theloniusfleabag

Dear eureka, Further to FTA Lawyers' excellent response, the purpose of decriminalization is to end the 'felony' charges for possession of small amounts of weed, and have it a 'misdemeanor', with incredibly less work for the courts. Not only would they have to press and convict on charges, almost all of the 'convicted' apply for pardons, entailing more paperwork, and those caught with a joint are, for now, still in the same 'criminal class' as thieves, murderers and rapists...Shakeyhands, I used to think so too, but then I realized that it doesn't touch the issues of getting grow-ops out of neighborhoods, establishing regulations on age of use, etc. Besides, there is one organization more powerful than the police, and the courts, that would then be in charge of everyone following any rules set down...the most heinous of them all...Revenue Canada.

Dear GostHacked, That is a terrible question. For Islam, it is not even a question, neither for the Jews. They 'founded' the country, but are probably the most secular. They are also the ones 'most pushing ID', albeit back to the forefront. It is a joke, man. Not even a good one. Although, any discussion it foments can be a good thing.

Dear FTA Lawyer, I cannnot say for certainh that this does not happen anymore, but I haven't heard of this happening since the 70's (perhaps early 80's). It used to be that one could stumble across 'laced weed' that had been sprinkled with PCP, or 'angel dust', but not for some time, as that drug is strictly controlled now. A study done by a Canadian city's law enforcement actually showed that marijuana smokers were, on average, safer drivers than both drunk and 'straight' drivers...not that I am condoning 'driving while impaired'. This is true, including prescription drugs. Having six+ beers and THEN smoking a joint is usually a good recipe to make the ceiling go 'round and 'round and beer nuts to spew forth. Some have been developed, but the reason is that there has presently been no need. If the police nationwide offer a contract to buy a bunch, you can bet it will be developed by tomorrow.

Dear Sparhawk, It is very true, a sentiment I share. As to 'gateway drugs', truly, marijuana is one only because of the illegality itself. Alcohol is almost always the first 'gateway drug' for mood altering substances. I say 'screw the US political environment'. Smoking pot is huge in the US (my wife's sister and husband just moved here from the US..the wife doesn't smoke it, but claims "It is the national pastime"). Further, they seem to think that it is just fine that 'B.C. bud' is being traded pound for pound for Crack-Cocaine that is entering Canada....the 'evil weed' is terrible, but let Canadians have that Crack!cybercoma, There is plenty of evidence that the CIA has been involved in the cocaine trade from South America, and the Heroin trade in Asia.

With this poll, I am assuming that those below choice #2 would include alcohol and prescription drugs. I believe this country should address, in a forthright manner, the issue of drugs and drug usage in this country. I do not believe in legalization or decriminalization based on the argument that the 'war on drugs is being lost, so why not legalize them all'. I believe that to be a 'cop-out' excuse. In my opinion, all plants (such as marijuana, the coca leaf, the 'magic mushroom' and the opium poppy) should be legalized and controlled, as are alcohol and prescription drugs, and all 'artificial drugs', or those that have been 'refined', into a much more potent derivative, such as cocaine, heroin and crystal methamphetamine', etc, should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner. I see decriminalization as only a half-measure, saving on paperwork and public expenditure, without addressing the issue. It will not end 'grow-ops, nor criminal activity associated with the growing and selling of said drug. I also believe it to be a benign drug, often less harmful than alcohol, and therefore I do not see my stance as hypocritical.

Dear Argus, I am not sure how you would respond to this question, as it appears that it is basically correct. My take on it is that the price the NDP asks is too high. Health care might get vastly improved, but how long could it be sustained after all the businesses get taxed out of Canada?

Dear kimmy, Bravo. You (and me) and almost every politician is in this category. I used to smoke a lot of weed, but I just don't have the time anymore, and have tried coke, LSD, mushrooms(wheee!)....(never will do LSD or coke again...too 'artificial', and that is where I think the 'legalization line' should be drawn) You are right, I'll start another thread about 'Legalization Of Mary Jane'...but, as to standards for public officials, there needs to be a line drawn as to whether or not they have, or are presently, breaking any laws of the land. Whether those are 'just laws' or not shouldn't matter too much, for if one has conviction in a matter, they shouldn't be afraid to stand up and say so.

Dear err, Sadly, the NDP needs a fix too, but it is about as strong as it has been for years. Most people think our 'left party' is too much like the NSDAP...even though they both have 'Democratic' in their name. Audrey McLaughlin was farcical as leader, Alexa McDonough didn't project 'national leadership' qualities, and Layton seems too much like Mr. Rogers to capture national interest. Perhaps I should run...lol.

Dear FTA Lawyer, Would that we could...our 'democratic system', such as it is, doesn't give the people the power to effect change, especially policy change. They inevitably say "You gave us the mandate to have the power to make policy, so thanks for your input...now run along...we'll call you at election time." The worst part of it all is that all the parties are pretty much the same in this respect. Four-year elected dictatorial powers.

