normanchateau

Some Conservatives are also pretty radical in their beliefs. Darrel Reid for example.

Stephen Harper has made it clear that he supports current laws with respect to simple possession. Current laws permit the courts to jail offenders. Some offenders are jailed. Stockwell Day, who admitted to using marijuana himself in the past, opposes jail sentences for simple posession. But perhaps you have a different version of their respective views on simple possession and if so, please provide your sources.

How can one prove someone's selling without finding a single buyer?

Do support that one.... "The Canadian Alliance is a new conservative party that grew out of the disintegration of the old Progressive Conservative [Tory] Party. Its new leader, Stockwell Day, is a "social conservative," who says that marijuana users "should not go to jail." http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=263

Back to the topic of the Liberals' Hidden Agenda...turning Canada into Holland: "Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research Dutch Would Consider New Election January 6, 2007 (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the Netherlands would be willing to head to the voting booths again if three parties cannot form the government, according to a poll by Maurice de Hond. 52 per cent of respondents think a new election should take place if talks between the Christian-Democratic Appeal (CDA), the Labour Party (PvdA) and the Christian Union (CG) break down. Dutch voters renewed the Second Chamber in November 2006. The governing CDA of minister president Jan Peter Balkenende secured 41 of the 150 seats at stake, but there has been no final agreement to form a coalition government. With the support of the PvdA, led by Wouter Bos, and the CG, led by Andre Rouvouet, the coalition would have the support of 80 lawmakers. One of the main sticking points for the participation of the CG in the new administration is the stance of the CDA and the PvdA on same-sex marriage, which is legal in the Netherlands. Fifteen of the conservative party’s regional chairmen have urged Rouvouet to pull out of the negotiations unless this topic is discussed." Source: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/14306 Seems that one Dutch party, the Christian Union, won't be happy unless the issue of same-sex marriage is re-opened. Sounds like those windmill-dwellers are following Stephen Harper's previous agenda.

That original Senate report was very solid, other than the recommendations on 30 grams of pot for simple possession. Man, wouldn't that be interesting if the Conservatives followed the recommendations of the Senate and legalized pot... The Chairman and lead author of the Senate report was Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, originally appointed as a Progressive Conservative but now a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. There's not a chance that the Senate report will be followed as long as Stephen Harper leads that party. Even Stockwell Day has a more socially moderate position on the issue.

So who would be left? Canada, the US, the UK and the Aussies... throw the Dutch in there for living up to their treaty obligations. The rest are, like I've said previously, fairweather friends. There for the security of having the US to help them out in a treaty, but unwilling to do the same when required by the same treaty. Australia a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Sure, Australia has intelligence links to NATO but I doubt that Australia is a member. And how many Australian forces do you suppose are in southern Afghanistan?

I don't support any of these foolish endeavours. Fine, your position is perfectly clear and I respect it, i.e., you oppose all hate crimes legislation. If that were Harper's position, it would be understandable and consistent with the libertarian position. But that's not Harper's position. He only opposes hate crimes legislation with respect to sexual orientation but has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion.

Thanks for the quote. This reveals a bigger picture of Harper. I think everything he's doing right now is a show... Sometimes I find it difficult to find areas of mutual agreement but in this particular case, you and I are on exactly the same page.

This is the new age, feminist, anti-father, athiest agenda that I speak of. The feminist agenda calls for social and economic equality for women. What's wrong with that?

The UN backs Iran's government. Iran actually voted in as President the despicable anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but I would not support Canadians dying for that regime if it were under threat from the Taliban or an equivalent extremist group.

I'm intrigued by your characterization of the evil Saturn. You are simultaneously labelling him a left wing dictator and a card-carrying Liberal. If Liberals are left wing, how do you characterize those who belong to the NDP or BQ? Is a multimillionaire industrialist and shipping magnate like Paul Martin who cut corporate and personal income taxes while cutting government services also "left wing"? And what about George Bush who increased both the US federal debt and deficit to the highest levels recorded in the history of the world? Are his economic policies, which are the opposite of Paul Martin's, "left wing" or "right wing"? I called saturn an Agenda Driven left winger in a 'voter' sense. Martin is beyond that. He's an political 'elite' in Canada. So are the members of the NDP and BQ. Big difference between a mere mortal with an agenda, and an political elite like Martin. And Bush cannot be blamed for his debt due to the falll of the economy when he took office and the Iraq war. If he was president around the time of Clinton he would have this great fiscal legacy I'm sure. Fascinating and unique theories but how about actually answering some of my questions?

If there were five drug dealers, who were their customers and why weren't they charged? What's the point in having laws which say simple possession is a crime if those laws aren't enforced?

