Investigation into treatment of Dana Larson and the marijuana resolution needed

115 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2009-08-27 13:05

Darwin OConnor

Individually the events described by Dana Larson could be explained as mistakes or misunderstandings, but taken together they strongly suggests there was an organized effort to prevent him from expressing his views and to block the resolution from making it to the floor of the convention.

Even if you don't agree with the resolution, I think everyone would agree the democratic process should be followed. Even if you think the banning Dana from the convention was appropriate punishment for trying to help pay for delegate’s travel, I think everyone would agree that the decision to remove democratic rights shouldn't be made by an unelected staff member, but by an appropriate elected body of the party with an appeal process similar to the process for removing a candidate (Dana wasn’t removed as a candidate in the last election, he voluntarily resigned).

The most serious accusation is that the chair of the panel flagrantly violated the constitution and Robert's Rules of Order with the purpose of prevent the marijuana resolution from reaching the floor. She allowed the motion to raise the priority to pass, then waited for the room to fill with opponents and reopened the debate without any justification at all. The story is consistent with rumors from the previous convention that where an organized group of people moving from panel to panel to manipulate the results.

The idea that someone in a position of authority in the NDP would try to undermine a party member's ability to present their views or interfere with the democratic process because they disagreed with an idea or was afraid it would interfere with some grand electoral strategy is totally unacceptable and that anyone doing that should be removed from their position. The next step would probably be for the federal council to pass a resolution directing the party to lunch an independent investigation to answer these questions:

What where the reason Dana Larson’s ad was rejected from the convention guide and what supporting documentation do they have? Why did it take so long from a reason to be given?
Why where Dana messages removed from the convention Facebook page?
Why did it take so long to inform him his group had a table at the convention? How many others where delayed?
Who decided to revoke Dana Larson's delegate credentials? By what authority did they do that? Why didn't they do so earlier? Why did they prevent him from being an observer? Why did they offer to refund the money for his flight?
Who disabled the public wall on the convention Facebook page and for what reason?
Why did the chair reopen the debate on the resolution? Where they given an instruction on how to treat the resolution?
Was there a group of people moving from panel to panel with a specific agenda? Who organized them?

There are additional questions the NDP should ask itself:

What procedure should be put in place to revoke someone's delegate credentials?
Should people who chair convention resolution panels, plenary sessions and other large meetings be required to have training and be familiar with the constitution?

This has been crossposted to by blog.

Thu, 2009-08-27 13:10

Daniel Grice

You may want to add to it having the chair allow intentionally fillibustering earlier house keeping motions on Sunday to prevent the name change motion from being debated and voted on.

Thu, 2009-08-27 14:51

madmax

I highly doubt there was either support for the resolution on a name change. I don't hear any outrage from either 1300 delegates or some of the 40,000 to 80,000 card carrying NDPers that may exist.

The only people talking about a name change are pundits, babblers, MLW posters, and some media looking for a story.

It didn't even catch the attention of the general public, which clearly demonstrates a non starter.

Thu, 2009-08-27 14:56

sandpiper

There was no filibuster, Daniel. Yes, we do read every resolution out loud. Yes, we do let a minimum of 3 people speak on an issue, even if they're all in favour of it, so everyone will understand the issues around it.

Thu, 2009-08-27 14:58

MUN Prof.

How about a Royal Commission? Or better yet a Battle Royale?

Thu, 2009-08-27 17:23

kropotkin1951

MUN Prof. wrote:

How about a Royal Commission? Or better yet a Battle Royale?

I think a Babble Royale would be preferable.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Thu, 2009-08-27 17:33

Stockholm

Daniel, I'd like to see what the Green Party would do with Dana Larsen. You can have him!!

Thu, 2009-08-27 18:31

melovesproles

I think the Green party is going to get a lot of people from BC, the NDP is getting more and more out of touch with the west coast once again.

Thu, 2009-08-27 18:38

Stockholm

...just like in the BC election - NDP 42% Greens 8%

Thu, 2009-08-27 18:43

#10

Boom Boom

I agree Dana was treated badly. While the NDP is still the only party for progressives to actually get seats in Parliament, the NDP shouldn't expect unqualified support from folks on the left. I'm quite turned off by Brad Lavigne, for example.

Fri, 2009-08-28 09:47

#11

Sineed

Me too, Boom Boom (nice to see you, BTW. Now is about the time we'd get a gardening thread going about our fall harvests, but it won't be me as the crap weather in Toronto this summer has meant my garden is a total washout).

