Slavik44

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Well, the fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. So it is Imperative to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries. According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. This transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. So there must have been millions of transitional forms… Am I saying that? No. Listen to Darwin “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. ” Darwin knew the biggest stumbling-block for his theory… let Darwin continue “…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.” [The Origin of Species, 124-125] He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. So what does fossil record say? Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries: “ Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.” [Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.] More? Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: “When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…” [K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1988, p. 98.] One more… Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: “ If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.” [Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40. ] The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s: “ The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. [s.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.] As of now I am reporting you to the administrators I have no problem participating in a debate on Evolution and I would enjoy doing so with a reasonably informed person. However, what I am doing is using the knowledge I have learned over the years and posting it up for discussion. What you are doing is plagarising other individuals work. I have to invest time into my posts, while all you do is a simple search on google, it is Acedemically lazy and I will not engage in a debate with someone who is so morally and academically corrupt.

I only watched a couple minutes (time constraints), I wonder how old this movie is (?) does anyone know? Because it uses the claim about the lack of warming in troposphere, something that is blatantly false.

I am going to start with four points that I want you to understand before I go any further. 1) It is somewhat irrational to suggest that because the earth is complex their must be a more complex creator, with out turning that logic around at this even more complex ccreator. Personaly I find it easier to believe that the less complex object (the earth) has no creator than the more complex object (god) not having one. 2) The term Darwinism is a bit of an abusrd term tossed around by YEC, Darwin was one of the early theororists who came up with a mechanism for Evolution, natural selection. 3) Natural selection is not random, so when individuals describe evolution as random, they are being so ignorant it is not even funny. 4) Evolution is not persay dealing with where the first life forms came from, but how these life forms have changed over time. ------------------------------- On to the other stuff.... 1) Mutations When someone tells you that mutations are like hitting a clock with a hammer, you should refer to this person as a dip shit who doesn't know what they are talking about. Mutations do infact happen, most mutations tend to be fairly neutral. Wether they are harmful or helpful is generally a factor of the environment, not the what the brain of some dimwitted moron thinks. ex. We can see mutations all the time in bacteria and the development of anti-biotic resistances, these are mutations. 2) Microevolution to Macroevolution This is agian another one of those false dillema's there is no reason why micro-evolutionary changes cannot eventually lead to speciation through divergence of the gene pool and sperated breeding. Huh? Okay so if we start with mutations (which happen, and are observed) All that is truly neccessary is time and reproductive drift/barriers to reproduction We have prooven that we have the time, and a hell of a long time we have. Bariers? Can a chihauaha naturally breed with a wolf? (can't happen in nature) Can a wolf breed with a Coyote (Cannot happen period) That would be drift Macro-evolution is not two fishes having sex and boom an elaphant popped out. It is just as simple as two fishes having sex and a fish popping out. After all how many species of fish do we have? I will give you a clue, more than one. So when you say that you don't believe in Macro-evolution because fish only give birth to fish, you are ignoring the fundemental point that there are more than one species of fish. Macro-evolution can be just that a fish giving birth to a fish. 3) Traces So what we want to look for is traces of such ancestry - We might raise a question like why do humans have latent tails, or have you ever fell on your tail bone? A modern manifestation of a different past. - We might look at the present and see snakes with a pelvis, or latent claws, and then look in the past and see fossil snakes with legs A modern manifestation of a different past 4) Vestigal organs - Vestigal does not mean useless, instead it is a secondary use to their original use...so if someone says, "it has a use it cannot be a vestigal"...take that hammer you were hitting your radio with and smash them in the head, don't worry it cannot possibley make them any dumber. - Appendix, it has a different use than just giving us a appendicites, instead it would stand as a modern manifestation of a different past, a past in which our diet was different from what it now could be. -wings on an ostrich No not useless but overly complex for the task they are being used for by ostriches. 5) Non-functional DNA i.e The existance of parts of left over genes that corresponds to the biosynthesis of Vitamin C The Exon 10 for Gulo This is a shared charachteristic of not just humans but other primates, species in which we see a relative recent divergence of our lineage. English? We have a mutation that exists in humans, and the Human Lineage Within that lineage we find that the Human sequence most closely correpsonds to chimpanzees, the primate in which are lineage most recently split from. It is not simply a case that this function has been lost, But that our closest relatives have also lost that function, and amongst our relative primates, those primates that share the most recent ancestor with us (Chimps) have the most similar sequence to us. This same phenomenon can be witnessed with the Guinea Pig, which has also lost the same function. Of course between Humans And guinea pigs there are species that are capable of vitamin C biosynthesis. Therefore we should not expect similarities between the Primate sequence and Guinea Pig sequence. The Guinea Pig sequence should be closely related to its family members. Although they are both non-functional, the actual sequence of the guinea pig and the primate are vastly different. Instead the guinea pig's non-functional sequence is most similar to that of its family members (Rats and mice) not primates. just as would be suggested by evolution.

