Canadian election thread

[Panther]

So Stephen Harper called an election its going to be a five week election and will most likely result in another minority goverment.

I don't really care if the Liberals get back in power becuz they are just as corrupt as Harpers goverment Im just hoping the NDP will get some more seats.

yaa parlimentry system!!

 

 

any canucks out there? or intrested americans?(

[Party @ the Moontower]

No, I'm still mad you wanted to keep this poor American's alcohol @ the border, or make me pay for it. I went back and camped in MN & drank it all.

[GtrPlyr]

I just hope the Green Party is allowed in the televised debates this time (even if they don't have a chance in hell of getting in.)

[Panther]

I just hope the Green Party is allowed in the televised debates this time (even if they don't have a chance in hell of getting in.)

 

don't waste your vote on the green party, the NDP has the same enviormental plan.

I hate to use the words waste your vote but I know allot of stoner suburban meatheads who will vote for the green party becuz of their policies on weed.

I think the green parties growth is good and maybe it will lead to dixcrimilizing weed which should have happend years ago but the stronger the NDP is the better off this country is.

 

P.S I agree they should be allowed into the debates but what they should really do is merge with the ndp even though on economics they are slightly conservative.

[Tweedling]

Nope.

[Dreamin']

I was going to start a thread like this for a joke. How many pages do you think this one will go? Things could get really heated, so be on your toes moderators!

 

Thank goodness we only have 37 days of this stuff. I love how boring our elections (usually) are. It's a blessing.

 

My preference would be a Liberal minority govt. w/ a strong showing from the NDP. I'll probably vote NDP because the MP in my riding (Dawn Black) should be able to beat the Conservative candidate again.

[aricandover]

St

[bjorn_skurj]

What does Celine's husband have to do with it?

[thecanuck]

This is the first oppurtunity I have had to vote in a federal election, so that makes this a slightly more exciting occasion for me than most. However, it does seem ridiculous that this is the 3rd election we'll have had since 2004. Especially considering Stephen Harper's promise for fixed election dates. It's almost as though he's hoping that by calling a quick election, voters won't have a chance to really get into the issues and he can pick up a few extra seats in the process. But I definitely agree that we will end up with another minority government rendered incapable of getting anything done.

 

I haven't totally decided who I want to vote for yet and a large part of that will be determined by who is running in my riding. Considering that this individual will be my representation in parliment, I'd like to actually see some individual campaigning. I just want to know more about my MP than which party they are running for. That isn't enough to win me over.

 

That said, I'm leaning towards NDP based on their national platform.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

However, it does seem ridiculous that this is the 3rd election we'll have had since 2004. Especially considering Stephen Harper's promise for fixed election dates. It's almost as though he's hoping that by calling a quick election, voters won't have a chance to really get into the issues and he can pick up a few extra seats in the process. But I definitely agree that we will end up with another minority government rendered incapable of getting anything done.

 

 

Let's hear it for the Parlimentary system

[bobfrombob]

don't waste your vote on the green party, the NDP has the same enviormental plan.

I hate to use the words waste your vote but I know allot of stoner suburban meatheads who will vote for the green party becuz of their policies on weed.

I think the green parties growth is good and maybe it will lead to dixcrimilizing weed which should have happend years ago but the stronger the NDP is the better off this country is.

 

P.S I agree they should be allowed into the debates but what they should really do is merge with the ndp even though on economics they are slightly conservative.

Why is a vote on Green a waste if some people vote for them because of their marijuana policies? (And what is their policy anyway?). The "wasted vote" thing is interesting. You could just as easily say the NDP will not form the government, at least in the forseeable future, so voting for them is a waste. Despite what I might think of Elizabeth May, the stronger the Green Party is the better off this country is too.

[Dreamin']

No vote is ever wasted. Having real choice on the ballot means that we can hold our MPs accountable and pulverize them when necessary (e.g., the Progressive Conservatives). Because the Liberals and the Conservatives have to earn every vote, sometimes, they even "borrow" good ideas from the Greens and the NDP.

[bobfrombob]

And it now appears that Elizabeth May will join the debate after all. Which should be huge for them. She is a solid debater and the exposure will really help them a lot. They should win some seats.

[W(TF)]

Stephen Harper's promise for fixed election dates. It's almost as though he's hoping that by calling a quick election, voters won't have a chance to really get into the issues and he can pick up a few extra seats in the process.

 

Harper's such an asshole, I think he actually believes US election fever is somehow gonna translate into votes for him in October. Fucking evasive creep, he should be cleaning toilets on the night shift at an oil refinery.

 

But I definitely agree that we will end up with another minority government rendered incapable of getting anything done.

 

I sure as hell hope so. This country works better when the Conservatives and Liberals don't get anything done, dont'cha think?

 

I guess I will vote Green or NDP.

