Why do lefties love to ban things? Is it because they feel they know what's best for us and how we should live our lives? Do they honestly think they should be the decision makers in our lives? Here's a perfect example of lefty thinking:
Cigarette 'power-walls' now banned in Ont. stores
"To us, it addresses the fundamental insanity of selling the No.1 preventable cause of disease and death (alongside) candy and gum," said Michael Perley, director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco.
No you idiot, illegal drugs are the number one cause of death to our children.
So, hide a legal substance behind walls, so teens will not be tempted to smoke. This is interfering with a business, by dictating to them how they can do business.
So, how can they then yell about banning Insite? It allows illegal drugs to be used in a government funded "health center". It allows drug dealers to freely engage in illegal activities, usually by making our children "mules" for them and the drugs they sell "illegally". Shouldn't they be yelling to BAN these sites? Well no, shooting up illegal drugs in a monitored taxpayer funded center is just fine with them.
Ottawa to appeal ruling on safe injection sites
The Liberal MP from Vancouver Centre accused the Tories of allowing their decision to be guided by ideology, not science.
"When the minister of health decides that his own belief overrides science, overrides what physicians say that they should do to treat a disease, then he is interfering in science,'' said Hedy Fry.
"It is not his belief that matters. It is what the evidence and the science shows.''
Said another Vancouver MP, New Democrat Libby Davies: "I don't think it matters now what information he finds. He's made up his mind.''
No two better examples of latte lefties can be found, well except for BAN all gun clubs Miller. So free clinics for druggies, but walls for cigarettes. Areas for people to smoke medicinal marijuana, but smokers can freeze outside in the cold.
A York Professor Has Been Given a Room on Campus to Smoke Marijuana for Medical Purposes. Excalibur Speaks to Him About His Right to Light Up
A York professor will get his own room to smoke pot for his medical condition.
In the second known case in Canada, York University has provided accommodation for a criminology professor to smoke marijuana on campus grounds for medicinal purposes.
How about a BAN illegal marijuana law? Not going to happen, as a matter of fact, Liberals want to legalize marijuana and prostitution. If they legalize marijuana, will people be able to smoke it in bars, or will they be stuck outside with cigarette smokers?
Don't even get me started on Miller's BAN gun clubs, it just shows how truly stupid lefties really are, but they don't see it that way, they see themselves as "progressives". Right, allow swingers clubs, let kids under 14 have sex, polygamy (they ignore it), fund porno movies, ban the bra (bet some sagging feminists are regretting that one. HA), the list is endless. So I want to add to the BAN list:
BAN Lefties. The world would be safer for our children.
18 comments:
I don't recall the LPC ever campaigning on legal pot and hookers.
Making stuff up again huh?
Btw, what constitutes a lefty in your world view?
Is it anyone who disagrees with your belief system?
If that's the only requirement, you needn't be shocked that you see so many lefties around you.
I'm quite sure most people disagree with your paranoid vision.
However, it's not because they're lefties, it's because you're mind numbingly stupid.
Pot Less Harmful Than Alcohol: Senate Report
Wednesday, September 4, 2002
Written by CBC News Online staff
OTTAWA - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and should be governed by the same sort of regulations, says a Senate committee.
In its final report, released on Wednesday, the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs says the government should make smoking pot legal, and should wipe clean the records of anyone convicted of possession.
"In many ways prohibition is a cop-out," said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of the committee. He said drug policy should focus on harm reduction, prevention and treatment.
--------------------------------
That would be the LIBERAL dominated Senate! Looks like I'm not the one stuck on stupid!
-----------------------------------
Introduced as a private members bill by Vancouver East NDP Libby Davies, the measure is now the focus of a standing committee on justice sub-committee, comprised of Davies, Vancouver Centre Liberal Hedy Fry, Trois-Rivières Bloc Québécois member Paule Brunelle, and Calgary Northeast Conservative Art Hanger. The chairman of the Committee is Welland Liberal John Maloney.
“It's a great idea,” said Liberal Senator Mac Harb, a long-time supporter of legalized prostitution, as reported by the Toronto Sun.
