normanchateau

Precisely the point I was hoping to make when I started this thread.

Heresy! Don't you know that when the Liberals or NDP promise to spend billions these are referred to as bribes? However, when Harper promises to shovel billions off the back of the truck (10 billion alone for child care I believe), this must be referred to as vision, clever ideas, or simply "the campaign platform." It's easy to forget this when one is morally inferior as most Liberal and NDP supporters appear to be.

Ontarians? Even Westerners now support Martin over Harper according to the December 8th SES poll. And so do Atlantic Canadians. And in Quebec, while the BQ is in first place, at least three times as many Quebecers support Martin as Harper. Even though Martin now leads Harper in ALL regions of the country, this should not be taken as an endorsement of Martin. Rather, it's the non-endorsement and perhaps even outright rejection of Harper from coast to coast.

Okay, you know what, it's not that innocuous. And it's not that safe. It's a helluva lot stronger than it was when the flower children were puffing away. And I don't trust anyone who feels the need to use hallucinagens. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where on earth did you get the idea that marijuana is a hallucinogen? LSD is a hallucinogen. Peyote is a hallucinogen. Psilocybin is a hallucinogen. Marijuana is not. Why is it that people who make comments like it's not that safe appear to lack depth of knowledge on the topic? Sure, it's not that safe relative to water, milk or gatorade. But it's safer than alcohol and cigarettes both of which are deemed worthy of outright legalization, never mind decriminalization. Is it rational to legalize substances like alcohol and cigarettes while criminalizing less harmful substances like marijuana? Why would Stephen Harper be telling Canadians in a middle of an election that he wants to keep marijuana criminalized when such a position is irrational? Does he actually think marijuana is more harmful thann hand guns, the topic of this thread which, unfortunately, most people have ignored.

Whether the media like them or not, Conservatives have been elected in the past...John Diefenbaker, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney. Canadians will vote for a Conservative despite the media but they won't vote for a social conservative. Here's my prediction. Following the next election, Harper will resign or CPC will dump him and replace him with a fiscal conservative who is not also a social conservative. That person will go on to become Prime Minister of Canada. People are tired of the Liberals, myself included, but not so tired of them that they want Stephen Harper.

Those 12/08/2005 polls were sweet. How could I not notice?

Of course he's a fiscal conservative but that does not preclude him also being a social conservative. The two forms of conservatism are not mutually exclusive. If Harper is not a social conservative relative to other CPC members despite his opposition to decriminalization, opposition to SSM, etc., this means that either: (1) he is merely pretending to be a social conservative but is far more liberal (2) the rest of the party, or some portion thereof, is even more conservative than Harper (3) he has been forced to declare socially conservative views against his own free will (4) his opposition to marijuana decriminalization, SSM, etc., is based not on social conservatism but on unstated and secret (and possibly irrational in the case of the former) reasons which he's chosen not to share with the general public Of course there may also be other reasons but I've yet to hear them.

SES has now released their 12/08/2005 poll results. Here they are: Liberals 41% CPC 26% NDP 18% BQ 11% As I mentioned earlier, Chretien captured 172 seats when he reached 41% in the polls. And here are the SES 12/08/2005 numbers for Ontario: Liberals 48% CPC 28% NDP 20% Green 5% And here are the SES 12/08/2005 numbers for Western Canada, Alberta included: Liberals 37% CPC 34% NDP 25% Green 5% There is now NO region of Canada in which Harper is in the lead. I can see only one way in which CPC can get Harper to turn this campaign around. Muzzle him. The less of his personal views he blurts out, the better he'll do.

Thanks for clarifying the CPC view that it's the dumb and ignorant who vote Liberal. It's good to know that CPC supporters are far more clever, not to mention morally superior , than the average Canadian who stupidly thinks that Stephen Harper is a social conservative. There's certainly no evidence to support that idea.

Amazing if not hilarious that you know how I feel.

BubberMiley: I'll let you in on a secret (I won't divulge my source ). Many of those on these discussion boards who are now defending the continued criminalization of marijuana are not being entirely sincere. However, they feel that they have no choice because the leader of the party they support, opposes decriminalization. So their choices are (1) defending Harper or (2) defending a rational position on the issue. Quite the dilemma and no doubt stressful and possibly emotional. For a CPC supporter to defend Harper's opposition to decriminalization is in some ways the equivalent of a Liberal supporter trying to defend the sponsorship scandal.

Which people? The clever and superior people who are voting CPC or the dumb and ignorant people who are so blind to the truth that they've decided to vote NDP, BQ, Liberal or Green?

Checking and talking? Well, that sure proves it.

