segnosaur

Well, given the fact that A: We have limited resources available for health care, and B: that most alternative health care has proven to be false, we have a responsibility to direct our dollars at stuff that has the best chance of working. If you're complaining that we're ignoring stuff that hasn't been proven, then how do you feel about faith healing? Prayer? Did you know that at one time swallowing a spider rolled in butter was considered a cure for a sore throat? Should we now include spiders in our list of acceptable cures for throat pain? As for your claims about acupuncture... First of all, keep in mind that the basis for acupuncture is that it somehow improves 'chi'. Yet nobody has ever given proof of the existence of this energy source. So immediately you should be skeptical (in the same way you should be skeptical if some christian faith healer said "god did it". Secondly, acupuncture is extremely difficult to test. How exactly do you devise a 'control group' when you're sticking needles in someone during a double blind study? After all both the patient and the 'doctor' both know they're not being stuck with needles. Thirdly, yes, there have been a few studies which have shown acupuncture works in some cases. But there have also been many studies which have shown that acupuncture does nothing for many diseases that its practitioners claim it helps. I was thinking specifically of cold remedies at the time. From what I remember, cold remedies don't claim to 'cure' colds, but they do relieve symptoms. Relieving symptoms (even if they don't immediately fix the underlying problem) IS of value. Antibiotics are less and less successful. Not exactly accurate... It is true that some antibiotics have become less effective (due to antibiotic resistance in bacteria), we've also developed new antibiotics to fight infection. So, if penecillian doesn't work, you might have to get Cipro. But if you have a bacterial infection you still have a >99% of getting cured with antibiotics (even if the antibiotics have changed.) The only statistic that needs to be looked at is the annual death rate from influenza. I haven't noticed a significant drop that would indicate a positive intervention. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchiv...008/bigpi20.htm Ok, a number of problems with your argument and/or analysis... First of all, note that the graph you provided contains data for both the Flu AND pneumonia. Now, I don't know if they've restricted the incidence of pneumonia to only those related to the flu (they don't give enough information), but if they're referring to pneumonia in general then its possible that the number of pneumonia deaths far outweighs those due to flu. Secondly, the graph you provided shows influenza deaths as a percentage of total deaths. Keep in mind however, that even if the flu vaccine does save lives, we've also had advances in treating other diseases. If the flu vaccine prevents (lets say) 10% of the deaths, but improved treatment for cancer and heart disease prevent 10% of those deaths, then the vaccine will be saving lives even if the same percentage of people die from the flu. Thirdly (and possibly most importantly), that graph only goes back 5 years. We've had the influenza vaccine for many decades, and its been in wide use for a lot longer than 5 years. Comparing one widely-vaccinated population in one year with another widely vaccinated population in another year doesn't really give you any sort of proper 'control' group. You'd need to look at influenza deaths now as compared to, lets say, the 1960s/70s. Lastly... if you look at the data, did you notice something? For the first 4 peaks, the general trend is down. And although the last season had a fairly high 'spike', its still lower than the first spike. Lets compare the 2004 spike to the 2008 spike... the high point has decreased from 10.4% to 9.2%. That means the death rate from the flu was 13% higher at the beginning of the time period than at the end. To me, something that prevents 13% of deaths due to a particular cause is pretty significant. An analogous interpretation of what you are saying is that Macdonald's, being the only restaurant around, doesn't hold a monopoly because there are thousands of them. Where's the monopoly? No, that's not really analogous at all. If you want to compare the drug situation to the fast food industry, consider McDonald's as one drug company, Burger King to another drug company, etc. Meanwhile, the new surgical techniques are the equivalent of the new pizza place (involving something different). Each can compete against each other with new products. In each case the government can step in to make sure their food is safe. Again, we have limited resources for government health care spending and we should be directing our money at stuff that has the best chance at working. Nobody said science was perfect. Heck, I can show you even more cases where science has made substantial blunders. Yes, there are flaws, but it is still the best system that we have for separating what works from what doesn't work. Actually I would like to hear it. But, if you do happen to grace us with your suggestion, be prepared to have any flaws in your suggestion criticized. Ummm.... you do realize that that very last sentence makes absolutely no sense? The placebo effect is basically what people imagine is happening. Any 'cure' is just the body healing itself. You're basically suggesting we cure people by doing absolutely nothing.

First of all, if taking losses isn't "punishment", then what is it? If I end up loosing money (or my pay gets docked), I have less cash available to me... that sounds like punishment. Secondly... while you are right in that simply the act of choosing collective bargaining doesn't increase operating costs, its pretty much expected that any actions that the union would take would be to improve wages/benefts for their employees, which would increase operating costs. Wal-Mart has a duty (to its shareholders and customers) to plan for possible eventualities, including increases in wages due to unionization. Perhaps. But remember, there is more than just the right to collective bargaining at stake. As far as I remember, we don't have "right to work" laws in this country. When you don't have "right to work" laws, you basically force people to join the union (or at least pay dues) even if they do not wish to. One "right" tramples over another.

