# A judge with compassion rules



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

> *Court rules against Ottawa in injection site case*
> 
> 
> A B.C. judge has ruled that the federal government cannot constitutionally shut down Vancouver's safe-injection site.
> ...


although i know that many will disagree with this ruling, it is the decent thing to do, and many many kudos to judge pitfield for considering health and public safety over political pandering. things may not be roses out there, but this is one good sign. oh, and i am beginning to hate harper more and more. he's selling us out, folks.. trying to turn us into a prison state like the USA, and trying to give complete control over alternative medicines to pharmaceutical giants, who in turn will buy him a nice place in like, antigua or something. what a repulsive creep he's proving to be.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

The ruling is win-win.

Regardless of beliefs in the case, the numbers don't lie... it's a fraction of the cost to society in both humanitarian and monetary resources to keep the sites open, than ignoring the problem.

Cheers!


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Wait...did I wake up in aparallel universe where good sense prevails? Surely not...
There's some fantastic language in that ruling: _"Society cannot condone addiction, but in the face of its presence it cannot fail to manage it, hopefully with ultimate success reflected in the cure of the addicted individual and abstinence."_
+1 for the good guys
+1 for Canada 
:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

It seems obvious enough that addiction is a health issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/27/bc-supreme-court-insite.html


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

NB-SK said:


> It seems obvious enough that addiction is a health issue.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/27/bc-supreme-court-insite.html


Reminds me of an interview with a judge a couple months back on CBC Radio 1... the question was basically "Why the revolving door with chronic property theft" which broke down to three categories... 1) malice, 2) mental illness, 3) drug addiction. The latter two the judge insisted were health problems, not criminal problems, therefore the criminal court had no jurisdiction, case dismissed!

But of course the provinces don't want to deal with them medically, so they say "criminals, not medical", putting a lot of folk in limbo :frown:

Opened my mind somewhat that evening.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Paul said:


> Without deliberately trying to derail this into a thread that belongs in the political thread....mental illness is NEVER a choice. The path to recreational drug addiction ALWAYS starts with a concious and free decision. Alcoholism is drug addiction. Should we give drunk drivers a free pass because it's medical and not criminal?????


Without having read a transcript of the interview, it sounds to me like the point they were making is that mental illness and addiction shouldn't be grounds for stiffer penalties.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Being pretty left wing, Harper doesn't surprise me. I agree with suttree, it's a good decision. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

I think what the Judge did is ok...in some way. With our Health system on the brink of crashing, can we afford to dump shit load or money for addicts?...Not saying i'm against a safe place to get high..but a center to get clean might be a better solution. They are not trying to fix the problem..but mearly trying to "contain" it to certain areas.

My wife is a Toxicologist..sorry if it's not the write term in english..and one thing we see a LOT..is like Paul said, these people, be it yougn or old, CHOOSE to become addict. in 2008 if you start doing Crak or Coke, and then say "i did'nt know i would become an addict" then that person as been hidding in a dark cave all it's life. 

Alcoholism is a bit different as it's a lot of time geneticly predisposed to been one. man, my english sucks today..

I Find it hard that an addict that goes to a "safe" place to get high would want to get clean realy. I mean if someone would offed you a clean place to get safe sex...would you wanna stop?!...i would'nt..hehe..

Anyway. it's a very hard subject, you want those people to stop getting high, but it's always gonna be hard. Those places are for hard drugs. Will they built smoker's houses?...people smoking weed as as much addict as people doing coke or crack. it's actually easier to stop hard drugs then it is to stop softer ones...stop crack takes about 2 weeks..and you system is dead clean, it takes over 6 months to get over Pot alone..


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

Paul.. i'd say that mental illness is easily the most common reason for drug addiction. there is a study the american government is currently touting saying that there's a link between pot use and depression... of course, they have the apple cart before the ass, and are suggesting that pot leads to depression, instead of thinking, "oh hey... what if being depressed leads to trying to escape via drug use?".. 

al3d... firstly i'd say that marijuana has been pretty much exhaustively proven to be only very mildly mentally addictive and not physically addictive... it takes between 10 and 14 days for the active ingredients in pot to clear your system, and the 6 months you've heard is i believe to clear the deposits in our fatty cells, which is actually more to do with how we burn the fat off (or, more how we don't), then the lasting effects of marijuana as i understand things (not a doctor)... this is also the source of the famed "LSD flashback", that can happen even years later. 

also, i don't think anyone chooses to become an addict. they choose to escape reality (again, i'd guess this has a lot more to do with not fitting into society, which is pretty much how we define mental illness), and the drug itself causes the addiction. i'm willing to bet fairly large sums of money that if you walked up to any addict you find and asked if they'd rather do heroin that wasn't addictive, that you'd find a pretty general "yes".

i guess the thing that disturbs me the most is the underlying assumption that everyone has to "fit in". that addicts are criminal scum... i applaud judge pitfield's compassion for those that weren't able to find a good woman, work 60 hours a week for a crappy boss, raise a couple kids, then retire and die and get cleanly out of the way....


