> tptptptptptptptp


I saw this on the news this morning. Bad way to start the day.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Quote from the CBC article:



> Last year, MPs collectively spent over $1.5 million on hospitality. But don't ask whom they were wining and dining at public expense, much less why.
> 
> In the world of parliamentary expense accounts, actual spending details are none of the public's business.


I find the hypocrisy here astounding. Government or not.

Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> _"After it was approved by council." _
> 
> There was nothing 'quiet' about this. It was *voted on* by council. The same council that Ford sat on I do believe.
> 
> I'm not saying I approve of this but it's no more Miller's legacy than it is Ford's.


mrjimmy, as the CIC, Miller will end up with the stain, much the same as a PM will, even if one of his MP's (or, coincidently, the Opposition's senators) FUBARS.

BTW, how did Ford vote? And how did Miller vote?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> mrjimmy, as the CIC, Miller will end up with the stain, much the same as a PM will, even if one of his MP's (or, coincidently, the Opposition's senators) FUBARS.
> 
> BTW, how did Ford vote? And how did Miller vote?


I think this is a non-issue. It was voted on by city council and passed. It's an attempt by a right wing rag to bolster Ford after he turned tail on the plastic bag fee and the revelation that his subway scheme would cost taxpayers plenty. They're his cheerleader. Somebody needs to be I guess.

BTW, that lost revenue from the sale of City owned property will seem like chump change next to the cost of Ford tearing up the transit city contract.

As far as how they voted, good question. I'm sure the info exists somewhere.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Correctional Service must pay cop-killer $9,500



> The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the Correctional Service of Canada to pay $9,500 in compensation to a man serving a life sentence for the 1983 murder of an Ontario police officer.
> 
> In a decision released Wednesday, the tribunal upheld a discrimination complaint by Peter Michael Collins, who shot and killed police Const. David Utman of Nepean, near Ottawa, at a shopping centre.
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I wasn't sure where to put this, as it fits the Alternative Energy Sources thread, too...

Ontario pays a million bucks to Quebec/US to take excess wind energy off their hands.



> The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) must take electricity produced by wind first.
> 
> So with an excess, generators such as the Beck Plant in Niagara Falls were forced to spill water. Yes, you heard. *We had to throw away the cheapest, greenest electricity in the world from Niagara to make way for the really expensive green wind stuff.*
> 
> And we still had too much — so we had to pay our neighbours to take the expensive stuff off our hands.


Emphasis mine.

When will the craziness stop?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Tamil "refugees" cost us $25 million (so far)...*

Linky.

This doesn't even begin to tally health care, welfare & other benefits they will receive at their hosts' expense.



> "This funding will be used to offset expenses incurred to intercept and secure the MV Sun Sea and to process the migrants on board i*n accordance with Canada's domestic and international obligations*," the report said.
> 
> The government said the operation cost the Canada Border Services Agency $22 million, the Immigration and Refugee Board $908,000 and the RCMP $2.1 million.


Bold mine.

Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate those obligations...

Adrian MacNair gives a list of the things we could have done with $25 million:



> 1. The entire budget for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights
> 2. Almost half the budget for the entire CRTC
> 3. Nearly 80 per cent of the budget of the office of the Status of Women
> 4. Twice the budget of the Public Service Labour Relations Board for Canada
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A bit late but we gotta include an extra three(+?) years in Afghanistan to train their troops. In every other country in the world, training is accomplished in 60 to 120 days. Meanwhile we have been unable to get the job done in nine years, so it seems very unlikely that an extra three will accomplish anything.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Ontario, what does it take?*

So, the utility companies in Ontario got busted for charging too high an interest rate on late payments. Fine.

Now, however:



> The Ontario Energy Board says utilities can raise rates to cover 18 million dollars in fines and court costs they had to pay after the courts ruled they were charging too high an interest rate on late payments.


Do you guys just enjoy being used as a door mat?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Sacrilege...*

LCBO refuses to sell a beer with a cheeky name.

Smashbomb Atomic IPA. Yeah, what a horribly suggestive name. It just conjures up images of...absolutely nothing.

Send 'er to Alberta, boys, we'll put it on the shelves...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Calgary scraps crack pipe giveaway*

Wait...what????



> Fearing a potential legal challenge, Alberta Health Services has snuffed out a program that saw crack pipes distributed to Calgary addicts.
> 
> Run since November 2008 through the AHS Safeworks van, the program saw crack pipe kits -- containing a glass pipe, mouthpiece, cleaning rod and screens -- handed out as a way to prevent the spread of disease and bring addicts in contact with health care providers.
> 
> ...


Gee, do ya think??!!

Nearly 15,000 pipes handed out. Yeah, that sure fixed a lot of junkies. 

Or got a lot of junkies their fix...

More (from Moose & Squirrel).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

preventing disease and getting addicts into see healthcare staff is a bad thing?

I realize, this is likely a major affront to the conservative psyche, but you have to step back and realize, whether you hand that crack pipe out or not, that addict os gonna do that fix regardless of what you do. Do you really think someone os going to go, 'coo! a free crack pipe, so now I'm gonna go score a rock and get high...' Really? C'mon...

You aren't enabling nothing. To think that, is not to understand the addiction at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Or got a lot of junkies their fix...


I think the government should have produced some high-quality crack and handed it out for free as well. You never know when contaminated crack will rear its ugly head.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

While I don't know about governments supplying, or, regulating highly addictive and health killing products (*cough* tobacco...), you might be on to something. 

Taking the billions of dollars out of the hands of criminals? Yeah. I'm for that.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

You mean like methadone?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> You mean like methadone?


No--crack.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> getting addicts into see healthcare staff is a bad thing?


Exposing addicts to healthcare workers by walking up to a van loaded with crackpipes is like getting religion by having the JW's walk up my sidewalk. Either way, it's a dead-end street.

Pretty sure nobody was forced to sit down & listen to a 5 minute schpiel afore they got their own, free-on-the-taxpayer, drug paraphernalia. 

If the addicts were truly worried about disease, etc. they'd quit. An easy path? Nope. However, this is not the solution.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Exposing addicts to healthcare workers by walking up to a van loaded with crackpipes is like getting religion by having the JW's walk up my sidewalk. Either way, it's a dead-end street.
> 
> Pretty sure nobody was forced to sit down & listen to a 5 minute schpiel afore they got their own, free-on-the-taxpayer, drug paraphernalia.
> 
> If the addicts were truly worried about disease, etc. they'd quit. An easy path? Nope. However, this is not the solution.


Free health care is not enough. Now you have to bribe them to take it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Exposing addicts to healthcare workers by walking up to a van loaded with crackpipes is like getting religion by having the JW's walk up my sidewalk. Either way, it's a dead-end street.
> 
> Pretty sure nobody was forced to sit down & listen to a 5 minute schpiel afore they got their own, free-on-the-taxpayer, drug paraphernalia.
> 
> If the addicts were truly worried about disease, etc. they'd quit. An easy path? Nope. However, this is not the solution.


really? I have some good friends who's lives were saved by these methods. Talk to people who know something about this, and likely you'll hear similar things. It's time to put aside our preconceived beliefs usually based on something we're told rather than actual reality, and recognize what we -have- been doing is a complete and total failure. It's time to look at better more effective methods than getting the conservative base all hepped up about ramming the lazy good for nothing blights on society all in jail!

Your second statement, "If the addicts were truly worried about disease, etc. they'd quit.", shows a lack of understanding of the issue. I don't mean offence here, but that's simply not true at all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Free health care is not enough. Now you have to bribe them to take it.


it's way better to spend hundreds of millions in a total failure. And then have "free healthcare" burdened even more because no one could do anything that made any sense to lessen the impact.

This "put'em in jail! mentality of the right leads to just more spending and no solutions. It's been proven, over, and over again.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> really? I have some good friends who's lives were saved by these methods.


