I saw Mark McCardell on Vancouver’s Global noon hour news on Wednesday February 21, 2007. All I can say about it is that this is precisely this type of media treatment of important issues that dooms Canada and its citizens to poor and misinformed decision making. At a time the country faces important decisions on a wide variety of complex issues, making the need for balanced, thoughtful and intelligent information a must, the media is serving up this kind of misleading, pointless nonsense.

Mr. McCardell demonstrates his total disconnection from reality and lack of familiarity with thought in his assertions that rounding up all the current drug dealers and jailing them would, in some manner impossible for anyone with more intelligence than a amoeba to fathom, ensure that illegal drugs are no longer available. At its roots the illegal drug industry is unfettered capitalism at its most avaricious, where the laws of supply and demand ensure a continuous supply of dealers and drugs. Any one who falls for Mr. McCardell’s glib assurances that the arrest of current suppliers would prevent their loved ones from the path of addiction, in reality would face an increased likelihood of the heartbreak of addiction so many now deal with. Given the immense potential for wasted lives and damage in Mr McCardell’s statement I would say his behaviour on this matter is criminal.

His solution for current addicts is to abandon them to their addiction in hopes they will solve the problem by dying off. Although, in further proof of his lack of an ability to reason, he fails to explain how this die off would occur once his magical plan for removing drug supplies from our streets denies them the drugs to kill themselves with. Perhaps Mr. McCardell favours some form of euthanasia for those who have not, for the convenience of Mr McCardell and those who wish to live in the type of society he advocates, killed themselves off before their drug supply miraculously disappeared.

Mr. McCardell is apparently to be numbered among those who wring their hands and decry a society where people step over those in need of help and walk away. As long as the person in need of help is suffering from something the Mr. McCardell deems worthy of help. I have no desire to live in the type of society that would grow out of adopting Mr. McCardell’s spiritually bankrupt ideology.

No. if you want to have a positive affect on these complex social problems, indeed a positive effect on Canada and Canadian society as a whole, you will not find it in the mindless demagogy of Mr. McCardell and his ilk. You will not find it in throwing drug dealers and addicts in jail; not in arbitrarily longer jail sentences; nor in ignoring the realities of addiction and the drug trade; assuredly you will not find it in wishing for the death of those suffering addiction for down that path lies corruption and darkness.

No, if we wish to find solutions we need to heed the wisdom of the great minds of the human race such as Albert Einstein. We must amend the criminal code, with draconically punishing sentence lengths, to make stupidity of the proportions and criminality demonstrated by Mr. McCardell as much against the law as it is against the public interest and intelligent thought. This would mean that at least minimal levels of intelligence will become a requirement for employment in the news media resulting in significant increases of useful information transfer to the public while cutting off the current deluge of misinformation. While an informed public does not guarantee wise decisions it at least affords a fighting chance for common sense and thoughtfulness to win out.

For as Albert noted: “The two most abundant elements in the Universe are hydrogen and human stupidity, and of the two I am not sure about hydrogen.” With the challenges facing our society, our country and our world today, we can no longer afford the luxury of human stupidity of the magnitude demonstrated by Mr. McCardell and those who foist him upon us.

I butted into a loud discussion outside the library because the line about shooting down those who use illegal drugs in public contained a level of stupidity that exceeded a level I could tolerate. It turned out that he was upset about those who feed their illegal drug addictions in public and were not being rounded up and tossed into jail. I assume he saw the news reports about the Economist article about the drug use and poverty on the east side and in a unthinking, knee-jerk reaction decided the solution was to retreat into stupidity and avoid the pain of actually thinking about such things as cause and effect. The way so much of the public chooses to react unthinkingly to complex issues would almost make you think that using their brains for something other than a spacer between their ears caused them great pain.

From what I could determine from his ravings, he was upset that this illegal drug use was taking place in public and that something should be done to drive this activity out of sight. I have to agree that it is an unpleasant sight, but I would argue it is necessary that it occur out in full view for it is this openness that denies the majority of public their favourite refuge from complex, messy, thought requiring issues – Denial. For all too much of the public out of sight is also out of mind. Even if we must endure the ignorant and feebleminded ramblings of those who are unable to understand complex problems and that the complexity of the problem is going to require creative and many faceted approaches in address these complex problems. This in your face openness generates discussion – some of which will be cognizant and directed to taking effective actions.

