Calgary Gangster arrested in Vancouver

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I was thinking more along the lines of crack, heroin, and crystal meth, but that is still an interesting bit of information none-the-less.

opiods are used for pain management

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Muta

Uh, because I already explained why?

No you didn't, you said the government would find away and ship it back - What is that way are they going to invade mexico? How is the government going to find a legal way to import drugs from countries that these said drugs are still illegal in. Your answer tells me you have no clue how, which is fine, cause i have no clue either.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I was thinking more along the lines of crack, heroin, and crystal meth, but that is still an interesting bit of information none-the-less.

What I'm saying is, the federal government already subsidizes and distributes drugs that are more addictive and more harmful than crack and meth, why not give health canada the purview over those drugs as well.

Go to your doctor to get clean, regulated meth, during regular hours, in a regulated government building full of health professionals who can best advise on symptoms, withdrawal and give the necessary psych, prescription and other treatment referrals.

Consistency of supply, cost, location and availability vs. unknown area of origin, ingredients, elevated cost for unknown quality, some ####e dark alley/whorehouse/flophouse/crack den, with unknown future availability.

One of those scenarios breeds excessively larger burdens on society, both in terms of the human cost and, for some people more importantly, the economic cost.

We already know preventative care is dramatically less expensive than showing up at the ER with all sorts of problems, why not apply that to some of the costliest parts of the healthcare system?

Or do we fear our healthcare system so much that we think doctors will start prescribing crack to children?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

No you didn't, you said the government would find away and ship it back - What is that way are they going to invade mexico? How is the government going to find a legal way to import drugs from countries that these said drugs are still illegal in. Your answer tells me you have no clue how, which is fine, cause i have no clue either.

Uh, by boat?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

No you didn't, you said the government would find away and ship it back - What is that way are they going to invade mexico? How is the government going to find a legal way to import drugs from countries that these said drugs are still illegal in. Your answer tells me you have no clue how, which is fine, cause i have no clue either.

How the hell would I immediately know the logistics behind something extremely complicated like that? I'm sure those details would be worked out. That's my point. Boat through international waters would be my obvious first guess.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Uh, by boat?

Yes didn't think of that - but is our government purchasing this cocaine from the south american cartels? How do we solve that issue? Can it be grown in Canada to meet the demand? How much would that cost - building specialized greenhouses to grow cocaine??

Still a lot of questions before you legalize it.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Muta

How the hell would I immediately know the logistics behind something extremely complicated like that? I'm sure those details would be worked out. That's my point. Boat through international waters would be my obvious first guess.

I dunno - i figured if you have a solution for something, you would consider all the angles.

The transportation is the easy part - how are you going to "figure out" how to get around that cocaine is illegal everywhere else

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Canada has the highest opioid consumption per capita in the world.

The vast, vast, vast majority of that is coming from the federal government, publicly subsidized.

The governmetn heavily controls how much of these drugs are given to each individual. Doctors go to great lengths (or at least they should) to avoid giving opiods to drug seekers. The government is not freely distributing these drugs in any way. They are being delivered in controled amounts and only under certain circumstances.

Even then, prescription medication addiction is a huge problem.

Now you are saying it should be acceptable to have drugs like meth freely available, to whoever wants them, in whatever amounts, and it won't cause a problem? I'm sorry, I don't see the logic.

[BOSSY]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think the only reason anyone says they would rather have the HA running things now is just a racist reaction to hearing about newer Asian gangs. New gangs, same crime, same violence.

Not all over the country but here in Alberta HA does a good job of keeping their issues internal or off the beaten path ... much different than shooting in public

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What I'm saying is, the federal government already subsidizes and distributes drugs that are more addictive and more harmful than crack and meth, why not give health canada the purview over those drugs as well.

Go to your doctor to get clean, regulated meth, during regular hours, in a regulated government building full of health professionals who can best advise on symptoms, withdrawal and give the necessary psych, prescription and other treatment referrals.