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

devnulljp said:


> Wait...did I wake up in aparallel universe where good sense prevails? Surely not...
> There's some fantastic language in that ruling: _"Society cannot condone addiction, but in the face of its presence it cannot fail to manage it, hopefully with ultimate success reflected in the cure of the addicted individual and abstinence."_
> +1 for the good guys
> +1 for Canada
> :smilie_flagge17:



What about we change that quote to say "but in the face of its presence it cannot fail to *eradicate* it", or at least move in that direction. I don't believe that allowing shooting galleries is managing it at all. I have never been in one, never will be, but I cannot fathom that they are dealing with addiction there. If the only reason is to provide a place for drug addicts to go then I am totally against it. 

Society has stated "I dont want shooting galleries or crack houses in my neigborhood". So the answer is to create and supply a place for them to go so we dont have to see it? Or deal with it? So we take the responsibility off the police force to have to come to your hood and kick them out and arrest them by providing somewhere to go. 

It's like the garbage land fills and nuclear facilities. We all want it but "not in my backyard".


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

Drug addiction is not a mental disease it is a lifestyle.

Clasifying addiction as a disease will only result in addicts getting disability, and getting subsidised housing, and free perscriptions and dental plans. Then they will have children and pass the lifestyle on creating a new cycle.

I have met people on disability that have more disposable income than I have, and I work 18 - 20 hours a day. So I guess if giving drug addicts more disposable income to spend on drugs, then clasifying them as being mentally ill would be a step in the right direction, as people with money don't really have drug problems, do they?

I've known allot of chronic users and addicts in my time, the only cure I have seen so far is either death, or a close brush with it.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> What about we change that quote to say "but in the face of its presence it cannot fail to eradicate it", or at least move in that direction. I don't believe that allowing shooting galleries is managing it at all. I have never been in one, never will be, but I cannot fathom that they are dealing with addiction there. If the only reason is to provide a place for drug addicts to go then I am totally against it.
> 
> Society has stated "I dont want shooting galleries or crack houses in my neigborhood". So the answer is to create and supply a place for them to go so we dont have to see it? Or deal with it? So we take the responsibility off the police force to have to come to your hood and kick them out and arrest them by providing somewhere to go.
> 
> It's like the garbage land fills and nuclear facilities. We all want it but "not in my backyard".


I don't know if they provide treatment for addiction there, but I'm sure they provide information about it and other medical matters. Either way, it's better than forcing them into hiding where they will inject themselves with used needles and possibly get infected with HIV or hepatitis.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

NB-SK said:


> I don't know if they provide treatment for addiction there, but I'm sure they provide information about it and other medical matters. Either way, it's better than forcing them into hiding where they will inject themselves with used needles and possibly get infected with HIV or hepatitis.


Unfortunately that is a hazard of the profession. That should not concern anyone of us. Do you think for one minute that I care if a drug addict has a clean needle? If you were a drug addict and you had to put up with an interdiction everytime you went there to shoot up, you would not go there so I doubt very much they are trying to get them off drugs. Having some pamphlets available at the front door wont do it. As a society... it's a major step in the wrong direction. The government seems to have done a great job on cigarettes... let's get the same ball rolling on the drug war.

Think about it if it was your child. Would you say to your child, "go to the free shoot up place" or would you grab them by the neck and do everything humanly possible to get them off drugs?

These places are just somewhere to send them so that all the rest of us dont have to look at it or deal with it.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

>.< This one gets me every time it gets brought up simply because of the single minded myopic points of view it brings up.

<cut>

...remaining comment was removed by user...

</cut>


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

eradicate drug addiction? good luck, brother. it's not possible. drug addictions have been with us since the dawn of time, and they're simply not going to go away, no matter how many people we throw in jail, or sterilize, or even euthanize.... 

question why it is that you believe that drug addiction is a weakness of character! i guarantee that at the very least two thirds of your CD collection is a who's who of junkies (unless you're into the whole jesus rock thing, in which case it's more likely oxyconton or alcohol or little girls)... did miles davis have a weak character? or john lennon? how about stevie ray vaughan? or what about lenny breau (who was such a mess he'd sell his only guitar to buy more drugs)? addiction is about mental illness and a lack of provision by society at large for people who aren't interested in the rat race, who see life as something other than a "**** you, i'm taking everything i can from anyone i can". the stealing is a byproduct of the financial cost of addiction, and the violence is a byproduct of the massive profits being made by violent people, because drugs are illegal. 

i know i'm pretty much not going to convince anyone to change their way of thinking, because people at large just aren't much interested in embracing different views.. but i'd say that IF we were to actually find a way to stamp out addiction, we'd also be finding and destroying that which is at the very root of most good music.... we'd have to eliminate malaise in general, and then what the hell would musicians sing about? disney films?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

suttree said:


> what the hell would musicians sing about? disney films?



YES PLEASE..more Disney Club BS...they created Britney Spears and the like..ENOUGH..well.at least Aguilerra is nice to look at ..LOL


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

*but i'd say that IF we were to actually find a way to stamp out addiction, we'd also be finding and destroying that which is at the very root of most good music....*

Everyone is entitled to their views and I support that 100%. But I must say this is one of the most bizarre statements I have read in a long time.