At the risk of being a bit drifty: I think Stockholm got to the heart of it in this post:

Quote:
I suspect that there are actually a very large number of people who vote NDP in places like Sackville-Eastern Shore, north Winnipeg, Northern Ontario, Windsor, hamilton, Churchill and various suburban BC ridings like in Surrey - who are not all that big on drug legalization and who may not be all that big on cannabis legalization either and if the NDP were depicted as a party that was being infiltrated by former Marijuana Party activists etc... it would make the party look whacky and fringe and not to be taken seriously.

I'm not arguing against decriminalization of marijuana. That is already NDP policy and i agree with it. But I think you are kidding yourself if you think that there is no political price to be paid anywhere in canada for being viewed as the "pro-drug party".

The NDP wants more seats, so they're going to try and discreetly shed their fringier elements. The Liberals would have handled this better, IMO; they've far more experience with being hypocritical sellouts.

But take SS marriage, for instance. The NDP adopted a principled stance, and we all applauded them for it, but there are people in the NDP who believe that supporting the most activist extremist position on that issue cost them seats. And they don't want to lose more seats over another "fringe" issue.

Fri, 2009-08-28 10:00

#12

Stockholm

Actually, I've never met anyone in the NDP who thinks that supporting SSM cost the NDP any seats (apart from costing us Churchill in 2006 as a results of Bev Desjarlais running as an independent and splitting the vote). On the flip side, its clear that being unswervingly supportive of SSM was a big help to the NDP's image in a number of urban seats. I'd like someone to name me a seat that the NDP would GAIN as a result of being depicted as the pro-heroin party?

Fri, 2009-08-28 10:11

#13

Darwin OConnor

SSM was unpopular in Canada as little as ten years ago. These days people who don't support it are looked down upon as homophobic.

Marijuana legalization may follow the same tragictory in the next ten years, especially if a major party supports it and starts presenting the logical arguments behind it.

Even if you think supporting marijuana legalization is a bad idea because we will lose votes, I hope you'll agree that trying undermine democracy isn't they right way to stop it.

Fri, 2009-08-28 10:27

#14

Sineed

Darwin OConnor wrote:

Even if you think supporting marijuana legalization is a bad idea because we will lose votes, I hope you'll agree that trying undermine democracy isn't they right way to stop it.

Agreed; my whole point is, they intended to give Dana the brush-off, and they were inept about it. The fact that we're talking about it over here is proof of that.

Fri, 2009-08-28 10:36

#15

Stockholm

Darwin OConnor wrote:

SSM was unpopular in Canada as little as ten years ago. These days people who don't support it are looked down upon as homophobic.

Marijuana legalization may follow the same tragictory in the next ten years, especially if a major party supports it and starts presenting the logical arguments behind it.

Even if you think supporting marijuana legalization is a bad idea because we will lose votes, I hope you'll agree that trying undermine democracy isn't they right way to stop it.

As has been said again and again and again and again. The NDP has supported decriminalization of marijuana for many years and continues to do so. That is not the issue. Larsen and his gang want to legalize ALL drugs. I repeat ALL drugs - heroin, cocaine, crack, you name it. Only a tiny minority of libertarians support that extreme a position and even discussing it would make the party an object of ridicule.

And the fact that half a dozen people on bable are still talking about Larsen is irrelevant. There are lots of bizarre fringe issues that apark endless threads on babble that no one else on earth gives a damn about. I'd like to see evidence that vast numbers of people outside of the half dozen people posting on this thread care about this.

Fri, 2009-08-28 10:36

#16

Darwin OConnor

How could they have given Dana the brush-off without being inept about it?

They could have not done all those things to Dana and only sabotaged the resolition panel or they could have presented thier case in an open and honest way and then watched as the resolution passed with a comfortable majority.

Fri, 2009-08-28 10:51

#17

Stockholm

Maybe they weren't being inept. maybe they wanted his expulsion to be a big deal so that the NDP could have a "Sister Souljah moment".

Fri, 2009-08-28 12:39

#18

ocsi

Stockholm wrote:

As has been said again and again and again and again. The NDP has supported decriminalization of marijuana for many years and continues to do so. That is not the issue. Larsen and his gang want to legalize ALL drugs. I repeat ALL drugs - heroin, cocaine, crack, you name it. Only a tiny minority of libertarians support that extreme a position and even discussing it would make the party an object of ridicule.