That is very true and it is unlikely the greens will walk away with any seats, but we have to realize that the greens ran last election with only 5% support and are now polling 10-13%. It would be interesting to see the demographics of where this new 5% comes from. Is it also spread out? Or is it focused in certain regions? Its tough to call because the fringe vote usually is very spread out, but what happens when a fringe party starts to push into the mainstream?

- God I hope not - The NDP's popularity seems to have dropped since last election - It would require tremendous growth potential--to an extent the NDP have not Shown - People are usually only sick of one party (Liberals or conservatives) - Those who are sick of both, are usually sick of all three. - most people sick of the flu do not decide they would be better off with cancer - No

And to think that the guy finished 2nd on the first ballot of the 1968 Liberal Leadership race.

To be fair, if I beat a 6 year old over the head with a baseball bat I am still commiting assault with a weapon, regardless of my already physical superiority.

They may be two different things, but the v8 chevy can and does get what they say it will. And with a bit of money a really drunk guy might stomache soliciting sex with 26 different prostitutes, that still doesn't necccessarily make it a realistic or fair claim.

Apologies for the "lies"...it was not in your post as you duly noted. But still, not false advertising . It can be labled misleading but that is an everyday common occurence. "jdobbin Shoes, the only ones you'll ever own" ---what if I lose them? "Wal-Mart, we sell for less"----I have bought the same thing cheaper elsewhere "Maxwell House Coffee, good to the last drop"----eww, that last drop was cold and tasted nasty The point being is that if evenly measured, then it is true AND misleading, but not false. False would be beer commercials with beautiful women and the correlation that one could get women by drinking this brand of be......oh wait, those ads are everywhere. You know the difference between false and misleading. All said, I am not against this happening, it struck me as odd that one would think those "numbers" where in any way the same as you would get, instead of a benchmark comparing the others I suppose you could however say that if Molson ran an advertisment that said by drinking their beer I would get laid 26 times per night, I would consider that false advertising.....pictures with hot girls....not the same thing. Telling me that this v-8 chevy gets 26 MPG and putting a v-8 chevy next to a gas can are two different things.

Interesting.... given your political compass score. How so? I guess my economics score is out a bit, but this is a really small test and in some of the cases I am not sure what the question is getting at. For instance cut spending by 50% I disagree with that Is maybe that I might agree with that? Which I still don't I agree in principle that government spending priorities are out of whack, and that there are a number of places where I would scale back spending, but 50%??? Replace government welfare with private charity By 100%? Replace it completely? I don't know about that, and how do we define government charity? As opposed to safety nets?

