gc1765

I could just as easily turn the argument around...why should I risk going to jail, being fined, ending up with a criminal record etc. just because you are afraid that the U.S. will stop trading with us? Also, where would you draw the line doing what the U.S. wants? Are you going to let them dictate what our laws should be just so they'll trade with us? At what point would you say no? It's been said before, but I might as well say it again. The U.S. doesn't trade with us because they are so nice and want to support our economy, they trade with us because they need our products. It doesn't matter who will suffer worse from an end to trade, we will both suffer. Would you throw away a hundred dollars if it meant that your enemy would loose two hundred dollars?

So, you're saying that someone who drives their car only once or twice a week to get groceries should pay the same amount of tax as someone who drives a lot everyday? Both are driving the same vehicule, but one uses much more gas than the other.

How would you feel if the government made crack legal and charged tax on it (just like cigarettes)?

Can you prove that claim...that many addicts don't vote? I didn't claim anything. I said I don't think many drug addicts vote. That is my opinion. I doubt anyone keeps statistics on such a thing.

I don't think many drug addicts vote, so you can't really call it giving in to a lobby group.

I don't think it's anti-semitism in most cases. The people who hate Israel are usually the same people that hate the U.S. for whatever reasons.

Llegal trade in marijuana in Canada will not end the illegal production controlled by organized crime that ships to the US. That means that if we legalize it we end up with the worst of both worlds: all of the social problems associated with a legal substance that is harmful _and_ the social problems created a crime culture devoted to the illegal production and sale.We are better off keeping it illegal until the US decides to legalize it. It wouldn't make sense for illegal production of marijuana to continue if the government sells it in government run stores (like liquor). Let's assume the government charges the same price as the street value...would you rather go to a reputable, government run store that is legal, or go to a dealer and risk being caught? Personally, I'd go with the government run store. Think about alcohol, how many bootleggers are there these days compared to when prohibition was in effect? Organized crime could easily ship the drugs south of the border, sure. I'm sure it would piss off the americans, but heck who gives a damn, we are a sovereign nation, if they are worried about marijuana coming through the border that's their own problem. Besides marijuana already heads south of the border, I doubt there would be that much of a difference if it were legal. How about we keep marijuana illegal if the U.S. keeps guns illegal? What would you rather have going through your border, marijuana or guns? I'd rather have marijuana thanks. P.S. I wonder how the countries surrounding the Netherlands feel about it being legal there?

Tobacco, alcohol and fatty foods contribute to MANY more deaths than marijuana. Why should those thing be legal and not marijuana? The simplest solution is legalize marijuana and tax it the same way that tobacco and alcohol are taxed. Make sure that the revenue generated from taxes is enough to pay any healthcare costs. Any more reasons NOT to allow it? Some other reasons to allow it: spend less money on enforcement. Keep people out of jail who aren't harming anyone but themselves.

This might help. (Most) Liberals, NDP & bloc are for, conservatives are against. Link

I think both the liberals and NDP are in favour of decriminalization, probably the bloc too but I'm not sure. I think the liberals had a bill in the last parliament, but due to the government falling, it was never passed. The conservatives are against decriminalization and have said they would not re-introduce a bill to decriminalize marijuana (unfortunately).

Not true. Link

I don't understand why Ignatieff wants to pass the tax savings onto ethanol users. Like you mentioned before, ethanol will be used mostly by the rich, and it still contributes to greenhouse gases. I would MUCH rather see that money used to further subsidize public transit. That seems like a much better way to reduce greenhouse gases than ethanol fueled cars. I agree with you that anyone who produces pollution (ie manufacturing) should pay for the associated health costs (and more) through taxes. I'm not sure how it works now, but if they're not paying for it they should be. However, those who produce CO2 should also have to pay for the associated costs. Whether it is in the oil industry in Alberta, or manufacturing in Ontario, it really doesn't matter. If you produce it, you pay for it. I'm also curious what this means (from Ignatieff's website): "...where revenue would be recycled back to the province it originated from." Does that mean that the money collected from energy used in the oil sands will go back to Alberta? If that's the case, maybe it's not directed at Alberta. As for his GST hike, the only problem with it is that retailers just finished changing their registers. Wouldn't it be a hassle to have to change them back? I'd be all for a GST hike (I was opposed to cutting it in the first place) but it seems like it would be very inconvenient, especially if it keeps going up and down everytime we change governments.

What's more moral, straightening someone out, or providing them the means to continue their self-destruction? Lives before money is kind of an important value, I thought you were a liberal? Well you are the one who brought up the issue of money. I simply pointed out that in terms of money, paying for needles is probably a lot less expensive than putting someone in jail. If you want to make the moral argument instead, fine, but I thought conservatives believed in people taking responsibility for their choices? I am a liberal, but I believe in small government, as in it's not the governments job to legislate morality. From a "moral" point of view, I agree with Riverwind's ideas, to give them the option to get clean and pay for those services. But that's also probably expensive, and therefore I imagine a lot of conservatives would be opposed to the idea. Either way I don't think putting them straight into jail is solving any problems. As a small government liberal, I would say as long as people aren't harming others, they should be able to choose what they want to do with their lives. The problem is when addicts start breaking into homes to pay for their addiction. A better solution might be to lay off people who do drugs, and focus more on the people who steal to support their habit. Those are the people that belong in jail.

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?