Of course you do. Doesn't everybody? I have 248-1/2 myself. The half was a poor schlock whose foot was halfway into treatment but he got run over by a van filled with drug paraphernalia. Unfortunately, it wasn't tax-payer supported and the legal fallout was brutal...



groovetube said:


> Talk to people who know something about this, and likely you'll hear similar things.


Oh, all the time. No, really.



groovetube said:


> It's time to put aside our preconceived beliefs usually based on something we're told rather than actual reality, and recognize what we -have- been doing is a complete and total failure. It's time to look at better more effective methods than getting the conservative base all hepped up about ramming the lazy good for nothing blights on society all in jail!


The only preconceived beliefs here are yours. Despite your notions to the contrary, I am quite familiar with addictions and require no schooling from you, thankyouverymuch. 

In addition (I had to go back just to make sure), nowhere on this topic did I mention anything about jails. 

Or partisan politics.

Your hyperbole is f'ing hilarious...



groovetube said:


> Your second statement, "If the addicts were truly worried about disease, etc. they'd quit.", shows a lack of understanding of the issue. I don't mean offence here, but that's simply not true at all.


I chose my words most carefully. I said "If", not "they are". As I noted above, I'm quite familiar with addictions and know that health issues aren't exactly on the forefront.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Y'know FeXL, I get so tired of argument by anecdote. You have the patience of Job even addressing such issues. It's like justifying the wasted hundreds of millions in Medicare on account of your old mammy's life got saved in a government hospital.

I know another guy whose life was saved by his interest in postage stamps, but then the bastards at City Hall closed down the taxpayer-funded philatelist clubs and he died. Not really... but it might have happened.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Of course you do. Doesn't everybody? I have 248-1/2 myself. The half was a poor schlock whose foot was halfway into treatment but he got run over by a van filled with drug paraphernalia. Unfortunately, it wasn't tax-payer supported and the legal fallout was brutal...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wake up and smell the coffee. You conservatives scream and stamp your feet the minute anyone ever breathes anything that you don't like, no matter how many people get killed.

My experience and knowledge of those helped by this is merely mine. If you even stopped and had a look around beyond your high horse of know nothingness then perhaps you'd get a clue, and realize there are many people getting help by stopping this insanity.

I speak, from personal, experience thank you very much. And quite a number of good people I know wouldn't be 6 feet under if the sort insane stupidity pushed by mouthy conservatives were finally put to rest.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> wake up and smell the coffee. You conservatives *scream and stamp your feet the minute anyone ever breathes anything that you don't like*, no matter how many people get killed.


Funny, that. Jes' like the lefties...

BTW, I don't drink coffee.



groovetube said:


> My experience and knowledge of those helped by this is merely mine. If you even stopped and had a look around beyond your high horse of know nothingness then perhaps you'd get a clue, and realize there are many people getting help by stopping this insanity.


Told you, groove. I have first hand experience. The details are the business of no one but the people involved so, sorry, no anecdotes. Suffice it to say that a crack pipe van was not part of the treatment...



groovetube said:


> I speak, from personal, experience thank you very much. And quite a number of good people I know wouldn't be 6 feet under if the sort insane stupidity pushed by mouthy conservatives were finally put to rest.


It wasn't conservatives that pushed them into the hole. They did it to themselves. If you can't handle that sort of candor, get a thicker skin. Once again, typical leftist rhetoric is to address the end result, all the while ignoring the source of the problem.

And, you're starting the screech.

I'm heading up to Calgary right now. If I hurry, mebbe I can grab one of them there last crack pipes. I figger if I paid for the sucka...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Funny, that. Jes' like the lefties...
> 
> BTW, I don't drink coffee.
> 
> ...


generally when people try this "lefty crap' on me, I have a few words for that sort of crap. There's some candor for you too. Hope ya got some thick skin too.

This is a subject that involves lives. Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of addiction and anyone deep in the field would know what I'm talking about. If you think for one second that giving a clean needle or a pipe will encourage anyone to do a hit, you're sadly mistaken and need a real education. And that isn't typical right, or left, it's just plain typical "I think I know something so I'll mouth off about it".

Period.

There's some real candor.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

If conservatives were really worried about government waste in the area of drug policy why is there no mention in this thread about our governments tossing BILLIONS down a black hole prosecuting a completely unwinnable war on drugs? Proven to be unwinnable by a ton of history now. Billions my right-wing friends, not a couple of bucks on crack pipes in a small attempt to prevent disease, which incidentally may lower health costs. AIDS patients cost our society many millions.

Not to mention the harm to society that strengthening organized crime which occurs whenever we leave an unregulated lucrative black market solely in the hands of criminals. No, the simplistic answer from the right is to be "tough on crime" and spend more billions on prisons so we throw away even more money to no effect.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

thanks GA. A well informed post. Perhaps I'm a little too close to this issue, and I should probably unsubscribe to the thread to keep my blood pressure normal.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

groovetube said:


> thanks ga. A well informed post. Perhaps i'm a little too close to this issue, and i should probably unsubscribe to the thread to keep my blood pressure normal.


+1


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Pretty sure nobody was forced to sit down & listen to a 5 minute schpiel afore they got their own, free-on-the-taxpayer, drug paraphernalia.
> .


how much do these crackpipes cost the government? maybe $1+ each? surely less than providing healthcare after the fact. An ounce of prevention...etc... it's actally a really prudent use of tax payer money as it can save money in the long run.

as for promoting or enabling drug use, it's not like an addict is NOT going to smoke crack because the van doesn't come around anymore with free pipes. they will simply fashion their own less hygienic version from a pen or something else they can find or share with other addicts. 

anyways, i think we already went over this in a different thread....but it was a program in vancouver. it's a case of right wing ideology getting in the way of facts and common sense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If conservatives were really worried about government waste in the area of drug policy why is there no mention in this thread about our governments tossing BILLIONS down a black hole prosecuting a completely unwinnable war on drugs? Proven to be unwinnable by a ton of history now. Billions my right-wing friends, not a couple of bucks on crack pipes in a small attempt to prevent disease, which incidentally may lower health costs. AIDS patients cost our society many millions.
> 
> Not to mention the harm to society that strengthening organized crime which occurs whenever we leave an unregulated lucrative black market solely in the hands of criminals. No, the simplistic answer from the right is to be "tough on crime" and spend more billions on prisons so we throw away even more money to no effect.


No war on drugs and no free crack pipes--compound savings! Sounds good to me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I'm heading up to Calgary right now. If I hurry, mebbe I can grab one of them there last crack pipes. I figger if I paid for the sucka...


Can you smell the free coffee, FeXL?

Do you know, that some criminals are injured using cheap homemade guns? If we passed out free guns and ammunition they would stop using those death trap firearms, and save society money.

Also free low-fat Oreos that don't contain hydrogenated oil. Stop the madness!!!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> No war on drugs and no free crack pipes--compound savings! Sounds good to me.


I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Penny wise, pound foolish."

No war on drugs -- save billions -- excellent -- the libertarian and I are in agreement.

No needle program or crack pipe program -- save hundreds or thousands -- spend millions on treating AIDS and hepatitis for addicts -- maybe not so wise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No needle program or crack pipe program -- save hundreds or thousands -- spend millions on treating AIDS and hepatitis for addicts -- maybe not so wise.



You're missing part of the equation.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Penny wise, pound foolish."
> 
> No war on drugs -- save billions -- excellent -- the libertarian and I are in agreement.
> 
> No needle program or crack pipe program -- save hundreds or thousands -- spend millions on treating AIDS and hepatitis for addicts -- maybe not so wise.


What he said. However perhaps the Libertarian is proposing to put the druggies out on ice floes along with the Seniors whom will soon see their Social Insurance or Social Security income evaporate, as the respective governments North and South of 49 convert borrowing from the retirement funds into outright theft.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> What he said. However perhaps the Libertarian is proposing to put the druggies out on ice floes along with the Seniors whom will soon see their Social Insurance or Social Security income evaporate, as the respective governments North and South of 49 convert borrowing from the retirement funds into outright theft.