There comes a time, and it has long past that we have to sew up our bleeding hearts and get tough on some issues. You want to show compassion? Send me some money to help me get my kids through college. As stated in another thread, from my recent trip to Vancouver and a feature article in McLeans magazine this month. Vancouver is now considered one of the top places in North America for the drug trade. Rivaling NYC, LA and the major hubs. 

You have to cut off the the snakes head. Is it wishful thinking? Is it a possibility? Who knows. Certainly not an easy task. But you can follow the money trail to find out why it has not been eradicted up to now. There is just too much money in it. 

I was watching an episode of Penn & Tellers Bullshit last night on the Americans With Disability act. I was shocked to find out that due to this act and the provisions within that 1 in 6 Americans are now classified as "disabled". Basically, if you cannot figure out how to balance your cheque book you can file for disability of one kind or another. It's gone too far. Let's not go down that road.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I was quite happy to read the first few posts but then the typical reactionary comments started pouring in. It's such a shame that a plethora of scientific study goes unread because people believe _they_ "know" what the _real _ deal is.

"Get tough on crime," "war on drugs", and the "individual must pull up their socks" approaches simply don't work. It's been demonstrated time and time again, but the voting public and certain politicians won't listen/don't want to hear it because they are convinced they "know better."

TG


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> *Vancouver is now considered one of the top places in North America for the drug trade. Rivaling NYC, LA and the major hubs. *


*

that's simply because for a while now, the TOP MAFIA for Drug is asian..they controle more drugs in USA/Canada then the Colombian cartel now.*


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

suttree said:


> ....i guarantee that at the very least two thirds of your CD collection is a who's who of junkies (unless you're into the whole jesus rock thing, in which case it's more likely oxyconton or alcohol or little girls)... did miles davis have a weak character? or john lennon? how about stevie ray vaughan? ....


 
I think I should be more clear that there is a difference between what I view as a drug user, and a drug addict. Addicts are are the loathing ones that spend ever sober moment looking for a fix - they don't want to be 'cured' or helped. They will sell their mothers and children for drugs and just can't be trusted.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> ... It's such a shame that a plethora of scientific study goes unread because people believe _they_ "know" what the _real _deal is.


I don't think that there are too many scientfic studies that are done in the natural environment of a drug addict. Looking for a solution for drug addicts in a lab or controlled environment is just about as crazy as teaching talent in a school.

I think the best solution is to take any kids that they might have out of the environment (save the ones you can) and let the addiction run its course. It will either kill them or wake them up.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> *but i'd say that IF we were to actually find a way to stamp out addiction, we'd also be finding and destroying that which is at the very root of most good music....*
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their views and I support that 100%. But I must say this is one of the most bizarre statements I have read in a long time.
> 
> ...


um. firstly, and in bold letters.. *I AM NOT TAKING THIS PERSONALLY*, just in case you think i'm angry or something.... i'm not. that being said.

what is bizarre about that statement? great music is and has always been at the forefront of social issues. the people who make great music (or any great art) do so because they feel that society as a whole NEEDS to be changed, because they feel that society as a whole is on the wrong track. this is the exact same feeling you'll find in the majority of drug users (meth excepted, i'll get to that in a second)... they feel cut out of society and want to escape from the (frankly harsh) realities of the world and our lives. it's no coincidence that drug addiction is so prevalent among musicians, it requires much of the same frame of mind. 

as to the "bleeding heart" thing... you're tight on money to send your kids to college, because you're paying MASSIVE taxes to support a "war on drugs" that is both completely unwinnable, and morally repugnant. the right of the political spectrum (those that identify themselves as conservatives, but are anything but conservative) wants you to believe that your tax dollars are being wasted on supporting polygamist immigrants and drug pushers. in truth, social assistance programs are in the range of a half a penny of every tax dollar spent (not including disability pensions or child tax benefits paid to a much bigger percentage of income levels).... and most of THAT money is paid towards administration, not those in need. most of your tax money goes to transfer payments, and servicing debt on money borrowed (when canada not so long ago was operating on a surplus)... what costs you money is the GOP's dedication to the needs of big business over the needs of citizens.

as to penn&teller's wonderful show, have you managed to see the one about the war on drugs? i suggest you do, if you respect their point of view, it might go a LONG way towards opening your eyes about the likelihood of eliminating drugs and/or addictions.

and my main question is: why on earth is all this hatred leveled at drug addicts? because they steal? they do that because drugs are expensive to buy, because they're illegal... make the drugs cheap (or free), and they won't be breaking into your house, or tying up our court system, or creating so much work for our police forces... that will in turn free up BILLIONS of dollars, which can be used in part to tackle the addict's social needs, and to educate people on the real consequences of drug use (instead of the current "do it and your head will explode" tactics, which don't convince anyone, because you can indeed do cocaine a few times without becoming addicted, or dying). the rest of it could go towards paying down our national debt, which if eliminated would return .25 cents of every tax dollar to our pockets (and i won't even begin on tax deferments to large corporations and what those really cost us)... of course, that would also mean that we'd have to find politicians who were capable of actually returning unused money to it's rightful owners.. but hey, since we're wishing...

oh, and as to meth.. i personally believe this drug is popular only because of the lack of alternatives... it's cheap and easy to make, so it's easy to buy... this is another of the very real consequences of the drug war, that users are forced to put drain-o in their veins (or up their noses, or what have you), because they're buying drugs from criminals in extremely unsafe conditions. how can we as a society turn our backs on these people?


