Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill "For the record and my own timeline" OK, your own timeline and you start with "

1692

Year 1

How freaking old are you? Or are you a vampire and we all didn't realize it?

Let's see. 1692. Was I a fly on the wall? Or was it one of my other earlier lives?

Actually Year 1 refers to what is known in Scotland as the Seven Ill Years. It was the first of 7.

By the end of the 7 Scotland was frozen, starving and broke. They tried their luck in the New World and got trashed by mosquitoes, Spaniards and the English. And they voted to combine parliaments with the English.

 

[Kirkhill]

Democracy demands a bit of chaos. Signs of hope.

“It will be impossible to manage, if everyone starts saying what they want, when they want,” she said.

Tellier said that the public dissent within the Liberal party could grow to become a serious problem for Trudeau if it isn’t reined in.

“Those are conversations that should normally stay in caucus. I can fully understand some MPs don’t agree, and there are tough conversations. But at some point, there’s a position and you need to defend it,” she said. “It’s as if they had completely forgotten about the good of the party.”

Tellier said MPs are expected to represent their constituents, but it is unusual for Liberals to be lashing out publicly against a component of a government bill so late in the game. “They’re not following the usual playbook and know that it will hurt the party,” she commented.


Tellier said Trudeau’s caucus could also be nervous, given that recent polls show the party falling further behind the Conservatives. But she said there might be “something deeper going on within the Liberal party.” Perhaps MPs have tried to voice their concerns internally with the Prime Minister’s Office but were not listened to, and feel the need to share their positions in a public forum, she said.


Or it’s possible they have lost trust in their leader to reconcile colliding visions.

University of Ottawa’s Geneviève Tellier said she was surprised by some comments made by Liberal MPs as the clause-by-clause study of C-13 is well underway, and it seems to her many of them do not see eye to eye with their own government’s position on official languages.

Trudeau's control over caucus in question as Liberal MPs break ranks over French bill

Languages bill C-13 is the latest example of a government seeing more pushback from within its own party.

nationalpost.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

Democracy demands a bit of chaos. Signs of hope.

Trudeau's control over caucus in question as Liberal MPs break ranks over French bill

Languages bill C-13 is the latest example of a government seeing more pushback from within its own party.

nationalpost.com

Dissention in the ranks....

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Dissention in the ranks....

My guess is that it's always been there, just muted because folks wanted to stay in their comfy Cabinet billets.

Now that it's been 7 years and the Good Ship Lollipop is headed toward an iceberg....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Let's see. 1692. Was I a fly on the wall? Or was it one of my other earlier lives?

Actually Year 1 refers to what is known in Scotland as the Seven Ill Years. It was the first of 7.

By the end of the 7 Scotland was frozen, starving and broke. They tried their luck in the New World and got trashed by mosquitoes, Spaniards and the English. And they voted to combine parliaments with the English.

Too bad they picked a warm place... if the climate had been more like Scotland's the Darien Scheme might have succeeded

Darien scheme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Too bad they picked a warm place... if the climate had been more like Scotland's the Darien Scheme might have succeeded

Darien scheme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you ever wonder why there were so many Scots in Canada?

The only place colder than Scotland. No competition.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I don't get the hysertia around decimalization of drugs. Its proven to work in places like Portugal.

Also, my body my choice. If an adult wants to snort a line of Peruvian marching powder that's their choice.

Make it legal, sell it in a shop and put the gangs and organized crime out of business. Use the money saved and taxes raised for awareness and rehab.

It worked in Portugal not because they decriminalized drugs but because they did a lot of carrot and stick type systems. They put a ton of effort into healthcare and making sure the systems needed were there. They didn’t just open the flood gates which is what Trudeau is doing. We are completely missing the point in how Portugal did it and there will be strong negative consequences to these actions.

The my body my choice line doesn’t work here. Hard drugs are directly related to the increase in violent crime, slow collapse of our healthcare system, and it destroys so many lives.

I used to be completely libertarian on them, but I have seen too many lives ruined by them now to believe they should be accessible in any form.

When I have a pregnant family member with a priority 2 problem in Emergency for 14 hours because the hospital staff are constantly dealing with ODing and violent drug addicts we have a problem. When a ton of court, cop, and medical staffs time is tied up with drug addicts and the crimes they are constantly committing we have a problem. When I can’t even go to the washroom in a business downtown due to how many addicts shoot up in them and has resulted in the bathroom’s being closed we have a problem.

There was literally a shooting just down the street from my house (and I live in a fairly nice safe area) the other day. The scumbag was on parole when he almost murdered two people. How much should we the average law abiding citizenry be expected to take before we decide the law system isn’t working?

At this point my families safety is being put at risk. That is something I do not take lightly.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Maybe just move all the people seeking drugs in Emerg into a special room, like a gymnasium. 40 foot ceiling, one retractable rope, at the top of which is a "fix". Pugil sticks on racks on the walls. Whenever there are five or more people in the room, the rope is lowered.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just a thought. Many of them are getting their pensions vested this year. They needed to fawningly follow the leader to get here. Now that their pensions are locked in, they can now afford to be kicked out and not worry about fan boy.

