Atlantic Canadian Politics Thread

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Because there is none. Please don't confuse feels vs facts.

And I would suggest if you meet Holt that you consider not sharing your thesis. She may take exception that her work is diluted by externalities, and that she may only win due to an unspecified halo effect. It cheapens her work, and the bridges she has built, the organization she is assembling.

He destiny is her own, and she owns it.

You do realize that people often based on their “feels” right? Not every voter is well informed on the party platforms, key issues, or even who’s running in the riding. Emotions factor into who many people vote for.

Also, it’s funny you’re taking this so far… I’ve never once claimed Kamala’s rise in the polls will play a major factor, but rather that it could have some sort of impact on people’s voting choices. Do you remember how many people felt excited to vote for the first black President in 2008?

Many people may feel a similar urge to make history and vote for Holt and her party to make history here in NB. Just because it’s not a fact doesn’t make it an invalid opinion.

Do you really think if I met Susan Holt I’d say something as ridiculous as “you’re only going to win because of Kamala Harris”. I’d be fine saying something like “how cool will it be to see NB and the US elect their first two female leaders one after another… hope you both win”.

As much as you want me to prove my “thesis” by citing sources, you’ve yet to cite one to disprove it.

I still can’t quite gauge who you prefer Holt or Higgs, but based on this last reply, I feel like you’re leaning toward Holt and the Liberals.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

You do realize that people often based on their “feels” right? Not every voter is well informed on the party platforms, key issues, or even who’s running in the riding. Emotions factor into who many people vote for.

Also, it’s funny you’re taking this so far… I’ve never once claimed Kamala’s rise in the polls will play a major factor, but rather that it could have some sort of impact on people’s voting choices. Do you remember how many people felt excited to vote for the first black President in 2008?

Many people may feel a similar urge to make history and vote for Holt and her party to make history here in NB. Just because it’s not a fact doesn’t make it an invalid opinion.

Do you really think if I met Susan Holt I’d say something as ridiculous as “you’re only going to win because of Kamala Harris”. I’d be fine saying something like “how cool will it be to see NB and the US elect their first two female leaders one after another… hope you both win”.

As much as you want me to prove my “thesis” by citing sources, you’ve yet to cite one to disprove it.

I still can’t quite gauge who you prefer Holt or Higgs, but based on this last reply, I feel like you’re leaning toward Holt and the Liberals.

My proposal is if you wish to regain credibility on your assertion, you should consider providing evidence of your assertion.

In the same way, your credibility on the amalgamation file is lacking, as none of the politicians are willing to even entertain the idea.

Your a source of non credible feels. Have you considered moving on to reddit?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

In the same way, your credibility on the amalgamation file is lacking, as none of the politicians are willing to even entertain the idea.

And why is that?

Unlike my hunch that Kamala’s rise in the polls could help Susan Holt… there’s all kinds of factual evidence to suggest Saint John would be better off if it amalgamated with the surrounding communities. There’s been multiple government funded studies that outline why amalgamation would be a good thing for Saint John and the region as a whole.

Just because they aren’t willing to entertain the idea at this moment, doesn’t mean that it will stay that way forever. I still contend that amalgamation could be a winning issue for the Liberals in Saint John… it’s not like they’re going to win seats in Grand Bay, Rothesay, and Quispamsis anyways. Just because most SJers have given up hope on this issue doesn’t mean it’s no longer a valid issue to care about and support.

As for Reddit, I think SkyScraperPage.com is more interesting, especially relating to Saint John issues, but thanks for the suggestion!

Have you considered revealing who you prefer? Holt or Higgs?

