Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Robert_G]

Some more covid-19 stuff for anyone still defending DR Tam.

I implore people to stop listening to her. She is nuts. No self respecting person would ever say anything like this.
She literally said that drug users should buddy up and use zoom when doing their drugs.
What happened to the day where good people outright tried to discourage people from using drugs at all? How times have changed.
I for one wish to see a return to common sense and being responsible citizens.

https://www.rebelnews.com/theresa_tam_overdose_deaths_are_up_so_dont_do_drugs_alone?fbclid=IwAR08_4C-VzhqUc9dTSuVQHVEi0exVK72qIDc0B1e9c4xWFZf8wBlDEzNTr4

[clarki]

Completely understandable that harm reduction isn’t  compatible with your black and white beliefs and values ( that you mentioned earlier)

[Robert_G]

Completely understandable that harm reduction isn’t  compatible with your black and white beliefs and values ( that you mentioned earlier)

Same liberal thought that agrees with taxpayers paying for safe injection sites. 
Same stupid logic. Why solve the problem when you can just put a dirty band aid on it. Right Clarki?

[Dave]

Same liberal thought that agrees with taxpayers paying for safe injection sites. 
Same stupid logic. Why solve the problem when you can just put a dirty band aid on it. Right Clarki?

Robert, how would you solve the drug issues facing society today?

[clarki]

No doubt you are aware that harm reduction isn’t the only approach.  Millions of dollars in private and public money is spent in prevention, recovery, treatment and enforcement.

Given the huge public health costs ( not to mention the toll on the lives of individual first responders, or on the family of victims) of overdoses, harm reduction ( when coupled with prevention, recovery , treatment and enforcement) makes good public health and fiscal sense.

Not a dirty bandaid but rather one facet of a response to a complicated and tragic issue.

[Robert_G]

Robert, how would you solve the drug issues facing society today?

Dave. It's not an easy problem to solve. I'd be pretty dumb to suggest otherwise.
However, what's happening today is that we are not applying the basic human principals to how we govern anymore. We are moving further and further away from that.

First and foremost...each person must be responsible for their own actions and be willing to face the consequences of their own decisions (good or bad). That is a value that should be engrained in us from the beginning of civilization. Unfortunately it is NOT. Society lives with a sense of entitlement and that they should not have to be responsible for their actions as well as not suffer any consequence for the poor choices they make. The consequences of one's actions whether it effects their health, finances, relationships....etc.....must be on their own heads. Expecting to be bailed out from government and taxpayers from one's poor choices is NOT how society should be run....but we are heading more and more in that direction.

Here is what I would try and implement...and make no mistake...this is an idea that I would run across and brainstorm with other conservatives who are experts in the legalities, logistics.....etc. I do NOT have all the answers for this and would consult with the right people to make sure it gets done properly:

For all the money we spend on 'band aids', I would build 2 or 3 massive rehab centers across the country. Any staff member caught smuggling in drugs for the addicts would be sentenced to death if convicted. Every hard street drug addict would have the choice to go there and get clean or go to prison for when they are caught breaking the law. Yes....being in possession of most street drugs is still a crime and not too long ago you'd get locked up for it.
Then....any drug addict who is put in prison would be in an environment where it would be literally impossible for them to get drugs. Same as the rehab...any staff caught smuggling in drugs for prisoners would be sentenced to death if convicted. The prisoner would be in there for at least a year (give or take)….that should be enough time to get the worst of the addiction out of them.
I think when released, you'd see a 30-50% 'stay clean' rate. The one's who went to the rehabs on their own will would be substantially higher 'stay clean' rate.

As for the ones who keep getting back on the drugs when they get out and continue to steal and break into people's personal property, there would be a 3 strikes rule, and then would register as a career criminal. This is the 3 strikes rule...Career criminals would go to prison for 5 years then released....if they reoffend, then 10 years....then the 3rd time life in prison. By this point it would be a forgone conclusion that this person has no intention of ever contributing to society.

Also, the 'Career Criminal' registration would not just be for drug addicts. Anyone with a long rap sheet would face the same label and prison time....and the 3 strikes rule.
People who don't contribute to society have no right to make life miserable for hard working tax paying citizens. Also, the only difference between a drug addict here and say a....thief, etc....is that the drug addict would actually get a total of 6 strikes before life in prison.