Locking the drug users up is not a cost effective approach to reducing the scourge of addiction and the side effects caused by our current drug policies. I say cost effect as failing to consider costs vs. benefits not only results in the waste of vast sums on money, but prevents basing actions on approaches that can be effective. In calling for the police and courts to be throwing all the drug users in jail the question becomes “who is going to pay all the costs”, the $1,000.000,000s needed. When I posed the question of paying to the “shoot ‘em” advocate above, once he had shifted to the “I only want to shot ‘em because the courts will not lock them up” line of defending his demonstrated lack of ability to cogitate, I got a tirade about government waste. All of this taking place as he stood in public feeding his addiction, which fortunately for him is nicotine and legal (at least at this point in time).

They speak of a “drug problem” and a “drug war” Some are wrong or some are lying (or spinning the truth) in order to pursue their agendas or protect their vested interests. Have you ever seen drugs run up someone’s body and force themselves up their nose? When was the last time you saw a drug turn itself into smoke and force its way into an innocent bystanders lungs? No this is a people problem. When you wage this war you are waging it on people, as though their addiction was not enough of a burden and punishment. Reality is that because at its very roots this is a people problem, it is going to be extremely messy and lacking in neat, easy answers. In truth, given the nature of people, there is no actual solution. There are decisions we can make and actions we can take that will be more effective than others – provided we are willing to see the reality of the situation for what it is, and not as we want it to be. Without any solution, outside of human extinction, we have to look at what set of problems we can best achieve effective actions against and what set of insolvable effects we would rather live with.
It is not neat, tidy and definitely not a reality we like – but that is Life.

When I reached the end of the first paragraph of Mr. Warkentin’s letter I was shaking my head and having yet another self-righteous cretin share his “expertise” on the homeless. By the end of the letter I wanted to scream “ARRGGHH!! Not another one.”

The only thing Mr. Warkentin (and others who tell the same tale of woe) appears to be expert at is enabling drug addicts to stay in their addiction, avoiding reality and the choices that having to face reality force upon the addict. This is evident from his own statement: ” Like a magnet, last Saturday I was drawn to Abby’s cocaine king.”I have no idea what need Mr. Warkentin has that drives him to repeat this pattern of failure over and over. Perhaps he needs to be a martyr – “poor, poor me; I give so much, it does no good and I am abused or taken advantage of.” Obviously the stories he tells (so believably) are the gut of his sympathy line. I have heard them all. I would suggest that Mr. Warkentin seek treatment for his need (or addiction) to behave in this destructive manner. If not for his own sake then fo the sake of all the addicts his actions harm.

For Mr. Warkentin is correct on one point – you DO NOT give money to an addict. Giving a job to an addict who is not in recovery is just the same as handing them money to enable them to continue to live in and pursue their addiction. You give them shelter, access to amenities (showers, laundry etc.) and food. You provide a way to maintain contact with the addict until reality has come to call and has them, at some point, ready to face and make choices. at which point you give them support and help in seeking and finding treatment. Once they are in or finished treatment you provide them help and support in getting established in the community and establishing a healthy life style. This is the point at which finding/giving them jobs is helpful to them.

Cretin. What else but cretinous could you call repeating the same behaviour over and over for 40 years, expecting that this time the outcome (addicts behaviour) will be different? You would think that a Mr. Warkenin and others supposedly thinking people would come to realize that what they do, or what actions they advocate, are not working and try another approach. But then what can you expect from a writer who cannot distinguish between homelessness and addiction. The homeless are a widely varied group. Made up of people such as: those who lost their jobs and whose world collapsed under their debt load, putting them on the street; those who for a variety of reasons (such as my own mental illness) had their world implode and are struggling to get re-established; the working poor; the mentally challenged; the mentally ill and many other sub-groups. Yes, there is a sizable segment of the homeless who suffer from addiction. If Mr. Warkentin really understood anything about the homeless he would know he has not accumulated “many lessons learned from the homeless” but that he has been floundering in the world of the addict and addiction.

Addiction is a harsh and demanding Mistress. Helping the addict is a long, frustrating and pretty much thankless task. But I want to live in and contribute to the type of society that does not throwaway people, but has the patience, integrity and spirituality to aid even the least of our fellow citizens. Even if they ain’t pretty – or thankful.

submitted April 28th

Mr. Murphy certainly has the correct nickname. “after all, these people need alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth, heroin etc.” It is apparent from this statement that “Spud” has his head buried deep in the earth. This serves to explain his inability to see the real world around him. As one of “these people” I need affordable housing (or an adjustment in the $325.00 shelter allowance to a realistic level; $325.00 for a place in Abbotsford?), food, showers, laundry, a phone, transportation, employment and a helping hand. I have no need of mind-altering substances.

Although given “Lord High Commissioner, sheriff of the forest and Robin Hood and his merry band” one could wonder just what mind altering substances old “Spud” is doing. Plus, use of mind-altering substances would explain “Spud’s” altered view of reality vis-à-vis the true nature and needs of “these people” such as I.