Consistency of supply, cost, location and availability vs. unknown area of origin, ingredients, elevated cost for unknown quality, some ####e dark alley/whorehouse/flophouse/crack den, with unknown future availability.

One of those scenarios breeds excessively larger burdens on society, both in terms of the human cost and, for some people more importantly, the economic cost.

We already know preventative care is dramatically less expensive than showing up at the ER with all sorts of problems, why not apply that to some of the costliest parts of the healthcare system?

Or do we fear our healthcare system so much that we think doctors will start prescribing crack to children?

Not that I'm arguing with you but there are is a huge issue with prescription drug abuse. Oxy Codin being a prime example of it.

Lets say that you legalize meth through doctors, how long do you think it would take for that to get completely corrupted.

Or a doctor refuses to write a prescription for a patient that's abusing it, where does the patient go? There will be other sources.

Like I said I don't have a problem with something like grass. I have a huge problem with heavy addictive physically and mentally addictive drugs like crack.

Beyond that is a doctor going to really want to prescribe something like Crack or Meth, doesn't that go against his oath of doing no harm?

When we talk about Canada distributing opiates, I think that's a pretty thin argument of moving into recreational drug distribution. Most of the opiates that doctors are prescribing are for pain management not for drugs that are only meant for non necessary recreational or addictive use.

What happens when something like Krocodile hits our shores, and its coming eventually. If doctors won't prescribe it under the legal model, the gangs will certainly start making it and selling it as a cheaper alternative to heroin. Or do you expect doctors to suddenly prescribe a drug that causes your skin to rot off. Do you want doctors to really prescribe meth, because clean or not its incredibly harmful. Of Crack clean or not it causes severe mental issues?

If we legalize grass, govern it, sell it, tax it and turn the revenue over to fighting these horror drugs through education and enforcement we'll be 10x further ahead then we are now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by BOSSY

Not all over the country but here in Alberta HA does a good job of keeping their issues internal or off the beaten path ... much different than shooting in public

Maybe but Hell's Angels has become very publicity saavy over the year, they almost act like a head office to a wack of other worse and nastier gangs out there.

We haven't seen the Montreal Gang Wars here because the HA pretty much bought up their competition, but they are still a major pin in drug, and sex trade trafficing.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by BOSSY

Not all over the country but here in Alberta HA does a good job of keeping their issues internal or off the beaten path ... much different than shooting in public

Except when they are hiring gangs to cut people's heads off and dump them in alley's in Edmonton...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Now you are saying it should be acceptable to have drugs like meth freely available, to whoever wants them, in whatever amounts, and it won't cause a problem? I'm sorry, I don't see the logic.

I didn't say any of those things, actually, which is perhaps why you aren't seeing the logic.

Edit: What a brutal strawman. I didn't say anything like that.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I didn't say any of those things, actually, which is perhaps why you aren't seeing the logic.

Edit: What a brutal strawman. I didn't say anything like that.

The discussion is about the legalization of street drugs.

You're arguing that since we use prescription drugs already, which can be just as powerful, we should allow doctors to distribute street drugs. What you're leaving out is that prescription drugs are meant to be used under very limited circumstances. How does that relate to doctors giving drugs to addicts?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

The discussion is about the legalization of street drugs.

You're arguing that since we use prescription drugs already, which can be just as powerful, we should allow doctors to distribute street drugs. What you're leaving out is that prescription drugs are meant to be used under very limited circumstances. How does that relate to doctors giving drugs to addicts?

For the same reason doctors ween people off other psychoactive drugs like anti-psychotics, anti-depressants and a variety of other drugs?

Because the withdrawal symptoms of most of these 'street drugs' is reason enough for many addicts to continuing using them rather than deal with the effects of going cold turkey?

Because in many instances, it may not be advisable, optimal or even possible for addicts of some 'street drugs' to maintain a decent quality of life AND stop cold turkey?