[Dreamin']

And it now appears that Elizabeth May will join the debate after all. Which should be huge for them. She is a solid debater and the exposure will really help them a lot. They should win some seats.

This is great news. Might actually be worth watching now.

[Papillon Parade]

don't waste your vote on the green party, the NDP has the same enviormental plan.

I hate to use the words waste your vote but I know allot of stoner suburban meatheads who will vote for the green party becuz of their policies on weed.

I think the green parties growth is good and maybe it will lead to dixcrimilizing weed which should have happend years ago but the stronger the NDP is the better off this country is.

 

P.S I agree they should be allowed into the debates but what they should really do is merge with the ndp even though on economics they are slightly conservative.

 

Yeah, the educated potheads vote NDP. Myself included. eNDProhibition

 

PS - Stephen Harper looks like he should be raising a family of 22 children on a farm in Utah. No offense Utah.

[W(TF)]

PS - Stephen Harper looks like he should be raising a family of 22 children on a farm in Utah. No offense Utah.

 

 

Thanks - that made my day. (or made it a little less bleak...)

[Dreamin']

eNDProhibition

The Conservative approach to the problem of addiction is galling (and embarrassing). Just one of the many reasons they will never get my vote.

 

Closing down Insite will bring out the angel of death

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

From the Vancouver Sun

 

Published: Tuesday, August 12, 2008

 

 

At the 2006 International AIDS Conference in Toronto, many people were puzzled by federal Health Minister Tony Clement's refusal to make any public comment about the future of Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection site.

 

Now the reasons for Clement's silence seem perfectly clear, as he managed to embarrass himself, Canadian scientists and health workers, the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS with his comments at the 2008 International AIDS Conference in Mexico City.

 

Speaking ostensibly in support of the WHO's guide on fighting HIV/AIDS -- which includes an explicit statement of support for injection sites -- Clement launched into an incoherent and contradictory diatribe against Insite and harm reduction measures in general.

 

So bizarre was Clement's rant that it's necessary to take it line by line:

 

"Allowing and/or encouraging people to inject heroin into their veins is not harm reduction . . . we believe it is a form of harm addition."

 

Clement failed to provide any evidence for this belief, which isn't surprising since there isn't any. Indeed, all of the evidence points the other way: In addition to educating users about safer injecting and providing them with a safe, clean place to do so, use of Insite has been associated with increased uptake of detox and treatment.

 

Insite therefore represents a powerful method of reducing harm and, better yet, it reduces harm among some of the most vulnerable and marginalized individuals, people who would otherwise be unlikely or unable to seek treatment.

 

And this is to say nothing of the incoherence of supporting needle exchanges -- as Clement does -- while attacking injection sites.

 

The government is "not prepared to allow people to die."

 

While Clement failed to expand on this statement, it's clear he was attempting to create an association between Insite and death. Once again, the research suggests that, if anything, Insite saves lives, which means that shutting the site down is more appropriately associated with allowing people to die.

 

"It's not my job to kowtow to orthodoxy."

 

This is a trick that's increasingly used by harm reduction opponents: Convince people that harm reduction is orthodoxy and that opponents are intrepid folks who wish to blaze a brave new path.

 

Of course it's quite the opposite. While harm reduction has gained adherents thanks to the evidence in its favour, the orthodox position is, and always has been, that drug problems are best dealt with through enforcement.

 

This is certainly true in Canada: Researchers from the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS found that for the years 2004-05 -- before the Conservatives announced their anti-drug strategy -- the feds spent 73 per cent of anti-drug money on enforcement, compared to 14 per cent for treatment, and three per cent each for prevention and harm reduction. The remaining seven per cent was allocated for coordination and research.

 

In October 2007, the Conservatives announced the $64-million National Anti-Drug Strategy, and managed to convince some people, and some news outlets, that it was all about treatment.

 

Yet when that money is added to the base, the new percentages are as follows: Enforcement receives 70 per cent of the total, with 17 per cent going to treatment, four per cent for prevention and two per cent for harm reduction. The remaining seven per cent is again allotted for coordination and research.

 

The Conservatives are therefore following tradition -- orthodoxy -- by relying on enforcement to solve the drug problem despite overwhelmingly evidence that it has been a failure, and could, therefore, rightly be called a form of harm addition. Clement is not merely kowtowing to orthodoxy; he's a slave to it.

 

The numbers also show that for all their talk about treatment and prevention, the Conservatives are little more interested in them than any previous government was. Yet Clement somehow managed to tell the world, with a straight face, that Canada has achieved the right balance among prevention, treatment and enforcement.

 

"I believe I'm on the side of compassion and on the side of the angels."

 

Clement must be using a very odd definition of compassion here, because his "compassionate" strategy involves removing from vulnerable people a scientifically proven public health measure. And instead of spending the considerable anti-drug funds on treatment, he supports the orthodox position of wasting them on enforcement.

