Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

GoCanucks16

Members
  • Content Count

    2,239
  • Joined

Community Reputation

2,089 Gaming the system

About GoCanucks16

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

1,560 profile views
  1. s. 173(1) is of course governed by/pursuant to the definition of "public place" outlined in s. 150, which is as follows: I have already determined through research that "access" in this context means physical and not merely visual access, or at least I am reasonably sure of this. Now, clearly a private vehicle is not somewhere the general public has access to by right nor invitation. But I am curious if there's a weird twist of logic somewhere that considers vehicles in public places to be public places themselves despite this not being readily apparent in a s
  2. Mostly downtown Vancouver. In the earlier stages of my homelessness I stayed primarily in shelters and didn't sleep out, but I grew to dislike them and started spending the night outside on sidewalks. VGH, St. Paul's, Lions Gate, others I can't remember.
  3. Water and washrooms are abundant. Nobody has trouble finding those things in, e.g., Vancouver. More public washrooms would be beneficial, but it's hardly a problem. (Maybe it's worse with COVID or for diabetics, but I didn't have any real issue here.) What's wrong with bonfires? You won't get in a fight unless you're picking one out. Overdoses happen to hard drug users. Not all homeless people use drugs, let alone stuff like fent, and not all drug users are homeless. If you're a drug user with housing, you're probably more likely to experience death from overdose as you'r
  4. I've been homeless before and have spent extensive time in hospitals. I'm speaking from a point of knowing how absolutely barbaric it is to keep people in those places. I - and most people - would rather live shortly and well than long and in a bad way.
  5. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/this-map-shows-where-vancouver-residents-can-get-free-and-low-cost-food-1.4941163 There are other places/programs not listed here as well. We would be hearing about deaths from malnutrition if people could not find sustenance on the streets. Everyone spends their time differently.
  6. One still has their needs met if they're on the street in BC. Nobody starves.
  7. Psychosis is not a predictor of violence, though - just that someone is psychotic does not mean they are going to go out and kill someone. And just that things are the way they are does not mean they should be.
  8. Yes, uttering threats is a thing. I have talked about that. It is a legal issue at that point and not a medical one. Violent behaviour is also a legal issue and does not need to be pathologized. If it's ever at the point where something needs to be done to keep society safe, it's ALREADY criminal, not medical. Until there is criminal basis on which to lock someone away, that person should not be locked away. A doctor having a hunch that someone poses a danger is worthless unless that person has made threats, intimidated people, built a bomb, etc.; that is, until there's concrete ev
  9. They really do not. And it does not matter until the individual has committed an offence, at which point they can go to jail.
  10. Yes? I don't see how it affects my argument? Obviously criminal offences need to be handled, and it's possible to prove things like conspiracy, etc.? What I'm against is a purely medical view - i.e a doctor's opinion - of an individual mandating that they be placed in hospital settings?
×
×
  • Create New...