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Hamm Guitars said:


> I don't think that there are too many scientfic studies that are done in the natural environment of a drug addict.


Yes there are. Many of these studies informed the development of safe injection sites.

TG


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I have made my statements. Before it gets too heated I am going to go back to looking at guitars. :rockon2:


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Yes there are. Many of these studies informed the development of safe injection sites.
> 
> TG


Now that sound like an interesting read... Do you know if they are published on-line?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Paul said:


> Read your own post. We as a society can turn out backs on "these people", because as you clearly point out in your second paragraph, they "...want to escape from the (frankly harsh) realities of the world and our lives." You can't expect those of us who can keep our excrement together to ceaselessly care for those who continually partake in self destructive behaviours. Eventually you have to let people be accountable for their own actions. It's harsh, sometimes almost cruel, but you cannot help someone who doesn't want help, and is unwilling to change.
> 
> The hatred is directed at drug addicts because they destroy lives. They destroy their own lives, they destroy the lives of people who love them and who they claim to love, and sadly, they sometimes destroy the lives of people at random. Wasn't there a multiple murder in Hongcouver not too long ago where a cable repair guy was killed just because he was in the room? Wasn't that a result of the drug trade. Without addicts, there would be no demand, and therefore no need for a supply. Without addicts, there would be no drug crime.
> 
> ...


I know I said I was going back to look at guitars, but..... HERE HERE !!


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> What about we change that quote to say "but in the face of its presence it cannot fail to *eradicate* it", or at least move in that direction. I don't believe that allowing shooting galleries is managing it at all. I have never been in one, never will be, but I cannot fathom that they are dealing with addiction there. If the only reason is to provide a place for drug addicts to go then I am totally against it.


I agree with some of your other points, but this one is not realistic. How will you eradicate it? And how will you do that if you can't reach the addicts to treat them because they're all scared of being thrown in gaol? 
You won't--you can't--so let's deal with it the best we can. 
You will have people shooting up with heroin in your city no matter what you do. You have two choices: (1) they shoot up heroin, using shared and dirty needles (because they can't get access to clean needles), will overdose, will spread disease and die on your streets or (2) you can manage it and provide a safe and clean environment for them to do it so you can get a hold on a subpopulation and get them off the stuff. No spreading disease. No overdoses. 

I also think a lot of the trouble associated with drugs is caused by that fact that it's illegal and therefore expensive -- it provides a black market in which nastiness and unethical behaviour thrive (prohibition::mafia) and it pushes addicts to ridiculous behaviour ot support their habit. You'll notice that Eric Clapton and Keith Richards did just fine with their heroin addictions because they could afford it and were given a fairly soft ride through the system because of their celebrity status (and their money and lawyers). This is a medical and social problem; it doesn't have to be criminal. It's always a great way to rile up resentment and fear in voters though so it's cynical politicians using it for leverage that stops implementation of sensible drug policies. 
I say turn it over to the medical people, they know best how to deal with sick people...let the police deal with the scumsuckers that peddle the stuff. That's practical too -- it's a huge waste of resources chasing down booking and gaoling people for having small amounts of drugs for their own use. You want to go get the people bringing the shipments into your country. 

Another part of the drug problem is caused by conservative cutbacks in the medical system, putting people with mental illness back into the general population. I saw this in the UK decades ago and I've seen it in Vancouver since I've been here. A lot of people who need mental health care are not getting it and are being left to fend for themselves...this leads to drug use and then they're in a hole with no way out. 

The whole thing is asinine, but as long as there's political capital in it, things will continue this way.

*Just to be clear, I don't even drink so not a knee-jerk bit of self-justification.

EDIT: We need a "off the soapbox now" icon


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

So, if I understand:

Addiction = mental illness = society's understanding = government funding for safe places to go and feed your addiction.

Unless your addiction is tobacco.............then you belong in an alley.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

devnulljp said:


> I agree with some of your other points, but this one is not realistic. How will you eradicate it? And how will you do that if you can't reach the addicts to treat them because they're all scared of being thrown in gaol?
> You won't--you can't--so let's deal with it the best we can.
> You will have people shooting up with heroin in your city no matter what you do. You have two choices: (1) they shoot up heroin, using shared and dirty needles (because they can't get access to clean needles), will overdose, will spread disease and die on your streets or (2) you can manage it and provide a safe and clean environment for them to do it so you can get a hold on a subpopulation and get them off the stuff. No spreading disease. No overdoses.
> 
> ...


Thats why I put right after the word "eradicate" the sentence "or at least move in that direction".


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

Paul said:


> Read your own post. We as a society can turn out backs on "these people", because as you clearly point out in your second paragraph, they "...want to escape from the (frankly harsh) realities of the world and our lives." You can't expect those of us who can keep our excrement together to ceaselessly care for those who continually partake in self destructive behaviours. Eventually you have to let people be accountable for their own actions. It's harsh, sometimes almost cruel, but you cannot help someone who doesn't want help, and is unwilling to change.


i have not now, nor ever suggested that addicts aren't responsible for their actions. BUT. i do suggest that the lawmakers and society heads are responsible for creating a situation in which addicts must pay huge sums of money for their drugs, and this in a world where the only way to get those huge sums of money quickly comes from harming others through crime of various sorts (prostitution, extortion, theft, etc). 