I did ask what evidence you had that the 5% who got jail time were "worse" offenders than those who did not. You did not provide that evidence yet remain obviously convinced that there is no other possible explanation. There are multiple possible other explanations. Jurisdictions differ in their rates of jail sentences. Jurisdictions differ in how much attention they pay to extenuating cirtcumstances. Jurisdictions respond to political pressure from provincial and municipal politicians. I could go on but my point is simply that you had a hypothesis which you treated as a fact and expected me too as well. Sorry but I put more stock in evidence than I do in hypotheses. And if you choose not to engage me in further debate, excellent...as that is my preference as well.

Even if none were being persecuted, let alone prosecuted, why would we want to encourage disrespect for the law by having laws which are not enforced? What's especially bad about the status quo is that the laws are differentially enforced. And they are also sometimes enforced to make a political statement. For example, Marc Emery, leader of the BC Marijuana Party, was charged and served jail time for possession of a single joint. You and I would not have been. This makes the law appear unfair and even persecutory in the minds of fair-minded individuals.

I had no idea that the US does not recognize the Canadian pardon. Thanks for this useful piece of information. No wonder all political parties (except one) want to decriminalize.

Almost any form of proportional representation would eliminate the need for strategic voting. I doubt that either CPC or the Liberals would support anything but the first-past-the-post-system since the status quo allows either to govern with about 38% of the popular vote.

Really? What's your clever suggestion as to which topic one should discuss on a thread about decriminalization of marijuana?

What do you have against logic and critical thinking? Why would we want laws whose enforcement depends on whether the cops are good or bad? And who are the good cops...those who enforce the law or those who don't? And if you think that it's good to have laws which should not be enforced, why don't we criminalize alcohol? Stephen Harper might benefit from your interesting ideas.

Either you missed my point completely or you're simply wrong once again. Could even be both I suppose. Those in the 95% group had less than 30 grams and those in the 5% group had less than 30 grams. That's the nature of the "crime". If you have evidence that those in the 5% group had greater amounts than those in the 95% group, let's see the evidence. Of course you have no such evidence but even if you did, why would it be relevant? Less than 30 grams is a small amount and no one should be going to jail for that even if you and social conservative Stephen Harper disagree.

Kimmy, listen to what you just said. You know that one can safely smoke marijuana in Edmonton or Ottawa because they don't enforce the law. Same is true throughout British Columbia. However, a friend of a friend of mine was arrested and served time in Saskatoon for possession of less than 10 grams. Do we actually want a law that's so dysfunctional that it's applied in one part of Canada but not another? Where's the logic in this? And if we want the law merely so we can go after people who've also committed some other crime, why don't we criminalize alcohol but not enforce it? Alcohol was decriminalized in Canada in 1925. Most Canadians have no problem with that. Why should marijuana be treated as though it were far more dangerous? And if it is dangerous, why aren't police in edmonton, Ottawa and Vancouver enforcing the law?

Ya gotta love CPC supporters. First, challenge the 5% figure repeatedly and suggest that it's not true. Second, when evidence is presented that 5% of Canadians do go to jail for simple possession of less than 30 grams, dismiss it as applying only to the "worst offenders", even though simple possession means less than 30 grams. Third, disparage those who provide the evidence. Fourth, ignore the central issue that it's utterly irrational to criminalize a substance less harmful than a legalized but far more harmful substances like alcohol. No wonder Martin now has a commanding lead. All he needs to do is wait for Harper and his supporters to step in yet another cowpie.

Harper is a social conservative. It's far too late for him to portray himself as anything but a social conservative. I feel sorry for the man. He blurts out positions on ssm and decriminalization which are his honest positions and I respect that he's telling us his positions now rather than after he's elected. But his positions differ from those of most Canadians who are not social conservatives. Most Liberal, NDP, BQ, and Green supporters are not social conservatives. CPC made a huge mistake in picking him as leader. I suspect CPC won't make a similar mistake in next year's leadership campaign.

Thanks Black Dog and here's another link to the 5%: http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html That link also points out that 65% of all Canadians arrested for marijuana-related crimes are actually arrested for simple possession, i.e., less than 30 grams. I've still not heard an explanation as to why Harper favours the continued criminalization of marijuana. Given that criminalization is irrational, surely he'd have some reason for explaining why the 69% of Canadians who favour decriminalization are obviously wrong.

Although I believe that the numbers reported by Leger are not sufficient for a Liberal majority, Hill and Knowlton think otherwise. See: http://predictor.hillandknowlton.ca/ Here are their seat projections based on this poll released yesterday: Liberals 159 CPC 72 NDP 24 BQ 52