Or not.

 

[brihard]

It worked in Portugal not because they decriminalized drugs but because they did a lot of carrot and stick type systems. They put a ton of effort into healthcare and making sure the systems needed were there. They didn’t just open the flood gates which is what Trudeau is doing. We are completely missing the point in how Portugal did it and there will be strong negative consequences to these actions.

The my body my choice line doesn’t work here. Hard drugs are directly related to the increase in violent crime, slow collapse of our healthcare system, and it destroys so many lives.

I used to be completely libertarian on them, but I have seen too many lives ruined by them now to believe they should be accessible in any form.

When I have a pregnant family member with a priority 2 problem in Emergency for 14 hours because the hospital staff are constantly dealing with ODing and violent drug addicts we have a problem. When a ton of court, cop, and medical staffs time is tied up with drug addicts and the crimes they are constantly committing we have a problem. When I can’t even go to the washroom in a business downtown due to how many addicts shoot up in them and has resulted in the bathroom’s being closed we have a problem.

There was literally a shooting just down the street from my house (and I live in a fairly nice safe area) the other day. The scumbag was on parole when he almost murdered two people. How much should we the average law abiding citizenry be expected to take before we decide the law system isn’t working?

At this point my families safety is being put at risk. That is something I do not take lightly.

Ok, cool. But what actual problem does the specific criminalization of personal use amounts of hard drugs solve? If someone suffering from drug addiction has a gram of their drug of choice on them, what does me arresting and charging them do to address any of the root problems? I mean, I can take their bit of drugs and burn an hour of my shift properly storing and documenting them for disposal, and another couple hours dealing with the prisoner and writing up the charge. Meanwhile that takes me away from working on other stuff.

I guess I’m confused about what it is that I’m supposed to be fixing if I arrest and charge that person. Bear in mind that I already can and will act if they’re being violent or causing a disturbance.

Meanwhile, alcohol fueled violence is rampant, and we encourage and advertise its sale and consumption, only seeing an issue worth the time and attention of police once there’s an imminent or ongoing danger.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ok, cool. But what actual problem does the specific criminalization of personal use amounts of hard drugs solve?

If 'Decriminalization' ...

I'll take "What solves the problem of nailing down more votes from heavily populated urban areas, like Vancouver, that are crawling with bleeding heart liberals" for $100, Alex

 

[rmc_wannabe]

If 'Decriminalization' ...

I'll take "What solves the problem of nailing down more votes from heavily populated urban areas, like Vancouver, that are crawling with bleeding heart liberals" for $100, Alex

Far fewer bleeding heart liberals in Van City than there once were. It became too expensive to live there. Most voters that remain are worried about the property value of their investments and nest eggs.

Hard to sell decriminalization to those voters.

While I agree with the concept of decriminalization, it needs a far better execution than the current plan moving forward. This is MAID with more steps.

 

[brihard]

Far fewer bleeding heart liberals in Van City than there once were. It became too expensive to live there. Most voters that remain are worried about the property value of their investments and nest eggs.

Hard to sell decriminalization to those voters.

While I agree with the concept of decriminalization, it needs a far better execution than the current plan moving forward. This is MAID with more steps.

Certainly, there needs to be a lot more brought to bear to the large problem of drug addiction. I’m just not able to tell what public policy objective, pertaining specifically to personal use addiction, that I’m supposed to be able to meaningfully address with my handcuffs.

 

[RangerRay]

Ok, cool. But what actual problem does the specific criminalization of personal use amounts of hard drugs solve? If someone suffering from drug addiction has a gram of their drug of choice on them, what does me arresting and charging them do to address any of the root problems? I mean, I can take their bit of drugs and burn an hour of my shift properly storing and documenting them for disposal, and another couple hours dealing with the prisoner and writing up the charge. Meanwhile that takes me away from working on other stuff.

I guess I’m confused about what it is that I’m supposed to be fixing if I arrest and charge that person. Bear in mind that I already can and will act if they’re being violent or causing a disturbance.

Meanwhile, alcohol fueled violence is rampant, and we encourage and advertise its sale and consumption, only seeing an issue worth the time and attention of police once there’s an imminent or ongoing danger.

Myself, I would like to see more evidence that there will be adequate resources for treatment, recovery and prevention, as well as law enforcement will be able to deal with the disorder and criminality that will ensue. To my layperson’s eye, it looks like we just have the decriminalization part down.

I really think we need to be institutionalizing many of the mentally ill and addicted where they can be cared for humanely and with compassion. De-institutionalizing and “community living” has been a disaster.

 

[Booter]

I’m not sure there is any savings or issue being accomplished. Very few people would ever be arrested for just having a personal amount on them at all. There has to be another reason to come into contact with them. I would like to see some statistics on the amount of charges that were laid where it’s just a personal possession charge in a vacuum. That type of file is almost extinct.

