Politics interefering with RCMP and public safety?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Government makes laws regarding moral behaviour all the time.

I'm going to need a few days to digest this thesis.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm going to need a few days to digest this thesis.

This is a pretty basic view of government.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'd like to see the funding go to drug treatment. Rather than providing a safer means for getting high. Its basically stating we don't think we can get them clean, so lets try and prevent the spread of disease. Pretty defeatist with regards to stopping/preventing the use of these drugs.

some people will never get clean, that's just the way it is. people have done drugs since the dawn of humanity, and they always will. we've seen over the last century how useless policies are that try to force people to live a more "moral path", with prohibition and the war on drugs only fueling crime and corruption. a different approach needs to be taken in regards to drugs when you finally realize that they will never be removed from existence, and this clinic is a good start

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Hmmm. I also don't agree that the government should fund what is actually an illegal act.

But, I wonder if there would be charity organizations that would pay for something like that. Let them run it.

How on earth would this be any different if not simply worse?

I'm absolutely bewildered by some of the things you say.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

How on earth would this be any different if not simply worse?

I'm absolutely bewildered by some of the things you say.

Private organizations can run it knowing that they people who give them money support what they're doing. The government funding it uses money from the public purse to fund what they essentially made illegal.

Its a bit hypocritical.

In a sense I don't like the idea of being defeatist and saying we should help them do drugs instead of helping them become clean. Even if we only help 1/10 people, its still better then still letting them do drugs, even if it is cleaner.

But, if it does help cut down on AIDs, it solves one end of the problem. In the bigger picture, it doesn't solve much though. People are still taking drugs.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Private organizations can run it knowing that they people who give them money support what they're doing. The government funding it uses money from the public purse to fund what they essentially made illegal.

Its a bit hypocritical.

In a sense I don't like the idea of being defeatist and saying we should help them do drugs instead of helping them become clean. Even if we only help 1/10 people, its still better then still letting them do drugs, even if it is cleaner.

But, if it does help cut down on AIDs, it solves one end of the problem. In the bigger picture, it doesn't solve much though. People are still taking drugs.

For a small government, libertarian, don't abuse the healthcare system guy, I figured you'd be all over this.

I don't see how sanctioning a charity to sanction drug use is any less hypocritical than overseeing the project themselves with help from Health Canada.

[Codes]

In one of the links I posted, it was talking about the cost effectiveness of the program, and the study concluded that the program was likely cost effective when one considers the money saved from having to treat new HIV patients. One could therefore argue that this program is saving the taxpayer money in the end.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'd like to see the funding go to drug treatment. Rather than providing a safer means for getting high. Its basically stating we don't think we can get them clean, so lets try and prevent the spread of disease. Pretty defeatist with regards to stopping/preventing the use of these drugs.

I admittedly have a pretty distrustful view of my species, but in addition to what you've said, I think a big part of why people support these injection sites is so they can feel good about themselves, and sadly, so they can corral the undesirables away so that they are closer to being out of sight and mind. It's an awful thing to think, but I do believe that there's some truth to it.

[Codes]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/0...lls-obama.html

Thought this story was pertinent to the discussion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For a small government, libertarian, don't abuse the healthcare system guy, I figured you'd be all over this.

I don't see how sanctioning a charity to sanction drug use is any less hypocritical than overseeing the project themselves with help from Health Canada.

I'm not small government in a way that I don't agree with spending public money for certain 'health' projects if they can be deemed to save the taxpayer money in the end.

I think those are investments worth making.

But you can't deny that government funding for an act that is in theory 'illegal'....is a tough call.

Given that drug use and the drain people that use are on society, I think we need a lot more research done into this method, and a lot of other ones to if nothing else, try and fix the cost that the taxpayers have to foot because they people end up in a hospital almost all the time on an overdose or something similar.

[SebC]

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

Seems to apply to the Conservative Party here. Say what you will about the Liberals in Canada, but I'd say they're the most pragmatic and least dogmatic of the major national parties. Unless you want to talk about Harper selling out most of his consertive values to get elected - also pragmatic, but doesn't really serve a purpose.