Well the idea was that I didn't have the time to write down all the specifics and given that you are trying to paint yourself as an inquisitive person I was just trying to give you something to look into. Its kinda tough for you to say, look at me I am an incquisitive person and then flip around and say I am to lazy to research the negatives affects of global warming. Again making the assumption that global warming is happening and is human caused, we could than point to wide spread wildfires, they already cause millions of dollars of damage every yearin British columbia alone. We could talk about 35,000 people dead in Europe as the result of a deadly heat wave, we could talk about how warming waters create more intense hurricanes, we could talk about how as waters warm the range that hurricanes can occur in would increase. We could talk about the economic cost of building a bloody wall around the world, and the cost if that wall fails. Or we could flip that around and look at changing ocean currents possibly resulting in the on set of an ice age. If you assume global warming is a fact, the list of negative affects is endless. So now you are resorting to directly insulting me? That was not the purpose of my analogy, my analogy was that if you view global warming as truth, then wether or not people recieve benifiets from spreading the truth is irrelavent. Recall that you started your tirade with the assumption global warming was the truth. And thats the problem you are ignoring the other side, ignoring the other factors, not recognizing that the human temperature tolerance band does not just have a floor (cold) but a roof as well (hot), hotter isn't always better. Tolerance works both ways.... No problem, I take public transit Yes natural cycles, Of course being incquisitve people, we might want to ask if what we see now fits a natural pattern? Are the rates of increase historically natural? Remembering that the dinosaurs roamed the damn earth for almost 200 million years. And the oldest Australapithicene fossil is 4-5 million years old, and the homo habilis half that. So while change may be natural, are the rates of change indicative of a SOLELY natural phenomenon?

Listen on this forum, I cannot call Bush a moron, I cannot call Stephen Harper a baby-eater, I cannot call the CPC the CONservatives, I cannot call the Liberals the Fiberals, I cannot direct insults at third parties on this forum, so why are you running around calling environmentalists eco-nazis. I think the use of the term nazi is so over done that it is more reflective of the individual using the term than person or group the term is being applied to. I cannot help but percieve this post as being nothing but flame bait, it is about as creative, original and as factualy based as the term eco-nazi itself. Hey, I have my problems with Kyoto aswell, but lets get real here. * You have for these questions assumed that Global warming is real, so I will also use this liberty in answering these questions. 1. Why is it always bad news? Well lets see, the affect of changing water levels, water temperatures, and salinity content can be absolutely disasterous...so if global warming melts enough ice and present ocean currents go down the crapper...we would have a very real problem...when people talk about the affects of global warming, it has little to do with those damn Canadians being able to wear t-shirt and shorts year round, it is the affect these tempature changes could have on other climatic phenomen, and a bloody Bannana is not going to make it all better. 2. Isn't it CONVENIENT for the ex-politicians-turned-movie-stars who are making a killing and nominated for academy awards by the oh-so-objective hollywood crowd? Yeah and wasn't Aparthied in South Africa really convienent for Nelson Mandela? 3. Isn't it CONVENIENT for those who recieve endless government and UN funding to research the terrible aspects of climate change? Isn't it convienent for the USGS that Earthquakes are seen as deadly? 4. Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's alterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution? And wasn't fighting World War Two highly convienent for western governments seeking to expand their power? 5. Is climate change the eco-lefty's WMD, but on a massive global scale? Well given that we started this post with the assumption that global warming was real, than we would have to point out that these Weapons of mass destruction actually exist. 6. Think about it for a minute. Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind? Well you clearly haven't thought about it. Because you are stuck up on looking at the bloody tempature gauge and assuming that is all it is, the red reaches a little higher....you are still not actually looking at the impact of the red reaching a little higher. 7. As an example, I saw a report that said a warmer world will be very positive for Canada, resulting in higher yielding cash crops like corn for the prairies. As well, the boreal forest would expand northward to areas which are currently tundra wasteland. I once saw a report, I once wrote a report too, actually I am in the middle of writing one now...relavence? Any Jack ass can write a report. 8. As PJ O'rourke once said: People who's mission it is to save the world want the world to seem alot worse than it actually is, so their mission will seem much more important As Slavik44 once wrote: People who have spent their lives destroying the world want that destruction to appear alot more postively than it actually is, so their life seems much less evil. 9. If we're really critical-thinking creatures, we should all be asking this question: Is climate change BAD? No if we were really critical we wouldn't be asking the question, we would be looking for information to answer that question, rather than trolling internet forums. * Again I want to clearly remind you, that your post called on the assumption to be made that global warming is infact a very real phenomenon.