 

Many people assume Clement's opposition to Insite stems from a desire to appeal to the Conservative base. So perhaps his compassion is directed toward them. Yet since drug addiction costs everyone, throwing taxpayers' money away on failed methods can hardly be construed as being compassionate toward anyone.

 

Finally, given that Insite might well prevent the spread of disease and save lives, the only angel who could support its elimination is the angel of death.

 

A couple of books on the subject that I highly recommend:

 

The Globalisation of Addiction

The Globalisation of Addiction presents a radical rethink about the nature of addiction. Scientific medicine has failed when it comes to addiction. There are no reliable methods to cure it, prevent it, or take the pain out of it. There is no durable consensus on what addiction is, what causes it, or what should be done about it. Meanwhile, it continues to increase around the world. This book argues that the cause of this failure to control addiction is that the conventional wisdom of the 19th and 20th centuries focused too single-mindedly on the afflicted individual addict. Although addiction obviously manifests itself in individual cases, its prevalence differs dramatically between societies. For example, it can be quite rare in a society for centuries, and then become common when a tribal culture is destroyed or a highly developed civilization collapses. When addiction becomes commonplace in a society, people become addicted not only to alcohol and drugs, but to a thousand other destructive pursuits: money, power, dysfunctional relationships, or video games. A social perspective on addiction does not deny individual differences in vulnerability to addiction, but it removes them from the foreground of attention, because social determinants are more powerful. This book shows that the social circumstances that spread addiction in a conquered tribe or a falling civilisation are also built into today's globalizing free-market society. A free-market society is magnificently productive, but it subjects people to irresistible pressures towards individualism and competition, tearing rich and poor alike from the close social and spiritual ties that normally constitute human life. People adapt to their dislocation by finding the best substitutes for a sustaining social and spiritual life that they can, and addiction serves this function all too well. The book argues that the most effective response to a growing addiction problem is a social and political one, rather than an individual one. Such a solution would not put the doctors, psychologists, social workers, policemen, and priests out of work, but it would incorporate their practices in a larger social project. The project is to reshape society with enough force and imagination to enable people to find social integration and meaning in everyday life. Then great numbers of them would not need to fill their inner void with addictions.

 

About the Author

Bruce Alexander is a psychologist and Professor Emeritus at Simon Fraser University, where he has worked since 1970. His primary research interest has been the psychology of addiction. He is best known in the UK for the "Rat Park" experiments, which helped to demonstrate the falsity of the outworn belief that simple exposure to narcotic drugs can cause addiction. In Canada, he has been well known as a critic of the War on Drugs for decades. His most recent work has been on the causes of the current worldwide proliferation of addiction, not only to drugs, but to a great variety of other habits and pursuits. Exploring this topic has required that he venture far beyond his training in psychology, particularly into the fields of history and anthropology.

 

In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts

In this timely and profoundly original new book, bestselling writer and physician Gabor Mat

[Panther]

stephen dion talks drugs

 

Jack Layton on Afghanistan Lies

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adKGo95iozo...feature=related

Stephen Harper sounds like Bush

 

Okay I take back the green party is a waste of a vote that was misleading.

If your ridding has strong green support go for it but if your ridding has strong NDP support don't waste your vote.

[bjorn_skurj]

I got an e-mail today that claimed Sarah Palin's media hype is spilling over to help the Canadian right wing.

[Panther]

the conservatives here are playing on the u.s election to a scary extent, The NDP seem to keep reminding people that Democrat is in their name.

[Dreamin']

I got an e-mail today that claimed Sarah Palin's media hype is spilling over to help the Canadian right wing.

I don't understand how it could help them. Canadians generally loathe Bush and the Republican Party (unless you're someone like David Frum), and the NDP and the Liberals always try to portray Harper as a Bush wannabe with a hidden agenda that will threaten Canadian values. Sarah Palin seems like a kooky caricature of the extreme right and she scares us.

[bobfrombob]

I agree. Many of Palin's views and beliefs are to the right of Harper (although there are clearly members of his party who would endorse everything she stands for). Further, her instant celebrity plays both ways and many people see it as hype. Although there is certainly hype up here, I don't think Canadian elections are based on hype to the degree US elections are. So there is some caution around her hype. People here are interested but I don't think anybody is going to change how they vote based on Sarah Palin or anything else that happens in America.

[bjorn_skurj]

I don't understand how it could help them. Canadians generally loathe Bush and the Republican Party (unless you're someone like David Frum), and the NDP and the Liberals always try to portray Harper as a Bush wannabe with a hidden agenda that will threaten Canadian values. Sarah Palin seems like a kooky caricature of the extreme right and she scares us.

The e-mail came from Ireland. Maybe it was a mischievous leprechaun.

[Party @ the Moontower]

Since Canada is closer to me than Alaska, how about a trade? You keep Alaska and Palin.