[Ghost Tiger]

(09-08-2016 07:57 AM)scotian Wrote:  

Shoot heroin in their eyeballs hahaha, Ghost Tiger can you give examples of changes in policy that have lead to an increase in consumption in Canada? Did the introduction of safe injection sites in Vancouver lead to an increase in use?

Don't get me started on Insite. I fought that war HARD on the comment boards of Canadian news sites years ago and shoveled up tons of research that showed it was a bad idea, I'm not revisiting that headache. I was an internet shitlord over this issue before being an internet shitlord was cool. But the best thing I remember about that time was it was one of the few times that the Conservative Party of Canada made me proud to have voted for it when Tony Clement pulled a Trump and opposed the damn thing despite massive pressure from the Soros-funded lobby groups. Clement and Harper and the CPC lost that battle and it's sad. Soros won that battle. But the ugly fucker is losing the war come November.

If you are genuinely interested in studies that show that Insite was a bad idea, Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail did some great writing on the subject, although the articles are old and may be behind a paywall now. One of the big lies about Insite is that the "supervised injection" services help cut down on the addicts shooting up in out the street. This doesn't happen. The addicts frequently shoot up at Insite, and then go out and shoot up somewhere else in scenarios with far less "harm reduction" measures. You see, that's what Insite promotes as its contribution to society... "harm reduction". Not "drug use reduction". Note the key difference. I argued directly with a doctor from Insite on a comment board back in the day and got him to admit that this is indeed the case (I also triggered him.. it was glorious!). Insite sets the bar incredibly low for itself in terms of effective impact. As long as Insite reduces the harm to the addict WHILE HE IS SHOOTING UP AT INSITE, then the Insite bureaucrats happily collect their pay and benefits and believe themselves to all to be modern day Florence fucking Nightingales. Oh the addicts still shoot up outside of Insite? "That's not our issue" say the Insite nightingales.

So the challenge is not for me to show you that Insite led to an increase in drug consumption in the DownTown East Side (DTES) of Vancouver my friend. It may not have been possible to increase it. You can't add contaminant to a saturated solution, eh? The challenge, rather, is for you and all the bloodsucking parasites at Insite to show me that this disgusting waste of tax money REDUCED drug consumption in any way, shape, or form. But you can't. Because they don't even ALLOW studies on these stats. If you bring up the issue, they tell you that Insite is focused on harm reduction and then proceed to give you the garbage libertarian arguments about addicts' freedom of choice... the same arguments Dalrymple destroyed in the article I posted above.

Insite isn't interested in reducing drug consumption. They are part of what Dalrymple calls The Addiction Bureaucracy. Their pay and benefits and their very identity depend on a steady supply of addicts. Those people are the scum of the earth. They're vultures feeding off the "living dead" corpses of people that they helped to kill.

EDIT: Great posts about parenting MMX2010. As a dad I endorse your message 100%. Great work bro. If I could rep you again I would.