And the fact that half a dozen people on bable are still talking about Larsen is irrelevant. There are lots of bizarre fringe issues that apark endless threads on babble that no one else on earth gives a damn about. I'd like to see evidence that vast numbers of people outside of the half dozen people posting on this thread care about this.

It's not just the people on Babble who are still talking about it!! The Economist, you know, that conservative and respected magazine, has been in favour of legalizing ALL drugs for quite a while. Please take the time to read the article and come back here if you can come up with any solid arguments against legalizing all drugs.

I care about this issue. I have been an NDP member for 25 years. I have used various drugs for more than 39 years and continue to smoke daily. And I've had a full time job for many, many years.

So what's your point again, Stock?

Fri, 2009-08-28 12:42

#19

mahara

Stockholm wrote:

Darwin OConnor wrote:

SSM was unpopular in Canada as little as ten years ago. These days people who don't support it are looked down upon as homophobic.

Marijuana legalization may follow the same tragictory in the next ten years, especially if a major party supports it and starts presenting the logical arguments behind it.

Even if you think supporting marijuana legalization is a bad idea because we will lose votes, I hope you'll agree that trying undermine democracy isn't they right way to stop it.

As has been said again and again and again and again. The NDP has supported decriminalization of marijuana for many years and continues to do so. That is not the issue. Larsen and his gang want to legalize ALL drugs. I repeat ALL drugs - heroin, cocaine, crack, you name it. Only a tiny minority of libertarians support that extreme a position and even discussing it would make the party an object of ridicule.

And the fact that half a dozen people on bable are still talking about Larsen is irrelevant. There are lots of bizarre fringe issues that apark endless threads on babble that no one else on earth gives a damn about. I'd like to see evidence that vast numbers of people outside of the half dozen people posting on this thread care about this.

i'm sure everyone here would agree that the more lethal or toxic the substance, the more regulation and strick control there should be. or do you believe that the meth, crack and heroin dealers are operating 'clean' businesses, selling only safe drugs to adults who have been educated and informed about the drug they are choosing to use? because really, that would be naive --

Fri, 2009-08-28 12:48

#20

ocsi

Regulation and strict control are fine so long as it is legal. Have you read The Economist article I linked to above?

Fri, 2009-08-28 12:50

#21

Darwin OConnor

Stockholm wrote:

And the fact that half a dozen people on bable are still talking about Larsen is irrelevant. There are lots of bizarre fringe issues that apark endless threads on babble that no one else on earth gives a damn about. I'd like to see evidence that vast numbers of people outside of the half dozen people posting on this thread care about this.

Yes, I would have liked to have seen a fair and open debate about legalizing marijuana at the convention as well.

Fri, 2009-08-28 13:07

#22

pcml

I have not been here for a while but want to say something.

I know all this will yes effect the next election as many in my groups have now given up on the NDP.

All 5 of us here for example just joined the Green Party and stopped our monthly donations to the NDP.

I guess some of you will now see that it was and is an issue and yes I will admit Dana Larsen did set back our movement with his stupid LSD movies as he pretended to represent any one but mark emery and their pot business's.

Its too bad some one else did not attempt the move to a better crime and drug problem instead of Larsen now destroying all the work previously done to get it on the platform.

Some of my friends had been trying to do so since 1972 and also have now quit the NDP.

I heard it all here in other threads and agree Larsen has just single handedly killed support to the cannabis issue in the NDP and should have just stepped aside.

Stupid very stupid.

Thanks a lot Larsen.

Go Green Party !

Fri, 2009-08-28 13:40

#23

MUN Prof.

Yes, as we have seen, single issue zealotry has been real vote-getter for the Green Party, to say nothing of the Marijuana Party.

Fri, 2009-08-28 13:45

#24

ottawaobserver

To clarify, I never said Dana killed support for drug law reform in the NDP. He just hurt his own resolution at this convention. The fact he can list off all the media outlets that covered him there actually makes my point rather well. He might want to do a content analysis on those clippings and ask himself how many of them covered his deregistration and demonstration, versus the amount of coverage he got for his actual issue.

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:12

#25

Sineed

MUN Prof. wrote:

Yes, as we have seen, single issue zealotry has been real vote-getter for the Green Party, to say nothing of the Marijuana Party.

Succintly said. The more cognizant knee-dippers want to cultivate a broader and more stable base, and distance themselves from the more fringe elements.

