normanchateau

Legalization lowered drug use in Portugal. Why would it have the opposite effect in Canada?

Rio de Janeiro — Cesar Gavaria, Columbia's former president called upon leaders in Latin America to condemn the U.S. War on Drugs because it threatens the stability of many countries in the hemisphere. Colombia was the first casualty in the drug wars. It's economy collapsed, unemployment reached 20%, 200 municipalities in the rural areas were "destroyed" and four million residents fled, along with jobs. His passionate plea mentioned the fact that drug usage is a health issue, not a police matter. He said the Americans must recant, and abandon, their drug Prohibition policies and adopt European-style health care to deal with the problem. "The U.S. has half a million people in jail for drug trafficking," said the former president. "Another 100,000 people who are in jail are there for offenses related to drugs. This is more people in American prisons than are in all the prisons in Europe." The U.S. is spending US$40-billion a year on this plus its drug interdiction system and courts -- all to "keep drug consumption where it has been for years," he said. "The U.S. should have a debate about this," said Gavaria. "The policy is a failure and the results are unbelievable." Fortunately, President Barack Obama understands that past efforts have simply not worked. In 2004 at Northwestern University, before he was nominated, he told an audience that the War on Drugs was an "utter failure." "We hope the U.S. understands that it has to change," said Gavaria. Source: Diane Francis in The National Post http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f.../17/263933.aspx

Mexico did it very quickly and efficiently. A few weeks ago, their President proposed decriminalization legislation. Last week that legislation was passed by both Mexico's Senate and Congress: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN01336313 And the reaction in Washington? No response from Obama but the Mexican Ambassador to Washington is suggesting that the US seriously consider legalizing marijuana: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Mexican_amba...juana_0412.html Meanwhile in Canada, Stephen Harper has introduced legislation which would impose mandatory six month sentences for selling one marijuana plant. Canada is the only country in the world which in 2009 is proposing greater criminalization of marijuana. Like Stephen Harper, President Calderon of Mexico is a social conservative. Calderón opposes issues gay marriage, abortion (including the “morning-after” pill), euthanasia and contraception education: http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/p...p/fcalderon.htm Calderon believes that decriminalization will help fight gang violence. Harper believes that increased criminalization will help fight gang violence. Perhaps Harper's backwards beliefs are the result of messages from God. Harper's Evangelical Christian & Missionary Alliance Church leaders are absolutely opposed to the use of marijuana: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...b32808e&p=2 Most Canadians favour either decriminalization or legalization.

And when he did make a big deal out of it, Canadians appeared to agree with him. Three polls done in the immediate aftermath of Harper denouncing the Liberals forming a coalition with separatists and socialists had Harper sitting in majority territory. The Strategic Counsel had the Tories at 45 percent nationally, Ipsos Reid had them at 46 percent, and an Ekos poll gave the Tories a crushing 20 point lead over the Liberals. Sure, Harper can claim that it's not "really" a coalition with the separatists. Dion made the same claim before his party dumped him. Who would have thought that Harper would be using Dion for lessons in strategy and tactics?

My point was that Israelis and Palestinians are of the same race, notwithstanding religious differences. Therefore one group cannot be accused of racism against the other despite whatever bullshit terminology the UN and Ahmadinejad spew. Quotes from your very own Wikipedia source: "The UN does not define racism." "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others." Changing the definition of racism in order to be able to accuse Israel of racism serves the purposes of those who would deny Israel's right to exist.

Excellent caption for yet another fortune cookie.

China should learn from Canada on how best deal with protesters. We use something called pepper spray: http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/341/19917 The risk in using pepper spray in Canada is that opposition parties will accuse the Prime Minister of human rights violations. Both the NDP and Reform Party of Canada accused the Prime Minister of human rights violations in 1998. This will not be a problem in China. Try pepper spray.

Harper has been Prime Minister for more than three years. Our personal income tax rates now are exactly what they were in 2005. Sounds like he learned nothing from Preston Manning other than to join Manning's Evangelical Christian & Missionary Alliance church.

OTTAWA — With Taliban militants marching on Islamabad and imperilling the safety of its nuclear arsenal, Defence Minister Peter MacKay says Pakistan is the most dangerous place on earth. Canada is prepared to do its part to replicate in Pakistan what is now doctrine in Afghanistan: integrating development and diplomacy with military action. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/INTERVIEW...1772/story.html Sounds like MacKay is preparing Canadians for our entry into Pakistan to fight the Taliban.

I think it depends on what measures one chooses to examine. For example, if one looks at Canadian military spending relative to GDP, Trudeau spent more than any Prime Minister in the past 39 years: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640 The nice thing about statistics is they can be used to argue one point as well as the complete opposite. Depending on which measures one chooses, things are getting worse, better or remain about the same. Those with either a strong pro-military or anti-military bias of course will not accept this possibility.