Just checked out the Libertarian Party of Canada's website for their positions on some of these issues. This is where they stand -- 

"Unemployment
We support the repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, including but not limited to: minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labour legislation, government restrictions on the establishment of voluntary day-care centres, mandatory management-labour relations, and licensing requirements.

Poverty and Welfare
The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is a growing and parasitic burden on all productive working people, and injures rather than benefits the poor themselves. We propose the elimination of all government involvement in welfare and relief programs. Any aid to the poor should be conducted on a voluntary basis.

Health Care
The only effective way to stop the deterioration of health care services we are experiencing is to have all medical and health plans open to competition on the free market.

Therefore we support: an end to all compulsory or tax-supported health-insurance plans; the right of all individuals to contract freely with health care practitioners of their choice; the right of doctors and other professionals to join in any voluntary associations, the rights of associations to set standards for their members, and an end to government interference in this area (doctors and other health care professionals should be free to work without licensing from the government); the repeal of all laws limiting the liability of doctors in cases of malpractice; and the repeal of all laws forcing any individual to submit to testing, treatment, or the administration of drugs against his or her will.

Canada Pension Plan
We call for the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly inadequate and oppressive Canada Pension Plan. Pending such repeal, participation in the Plan should be made voluntary. We advocate that existing obligations of the Plan be honoured to whatever degree is possible without violating individual rights."

Libertarian Party of Canada: Social Concerns


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Just checked out the Libertarian Party of Canada's website for their positions on some of these issues. This is where they stand --
> 
> "Unemployment
> We support the repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, including but not limited to: minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labour legislation, government restrictions on the establishment of voluntary day-care centres, mandatory management-labour relations, and licensing requirements.
> ...


Banish them to the ice floes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Banish them to the ice floes.


No. That would cost too much.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No. That would cost too much.


Money well spent.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

What -- we're putting libertarians out on ice floes?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> What -- we're putting libertarians out on ice floes?


Only if they collect CP, EI or SS


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Sure why not! They want to fend for themselves? Fend away! pack extra socks.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

groovetube said:


> preventing disease and getting addicts into see healthcare staff is a bad thing?
> 
> I realize, this is likely a major affront to the conservative psyche, but you have to step back and realize, whether you hand that crack pipe out or not, that addict os gonna do that fix regardless of what you do. Do you really think someone os going to go, 'coo! a free crack pipe, so now I'm gonna go score a rock and get high...' Really? C'mon...
> 
> You aren't enabling nothing. To think that, is not to understand the addiction at all.



Let's not waste time debating the reactionary dodos in this forum. They won't change their attitude. Let's put our energy into supporting the honest, caring medical staff who have some compassion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> Let's put our energy into supporting the honest, caring medical staff who have some compassion.


In addition to your energy, why not support some of these programs entirely using your own cash? 





I thought so.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr T said:


> Let's not waste time debating the reactionary dodos in this forum. They won't change their attitude. Let's put our energy into supporting the honest, caring medical staff who have some compassion.


Caring and compassion? That's not the Libertarian way! Back to the reeducation camp!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Caring and compassion, yes--as long those desiring it can get everyone to pay for their "feel-good!"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dr T said:


> Let's not waste time debating the reactionary dodos in this forum. They won't change their attitude. Let's put our energy into supporting the honest, caring medical staff who have some compassion.





mrjimmy said:


> Caring and compassion? That's not the Libertarian way! Back to the reeducation camp!


Very good point, Dr.T. I have always felt that the "caring medical staff", especially the nurses, were the frontline of our medical system.

Re-education camps?????


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Caring and compassion, yes--as long those desiring it can get everyone to pay for their "feel-good!"


Right on, Brother Macfury. If someone is begging, it is my choice to help him or her in their time of need. "Survival of the fittest" should be the rallying cry of all Social Darwinists. Scrooge had the right idea until those three spirits ruined his attitude with a caring social conscience. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Caring and compassion, yes--as long those desiring it can get everyone to pay for their "feel-good!"


Ah I see, the Libertarian's version of caring and compassion have conditions attached.

Doesn't sound like caring and compassion to me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Ah I see, the Libertarian's version of caring and compassion have conditions attached.
> 
> Doesn't sound like caring and compassion to me.


Not so, mrj. You are able to be caring and compassionate if that is your free will choice. You also have the choice to withhold any support for any person, regardless of need. It is the right of the individual to make this choice whether to help of not. Thus, no government social safety nets for those in need.

It all makes sense .................... unless you are in need of some help from the government. Still, as a libertarian, you are free to see the following pictures and say it is not my problem, and I have the freedom to choose not to help or to see my tax dollars go to help these people. Granted, this is hard if you are the hungry mother or child ............... but am I my brother or sister's keeper???

The Most Famous Great Depression Picture - A Mother of Seven Children by Dorthea Lange

Great Depression Picture - A Young Penniless Oklahoma Mother

Great Depression Picture - A Wife and Children of a Sharecropper


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Not so, mrj. You are able to be caring and compassionate if that is your free will choice. You also have the choice to withhold any support for any person, regardless of need. It is the right of the individual to make this choice whether to help of not. Thus, no government social safety nets for those in need.
> 
> It all makes sense .................... unless you are in need of some help from the government. Still, as a libertarian, you are free to see the following pictures and say it is not my problem, and I have the freedom to choose not to help or to see my tax dollars go to help these people. Granted, this is hard if you are the hungry mother or child ............... but am I my brother or sister's keeper???
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation Dr.G. I do understand in theory the basic principles but see it as an ideology based in fear and distrust rather than care and compassion.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Quite often when I argue with Libertarians, I almost hear a teenage voice coming from behind saying "But I don't wanna and you can't make me! Nyah!" *stomp*stomp*stomp*


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Thanks for the explanation Dr.G. I do understand in theory the basic principles but see it as an ideology based in fear and distrust rather than care and compassion.


Again, not so, mrj. No need to "fear and distrust" those in need. You have the choice to help or not, to "fear and distrust" those in need, or to just get on with your life. It is all your choice. The individual is at the heart of the libertarian theory. 

In theory, it is a great idea ............... so long as you are willing to freely ignore those in need.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Quite often when I argue with Libertarians, I almost hear a teenage voice coming from behind saying "But I don't wanna and you can't make me! Nyah!" *stomp*stomp*stomp*


An interesting analogy, Sonal. However, a libertarian is most likely an educated person, not in much need of government assistance ........ and not one likely to throw a tantrum. At one time, they would be called the "rugged individualists" in society, those who could make it on their own. It all comes down to free will and individual responsibility. I am responsible for my own actions, as are you. If I am in need, you should not be forced to help me. If you choose to help me, so be it. If you choose not to help me, so be it as well. In theory, it is a great way to live ................ so long as you don't live in a society that is dedicated to providing support for the public good and general welfare of all in some manner. 

I had a friend in university who went from being a Nixon-Republican to a Reagan-Republican to a supporter of the Libertarian Party in the US. He became a self-made millionaire and was proud to say that he paid the least amount of taxes his accountant could calculate he pay. 

Sadly, he died a wealthy man. Luckily, his family is using much of his money to set up scholarships for students in need of some assistance in order to complete their university education.

Paix, mon amie.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Again, not so, mrj. No need to "fear and distrust" those in need. You have the choice to help or not, to "fear and distrust" those in need, or to just get on with your life. It is all your choice. The individual is at the heart of the libertarian theory.
> 
> In theory, it is a great idea ............... so long as you are willing to freely ignore those in need.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Fear an distrust of systems. The welfare system is being abused! The health care system is inadequate! 

It seems to me that the goal of the Libertarian is to tear down these systems so that they are able to opt out. This paradoxically infringes on the freedoms of those who believe them to work. Perhaps they should lobby for a parachute clause wherein they can opt out and pay separately for all the services they wish to consume. Of course there is much to take into account here but you get my drift.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, he died a wealthy man. Luckily, his family is using much of his money to set up scholarships for students in need of some assistance in order to complete their university education.
> 
> Paix, mon amie.