Again...this is just a brainstorm, but I'd like very much to see something of this nature happen.
Of course in this bleeding heart world.....we all know my idea would never survive the first reading.

[Spoonman]

Wow.....some ignorant and stupid shite there....most of which has been the go to for the last 200 years and it never did work....seig heil...

[RalphH]

https://www.rebelnews.com/theresa_tam_overdose_deaths_are_up_so_dont_do_drugs_alone?fbclid=IwAR08_4C-VzhqUc9dTSuVQHVEi0exVK72qIDc0B1e9c4xWFZf8wBlDEzNTr4

...love the work from home and make zillions spam in the comments section.

Independent media analysis of Rebel News

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Canada
World Press Freedom Rank: Canada 16/180

History

Founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network personalities Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley, The Rebel is a strongly right leaning media website that publishes news, opinions and videos. The current editor is Erza Levant.

Gavin McInnes, founder of the far-right neo-fascist organization Proud Boys, was also a contributor and subsequently let go after controversy, and brought back in 2019. Further, according to MacLean’s The Rebel is a part of the Alt-right and sympathetic toward white nationalists. The Rebel denies this claim.

View our media country profile on Canada.

Funded by / Ownership

The Rebel is owned by The Rebel News Network Ltd. and generates revenue through advertising and fee based premium subscriptions and the sale of merchandise.  Erza Levant is listed as the director of the Rebel News Network Ltd.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Rebel routinely publishes news with loaded emotional wording that favors the right, such as this: Why Trudeau’s Liberals are pretending THIS gun control study doesn’t exist and this Cops bundle up angry left wing student in taped meltdown. Both of these stories are linked to strongly right leaning sources such as Campus Reform. In general, most stories the favor the right and denigrate the left. Further, The Rebel has been accused of stirring up anti-Muslim hate according to the right leaning, The National. Some writers for The Rebel have also been profiled by the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center for promoting hate.

When it comes to sourcing, The Rebel does hyperlink to outside sources, but many times they attempt to source within their domain to increase web traffic.

Overall, we rate The Rebel Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing techniques and consistent one sided reporting. (10/9/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 5/03/2019)

mediabiasfactcheck.com

[Robert_G]

...

Hey Ralph. Instead of bashing Rebel News, why don't you prove that she didn't say that?
She was quoted as saying that....not just by Rebel News.
I'm confused as to why you try to put down the source even though they are right in this case?

[clarki]

Earlier today, RobertG said “I love to eat Big Bar rainbow”

To which clarki said “I implore you to not eat fish. No self respecting person would eat just fish. It’s a nuts diet”

RobertG’s reply would be “ Don’t be such a liberal snowflake. You are so far left you don’t recognize that of course I don’t eat just fish. If you had a clue you would know that I eat a balanced diet that includes fruits and vegetable and a moderate amount of carbs. The conversation was about fish and that’s what I was speaking about. I wasn’t implying I ate just fish. If you were around other conversations I’ve had in the past you would know that I have talked about eating a wide variety of healthy foods. Don’t be so dense”

Clarki says “my bad, you’re right, I was being a dense liberal left snowflake. Of course I should not take one thing you say and presume that defines your entire position on the subject”

[Dave]

Robert, thank you for the respectful reply to my question and, for your thoughts.

[Robert_G]

Earlier today, RobertG said “I love to eat Big Bar rainbow”

To which clarki said “I implore you to not eat fish. No self respecting person would eat just fish. It’s a nuts diet”

RobertG’s reply would be “ Don’t be such a liberal snowflake. You are so far left you don’t recognize that of course I don’t eat just fish. If you had a clue you would know that I eat a balanced diet that includes fruits and vegetable and a moderate amount of carbs. The conversation was about fish and that’s what I was speaking about. I wasn’t implying I ate just fish. If you were around other conversations I’ve had in the past you would know that I have talked about eating a wide variety of healthy foods. Don’t be so dense”

Clarki says “my bad, you’re right, I was being a dense liberal left snowflake. Of course I should not take one thing you say and presume that defines your entire position on the subject”

For the most part, you are more respectful than most in replying to my posts, but I'm not always sure you are sincere or perhaps you may be just patronizing me.
Sorry....I do realize now that it seems you were not trying to define the whole subject...but I stand by what I said....I do not agree with the government babysitting adults....You really think those drug addicts are watching DR Tam? Do you think they'd listen to her if they were?