Another addition to Harper's list of broken promises: http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

Somalis want Canada to legalize polygamy: http://somalilandpress.com/4715/its-time-t...galize-polygamy

Correction. Sixty-five percent of BC respondents want marijuana legalized, and not merely decriminalized: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/cent+want...6487/story.html In this issue, the public is way ahead of the politicians.

I suspect he's considered those options already.

Given the ideological differences between Harper, the socialists and the separatists, I wonder what that legislation will be. Anti-election legislation perhaps?

The Ontario numbers are surprising but the Liberals remain in first place in Ontario. Another surprising finding is in the West. In the past month, the Conservatives have dropped 4% and the NDP has gone up 4%. The Conservatives are now not doing much better in the West than in Ontario

Because Harper doesn't have the balls to do it. His number one priority is staying in power at all costs and principles be damned.

Didn't the Liberals and Harper recently agree not to pursue the question of Harper's involvement in the Cadman affair? And didn't Harper drop his lawsuit against the Liberals for claiming that he did what he did? This despite the fact that there was an audio tape which Harper's own audio expert confirmed was unaltered and confirmed that Harper knew of the bribe. I wonder why Harper makes deals with parties linked to organized crime. Perhaps to draw attention away from his own alleged illegal activities.

Weakening the military is not among his policies or beliefs. If anyone has evidence that Ignatieff has personally proposed cuts in military spending, I'd like to see that evidence. Like Harper, he supported the US invasion of Iraq and unlike Dion, he supported extending the mission in Afghanistan beyond 2009. The quotes below are from a December 10, 2008 article in the National Post: • Mr. Ignatieff similarly rejects the Liberal tradition of lauding Canada's military past while starving the army of money, material and political support. Chretien let the Forces wither; Martin slashed and burned in his battle against deficit spending, then tried to make it up with big budget increases when times improved. Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff's best-known position is his support for a strong military, willing to play a serious role on the world stage: "People sometimes ask me why a human rights teacher is such an adamant defender of a robust military for Canada," he says. "In the failed and failing states of our world, the most urgent human need-the central unmet human right-is security. People at the mercy of tyrants and gunmen need protection, first of all. To protect them, we have to have the capacity to fire back."

Harper to Liberals: don't trigger election now: http://www.680news.com/news/national/more....tent=n012664922 Hilarious. This from a clown of a Prime Minister who triggered an unwanted election in October, violating his own fixed election date legislation. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

"Michael Ignatieff described his party as "fit to govern" Friday as a poll showed the Grits leading the Conservatives for the first time since the October election in an Ipsos Reid poll. While the Liberal lead of 36 per cent to 33 could be enough to form government, the poll found Prime Minister Stephen Harper outranking Ignatieff on many counts on the eve of a national Liberal convention vote confirming his four-month-old leadership. Pollster John Wright said the Liberals' biggest strength appears to be their brand, while the Conservatives' strength is seen as Harper's leadership. "Ignatieff is still unknown or is still an enigma," Wright said. "When you compare him with Mr. Harper, Harper's much better defined and much more positive." Those who regarded the Liberals as ready to return to power totalled 45 per cent of 1,001 adults polled. "The rich base now of the Liberals put it in such a place they could probably form the government (because) of the voting tilt in the country," said Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid. In Ontario, the Liberals have a 10-point lead over the Conservatives. And while the Liberals in Quebec trail the Bloc Quebecois 34 per cent to 32 per cent, the Conservatives are far behind, with just 14 per cent of the support of decided voters. The poll suggested six in 10 Canadians believe the nearly three decades Ignatieff spent outside Canada as a journalist and teacher do not make him any less qualified to lead the country. he country." http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Grits+lead+To...5148/story.html Since the poll shows that Harper is in fact more popular than his party, I don't see the party dumping Harper in the foreseeable future.

Harper said he will listen to any elected MP, but dismissed talk of an alliance to avoid an election as “absolutely untrue.” “The Bloc Quebecois stands for the break-up of this country. We will not govern this country in a pact or arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois,” he said. “There is no contemplation of that, let alone possibility.” http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/200...319961-sun.html Perhaps Harper also remembers Dion's fate after his pact with the BQ.

Polygamist leader seeks taxpayer funds for defense: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053007...or-defense.html

Except when they're like fortune cookies.

Good, at least you acknowledge that I did not say that Harper's religious beliefs had anything to do with his position on income trusts. My point of course was that Harper has been known to break promises. Here are more examples: http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/