ninjandrew

I didnt make anything up. If you read his full post, including his quote, it seems he's suggesting that some scientific information states more prisons and longer sentences wont do anything. Im not trying to be a jerk. Im just hoping its true.

Can you expand on that? I like the idea that less prisons and shorter sentences could be more beneficial, if thats what youre suggesting.

Maybe the people they tend to poll just dont know what theyre talking about.

Jack already said that, as the official opp., he has no intention of merging with the Liberals.

Than why dont you do like everyone else does and ignore them? I dont think Ive ever even found any news about those guys unless I was looking for it specifically. Besides, they werent even on the ballot.

From the Globe and Mail:

As far as I know the need to get high doesnt come until youve been using an addictive drug and become dependent on it. Other reasons might be peer pressure, poor parenting, naivety/immaturity regarding seriousness of the drug and being forced to do them.

Well, yeah. Its an adventure, like backpacking through South America. I more or less agree, though I dont think things are as black and white as drug addicts are scum and deserve nothing.

I think the circumstances of his particular thrill seeking exclude him from the typical category of thrill seeker.

I dont get it. Life sentences for all felonies? What about this guy not getting a second chance?

Not to mention funds terrorism. He's probably some tree planting granola boy that thought he'd be safe so long as he kept his energy positive and his chakras aligned. Either way, good luck to him.

Well thats what I mean by come and go as they please. They dont have to come back.

Mental institute doesn't necessarily mean lock up. Most if not all of them allow some patients to come and go as they please.

From the Globe and Mail: Certainly a more positive and less dramatic way to look at it.

In a manner of speaking, but historically extinction is a natural process that would occur without morons creating it, just nature. So some extinction is fine (but still kinda sad), but other extinction is the result of brainless ignorance. If you ever watch any Discovery documentaries youll be aware of them tracking an animal dying of dehydration/starvation or something, than just letting it die. Its just the order of things. SO. As much as I like nature, I also think it's important for us to distinguish between things that can be prevented/remedied from things that SHOULD be prevented/remedied. That way we're minimizing our impact on the environment, without wasting money interfering with the natural order of things (more than we need to). Also, why did carbon emissions take all the attention away from all the other emissions? Like the ones that mess people up. On the east side of Edmonton is the eastend industrial area. East of that is Sherwood Park where all the emissions are blown, and which also happens to have the most cases of asthma in at least the province. Oh yes. Than theres the case of the oil sands poisoning the whole population of Ft. Chipewyan, which has the most cases of stomach cancer in Canada.

I'll side with that. In forestry, people start up their own consulting companies all the time. I've seen them with as little as a few employees all the way up to, if theyre successful enough, and with time, thousands of employees!

I dont understand, what was the owner going to do? And are you saying they were getting too greedy?

I'd like to hear an argument to Rick and Topaz, because I share their point of view.

Are you aware that a lot of cases of substance abuse stem from child abuse, less obvious mental illnesses and syndromes, and/or being born and raised in squalid, poverty stricken communities?

For the love of God, please tell me you're not trying to say Canadians playing hockey is Americanization. EDIT: or being American for that matter.

Derek L, what are you getting at?? It sounds like you're under the impression that everyone should get/create a job that creates jobs, or something... I'm just trying to figure out what your argument is.

That reminds me of something else that differentiates Quebec from other provinces: They seem to think that they are the only ones different from everyone else, and that it warrants sovereignty.

Does having a leader somehow hinder fund raising?

When abouts are they going to get around to getting a new leader anyway?

So what would each party likely do to remedy this? Sorry if I ask too many questions, I like to learn.