Boges

I'm far more interested in the hot chick that "allegedly" threw juice in Ford's face and is being charged with assault. Her lawyer released a statement yesterday. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/woman-accused-juice-assault-mayor-rob-ford-hires-203040207.html The person accused of a crime is all pissy the mayor commented on the incident during his radio show the next day, even reports of the incident were in all the papers. It appears that they look forward to putting the mayor on the stand and trying to question his credibility. "Well Mr. Mayor, you were convicted for conflict of interest and drug possession, how can you be sure the defendant actually threw a liquid into your face?"

That's very unlikely in Canada at this point.

Talk about Nanny State!!! http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1185693/camh-study-says-ontario-can-improve-alcohol-policy There is increasing demand for legalization of cannabis but with an already legalized drug, public health officials want adults treated like children. Do people that support looser drug laws think regulations like these are anywhere close to being productive? Ontario will never see legalization of cannabis for recreational use if the people behind this report have their say.

I'm not going to defend this PMO staffer, Erica Meekes, for what she did. The information she passed forward was irrelevant anyway it was done before JT was even an MP. She'll probably be thrown to the wolves for this. Proof that the PM ordered her to do this still needs to be provided for this to be a scandal Doesn't change the fact that the optics of what JT does is bad.

Or saying the Working Families Coalition is funded by teachers unions. Here are some of the things teachers unions have said about the current Liberal Government. Then list some of the nasty things they said about the Liberals when they had a temper tantrum last summer over Bill 115 trying to win the K-Dub seat. Then say "Would you vote for a party, who's supporters don't even like them?"

Exactly. It doesn't matter who exposed his practice of charging charities for speaking. If people thought there was no problem with a sitting politician doing that then JT would have felt no need to pledge to repay the charities.

Hey why not just go the Warren Kinsella route and imply that the Ontario Liberal e-mail deleting scandal is a conservative plot to get people to forget about Rob Ford's Crack Smoking video that no one has and the PMO Chief of Staff that paid Mike Duffy off. Even if the Conservatives were behind exposing the fact that JT charges charities for public speaking, it doesn't change the optics. But of course there's no evidence that they are behind it.

If all this was just a Conservative plot to make JT look bad then why would he come out Sunday saying he would pay back charities he talked to? Will he come out accusing the CPC is trying to smear his good name now? Taking back his pledge to repay Grace because a Conservative is involved.

Are you suggesting a loyal CPC member deliberately invited JT to a charity event paying him $20,000 knowing it would fail so it would make him look bad?

Would you be comfortable having someone high on marijuana operating heavy machinery anywhere near you? I'm sure if there were multiple generations where smoking cannabis inside indoor public places were common, I'm sure you'd see figures associated with second-hand smoke there as well. Currently in much of the western world smoking in public places is banned so, I'll assume you'd see instances of second-hand smoke greatly reduced. I never said banning cannabis was correct. But before completely legalizing it, there should be some form of quick testing available to law enforcement so that using it, in excess, while doing technical tasks can be made illegal and enforceable. That's all I'm saying, tobacco and alcohol are used responsibly by a great majority of people. So to say those drugs are worse than cannabis is of folly IMHO. These types of drugs can all be used responsibly. My only concern with cannabis is that it's such a potent drug that a high level of impairment is almost always the result of it's consumption. That comes with a lot of risk that needs to be highly regulated. Whereas use of tobacco and alcohol can be used in low doses where the level of impairment isn't nearly as high. Smoking one cigarette is rather harmless. Smoking one joint will make most people extremely impaired comparable to being extremely intoxicated with alcohol.

I must say, JT does provide some excellent attack ad fodder. He's going to make it really easy for the CPC.

6 people died two weeks ago in a building collapse in Philly. The guy demolishing the building was high on weed. So I call BS. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/inspector-suicide-philadelphia-building-collapse_n_3434197.html Do people that smoke cigarettes reach an impairment that can hurt people? All drugs have their risks. Abusing alcohol and tobacco can cause a great deal of harm. Same with unhealthy foods. Marijuana is no different, it can be used responsibly. But it's not the type of drug people can use and do normal day-to-day stuff functionally. So there are serious risk associated with its use even if the long-term health effects and instances of addiction are far less.

There were F-35s in the new Man of Steel movie. General Zod pwned them.

I guess if Assad is using chemical weapons against his own people, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume he'll use it against Israel or Saudi Arabia so that's why the West may feel compelled to step in. Not saying I agree, but it's a plausible reason.

That incident will probably finally get him to hire a security detail.

That's because more people use tobacco and alcohol, there's a far greater sample size to work with. The healthcare costs for alcohol and tobacco are usually due to decades of chronic abuse. I don't think we have the same figures in regards to pot use. I'm sure if someone smokes pot every day for decades, there'd be some health affects associated with that. Also the bar fight analogy is a weird one. I've never felt the need to fight when drunk. Alcohol removes inhibitions, so if you're the type of person that loses your temper quickly or are just a jerk perhaps getting drunk makes you more likely to fight. There are also happy drunks that become very lovable and sexually forward when drunk. As I said earlier in the thread, pot might be safer in regards to abuse (less addictive and such). But people can consume alcohol and tobacco with very little impairment. Not so with pot. You don't have to consume very much weed to be quite impaired. That's why a lot of people like it. There's also no hangover the next day and makes you sleep well. Oh and there's the associated munchies.

Good Ezra Levant column about Syria http://ezralevant.com/2013/06/levant-fools-errand.html

What the PCs need to do is getting Big Oil behind them I suppose. It'll be interesting to see how the WFC attack the Tories in the next election. They came out in full force against the Liberals in a Bi election in K-Dub. I believe there's also a court case pending on the implementation of Bill 115. They stand to look a bit hypocritical if they start campaigning for the Liberals now.

Rob Ford interfered with some innocent person trying to dispose of a drink this weekend. The tyrant got the lady charged with assault too. When will this monster be stopped!!!! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/06/16/toronto-rob-ford-drink-hurt.html

Again I've said I support decriminalization or legalization. BUT this whole alcohol and tobacco are worse argument is silly, people need to get off that talking point.

That certainly gave this story fuel for a while. The first week he didn't comment much at all. He said it was because of his legal council. And suing media organizations for never actually saying he smoked crack would prove to be difficult. It's all about these unnamed sources who no one knows.

Only after he was called on it. He should have realized the optics were bad from the start. Which goes to the OP that this is an example of bad judgement by him.

Why is the choice always union jobs with unrealistic benefits or minimum wage jobs with none? Most people are somewhere in between. What bothers me about this deal is the 2% "catchup". At the beginning of the economic meltdown this government offered 12% over 4 years. All the other unions took it, but this union, ETFO, turned it down. Wynne, the education minister at the time, called their bluff and they had to settle for 10%. This deal rewards them retroactively for their bully tactics.

You could already argue the regional differences between the Prairie provinces and BC. Ontario is a province of 2 or 3 distinct regions.