gc1765

If you think the dealers/producers are going to lower their prices to be competitive, then I'd ask you why don't dealers/growers lower their prices right now? You know as well as I do that the price of weed is controlled by supply and demand, like anything else, and that the "supply" of people willing to risk getting caught is relatively low. If there wasn't a significant risk, why isn't EVERYONE selling weed, sicne they are making such a killing? Or why don't some dealers charge less to get more business, just like in any other business? The "market" has already set the price of weed, which hasn't changed much, and here in Vancouver it's say $10 per gram. At that price the government would make a killing and would have ZERO risk. There is absolutely no way that an illegitimate dealer can compete with the government. If that was the case, then I'd ask again, why are there not more bootleggers around?

Products on the black market are always going to cost more because of the inherent risk. If the government sold for prices similar to street value (say $10 per gram) no one in their right mind would buy from a dealer. How many bootleggers do you see around these days? And even at $10 per gram, the government would be making a huge profit which should more than pay for any associated health costs etc. Anything leftover would mean a tax break for you and me.

Instantaneous run-off. The voter would rank the candidates in order of preference. The person with the lowest votes would be crossed off the list. The people who voted for this candidate, their second choice would now count. Continue until there is one person left, and they would have over 50%. This is similar to how parties choose leaders, I believe. The best part is, you could have as many parties as you like and it wouldn't matter, because you don't have to worry about "splitting the left" or "splitting the right".

If you want to keep drugs illegal, then I want to be exempt as a tax payer for paying costs associated with enforcing those laws & prosecuting the people who break them.

Or a different electoral system....

You might not have an issue with it, but Harper sure did when he was in opposition, remember?

Are you calling Steven Harper a drooling idiot?....cause he was the one opposed to the Liberals using the aircraft for personal use.

No, he isn't. Look at the aritcle again: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are paying just a small fraction of the cost of partisan and personal junkets aboard the military's fleet of Challenger executive jets."

What's wrong with having a minimum wage? I could understand if unemployment were high and paying the minimum wage was a significant barrier to hiring, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Especially considering that many of the unemployed are simply transitionally unemployed and so abolishing the minimum wage won't affect them. Minimum wage is a delicate balance, set it too high and there will be unemployment, but at the current rate ($8 per hour in most places) it doesn't seem to be negatively affecting employment.

If the trend continues (and hopefully it will) pretty soon New York will have violent crime rates almost as low as Toronto.

Neither do I. That's why I'm going to vote for "definitely possible". Without evidence either way, I'd say possible but not necessarily true.

Good. I'm glad you agree with my original post then, when I responded to August1991's comment:

Does that mean we should also try to get unemployment back down to where it was as well? Unemployment was lower back in the 70's too.

Actually, I remember during the 2006 election campaign Harper mentioned that crime was increasing (which of course is false). I don't have a link, but I'm sure he said something to that effect.

I watch The Simpsons and Family Guy. I also usually keep the news on in the background while I'm making/eating dinner etc. That's about all I watch.

So? The Conservatives go on about crime when the crime rate has been decreasing since 1991.

Go back and read my previous posts, specifically post #42 and #44 (on page 3 of this thread).

And you'd have even more with a carbon tax...

I believe it was you (though I may be wrong) who said that it's government spending that is important, and that make sense. As long as government spending does not increase, that money would have to either go towards paying the debt or returned to taxpayers (or I suppose printing less money = less inflation). If you spend all of your tax cuts on gasoline, then you would end up neutral. However, if you buy less gas (because it's more expensive) AND you get a tax cut, then you would be better off. More money in your pocket, that's a pretty good incentive to buy less gasoline and therefore pollute less.

It wouldn't really make a difference. If you tax the producer, the prices go up, and the consumer pays. Basic economics. Any carbon tax would end up going to the government giving them more money. Assuming that spending does not increase, that money would be returned through reduction of other forms of taxes. We are not talking about a tax raise/new tax, we are talking about a different tax. A person may spend an extra few bucks at the pump, but their paycheque will be a few bucks more as well to pay for the difference in cost. See above.

That's fine, but I hope you don't actually believe the Conservatives are any different. I suppose the environment became such a big priority for the Conservatives based on.....principles???

Where did you get the idea that I have "unbridled and enthusiastic support" for Martin or Chretien? Back up your accusations or don't make them in the first place.

I don't see what that has to do with the Conservatives stacking the judicial committees. Do you really think the Liberals are not supporting the legislation just because ONE of their MPs father in law? If it's such an issue, he should abstain from the vote....but that doesn't change the fact that this was a drive-by smear by Harper.

Even the National Post is getting sick of that catch phrase: Link

Then what was the purpose of reading the article? Just for fun? It was clearly a drive-by smear after an unrelated question. What does his father in law have to do with judicial appointments? He accused the Liberals of opposing his policies because of one Liberal MP's father-in-law....WTF? This incident makes Harper look disgraceful...I'd say Harper: -1.