Welcome

Toronto city council has a simple decision to make next week – whether to approve three supervised injection sites. It should do the right thing and move ahead with a project that could save hundreds of lives.

There’s powerful evidence in favour of safe injection sites. The city’s medical officer of health has set out a compelling case that they save lives by giving drug users a clean place to inject drugs, using sterile needles, without fear of arrest. Trained nurses would be on hand to respond to overdoses by injecting users with naloxone, an antidote to excess opioids.

That alone would justify opening supervised sites. Deaths from overdose in Toronto are rising sharply; the latest statistics show they were up 22 per cent in 2014 to 252, from 206 the year before.

There’s a good chance that many of those people could have been saved if they had been kept alive long enough to receive effective treatment for their addiction.

A striking example came just on Monday, when the board of health heard about the fate of Brooklyn McNeil, a 22-year-old woman who had planned to speak to them in favour of supervised injection sites. Instead, board members learned that she had died from an overdose on June 22. Her silence spoke volumes.

Aside from saving lives, supervised sites should have a positive effect on the surrounding community. The reality is that many drug users will inject wherever they can in the absence of a safe, supervised place.

They will shoot up in parks and alleys – and often leave needles behind for children and others to find. Councillor Joe Cressy, chair of the city’s drug strategy implementation panel, has said that supervised sites “move drug use and needles from our streets, our parks, our backyards and our coffee shops.”

Most of the public seems to get that. Traditional opposition to supervised sites has faded in light of the evidence about saving lives and community safety. A Forum Research poll in March showed that support has actually grown in the past few years. Most of those surveyed – 57 per cent – agreed with having supervised injection sites downtown.

The city wants to approve three sites in existing health facilities – one at Bathurst and Queen Sts., one near Dundas Square, and one in South Riverdale. If council gives the go-ahead next week, the next step will be for the city to ask Ottawa for exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

If you’re thinking of not voting for President this time around or voting for a 3rd Party or writing in a candidate, please do the country a favor and ask yourself a few things.

1) Do you live in a state that is reliably blue?  If you live in Massachusetts and you can’t bear the though of pulling the lever for Hillary, I’m not going to argue you into the ground.  If you live in Florida and you can’t bear the though of pulling the lever for Hillary, then we have some work to do.

2) Do you honestly believe Donald Trump would be a better President than Hillary Clinton?  If yes, I don’t know how you arrived at that decision and there’s no discussion we can have that will sway you in the slightest.  We’re obviously working with the same set of facts, but if you interpret those facts to mean that the country would fare better under Trump in the White House than Clinton, then that’s the end of that road.  If you believe Clinton would be a better President than Trump…

3) Why aren’t you voting for her?  If it’s because you can’t bring yourself to vote for a woman with that many policy decisions you disagree with, then please realize you are essentially giving a vote to Trump.  Trump needs as many people like you to sit out as possible.  Republicans and Conservatives sitting out this election don’t bother me in the slightest, because that’s a net gain for our side.  Democrats and Liberals sitting out this election need to be fully aware of the potential impact of their decision, and if that’s the case…

It wasn’t an issue of the coffee being because no fucking shit coffee is hot, but McDonald’s had over heated their water to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s 121C. Not just hot, but really FUCKING hot. Your fancy Starbucks lattes are brewed to 150 degrees.

The 79 year old woman had this cup of 250F (121C) coffee between her legs when it spilled so 250F (121C) coffee spilled on her genitals

She got third degree burns…on her genitals. THIRD DEGREE.

She had to have skin grafts to repair the damage

When she sued McDonald’s, it wasn’t for millions of dollars, it was for $20,000 to cover hospital costs and court fees. 20-fucking-thousand.

It was the courts that awarded her the amount of money she got. Again, she only wanted hospital bills and court costs

McDonald’s changed their heating policy, but not before making her sign a gag order keeping her from talking about this case

9. The woman who was burned was not driving the car, she was a passenger.

10. The car was not in motion when she was burned. The car was parked so she could add cream and sugar.

When she was burned, she reached out to McDonald’s for them to cover her medical expenses. They sent her a coupon booklet as a big eff yuu.

She required skin grafts not just on her genitals but on her thighs, buttocks, and I think stomach. Like, it was a lot of skin grafts! And did you know that skin grafts don’t always take? She was very severely hurt by a product that McDonald’s knew for a FACT was dangerous.

Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

At that point, she had medical bills of over $11,000. She was anticipating more. She didn’t have much money.She just wanted McDonald’s to pay for the damage their coffee had done so that she could get medical treatment. Seems reasonable, right?

McDonald’s countered with an offer of $800, then turned down repeated requests to settle.  

And there weren’t several people who were burned before Liebeck. It was a LOT worse than that.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck[’]s. This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

So McDonald’s knew that their coffee was burning people–in some cases, causing third-degree burns. They knew it for TEN YEARS. And they did nothing about it.

Oh, and the jury award?

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds’ coffee sales.

:::

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 – or three times compensatory damages – even though the judge called McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and willful.

So all of the jokes about how rich Liebeck got off the settlement? Nope. McDonald’s ended up not even haping to pay most of it.

Nancy Tiano says her mother was “never happy about the incident” and that “the burns and court proceedings took their toll.” During her final years, Tiano says, her mother had no quality of life. The good news is that the settlement helped to ease the end of her life by paying for a live-in nurse. 

I am risking nothing

I AM SORRY FOLLOWERS, I LOVE MY MOMMY

Will not risk.