Paul said:


> The hatred is directed at drug addicts because they destroy lives. They destroy their own lives, they destroy the lives of people who love them and who they claim to love, and sadly, they sometimes destroy the lives of people at random. Wasn't there a multiple murder in Hongcouver not too long ago where a cable repair guy was killed just because he was in the room? Wasn't that a result of the drug trade? Without addicts, there would be no demand, and therefore no need for a supply. Without addicts, there would be no drug crime.


first of all... the crime associated with drug sales exists only because of it's illegal nature. how many drug addicts have you known? if they're high, are they out committing crimes? no. they do that when the money runs out, and they're in withdrawal. the criminal element sells drugs only because there's huge profits to be made, and no amount of "stiffer sentences" or "tough love" is going to keep them away, not when they can hire drug addicts for pennies on the dollar to do all the high risk work for them. if you legalized all drugs tomorrow, what would the mafia do? they'd move quickly out of drugs, and into something more profitable, like oil futures or mortgage lending... 

secondly. hongcouver? please.... also, the worst gangs in vancouver aren't asians, they're from india and pakistan.




Paul said:


> Is the safe injection site a good idea? I'm not sure. I hope that use of the safe site is not unconditional. I would suggest that there should be some form of counselling/therapy/education required. The idea of segregation seems to work for the Red Light District in Amsterdam, and segregation was the whole point behind the Australian Penal Colony back in sailing ship days. But beyond that, Vancouver is far enough away from me that I really don't have a grasp on the level of drug problem there, and the success of lack or that may exist at the safe injection site.


i hope that the use of the safe site is COMPLETELY unconditional, so that the addict might actually use the damned thing. here's the situation: people are going to shoot drugs anyways. that's a given... would you rather pay for a safe injection site, or for hospice care for terminal AIDS and Hep patients, and the tens of thousands of dollars that costs? the world needs to get over the NIMBY (not in my backyard) way of thought, because guess what? it's ALL our backyard now. there is nowhere left thats out of sight out of mind. 



Paul said:


> Anybody who starts a recreational drug habit to make their life different will likely succeed. Anyone who starts a recreational drug habit to make their life better will rarely succeed. Many will nearly or completely destroy their lives, and the lives of people they claimed to have loved. An expensive drug habit may be the reason somebody broke into Milkman's home late last year. The drug habit may be an explanation. The drug habit was not, is not, and will never be an excuse.
> 
> We need to treat medical problems with the health care system, and enforce the consequence of criminal acts through the legal system. Any judge that excuses a crime because the victim was unlucky enough to be violated by an addict is an idiot, and should be removed from the bench.


the judges are not excusing the crimes. but they're also smart enough to see that the addict doesn't exist in a vacuum, and they've also spent enough time on the front line to figure out (like i said, they're smart) that the current system is not only failing utterly, it's actually causing the large portion of the social costs attributed to illicit drugs and their use. they're using these cases to spark public debate, in hopes of finding some better solutions.

decriminalization petitions have been signed by supreme court justices, police commissioners, doctors, lawyers and politicians (and everyone else) numbering in the thousands... the truth is the war on drugs is costing us all a horrible price in dollars, and lives. we need to start treating people with dignity, and help them through their problems, instead of beating them into submission.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Hamm Guitars said:


> Now that sound like an interesting read... Do you know if they are published on-line?


Do you have electronic access to a university library? If so, your library should provide access to numerous academic ejournals. Don't just look in the medical journals; search sociology, criminology, and anthropology journals.

The key here is peer reviewed, scientific research, published in professional academic journals. Be weary of random web searches and pages.

TG


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Those approaches generally serve to make their proponents feel better about themselves, and that's it. It fosters an "us vs. them" mentality, where the proponents are simply superior to the lowly addicts with "weak character". It has a dual benefit - the proponents get to feel better about themselves _and_ they avoid having to try to come up with any real solution. That's why its such a popular viewpoint.


Well said. Don't forget support from the privatized jail industry which is creeping into Canada. I can't think of any reason why a for-profit jail industry might support a get tough on crime approach. Can you?


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> So, if I understand:
> 
> Addiction = mental illness = society's understanding = government funding for safe places to go and feed your addiction.
> 
> Unless your addiction is tobacco.............then you belong in an alley.


Well, I've yet to have some guy sit next to me in a restaurant or sit next to me at work and start shooting up heroin, so it's a slightly different problem...and what some guy puts in his veins has no direct adverse health effects on anyone else unlike a smoker's carcinogenic effluent. Those social problems are all due to the secondary consequences of feeding the addicition.

And there are always numerous govt-funded programmes on the go to get people off smoking too...except in Japan funnily enough, where the major industry that government ministers move to after their term in office in the tobacco industry.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Well said. Don't forget support from the privatized jail industry which is creeping into Canada. I can't think of any reason why a for-profit jail industry might support a get tough on crime approach. Can you?


another excellent point, and harper's government is trying to hasten the advent of for profit jails in this country. what a disgusting concept... right up there with profiting on people's health. oh. wait.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> unlike a smoker's carcinogenic effluent. Those social problems are all due to the secondary consequences of feeding the addicition.


