Opioid crisis: Fiery debate erupts in House of Commons over

Well we tried it for a couple weeks and it didn't completely solve the problem, so let's go back to doing what didn't work for the last 100 ears.

In Calgary it destroyed an inner core residential neighbourhood when a safe injection site was put into a 24-hour clinic in the area. People who went to the clinic in the late hours for non-emergency care got badly harassed, including multiple muggings occurring, by the junkies who were congregating outside the building. Needles in the playgrounds, human shit in doorways, endless car break ins, non-stop vandalism, trash everywhere in a nearby park that was dedicated to war veterans, bus drivers being beaten up or threatened with knives, women with their babies in strollers being stalked and screamed at by mentally ill addicts if they dared to go outside for a walk. Basically all the sorts of things associated with a "compassionate" care scheme that was accompanies by zero thought for the security & safety of anyone else in the neighbourhood.

If you're a normal non-belligerent & non-criminal person in this current iteration of Canadian society then you've automatically lost the game before the starting whistle even gets sounded. Your rights have been entirely negated in favour of those who either can't or won't control their own personal behaviour. This is the sort of thing that will probably result in the UCP winning the election this month because there's no way the NDP can deny that this nightmare erupted under their administration. It was a bad & corrupted idea from the beginning and can't ever be redeemed.

Safe injection is the least worse band-aid for a problem that has been chronically swept under the rug.

PP solution is to keep sweeping under the rug that is already a mountain of corpses and pretend nothing is wrong. The fact this erupted under the NDP watch is not an indictment on their triage but an assessment of an adverse situation. That it was allowed to erupt is an indictment of the previous administrations that failed to address the swell to such a proportion that will now take generations to rectify.

The blood is on their hands for ignoring the plight of those who could not get help when they asked for it.

It wasn't a critical problem in most North American cities until meth and then fentanyl changed the game altogether. Alcohol, heroin, and crack combined came no where near, back in their glory days when they were the most popular drugs of the moment, to the absolute civil disintegration that meth and fentanyl set into motion.

Maybe someday we won't have far-left judges doing things anymore like kicking out cases just because some cop somewhere crossed a t and dotted an i instead of the other way around on his report. Or abolishing entire laws, no matter how sensible or critically needed they are, just because some appellant lawyer managed to convince a court that the widest-ranging and least logical interpretation of the Charter has to be followed. Until then progressives have nothing at all to be proud of on this file. Not when entire cities are being destroyed right in front of us thanks to this harm reduction uber alles mantra they've adopted. The progressive plan on this is basically the drive-by shooting of policies - the ones who thought it up don't give any more of a damn about the bystanders or inadvertent victims than some gang-banging shooter gives about anyone who gets in the way when he empties his gat into a crowd.

If you've got a negative outlook on things, it's easy to buy interpretations like that.
But I took journalism for a while, wrote stuff for the paper even. Enough to know "Dog Bites Man" is not news.
So you hear ZERO about ones denied bail (not news). You hear EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT of someone out on bail that commits a violent crime, anywhere in the whole world (definition of news).
It's easy to assume that putting them back on the streets is the norm.

Still, I support anyonne previously convicted of a violent crime needing to prove their case for bail before a Judge. I also do not believe that would be found to be a violation of one's Charter rights.

During sentencing most accused don't even have to cough up bail to be released with a promise to appear for later trial. They get released on their own recognizance, and this happens even when violence is included in the charges. And the justices have the option to not even require recognizance as well. Catch-and-release isn't some phrase that the right-wingers made up for their own amusement, it's an unfortunate reality. And it's a dangerous reality too in a country like Canada where repeated Supreme Court decisions have effectively voided altogether any parliamentary check on the authority of the bench in assessing the potential or actual threat an accused poses to their next possible/probable victims.

When choosing the side of caution is regarded as an inexcusable violation of a dangerous person's rights then a tragedy for someone else turns from entirely avoidable to basically inevitable.

Lord Black didn’t find space to mention the role that prescribed drugs, particularly OxyContin, played in the opioid crisis. Our doctors were way too eager, much more so than their British colleagues, to hand this stuff out.

Were I a Mexican politician I’d be a little tired of calls for ever more war on my soil. The primary problem is demand, not supply.

Just to point out: BAIL is what you pay before/during your trial not to be remanded.

If you commit a violent crime while you're out on bail, you're gonna be locked up. And that doesn't happen very often at all.

My late kid was a druggie. Often on OR for druggie things, he wasn't violent. But when he was broke and all snakey he'd steal a car or smash and grab, knowing they'd lock him up and he could dry out, have a place to sleep, get fed and work himself back into shape. For twenty years, rinse and repeat.