BC Sport Bikes Forum banner
21 - 29 of 29 Posts

·
backslider
Joined
·
11,336 Posts
Hey - I hear ya ... and was only joking. One of the most frustrating things, is that more often than not ... those super slow 'ten under' drivers are usually so short, you can even see the top of their head when you look through their car's rear window.
 

·
lover of twins
Joined
·
6,128 Posts
While I respect your opinion, it's similar thinking that has got us into the situation we endure today.

Can't incarcerate thieves. Can't institutionalize the mental cases or the addicted.

And god forbid we lose empathy for * marginalized * folk. Instead we give them free housing, free food, free everything. So how's that working out for you? Try living in a town with supportive housing. It's a freaking shitshow.

I moved into a quiet, peaceful neighbourhood in the Okanagan. Rarely a problem until supportive housing went up. I can't tell you the number of times I was out chasing "druggie scum" in the wee hours of the mornings. Security cameras and motion sensors had to be installed.

Thank the Liberals for their soft on crime mandate where courthouses are now revolving doors.
I can appreciate your anger/frustration, but it is misplaced and from your words I'm sure that's due to a limited perspective and a lack of all the necessary information. It's a huge conversation to unpack, but there are explanations for your frustrations and what you see.

The easiest one to tackle tho is your claim of the Liberals soft on crime mandate turning courthouses into revolving doors - that's false. Under the Liberals there have been very few changes to the criminal code and none that would affect things in the way you suggest. Most of the crimes you're referring to also have little to nothing to do with the federal court system - they would fall under provincial courts. The second big thing related to that is the idea that we can't incarcerate thieves or institutionalize people with mental health issues or addiction issues. Again this is a provincial court issue and part of it comes down to capacity to house inmates which is essentially a money/resources issue.

While you're right that supportive housing can create issues, you might be putting the blame in the wrong place. Supportive housing is a good idea and can work well - if they are funded and run/staffed properly with enough of the right supports in place. Unfortunately that is not always the case.

Lastly, as a society we need to be united in how we want to deal with social issues such as homelessness, mental health, addiction, poverty and the interaction between them. If people don't want to do it from a human or empathy based perspective then they should consider the economic perspective. Overall it costs less money to deal with root causes of these issues than it does to spend money on first responders, hospitalization, policing, court services, incarceration and insurance costs. One way or another, we are all footing the bill. So we can choose something that will cost less in the long run and result in fewer people in dire circumstances or we can keep half-assing the problem and allow it to continue in perpetuity. The caveat of course is that for a short time, the costs will be higher than what we have now because we will need to continue to deal with the current generations of problems while also working to prevent the future generations of problems. Like it or not, and believe it or not, the problems you describe are societal problems and we all have a role to play in correcting them. If people choose to view it as somebody else's problem then it will always be a problem.

Understanding the issue comes down to considering what drives things such as homelessness and addiction issues. Addiction is a highly complex issue that has many intersecting factors, including mental health, and for every addicted person you see on the street there are roughly 4-6 that aren't homeless and potentially some of those people are living in your neighbourhood or even going to work with you. The druggie scum that people talk about are humans too that need interventions and support over the long haul to be able to get their lives together and functioning in some semblance of what most people refer to as normal. Our current approach is not working well enough and we have decades of failed policy to make up for. Government is also fighting against public perception and attitudes of nimby. Unless there is a wholesale societal attitude change where we view this as everyone's problem to deal with, things will pretty much stay the same as they are now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
All I've seen is nothing but change. Yet the problem just seems to be getting worse? So that's the correlation that I naturally make.

I look at like this.

Someone has an addiction to speed. Take their money, take their ability to speed away. That is the enforcement policy we have.

Someone has an addiction to crack, fentanyl, heroin, etc. Remove the stigma attached, give them free/access to clean drugs and programs of support right down to the roof over their head and three squares a day.

It is a personal choice to do drugs and fuck up your life. Just as it's a choice not to.

Soft on crime, hard on speeders. Makes perfect sense!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Thanks for your thoughtful post syncro. I beg to differ on "soft on crime" and "revolving door".

Yes, I do agree its a complicated subject. One thing for sure is whatever we're doing now is not working. It's getting worse and there will come a breaking point.
Funny how no politicians want to talk about it during the campaign. A little lip service about the opoid crisis is all I hear.
 

·
lover of twins
Joined
·
6,128 Posts
Thanks for your thoughtful post syncro. I beg to differ on "soft on crime" and "revolving door".

