Castanet

CapitalB wrote:If nothing else this has been a great example of how hypocritical people can be. I'm assuming the people jumping on the defensive here are smokers? Don't want to help people addicted to harmful "drugs" with medical care but suggest taking away medical for these commonly accepted vices (that have some of the highest kill records on the planet) and you go off the rails.

Why should drugs be any different? I don't want to pay for some cigarette smokers chemo, they did that to themselves let them deal with it.

See where this is going yet?

We're on the same page, we need to help everyone regardless of what they do; although I find it tough to swallow when the same guy ODs 3 times in one day and first responders revive him with naloxone, what a drain on our system.

When people get defensive about the legality of drugs and thinking that decriminalization will cost more money, I like to point out that we don't charge fat people, people with self induced diabetes or other ailments due to their habits. We might soon do this, I've heard rumours of a sugar tax.

Back to the topic, decriminalization of all drugs would be a fair start to helping the addicted population, less money spent on crime, accidental overdoses, etc. Next step would be to legally sell and tax the drugs as we do smokes/ booze and the government will be able to raise funds to pay for the habits (which is more $$$ then the current system raises while drugs are illegal).

Sparki55 wrote: Back to the topic, decriminalization of all drugs would be a fair start to helping the addicted population, less money spent on crime, accidental overdoses, etc. Next step would be to legally sell and tax the drugs as we do smokes/ booze and the government will be able to raise funds to pay for the habits (which is more $$$ then the current system raises while drugs are illegal).

Not only would we receive more tax dollars from legalizing all drugs, but ultimately we would end up spending a fraction of what we do now to pay for the costs of enforcing our futile prohibition laws. We would spend less on dealing with overdoses and other health issues associated with drug use, and we would respond to less crime associated with its use. Unfortunately, some of the misconceptions held by some on the impact of this bold move are set in stone between the ears. It’s not like people are going to suddenly decide to start using heroin and risk becoming an addict just because you can get it with a prescription. We can only hope that one day the conservative forces who want to maintain the status quo with their mantra: “if it’s broke, don’t fix it” will realize the futility and cost to taxpayers due to their failed approach. Sadly, we may have to wait for all the evolutionary stragglers to die off given their stubborn rigidity in thought that has allowed them to justify this failed exercise over decades already wasting hundreds of millions in tax dollars and causing all kinds of related costs to society.

I would say let the junkies have their fix IF we could be sure they were locked up while using.

Drunk drivers are bad enough without high drivers.

Lady tehMa wrote:I would say let the junkies have their fix IF we could be sure they were locked up while using.

Drunk drivers are bad enough without high drivers.

That's like saying lets have people locked up while they drink, that's very extreme. But we should do the same with the additional tax revenue which we have done with drinking and driving. Enforce it, put out notifications and make it into an evil that people will not do. Mind you there will always be those who continue to drink and drink, or drive while high, but we can reduce the overall percentage.

Lady tehMa wrote:I would say let the junkies have their fix IF we could be sure they were locked up while using.

Drunk drivers are bad enough without high drivers.

Agreed.

We have to get tough here:

"you don't get to live in the streets and shoot up anymore."
"You don't get to be PREY to drug dealers anymore."
"You don't get to use up resources like getting revived three different times in a day anymore."
"You don't get to break into cars and buildings looking for money anymore."
"You don't get to sell yourself for drug fixes anymore."
"You don't get to escape your personal problems on our dime anymore."
"You don't get to be a vagrant anymore."
"You don't get to have all the free time in the World while the rest of us pay for you anymore."
"You don't get to have your pity party on our dollars anymore."

And this is for EVERY town and city across Canada.

I'm sure I left one out.

Could not agree more with you.

Civil Rights activists are peeing their pants right now.

Good.

Queen K wrote:

Lady tehMa wrote:I would say let the junkies have their fix IF we could be sure they were locked up while using.

Drunk drivers are bad enough without high drivers.

Agreed.

We have to get tough here:

"you don't get to live in the streets and shoot up anymore."
"You don't get to be PREY to drug dealers anymore."
"You don't get to use up resources like getting revived three different times in a day anymore."
"You don't get to break into cars and buildings looking for money anymore."
"You don't get to sell yourself for drug fixes anymore."
"You don't get to escape your personal problems on our dime anymore."
"You don't get to be a vagrant anymore."
"You don't get to have all the free time in the World while the rest of us pay for you anymore."
"You don't get to have your pity party on our dollars anymore."