He must be rolling in his grave.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Fear an distrust of systems. The welfare system is being abused! The health care system is inadequate!
> 
> It seems to me that the goal of the Libertarian is to tear down these systems so that they are able to opt out. This paradoxically infringes on the freedoms of those who believe them to work. Perhaps they should lobby for a parachute clause wherein they can opt out and pay separately for all the services they wish to consume. Of course there is much to take into account here but you get me drift.


Well, there are abuses and waste in most if not all systems that governments create. Pay as you go makes sense -- no taxes for those who choose to collect and dispose of their own garbage ............ no taxes on the gas they consume, but then again, no place to drive since tax dollars went into building the roads and infrastructure upon which these cars drive. No need to go to a hospital, since they might get government funding and the doctors and nurses might have gone to state universities which receive support from the state and federal governments. On and on the list goes ..................... and you don't have to pay one dime of taxes. It's a great life ............ if you are a hermit.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> He must be rolling in his grave.


He was cremated and his ashes spread out in the Catskill Mountains in NY State.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> He was cremated and his ashes spread out in the Catskill Mountains in NY State.


I didn't mean literally...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I didn't mean literally...


Libertarians do not like to make inferences. Life is black or white. Still, you are free to make an inference if you so choose. It is up to you. Paix, mon ami.

Did you know that Bassett Hounds are the dog of choice of most libertarians living in the US?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Did you know that Bassett Hounds are the dog of choice of most libertarians living in the US?


Well, at least they have that going for them.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Well, at least they have that going for them.


True.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> generally when people try this "lefty crap' on me, I have a few words for that sort of crap. There's some candor for you too. Hope ya got some thick skin too.


What, no sauce for the gander? Why is it that you can categorize people using terms like "conservatives" but the second someone categorizes you as a "lefty", you get all pouty and bent out of shape? 

My skin is fine just the way it is. It deals with the likes of you quite easily...



groovetube said:


> This is a subject that involves lives.


Yes, lives. Big word, isn't it? Lives of people who freely chose to put the needle in their own arm, light up that pipe, abuse alcohol, whatever. A decision made by the individual, not by the "insane stupidity pushed by mouthy conservatives". Let's place the blame (and the credit, when it's time) squarely at the feet of the people responsible, shall we?



groovetube said:


> Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of addiction and anyone deep in the field would know what I'm talking about.


Asked & answered. Repeatedly...



groovetube said:


> And that isn't typical right, or left, it's just plain typical "*I think I know something so I'll mouth off about it*".
> 
> Period.
> 
> There's some real candor.


Which you've been accomplishing remarkably well. A+.

PS Sadly, I was unable to find the crack pipe van in Calgary..


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

libertarians are getting a bad rap. At the heart of the the idea is "a political philosophy that upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action."

These days the term has been co-opted by capitalists, but many libertarians are left leaning.

The truth is a *real* libertarian would be more upset about people not being free to do their drugs in a responsible manner rather than a program aimed at reducing disease by giving them clean needles/pipes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> What, no sauce for the gander? Why is it that you can categorize people using terms like "conservatives" but the second someone categorizes you as a "lefty", you get all pouty and bent out of shape?
> 
> My skin is fine just the way it is. It deals with the likes of you quite easily...
> 
> ...


excuse me, but you're the lofty genius who thinks all an addict has to do, is quit!

Easy peasy! Well, if everyone lived in your world of rainbows and unicorns, perhaps all would be well. Or perhaps you truly believe the Nancy Reagan "just say no!" campaign! What a success that was, now wasn't it!

Then, there's the real world. Which seems to be one you clearly aren't aware of when it comes to addicts. If you did, you'd realize just how ridiculously naive that viewpoint is.

Pout on that while you go look for your crack pipe van in Calgary.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> excuse me, but you're the lofty genius who thinks all an addict has to do, is quit!





FeXL said:


> An easy path? Nope.


Anything else?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Reread your posts. Or do I have to requote them.

Of course, you're free to backtrack.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Reread your posts. Or do I have to requote them.
> 
> Of course, you're free to backtrack.


Apparently you need to requote as I have no idea as to what you are referring. 

I also have no need to backtrack on anything.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Apparently you need to requote as I have no idea as to what you are referring.
> 
> I also have no need to backtrack on anything.


why, the very post you quoted from. You know, the part where you tried to pass of that of addicts were truly worried about disease, they'd just quit.

Really. And you know something of addiction Really.

Well speaking as a former addict who nearly lost his life many times and has been down that as you put it, 'not so easy path', in the worst way, you need to perhaps stop and listen. That is nothing but sheer nonsense, and insulting to anyone who has been through it.

Anyone that thinks making a safe needle or crack pipe available to lessen the impact will in any way condone or encourage an addict to use, should step back and listen and learn.

It's complete stupidity. It's the same sort of sheer stupidity that sees us being fleeced of billions and billions of dollars in failed policies year after year while not only are people dying needlessly, but the cost and impact on society is horrendous.

I may be very against drug use, but I'm not stupid.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> why, the very post you quoted from. You know, the part where you tried to pass of that of addicts were truly worried about disease, they'd just quit.


Ah...

When I was compiling that post, I had inserted some text along the lines of "disease is not exactly a high priority amongst addicts, only their fix". I then thought that was pretty rhetorical and deleted it before submitting the post.

If you are an addict who is cognizant enough to make disease a _priority_ as opposed to a _passing glance_ or _ignored completely_, then you are probably cognizant enough to seek help. Some addicts just don't care. Sorry if you took "just quit" as flip, it was not my intention.

As to your recovery, good for you. It takes a strong person.

I've never accused you of being stupid, groove.

However, aside from pissing & moaning about conservative policy (despite the fact that we've been under Liberal gov't for 28 of the last 43 years, plus Mulroney was hardly a Conservative) and being fleeced for billions on failed (mostly Liberal) policy, you haven't offered any credible solutions, either.

Maybe free drug paraphernalia doesn't enable or encourage; I'm not sure...

My view stands, though. If the crack pipe van was such a success, why wasn't the policy exhorted by it's supporters? Nearly 3 years it ran, yet no one outside of a relatively small circle knew of it. What about the success of similar programs in Vancouver? Yes, disease may have been reduced, but what about the real problem, the addictions themselves? That's what I want measured. How many addicts has the crack pipe van or the needle exchange programs pulled out of the gutter? Those are results. The rest is just so much background noise.

I say it again: political solutions and, usually, progressive mindsets tend to focus on the effect, rather than the cause (Oh, how horrible! He wasn't wearing his seatbelt when he was hit by the drunk stoned driver with no brakes in his car running the red light). Reduce or eliminate the cause and you won't have an effect to worry about.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Ah...
> 
> When I was compiling that post, I had inserted some text along the lines of "disease is not exactly a high priority amongst addicts, only their fix". I then thought that was pretty rhetorical and deleted it before submitting the post.
> 
> ...


You seem to be sure that addicts aren't cognizant of the health risks, or, likely don't care, if they're aren't pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and getting help. This simply isn't true whatsoever!

I can't make a sweeping generalization here, and say all addicts are concerned for their health and wellbeing. Sure, some really don't care. But for the most part, anyone I knew in general, was constantly fretting about such things, but our method of dealing with these worries, was medicating. I know I outted myself here. But, you know what, I don't care. I'm tired of the P*ants whining about anecdotes. They can eat their snivelling about anecdotes for all I care. I know very well what I'm talking about. Yes I have the badge, and the bloody tshirt to go with it.

I don't know that these programs, are in any way, the real solution. They're likely not. But I see them as a real shift in thinking in how to deal with addicts, and try and not only minimize impact on the rest of society who aren't addicts, but try and help some. What I do see, is lying and dodginess coming from our fed government on their distaste for programs like insite.

I target the conservatives, because it was a conservative government who came into power a few years ago, to turn around the relaxation of pot laws, and a focus on rehabilitation rather than sticking kids with a criminal record for having a few joints. And, spending hundreds of millions to do so! Bloody brilliant!

