You all voted them in for some insane reason. The province deserves to deal with the jackasses they elected. It's time for voters to grow up and vote with their heads.

"Give me librium, or give me meth!"

Locke's appointment is on par for Campbell. He previously appointed a minister to take charge of farmed fish who just happened to be an investor in farmed fish operations. He needed a speaker of the house and so he appointed a clown. I'm sure Ms. Locke will offer many kind words to addicts and others who fall between the cracks, but I suspect they are no more the primary focus of Locke's portfolio than working families are the primary concern of Campbell, unless they have a few spare dollars to lose.

Yes, her addictions are to power and Buffets!

hmmm...I posted a comment here yesterday that, granted, was somewhat on the potentially incendiary side, but today? It's gone! So much for this e-rag thinking it's 'feisty'. Even left wingers get their wings clipped, it seems! Most disappointing...I may just reconsider being subscribed here...

AG: Probably this one will go as well, then. So here we have another opinion piece disguised as a news story, except this time it's not quoting unnamed sources; instead, the writer made NO calls! Didn't even call the subject of her article, much less get any corroborating voices. What the heck is going on here? This is not news.

MD, are you a Gordon Campbell troll? A BC Liberal supporter? Are you PolitenessMan? You cannot go to each story and declare them invalid because they do not meet your strict criteria of what is and is not news.

md, and Contumely: actually, my comments were more along the lines of what 'Herman' said above; quite the opposite of a criticism of the piece. What's interesting is that, even in a rag that purports to be a voice for the 'other guys', it appears no less censorious than 'the BIG guys'. I'm surprised, quite frankly, that Herman's comment hasn't been expunged yet...give it time, though!

Contumely: Oh, yes I can. And will. And don't fall into the trap of thinking that anyone who disagrees with what you mistakenly thinks passes for quality journalism has some kind of political agenda (unlike this site, of course). You couldn't possibly be further from the truth. As well, my comments were restricted to only two stories out of the many dozens available here, and they were criticized for perfectly valid reasons. If you don't agree with my comments then disagree with something intelligent to say. Civilized discourse and all that. Good day to you, sir.

You have disarmed me, MD. The story is still valid, and you do have a pleasant style. How does the journalistic standard that you are defending differ in Europe? If you can, tell us more about your metier. I am sorry if I insulted you.

Second hand smoking cancer research results were news more than 20 years ago. There are other real news stories about Brenda Locke's background that show that Barbara McLintock is not making all of this up. It makes no difference to me if this story appears under the NEWS or VIEWS rubrique. The story is good and valid. It could have been sexed up much more with some fresh quotes from Brenda Locke, but that would not have made much difference to the article.

Good evening to you!

Contumely: No insult, sir. I can't speak from any great depth off knowledge about Europe, however. And since you ask, I am in the business of journalism, I am definitely not setting myself up as an expert. The notions of journalistic rigour, fact-checking, multiple attributable sources, etcetera, are standards that are taught to all journalism students in North America. Somewhere along the way, though, some journalists lose those lessons or are encouraged to do so by lazy or unskilled editors (again, no pointed references here). I'm frankly surprised at both the reponse to my two postings and the degree of acceptance of this kind of reportage. As well, a story under a "news" slug should not be full of conjecture and hypothesis, and should not exhibit a complete unwillingness to contact the subject of the piece. Who is to say what her personal opinions are on the subjects of addiction and mental health? As far as I can see, dredging up a few quotes or paraphrases from years ago in response to a real question from a real reporter is not a responsible journalistic performance. In her former position as a spokesperson for pub owners, it would be her job to give public responses exactly as she did, To do otherwise, wnatever her personal feelings, would have, and should have, gotten her fired. My point being, no matter what my personal feelings about this appointment, the reporter should have done the absolute minimum and offered the story's subject the opportunity to comment on her viewpoints of the subject at hand. She should also, no matter the reporter's political stripe (objectivity seemingly haven fallen by the wayside these days), have been allowed to respond to the suggestion she encouraged, and will continue to encourage, addictions. That borders on defamation. Need I add, it seems that no governments really acknowledge that alcohol and tobacco addictions are on a par with other drug addictions—perhaps because they are so addicted themselves to the tax revenue. But enough on this; sorry if I have sent anyone to an early nap. Bon soir.

Pish, tosh, she's only trying to be a good ol' boy.

I didn't know there was a ministry of addictions. Maybe I can take my addictions to the ministry to see if they'll fund them and help me develop them. I'll do it right after I go to the ministry of silly walks.

Good point, md. Let's just ask this article to be a views category and then we can discuss the content rather than the journalistic merits of Barbara McLintock's story.

