CanucksCorner.com Forums

Topper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 7:02 pm Tell me how organizing several smaller contractors working independently of various parts of the project will come together?

Who's the overall project manager? The government?

Topper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 7:02 pm Current plan is to divide the work between several small contracts allowing local firm (with NDP friendly management no doubt) to bid on smaller portions of the project.

Tell me how organizing several smaller contractors working independently of various parts of the project will come together?

Poorly, and expensively. Have you ever noticed that if there is a project that is 100% privatly funded, and someone fucks up, they go to jail, or pay some huge fines. But, when there is a project funded by the governmment, regardless of who fucks up, there is never any serious accountability and everything is hidden behind an NDA. I expect a lot of waste, and a lot of NDAs on this project.

I'll take the Uruguay executive slush fund banking contact if it hasn't already been awarded to a private Richmond casino banking group.

Is $20B the value of 30 pieces of silver?

Another no surprise court ruling today, this time from the BC Courts.

David Eby's forced incarceration and rehab of drug addicts is unconstitutional.

Consent is the issue, though drug addicts, they may still have the mental capacity for making consent decisions and that needs to be determined first.

Topper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2026 4:28 pm Another no surprise court ruling today, this time from the BC Courts.

David Eby's forced incarceration and rehab of drug addicts is unconstitutional.

Consent is the issue, though drug addicts, they may still have the mental capacity for making consent decisions and that needs to be determined first.

I find this very comical.

I have to call and speak with a physician any time a drug addict refuses care because they are legally considered to be of questionable capacity for making decisions.

Primary care vs long term care

Mëds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2026 10:51 pm I have to call and speak with a physician any time a drug addict refuses care because they are legally considered to be of questionable capacity for making decisions.

Interesting. I recently reconnected with a uni friend who I found out is on medication to treat his bipolar disorder. He's required to check in and take his Mëds under supervision every day or be taken off the street. He describes it as overreach by the physician and how his rights are being violated. He told me his backstory but there are a lot of gaps. There's more to it than he's letting on.

I assume physicians are empowered to make these decisions when, in the moment, somebody is endangering themselves or others (my friend, I believe, was a case of the latter). Long-term drug use however is a personal choice that I doubt will ever be enough reason to take away someone's rights.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 6:53 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2026 10:51 pm I have to call and speak with a physician any time a drug addict refuses care because they are legally considered to be of questionable capacity for making decisions.

I assume physicians are empowered to make these decisions when, in the moment, somebody is endangering themselves or others (my friend, I believe, was a case of the latter). Long-term drug use however is a personal choice that I doubt will ever be enough reason to take away someone's rights.

Yes. It goes to assessing a person’s capacity to understand the risks of what they are choosing, and trying to determine if their decision constitutes a risk to themselves or others. If it does, then police apprehend them under section 28 of the Mental Health Act.

One of the criteria considered is: Would a rationale individual be making this choice?

If a person is competent to refuse treatment, are they also competent to know they are committing crimes?

The question seems so obvious, and it’s answer equally so…..which is why lawmakers don’t like it being asked.

Mëds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2026 10:51 pm

Topper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2026 4:28 pm Another no surprise court ruling today, this time from the BC Courts.

David Eby's forced incarceration and rehab of drug addicts is unconstitutional.

Consent is the issue, though drug addicts, they may still have the mental capacity for making consent decisions and that needs to be determined first.

I find this very comical.

I have to call and speak with a physician any time a drug addict refuses care judge or lawyer speaks because they are legally considered to be of questionable capacity for making decisions.

Sadly, my version is pretty accurate too