One thing is for certain. I don't see much in the way of any progressive solutions or ideas coming from our current government beyond tossing too much of my tax dollars at a law and order agenda that does nothing really for this.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

FeXL said:


> I say it again: political solutions and, usually, progressive mindsets tend to focus on the effect, rather than the cause (Oh, how horrible! He wasn't wearing his seatbelt when he was hit by the drunk stoned driver with no brakes in his car running the red light). Reduce or eliminate the cause and you won't have an effect to worry about.


This is a false dichotomy, FeXL. You're right that these programs are band-aids that don't address the cause of the problem. But when someone is bleeding, a band-aid is more useful than figuring out why they got cut. Ultimately, it'd be nice to live in a world where addictions didn't ruin lives, but for the time being we need harm-reduction while we work towards reducing the root causes of the problem.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> This is a false dichotomy, FeXL. You're right that these programs are band-aids that don't address the cause of the problem. But when someone is bleeding, a band-aid is more useful than figuring out why they got cut. Ultimately, it'd be nice to live in a world where addictions didn't ruin lives, but for the time being we need harm-reduction while we work towards reducing the root causes of the problem.


:clap:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> This is a false dichotomy, FeXL. You're right that these programs are band-aids that don't address the cause of the problem. But when someone is bleeding, a band-aid is more useful than figuring out why they got cut. Ultimately, it'd be nice to live in a world where addictions didn't ruin lives, but for the time being we need harm-reduction while we work towards reducing the root causes of the problem.


So, lemme get this straight...free crack pipes, clean needles, whatever, are band aids? Is that the thrust?

Well then, what about a free liquor service for alcoholics? Free prescriptions for uppers to get out of bed in the morning and downers to go to bed at night? Drive thru cocaine outlets for card-carrying addicts? I'm sure I can find another dozen examples.

What about all of them, you cold, miserable, unfeeling...

Maybe that's why this whole concept bugs me so much (that & the fact that the crack pipe van was operating under the radar, like they were trying to hide something). While you may not be enabling anyone with the distribution of paraphernalia, you certainly aren't doing anything to help the cause, either.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> So, lemme get this straight...free crack pipes, clean needles, whatever, are band aids? Is that the thrust?
> 
> Well then, what about a free liquor service for alcoholics? Free prescriptions for uppers to get out of bed in the morning and downers to go to bed at night? Drive thru cocaine outlets for card-carrying addicts? I'm sure I can find another dozen examples.
> 
> ...


It sounds like a cold, cruel calculation--if I spend a dollar on a crack pipe, I can keep them crazy on the street instead of having to treat them for hepatitis in the hospital.

I want free food for the obese as well, by the way. Cherry Blossoms and Big Macs coming out of a big chute for nothing.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Well then, what about a free liquor service for alcoholics?


They do that in places, and the results have been fewer trips to emergency wards, fewer run-ins with the police, lowered consumption of alcohol, etc.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> So, lemme get this straight...free crack pipes, clean needles, whatever, are band aids? Is that the thrust?
> 
> Well then, what about a free liquor service for alcoholics? Free prescriptions for uppers to get out of bed in the morning and downers to go to bed at night? Drive thru cocaine outlets for card-carrying addicts? I'm sure I can find another dozen examples.
> 
> ...


you're equating things that are not equal. giving away a free crack pipe or needle is not the same thing as giving away free alcohol. no one is giving addicts free drugs. not even close.

a more adequate comparison would be giving away a free paper cup to an alcoholic so they didn't have to drink it from an old discarded pop can.

but of course an alcoholic would never have to drink his alcohol from an old discarded pop can because his substance of choice is legal, and he is not marginalized for being addicted to it. do you see the difference now?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> So, lemme get this straight...free crack pipes, clean needles, whatever, are band aids? Is that the thrust?
> 
> Well then, what about a free liquor service for alcoholics? Free prescriptions for uppers to get out of bed in the morning and downers to go to bed at night? Drive thru cocaine outlets for card-carrying addicts? I'm sure I can find another dozen examples.
> 
> ...


Clearly, you haven't understood anything that was said about this issue judging from your post. That is simply ridiculous. It doesn't take too many brain cells to see a crack pipe or clean needle isn't handing out free booze or cocaine, don't be ridiculous.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Free Krispy Kreme for all! I would rather people not beat others up for a Krispy Kreme. Just give it to them for nothing and cut down on crime.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> you're equating things that are not equal. giving away a free crack pipe or needle is not the same thing as giving away free alcohol. no one is giving addicts free drugs. not even close.
> 
> a more adequate comparison would be giving away a free paper cup to an alcoholic so they didn't have to drink it from an old discarded pop can.
> 
> but of course an alcoholic would never have to drink his alcohol from an old discarded pop can because his substance of choice is legal, and he is not marginalized for being addicted to it. do you see the difference now?


To those who have no understanding of this, they wouldn't see the difference at all. Ideology, over reason, and the real the world.

If there could just be some sanity and rational thinking there could be some good done, but people need to take things to a ridiculous extreme because it simply offends their sensibility.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Free Krispy Kreme for all! I would rather people not beat others up for a Krispy Kreme. Just give it to them for nothing and cut down on crime.


If you suggested providing napkins for said donuts, you might be in the ball park. But that might be a tough concept though.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> but of course an alcoholic would never have to drink his alcohol from an old discarded pop can because his substance of choice is legal, and he is not marginalized for being addicted to it. do you see the difference now?


We're talking about addicts, period, not the legality of their substance of choice. As far as I'm concerned, an addict is an addict and the downward spiral has already begun.

I think I've just figgered out what bugs me about all this nonsense. If you're supplying the instruments required to sustain the habit, then you are only a half-step above the supplier.

It's like knowingly supplying a gun to someone to be used in a murder. Accessory before the fact, therefore equally as guilty as the accused.

I'm done here.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Free Krispy Kreme for all! I would rather people not beat others up for a Krispy Kreme. Just give it to them for nothing and cut down on crime.


Where were the Krispy Kreme Brawls? Were tickets available?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> We're talking about addicts, period, not the legality of their substance of choice. As far as I'm concerned, an addict is an addict and the downward spiral has already begun.
> 
> I think I've just figgered out what bugs me about all this nonsense. If you're supplying the instruments required to sustain the habit, then you are only a half-step above the supplier.
> 
> ...


Wrong again. First, why is it nessesecary to compare an addict doing a hit to someone murdering someone with a gun? Do you have that little regard for a suffering addict? This may be part of your problem. You asserted you know all about addiction. I suggest, you know nothing.

And once again, supplying a clean pipe, or clean needle, is not 'sustaining' the habit. At what point will you understand that this action in no way increases or encourages an addict to use? As I said. If you know something about this, it would be very clear.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Where were the Krispy Kreme Brawls? Were tickets available?


Happened in Mississauga in 2007. Right there on Hurontario Street!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> And once again, supplying a clean pipe, or clean needle, is not 'sustaining' the habit. At what point will you understand that this action in no way increases or encourages an addict to use? As I said. If you know something about this, it would be very clear.


+1. The needle program is a proven policy benefitting public health. I simply don't understand how the brains of those who oppose this work.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I think I've just figgered out what bugs me about all this nonsense. If you're supplying the instruments required to sustain the habit, then you are only a half-step above the supplier.
> .


our society already already does this for alcohol, nicotine, prescription drugs, etc...etc...



FeXL said:


> It's like knowingly supplying a gun to someone to be used in a murder. Accessory before the fact, therefore equally as guilty as the accused.


not at all. it's more like putting a filter on a cigarette. since we know people are going to smoke them we may as well try to cut back on 30% of the tar.



Macfury said:


> Happened in Mississauga in 2007. Right there on Hurontario Street!


Krispy Kreme is on Mavis!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Krispy Kreme is on Mavis!


The thieves followed their prey down Brittania Road, then jumped them at Hurontario.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Made an afternoon trip to Waterton National Park not too long ago.

These signs had sprouted up like mushrooms during the rainy season.