I think that decriminalization is really a half measure. It just makes it easier for bikers to profit of the trade in the business. I favour legalization with a regulated production industry and very strict laws for large scale illegal growing operations and unlicensed vendors. Your position is consistent with that of the Fraser Institute which funded a 40 page report on the topic: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/...s/Marijuana.pdf Here's a summary of what's in the report: "June 9, 2004 Legalize Marijuana, Fraser Institute Advises $2-Billion Tax Source: Group Says Move Would Seize Control From Criminals OTTAWA - Marijuana should be legalized and then taxed like any other product, says a study by an economic think-tank. The Fraser Institute estimates such a move would easily generate more than $2-billion a year in additional tax revenues. All that would really change is that governments, rather than criminals, would enjoy the spoils, argues the study being released today by the Vancouver-based institute. The potential tax revenue is based on the study's estimate that in British Columbia alone, the annual marijuana crop, if valued at retail street prices and sold by the cigarette, is worth more than $7-billion. "Using conservative assumptions about Canadian consumption, this could translate into potential revenues for the government of over $2-billion," the study states. "In British Columbia -- as in other provinces, notably Quebec and Ontario, it is a significant crop that fuels organized crime." Study author Stephen Easton, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University and a senior fellow at the institute, estimates there are as many as 17,500 marijuana grow operations in B.C. alone. Marijuana is widely produced and about one quarter of Canadians admit to having used it, the study says. As such, the broader social question has become not whether to approve or disapprove of production, but rather who should enjoy the spoils. "If we treat marijuana like any other commodity, we can tax it, regulate it and use the resources the industry generates rather than continue a war against consumption and production that has long since been lost," Dr. Easton said. "It is apparent that we are reliving the experience of alcohol prohibition of the early years of the last century." In British Columbia, indoor marijuana cultivation and consumption appears to be higher than in the rest of Canada, it notes. The most striking difference is that only 13% of offenders in the province are actually charged while that number climbs to 60% for the rest of Canada. In addition, the penalties for conviction in B.C. are low, it said. Fifty-five per cent of those convicted receive no jail time. While police resources are spent destroying nearly 3,000 marijuana grow operations a year in B.C., the consequences are relatively minor for those convicted, it says. The industry is simply too profitable to prevent new people moving into production and old producers from rebuilding. A modest grow-operation of 100 plants generates $80,000 a year in gross revenues, and with production costs of about $25,000, the potential return on invested money is a high 55%, it says. It currently costs $1.50 to produce a marijuana cigarette, which sells for $8.60. "Unless we wish to continue the transfer of these billions from this lucrative endeavour to organized crime, the current policy on prohibition should be changed," it says. "Not only would we deprive some very unsavoury groups of a profound source of easy money, but also resources currently spent on marijuana enforcement would be available for other activities." Two years ago, a Senate report also urged the government to ends its prohibition of the drug and implement a system to regulate its production, distribution and consumption. A federal bill that would have decriminalized marijuana use, but imposed harsher penalties on growers, died with the calling of the election. Pubdate: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 Source: National Post (Canada) Copyright: 2004 Southam Inc. Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/ Author: Eric Beauchesne, CanWest News Service"

I'm not sure if it's sad or humorous. For example, CB deflects by asking if the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is Shia or Sunni. Well they have both Sunnis and Shias but the point remains that constitutionally Islam trumps all human rights in a country Canadians are needlessly dying for.

Suppose I provide a link and the link comes from a source promoting the decriminalization of marijuana. Would you believe the statistics in the link?

I'm intrigued by your characterization of the evil Saturn. You are simultaneously labelling him a left wing dictator and a card-carrying Liberal. If Liberals are left wing, how do you characterize those who belong to the NDP or BQ? Is a multimillionaire industrialist and shipping magnate like Paul Martin who cut corporate and personal income taxes while cutting government services also "left wing"? And what about George Bush who increased both the US federal debt and deficit to the highest levels recorded in the history of the world? Are his economic policies, which are the opposite of Paul Martin's, "left wing" or "right wing"?

Here's what Democracy Watch had to say about the Liberals immediately prior to the last election: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsNov0205.htm No doubt those who discount what Democracy Watch now has to say about the Federal Accountability Act were equally diligent in discounting what they had to say about the Liberals.

Harper backtrack? I thought he was a man of principle. Here's what he'll backtrack on next. In June, 2006, he raised the personal income tax rate by 1% (on the same day that he lowered the GST by 1%). In the next Conservative budget, he'll announce that's he's lowering the personal income tax rate hoping that Canadians are so stupid that they'll forget that he raised the rate in 2006.

Even the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan now states that no laws can be contrary to the laws of Islam. In other words, Islam trumps any human rights legislation. The government is a corrupt, Islamic sham and it's a mystery why Harper's party and a handful of Ignatieff-like Liberals would want to extend the ridiculous mission. Then again, both Ignatieff and Harper thought Canada should invade Iraq which says something about their mutual cognitive abilities.

Are you saying that the average woman opposes feminism? Feminists support social, political and economic equality for women. Do "average women" oppose that?

Those laws are technically on the books but haven't been truly enforced for decades. Canadian Cannabis Arrest Statistics 1.5 million Canadians have criminal records for simple possession. Approximately 50,000 Canadians are arrested each year for marijuana related crimes. (49,639 in 2001 - Statistics Canada) 65% of Canadians arrested for marijuana related crimes are for simple possession (under 30 grams of cannabis). More than 30,000 Canadians are charged with simple possession annually - about 5% of these go to jail Even if it were true that these laws "haven't been truly enforced for decades", why breed contempt for the law by having laws which are not enforced? In any event, the 30,000 Canadians charged annually would disagree that these laws are not enforced.

Are you not aware that there is already hate crimes legislation in place which makes it a crime to advocate or promote the killing of people based on their religion? Harper supports that legislation. He also supports hate crimes legislation based on race or ethnicity. But he opposes hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation.

No, it's a libertarian one. The libertarian position is no hate crimes legislation...period. But Stephen Harper has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on religion, ethnicity or race.

"Women in Canada Mobilizing against Stephen Harper's Policies, Ottawa, ON, December 10, 2006" OTTAWA, Dec. 8 /CNW Telbec/ - Media representatives are invited to a news conference to be followed by a rally in front of the Supreme Court of Canada and on Parliament Hill, to speak out against Stephen Harper's anti-women policies. An ad hoc nation-wide coalition is demanding that the federal government reverse a series of political decisions that will have a negative impact on Canadian women, namely: * The closure of more than half of the Status of Women Canada's regional offices; * Changes to the funding criteria for women's groups and removing the word "equality" from the objectives of the women's program; * Major cuts of 43% to the operating budget of Status of Women Canada; * Cancellation of the Canadian Court Challenges Program; * The refusal to adopt proactive pay equity legislation and, * Cancellation of the funding for the Canada-wide child care program.