normanchateau

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems? Oh norman, those that frame their commentary by using "afraid of honest debate", are just throwing up straw men and kicking them down. Yes, I know. That's why I don't anticipate any relevant responses to my questions.

To refresh your memory, here's what the Journal of the American Medical Association has to say on the issue: #1 A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug found that "While covariates differed between equations, early regular use of tobacco and alcohol emerged as the 2 factors most consistently associated with later illicit drug use and abuse/dependence. While early regular alcohol use did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of alcohol dependence, this finding should be treated with considerable caution, as our study did not provide an optimal strategy for assessing the effects of early alcohol use." Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003. #2 A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug concluded that "While the findings of this study indicate that early cannabis use is associated with increased risks of progression to other illicit drug use and drug abuse/dependence, it is not possible to draw strong causal conclusions solely on the basis of the associations shown in this study." Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003. #3 A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug concluded that "Other mechanisms that might mediate a causal association between early cannabis use and subsequent drug use and drug abuse/dependence include the following: "1. Initial experiences with cannabis, which are frequently rated as pleasurable, may encourage continued use of cannabis and also broader experimentation. "2. Seemingly safe early experiences with cannabis may reduce the perceived risk of, and therefore barriers to, the use of other drugs. For example, as the vast majority of those who use cannabis do not experience any legal consequences of their use, such use may act to diminish the strength of legal sanctions against the use of all drugs. "3. Alternatively, experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States." Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003. In any event, the Journal of the American Medical Association is merely one source of medical information. Senator Nolin's Committee examined hundreds of sources and came to the conclusion that on the balance of all the data, marijuana is not a gateway drug. The final report is available here in html and pdf format: http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...ive%2520Reports

Harper broke his promises? Shocking!! Next you'll be claiming that his unelected friend and former campaign manager Michael Fortier, who he appointed both to the Senate and to the Cabinet, won't be running in the next federal by-election in Montreal.

Bingo. The modern definition of racist is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal What's racism got to do with feminism? Do you think women belong to another race?

Fortunately, so-con Stephen Harper continues to speak. And Stephen's prior statements, no matter how his supporters would wish otherwise, aren't going to evaporate anymore than Myron's previous statements, e.g., "The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank. "Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should... They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank. "[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank. "This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade." - Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

None of it is balanced. One quote critical of the biggest case of Government corruption in the last 25 years is half-arsed. Not balacned at all. How could they have made it full-arsed and "balacned"?

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems?

I am referring to the fact that dwatch portrays the final accountability act that was passed as being a conscious effort at fraud committed by the conservative govenrment as if they weren't restrained by a minority government and a Liberal senate. So which dwatch attack is fair and balanced? The one on the Liberals or the one on the Conservatives?

Best of all, each and everyone of their MPs is a functioning Conservative. No stupid and dysfunctional Liberal, NDP or independent MPs wasting valuable space in the House of Commons. Just smart and open-minded people like MP Myron Thompson. If only other Canadian provinces would see the light! "I want the whole world to know that I do not condone homosexuals. I do not condone their activity. I do not like what they do. I think it is wrong. I think it is unnatural and I think it is totally immoral. I will object to it forever whenever they attack the good, traditional Canadian family unit that built the country." - MP Myron Thompson. "For instance, I'm not opposed to gays, but if you bring one of those suckers into my school and they try to push their crap on my students, I have a problem with that. " - MP Myron Thompson

The greater fraud is repeated postings from Democracy Watch! Fair and balanced that one... Are you referring to their attacks on the Liberals as being fair and balanced?

Gee, I wonder why that was. How could that have possibly happened? And it happened while the Conservatives gained seats in most of the other provinces. Maybe Westerners, at least those west of the Rockies, have little use for Stephen Harper.

Who says "we" will never support the Liberals in a meaningful way? The Liberals control most of the seats in both Vancouver and Victoria. The Conservative candidate in David Emerson's riding in January, 2006, received a miniscule 18% of the popular vote. The Conservatives lost seats in British Columbia in both of the last two federal elections. And the last poll I saw which broke down federal voting intentions in BC in the next election found the following: "In B.C., the Liberals would get the support of 39 per cent of voters, compared to 26 per cent for the Tories and 24 per cent for the NDP." Source: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...fab6195&k=18732 Sure that was more than a month ago and by now, it would not surprise me if Liberal support has softened. But the fact remains that in both of the last federal elections, the Conservatives did not win a majority of the popular vote in BC. Support for parties to the left of the Conservatives far outnumbers support for the Conservatives in BC. And by a remarkable coincidence, the National Campaign Manager for Stephane Dion's successful campaign to become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as the National Campaign Co-Chair for the Liberal campaign in the next federal election, happens to reside in the West, specifically Vancouver.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level. I sometimes wonder whether those who distort the feminist position perhaps feel uncomfortable with the notion of women being equal to men. Women have made considerable progress in obtaining equal rights in recent decades relative to their slow progress in previous millenia, and this has probably created irrational fear discomfort for those who like societal change to be gradual even when it involves human rights. Sadly women still remain unequal in many parts of the world and even within Canada in many religious institutions. For example, how likely is a Canadian woman to advance in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? I don't see female archbishops and popes just around the corner.