Personally, I'm in favour of ending pot prohibition, but legalizing everything?? I've been a pharmacist for 23 years and currently I work in methadone maintenance. North Americans DO NOT need easier access to drugs. I'm not going to bother putting up any stats for the moment, but generally speaking, Canadians and Americans are, in comparison with elsewhere in the world, massively over-medicated. Maybe we need to look at why that is instead of focusing on making it easier to get more drugs.

And crack cocaine and crystal meth are evil substances that rob people of their humanity. Just saying.

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:17

#26

ocsi

Sineed wrote:

And crack cocaine and crystal meth are evil substances that rob people of their humanity. Just saying.

Agreed. But would you not also agree that it is a health issue and not a criminal act?

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:34

#27

remind

... it is obvious the NDP killed it themselves, and they won't be actioning it anytime soon.

Oh well, it will be sweet to see the NDP back down to 12 or less seats.

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:40

#28

Dana Larsen

Quote:
Larsen and his gang want to legalize ALL drugs. I repeat ALL drugs - heroin, cocaine, crack, you name it.

This is a complete misrepresentation of my beliefs and goals on this issue.

I would support a regulated model of access to some of these substances, under a doctor's prescription and supervision. But I have never called for heroin to be as readily available as marijuana should be.

I support NDP Drug Policy Critic Libby Davies, when she says that we need a primarily "non-criminal, regulatory approach" to drug use.

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:49

#29

Bookish Agrarian

edit

just not worth the bother

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:55

#30

remind

Dana, I agree that it is a misrepresentation, but they gotta blow smoke somewhere to cover their actions.

Decriminalization so regulation can happen, and drug addiction being viewed as a health problem, is the whole issue for me, it impacts 10's of thousands across Canada, and needs to be addressed NOW, as opposed to approving resolutions that really are a fringe portion of society.

If herion addiction was considered a health problem, we would not need the nasty methadone program, people could be put through 24 hr detox, covered under health care, that addicts can't afford to access and so desperately want.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:00

#31

Snert

Mexico apparently did an interesting thing recently... decriminalized small, personal amounts of pretty much all drugs, while retaining legal penalties for trafficking in drugs (which can't really be called a health issue).

As a civil libertarian type, I don't really care all that much what others choose to put in their bodies, so long as they're prepared to take 100% of the responsibility for their choices. My support, such as it is, for regulating drug use is that I really don't believe we're ready to take that kind of responsibility.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:24

#32

pcml

But Mexico is also building 12 new prisons. Private prisons with American money.

Money from their privatized prison business.

It appears forced drug treatment(what ever that is) is required with the third offence.

Mexicos new policy is a joke just like the ndp's decrim policy.

Dana you killed a lot of peoples efforts in the ndp with your not cleaning up your ego videos with mark emery.

I hope it was worth it?

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:26

#33

melovesproles

Quote:
Yes, as we have seen, single issue zealotry has been real vote-getter for the Green Party, to say nothing of the Marijuana Party.

We're talking about an issue that has a huge social and economic impact on BC. Its clear that the NDP just doesn't get it and has become just another mainstream Torontoist party totally out of touch with BC. We need a political party that understands the economic and social realities of our province and the NDP has signalled it has no interest in that role. It's time to shop around. I wish the NDP luck in Ontario and Atlantic Canada just as I wish the Bloc luck in Quebec but I want a party that has a grasp on how things work in my province.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:30

#34

Slumberjack

melovesproles wrote:
I wish the NDP luck in Ontario and Atlantic Canada just as I wish the Bloc luck in Quebec but I want a party that has a grasp on how things work in my province.

Oh but they do.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:39

#35

Sineed

remind wrote:

If heroin addiction was considered a health problem, we would not need the nasty methadone program, people could be put through 24 hr detox, covered under health care, that addicts can't afford to access and so desperately want.

Just a little clarification: it was because heroin was rightly regarded as a health problem, and detox didn't work in lots of folks, that methadone maintenance came about in the 1960s.

Some people went through detox over and over and over again, and still relapsed because LT withdrawal symptoms persist for months (depression, anxiety, cravings).

So I would favour methadone maintenance, or this, heroin maintenance: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/8/777

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:42

#36

MUN Prof.

