[Bojaxs]

The Alaskan panhandle should be Canadian.

Northern Maine should be Canadian. It was briefly in 1814, when occupied by the British and called New Ireland. Would help to better connect the Atlantic provinces with the rest of the country.

New Ireland: How Maine almost became part of Canada at the end of the War of 1812

'If British diplomats and strategic thinkers had been more strongly committed to this idea, a very alternative outcome is easy to imagine'

nationalpost.com

 

[Northern Light]

This news goes here, as while provincial in nature (BC), it has national and even international implications.

The article below discusses an academic study looking at link between BC's 'safer' supply of illicit drugs, as well as de fact decriminalization of same, and hospitalizations and overdose deaths.

The conclusion, that the above led to more overdoses than before. (but not more deaths)

B.C. drug decriminalization and safer supply associated with more overdoses, study shows

Research finds safer supply alone was associated with a 33 per cent increase in opioid hospitalizations

www.theglobeandmail.com

From the above:

The programs noted above were curtailed by BC in May 2024, much to the dismay of many activists...........but the results are in....

The 12% overall trend, which covers all of the U.S. and Canada, suggests a declining OD rate for reasons other than BC policy, at least one assumes the BC policy wasn't all that impactful, at that scale.

Still, if one discounts the 12%, you still get an 18% decline in overdose deaths in BC, year over year, since the policies in question were rescinded.

I think that should give pause to advocates for safer supply and decriminalization policies.

That is not to suggest I advocate for prison as a solution for addiction or small-scale dealing of drugs. I do not. I was in favour of moves, in general, to treat this as the public health issue it is.

At the same time, I think anecdotal evidence has been suggesting for sometime,, that these shifts were not producing the hoped for benefits; and were leading to adverse impacts. We now have a journal published study affirming those anecdotes, and published death totals for the last quarter of 2024, which provide substantive evidence supporting those anecdotes.

I don't think that means we should simply revert to the previous model; but we should admit the facts didn't bear out any real public health benefit, from the programs, as delivered.

 

[innsertnamehere]

This news goes here, as while provincial in nature (BC), it has national and even international implications.

The article below discusses an academic study looking at link between BC's 'safer' supply of illicit drugs, as well as de fact decriminalization of same, and hospitalizations and overdose deaths.

The conclusion, that the above led to more overdoses than before. (but not more deaths)

B.C. drug decriminalization and safer supply associated with more overdoses, study shows

Research finds safer supply alone was associated with a 33 per cent increase in opioid hospitalizations

www.theglobeandmail.com

From the above:

View attachment 639612

The programs noted above were curtailed by BC in May 2024, much to dismay of many activists...........but the results are in....

View attachment 639613
The 12% overall trend, which covers all of the U.S. and Canada, suggests a declinding OD rate for reasons other than BC policy, at least one assumes the BC policy wasn't all that impactful, at that scale.

Still, if one discounts the 12%, you still get an 18% decline in overdose deaths in BC, year over year, since the policies in question were rescinded.

I think that should give pause to advocates for safer supply and decriminalization policies.

That is not to suggest I advocate for prison as a solution for addiction or small-scale dealing of drugs. I do not. I was in favour of moves, in general, to treat this as the public health issue it is.

At the same time, I think anecdotal evidence has been suggesting for sometime,, that these shifts were not producing the hoped for benefits; and were leading to adverse impacts. We now have a journal published study affirming those anecdotes, and published death totals for the last quarter of 2024, which provide substantive evidence supporting those anecdotes.

I don't think that means we should simply revert to the previous model; but we should admit the facts didn't not bear out any real public health benefit, from the programs, as delivered.

I think this is a good summary - I am far from a public health expert and don't want to suggest too much on this or make it seem like I am deeply knowledgeable, but I feel we need some sort of solution in between the two. Perhaps instead of incarceration there can be some form of rehabilitative program which people are directed to.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I'm not sure I would trust anything from the Glib & Wail.(with the exception of it's architecture critic, of course), as they always seems to have a "blue tie" view on things that are rather unhelpful if not pointless...

...that said, it's always been my view that when thing don't work out so well, particularly when it comes to more proactive initiatives, is because it never went far enough in the first place.