U clearly have'nt spent time with a true addict...you might not get the second hand smoke of cigarette..but what you can get from an addict is 100 times worst.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Let me put something in perspective. i know the site is in BC, but it will have some federal funds i'm sure. NOW, my personnal issue. I have had 2 back surgury cause by work problem in 1996. now i'm not even CLOSE to been haft way what i could do. I would KILL to get better, now my doc wants me to get a CT Scan, but the wait is 16 months...INSANE, why?..no money, YET, they have some for freaking drug users?..where's the logic in that?. i only want to get back to a productive life, but i keep getting BS from the Goverment about lack of funds for treatment, etc etc. i've been waiting for 6 years for a prescribed Orthopedic bed that the insurance is suppose to pay..and that i HAVE paid for 20 years, yet, it's no where to be seen. 

Same BS with people on wellfare...they have ZERO wait when they need treathment of ANY KIND...so, the laziest you are or else, the better you get treathed basicaly.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

The Prohibition parallel is obvious, where making drugs illegal fuels the money chain of organized crime. Also, Harper is too "Ned Flanders" in his perspective of the problem.

Still, while I too would like to see the safe injection sites stay open I like the idea of the judges making the decision even less than Harper trying to close it!

The people should make the laws, through their elected representatives. We never elected those judges. If we don't like or agree with their decisions we can't vote them out next election. 

People should make the laws, not judges. Maybe this time we agree but what about the next?

We have a grievous flaw in our system that this can be happening. We can thank Trudeau for it, when he wrote our Charter and Constitution. They weren't tablets written by God and given to Man. They were written by Pierre and he was ONLY a man!

I wouldn't crow at Harper too loudly. The next time those judges might make a law you don't like. If so, you'll get a sad surprise if you think there's anything you can do about it.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

al3d said:


> U clearly have'nt spent time with a true addict...you might not get the second hand smoke of cigarette..but what you can get from an addict is 100 times worst.


Obviously - I still don't get it. (Of course, it was half tongue in cheek anyway). I've been around junkies (...and grew up with alcoholics and nicotine addicts but that's another story...) and I don't like it one bit, so I'm all for trying to get them cleaned up if at all possible and for minimising the damage in the meantime.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Do you have electronic access to a university library? If so, your library should provide access to numerous academic ejournals. Don't just look in the medical journals; search sociology, criminology, and anthropology journals.
> 
> The key here is peer reviewed, scientific research, published in professional academic journals. Be weary of random web searches and pages.
> 
> TG


I should be able to get access to the university library, I'll see if I can find something.

I'm genuenly interested to see what type of study they did, and if they got down to the real nitty gritty stuff.

Of all of the 'Adicts' I have known, the biggest problem with 'curing' them is that they had to face all of the terrible things that they did to their family and friends. Sobering them up just seamed to make them see how horribly they have behaved, and the preference was to either go back and ride the rails untill they ran out of track, or get really superficially religious.

I think the best thing for an adict is to alienant them, so if they ever do wake up they have something to come back to that they haven't destroyed.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> People should make the laws, not judges.


It has always been that way though. The SCC is top of the totem pole, not parliament or the PM's office.

The good thing is that stupid or underhanded legislation has been thrown out. It's because we don't elect the judges that they don't have to worry about reelection and pander to the populist vote (usually corporations or other countries).

An example is the ACTA warrantless search and seizure proposal for legal/illegal music on your portable device (regardless of what it is). The guards will have power make the determination of what is illegal or not, regardless of what the law says. One person on "The Hill" has already said that law if passed will be thrown out by the SCC before the ink dries.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=557b8515-4cca-4302-8877-56ac6d28e822

Cheers!


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Hamm Guitars said:


> I think I should be more clear that there is a difference between what I view as a drug user, and a drug addict. Addicts are are the loathing ones that spend ever sober moment looking for a fix - they don't want to be 'cured' or helped. They will sell their mothers and children for drugs and just can't be trusted.


Right...So you're telling me that Elvis Presley wasn't an addict? What about Keith Richards or David Crosby? I guess they are/were just users because they have/had more than enough money to support their addiction...I mean drug use, right?


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

al3d said:


> Let me put something in perspective. i know the site is in BC, but it will have some federal funds i'm sure. NOW, my personnal issue. I have had 2 back surgury cause by work problem in 1996. now i'm not even CLOSE to been haft way what i could do. I would KILL to get better, now my doc wants me to get a CT Scan, but the wait is 16 months...INSANE, why?..no money, YET, they have some for freaking drug users?..where's the logic in that?. i only want to get back to a productive life, but i keep getting BS from the Goverment about lack of funds for treatment, etc etc. i've been waiting for 6 years for a prescribed Orthopedic bed that the insurance is suppose to pay..and that i HAVE paid for 20 years, yet, it's no where to be seen.
> 
> Same BS with people on wellfare...they have ZERO wait when they need treathment of ANY KIND...so, the laziest you are or else, the better you get treathed basicaly.