The issue here is not BC or pot or legalization or decriminalization (which the New Dems have a solid official policy in support of). The issue here is the Dana Larsen show, and if Dana Larsen is persona non grata in the NDP then it is his own doing.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:42

#37

remind

Forget blaming Dana, put the blame where it belongs.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:48

#38

pcml

jack layton ?

Any here that went to the 2006 convention would know the Greens would not have grown had jack not lied then.

To any who know how Larsen really got his nomination this comes as no surprise.

Sadly its the ndp who will yes now pay.

And rightly so I guess.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:48

#39

Darwin OConnor

MUN Prof. wrote:

The issue here is not BC or pot or legalization or decriminalization (which the New Dems have a solid official policy in support of). The issue here is the Dana Larsen show, and if Dana Larsen is persona non grata in the NDP then it is his own doing.

Who should have the authority to decide when someone is persona non grata in the NDP?

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:50

#40

remind

Sineed, I am speaking about 24 hr instant detox, with sub-derma implants blocking the neuro receptors, followed up with programs.

Methadone programs were only supposed to be short term, not life time addictions feeding.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:52

#41

melovesproles

Quote:
Who should have the authority to decide when someone is persona non grata in the NDP?

The Doer-ites in charge.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:57

#42

melovesproles

A passionate principled articulate advocate against prohibition = An embarrassment

A Harperite stooge working to further deep integration with the US = The party's poster boy

The message is loud and clear.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:58

#43

Michelle

I don't think decriminalization of all drugs is about giving people easier access to them. I think it's about not criminalizing people who are addicted to them.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:59

#44

Slumberjack

melovesproles wrote:
A passionate articulate advocate against prohibition = An embarrassment

A Harperite stooge working to further deep integration with the US = The party's poster boy

The message is loud and clear.

Only a fleet of advertising blimps circling the country would make it clearer.

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:12

#45

Sineed

remind wrote:

Sineed, I am speaking about 24 hr instant detox, with sub-derma implants blocking the neuro receptors, followed up with programs.

The fast detox is dangerous and doesn't work LT.

remind wrote:
Methadone programs were only supposed to be short term, not life time addictions feeding.

If people have to take methadone for years because it keeps them off the heroin or Oxycontin, it's not a bad thing.

Basically, I think we're not getting to root causes. Like I said upthread, North Americans are the most massively over-medicated people in the world, both with illicit and legal drugs.

I have no objections to Dana. But I don't think being anti-prohibition means we have to be pro-drugs.

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:15

#46

remind

Michelle wrote:
I don't think decriminalization of all drugs is about giving people easier access to them. I think it's about not criminalizing people who are addicted to them.

Exactly, and the only people who do not want them decriminalized are those who are making billions off of them, and people's addictions, and of course those they support politically to make sure they never are decriminalized.

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:18

#47

Snert

Would decriminalization also decriminalize the sale of drugs? I would assume so, or else it almost certainly would make it easier for people to access drugs.

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:22

#48

Bookish Agrarian

Sineed wrote:

remind wrote:

Sineed, I am speaking about 24 hr instant detox, with sub-derma implants blocking the neuro receptors, followed up with programs.

The fast detox is dangerous and doesn't work LT.

remind wrote:
Methadone programs were only supposed to be short term, not life time addictions feeding.

If people have to take methadone for years because it keeps them off the heroin or Oxycontin, it's not a bad thing.

Basically, I think we're not getting to root causes. Like I said upthread, North Americans are the most massively over-medicated people in the world, both with illicit and legal drugs.

I have no objections to Dana. But I don't think being anti-prohibition means we have to be pro-drugs.

This is the sanest thing I have read on babble for months.

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:22

#49

Dana Larsen

Quote:
I highly doubt there was either support for the resolution on a name change. I don't hear any outrage from either 1300 delegates or some of the 40,000 to 80,000 card carrying NDPers that may exist.

There were a lot of upset people at the convention, mostly about the re-vote that was held to reverse the floor vote on changing the agenda.

There was some passionate debate and fancy maneouvering on both sides to try and control the agenda for the convention. And there was a floor vote of all delegates (with two recounts) where the majority voted to change the convention agenda to allow for more time to debate resolutions. Then this vote was later reversed in the same rule-breaking way that they had a re-vote on our cannabis resolution in the earlier panel.

So this is about more than just one resolution, this is about a majority of delegates trying to change the agenda to allow for more debate time. That is a pretty rare thing at a convention to have a battle over the agenda first thing. So even though I wasn't in the room, it seems to me like there was some serious clashes between factions, and that the inner circle that created the agenda had to bend/break the rules to maintain their control over the convention agenda.