--------------------------------
Hey, and here we have again my two favorite lefties Hedy and Libby, wanting to legalize prostitution.
----------------------------------
So who's making things up now? Could it be Lefty Jones, who self identifies as a lefty, and has to ask me what a lefty is?
A lefty is someone who can stand for two opposing points of view at the same time and think they are making sense.
Insite (the supervised injection site) has been proven to save lives by preventing overdose deaths. Since the site opened, there have been zero overdose deaths in back alleys, as nurses and doctors are on-site to administer care.
Do we want people injecting illegal drugs? Of course not. Are we going to lock up the addicts? That depends; if you view addiction as a crime, than by all means -- fill the jails.
Vancouverites, on the other hand, have learned to recognize that addiction is a health problem that requires complex solutions. Insite is one piece of the larger puzzle... that's what harm-reduction is all about. Check out the Four Pillars approach that the city of Vancouver has posted on it's website -- you'll see that harm reduction is but one element of the plan.
And as for attacking Fry and Davies for being "lefties", why don't we try a more constructive (and accurate) approach; these parliamentarians are working across partisan lines to find solutions for their constituents -- like it or not, those constituents are made up of people who live on the downtown eastside. Hedy Fry, for example, was a family physician in Vancouver's West End for 20 years. She views the health aspect of the problem as a physician: what is best for the patient? If we know that addicts are injecting drugs with dirty needles, they're spreading HIV and Hep C. By providing clean needles and a supervised room in which to inject, we are reducing harm.
I think we can best move forward by ditching the left/right ideology and moving toward finding solutions acrross the political spectrum.
Finally, I will point out that Insite has the support of:
- David Emerson, the Tory foreign minister
- Sam Sullivan, the "righty" mayor of Vancouver
- Gordon Campbell, the Premier of BC
- George Abbot, the provinical Minister of Health
- All the Vancouver MP's (Murray, Fry, Dosanjh, Chan, Wilson, Bell, Davies)
- The Vancouver Police Department
You should read some of the peer-reviewed articles in International academic journals that have been published about Insite. The project is the first of its kind in North America, but safe-injection sites are common across Europe and Australia. This isn't about left/right ideology; this is about saving lives through scientific evidence.
A lefty is someone who can stand for two opposing points of view at the same time and think they are making sense.
Sounds like "Doublethink" from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Regarding the cigarette wall, I just shake my head about that one. The kids are getting their smokes from the natives - not the convenience stores.
Uh Steve, insite has not saved any lives. It 'may' have prevented (postponed) a few overdoses but it may have just prolonged drug usage by addicts resulting in a future overdose or other drug related death. Which ever it may be but it has not saved any lives. I don't care what any wishy washy lefty outfit thinks or publishes.
I also reject your flacid 'health issue' explanation of addictions.
I have worked long and hard to help people overcome their drug and booze addictions and can assure you that labelling addictions as a 'health issue' is simply enabling the addict to continue in his addiction.
The only time an addict stops using is when they accept the responsiblity for using and decide to stop using. The only save drug addiction is the non using kind.
This is an extract from a letter to the editor in today's Victoria Times-Colonist:
"It is always interesting to see editorial comment and academic responses to so-called safe injection sites and then find that Vancouver has the only injection site in North America.
If safe injection sites were “proven effective” would not other cities be demanding such action?
Only five per cent of drug users in Vancouver are using the Insite facilities."
I'm all for safe injection sites - but only after Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa set up similar facilities.
"Insite (the supervised injection site) has been proven to save lives by preventing overdose deaths. Since the site opened, there have been zero overdose deaths in back alleys, as nurses and doctors are on-site to administer care."
No, Steve, the quote should read "there have been zero overdose deaths at the Insite facility".
The UN's WHO has also said that "safe injection sites" are adding to the problem vs helping to solve it. Seems the only people really helped here are the unions with the additional dues they collect from the on-board staff and their support organizations.