I think the whole point of these safe-sites is to get the addicts AWAY from the public. Would you rather an addict smoke crack and shoot heroin in the middle of the streets, or in a building where you don't have to see it? Personally, I disagree with handing pipes and needles out in the street, but I would like to see safe & clean needles being handed out in a safe injection site and then disposed of appropriately, in order to reduce the spread of diseases.

I'd probably disagree with that. I don't think the law has much influence on a person's sexuality, especially when it's so hard to 'catch' or prove someone is having homosexual sex. But you'd probably disagree with me, so there's not much sense in arguing it. I do have one question though: Should we make smoking illegal? Or eating fatty foods? These things contribute to many more deaths than AIDS. Sure, you could make the argument that HIV is infective, whereas cancer and heart disease are not, but it's usually transmitted through sexual activity. Having unprotected sex with someone who you are not 100% sure is free of HIV is a risky activity, just like smoking, so that argument doesn't really hold. Unless you think people who get infected with HIV aren't to blame? Whether you like it or not, HIV is in the heterosexual community, and has been for a long time. Let's assume for a minute that you are correct that homosexuals are to blame for spreading HIV into the heterosexual community...should we punish homosexuals today (and in the future) for something that was transmitted in the past to the heterosexual community? Now that HIV is in the heterosexual community, it is possible for a straight man/woman to go to a bar, meet a straight woman/man, have sex and acquire HIV from that person, who acquired it from heterosexual sex with someone else etc... Like I said before, even if there is less chance of that happening than there is between two males, there is still a chance of it happening, wouldn't you agree? You are talking about a married couple (with one partner) here. Like it or not, unmarried heterosexuals also have sex. See my example above. Should we make it illegal for couples to have sex before marriage? In other words, should we only be allowed to have one partner? That would definately reduce HIV infections. You are talking again about the initial form of transmission, so I must reiterate: should we punish homosexuals for having sex because initially, many years ago, they are (supposedly) responsible for transmitting the disease to heterosexuals?

Well, like I said before, Canada should do what is best for Canada. It is my personal opinion that it is in Canada's best interest to be a part of NATO, and therefore should have joined the mission in afghanistan when the U.S. was attacked. If Canada were to ever be attacked (which is probably not that likely, let's hope not anyways) I can only assume that other NATO countries (including the U.S.) will support us. I would still argue against sending troops somewhere for the sole purpose of appeasing the U.S. If the Iraq war was not in the best interest of Canadians (which many would agree that it was not) then we should not be sending troops just to appease the U.S. In terms of commerce, again I think Canada should do what is in Canada's best interest. In the case of softwood lumber, I think Canada should do it's best to try to remove as many restrictions as possible on trade that the U.S. has imposed (ie trying to get tariffs lowered/removed). Another case is the legalization of marijuana, a topic which I haven't brought up until now. There are many in Canada who would argue that we should not decriminalize marijuana because it would make the U.S. mad. If decriminalizing marijuana is in the best interest of Canadians, then we should go ahead and do it. We should not let the U.S. dictate laws to a sovereign nation like Canada. I thought it was funny how Mexico decided to decriminalize certain drugs, the U.S. opposed that idea, and Mexico completely backtracked.

Do you think that making it illegal would act as a deterrant against homosexuality? Since heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV, do you think we should make that illegal as well? Sure, HIV may be spread more easily through homosexuals, but where do you think the line should be drawn (in terms of how easily it is transmitted)?

Are you open to the Canadian military joining American forces overseas and following direct American command? Sure, I don't see why not.

Bill Gates engages in economic activity. What difference does it make? Unless the money came directly from the government, it doesn't matter how the money was made.

I guess I'd have to say whoever chooses that responsibility. There are many people out there who would like to adopt. I'm sure there must be many on the religious right who would rather adpot the baby than see it killed, right? Because the person choosing to adopt does so by choice, no one is being forced to uphold those rights against their will, which I think was Black Dog's point but I'm sure he/she will correct me if I'm wrong.

$5.7 million is a lot of money? Bill gates is worth what, $100 billion? And he's white, so should we cut all white people off of welfare?

The ones that NAFTA and the WTO have repeatedly said the U.S. broke, that the U.S. should not be charging duties:Thank you. Now, what do you suggest Canadians should do with respect to future military engagements vis-a-vis the States? I suppose we would have to consider each case individually. If the United States were to get attacked again, by say north korea or iran, I think Canada should offer to support any military action as we did in afghanistan, and as we are obliged to do under NATO. If the United States decided to start a war, without U.N. approval, and without a cause that Canada believes is just, then we should not support them simply for the sake of supporting them. I don't know if that's why Britain decided to support the war in Iraq, or whether Britain wanted to go to war for it's own purposes, but if they did it only to support the U.S. then they got screwed. I think the U.S. & george bush were very grateful that Britain joined the war since it provided slightly more legitimacy, but what have they done to show their appreciation for that favour, if indeed it was a favour? Tony Blair has pressured Bush to sign Kyoto but bush has refused.

What rules are you talking about? The ones that NAFTA and the WTO have repeatedly said the U.S. broke, that the U.S. should not be charging duties: WTO softwood ruling favours Canada Nafta panel declares U.S. Softwood Lumber Countervailing Duty Illegal Canada wins NAFTA softwood ruling Canada wins another round in softwood battle with U.S. WTO appeal reverses lumber ruling

The softwood lumber dispute is outside of NAFTA. Nevertheless, you are asking for a favor to be returned in the form of commerce which is the same as asking to be paid. No, I am not asking for a favour. I am asking the U.S. to play by the rules. Why should the U.S. intentionally do something that hurts Canada's economy? Is that something a good neighbor would do?