I put a vote in for the greens, although it certainly isn't a strong one. I feel like the cons have done a so-so job, a C/C+, nothing special. Although I might otherwise be tempted to vote for them, I am not big on their incumbant in my riding. I am very dissapointed in the Liberals, I would like to vote Liberal, but I feel like I cannot do that until the party recognizes a need for re-birth and at the leadership convetion, all I saw was a re-affirmation of the status quo. I voted NDP last election and this was done with the hope that they would focus on putting pressure on the government on a number of social issues, but I feel like I haven't seen the initiative or at the least not on the things I wanted to see it on. If the Liberals run a good candidate than they might get my vote, if the cons do something amazing in pre-election than they might get my vote...otherwise I think I will toss a vote to the greens, if for not other reason than to support an outside voice.

I hope they don't intorduce a five dollar coin, I really dislike coins, my pants are weighed down enough as it is, I have no desire to walk around looking like I am missing my skateboard. I wouldn't mind gettign rid of the penny, I usually just give them away to people, I have no desire to have them in my wallet.

seeing as how today seems to be the day of the retest.... Economic Left/Right: 2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13

No doubt, it seems the debate was much more active in the 70s and 80s cooling days. I still don't think that means everything is settled (I'm not a believer in any close book facts). Science relies upon constant debate and questioning of norms in order to progress. I'm concerned about this, and many other areas, of science being turned into groupthink situations where no one dare question the status quo. this of course is something I talked about in my other post.

I agree Melanie, but I think the same can be said about the direction of the climate science community. They all want to be part of the in crowd, so they all agree. It's impossible to get a credible research grant trying to disprove global warming, but there is lots of money floating around for a scientist that wants to take the warming side. Anyone real academic scientist that came out harshly against global warming would stand to lose all their research money, and if untenured, their position no doubt. They'd lose all standing in their profession that's for sure. How open is this debate at the upper levels, hmm?? I agree with much of global warming, but I am skeptical of how open scientists are to dissenting views that may improve or alter the direction of their theory. I again find myself partially agreeing with you... Although I am reminded of a Geography class I took once, in which my prof showed us a video created by people who denied global warming. Now the prof himself said he disagreed with global warming but on the otherhand pointed to the video and said but this is nothing but junk science. I am going to make an assumption here, that being that my geography professor is not alone in his disagreement, or his questioning of global warming. I am also going to make another implication and that is this. The video he showed us, that he referred to as nothing more than junk science, is why he wouldn't want to speak out to strongly. The anti-global warming group is led and populated by these junk scientists, who usually are not scientists in the first place. I don't mean David suzuki biologist turned environmentalist, I mean not scientists period. Most good scientists, whether they agree or disagree with global warming, do not want to become guilty by association. It doesn't have so much to do with fitting in as it does to do with being pushed away or repulsed by the junk. In otherwords, even those who have reservations about global warming think poorly of the public representatives of the cause, myself fitting into this group. It is not fair to say that money doesn't go to these scientists, millions of dollars has gone to study grants to support the anti-global warming crew. For years Exxon was gving millions to over 40 different groups whose goal was to debunk global warming, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has been strongly opposed to global warming and its administration is chalked full of powerfull political figures, when a chair of the Environment and public works commitee claims global warming is nothing more than a hoax...it should be fair to suggest that these groups are getting funding and government support. How about the CEI and Myron Ebell over a million from Exxon alone, or Paul Driessen who was recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars from exxon, he wrote a great book...about how global warming was an attack against people of colour. etc.... the list goes on. The interesting thing is that the list of companies who fund the opposition to global warming has been dwindling since the mind-90's after more and more scientific research occured. GM, ford, chrysler, Shell, Texaco, B.P, and I believe the recent victim and big man of the anti-global warming crew exxon. As if to say that the debate and funding you are looking for happend while you were asleep, or given that you are about my age too young to remember.