Dear Argus, Only if we find a way to keep gov't out of it! Therein lies the problem, if it is all in one pot controlled by the gov't, it can only be as strong as it's weakest link. That being, the funding and operation as a gov't project. I totally agree, and so do many (if not most) doctors. The system needs a re-tooling, a major overhaul, not just more taxes or dollars. A user fee of $5, for example (accompanied by a 'list of exempt', of those truly needing multiple visits), plus an opening up of 'for-pay' non-essential treatment might open the lines up a bit, plus give everyone more options.

Dear Sparhawk, Law is all about splitting hairs. Down to where they can't be split any further, usually. That was my original contention, but the 1930 act seems to transfer all 'de facto ownership rights' to the provinces themselves (that is, provincial gov'ts, not the residents)

Dear cybercoma, That will never be achieved, someone will always try to make a name for themselves by being a 'naysayer', and further, some scientists are paid for 'findings' that serve specific interests. Besides, as asked "What for you will be empirical evidence". Going from 'someone told me so' to 'everyone told me so' can be effective, but it is the 'proof' of the wishy-washy.

Dear B.Max, I agree. There was also 'twice-scotched' talks of building a nuclear reactor near Ft. Mac, but this was also deemed not worthwhile.

Dear Cartman, I was previously ignorant of the 'entitlement', but have since looked it up....here is a link..

Dear Sparhawk, In this case, at this point in time, no other province is in a position to contemplate such problem. Perhaps one day Cod Liver Oil may overtake Crude in price per barrel, but it may be a while. I'll bet we'll see the 'second coming' first. (btw, why won't anybody admit it takes men longer to come the second time around?)

Dear kimmy, Of course there is collusion, but if someone does't fink on the others, they all get to 'get richer'. With the excuses given, you'd think that costs must have soared, and they all put up the prices just to maintain previous levels...but only profits have soared, billions for each company...if there was a true 'free market', why wouldn't someone try to undercut the competiton (especially if the profits are huge, there would be room to do this), rather than have their prices marching in unison?

I have a question...why is heath care considered a 'right'?... (as I am 'left', I definitely support Universal Health care, but....) I have spoken with a couple of doctors (just MDs, not specialists) who believe we need to change the system. Their criteria seems to be that when people die on waiting lists, changes need to be made. I myself am on a waiting list of over a year, though it is for something 'non-critical', though I have had reasonably good service with several minor injuries. The worst case was a four-hour wait with a broken arm. They did offer me something for the pain, but I declined the bag of ice...another time with a broken rib I was whizzed right through, though there wasn't anything they could do (just a fracture, so while incredibly painful, untreatable). I favour a two-tiered system. We have it now, people I know go to the US or Europe because they have the money, gov't and pro-athletes have their own 'team doctors', etc. A 'blended system', just as a 'mixed economy', is (or can be) the right fit for Canada.

Dear kimmy, My guess would be you are correct, and it is the reason most here, left and right, feel that sending cheques out is not the best use of the money. Welcome, but not wise. A huge gov't expenditure to facilitate an industry is nothing more than subsidy. The development of the oil sands were not even a consideration until the price of oil was such that it made the project(s) feasible (read: Profitable).

Dear rbacon, No, actually it either belongs to all Canadians (that is, the Gov't of Canada) or it belongs to the oil companies. I do not believe that there were any 'grubstakes' filed on behalf of the people of Alberta.

Dear cybercoma, How is this 'evidence'?Very well, cybercoma, I shall direct the question to you...what will for you constitute 'empirical proof' rather than theory of global warming?

Word around 'the patch' today is that they are estimating on $100/bbl . $1.50-2.00/L is not out of the question. Or, should I say, rumour has it...$2.50/L...

Dear Black Dog, As I say, public transportation system would need to be improved before a rail link would be viable...otherwise, I'm just being realistic. I wouldn't take a train to Edmonton just to ride a crappy city bus just to get anywhere. The time I saved on a high-speed train would be wasted on the bus. Better and more extensive light-rail transit in both the cities, (including adding the airports as a destination) and double-decker/double length buses, etc (our transport fellows ought to go to europe for a visit) would be a better long term expenditure, I agree.

Dear Pateris, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I asked you a couple of years ago what you would consider 'valid empirical evidence' as to whether or not there was such a thing as 'global warming'...I believe your response was 'several, large, recurrent hurricanes'...bigger than normal, and several in a row...and a couple of seasons in a row...

I am also from Alberta (Calgary) and while I echo kimmy's thoughts I must agree with the oft held notion that raising the exemption level for income tax would do more than a one-time 'feel-good-and-vote-for-me' cheque.High speed rail from Calgary to Edmonton? Crazy. Few would use it, certainly not me, at least until public transportation on both ends became vastly improved. An 'Autobahn' lane would do more than a rail line for generating a more viable link. Edmonton To Fort McNewfoundland? It is not a dire need, at least for the time being. The cost would be large, and would not generate more production or increase profits. In effect, it would just be a subsidy to the cost of doing business up there. Why not just send all those rebate cheques to Ft. Mac now?

Dear BHS, There is a serious difference in both the circumstance and the motivation, albeit in the case of Iraq it is a perceived motivation. Iraq had not conquered Europe, in fact they were seriously incapable of fighting any war. Had the US waited (and it is generally agreed that no 'immediate threat' was there) for Un and world support, and had made a legitimate case for it, things would be different.