Now some of the money was used to hire several Border Collies to patrol the townsite and herd deer away from the town. Turns out that was money well spent unless you happened to enjoy seeing the deer wander through town. Did not see a single deer in the town.

Another slice of the pie went to making a paved bike trail from the park gates to The Prince of Wales Hotel. Again a good idea as there were no shoulders on that little stretch of highway.

More was spent in the Red Rocks Canyon area. Stouter chain link fence along the steeper parts of the hike should prevent hikers from tumbling into the canyon. Not sure the previous barriers were inadequate but what the hey? Paved parking lot. Not sure that was really needed but again; What the hey? That brings us to this:








Complete with sign a tory explanation:








Now that's one super fancy version of a standard vault style outhouse. Well not quite standard. Rather than installing sufficient venting for an 8+ hole outhouse they installed venting big enough for a two holer and tried to supplement it with solar powered fans. Any one that does not think that money was badly spent has not opened the door to that glorified biffy. The universal reaction is: "I can hold it!. Really, I know I can hold it!"


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*More money well(????) spent*

Quoted the entire article as newspaper links tend to disappear over time:
Grandmother sues over flash-bang grenade raid | grandmother, flash, bang - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO



> A Colorado Springs grandmother who suffered a heart attack when drug agents stormed into her home in 2009 has filed suit claiming the officers’ tactics were “extreme, unreasonable and outrageous.”
> 
> Rose Ann Santistevan, 71, is suing for medical expenses and noneconomic losses such as pain and suffering.
> 
> ...


In other words, it's A-OK we flash-banged an innocent grandmother because we thought her house might have a substance some bureaucrats arbitrarily declared illegal. This is what your tax money goes towards.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it might only be mere minutes before some holier than thou declares Wait a second! That wasn't in Canada!

Until someone wakes up to the sharp spike in making criminals out of people for having some pot. Not to mention the colossal waste of millions of dollars better spent somewhere else.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Trouble is, criminals ARE people who use pot.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*War Of 1812 Bicentennial: Tories Spending Big To Become Party Of Patriotism*





> The public's knowledge of the War of 1812 might be a bit sketchy, but Canadians might not easily forget who's banging the drum for the bicentennial.
> 
> Parliamentary secretary Pierre Poilievre was marched in to a news conference Wednesday at the Canadian War Museum by a piper and percussionist in period costume during. He was just one of seven Conservative ministers and MPs who fanned out across the country to re-announce what the Heritage Minister had already done with much fanfare at southern Ontario's Fort George a day earlier.
> 
> The attention and resources devoted to the conflict's bicentennial — at least $28 million in spending according to the last budget — is part of a particular brand of Canadian nationalism that political observers say Prime Minister Stephen Harper has embraced and tried to sell during his time in power.


(HuffingtonPost)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This disgusts me.

I'm not opposed to spending some money on facilitating the average Canadian's knowledge of our country's history, but how about some perspective?!? Let's spend a million on commemorating the war of 1812 and 27 million on the homeless, or flu vaccines, or fixing goddamned potholes. Or just pay down the fscking debt!

Talk about screwed up priorities.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Trouble is, criminals ARE people who use pot.


Actually the facts say you're wrong. Most of those nailed didn't have any other trouble with the law.

People, no different than those having some glasses of scotch. All we're doing is just making more citizens criminals.

I think we may have discovered this in the 20s. But we needed to feed the big corporate monster interests (*cough* Dupont)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Actually the facts say you're wrong. Most of those nailed didn't have any other trouble with the law.


Sorry, but it is YOU who is wrong under current law. Period. Use it and you become a criminal of your own choosing by defying the law. Simple as that.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Use it and you become a criminal of your own choosing by defying the law.


"If the law supposes that, then the law is an ass." - Dickens


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sorry, but it is YOU who is wrong under current law. Period. Use it and you become a criminal of your own choosing by defying the law. Simple as that.


Really. Well suppose I consider the guy I see having a drink a filthy wife beating drunk.

Does that make sense? Probably about as much sense as what you insist on.

I personally don't see someone who smokes some pot as a "criminal" anymore than I see the drinker a wife beatin drunk.

All that has to happen is for this government reverse it's ridiculous insistence on making more people criminals. It doesn't work at all, and not only costs way more money needlessly, it causes far more problems.

It's really very basic to understand. Perhaps if less people are put into the system as criminals, less will head down the bad road and end up dead.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think that what Groove is trying to say is that defining someone as a criminal on arbitrary and unsupportable grounds may be "legal" but it's unproductive and defeats the purpose for which we invented laws.

I know you have a personal issue with pot SINC, but try to be objective about this. As far as substance abuse goes, marijuana is far less harmful to individuals and society than alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and lots of other drugs we do not criminalize. Our continued insistence that cannabis users need to be criminalized is just in diametric opposition to the facts, not to mention public opinion. Thus, the insistence of the Conservatives to strengthen, rather than repeal, laws proscribing marijuana possession is just another example of the disconnect between the Harper government and reality.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *War Of 1812 Bicentennial: Tories Spending Big To Become Party Of Patriotism*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very sad situation. Blowing 28 million dollars to rebrand history. Everyone enjoys a ripping good yarn and if the cons can blow 28 million dollars in Conservative held ridings all the better. Never mind about the facts let's represent "his-story." 

Gotta love the New ConJob Government of Our Glorious Leader.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Very sad situation. Blowing 28 million dollars to rebrand history. Everyone enjoys a ripping good yarn and if the cons can blow 28 million dollars in Conservative held ridings all the better. Never mind about the facts let's represent "his-story."
> 
> Gotta love the New ConJob Government of Our Glorious Leader.


Than there's the millions of federal dollars wasted on the Bluenose re-construction--more then $7-million federal dollars on one ship alone.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Than there's the millions of federal dollars wasted on the Bluenose re-construction--more then $7-million federal dollars on one ship alone.


Good News the builders saved the air from the old Bluenose II in order to call the new schooner the Bluenose II. The story of the vessel remains the same though.

A better example of wasted money and the re-writing of history is the National Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 as the Canadian version of Ellis Island.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

7 million? And here I thought the liberals "woulda spent more".


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> A better example of wasted money and the re-writing of history is the National Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 as the Canadian version of Ellis Island.


I beg to differ - the Pier 21 museum is a fabulous centre. Extremely well-designed, full of very useful information for citizens and visitors alike (e.g., genealogy research tools, records, images, etc.). It's one of the first things that tourists arriving on ships see in Halifax.

Two of my friends from Mexico will be visiting Halifax this month, and it's on their must-see list.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Trouble is, criminals ARE people who use pot.


Yep that certainly justifies giving Granny a heart attack, especially as there was no pot on the premises and no evidence whatsoever that she had anything to do with pot other than having the misfortune to be related to someone that did. <insert sarcasm emoticon here>

Thing is the blunder babies had the place staked out and knew she was alone. Could have been handled by a single unarmed female cop. Seems the motto of our police services has changed. 
No longer is it: To serve and Protect. 
Now it's: To intimidate and terrorize. 

Sadly reminiscent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, certainly not appropriate for the USofA.

The other part of the story that was not mentioned is that had they found even a speck of drugs in her home it would have been stolen from her even if she had no knowledge of it being there. That was the real reason for the raid. The bums knew the culprit was not there, they were just hoping he had left a bit behind so they could steal her home.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> I beg to differ - the Pier 21 museum is a fabulous centre. Extremely well-designed, full of very useful information for citizens and visitors alike (e.g., genealogy research tools, records, images, etc.). It's one of the first things that tourists arriving on ships see in Halifax.
> 
> Two of my friends from Mexico will be visiting Halifax this month, and it's on their must-see list.


My son, who lives in Lower Sackville and works in Dartmouth visited that centre a couple of weeks back and agrees with your assessment CM. He even found his grandfather and great grandfather's signatures on arrival in Canada from Scotland over a century ago.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I beg to differ - the Pier 21 museum is a fabulous centre. Extremely well-designed, full of very useful information for citizens and visitors alike (e.g., genealogy research tools, records, images, etc.). It's one of the first things that tourists arriving on ships see in Halifax.
> 
> Two of my friends from Mexico will be visiting Halifax this month, and it's on their must-see list.