Yes, I do agree its a complicated subject. One thing for sure is whatever we're doing now is not working. It's getting worse and there will come a breaking point.
Funny how no politicians want to talk about it during the campaign. A little lip service about the opoid crisis is all I hear.
I believe that article refers to Bill C-75. I'm curious as to what in that article represents being soft on crime and establishing a revolving door. If you want to read up on what is in Bill C-75 you can check out the link below. Note that as the article states the bill is pretty big, and what's listed in the first reading (when the bill is presented to parliament or "tabled") is usually not the same as what is given Royal Ascent (actually passed into law) if it even makes it that far.


As a point of interest you can search for any bill presented to parliament via the LEGISinfo system to find out info about the bill and if it was passed or not.

There's a reason talking about crime is limited by politicians to basically two stances, one of being tougher on crime and one of making the system of law more just. A lot of it has to do with the voter and their perception of crime and our system of law. It's not difficult to figure which of the major two parties is associated with each stance. So politicians are hesitant to sway to far from the ideals or perceptions of their voting base in fear of losing votes. Is that a problem? Yes. But politicians say and do what they think will get them elected, so in that mix we all have to take some responsibility for what happens. Politics is a dance that is about saying and doing enough things to get you enough votes to get you elected. Sure, politicians have beliefs and they get into politics with the genuine idea of improving our system of governance and making things better, but they also know that they have to dance to a certain song to get and keep the voters approval.

I think the greatest fault in our political system is the general public as we do not pay enough attention or spend enough time learning about the issues we think we care about, spend next to no time learning about the issues we don't care about and are oblivious to a whole boatload. And don't take this as an insult, but I think the average Canadian's awareness of our system of law and their understanding of social issues related to the law is woefully inadequate. The small amount of info we get from news services is typically not enough to get a good grasp of the issues and comments like druggie scum reflect that. I also get why that happens - there is a huge amount of info to wade through and most people simply do not have the time. We're talking spending months and even years of reading and investigating to be fluent in some of these issues.

You're right to a degree that what we are doing is not working, or at least not working as well as we would like. You may have heard of something called the Pareto Principle, more commonly know as the 80/20 rule where 80% of the outcome of an issue is determined by 20% of the inputs or causes. Related to that is an inverse idea that no matter how much energy you put into a system in search of positive outcomes there will always be a notable percentage of negative outcomes. So there will always be some level of social unrest such as crime, homelessness and addiction, but we can reduce these things to a level that has a minimal impact on greater society. The trillion dollar question (literally) is how we achieve that. If people think this is simply a lock em up issue then their view is horribly narrow and incomplete. The issue of crime is inexorably linked to our attitudes on how we view society as a whole. For example, why do people view low level street crime with such disregard and tend to ignore corporate or white collar crime? I think it's because the affects of one (street crime) are readily visible and easily felt even though the affects of the other (corporate crime) have a greater negative impact on society but are harder to directly see and feel.

Like I said in the previous post, until we collectively start to view these social issues in a different and much broader light they are going to continue. We are effectively on a slow march to societal collapse from a number of causes, we're the frog in the pot.
 

·
lover of twins
Joined
·
6,128 Posts
All I've seen is nothing but change. Yet the problem just seems to be getting worse? So that's the correlation that I naturally make.

I look at like this.

Someone has an addiction to speed. Take their money, take their ability to speed away. That is the enforcement policy we have.

Someone has an addiction to crack, fentanyl, heroin, etc. Remove the stigma attached, give them free/access to clean drugs and programs of support right down to the roof over their head and three squares a day.

It is a personal choice to do drugs and fuck up your life. Just as it's a choice not to.

Soft on crime, hard on speeders. Makes perfect sense!
I can sense the frustration in your post so try not to take my reply as a personal attack but one of bringing calrity to the issue. Your comment on addiction is not an accurate picture of what happens. The view that it's a "personal choice to do drugs and fuck up your life" is grossly inaccurate. Both of these are fairly common views in the public realm and are part of the reason why it's difficult to make change happen. There is a plethora of info out there about addiction, some of it better than the rest, but there is consensus that addiction is a complex issue is not caused by one factor alone. The following page is good in that it's a short read and does a decent job of introducing the complex issue of addiction.


Another thing worth checking out is the Rat Park experiments. There were problems with the original experiment and they have received fair criticism, but the take away is that our environment (housing, social connections, health care, etc) plays a significant role in the issue of addiction. The following video overstates things, but the premise that addiction is not a choice is well supported. This is why I say that the issues of street crime, homelessness and addiction are societal issues that we all have a part to play in if we want to improve things. The decriminalization of drug use would be a huge step, and the results from Portugal and other jurisdictions support this move. As I mentioned to oldgixxer, the connection between the political will to make these changes and the attitudes of the public are strong. So if we want to see viable change and improvement in the areas of crime, homelessness and addiction then societal attitudes towards these issues need to change.