[TitleRequired]

PSA: This site does have an ignore list functionality. My first victim: EnvisionSaintJohn

[TitleRequired]

Safe Injection sites won't be approved under the PCs.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns...onsumption-overdose-prevention-1.7317715

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Safe Injection sites won't be approved under the PCs.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns...onsumption-overdose-prevention-1.7317715

Is that supposed to move the needle? You might not think Holt’s Liberals have the best policies regarding harm reduction, but overall, her party and platform is far more hopeful for the future of this province than the Higgs PCs. Like it’s not even close.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Safe Injection sites won't be approved under the PCs.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns...onsumption-overdose-prevention-1.7317715

Here's hoping they close existing ones if they win.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Here's hoping they close existing ones if they win.

The language from pcnb facebook:

Today Premier Higgs announced that our PC government will be focusing on recovery for those battling drug addiction and will NOT be approving any more supervised drug consumption sites. We will also consult with local governments and community residents as to whether existing supervised injection sites should continue to operate. These injection sites pose a risk to safety in our communities where our families live and play. It’s time to focus on recovery and compassion.

I wonder if waterloo village would turf the harm reduction people?

[darkharbour]

I'm curious what some of you think will happen if harm reduction services are taken away? People are going to use drugs whether they have these resources or not, and so withholding them doesn’t prevent that use; it just makes it more dangerous. Making an activity more dangerous doesn’t stop people who are committed to engaging in that activity; it just hurts and kills more of them.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

I'm curious what some of you think will happen if harm reduction services are taken away? People are going to use drugs whether they have these resources or not, and so withholding them doesn’t prevent that use; it just makes it more dangerous. Making an activity more dangerous doesn’t stop people who are committed to engaging in that activity; it just hurts and kills more of them.

Harm reduction isn't strong enough to cope with Fentanyl. If the harm reduction people pivoted to something that works with Fentanyl, I'm all for it.

Get a strategy that works, and the PC party would probably support it.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

I'm curious what some of you think will happen if harm reduction services are taken away? People are going to use drugs whether they have these resources or not, and so withholding them doesn’t prevent that use; it just makes it more dangerous. Making an activity more dangerous doesn’t stop people who are committed to engaging in that activity; it just hurts and kills more of them.

These aren't methadone clinics. They give out needles and crack pipes and provide a place to shoot up. No one is talking about closing methadone clinics (hell, there's pharmacies that give it out). Not sure if Avenue B provides methadone as well but it's main LoB is definitely not that.

[drewber]

Harm reduction clinics are still one of the better evidence based solutions to helping not only the clients but also the community at large. Do a little research. Closing them isn't going to do anything helpful.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by drewber

Harm reduction clinics are still one of the better evidence based solutions to helping not only the clients but also the community at large. Do a little research. Closing them isn't going to do anything helpful.

The number of overdoses and near misses is simply too high to suggest that they work against fentanyl. Most of the research would have been completed in a different time and place. A lot has happened in the last five years.

This ain’t your dad’s heroin.

Can you provide a harm reduction model that works against fentanyl? I’m all ears.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

• Video Link

All three provincial party leaders were in attendance and gave presentations at Saint John City Council last night. (Higgs didn't bother showing up to even listen to his competitors presentations)

What a stark difference between Susan Holt and Blaine Higgs.

I guess there's a bigger debate for many of us to watch tonight (Kamala Harris vs Donald Trump)

But this is well worth watching for anyone in Saint John, or anyone in other municipalities, as a lot of the things discussed here would have implications for other NB cities too.

It was already clear, imo, that Holt was a much better alternative to Higgs, but this made it abundantly clear, especially regarding issues here in SJ. She's committed to actually do something about tax reform, housing, and healthcare.

Not sure how anyone in Saint John could still consider voting for Higgs at this point. This election has no business being as close as it's shaping up to be. About the only good outcome from how close this election is going to be, could be a possible minority situation with the Liberals and Green sharing power. However, I'm not convinced the Liberals and Greens would actually work well together. At this point, I think a Liberal Majority is the best long term hope for the future of the province.

[TitleRequired]

For reference. What did Norway do? France?

[lirette]

Both France and Norway have harm reduction heavily built into their models. There is a reason why these centres are being advocated for.

