The 51st State Debate

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
WhyCzar said:
Pull all US booze off liquor shelves.

Continue to provide free Fentanyl kits and "safe zones" to shoot up on the street.
Click to expand...
Two different issues. The first one is about a trade war being imposed by the Orange Dictator to weaken Canada so he can annex us. And we’re saying “We’re doing fine without your Jack Daniel’s, thanks. We’ll support our own businesses.” The other is about keeping people alive. They may be addicted but they’re still human beings and cutting off safe supply and overdose kits (they’re not fentanyl kits they are emergency life saving kits - antidote to ODing). Solving the fentanyl problem doesn’t mean letting people who are acutely addicted, die. And forcibly locking them up is inhumane - it’s the perfect recipe for a fascist genocide with MAiD in the law. Something unthinkable 10 years ago but within the realm of possibility today. There needs to be safe supply and more bridges to recovery, simultaneously. More voluntary services and beds that are just not there right now so in the meantime, life saving should be a priority.

I’m offended by your whataboutism at every f***ing turn - this one is just ignorant. What exactly do you think you’re accomplishing?

By the way, far more fentanyl is coming to Canada through the US border than the other way around - less than 1% comes from Canada to the US. Dump is lying, as a pretext for this war to weaken us.
 
Last edited:
WhyCzar said:
Pull all US booze off liquor shelves.

Continue to provide free Fentanyl kits and "safe zones" to shoot up on the street.
Click to expand...
It’s not a liquor prohibition. They’re not pulling it off the shelves to force alcoholics into life threatening agony (severe alcoholics can die going cold turkey without support). There’s no shortage of liquor available to alcoholics (I guess well off alcoholics are acceptable though and poor people should be scrutinized for absolutely everything “for their own good” according to some). Your point is ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
Food banks are not run by healthcare professionals. They are run by volunteers from many walks of life. Adding another layer to those already in place for recipients of the service absolutely should not be happening. And booze is hardly a staple food group, which is what their focus needs to be.
Click to expand...
Foodbanks already provide more than just staples, Mendalla. And alcohol can be kept from people until they pass whatever screening must be done
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Use of food banks isn’t an indicator of addiction any more than use of grocery stores. They shouldn’t be parented. Though it might attract people to line up for free booze (they’re only human), but not necessarily addicts. And they’re not “state run”. But handing out booze would be bad optics, I agree. The conservatives would certainly complain - it would be a political haymaker - and that would reflect unfairly on poor people.

thehub.ca

Nearly one in five Canadians using food banks have jobs, as visits passed two-million in a month for the first time

thehub.ca thehub.ca

If they’re just storing it until the tariff war is over it’s only symbolic. If they auctioned it off and put the money into a Canadian cause, it would really be a “we don’t need your products” statement, with a benefit to us.
Click to expand...
As long as it is in storage, no more is being ordered from the states. It is not just symbolic. The OLCB is the largest purchaser of alcoholic beverages in North America. Those companies are losing sales as long as the OLCB is not selling them.
 
Jaebius said:
Foodbanks already provide more than just staples, Mendalla. And alcohol can be kept from people until they pass whatever screening must be done
Click to expand...
They don’t screen people at bars and liquor stores for alcoholism. At most, they ban disruptive customers from coming in. They could do the same at food banks, but, like food, put limits on how much someone is allowed to take. Like one bottle of wine per person per week - I don’t think that’s excessive. It’s not going to be a problem for responsible adults and it might not even get a serious alcoholic drunk. This is all hypothetical of course. My opinion. The reason this concept is shocking to people, I think, is that they are used to thinking of “the poor” as people without their own agency who need to be managed because they must be the cause of their own poverty. “Why do poor people need to be managed? Well, because they’re poor people so they need to be managed of course.” Is how the redundant argument goes. As if it’s morality more than luck involved.

That attitude is pretty embedded in middle class mainstream thinking - and conservatives who think they always have the moral high ground would jump all over it if food banks gave out alcohol. We’d never hear the end of it. When really, most food bank consumers are just people like them who appreciate a drink once in a while. And of course, those who have kids, receive food for their kids - but if they had the money they could go down the street and buy a bottle of wine, no matter what their parenting abilities are like, well off or not - so the only difference is that they don’t have the money. It’s not a reflection of anything else.

It’s not going to happen, I realize, and I don’t think it should right now just because of the optics and politics, not because of morality.
 