This is a good read on the effects of Portugal's change in drug policy 20 years ago.

 

·
BCSB Public Relations
Joined
·
10,332 Posts
The view that it's a "personal choice to do drugs and fuck up your life" is grossly inaccurate.
Please point out who, exactly, held a gun to their head and forced them to inject their first dose of heroin, smoke their first dose of meth, or whatever else they're on.

Until you can provide that info, I'll stick with the "it was their choice, and it is on them to live (or die) with the consequences" camp.

Stop reviving these useless, parasitic fucks and let the problem sort itself out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
I have more knowledge of addiction than you think as would most by now I believe. First hand through family and friends. My wife and I both come from multi family/parent backgrounds growing up at times in poverty. We both have friends and family who have become drug addicts. And I'm sure many on here have seen or known drug addicts in all income levels and backgrounds.

I am a simple guy I'm not going to read all the mumbo jumbo but my wife is a professional in the field as maybe you are too? So I absorb some knowledge from her. But basically I'm your working class stiff that will never be bothered to read all the reports and studies. And as far as getting more active in politics or listening to the blah blah blah bullshit. No I can't be bothered. I do expect more from paid officials but I am resigned to the fact that I'll never get it.

My thoughts are similar to others I think in that I don't really care what other people want to do to themselves as long as they can look after themselves, pay taxes, and not have the overwhelming urge to steal mine or my neighbors stuff. But I do agree with the current state of things. Booze and pot legal, everything else I'd be for upping the penalties on.

It is hard to get away from it is simply a choice to make or not. And those that choose to do drugs and destroy their lives and those of their loved ones are easy to see as being weak or having mental health issues that would sort of mean they shouldn't really be left to their own decision making process in a world of legalized hard drugs and probably not in our existing setup either?

It is frustrating to watch as people that are chosen contributors. Earning the bucks and paying the taxes. Yes we all are a society and must help each other. I'm not religious but isn't the lord almighty even about helping those who help themselves? The government is big business. Everyone is out to make a name for themselves, climb the ladder. Change! Spending! Programs! It's a industry onto itself with a ever increasing appetite for money. Except their 'customer' is the taxpayer.

So I get that many drug addicts want to be the 'victim' then they have access to help of all sorts. Instead of actually just having to get their shit together, die on the street, or go to jail. I am not the most empathetic person. I had my first real job at 14 shovelling shit literally on a farm. Almost 33 years of labor later has worked out pretty decently. And not because I've made great decisions my whole life around substance abuse. But just because of the fact that I didn't make really bad ones instead. It's not hard IMO to have a decent life here. People make it hard on themselves by telling themselves it is. Weak sauce.
 

·
backslider
Joined
·
11,336 Posts
Ya ya ... it's 'choice' they say.

Interestingly, it often is a choice, really, in the beginning ... sort of. I mean, those heady high-school daze ... house parties ... chicks ... hanging with the 'cool' people ...

And besides, pot is legal nowadays. So who hasn't had a few tokes, along with maybe a beer or a shot or two of Tequila on those occasions? The slippery slope, though, happens by subtle behavioral patters and stealth ... and accumulation of many many many individual decisions and choices, until it has become a pattern, or even a habit. And then ... along with the pot, the beer, the hash ... maybe an occasional gram or two of blow ... along with all those 'choices' ... some poor fokkers get turned onto the 'H' ...

Fukked. Game over.

I've seen it happen all too often. I've seen some of the most gifted, capable, world class potential athletes (from very wealthy means) throw it all away in one moment, because at the peak of an orgiastic, drunken/stoned moment at some crazy party ... some 'hot and horny chick' pulls out a rig and induces the unlucky 'victim' into accepting what the perpetrator suggest will be the ultimate orgasmic experience.

Yup - seen it happen to more than one or two people - maybe not in that exact sequence of events ... but something along that line.

Is it always a conscious decision/choice? That is entirely debatable, really. Life circumstance, genetics, socio-economic back-ground, so on and so forth.

The thing is, though ... even though they are addicted to substance(s) abuse ... they are still human being (although in some instances, even that could be partially debatable).

Sigh - sometimes it's a sad/tough world ... for remember ... every addict was once an innocent child, with hopes and dreams.
 
21 - 29 of 29 Posts
Top