I guess you would understand one of the reasons why the government doesn't want these addicts to get infected with HIV.

PS. I agree with you about the BS, though. Canadians pay taxes through the teeth and the Canadian economy is booming and yet that doesn't prevent the government from talking about budget constraints as if the country was on the verge of bankruptcy.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> The Prohibition parallel is obvious, where making drugs illegal fuels the money chain of organized crime. Also, Harper is too "Ned Flanders" in his perspective of the problem.
> 
> Still, while I too would like to see the safe injection sites stay open I like the idea of the judges making the decision even less than Harper trying to close it!
> 
> ...


Well, as JRoberts explains, the judges serve a very important purpose. A former deputy-minister once told me that if politicians were left to make all the decisions by themselves, they'd run the country into the ground in a matter of weeks. Case in point: Didn't a minister just leave some sensitive documents at his ex-girlfriend's home?


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

NB-SK said:


> Right...So you're telling me that Elvis Presley wasn't an addict? What about Keith Richards or David Crosby? I guess they are/were just users because they have/had more than enough money to support their addiction...I mean drug use, right?


 
The number one cause of death on the planet is poverty. Drug addiction is a totally differnt ball game if you can financially afford it. I don't think that any of the above mentioned people ever had to resort to lowly acts such as theft or sexual prostitution to feed their habbits. They probably never needed free needles or a safe place to shoot up either.

If you could consider there being a best case scenario for being an addict (ands I'm not suggesting that there is one), being rich would probably be it. The only thing that could trump it would be being rich and having nothing to loose.

I don't know of a single celeberty type person that does not have an addictive personality, some sort of sexual perversion and a huge ego. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about celeberty addicts, as I said in my first post in this thread, addiction is a lifestyle and celeberties enjoy, and get paid to live that lifestyle. They don't count.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Well, as JRoberts explains, the judges serve a very important purpose. A former deputy-minister once told me that if politicians were left to make all the decisions by themselves, they'd run the country into the ground in a matter of weeks. Case in point: Didn't a minister just leave some sensitive documents at his ex-girlfriend's home?


So what if the judges make a mistake? Do we assume they're perfect? How can we correct a mistake? Through new legislation? What if there's a majority government of a party that LIKES the mistake?

How do we ensure that our law represents the values of we the people? By use of the "Notwithstanding Clause" that our politicians have always been too chicken to use?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

jroberts said:


> If I'm reading your posts correctly, you seem to be saying that if someone manages to even partially function normally, they can not be considered an addict, and that only completely disfunctional people can possibly be considered addicts.
> 
> That's a very strange view that I'm sure doesn't accord with _any_ accepted medical definition of the word "addiciton".


Somewhere along those lines, what I am trying to say is that addiction changes people for the worse. They do things to feed the addiction that they would not normally do - it changes their character and judgement. The addiction takes hold and changes the person. The aquistion of the drug takes on an importance that a necessity like food has.

Just because someone uses drugs it does not make them an adict. I know people that use drugs frequently, but I wouldn't consider them adicts, I call them chronic drug users. They aren't theives, prostitutes and wouldn't leave their kids at home alone at night to go out in search of a fix. They work, have jobs and normal social lives and appear to be in good health. They might get a little grouchy in dry times, but they don't do stupid things to aquire drugs.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

jroberts said:


> And just because someone is not breaking into homes or prostituting does not mean they are _not_ an addict. Addiciton is not the exclusive domain of bums, theives and whores. You'd probably be amazed at how many addicts live and work among us.


I see your point, and your probably right. I might knoiw a bunch more drug addicts than I thought, at least from the clinical standpoint.

But in all fairness, I do live in Hamilton.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Hamm Guitars said:


> The number one cause of death on the planet is poverty. Drug addiction is a totally differnt ball game if you can financially afford it. I don't think that any of the above mentioned people ever had to resort to lowly acts such as theft or sexual prostitution to feed their habbits. They probably never needed free needles or a safe place to shoot up either.
> 
> If you could consider there being a best case scenario for being an addict (ands I'm not suggesting that there is one), being rich would probably be it. The only thing that could trump it would be being rich and having nothing to loose.
> 
> I don't know of a single celeberty type person that does not have an addictive personality, some sort of sexual perversion and a huge ego. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about celeberty addicts, as I said in my first post in this thread, addiction is a lifestyle and celeberties enjoy, and get paid to live that lifestyle. They don't count.


Any correlation that exists between lifestyle and addiction does not imply that it is the only causation, or the most important one. If addiction was merely a 'lifestyle', then quitting would be easy as it would only involve making the conscious decision to do so.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Paul said:


> There is nothing alleged.....it's confirmed, by her.


Don't know for sure if she did...but it would suck to be sued for libel.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> So what if the judges make a mistake? Do we assume they're perfect? How can we correct a mistake? Through new legislation? What if there's a majority government of a party that LIKES the mistake?
> 
> How do we ensure that our law represents the values of we the people? By use of the "Notwithstanding Clause" that our politicians have always been too chicken to use?
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


Well, it's a bit more complex than saying that the judge is right or wrong because the decisions of the provincial and federal supreme courts are based on jurisprudence. You may not always agree with judges but they have a deeper understanding of the law than most politicians, which is why provincial and federal supreme court judges are allowed request amendments to legislation.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Well, it's a bit more complex than saying if the judge is right or wrong because the decisions of the provincial and federal supreme courts are based on jurisprudence.