Millions of dollars in private and public money is spent in prevention, recovery, treatment and enforcement.

There is no solution that works unless there is an END GAME PLAN to get them off of drugs. None of the current government programs are doing this except the limited rehab resources available. Even then....that only helps those who want help. My posts on this are focused on the ones who do NOT want help. You can't help someone who doesn't want help....and handing over taxpayer dollars to them when at least half the tax payers don't want to support that sort of charity is wrong. Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be used to run a government and services for all people. Charity and generosity has been taught from day 1 to be free will giving....this type of forced charity is coercion.
If you choose to give your hard earned dollars to it....great...I don't choose that.

What DR Tam said and what most other charities that the government provides for drug addicts is NOTHING MORE THAN PALITIBLE CARE. These people are all going to die.....and quickly if they don't actually get off the drugs. You know that as well as I do. They are adults and if they refuse help....they will die soon. The end game MUST result in getting them off the drugs or it's all for nothing.

So DR Tam telling them to use Zoom as a buddy system just goes to show where how useless our government is in fighting the drug problem. She has no end game to stop them from doing drugs and she knows it.
It's really sad that people go down this path of drugs and death.....but unless someone forced the first few needles in them, they have no one to blame but themselves for their own poor decisions which result in devastating consequences. So whether they die from an overdoes today.....or the long-term use of the drug kills them slowly over a few extra months....it doesn't matter. Again....the end result doesn't change. Why should I have to open my wallet for this stupidity? What about my freedom to choose charity? I do NOT choose this charity....maybe you do....but I don't.

Robert, thank you for the respectful reply to my question and, for your thoughts.

You're welcome

[RalphH]

Hey Ralph. Instead of bashing Rebel News, why don't you prove that she didn't say that?
She was quoted as saying that....not just by Rebel News.
I'm confused as to why you try to put down the source even though they are right in this case?

I certainly did not say she did not say that. I assume Rebel News is sometimes capable of copying comment on one page directly to their own. Overall, IMO, the publication has a deserved reputation.

I don't share their or your outrage at what Tam said. It is certainly no less effective than what is in place for people dealing with self isolation and substance dependency. It certainly is a far better short term suggestion than the response you provided Dave which even if it were put in place would take a considerable period of time.

Having worked in secure institutions for most of my professional career I would say it is pretty much impossible to design, in any institution, both the physical security and human aspects to achieve some of the significant things you would like them to do.

At the very least it would be very difficult and expensive (in many aspects of the sense of the word) to do.

[Robert_G]

Having worked in secure institutions for most of my professional career I would say it is pretty much impossible to design any institution both the physical security and human aspects to achieve some of the significant things you like them to do.

At the very least it would be very difficult and expensive (in many aspects of the sense of the word) to do.

I agree and is why I said I don't have all the answers for that. I know that drug smuggling into prisons is major problem that there aren't easy answers for. Nonetheless....I think with some time and thought it could be worked out.  I disagree that it is impossible....just...well...very difficult to implement.

[arimaBOATER]

Robert, how would you solve the drug issues facing society today?

Robert said he would take a hard stance to combat the drug problem.

The 1000s & 1000s & 1000s of street drug  addicts are falling dead ...over doses...or wrecking their own lives / health.....and wrecking their family/loved ones lives....fuelling $$$ to criminals...so the 3 strike rule ...go to prison or rehab is a strict stance...but it takes tough love sometimes.

Countries that take a very very strict stance against drug pushers or drug users do not have people taking over city blocks....discarded needles....high crime rate assaults ....

Drugs ..means long jail time....and even death penalty ...in some of these countries.
Looks mean ....but it sure has curbed the mass numbers of drug addicts that would exist otherwise ...which would mean deaths...crime ...suffering anyways.

How would I solve the drug problem? ( you ask )
Faith based drug treatment centres.....have a 90% success rate.
Why? Because they feel the love of God thru prayer by the concerned loving staff.
Get off drugs and go to heaven too. !
Doesn't get better than that.

Side note: put air mini Launch missiles at pens/jails.....when drones fly in to drop drugs in exercise yds shoot off a missile.

Gotta pick up a loved one's meds..... ( NOT on the street corner but in a pharmacy. )