Morning Brew: August 22nd

Or, from the horse's mouth: Druggies taking the government to court is just a sign of the times. "To have a situation where a group representing addicts, who often display little respect for the law or the courts, is now turning to these very institutions to claim a right to use illegal drugs is complete madness." Do I even need to respond? Maybe after the break I'll do a little no-spin zone monologue.

Soaring B.C. makes Ontario look pallid. "In Vancouver these days, the beautiful people seem to outnumber the poor as the city on the Pacific runs with cash, thanks to the boom associated with the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and to the worldwide zeal for the kinds of commodities that British Columbia provides". That's an awesome measure of success.

Meanwhile Mayor, faith groups to discuss aid rules. Dude, you are not Schwarzenegger, I mean, I know you met the guy, but stop acting like a 9 year old.

The buses needed 10 years ago have arrived.

Methane dispute reignites in B.C..

photo by munzz in the beyond robson flickr pool.

"In the latest twist from the "whodathunkit department," advocates for Vancouver's so-called safe injection site are taking the government to court to pre-empt any decision to permanently close Insite, the only such facility in the country". Why is it, that when an ideology, such as yours, is tested, or even exposed, you turn to such spiteful vitriol? You essentially limit your intellect to a comic strip; bizzaro. Yeah dude, super weird that the same thing we've been trying for fucking centuries fails again, and some scientists come up with a medical approach to tackling this problem, as part of a four fold program to tackle the epidemic. So why then sir, does ideology trump science? "With a handful of preliminary studies and anecdotal testimonials from people who rarely know what day it is, the "experts" have fawned over the injection-site model as though it were some sacred institution". Dr. Stephen Hwang. Hwang, a research scientist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, published a commentary in the Open Medicine journal and was endorsed by 130 of Canada's top researchers and physicians. Why do you hate empirical objectivity so much? Or are you afraid of its lack of dogmatic soul, its refusal to form an opinion on its very own existence, afraid that you'll no longer be able to control the hoi polloi with your superstition and knee-jerk, reactionary punditry?