The HIV rate has increased greatly in Ottawa since the site opened here. As usual, non of the "progressive" thinkers can come up with any study that proves these sites to be effective in reducing drug use or reducing HIV infections. They only quote their out of the air statistics to prove their point and quickly run away when asked to cite their remarks.
A sure sign that any lefty is loosing an argument is how vicious they become the closer we get to the truth. As a example, look at how they try to demonise sane arguments against global warming.
A sure sign that any lefty is loosing an argument is how vicious they become the closer we get to the truth. As a example, look at how they try to demonise sane arguments against global warming.
An argument? There must be a credible counter-perspective for an argument.
Exxon has just confessed to funding climate change deniers. They've been found out and now they've admitted they were wrong.
Sounds to me like truth is the last thing you lot are interested in.
So Anon 3:05 big oil funds scientists, BAD, Suzuki takes money from big oil, GOOD?
Steve thank you for your post on Insite, it was nice and balanced. I would prefer to spend taxpayers money on actually helping addicts get off of drugs than to just give them a site to shoot up safely. Lock them up, not in jails but how about addiction centers that really get them off of the drugs, not encourage them to keep using.
Sounds to me like truth is the last thing you lot are interested in.
The Truth?? You want the Truth?? You can't handle the Truth!!
Oh, okay nonny mouse, here's the Truth for all of you over the top "Enviro Jockeys".
==
Illegal drugs don't come close to killing the number of North Americans that alcohol and tobacco do. According to the Canadian Centre on Substance abuse:
In 1995, there were 804 deaths (695 men and 108 women) in Canada attributable to illicit drugs. One in six deaths in Canada is caused by smoking. In 1995, there were 34,728 deaths and 500,345 years of potential life lost due to tobacco use in Canada. It is estimated that 6,503 Canadians (4,681 men and 1,823 women) lost their lives as a result of alcohol consumption in 1995, and 80,946 were hospitalized. Complete text at http://www.ccsa.ca/CCSA/EN/Statistics/CanadianProfile1999.htm
You might want to inform yourself a little better before calling others idiots. These Canadian stats are comparable to the American stats, as a quick search will verify. But I doubt if you'll let reality change your opinion, or that you'll even bother to look up the info..
Anon 5:21, nice stats, and this supports your wanting to keep a drug center open how? Yes, drinking is bad, and smoking is bad, but why can't you admit that illegal drugs are bad too?
Why is that illegal drug addiction is somehow "purer" than smoking? Shouldn't smokers have a health center where they can go to smoke by your logic? If more people die from smoking why are drug addicts getting the center, why not smokers?
You don't even see by proving with your own statistics, that smoking kills more people, we should be concentrating our taxpayer resources on smokers, not druggies. But no, smokers are kicked outside, and alcoholics are left to die in the cold without any center to care for them.
If we have so few deaths by illegal drugs, why worry? Why have Insite? Let's have a center for mentally ill people to make sure they get their meds...but no...we are stepping on their charter rights if we try to help them. The lefty NDP in BC closed down all those facilities, now they have a problem with beggers, go figure. Lefty logic, nothing logical about it.
Hi Hunter,
The stats from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse were not provided by me to support Insite. They were provided to counter the ludicrous statement you made that illegal drugs kill more people in Canada than legal ones. And not only did you make such an innacurate statement,but you actually called someone an idiot who correctly stated that tobacco is the number one cause of preventable disease and death in Canada. So let's review the stats, shall we?
In 1995 in Canada:
Alcohol killed 6503
Tobacco killed 34728
All illegal drugs combined killed 804.
So hunter, do you still stand by your statement that illegal drugs kill more people than tobacco? And since you are so concerned about the kids, can I expect to see you now supporting the removal of the tobacco walls, since you can see from the stats that for every person killed by illegal drugs in Canada in 1995, almost 40 were killed by tobacco? Or is your concern for the government "interfering with a business" more important than the lives of the kids that you claim to be so concerned with?
Anon 8:09, Why stats from 1995, kind of old aren't they? I see you just requoted the stats I already agreed with, what you failed to do was explain to me why Insite is more important than helping smokers, if smokers are being killed in greater numbers.