I agree. But I feel science is different than ideoligy. The fact is, we don't know if there is global warming. Yes, there has been a warming period. But previous to that there was a cooling period. We don't even know if the ice on land is going to melt or even has melted. We do know that water levels have been rising for millions of years. Sorry, there just isn't any solid evidence to back the *theory* of global warming. Science is factual. Everything else is theory. Evalution is not factual, it's theory. 2 + 2 = 4 is factual and science. Global warming is a theory from the left wing. It's anti-corporation, anti-oil, and anti-car: What else is new. Nothing is new. Global Warming is no different than the Cold War, Ozone Layer, Acid Rain, and ah yes, Global Cooling: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/ Remember Global Cooling? Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict. "Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling." "for more than 100 years journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age." I had started to respond to your post, but I got to the point where you said that evolution was not factualy based and just stopped, sorry to say it but the thin ice you are treading on just broke. You make some points about global warming, and the movement itself, somethings I would concede to you, but unfortunately looking at that particular point in your post we are on such irreconcialable plains that the excersize of disscussion would be futile. How can I concede the idea of natural patterns when I am constircted to dealing with a 6,000 year old YEC creationist timeline that would imply that the same waters that created the grand canyon were unable to tip over a couple of standing rocks in england.

I agree but I disagree with you Geoffrey, I think when looking at this situation and many other situations when dealing with scientists we have to recall that there is almost two different forms of science. There is traditional Science which, as Argus mentioned, goes right over the heads of the majority of the population and then there is the public manifestation of science, the public image so to speak. That is science dumbed down for the average America or Canadian. Because the truth is most people are intellectually lazy, they are not going to do research, they are not going to hop on the internet go to mapleleafweb and start a discussion, their views are going to be formed by sound bites. Look at American Elections Kerry was said to sound too intellectual, Bush was just a good ol' texas boy, Reagen was certainyl not seen as intellectual..although evidence indicates who was fairly smart, Jimmy Carter was just a peanut farmer. The idea being that simple is often good. The diet industry exists soleley today as a result fo lazyness, not neccessarily physical but intellectual, because people are to lazy to investigate the simple concept or science of weight loss and therefore apply improper and downright dangerous philosophies. So when a scientist says the door is closed, un-scientific by any measure, that should be seen as public science. Because the truth is the door can never be closed to evidence. Science is not rigid, it is not like a religion that stays the same. Concepts are continually seeing new evidence emerge, new data to interpret evidence differently, and resulting adjustments being made to theories, ideas, persepectives, and hypothesis. Science is not dead, it is not rigid. When a scientist steps up and says the door is closed, it is simply an impossibility, that is...so to speak public science, which at times can be un-scientific and very dumb. Take the recent headlines of Earthquake predictions in British Columbia, a high risk warning, etc....no one in the media really tokk the time to explain Episonic termor and slip, and probabley no one on this forum took the time to research this, thats why you get a couple of people walking around talking about how wrong the scientists were once again. Or how they were not worried, because science is often wrong. It is simply the fact that people don't grasp plate tectonics, and before you can grasp ETS, it would neccessary to grasp plate tectonics...and people don't have the attention span for the media to explain this, and the media recognizes this. I remember at the NDP leadership convention, where the NDP was using online voting, which was going very slow due to DOS attacks, I felt sorry for the tech guy as he tried to explain to the media wanting a sensational story that the computers had not been hacked, so to speak. Who here has 100 hours to sit back and learn about global warming? Uhmm...I can only speak for myself when I say that I certainly don't and its likely the story holds true for the rest of the posters on Mapleleafweb. When science appears to be acting far too rigid, it is most likely a case, of the public image of science, not science itself. So why have a public image? Thats like asking why a person who speaks no French would want to travel in a French speaking country with someone who is moderately bilingual. It is certainly not ideal, but it is better than the alternative. When it comes to global warming guys like David Suzuki and Al Gore should be seen as public scientists, and yes there is a bit of a public scientist to every scientist, but that does not discredit science itself.