My point CB was to reinvent Pier 21 as the Ellis Island of Canada. 

Pier 21 was one of a few such Immigration "Sheds" across the country and the last of its ilk. Under Our Glorious Leaders watch his-story Pier 21 received all immigrants and is the Ellis Island of Canada.

When I was little I felt I had a connection to pier 21. My Grandfather worked across the street from Pier 21. He used to take me over there and I fished off the long wall. My father, after the war, worked for a time at the Immigration annex (the railway station waiting room) next Pier 21.

I object to the attempted re-writing of history.

I was and I am still amazed at how close Georges Island seems to be from Pier 21. It feels as if you should be able to reach out and touch Georges Island from the long wall.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Yep that certainly justifies giving Granny a heart attack, especially as there was no pot on the premises and no evidence whatsoever that she had anything to do with pot other than having the misfortune to be related to someone that did. <insert sarcasm emoticon here>
> 
> Thing is the blunder babies had the place staked out and knew she was alone. Could have been handled by a single unarmed female cop. Seems the motto of our police services has changed.
> No longer is it: To serve and Protect.
> ...


The truth is, having criminalized pot has not saved anyone from any harm whatsoever. I've lost some very close and dear friends to drug overdose, and as heart wrenching as that is, I want better solutions, not failed policies that criminalize people who shouldn't be.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> The truth is, having criminalized pot has not saved anyone from any harm whatsoever. I've lost some very close and dear friends to drug overdose, and as heart wrenching as that is, I want better solutions, not failed policies that criminalize people who shouldn't be.


People _choose_ to criminalize themselves by using illegal drugs. No one is forcing them to become criminals.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> People _choose_ to criminalize themselves by using illegal drugs. No one is forcing them to become criminals.


So if our glorious leader made beer illegal tomorrow, would you agree that everyone should stop enjoying a pint while they watch the game?

Our legal system is not based on the laws of nature; we make the laws and we decide how to enforce the laws. When the government has passed laws that are not congruent with societies' best interests, it is the duty of citizens to oppose those laws and to try to get them changed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sinc, you're going in circles hiding behind the fact that the conservatives have further criminalized pot needlessly.

The point is, we should stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars criminalizing people for this. It accomplishes a big fat zero.

It does not save any lives, and you would be severely disconnected from reality if you think it keeps it away from young people. In fact, it may encourage it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No, I am quite clear on the issue. Until such time as the law is changed, it remains an illegal drug and people who choose to use it, choose to become criminals. As bryanc correctly points out, campaign to change the law, but until then face the consequences for using. It's just that simple.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Unfortunately, that's all you've got. It isn't much to be clear on I'm afraid. There is words, and then there is real life Sinc. I'm sure you're very aware of this.

See, the proof is right there. Making it illegal doesn't stop anyone, because everyone knows the law is a joke. So, if you think it's ok to make criminals out of regular generally law abiding citizens, then you won't mind if the government criminalizes all alcohol then? You'll never ever, have a drink even in your own home?

Nonsense. When you stupidly criminalize something, you will ALWAYS end up creating criminals out of good citizens. Period.

Just say no was a dismal failure, and it's time to finally wake up.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> No, I am quite clear on the issue. Until such time as the law is changed, it remains an illegal drug and people who choose to use it, choose to become criminals. As bryanc correctly points out, campaign to change the law, but until then face the consequences for using. It's just that simple.


Using an illegal drug does not make a criminal.

The conviction under a law that make the substance illegal makes you a criminal. Just saying! 

Innocent until proven guilty is the substance of the common law, however it does not work that way for some righteous common folks though.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> No, I am quite clear on the issue. Until such time as the law is changed, it remains an illegal drug and people who choose to use it, choose to become criminals. As bryanc correctly points out, campaign to change the law, but until then face the consequences for using. It's just that simple.


So you never had a beer before you turned 21??? Never pushed a car a few MPH past the speed limit??? Yep it is exactly the same thing.

Much as I dislike the stench of Marijuana, criminalizing and jailing offenders has been about as effective as prohibition and has had identical side effects. One of the worst side effects is the corruption of law enforcement. Far too easy to look the other way for the dealers who help fatten that pay check.

Want to jail someone, make sure violent offenders get more than a few weeks first time around and that third violent offenses are pretty much throw away the key. While we're at it let's give influence peddling politicians similar sentences. Course if we dump the notion of jailing petty marijuana offenders we could do that with out building new jails, and no doubt handing over administration of same to Harpo cronies under the guise of saving money via privatization.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> So, if you think it's ok to make criminals out of regular generally law abiding citizens, then you won't mind if the government criminalizes all alcohol then? You'll never ever, have a drink even in your own home?


You refuse to acknowledge that it is currently illegal to use pot, not alcohol. Again I say, those who become criminals by using pot CHOOSE to do so themselves. *Nobody but themselves MAKE them criminals.* Don't like the law, work to change it, but until it changes, people who use pot will pay the price.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> You refuse to acknowledge that it is currently illegal to use pot, not alcohol. Again I say, those who become criminals by using pot CHOOSE to do so themselves. *Nobody but themselves MAKE them criminals.* Don't like the law, work to change it, but until it changes, people who use pot will pay the price.


Once again it's Juries and/or Judges that make them criminals. That's the common law, which states "innocent until proven guilty."

Why are some so strident on some laws and other laws, more basic to the fundamental justice we should all uphold, they feel free to ignore and regularly break these laws with perceived immunity?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Yep that certainly justifies giving Granny a heart attack, especially as there was no pot on the premises and no evidence whatsoever that she had anything to do with pot other than having the misfortune to be related to someone that did. <insert sarcasm emoticon here>
> 
> Thing is the blunder babies had the place staked out and knew she was alone. Could have been handled by a single unarmed female cop. Seems the motto of our police services has changed.
> No longer is it: To serve and Protect.
> ...


#1. The article mentions nothing about pot or marijuana. The son could be involved in heroine, cocaine, etc. 

#2. If you are the mother of a known drug dealer, I think you can expect some intrusions - ex. police, FBI, other drug dealers. If you don't like it, you probably should move or change your name.

#3. If your the mother of a drug dealer and you don't want your home confiscated, you better make sure your drug dealing son doesn't enter your home. You are in control of your home, or in this case her son who is not involved in drugs should have kept his brother away. 

Strange how an article that has no mention of pot or maijuana started a page of posts on the subject.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kosh said:


> #1. The article mentions nothing about pot or marijuana. The son could be involved in heroine, cocaine, etc.
> 
> #2. If you are the mother of a known drug dealer, I think you can expect some intrusions - ex. police, FBI, other drug dealers. If you don't like it, you probably should move or change your name.
> 
> ...


Again zero evidence that Granny was in any way involved with drugs. The officers knew the offender was not on the premises. You'd have to be on drugs to think a normal mother would ban a child from her home unless she felt personally threatened by the child.

No reason for the Flash Bang Batter entry and the bumble bums knew it. 

The seizure law was drafted as a way to fight grow-ops, meth labs and big time dealers but has instead become a tool for law enforcement types to batter ordinary citizens. I know of one landlord that spent several thousand dollars on lawyers, attempting to regain ownership of a rental property seized when a tenant was arrested on minor possession charges. There may be a more blatantly abused statute in the Colorado lawbooks but you would be very hard pressed to name it.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

BigDL said:


> Once again it's Juries and/or Judges that make them criminals. That's the common law, which states "innocent until proven guilty."


 
Let's just, clarify that, Judge and Juries don't make criminals, Judges and Juries, use facts, evidence and witnesses of what you did to convict you of a crime, thus labeling you a criminal.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> The seizure law was drafted as a way to fight grow-ops, meth labs and big time dealers but has instead become a tool for law enforcement types to batter ordinary citizens. I know of one landlord that spent several thousand dollars on lawyers, attempting to regain ownership of a rental property seized when a tenant was arrested on minor possession charges. There may be a more blatantly abused statute in the Colorado lawbooks but you would be very hard pressed to name it.