So? Hanging was once legal! So was slavery. All within the jurisprudence of the day. As our society's values changed our laws changed with them.

My point is, how can we ensure that the same process will occur today? Or as long as we agree so far do we smile and assume we have no need to worry?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> So? Hanging was once legal! So was slavery. All within the jurisprudence of the day. As our society's values changed our laws changed with them.
> 
> *My point is, how can we ensure that the same process will occur today? Or as long as we agree so far do we smile and assume we have no need to worry?*
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


Do you mean that we should worry about slavery and hanging becoming legal again? Do you honestly believe that could ever happen?


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Do you mean that we should worry about slavery and hanging becoming legal again? Do you honestly believe that could ever happen?


Not at all! That's not the point. I used those examples to show how our common law evolved.

The difference is that we used to have Parliament write the laws. If there turned out to be a problem with how the law was written Parliament had to revisit the law and fix it. Laws naturally evolved with judges making little variances in their decisions over the years. Judges too are part of society and hopefully reflect common values. This establishes new precedents. That's how British Common Law has always worked. 

If a judge made a very unpopular decision that was not in tune with society's values it became a political issue and our politicians were expected to deal with it or else not be re-elected. They were responsible for amending or repealing bad law.

Now, when politicians find that a law is unpopular or the way it's applied is contrary to popular sentiment they duck it! They let the judges interpret the law and don't get involved in amendments or repeals. This is a lot more power than slow evolution of laws in the hands of the judges. Concurrent sentences are very unpopular. Kill 15 people and the last 14 are "free" because you serve the sentences all at the same time. How can we change the situation? Judges choose to do it, no matter what most folks want.

Or Richard Latimer out west who "mercy killed" his daughter to save her from a life of untreatable severe pain. Polls have consistently shown that the majority of Canadians didn't think he should serve time. He's served a number of years and is just out recently on day parole. The judge interpreted the meaning of the law.

Here in Ontario when Davis extended funding to the Catholic separate school system judges ruled that the funding was guaranteed in the BNA act. I read the whole thing and I never saw anything that guaranteed any money. It clearly guaranteed the right to freedom of the Catholic religion and the right to have separate schools but I couldn't find one word about guaranteed funding. The judges ruled that it was "implicit" - that not funding was a form of discrimination. Yet not funding other religions is apparently not discriminatory! 

I'm not even sure if when the BNA act was written the government paid for public schools! That long ago I thought communities provided schools on their own.

A lawyer could give more and better examples than I can. Perhaps I'll do a google if this thread lasts. I only jumped in because I thought it strange that folks seemed so happy because an unelected judge in a job guaranteed for life had over-ruled a government elected by the people. In this case most folks would support the judge but the idea of judges with no check or balance on them being supreme over those we elect gives me the willies.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

NB-SK said:


> Any correlation that exists between lifestyle and addiction does not imply that it is the only causation, or the most important one. If addiction was merely a 'lifestyle', then quitting would be easy as it would only involve making conscious decision to do so.


I see what you are saying, and I do not disagree totally with what you are stating. 

But, I've never met an addict that had become one other than by their own choices. They chose that path/lifestyle for whatever reason and from what I've seen it is not an easy lifestyle to get out of as one has to face their own mistakes. I sympathise with those trying to get out of the lifestyle, but at the same time placing the blame on an illness or some other factor other than facing the truth isn't going to help anyone. There are not too many people who are willing to help a drug addict, so if they are not willing to help themselves, then there isn't much hope for them.

I never meet reformed drug addicts at parties or hanging out with strippers....


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Hamm Guitars said:


> I see what you are saying, and I do not disagree totally with what you are stating.
> 
> But, I've never met an addict that had become one other than by their own choices. They chose that path/lifestyle for whatever reason and from what I've seen it is not an easy lifestyle to get out of as one has to face their own mistakes. I sympathise with those trying to get out of the lifestyle, but at the same time placing the blame on an illness or some other factor other than facing the truth isn't going to help anyone. There are not too many people who are willing to help a drug addict, so if they are not willing to help themselves, then there isn't much hope for them.
> 
> I never meet reformed drug addicts at parties or hanging out with strippers....


I don't quite disagree with you either. Sure, someone would have to be pretty clueless not to know that heroin is an addictive drug...but life isn't always that simple. I mean, except for some models trying to lose weight, I've never heard of anyone wanting to become an addict. Don't forget, most addicts think they've got it under control.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2008)

jroberts said:


> I'm still not entirely sure what your beef is - that judges sometimes make decisions you don't agree with or that judges sometimes make decisions that are unpopular? Or is it that judges make decisions at all?





Wild Bill said:


> ....I thought it strange that folks seemed so happy because an unelected judge in a job guaranteed for life had over-ruled a government elected by the people. In this case most folks would support the judge but the idea of judges *with no check or balance on them being supreme* over those we elect gives me the willies.


I think Bill hit the nail on the head here.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Given that judges and polititions are just lawyers that have chosen different career paths is enough to give me constant concern.


----------