I suppose it depends on whether you view no change as extreme. I do. In the 1920's, when alcohol was illegal and marijuana was legal, social conservatives campaigned tirelessly for continued prohibition. That was the position of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the Ku Klux Klan and other influential social conservative organizations of the time. You and I know, or at least have reasonable grounds to suspect that if today, alcohol was illegal and marijuana was not, social conservatives would likely support that position on the grounds that alcohol was a gateway to worse drugs and there's no point in prohibiting marijuana given that it's already legal and not as harmful as alcohol.

Not Found The requested URL /camp/RelsNov0205.htm was not found on this server. Try this: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsNov0205.html

Interesting questions. I gather you are suggesting that the users/buyers started their drug use after they joined the Canadian forces. My guess is that if ever a study were done of this issue, it would reveal that some started after they joined the forces and some started before. This doesn't rule out your self-medicating hypothesis as some might very well have been self-medicating before they joined the forces and others after.

I buy it, I've seen it happen with my own eyes. I'll say with all the people I know that smoke pot 75% went on to worse stuff because of the same reason they tried pot in the first place. If they "went on to worse stuff because of the same reason they tried pot in the first place", then the problem is not marijuana but why "they tried pot in the first place". Those reasons aren't going to disappear even if marijuana were to vanish from the face of the earth.

I completely agree that stoned driving should be treated as seriously as drunk driving. I know that some police forces have begun training their officers to detect stoned driving and this should continue. In parts of Australia they now employ saliva tests which accurately detects tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most powerful and psychoactive component of marijuana. This is the equivalent of a breathalyzer test for alcohol. In my opinion, Canadian police forces could be employing the THC saliva test now whether or not decriminalization/legalization happens. No one should be allowed to drive stoned.

Who's suggesting people should drive under the influence of marijuana? No one that I know of. Driving under the influence of marijuana should be treated in the same manner as driving under the influence of alcohol.

I mostly agree with your points in the above post. Of course someone who work less hours should not receive the same pay as someone who works more hours. But if two people work equal hours and are equally capable and efficient, shouldn't they receive equal pay? That's my interpretation of the feminist position, i.e., equal pay for equal work. Any feminist group that would demand equal pay for less work is unreasonable in my opinion.

Which aspect of that would you like to try and argue? It was indeed designed to promote unity, and failed. It is incredibly expensive. It is incredibly inefficient. Canada is not bilingual anywhere I can think of really. It is French in Quebec and English everywhere else. And, due to the fact few people who support it actually know what it involves, and simply believe it means serving both linguistic groups in their own language, attacking it is seen as attacking Francophones. If Stephen Harper goes into the next election with his Calgary Sun statements on bilingualism as part of his new political platform, I'll vote for him...a pledge I expect that I'll never have to honour. But you and I know that Harper has abandoned many of his former principles in his insatiable quest for a majority government. I suppose his supporters would like to believe that Harper retains some of his earlier positions but how can they be certain that's the case? Take Harper's flip flop on medicare, for example: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?sto...050430091919834 Are we to believe that Harper has abandoned all of his previous positions on medicare and the Canada Health Act? Or is his current position on health care one he maintains merely because he believes it is necessary to being re-elected?

"Toronto — Under the prime ministership of Stockwell Day, Parliament would hold a free vote on marijuana use, natives on reserves would lose their sales-tax exemptions, the CBC would be put up for sale, and 25 per cent of the voters in a riding could unseat a member of Parliament. These and many other policies are contained in the official but confidential policy background document sent to Canadian Alliance riding candidates in the coming federal election. A copy of the document has been obtained by The Globe and Mail." Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/RTG...i&date=20001108

Agreed, but some people use 'revisionist history' actually I nearly fell off my chair when I read that bit about Stockwell Day being a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper. There is absolutely no evidence for that but I guess it is in the category of, if you say something often enough, people start to believe it. You must not be reading very carefully. I never said that Stockwell Day is a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper. That claim came from CanadianBlue, i.e., "Stockwell Day a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper..." What I said is that on the specific issue of marijuana, Stockwell Day took a more moderate position than Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper favours current legislation. Stockwell Day planned a free vote in parliament on the issue if he were elected. But hey, it's a lot easier to attack someone's inaccurate and distorted portrayal of my position than actually attacking my position. And if the inaccurate and distorted position is repeated often enough, it will with time be attributed to me.

How can one prove someone's selling without finding a single buyer? Having a few pounds of weed isn't personal consumption. A few pounds describes the sellers. Presumably the buyers had only a few grams. If there are sellers, there must be buyers or these drug traffickers were wasting their time. CB states that the buyers would receive counselling. Sounds like a far more humane and compassionate position that Harper's. Harper supports the current legislation for simple possession which includes potential jail time.

No, Afghanistan isn't Iran but you asked why the UN backed Afghanistan and I used Iran as evidence that the UN backs regimes which most Canadians don't support. And you know perfectly well that the vast majority of NATO countries in Afghanistan are in the relatively stable north where their asses aren't on the line. That's token involvement in my opinion.