Why does the Gordon Campbell government waste a cabinet salary on someone who has no qualifications to do the job? This person is less than useless in the addiction portfolio. I can say this because all of what Barbara McLintock has written has been documented in several other stories which you can find with a google search.

nothing fishy here,you have a 77-2 government who squashes all reports that the media and opposition report.we all know gordo is the most honest premier we ever had.(sorry i made you all puke) according to a the Surrey Leader newspaper report from a few weeks ago it stated that Brenda locke often provided miss information when she was presenting smoking information at meetings.The lieberals now also watered down the "smoking area"rules were servers now have to serve patrons in a smoking area,before the rules stated you had a choice to work in that area or not.also now the smoking area doesn't require a door to keep the smoke contained in the smoking area it can now move around the bar.good story B.M.

Anyway, who says this mag has any obligation to be unbiased. They are quite upfront about their biases, I think. They call it point of view, and it differs from the other heavily biased news media in that they present it as such, instead of pretending to impartiality, which is not a quality any human has ever displayed, whatever their claims.

What this 'rag'does, and does pretty well, is present the other view, the deleted conclusions, the censored stories that the Aspers don't approve for your tender little ears.

No taxpayer funded propaganda here, only sincerely felt privately funded Canadian propaganda. Read both views, and be enlightened. Before these guys showed up, it was pretty hard to find this view anyplace. Keep it coming, sez me.

You gotta like the name, though, Ministry of Addictions. Now they can have the one that covers gambling be the Ministry of Vice and Impoverishment, the one that does employment standards can be the Ministry of Exploitation, Coercion and Child Labour, the one for welfare could become the Ministry for Poverty, Neglect and Disdain.

The Ministry of Silly Walks could build pedestrian trails.

I agree with Therzo We democratically elected these drunkards, buffoons and Howe st. clones. I had a hospital worker telling me before the last prov. election that "too many HEU were living off the Gravy train" now that her wages and benifits are cut she wants me to go around lighting my hair on fire because her Ox is being gored. Wake up!

Having followed the repartee between md and contumely, I would have to say that I believe that anyone who judged ANY news article to be an objective representation of facts would be misled. All that journalistic "method" can accomplish is to obscure (through its appeal to unimpeachable professionalism) the fact that all "news" is historically, socially and personally "situated". Why should we expect that Barbara McLintock would be any different. Besides, if we can accept the "situatedness" of journalism, then we can begin to look at is as a starting point for dialogue, rather than surrender our capacity for reason to some supposed truth-expert. Whether McLintock's article meets md's standards of good journalism or not, it raises some important questions for those of us affected by this appointment. Many of us are looking for politicians with commitment to the issues—not just skilled spokespersons who adapt quickly to new topics! Quoting md: "In her former position as a spokesperson for pub owners, it would be her job to give public responses exactly as she did, To do otherwise, whatever her personal feelings, would have, and should have, gotten her fired." I don't think you are wrong, md. It's just that I am not reassured by this fact. The question at the heart of McLintock's article (in my opinion) is Brenda Locke's commitment and the sincerity (or lack thereof) that she will bring to this new appointment.

If this was an NDP minister, it would be front page news in both the Sun and the Province and Vaughn Palmer would be on it like a dog on a bone. I'm not a great fan of the NDP, but the unfairness of it all makes me so damn mad!!

That's right you elected 'em and now you may have 'em for another four years. If you can't stand the Liberals and can't bring yourself to vote NDP, the alternative vote must go to the Greens. This will be a very important election, the results of which will send a clear message to Gordo on how voters feel about him and his policies.GR: The NDP have dug there own grave well in the last decade, it is about the one thing they have done well at, so don't feel sorry for them.

Poverty pimps are drooling about the number of "victims" created by Gordo's measures. Some killed themselves others are killing themselves slowly with addictions, despair, depression, working 60-80 hours a week to make 1/3 less their pay when Gordo came to power... Yah,you made your beds, now lay in it...

I did not vote Liberal as many did not but with the first past the post system still in force the tyranny of a majority will prevail. That is nice to get off my chest thanks,why not view the huge credentialized community as a pool of eager opportunists to offer suggestions as how to proceed. Examine other jurisdiction's approaches and find a model the Liberals can ape. texas comes to mind, no welfare cheques there no sirree, a card is used like adebt card to purchase foods, housing is rent direct only. No chance of cash paying for addictions, many liquor stores and bars have closed.Real estate value of bars has plummeted.Also the state advocate to large supermarkets that the buying power of thousands of clients can be theirs if a bulk price reduction for a volume of purchasers can be arranged. As one can imagine in B.C. there are upward pressure on prices in some food stuffs that leave the poorest unable to compete. BE LUCKY TAKE A GANDER YONDER

Seems to me if you didn't vote for campbellites you are now in open season target. But seriously why give cash to addicts as every income assistance receipient seem to notice, are the straight folk in their cars unobservant? Spare change please is all i ask! But i am the criminal ,see the trailer-unsafe streets act,at laest i donot enable the drug dealers and aid and abett a crime, yet. Everyone whom gives me money is now an accomplice in a crime,besides being an enabler, What fun!!!

Ah, just look at the size of her..and Rich Coleman..and some others...they'll choke on cholesterol soon (unfortunately, not soon enough!)