Federal Government & Politics II

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If so, it's pretty obvious to whom they are referring.

Is it? You've got Indians and Russians influencing the Conservatives. The Chinese getting cozy with the Liberals. And who knows how many authoritarian governments are influencing the NDP and the other fringe party (PPC). Honestly, the Bloc might the only party in Parliament that is honest about their foreign policy....

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Is it? You've got Indians and Russians influencing the Conservatives. The Chinese getting cozy with the Liberals. And who knows how many authoritarian governments are influencing the NDP and the other fringe party (PPC). Honestly, the Bloc might the only party in Parliament that is honest about their foreign policy....

The Bloc has a foreign policy?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The Bloc has a foreign policy?

No doubt it relates to what we know as Canada.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Hecate

They don’t have to get out, they’re the most likely to vote as the polls come to them. Seniors homes have elections Canada come down and make sure everyone can vote.

They don’t do that at high schools. Even though some schools function as polling stations,

The candidates all come down to the seniors homes but not the high schools, why is that? Some candidates even send gifts to the residents at the homes. Chocolates or doughnuts, and Tim Hortons coffee.

Because the seniors have the highest voter turnout. And who do they vote for, ohh yeah the liberals. Gotta love that return on housing.

Do you actually read your posts before submitting them? People aren't usually in senior's homes because they want to be there, it's because they've reached a point in life where they require assistance to cope with the everyday tasks younger people take for granted. I'd wager that most seniors in that situation would happily trade in-house voting for being able enough to get out independently.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am a (reluctant) supporter of safe injection sites, but, there is a lot of truth in this statement.

Advocates, "allies" and enablers of the indigent drug abusers infesting our streets refuse to acknowledge the harm that these street people cause to our communities due to ghettoization, empty storefronts and the exodus of pedestrian traffic due to aggressive panhandling and fear of bodily harm and robbery.

These fears and the consequences thereof need to be listened to, and solutions should be offered.

Safe injection sites have to be more than just a warm dry place to shoot up, and with a nurse to inject Narcan if necessary. Aggressive (and I mean aggressive) social service support should be available on site too. Users should be registered, documented, and records kept as to what types of social services and supports have been offered, and whether or not the users are compliant. Users who are amenable to treatment should be rewarded in some way. Belligerent recidivists on the other hand should be kept on a short leash and closely monitored, perhaps with ankle bracelets so that their movements can be followed. This might make it easier to charge them with petty crimes if they are so inclined, and, might give information as to who their pushers are.

As for the pushers themselves, unfortunately, I guess firing squads are not an option. The government however has to develop new legal mechanisms to keep these people off the streets, and, for a very, very long time. How about a mandatory five year sentence for a first time offence of drug pushing, and a mandatory 20 year sentence for repeat offenders........

I live in the place where opioid usage and deaths are the worst in Ontario on a per capital basis. We had a safe injection site here which recently closed due to funding running out. Most people here are happy that it doesn't exist anymore but we have those who keep saying that it will mean way more deaths. And the homeless shelters have been terrible to nearby residents and businesses.

I've never supported projects that enable people to continue using dangerous substances. So many people here are tired of those who tell us that we need to show compassion at the expense of people who become victims of theft, property damage, violence, squatting and more. I'm all for helping those who are willing to be helped. But there are quite a few who refused to get better and likely will never get better. They have to face consequences and not be allowed to ruin lives of others.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I live in the place where opioid usage and deaths are the worst in Ontario on a per capital basis. We had a safe injection site here which recently closed due to funding running out. Most people here are happy that it doesn't exist anymore but we have those who keep saying that it will mean way more deaths. And the homeless shelters have been terrible to nearby residents and businesses.

I've never supported projects that enable people to continue using dangerous substances. So many people here are tired of those who tell us that we need to show compassion at the expense of people who become victims of theft, property damage, violence, squatting and more. I'm all for helping those who are willing to be helped. But there are quite a few who refused to get better and likely will never get better. They have to face consequences and not be allowed to ruin lives of others.

I am tired of having a government that is so focused on being an enabler. Even if they are forced into rehab and become clean for a short time at least it gives their mind and body a break. Surely that is better than them being on the street and having a risk of overdose or being in a safe injection site and having people watch over them while the shove more into their veins. They work so hard at coming up with reason to have these people continue on with their addiction rather than clean them up.

They keep saying how Europe has such great programs on how to deal with this, but nothing is ever done. They stop at safe injection sites and that's it. If they aren't going to do the rest of the programs that come afterwards then these sites need to go.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Do you actually read your posts before submitting them? People aren't usually in senior's homes because they want to be there, it's because they've reached a point in life where they require assistance to cope with the everyday tasks younger people take for granted. I'd wager that most seniors in that situation would happily trade in-house voting for being able enough to get out independently.