There's a lot of support that is needed in dealing with addiction on multiple levels including poverty, mental health and the distress on the individuals this unfortunate issue brings. If we where to simply say, "Here your drugs go shoot up whenever you want," there will likely be an increase of overdoses and deaths. I mean, it's a rather libertarian approach to the issue with little consequence or oversight. But if governments where to put forward the time and money to say instead, "Here we're going to help you weed off the stuff," providing them with adequate housing, food and income while doing it, I suspect overdose numbers and deaths will go down. But that takes a lot more effort.. to which appears the current programs are not addressing, because here we are IMO...

Anywhoose, not sure why we're talking about in this thread...or maybe because a thread doesn't exist in UT so it needs to be talked about. Either way, kinda of a dark rabbit hole to go down here. >.<

 

[Towered]

When has Canada's relationship with the US been as bad as it is now? 1812?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

When has Canada's relationship with the US been as bad as it is now? 1812?

I'd say things were pretty bad during the Nixon Administration - the personal enmity between him and Trudeau Sr. is well known - though nothing like what we are getting now.

AoD

 

[Towered]

I'd say things were pretty bad during the Nixon Administration - the personal enmity between him and Trudeau Sr. is well known - though nothing like what we are getting now.

AoD

Even Nixon didn't stoop to derisively referring to Pierre as "Governor Trudeau".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/just-released-1971-recording-captures-talks-between-nixon-pompous-trudeau-1.755465

The parallels are interesting.

 

[lenaitch]

When has Canada's relationship with the US been as bad as it is now? 1812?

At least he's spreading it around - he's being a dick to everybody, except Putin.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Even Nixon didn't stoop to derisively referring to Pierre as "Governor Trudeau".

I mean it's the difference between "I am not a crook" and a convicted felon... /sigh

 

[Admiral Beez]

I’d like to see Carney push for the abandonment of the imperial system. Pierre Trudeau took us half way before Mulroney shut it down. If Canada’s future is with Europe and Asia, it’s time to go fully Monty on the metric system.

Metrication in Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example, in Europe, eggs come in cartons of ten, paper sizes go from A0-A7 and products sold by weight are rounded up, such as butter at 500 g, not 454 g as in Canada where we’re actually selling one pound. Lumber and transport might be trickier as it will always be transborder focused, but we can still list metric equivalents in Canada. A lumber branded as 2x4 is actually 1.5 inches (38 mm) x 3.5 inches (89 mm). Let’s round that up to the 40 x 90.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd say things were pretty bad during the Nixon Administration - the personal enmity between him and Trudeau Sr. is well known - though nothing like what we are getting now.

Kept us out of Vietnam and Nixon’s plans to escalate the war, so kudos to PET. Though Trudeau also increased Canada’s dependence on the US military industrial complex, with our purchasing of American fighter planes and weapons systems for the navy. I’d rather we looked to Europe for such to maintain a difference from the US. To Canada’s credit, with the exception of the M117 training vehicles and M4 Shermans from WW2, all of the Army’s tanks have been domestically produced or sourced from Europe.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Kept us out of Vietnam and Nixon’s plans to escalate the war, so kudos to PET. Though Trudeau also increased Canada’s dependence on the US military industrial complex, with our purchasing of American fighter planes and weapons systems for the navy.

True, but we were down that path already thanks to Diefenbaker.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

True, but we were down that path already thanks to Diefenbaker.

You think so? In 1963 when Diefenbaker was defeated by Lester Pearson’s Liberals the US involvement in Vietnam was quite small, greatly escalating in 1965. But I’ll give equal credit to both of them, plus Trudeau for keeping us out of that mess.

And kudos to Jean Chrétien for keeping us out of GW2 and the invasion of Iraq.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You think so? In 1963 when Diefenbaker was defeated by Lester Pearson’s Liberals the US involvement in Vietnam was quite small, greatly escalating in 1965. But I’ll give equal credit to both of them, plus Trudeau for keeping us out of that mess.

And kudos to Jean Chrétien for keeping us out of GW2 and the invasion of Iraq.

I am talking about dependency on the US MIC.

AoD