I keep reading that safe injection sites don't work for fentanyl. This is essentially an oxymoron, one of the main pillars of safe injection sites is the technology to test supply for fentanyl before consumption.

Policies like mandatory treatment and closing down supervised consumption sites sound great in the headlines, but from a pragmatic perspective open up a whole bunch of other questions people aren't ready to answer. If we are going to close and limit these sites we need to acknowledge the benefits these sites bring first.

-Reduction in the spread of HIV and hepatitis C
-Safer for EMS
-Access to resources for addicted users
-Technology to test and detect fentanyl levels in supply
-Limit burden on hospitals
-Efficiencies for social workers
-Non judgmental space for users, greater chance of getting the right help

For my fiscally conservative friends heres just one quote from a study in Calgary

"The proportion of clients who have overdosed at the SCS has decreased steadily for the duration of the program. The number of overdoses that can be managed on site at the SCS has trended upward, currently 98%. Each overdose that is managed at the SCS produces approximately $1600 CAD in cost savings, with a savings of over $2.3 million for the lifetime of the program."

If we are going to close and limit these sites what is our premiers plan to address the rising costs of overdoses in a non clinical setting? What is his plan to keep EMS safe? What is outreach plan to get social workers to these most vulnerable people? What is his plan to deal with outbreaks of hepatitis C and HIV ? Has he visited Ensemble yet to try and understand what the services they provide?

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by lirette

Both France and Norway have harm reduction heavily built into their models. There is a reason why these centres are being advocated for.

I keep reading that safe injection sites don't work for fentanyl. This is essentially an oxymoron, one of the main pillars of safe injection sites is the technology to test supply for fentanyl before consumption.

Policies like mandatory treatment and closing down supervised consumption sites sound great in the headlines, but from a pragmatic perspective open up a whole bunch of other questions people aren't ready to answer. If we are going to close and limit these sites we need to acknowledge the benefits these sites bring first.

-Reduction in the spread of HIV and hepatitis C
-Safer for EMS
-Access to resources for addicted users
-Technology to test and detect fentanyl levels in supply
-Limit burden on hospitals
-Efficiencies for social workers
-Non judgmental space for users, greater chance of getting the right help

For my fiscally conservative friends heres just one quote from a study in Calgary

"The proportion of clients who have overdosed at the SCS has decreased steadily for the duration of the program. The number of overdoses that can be managed on site at the SCS has trended upward, currently 98%. Each overdose that is managed at the SCS produces approximately $1600 CAD in cost savings, with a savings of over $2.3 million for the lifetime of the program."

If we are going to close and limit these sites what is our premiers plan to address the rising costs of overdoses in a non clinical setting? What is his plan to keep EMS safe? What is outreach plan to get social workers to these most vulnerable people? What is his plan to deal with outbreaks of hepatitis C and HIV ? Has he visited Ensemble yet to try and understand what the services they provide?

Have you considered that Fentanyl isn't found in Europe's drug supply?

The supply of cheap, high purity heroin from Afghanistan precludes the substitution of fentanyl.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-europe-has-dodged-americas-fentanyl-crisis/

[adamuptownsj]

It's like drug addicts are the only people in a community to these people. What about everyone who has to live or work near this? How come the proliferation of 'harm reduction' facilities in Canada has not given us lovely Scandinavian results?

[adamuptownsj]

Here's an odd one: René Ephestion, who briefly ran against Kevin Vickers for Liberal leadership, is running in Shediac Bay-Dieppe... as a PC.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Here's an odd one: René Ephestion, who briefly ran against Kevin Vickers for Liberal leadership, is running in Shediac Bay-Dieppe... as a PC.

Very. Former director of La Maison Nazarette.

La Maison Nazareth a pour mission d'aider les personnes sans abri et vulnérables à se réinsérer dans la société. House of Nazareth's mission is to help homeless and vulnerable people to reintegrate into society.

Active on social issues as far as I can tell.

Good catch.