In general, the convention agenda is set up to minimize the ability of delegates to pass a lot of meaningful resolutions. Whether this is a good or bad thing is I suppose a matter of perspective, but I have no doubt that if the goal was truly to allow delegates to engage in meaningful debate which becomes reflected in party policy, things would be run differently.

Quote:
I'd like someone to name me a seat that the NDP would GAIN as a result of being depicted as the pro-heroin party?

Obviously you are being biased in the way you ask this question. The resolution which we put forward was not in any way "pro-heroin" and I've never heard even extreme media commentators describe support for harm reduction and access to safe, medicalized heroin under a doctor's supervision as "pro-heroin."

However, it is good to remember that in the province where we are trying to grow the most, namely Quebec, there has consistently been very strong public support for legalized marijuana and harm reduction policy. (Both the BQ and the NDP voted against the terrible mandatory minimums drug bill which passed Parliament earlier this year and is now before the Senate.)

Also note that in Vancouver, former Mayor Larry Campbell was always outspoken against the drug war and very supportive of needle exchange and the Supervised Injection Site, and he was always wildly popular.

Interestingly, a stronger call for a harm reduction based drug policy could gain the NDP support from some who are normally hostile to us. For instance, the National Post newspaper consistently editorializes for legal pot and against the whole drug war, but are hardly NDP-friendly. If we messaged properly, perhaps they would help to defend the NDP against attacks from the right regarding any such progressive drug policy we might put forward.

In regards to the actual theme of this thread, which is a call for further investigation into the craziness surrounding the End Prohibition ad and table and my banning, I don't think I am going to be pursuing any formal actions or investigations. I don't plan on personally launching any official complaints or inquiries at this time. If others want to do so that is up to them, and I certainly don't oppose such efforts.

It is quite clear to me that this was a personal effort by National Director Brad Lavigne to discredit me and eliminate my presence and influence at this convention. I admit that I gave him some easy ammunition with my clumsy and amateurish efforts to help delegates get to Halifax.

I would rather focus on the broader problems of our convention structure, of which my treatment was just one symptom, and come up with some ideas to change the structure of NDP Conventions so that we have a more democratic system for prioritizing resolutions and getting them to the floor of the convention.

I noted Darwin's blog (linked from the first post in the thread) includes some very interesting suggestions to change how Conventions are run.

One of the suggestions struck me as very interesting, which was to ban MPs and the Party President from speaking on resolutions from the floor.

Quote:
Equity in speakers

Whereas the NDP places a priority on equity makes a serious effort to ensure marginalized and disadvantaged have a voice at convention.

Whereas MPs and other prominent members have substantial influence and recognition, leaving all other speakers at a serious disadvantage in debates

Be it resolved that MPs, the current President, current and former leaders are not allowed address the convention during resolution debates or resolution panels.

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:22

#50

remind

Sineed wrote:
remind wrote:
Sineed, I am speaking about 24 hr instant detox, with sub-derma implants blocking the neuro receptors, followed up with programs.

The fast detox is dangerous and doesn't work LT.

You are going to have to prove this, as I personally know 3 people who have been through it, and they found it to be very successful for them. And they, along with other former addicts have worked, are working hard to get other people access to this.

Quote:
If people have to take methadone for years because it keeps them off the heroin or Oxycontin, it's not a bad thing.

What's the difference sineed between the 3? You are just trading 1 for the other.

Quote:
Basically, I think we're not getting to root causes. Like I said upthread, North Americans are the most massively over-medicated people in the world, both with illicit and legal drugs.

Again a sweeping statement that is inaccurate.

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:35

#51

Bookish Agrarian

Dana I am going to call you on your characterization of the NDP convention. After all the brouhaha on babble I spoke to a number of friends and aquantences about convention. Your characterization is completely and utterly different than theirs. In fact a number of them spoke about how disappointed they were in your behaviour being strong advocates on drug policy. Either you are just making things up, or you are so caught up in your own self importance you can't see the difference.

And battles over debating issues always, always take place at conventions. There is nothing rare about it. And you know what- it is always the same people doing it around their particular hobby horse and they are always ignored by the majority of delegates who want to get on with it. Your pretence that there was some massive conspiracy against you, rather than your own actions having consequences is making you look like a prima dona more concerned about themselves than any issue.

Pages

Topic locked