Actually I wasn't aware that skiing was illegal, although those so-cons are always looking for a way to stick it to B.C... -------------------------- anyways I would say we should really consider looking into legalising the use of drugs. All to often we have a historically innacurate picture painted before us, about how herion was a dangerous drug that needed to be controlled, and was ruining the lives of people across north america. When history paints a different picture. When opiates were legal, herion was an almost non-existant drug. Opium was the drug of choice for middle aged housewives who saw drinking as a low class immoral behavoir. There was no pronounced drug crime connection, where users had to steal to support their habbit, for a while it wasn't even truly considered a habbit. Herion didn't emerge until after the government stepped in to "help" end the drug "problem". Niether was their a herion-crime connection. Instead as governments phased legal use of opium out, first to a tax and regulate scheme, then to a strict prescirption only phase, next to closing all treatment clinics because they did not force addicts off opium, then preventing doctors from providing maitnance dossages to patients...etc... With each step the criminal underworld took over the situation, and wouldn't you know it, they turned to herion. Being far more potent it became much easier to transport, distribute, and of course make a good prrofit. As opiate use was pushed further into the world of criminals, the selection slowly started to dissapear and converge around herion. Basic economics, criminal organizations have a monopoly on herion, alternatives drugs and sources have phased themselves or been phased out of the market, these drugs are addictive, addiction treatment centers have been closed, needless to say the demand is as inelastic as you can get. As the price goes up the addicts, need to get the money from some where. The drugs have become more potent, more mind altering, more addictive, more expensive...your average herion user aint going to be holding down a nine to five and driving home to your house with the white picket fence. I am afraid that irreverseable harm has been done by the criminalization of opiates and for that matter most other drugs, particularly Marijauna. But I do believe we need to start phasing out this failed government intervetion, because it has been a failure. An expensive one at that. And this is something we cannot forget, it has come at a price to all tax payers. I migh talso wager that you pay the price not only in your tax bill, but also your insurance premiums. So yes I do believe the government should move towards treatment. The truth is Jails are not the place to treat drugs addicts, or get a drug addict to stop being a drug addict, no more than a pig sty is where you go to teach pigs to stop being pigs. I mean I haven't even touched on the unneccessary strain on police resources as a result of criminilizing drugs. Anyways the step to treatment as an illness should only be temporary, its timb to climb back down this ridiculously unstable and shaky ladder of drug prohibition.

Well actually if it was that big of deal you could stop google.com...I am fairly sure that you can mask posts from guests, but is it really that big of deal?

You know what come to think of it, this is actually kinda sad... Cause all these students graduating are going to be paying out the ass in taxes to support the baby boomers who have no bloody idea how to save for retirement, so what do they do? Oh yeah, get the government to do it for them. Now when young people catch on to this trend followed by everyone in else in Canada, they are the ones who get the flack. Not the 70 somethings who paid dick all in taxes... Not that I have a desire to see the government pay all my tuition, or that I am about to go on a march to reduce tuition fees, but I just hope people see the irony in the situation. Because almost everyone in this country wants the government to subsidize something for them. Why single out students?

Well no one is interested in making that legal...however driving a car is not an inherrent part of smoking pot...although according to recent anti-drug adds, sitting on pete's coach is. For that matter 10,000 people die every year in the U.S due to the use of non-prescription medicines. Its dissapointing that we cannot bring Pot into the realm of government regulations.

Congrats. I just passed the 6000 post mark. If I average 1 minute per post, which is obviously low, I've wasted 100 hours of my life posting here... in reality closer to 500 reading, posting whatever. That's a full-time job for couple of months. I'm impressed I am comming up on my fourth year and I am still working on my first thousand.

Hey we might like America as a nieghbor, we might like America as a friend, but we don't like America in that way, why can't we just stay friends and nieghbors?