Because even if the addict makes no progress towards curbing their addiction, giving them regulated drugs for their addiction has less impact on society than forcing them to shoot up with dirty needs from puddle water with chemicals that may or may not contain the drug they are addicted to in the first place?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For the same reason doctors ween people off other psychoactive drugs like anti-psychotics, anti-depressants and a variety of other drugs?

Because the withdrawal symptoms of most of these 'street drugs' is reason enough for many addicts to continuing using them rather than deal with the effects of going cold turkey?

Because in many instances, it may not be advisable, optimal or even possible for addicts of some 'street drugs' to maintain a decent quality of life AND stop cold turkey?

Because even if the addict makes no progress towards curbing their addiction, giving them regulated drugs for their addiction has less impact on society than forcing them to shoot up with dirty needs from puddle water with chemicals that may or may not contain the drug they are addicted to in the first place?

It's more than withdrawal symptoms that cause addiction.

Methodone already effectively treats withdrawal from heroin. It does little to solve the issue. If an addict wants to truly quit, they can enter recovery programs that will give them various drugs to treat withdrawal. I don't see how that's relevant to a discussion on whether or not street drugs should be legal.

Also, medically presribed heroin and meth are both already legal, under limited and controlled circumstances. What were discussing here is whole scale legalization.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think the only reason anyone says they would rather have the HA running things now is just a racist reaction to hearing about newer Asian gangs. New gangs, same crime, same violence.

Not to mention I'm 99% sure I remember hearing that either the FOB or FOBK gang operates under the Hell's Angels, anyways.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For the same reason doctors ween people off other psychoactive drugs like anti-psychotics, anti-depressants and a variety of other drugs?

Because the withdrawal symptoms of most of these 'street drugs' is reason enough for many addicts to continuing using them rather than deal with the effects of going cold turkey?

Withdraw pains while a reason for not getting off the drugs is not the major reason for getting off of drugs. Its rare that addicts decide themselves to get off of drugs like crack and crystal meth and go cold turkey.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because in many instances, it may not be advisable, optimal or even possible for addicts of some 'street drugs' to maintain a decent quality of life AND stop cold turkey?

Its rare that a doctor would ever advise a addict to just quit, without getting the other support that they need. Even if you go into a regular and monitored rehab program, the effects of the initial stages of rehab and detox are extremely unpleasant.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because even if the addict makes no progress towards curbing their addiction, giving them regulated drugs for their addiction has less impact on society than forcing them to shoot up with dirty needs from puddle water with chemicals that may or may not contain the drug they are addicted to in the first place?

I don't see how writing a prescription for meth or crack does anything to curb the addiction at all. And to be honest with drugs like heroin and meth and even crack you can't just write a lessening prescription. As addiction goes with these drugs they take increasing quantities to chase the high, and then eventually increasing quantities to just get well. If a doctor sits there and tells a addict that he's going to lesson the dose, its just as likely that the addict is going to go down the street and rob a pharmacy, or go find the underworld home made equivalent.

Like I said I am totally against legalizing hard drugs, its a model that doesn't make sense. While clean injection centers have helped, with the marginal addicts, serious addicts and the mentally ill and the junkies that just want to be left alone aren't going to see a doctor to get their fix, if they find a needle in a gutter and they need to cook a quick fix they're probably going to use that.

Its not as easy as saying legalize it, and lets right prescriptions for it and it will give them a good quality of life. Those drugs on a whole promote poor help, create serious mental illnesses and create other really bad side conditions.

On top of that are you proposing that these drugs are given to the addict for free? Because as a taxpayer I would have serious problems in enabling addicts using what are termed as recreational drugs.

On top of that, if drugs are given away for free because addicts can't afford their daily fix. Wouldn't that money be better spent on people with medical conditions that actually need prescription medical for survival or real quality of life in the face of disease.