And this is for EVERY town and city across Canada.

I'm sure I left one out.

Could not agree more with you.

Civil Rights activists are peeing their pants right now.

Good.

So basically, "I'll give you a little, if I take away a lot". Why not just help them like we do with other members of society? It doesn't make sense to me that people can be so angry or frustrated at someone without even knowing them at a personal level.

Ya right, because what is happening downtown Kelowna is "personal level" stuff.

Car break ins at record highs.
Leon Ave an absolute dump.
Business owners dealing with needles, waste and garbage every morning.
RCMP and Paramedic resources on the constant call.

AlienSoldier, our social experiment failed. There should be no longer a measure of freedom for addicts to be on the streets.

Queen K wrote:Ya right, because what is happening downtown Kelowna is "personal level" stuff.

Car break ins at record highs.
Leon Ave an absolute dump.
Business owners dealing with needles, waste and garbage every morning.
RCMP and Paramedic resources on the constant call.

AlienSoldier, our social experiment failed. There should be no longer a measure of freedom for addicts to be on the streets.

It wasn't really a social experiment since we always considered them criminals. You can't have it both ways by applying policies to make them criminals and then also saying it was a social experiment.

While some of those break-ins might be due to people with addictions, there is a large demographic of criminals that you are largely ignoring when calling just one segment out. Waste is the same thing, how many members of the public throw garbage out their car windows? RCMP and Paramedic resources will always be stretched because Kelowna is a retirement town. People are always having emergencies at home.

I'm guessing the people using are also the ONLY ones bringing in guns and drugs and violence into the community. They must also be the only ones polluting and dumping garbage in the parks and forests.

Just a thought.

And crime will increase to raise the funds for the purchase of
the flavour of the day drugs through legal channels.

Government will step all over it in taxation.

GordonH wrote:Okay Decriminalization of All Drugs, in doing so enable all employers access to random drug testing (includes alcohol). Do whatever you want on your own time, but be clean & ready for work on scheduled hours.

Potential/all employees must sign a waiver giving their employer the ability to have random tests done. As for the results, that will be up to each employers policies.

The Liberal minds will tell you, no,no that is not Constitutional! I say if you wish not to sign up it's ok. The other five applicants were better suited for the position you applied for even though your credentials may look better.

I can only say, I'm glad I don't have to work this is going to be such a *bleep* in the future it's bad enough as it is today.

Ken7 wrote:

GordonH wrote:Okay Decriminalization of All Drugs, in doing so enable all employers access to random drug testing (includes alcohol). Do whatever you want on your own time, but be clean & ready for work on scheduled hours.

Potential/all employees must sign a waiver giving their employer the ability to have random tests done. As for the results, that will be up to each employers policies.

The Liberal minds will tell you, no,no that is not Constitutional! I say if you wish not to sign up it's ok. The other five applicants were better suited for the position you applied for even though your credentials may look better.

I can only say, I'm glad I don't have to work this is going to be such a *bleep* in the future it's bad enough as it is today.

I believe that is something that is already being implemented for oil and manufacturing sites. It's logical for employeers to want a safe site, similar to how you don't want someone under the influence of alcohol working.

AlienSoldier wrote:
I believe that is something that is already being implemented for oil and manufacturing sites. It's logical for employeers to want a safe site, similar to how you don't want someone under the influence of alcohol working.

Did you know there is NO random testing. The only testing that can be done as it is unconstitutional is if there is a incident, a accident where injury or death. Might be a little late then I'd say.

For myself, if they wanted me to test every other week, I'm in! If you wish not to, I guess your job is no longer here nor are you.

Ken7 wrote:

AlienSoldier wrote:
I believe that is something that is already being implemented for oil and manufacturing sites. It's logical for employeers to want a safe site, similar to how you don't want someone under the influence of alcohol working.

Did you know there is NO random testing. The only testing that can be done as it is unconstitutional is if there is a incident, a accident where injury or death. Might be a little late then I'd say.

For myself, if they wanted me to test every other week, I'm in! If you wish not to, I guess your job is no longer here nor are you.

Hmm, I’ve never worked in Fort Mac but I the automotive world we were tested regularly (every quarter at least). I’m not saying you are right or wrong, but there should be options for it.