On a less dramatic note, let's compare how lefties want to treat illegal drug users and how they want to treat legal cigarette smokers.
Mr. Clement said Vancouver's controversial safe-injection facility, Insite, has created a "slippery slope."
"Already there are advocates saying that injection sites are not enough, that government should hand out heroin for free," Mr. Clement said in a speech to the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association in Montreal.
"Others are now calling for inhalation rooms for people who smoke their drugs. While I support various aspects of harm reduction, I believe that we have to draw the line somewhere with regard to these kinds of measures.
Smokers have been kicked out into the streets, but lefties want inhalation rooms for people who smoke their drugs? Is this for real? Am I the only one who sees that free heroin as a risk and not a solution? Inhalation rooms for illegal drug users, while smokers are stuck out in the cold?
I smoke, and I drink. I like to do both at the same time, but new regulations make that impossible, except at home. Now, lefties want special rooms for druggies but don't you dare try to open a bar that allows smoking, no, no, no! Bad smokers, good druggies.
We don't usually go to bars, but we did while we were on holidays. I went outside for a smoke and the 15 meters away from any door rule meant I'm standing in a dark alley, by myself, in the dark. Not very safe for a woman. Will one rape equal one druggie being saved? Or are druggies in more need of protection than women?
POINT: The lefties want to ban legal smoking everywhere, but allow special inhalation rooms for illegal drugs. So why can't smokers have special inhalation rooms too? Typical lefty lack of logic. Kill babies, ban smokers, but allow illegal drugs and injection sites. Disgusting.
3 comments:
Do you have some quotes or sources for the remarks you attribute to "lefties"? I'm just wondering because it's pretty easy to just make stuff up or pull things out of your... how shall we say... imagination.
Yeah the "lefties" comments are pretty rich given support for Insite from those 'pinkos' with the Vancouver Police Department and that 'commie' mayor Sam Sullivan.
I also like how you throw around the word "illegal drgus" as if its a debate stoper. As if the fact that something is "illegal" is conclusive proof that it is bad. Thus by prohibition-era standards you are one step away from Lucifer himself.
I havent seen many people say that if the program saves one life its justified. What I DO see is a lot of conservatives saying that if it doesnt fix the whole problem of drug addiction it is somehow a failure. Both are equally fallacious assertions.
I dont think your smoking comparison is necessarily apt either but it makes more sense than the rest of your rantings. Presumably a safe inhalation room would be unstaffed while there is smoke in the air so no one except the user him or herself is forced by their employment to inhale it. Employees in bars have no choice but to inhale your cigarette smoke. Maybe I could support a ventilated, unstaffed smoking room in a bar where you could smoke... but couldnt order drinks.
To turn your analogy around however, if you are so concerned with the 'double standard' presumably you have no problem with someone smoking crack or injecting heroin in their own home as you have the right to smoke there. And dont tell me that smoking is "legal" while drugs or not because once again that is a distinction without a difference. They are both incredibly destructive lifestyle choices.
... but I'll assume that you arent really interested in consistency.
I guess what I don't understand is the medical reasoning behind Insite. If you are an alcoholic, then to conquer the addiction, you must completely give up alcohol.
But apparently if you're a heroin addict, its OK to keep chugging along shooting up every now and then. I fail to see how this is going to cure the addiction.
Post a Comment