Sorry buddy, I just can't be on board with legalizing anything but grass.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Not to mention I'm 99% sure I remember hearing that either the FOB or FOBK gang operates under the Hell's Angels, anyways.

The rumor is FOB affiliates with the hells angels and acts as their drug conduit

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Withdraw pains while a reason for not getting off the drugs is not the major reason for getting off of drugs. Its rare that addicts decide themselves to get off of drugs like crack and crystal meth and go cold turkey.

It is not 'the' reason, it is 'a' reason, and if we as a society can remove 'a' reason for an addict to go into treatment, I think we should be obligated to do so.

I don't see how writing a prescription for meth or crack does anything to curb the addiction at all. And to be honest with drugs like heroin and meth and even crack you can't just write a lessening prescription. As addiction goes with these drugs they take increasing quantities to chase the high, and then eventually increasing quantities to just get well. If a doctor sits there and tells a addict that he's going to lesson the dose, its just as likely that the addict is going to go down the street and rob a pharmacy, or go find the underworld home made equivalent.

It removes the stigma of drug addiction (which is easily observable in this thread) and places the addict in the environment of recovery, rather than the environment of dehumanizing, demoralizing, predatory substance abuse. It greatly reduces the harm caused by unclean paraphernalia and unquantifiable levels of active drugs in whatever they are buying, and puts them in constant contact with human beings who have devoted themselves to helping others, vs. constant contact with thieves, pimps and other sociopaths who capitalize on their misery and the general population who steps over them on the street, whether silently judging or outright ignoring their plight.

Like I said I am totally against legalizing hard drugs, its a model that doesn't make sense. While clean injection centers have helped, with the marginal addicts, serious addicts and the mentally ill and the junkies that just want to be left alone aren't going to see a doctor to get their fix, if they find a needle in a gutter and they need to cook a quick fix they're probably going to use that.

You don't think a junkie would choose a better, cheaper product that didn't come with the threat of robbery, assault (sexual and otherwise) or death? Look at them as junkies if you want, but I've never talked to an addict that would turn down good, cheap drugs.

Its not as easy as saying legalize it, and lets right prescriptions for it and it will give them a good quality of life. Those drugs on a whole promote poor help, create serious mental illnesses and create other really bad side conditions.

Addiction is a mental illness, not a crime. I'm not suggesting doctors start prescribing crack to people who aren't crack addicts, despite how my argument will be misrepresented, but the police and EMTs I know would prefer to not deal with that addict overdosing because they shot bleach into their arms. I know the nurses at VGH here in Vancouver would also like it if addicts saw a general practitioner every month or so instead of showing up in the ER every 6 weeks.

On top of that are you proposing that these drugs are given to the addict for free? Because as a taxpayer I would have serious problems in enabling addicts using what are termed as recreational drugs.

I think this statement is seriously lacking in empathy and is the same argument I could use against you for smoking or having ####ty knees. I'm going to underwrite the cost of your healthcare going forward no matter how many greasy pancake breakfasts you eat, or how damaged your heart is from years of caffeine and nicotine addiction and when you die gracefully post orgasm on top of a nubile 20 year old, I'm going to underwrite the cost of you getting picked up and taken to the coroners.

If that weren't enough, it's significantly worse for you supporting the status quo of a revolving door through the justice system for what are otherwise mentally ill, harmless members of society. It costs more money to have police fire and ambulance respond to an overdose/fire/assault/theft than a nurse in a clinic monitoring someone using.

On top of that, if drugs are given away for free because addicts can't afford their daily fix. Wouldn't that money be better spent on people with medical conditions that actually need prescription medical for survival or real quality of life in the face of disease.

What if I told you it would cost the healthcare system less to treat addicts as addicts vs. criminals, that penitentiary's are more expensive than mental health centres. What if, by removing addiction from the criminal sphere, there was actually more money in the system. Wouldn't that be a no-brainer?