BubberMiley
-
Posts
11,324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BubberMiley
-
-
Yeah, minority governments would be great if they were a little more functional. If we had set dates for elections every four years and they were forced to just make it work, it would be perfect.
-
Some call it being chronic. I call it having an expensive, bad habit. But that's my problem, not society's.
-
I have enough personal experience with it and (and experience counts for a lot in this world). I'm not saying it's all that great, but I've spent most of the last 20 years smoking it everyday. It's terribly habit forming, but there are no side effects when I decide to stop for a few weeks--just a lot of cravings and some vivid dreams. Smoking is never good for you, but there's no evidence it causes cancer (that doesn't mean it doesn't though).
In terms of its strength, when it's a drug that is impossible to OD on, strength doesn't really make a difference. It just means you don't need to smoke as much to get high, which can only be good for your lungs.
It's not a hallucinogen (because you don't hallucinate), and you can trust me. I won't hurt you.
My main reasoning for decriminalization is that I would agree with anyone that no adolescent should have ready access (see terribly habit forming above). Criminalization opens the black market up right into our schools. That is bad. Talking about respect, I have a hard time respecting someone who supports the status quo knowing that it only makes it easier for dirtbags to sell it to kids.
Besides, just because you don't respect us, doesn't mean you have the right to criminalize us.
We ain't hurting you dude.
-
What's even-handed about potential jail time for possessing a habit-forming but relatively innocuous plant?
-
I'll debate you Sharkman. I'm not campaigning for anybody (even the maryjane party). Bet I'd have you swayed to decriminalization by the end too.
-
You just have to look at who's getting paid under the current system.
Liquor and tobacco companies would probably be happy to have a new vice to exploit, so I'm not too suspicious of them. Police chiefs, as I understand, have been in favour of decriminalization. The unions, however, have not because no union has ever been in favour of something that might jeopardize their bread and butter--and pot laws give cops work.
-
My point is that it's not really about the persecution of pot smokers. It's about maintaining the black market economy to facilitate organized crime.
-
Actually, Sharkman, I was the one who said Harper wants the status quo. I think the whole 5%/95% argument is completely irrelevant. Sure maybe the 5% are really really bad guys, but if they're so bad, let's lock them up for the really bad things they do, not for growing plants.
-
Sharkman wonders what's in my basement; I wonder why he supports the status quo.
-
Someboday's making money. Lots of it. And tax-free too. It's all under the table of course, so who's to say where it's going. My point is that anyone who fights to maintain that system must have an interest in that system.
-
The only reason any party would defend the status quo is they have a stake in the economy that feeds off it. Think about it. A system where kids get unfettered access to the drug (ask any junior high student what's easier to for them to buy: pot or alcohol? The answer has been pot for the past 30 years) and where the black market economy is likely in the billions, why would anyone who really has the best interests of kids at heart be opposed to regulation and decriminalization? Why would they be opposed to cutting the organized crime monopoly and allowing citizens to have a few plants for personal use? Because they're making money.
-
Nothing in my basement but a lot of crap for a garage sale next spring, Sharkman.
Nonetheless, I've always felt strongly that the only reason those plants are illegal is to maintain the black market that feeds all those powers-what-be. If Mr. averagejoe were allowed a plant or two in his basement for personal use, those asian gangs would lose a major revenue source. If everything was legal and above board, we could also prevent the fire hazards etc. that exist out there now.
Of course, the CPC would never agree to that. Makes you wonder who's in bed with organized crime.
-
Leafless, I've never voted Liberal in my life, so I doubt I would be one to generate Liberal propaganda. My feelings about your contempt disguised as moral superiority goes beyond party lines.
And you can't tell me the general population had a clue about the constitution when they voted on Charlottetown. Nobody is ever interested enough in constitutional issues to make an informed decision. That's why I'm opposed to referenda in general. They just voted no because Mulroney had a 12% approval rating and they wanted to vote against anything he wanted.
-
What numbers? The 40% grow-op convictions? Yeah, that sounds high to me too, considering a lot of them are just people minding their own business growing an inoccuous plant in their basement.
-
Why no mention of his main point, permanent criminal records, sharkman?
-
No, Leafless. I don't support the Liberal party, but my point was, people like you set the Conservative movement back because no one wants to be associated with intolerant, self-righteous people who think God's on their side and they have moral authority, when really they're just self-serving and close-minded and can't mind their own business.
And regarding referenda, I think the Charlottetown Accord proved that people are way too disinterested to ever be able to provide an informed judgement. They just voted against it because they were mad about the GST. People elect politicians they agree with. If they don't agree with them, they should elect someone else four years later. Period.
-
It IS time to put it to rest. We already dealt with that issue in the last election. There's been very little new info come to light since then. Canadians have moved on.
-
Canada isn't helping to "promote democracy" because Canada tries to avoid committing war crimes. History never looks fondly on those who facilitate them.
-
I think people like Leafless are hampering the efforts of the Conservative party more than anyone.
-
You wrote-
This is a matter of how you view SSM and it's divisive nature to destroy existing beliefs associated with Christianity, morals and the teachings of two completely different lifestyles, one adhering to traditonal heterosexuals, the one all of society is based on.
The other homosexuality bears no resemblence and conflicts with Christianity, morals and perverse sexual relationship that could include the raising of children affecting beliefs and teachings of children raised by heterosexuals.
I don't believe there is any discrimination involved at all in this matter as this is not against the individual homosexual but about their conflicting lifestyle imposed on the majority.
Okay, for starters, who cares what so-called christians think about homosexuality? Last I checked there was a separation between church and state. I don't want people who call themselves christian just so they can be self-righteous dictating how our society should be shaped.
Secondly, since when does homosexuality result in raising children? Last I checked, that still didn't compute biologically. I think that not allowing SSM might force gay people into heterosexual marriages (it certainly has in the past), therefore resulting (omigod) in gay people raising kids.
And lastly, don't worry leafless, nobody's forcing their lifestyle on you. You won't need to marry someone of your own sex. You'll just have to learn to MYOB.
-
What difference does it make what percentage of the population they are? Even if it were .0001%, that wouldn't justify letting people who can't mind their own business to continue to discriminate against them by not allowing SSM.
-
Has there been any statement by the Conservative Party on what they would do in Iraq if elected? Would Canada join our allies in the coalition of the willing?
-
It just goes to show we need more money into transfer payments. It's not like Albertans deserve that money anymore than a Manitoban. It's CANADIAN land, therefore Canadian oil.
-
If you're an Albertan before you're Canadian, I can see why you would be so opposed to equalization and NEP. But if you're Canadian first, Canada's resources are Canada's resources. Even the U.S. has a strong central government. Check out their smooth, creamy Interstates.
Decriminalization vs. Criminalization
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I think that topic was ignored, for the most part, because banning handguns is so impossible it's a concept barely worth responding to. Sure, if handguns could be banned, most sane people (which excludes most CPC supporters) would be jumping all over it. But the gun control legislation (and drug control legislation) has shown that laws don't work at banning things; they just change the method of their distribution. So CPCers who wail about the expense and ineffectiveness of gun laws hypocritically are silent when it comes to the expense and ineffectiveness of drug laws.