Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Drug dealers oppose improvements to Main and Hastings



We’ve talked about how mixed-use development projects in East Vancouver are such a positive thing and how extremists are trying to oppose the projects because they might interfere with their drug sales. Well these same spoilt brats are still trying to hold the city hostage and prevent the biggest step forward this city has ever seen at Main and Hastings.

Now the brats are targeting the developer. When will their bullying end? Drug-user rights activists oppose the step forward because it will disrupt the area’s drug market and displace impoverished residents. You hear that? The drug dealers are complaining it will disrupt their business which is a good thing. They don’t care about the poor and the homeless in East Van. They profit from the exploitation and torture of the drug addicted homeless in East Vancouver.

This project will contain 79 low income rental units that currently don’t exist as well as 19 social housing units that don’t exist. Here’s the kicker – because it’s mixed development and other residents will be paying full rent, these low rent units are in a wonderful new building instead of a disgusting slum lord mansion. So if anyone really cares about the poor and homeless in the area they will support this social housing initiative. Only the drug dealers are opposing it and it’s about time they be evicted instead of holding the city hostage. Drug-user rights activists? Only in Canada. These are drug dealers people. Vandu is used as a drop off for drug dealers. That’s a conflict of interest.

16 comments:

  1. Some goof named mcwhirter has been charged with lighting that kid in k-town on fire.Any relation to the other goof named mcwhirter that runs with I.S.?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the tip. Nothing in the court registry yet but I'll keep my eyes open. Keep me posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Joshua McWhirter. I’m not sure if the maggot Donnie has any brothers or cousins named Josh. Please advise.

      Delete
  3. The Downtown Eastside really astounds me. For a city of just 2.2 million?, it has among the highest concentrations of drug addicts in North America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True and that makes someone a lot of money.

      Delete
  4. Nobody on the blog knows the Corner like myself, trust me, although I haven't been down there for about five months.

    There's always a few cartel guys there, only they can sell down there, but otherwise it's pretty much neutral territory; the gangs seem to have agreed to leave it open-city there.

    But whatever, anything that they do to drive the drug-trade out of the Corner; believe me, you're merely squeezing the balloon, the various parts (pills, coke, down) will simply re-appear a block away, right...? The trade will break down; with one block for pills, one for down, etc...And if you squeezed on that block, they will just move two blocks. It will NOT change, because it's called capitalism, folks, there's far too much cash to be made selling these drugs on the side-walk to stop the trade.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The point is, doing something is better than doing nothing. The New York model was successful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AK: "The New York model was successful."

    Yes, you're right in the end. Of course things must be done, and not sit back.

    BTW, with twenty school-children dead today in the USA; do you think some form of gun-control there is a good idea?

    Or, with 300 million guns out there (in the US community) already, is it too late for such measures?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are quite right that arresting drug dealers at Main and Hastings will just move them somewhere else but it gets the ball rolling like seizing a Hells Angels clubhouse. Seizing a clubhouse isn’t going to stop their drug trafficking network. It will however, stop them from being so publically arrogant about it. Keeping them on the move will also reduce their business which is a moral duty we have to society. New York still has drug problems. But they did clean up East 42nd street which was just like Main and Hastings. The crime that went to other areas became easier to manage and wasn’t as bad as the Deuce was.

    The recent shooting in the States is heart wrenching. I’m waiting to hear on a possible motive other than being simply insane. The guy shot his mother then started shooting kids at a school his mother went to. Gun control is a sensitive issue. There are concerns about having guns so accessible and there are concerns about making them not accessible. I personally don’t like it when kids have access to guns but I also don’t like it when only criminals have access to guns either. I’m really not sure what the answer is. These Columbine like shootings are a real concern.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's something to consider about stopping rampage shootings.....

    "In incidents where the police did the stopping, an average of 14.3 people died. In incidents where civilians stopped the shooting, an average of 2.3 people died. Even more interesting is that most of the civilians were unarmed when they attacked the shooter."

    And this.......

    "According to a report at nbcnews.com Adam Lanza, who murdered twenty children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School yesterday, had tried to buy a rifle at a Dick’s Sporting Good store on Tuesday. “Adam Lanza, 20, went to a Dick’s Sporting Goods store in Danbury, Conn., on Tuesday to buy the weapon, but was turned down because he didn’t want to undergo a background check or abide by the state’s waiting period for gun sales, the officials said.”

    ReplyDelete
  9. Which goes to show that people aren't going to commit a crime with a registered gun unless they plan on committing suicide as well. Which makes the whole idea of criminals being the only one with guns concerning. I know it sounds crazy but I believe in Houston they discussed the possibility of giving teachers handguns in the event of another Columbine massacre. It sounds bizarre but in this case that would have saved lives.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm sure that in any school you could find a couple of teachers willing to go take a training course and get a concealed carry permit. Teachers are there every day, the police only come when you call them. When seconds count, they are only minutes away. And that goes for any situation where you need help. People need to wake up and take responsibility for their own safety. And they need to elect politicians who don't think the average citizen has less of a right to effective protection than politicians do with their police bodyguard details.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Even if a few teachers were trained and they had a few small safes on site when a gun could be locked up in case of an emergency like a fire extinguisher. As long as teachers didn't start threatening to shoot students and students didn't start breaking into the safes and stealing the guns. I don't like the idea of guns being within reach of kids but kids at school should be protected.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The safe thing is a 'No-Go" Would-be mass shooters/other criminals with any connection to the school will know about it, and the locations of them. As you correctly observe this will make them a target for theft.

    Generally, handguns are much less powerful than long guns. Their advantage is that they are easily carried. This means they can be there exactly when needed most. You cannot make appointments for these situations and you will be lucky if you have more than a few seconds notice of what is going down. Running for a safe is a non-starter.

    Quite frankly this would be a multi-million dollar wrongful death suit waiting to happen, not only with people who might be killed/injured with a gun stolen from a safe, but by the survivors of anyone who dies in a mass shooting claiming the method chosen to address the problem should have been known to be deficient. And anyone who would be considered a SME would testify to that in court. Easy call.

    It takes a shooter to neutralize a shooter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. One understands that the USA is considering having armed Police @ schools...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I do understand this, I'm never a fan of expanding the role of the state in "guaranteeing your security". First of all, they really can't. They act like they can, but when you are victimized by a criminal, are you allowed to sue and receive damages for the Police's failure to protect you? No. It has been ruled by the Supreme Courts of both Canada and the USA that they cannot be held liable for such "failures". Nice work if you can get it. :tongueincheek:

      And yet they don't want people to responsible for their own self defense in other than toothless name. For if you are allowed to protect yourself, then it gives the lie to the lie that they can do it for you, else why would you pay them to do so and surrender your own right to use of force, ceding it to the government and the Police?

      In the situation we are talking about, guess who an Active Shooter targets first? That's right, the school police officer. More than one? Wow, any idea what a MASSIVE increase in the numbers of Police officers that will bring? At every school in the country? Any idea how much money that will cost?

      Better to have any teacher who wishes to do so sent through a training course and issued a concealed carry permit, as well as an exemption from the laws which specifically prohibit carry of firearms on school grounds everywhere that already issues such permits.

      Anyone notice that these wacko's always seem to choose a designated "gun free zone" such as a school for their rampages? Maybe they're not so wacko after all, right? After all they know enough to go after a soft target with hundreds of unarmed children where adults are prohibited from possessing a gun. Sounds like a thought process to me, albeit a disturbing one.

      Delete