Actually they are when they are in assisted living and 55 plus. Which were also attached to the seniors home I worked in. They can mail their votes in, they don’t need polling stations set up. They aren’t all disabled

Quit assuming

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The belief people have in PP makes me laugh. A lot of young people said the exact same thing about Trudeau. Amazing how people forget that things like more TFWs, pathways to residency for students, etc happened under Harper.

And of course, when he had to do the fiscally responsible thing and push off the retirement age, he decided it would come in effect long after he'd be out of office. So much courage. As much as Trudeau is to blame for the problems we have today, we shouldn't forget that there were a lot of spineless people that preceded him and helped get us where we are today.

Heck, PP was part of a cabinet that signed a FIPA with China. And when the GFC struck, their first response was to offer longer mortgages and covertly bail out the banks. So I'm a little skeptical of this act now. Rhetoric sells. No doubt about it. But nothing that he's pledging on policy is going to make a dramatic difference that I see.

Harper wasn’t bringing in a million and a half people a year. Creating a housing crisis though.

Yes young people voted for trudeau, he sold them out. He rode a wave of popularity built on lies and the promise of legal cannabis. It was the boomers who kept him in power once they realized their housing prices were skyrocketing right before retirement age.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The Bloc has a foreign policy?

They sure do and they cash it twice a month.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Honestly? I don't even think it needs to be equal. Just not so absolutely destructive against younger generations.

Heck, there's a good argument to be made, for example, with increasing GIS. Poverty does increase at 75. But why does that mean just spending more? Why can't they cut back from all the seniors who make plenty? Cut back on OAS and increase GIS for those who need it. Instead, they run it up in general spending. And we all know the next government won't cut back at all. Federal and provincial spending on seniors is like municipal spending on cops. Only webserver goes in one direction.

This seems very reasonable to me.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

I am tired of having a government that is so focused on being an enabler. Even if they are forced into rehab and become clean for a short time at least it gives their mind and body a break. Surely that is better than them being on the street and having a risk of overdose or being in a safe injection site and having people watch over them while the shove more into their veins. They work so hard at coming up with reason to have these people continue on with their addiction rather than clean them up.

They keep saying how Europe has such great programs on how to deal with this, but nothing is ever done. They stop at safe injection sites and that's it. If they aren't going to do the rest of the programs that come afterwards then these sites need to go.

This should all be data driven. Canada did not create safe injection sites because philosophically it was a good idea. It is based on studies in other countries. Now, Canada is different culturally than Europe. We should now have some of our own data based on how our society functions. If statistically, they are working in reducing deaths or producing better outcomes for people with addiction, that is great we should continue them. If its not working, and not producing a better outcome, then yes we should discontinue the program.

I don't know if they are working or not.

The local shelter operator in Victoria publishes its status each year. If you look at the percentage of people who "graduate" from their program and end up in permanent housing is extremely low. Given the amount of money spent on these programs it is disappointing. I assume the status in other cities are similar.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I live in the place where opioid usage and deaths are the worst in Ontario on a per capital basis. We had a safe injection site here which recently closed due to funding running out. Most people here are happy that it doesn't exist anymore but we have those who keep saying that it will mean way more deaths. And the homeless shelters have been terrible to nearby residents and businesses.

I've never supported projects that enable people to continue using dangerous substances. So many people here are tired of those who tell us that we need to show compassion at the expense of people who become victims of theft, property damage, violence, squatting and more. I'm all for helping those who are willing to be helped. But there are quite a few who refused to get better and likely will never get better. They have to face consequences and not be allowed to ruin lives of others.

Remember they used to say that your absolute freedom to extend your finger as far as you want ends where someone else’s nose begins?

Somehwere along the way we forgot about the last part.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Hecate

They don’t have to get out, they’re the most likely to vote as the polls come to them. Seniors homes have elections Canada come down and make sure everyone can vote.

They don’t do that at high schools. Even though some schools function as polling stations,

The candidates all come down to the seniors homes but not the high schools, why is that? Some candidates even send gifts to the residents at the homes. Chocolates or doughnuts, and Tim Hortons coffee.

Because the seniors have the highest voter turnout. And who do they vote for, ohh yeah the liberals. Gotta love that return on housing.

How many 18 year olds are in high school? My kids turned 18 in 12th grade, in January of that year so they were almost the oldest kids of that grade. The election was a few months earlier in the fall of 2019, so no kids in 12th grade would have been old enough to vote in it yet. The only students who could vote would have been the "victory lap" kids and I don't think there are many who come back for a 5th year (in Ontario anyway). It's not zero, but enough to set up a polling station in every high school?