I guess the US seizure law needs to be amended then, because , like you I would agree that they shouldn't be able to seize a rental property. 

They have a similar seizure rule in Canada, I'd have to check what it states. I would hope it excludes rental properties. After all, the owner has a big enough problem cleaning up and fixing the rental property, if it's even possible.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kosh said:


> I guess the US seizure law needs to be amended then, because , like you I would agree that they shouldn't be able to seize a rental property.
> 
> They have a similar seizure rule in Canada, I'd have to check what it states. I would hope it excludes rental properties. After all, the owner has a big enough problem cleaning up and fixing the rental property, if it's even possible.


I believe this is a state law although there is also a similar federal law on the books. In Colorado the proceeds from these seizures help to fund the police department that makes the arrest and seizure. That is a clear conflict of interest.

The problem is three fold. Seizure happens at time of arrest even though many arrests lack sufficient evidence to even go to trial let alone win a conviction. Seemingly no minimums as to what constitutes a seizable offense. Victims are left with the expense of trying to undo unjust seizures. 

In Colorado there are a huge number of potential rental properties sitting empty as owners cannot sell and do not wish to risk losing it altogether should the renter prove to be some sort of criminal.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Let's just, clarify that, Judge and Juries don't make criminals, Judges and Juries, use facts, evidence and witnesses of what you did to convict you of a crime, thus labeling you a criminal.


Exactly, the mere use of a substance does not a criminal make until the facts have been vetted and a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt has been issued is a criminal made. 

For some merely being detained or arrested is sufficient to label a person a criminal


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> You refuse to acknowledge that it is currently illegal to use pot, not alcohol. Again I say, those who become criminals by using pot CHOOSE to do so themselves. *Nobody but themselves MAKE them criminals.* Don't like the law, work to change it, but until it changes, people who use pot will pay the price.


To the contrary, I have acknowledged that pot is illegal almost every time I replied.

But it is you who refuses to see it should not be criminalized as it is completely useless to do so, and only wastes exorbitant amounts of money and creates problems rather than solves any. It should -only- be illegal if it serves the public good. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact the opposite is true. But like the case of inSite, conservatives have shown they would rather stick to failed ideology rather than clear evidence to the contrary, as shown by the recent supreme court decision.

EDIT: I also want to recognize that we have talked about some of the reasons why you feel strongly against pot use. I don't want to disrespect this Sinc.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

As Canadians, we should be accustomed to being behind the times. Be it fashion, the arts or the building of super jails.

I guess our boy Harper is convinced he's going to prove them all wrong. 

Texas conservatives reject Harper's crime plan - World - CBC News


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> As Canadians, we should be accustomed to being behind the times. Be it fashion, the arts or the building of super jails.
> 
> I guess our boy Harper is convinced he's going to prove them all wrong.
> 
> Texas conservatives reject Harper's crime plan - World - CBC News


...or when you're sooooo far behind the rest of the pack in the race, you and your fans can think you're actually leading.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Like Lemmings.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Controversy festers on B.C. island, where tiny village receives millions from taxpayers



> The federal government is “concerned” about a tiny B.C. First Nation that has received $9.1 million in federal transfers since 2001, harvested hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of lumber, incurred more than $3 million in government loans to negotiate a land claim but hasn’t held an election since 1987.


Reading the article, you learn that this $9.1 million has been given to a community with 17 (SEVENTEEN!) inhabitants. That averages to ~$550,000/person over 12 years.

There is other stuff going on, as noted in the article. I didn't really need to learn anything else, the first paragraph spoke most loudly to me. 

Just one question:

Where the hell do I sign up?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Plead for one of them to adopt you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

meanwhile, back at the ranch, while those who allow themselves to be duped by shiny balls, we have a federal government who couldn't find 3.1 billion, spends hundreds of millions in campaigning for itself, the list, is endless.

And we're supposed to get excited over this story. Man, you gotta be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and divert attention...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*21 million in 2 years for Economic Action Plan Ad's*

I'm much more upset by the Government spending, telling Canadians how money is being allocated for things in the future.

No useful information for Canadians but political advertisements for Conservatives, at the taxpayers expense.



> OTTAWA - The Harper government spent $21 million on major advertising campaigns under its Economic Action Plan brand in 2011-12, according to the latest annual report on ad spending.
> 
> Ottawa shelled out $78.5 million in the last fiscal year telling Canadians about everything from the switch to digital TV and the War of 1812, to elder abuse and anti-drug messaging.
> 
> "The central theme remained the promotion of key initiatives, programs and benefits available to Canadians through Canada's Economic Action Plan," says the introduction to the Public Works report.


Economic Action Plan: Harper Government Reportedly Spent $21M On Ads In 2011-12


----------



## Birdwatcher (May 10, 2013)

groovetube said:


> Man, you gotta be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and divert attention...


You mean just like your post is doing with the needless jab?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Birdwatcher said:


> You mean just like your post is doing with the needless jab?


needless jab? I guess you haven't seen all the swipes previous coming at me and other posters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Birdwatcher said:


> You mean just like your post is doing with the needless jab?


These posts are largely picked up from _Now Magazine_ and _The Tyee_. Saves you the trouble of reading those rags.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Rag = every news source you don't agree with.

And this "Harper Government" BS has to stop. Please ............ <begging>


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Rag = every news source you don't agree with.


No. I often agree with the Toronto Sun, but it's a rag.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Birdwatcher said:


> You mean just like your post is doing with the needless jab?





groovetube said:


> needless jab? I guess you haven't seen all the swipes previous coming at me and other posters.





Birdwatcher said:


> You mean just like your post is doing with the needless jab?





Macfury said:


> These posts are largely picked up from _Now Magazine_ and _The Tyee_. Saves you the trouble of reading those rags.





iMouse said:


> Rag = every news source you don't agree with.
> 
> And this "Harper Government" BS has to stop. Please ............ <begging>





Macfury said:


> No. I often agree with the Toronto Sun, but it's a rag.


Same as it ever was...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






..and thus we dance.

Lincoln


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Same as it ever ever was:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/104202-our-words-not-sale-so-now-they-not.html#post1285658


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Same as it ever ever was:
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/104202-our-words-not-sale-so-now-they-not.html#post1285658


And so it goes...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

...and where it's going, no one knows.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Same as it ever was...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


jeez. Not only have I rarely read the Now in years, I had to google the tyre. Turns out it's a rag in BC. Perhaps he thinks I live in BC?

useless jab FAIL :lmao:


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I had to google the tyre. Turns out it's a rag in BC. Perhaps he thinks I live in BC?


Odd thing, when I Google "tyre" I get results for the outer rubber part of a wheel.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jamesB said:


> Odd thing, when I Google "tyre" I get results for the outer rubber part of a wheel.


ah good ole auto correct


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jamesB said:


> Odd thing, when I Google "tyre" I get results for the outer rubber part of a wheel.


If one spends more than an hour a day googling tyres, one has too much time on one's hands.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Macfury said:


> If one spends more than an hour a day googling tyres, one has too much time on one's hands.


And how is this one's business?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> And how is this one's business?


If it takes one an hour to google tyres that would certainly explain a few things


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Action Plan In Action*

Talk about your bridge to nowhere.

So the Con-Meißters paid to have this bridge built across the Crowsnest river about 3 years ago. A trail head that was supposed to go from West Coleman to Crowsnest lake, a distance of about 14 KMs

After three years the trail on the other (North )side, is a barely discernible path that meanders between the river and the railway, petering out in a bog after less than a kilometer. That entire side of the river is more or less a bog. Trail would be much easier to build on the South side of the river with no bridge needed at all!

Now I happen to think a hiking/and or biking trail through this area is a good idea, but maybe funding for the entire project should have been in place before spending the bucks on the bridge. For now the sign crows about another con inaction plan.


----------