Last edited:
jimkenney12 said:
As long as it is in storage, no more is being ordered from the states. It is not just symbolic. The OLCB is the largest purchaser of alcoholic beverages in North America. Those companies are losing sales as long as the OLCB is not selling them.
Click to expand...
Good point. I wonder how long before there’s a deficit that’s felt in the US? How long before it would normally be time to order more, if things were business as usual? Weeks? Months? Days?
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
They don’t screen people at bars and liquor stores for alcoholism. At most, they ban disruptive customers from coming in. They could do the same at food banks, but, like food, put limits on how much someone is allowed to take. Like one bottle of wine per person per week - I don’t think that’s excessive. It’s not going to be a problem for responsible adults and it might not even get a serious alcoholic drunk. This is all hypothetical of course. My opinion. The reason this concept is shocking to people, I think, is that they are used to thinking of “the poor” as people without their own agency who need to be managed because they must be the cause of their own poverty. “Why do poor people need to be managed? Well, because they’re poor people so they need to be managed of course.” Is how the redundant argument goes. As if it’s morality more than luck involved.

That attitude is pretty embedded in middle class mainstream thinking - and conservatives who think they always have the moral high ground would jump all over it if food banks gave out alcohol. We’d never hear the end of it. When really, most food bank consumers are just people like them who appreciate a drink once in a while. And of course, those who have kids, receive food for their kids - but if they had the money they could go down the street and buy a bottle of wine, no matter what their parenting abilities are like, well off or not - so the only difference is that they don’t have the money. It’s not a reflection of anything else.

It’s not going to happen, I realize, and I don’t think it should right now just because of the optics and politics, not because of morality.
Click to expand...
People who are trying to stay dry can avoid liquor stores, bars, invitations to drinking events. They are not at risk at the grocery store. But now, their food bank is offering it for free….
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
People who are trying to stay dry can avoid liquor stores, bars, invitations to drinking events. They are not at risk at the grocery store. But now, their food bank is offering it for free….
Click to expand...
Alcohol gets sold at grocery stores here. At convenience stores, too
 
Waterfall said:
Do you think there's a higher average of alcoholics using the foodbank than those who are not using the food bank?
The dynamics have changed and many families and working people are using food banks.
But I agree, to hand out booze at a foodbank would cause a scandal.
Click to expand...

The stress of feeding could cause one to drink ... in the depression folk smoked to depress hunger ... thus we are all in our cups due to the avarice regarding wealth and unsatisfied sole ... bottom lien?
 
Alcohol is like a vapor it spreads like nothing among us ... thus deductions about ignorant 'S ... they are integral ... included in the hole, absent thing ... what's Myst I see! Mystic is a place of departure the source of Moby Richard ... a name like Nich ode mus ... Ni qued noumena ... non cute?

There is created the atomic submarine ... it can bury itself in the pools ... like string beads Zae shells as hard Nuits ... NU witz?
 
Yes, alcohol is ubiquitous in Ontario now. Which is sometimes handy, when you don't have a car...

And the LCBO buys liquor on consignment, which means that the U.S. liquor in storage will not be paid for until it is sold. I suppose U.S. companies could ask for their liquor back, but I'm not sure who would be responsible for paying the shipping; the one requesting it returned, I would think.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Yes, alcohol is ubiquitous in Ontario now. Which is sometimes handy, when you don't have a car...

And the LCBO buys liquor on consignment, which means that the U.S. liquor in storage will not be paid for until it is sold. I suppose U.S. companies could ask for their liquor back, but I'm not sure who would be responsible for paying the shipping; the one requesting it returned, I would think.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I smell more work (and hours) for the lawyers there but hopefully it is covered in the contracts.
 
chansen said:
We'd be California North. Republicans would be swept out of the White House for decades.

Their only option would be to not give us representation, and in his mind, I'm sure Trump is thinking this. If he's thinking at all.
Click to expand...
Agree. We would be a territory like Puerto Rica ot DC.
 
chansen said:
We'd be California North. Republicans would be swept out of the White House for decades.

Their only option would be to not give us representation, and in his mind, I'm sure Trump is thinking this. If he's thinking at all.
Click to expand...

Is thinking the root cause of doubt ... causing emperors night mares and other dark horses ... some headless as anti tete 'd! Brutal leaders are baffled when facing peasants with a head on ... especially if a functioning part!

AH La tete ... what's doing up there when the populace would sooner elect a mule ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top