Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure the term existed before the woke, but it was not used the same way or as frequently until recently. It is a term currently being used by the woke as a poltically correct alternative to drug addict, which is now considered insensitive or potically incorrect. Find me a news clip from ten years ago or before that uses the term.
I think it is all about that because we are talking about how lenient society should be with them, ie letting them use drugs in close proximity to children for example. Where they sit on the innocent victim vs. dangerous criminal spectrum is a huge part of that determination.
It is not just about drug addicts because there is a whole school of thought that suggests more leniency towards even violent criminals like rapists and killers due to personal trauma or even historical group trauma.
It's easy to find cases of this by googling.
It's easy to find anything if you frame your search in certain ways. My mother was giving herself heart attacks figuratively speaking, by googling my father's prescribed medication along with a side effect and of course, coming up with worse case scenarios in her search when my dad had experienced none of those symptoms.
There have always been people who have advocated for leniency just as there have always been people who would prefer all offenders should be shot.
Since I don't know what you might be thinking of, I think you should post whatever examples you are thinking about.
I don't know of any situations where "we" are "letting" addicts use drugs close to children. That addicts use and have used drugs close to children I don't doubt.
So basically what do you believe we should do with addicts as a country?
It is one thing to study the phenomenon and take stock of it, but it is another to condone or even treat it with some level of acceptance.
People cope with their legitimate personal demons in all sorts of ways (including in some cases raping or killing others).
As I have said before, what we have going on is an attempt to shift generalized perceptions from the traditional ones where drug addicts and takers were widely seen as criminals, to one where they are seen as (largely innocent) victims.
Of course, this should not be surprising as even some of the most violent criminals are also increasingly portrayed as victims if they’ve had something allegedly very troubling (like being rejected by an art school?) they were subjected to in their past, and that is supposedly the explanation for their violent behaviour.
Pretty much all the terms Canadian use come from the US. Specially woke ideas. The sentence you highlighted reeks of wokeism.
I'm sure that's true. I had never heard or read that term, which isn't surprising as it is an American concept. There are complaints by the originators of that term of whites co-optng terms they do not fully understand and running with it until it becomes meaningless. I see their point.
It is one thing to study the phenomenon and take stock of it, but it is another to condone or even treat it with some level of acceptance.
People cope with their legitimate personal demons in all sorts of ways (including in some cases raping or killing others).
As I have said before, what we have going on is an attempt to shift generalized perceptions from the traditional ones where drug addicts and takers were widely seen as criminals, to one where they are seen as (largely innocent) victims.
Of course, this should not be surprising as even some of the most violent criminals are also increasingly portrayed as victims if they’ve had something allegedly very troubling (like being rejected by an art school?) they were subjected to in their past, and that is supposedly the explanation for their violent behaviour.
Like Hitler, you mean?
I really have to get back to now convincing the German government I am my husband's widow, but what particular good came out of the US's policy of being tough on crime, War on Drugs, etc?
It's easy to find anything if you frame your search in certain ways. My mother was giving herself heart attacks figuratively speaking, by googling my father's prescribed medication along with a side effect and of course, coming up with worse case scenarios in her search when my dad had experienced none of those symptoms.
There have always been people who have advocated for leniency just as there have always been people who would prefer all offenders should be shot.
Since I don't know what you might be thinking of, I think you should post whatever examples you are thinking about.
I don't know of any situations where "we" are "letting" addicts use drugs close to children. That addicts use and have used drugs close to children I don't doubt.
So basically what do you believe ww should do with addicts as a country?
I don't have the solution, but it seems like what has been tried so far especially in BC (an unprecedently soft approach) has been a catastrophic failure.
As for examples, not sure why you are asking for them as the debate in BC is the basis for this thread:
I really have to get back to now convincing the German government I am my husband's widow, but what particular good came out of the US's policy of being tough on crime, War on Drugs, etc?
Tough on crime worked well under Giuliani in NYC (years before he went crazy) and seems to be working well in El Salvador right now.
Not that I am necessarily advocating these specific approaches for us, but I also am against throwing our hands up in the air and saying it's hopeless when we haven't tried other things. Especially if our reluctance is mostly based on "I don't like these guys so I won't do what they do even if it might work".
Note that like anything (including getting off drugs, ironically), setting things right in society will be more and more painful the longer we wait and the more we let the situation get worse and worse.
I don't have the solution, but it seems like what has been tried so far especially in BC (an unprecedently soft approach) has been a catastrophic failure.
As for examples, not sure why you are asking for them as the debate in BC is the basis for this thread:
Thanks for the link. I haven't been following BC's issues at all so I never heard of this. Given that Chevy says BC can't decriminalize drugs, I'm wondering how a judge can rule on this and Chevy, if you're reading this, I hope you chime in.
Thanks for the link. I haven't been following BC's issues at all so I never heard of this. Given that Chevy says BC can't decriminalize drugs, I'm wondering how a judge can rule on this and Chevy, if you're reading this, I hope you chime in.
Netwit, you know you’re my chouchou on here but if you’re not paying attention to the topic much, not sure why you are chiming in so emphatically.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