Even the calls of “someone is doing drugs in the alley” have been tilted towards a medical type of response for years now.

The affect here in the system will be the the reduction of charges where Peter breaching smoking crack and smashing windows while possessing crack now only gets charged with smashing windows. And to be honest- they weren’t doing anything with the personal use amount charges at all anyways.

I think Canadians still don’t understand that everyone is only getting 6 months of probation for everything they do until they murder someone anyways.

My dumb cop response is this actually just allows the system to abdicate itself of any responsibility when there is a drug involved in a file by saying “it’s a health issue” meanwhile the health system isn’t really set up for any success on this at all.

Portugal or otherwise. The real world reality of Canada right now- you can’t get treatment even if you want it. You’ll wait months if not a year (years) trying to get real access. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or has been lied to.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Certainly, there needs to be a lot more brought to bear to the large problem of drug addiction. I’m just not able to tell what public policy objective, pertaining specifically to personal use addiction, that I’m supposed to be able to meaningfully address with my handcuffs.

You're preaching to the converted, friend. I have a lot of tools and tricks at my disposal, however, some of them are limited by policy while others are the equivalent of using a chainsaw for open heart surgery.

Everyone has an idea of what you're capable of doing vice what you actually are able to do to fix the problem.

Decriminalization is a step, but it's one of many. I feel very much for LEOs because of the many hats you're expected to wear, while also receiving training and funding for none of them. It's a socio-economic and public health care issue that needs more resources than folks are willing to put in.

All well and good that the police aren't hassling you for using; but like I said, you're still letting vulnerable people access to the thing that's killing them slowly, without supervision or support.

MAID with more steps.

 

[Booter]

You're preaching to the converted, friend. I have a lot of tools and tricks at my disposal, however, some of them are limited by policy while others are the equivalent of using a chainsaw for open heart surgery.

Everyone has an idea of what you're capable of doing vice what you actually are able to do to fix the problem.

Decriminalization is a step, but it's one of many. I feel very much for LEOs because of the many hats you're expected to wear, while also receiving training and funding for none of them. It's a socio-economic and public health care issue that needs more resources than folks are willing to put in.

All well and good that the police aren't hassling you for using; but like I said, you're still letting vulnerable people access to the thing that's killing them slowly, without supervision or support.

MAID with more steps.

Except the police will still be there hitting them with narcan bringing them back over and over. I doubt this even affects call volumes at all.

 

[Booter]

I may be far removed from stacking calls- but I recall not long ago hitting one guys with narcan twice in one day. Like returning him to life twice.

The second time we wound up arresting and taking the rest of his drugs from him. To stop him from dying repeatedly that day.

Do any of these articles say whether they still seize the substances since they are prohib? They just can’t result in charges on the user? That’s the old idea of decriminalizing. Is that still the definition?

Because I’m thinking of that time when there was bad shit dropping my user population. What’s the recourse there if they’ve taken away that ability to seize the stuff now?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Ok, cool. But what actual problem does the specific criminalization of personal use amounts of hard drugs solve? If someone suffering from drug addiction has a gram of their drug of choice on them, what does me arresting and charging them do to address any of the root problems? I mean, I can take their bit of drugs and burn an hour of my shift properly storing and documenting them for disposal, and another couple hours dealing with the prisoner and writing up the charge. Meanwhile that takes me away from working on other stuff.

I guess I’m confused about what it is that I’m supposed to be fixing if I arrest and charge that person. Bear in mind that I already can and will act if they’re being violent or causing a disturbance.

Meanwhile, alcohol fueled violence is rampant, and we encourage and advertise its sale and consumption, only seeing an issue worth the time and attention of police once there’s an imminent or ongoing danger.

Take the drugs, throw them in rehab. No need to decriminalize it, simply change the sentence for it. Create a special court that can send them to rehab within a day or two. Hold them in jail until they receive that sentence. Leaving them on the street shooting up does nothing to protect the rest of the community who doesn’t deserve to be exposed to it. Coupled with the rampant crime some of these addicts commit, usually the drugs are a small part of the crimes they are actively committing.

Cops aren’t supposed to be fixing anything. Their job is to enforce the law. Fixing this problem requires a ton of resources, health care professionals, education, rehab, etc. Cops are at the opposite end of the spectrum dealing with the consequences of society not dealing with it. There is no silver bullet to this problem but decriminalizing it without making actual solutions will just result in more addicts. I feel this is going to be a massive failure, BCs healthcare system is already in dire straits.

Alcohol fuelled violence does exist however it is substantially more controlled than heroin or fentanyl. It is a lot more predictable on someones mental state than meth. It can be a evil but there is a substantial difference between alcohol and meth. How many people try meth and don’t get addicted vs how many people try alcohol and do?

 

[Booter]

Alcohol fuelled violence does exist however it is substantially more controlled than heroin or fentanyl. It is a lot more predictable on someones mental state than meth. It can be an evil but there is a substantial difference between alcohol and meth. How many people try meth and don’t get addicted vs how many people try alcohol and do?

Harms report by substance