Do you seriously think hiding smokes behind a black wall will stop kids from smoking? That makes as much sense as banning legal guns, to stop gangs from killing people with illegal guns.
Seems to be a lefty pattern here, ban legal guns, hide legal smokes, encourage illegal drug use, let alcoholics die in the streets, let marijuana smokers have private rooms to smoke in, legalize swingers clubs, fight to keep the age of consent at 14 so preditors can come to Canada and legally have sex. I am not going to jump on that bandwagon anytime soon.
How do you explain your position to your kids, if you have any? Tell them sex is okay at 14, but don't smoke? That selling your body is okay, but don't own a gun? Smoking marijuana is fine, and heroin is okay if you go to Insite so they can make sure you don't OD? Do you not see how ridiculous your position is, especially if you have kids?
Safe injection sites and banning power walls are both attempts at harm reduction.
Drugs consumed by smoking and drinking do not have a high potential for spreading blood borne diseases. You need a cut lip and share the glass with someone else with a cut lip. But sharing needles almost guarantees blood contact. So a place to inject and receive clean needles will reduce this harm.
In case you didn't notice, there are places that try to help alcoholics. Never heard of detox? Rehab?
There is a harm reduction program in effect for alcohol. It is those regulations, you know the evil nanny state "interfering with business"?
It is because of the evil lefty nanny state interfering with business that says you can't sell liquor over the counter with above 40% alcohol. You can't sell beer with over 7% alcohol, unless you sell it as liquor. Further, you can only consume alcohol in licensed establishment, further interfering with someone's business right to open a pub on every corner. And for home use, you can only buy liquor at liquor stores, and beer at beer or liquor stores.
The final horror of the lefty nanny state is that all alcoholic products must be labeled to indicate the amount of alcohol by volume.
These measures allow people to control their drinking. Without them, you would be seeing plenty of overdoses on alcohol and a lot more drunkenness. Due to their success, the rules on advertising alcohol were relaxed so you could advertise beer and show more than just the label, you can show the bottle as well. Plus liquor can now be advertised. Naturally consumption went up. This is why the problem today is drinking and driving.
Harm reduction for smoking, like other harm reductions is based on the premise that you cannot completely eradicate the addiction. Since smoking is believed to be as difficult an addiction to kick as heroin, addicts will find a way to obtain it. The more difficult you make it, by stiff penalties, the more crime they will commit to get it.
As seen in banning alcohol in the US, banning tobacco will simply create more criminal enterprises to supply the market. However, keeping it out of sight helps. If you have ever tried to stop smoking, you will understand living with a smoker makes it near impossible. Banning advertising has helped, and the power wall is simply another form of advertising. The fewer reminders to smoke you experience, the easier it is to be smoke free.
How do you explain your position to your kids, if you have any? Tell them sex is okay at 14, but don't smoke? That selling your body is okay, but don't own a gun? Smoking marijuana is fine, and heroin is okay if you go to Insite so they can make sure you don't OD? Do you not see how ridiculous your position is, especially if you have kids?
You are being silly. You are not distinguishing between what laws should be in place and what people should do.
Who said selling your body is ok? Who said using heroin is ok? That was you, trying to claim that "the left thinks this".
Consider the following:
===============================
By your logic, there should be only one penalty for any crime. If you agree with capital punishment, then we should have capital punishment for any offense.
And of course being a "leftist" is basically a crime, given how they love criminals in your opinion. Therefore you are calling for capital punishment for leftists.
When do the death camps for leftists open?
===========================
Now consider the above nonsense and faulty arguing, and see how it parallels the kind of logic you are spouting off here.
Harm reduction is just that. Reducing the harmful effects of the problems being discussed.
"Harm reduction", sounds good, sounds "progressive", Yes let's decrease "harm reduction" RAH RAH!
Harm reduction is a female with a gun shooting her rapist, now that's "harm reduction". HA.
Well Anon 9:06, I wouldn't say lefties need to be executed, they just need to grow up. Now, if they fail to make the leap from teen to adult, it might be an option! (Just kidding!)
Post a Comment