Ontario elections are supposed to be in June so there is a much higher amount of 18 year olds in high schools they could be targeting by then though.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

How many 18 year olds are in high school? My kids turned 18 in 12th grade, in January of that year so they were almost the oldest kids of that grade. The election was a few months earlier in the fall of 2019, so no kids in 12th grade would have been old enough to vote in it yet. The only students who could vote would have been the "victory lap" kids and I don't think there are many who come back for a 5th year (in Ontario anyway). It's not zero, but enough to set up a polling station in every high school?

Ontario elections are supposed to be in June so there is a much higher amount of 18 year olds in high schools they could be targeting by then though.

Again… it’s not just about 18 year olds, it’s about ensuring our youth have opportunities to be involved in the process… FFS

[OldDartmouthMark]

Not to drag this out, but there are ample opportunities for everybody to vote, even youth. You can vote early at your home polling station or any polling station across the country, you can vote on election day, and you can even vote by mail. Voting by mail is almost a zero effort required activity.

https://www.elections.ca/content.asp...t=index&lang=e

My city has a municipal election coming up this year, and they will even offer voting over the phone or online. Those are zero-effort methods of voting.

It seems to me the only thing keeping youth from voting is that they just don't care, as you alluded to in a previous post. For that I have to blame the Boomer parents (Gen X parents as well?) for not teaching their kids the importance of voting, or instilling in them the resolve to not just give up when things don't look great.

For myself, I'm not overly enthused about any of the parties for the next federal election. In fact, I'm basically in the 'anybody but Trudeau' camp, though admittedly I have never voted for him anyway. PP and Jagmeet don't instill overwhelming confidence in me either, but I'll be damned if I just give up and don't have my say in the next election. My right to vote is something I consider to be very valuable, and I will insist on putting my vote in for whichever loser I choose to screw up the country next.

So on one hand I really don't get it, but I do understand that the apathy of today's youth easily can spill over to voting. But... really... you can't just give up, or why bother doing anything. Best of luck to you and your cohorts. I hope you can eventually realize that if you fight for something, things can turn out in your favour.

[Truenorth00]

It's a bit bizarre to expect young people to perform extraordinarily. To my knowledge, young people today have not seen voting drop exceptionally outside general trends in the decline of voting rates. And the overall aging of the population means that they will always be outvoted. Canada is not unique in this. A lot of the developed world is going down the same path unfortunately. What's a bit more unique here is the problems with housing affordability which usually is at the root of so many of our problems from low productivity to low birth rate.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by whatnext

People overestimate the “success” of treatment. I’m currently supporting a friend (emotionally not financially) who’s dealing with a parasitic junkie leach of a sibling. The guy’s drained his parents of thousands and been in and out of rehab numerous times. How much unsuccessful treatment are law abiding taxpayers supposed to cover?

Exactly. Most addictions treatment is junk science.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

A lot of people put more emphasis on the cost of treatment and very little into the cost of imprisonment. I think the more humanitarian, and fiscally responsible thing, is to get addicts on the street treatment but also provide them with assistance to get on their feet and into employment. Holding someone in a prison costs over $100K a year. I think that money could be better spent on helping junkies not be junkies than throwing them in jail.

As above if treatment is so unsuccessful the only answer is imprisonment. Addicts bleeding their siblings are one thing. I would never put them in jail for using drugs but any infringement on the rest of society. Even minor should be delt with and after a few strikes you go to a dry out prison. A few years there sober and we see where we are.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Exactly. Most addictions treatment is junk science.

Gotta love how these days if something is outside comfort level or doesn't line up with one's political biases, it becomes "junk science". Always a line from those who haven't taken any science beyond that mandatory credit in their BA.

If you're going to criticize something, try and use something more than ad hominems.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Gotta love how these days if something is outside comfort level or doesn't line up with one's political biases, it becomes "junk science". Always a line from those who haven't taken any science beyond that mandatory credit in their BA.

If you're going to criticize something, try and use something more than ad hominems.

Which apporoach are you defending? There is no science behind AA that is clear. Therapy has lots of "science" behind it. Both approachs fail more than Homeopathy, Chirpractors or Accupuncture.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Gotta love how these days if something is outside comfort level or doesn't line up with one's political biases, it becomes "junk science". Always a line from those who haven't taken any science beyond that mandatory credit in their BA.

If you're going to criticize something, try and use something more than ad hominems.

….It has long been known that addictive disorders are chronic and relapsing in nature [1, 2]. Recent estimates from clinical treatment studies suggest that more than two thirds of individuals relapse within weeks to months of initiating treatment [3, 4•, 5]. For 1-year outcomes across alcohol, nicotine, weight, and illicit drug abuse, studies show that more than 85% of individuals relapse and return to drug use within 1 year of treatment ..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...PMC3674771/#R2