Not quite accurate. First of all there were probably some 'operating costs'... an empty store that they probably had to pay taxes on, time and money spent preparing to open a store, and later closing it. Secondly, while not exactly an 'operating cost', you also have to consider forgone profit. If I decide not to go to work, my 'operating cost' might still be 0, but I'll also not get paid by my employer. So, I have to consider the loss of income. In the same way, a store that could be open and earning a profit (but isn't) should likewise have its lack of profit considered a penalty. Why? A charter of rights should really only deal with issues between the government and individuals. It should have nothing to do with the relationship between individuals and companies.

Except its not setting up a monopoly. Early on I provided a list of over a hundred drug companies. No monopoly there. And as I've said before, there will be nothing from you selling your snake oil to whomever wants to buy it, so there's still no monopoly. You just can't claim it does something when there is no proof that it does. The size of the 'alternative health care' market is large enough that, if they wished, companies could easily finance proper double blind studies and have them published in peer reviewed papers if they wanted to provide evidence about their effectiveness. I guess its much easier to complain about "monopoly" than it is to actually, I don't know, prove your stuff actually works. So much for science. I guess you have no need of that, eh? By the way, you still haven't answered the question... are you in favour of eliminating all regulations regarding health and safety (for food products, for drugs, and everything else), or is it just C-51 (and natural health product regulation) that you're concerned about? I've asked that question many times and you've never answered it. Since I've asked any questions that you've posed, the least you can do is answer mine.

Pretty much yeah, its the placebo effect. The placebo effect also explains why people believe in faith healers and other such nonsense. Actually, there are several factors that come into play here: - The placebo effect... the body heals itself in many cases, but people take some worthless herb and they mistakenly attribute their feeling better to the effects of the herb - Lack of 'personal touch' in western medicine. Doctors often rush their patients though, giving them a prescription and sending them on their way. Even if the drugs are effective, the patient feels slighted. On the other hand, many 'alternative' health care practitioners are better at connecting with their patients. Even though the actions of the 'alternative' healer did nothing to help, the fact that many will talk more with their patients makes people happier. - Scientific ignorance. People just don't know/understand basic science, like double blind studies, peer review, etc. Thus, they can easily be swayed by false claims made by many practictioners I should also add that there is the issue that some plants/natural remedies can lead to cures. The best example is probably willow bark being used for pain relief (the basis of aspirin). The problem is, when one such natural cure works, people mistakenly believe that every natural cure works. Not sure what exactly your point is here. Over-the-counter drugs (such as aspirin, etc.) ARE effective and HAVE been classified as 'medicine' (although medicine that's available without prescription.) Yes, sometimes drugs are prescribed when they are ineffective. (Prescribing antibiotics for viral infections comes to mind). But the problem is not that of the drugs themselves, but in the actions of the doctors. However, the solution to mis-prescribing medication is not to allow even more useless drugs to be taken (e.g. herbals), but to stop the mis-prescribing in the first place. Again, I'm not sure what exactly you're claiming. Right now, people can make claims about how well their 'natural cures' work, even if not medicinally administered. That's the problem, and something that hopefully C-51 will prevent. You're right in that they never (or at least should never) "guarantee cures". But whether they use the word 'cure' depends on the context. I'm sure most doctors won't hesitate to use the word 'cure' over, for example, using antibiotics to successfully fight bacterial infection. Quite incorrect. The flu vaccine has been credited with saving thousands of lives, especially among the elderly (where they may stop 30-70% of cases.) See: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-r...s-07/index.html http://www.usask.ca/pediatrics/services/influenza.pdf Seems like science disagrees with you... From: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7581/1241 ... Vaccinating care home staff against influenza can prevent deaths, health service use, and influenza-like illness in residents during periods of moderate influenza activity. From: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373 ... influenza vaccination was associated with significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza and in the risk of death among community-dwelling elderly persons. Yes, it is true that researchers do have to guess the strain of flu that will be the biggest problem fairly early (to give time to actually develop the vaccine) and that they can often guess wrong... However: - Although they sometimes guess wrong, they also sometimes guess right, and the vaccine ends up being very effective in preventing the flu. Look at it this way, would you ignore a lottery where half the tickets were winners just because you only had a 50% chance of hitting the jackpot? - Even if they don't select the best strains to use in the vaccine, that does not mean that the vaccine is worthless. Even preventing the flu in a minority of cases is still better than not having any prevention. It should also be noted that many strains of flu are 'related'. Even if they use the wrong strain, it may still give partial immunity to the 'main' strain. Ah, the whole 'anecdote' thing. The same reasoning behind people who claim smoking isn't dangerous because they 'know someone who smoked all their life and lived over 100 years'. How do you mean 'most people' get the flu anyways? How many friends are you talking about? dozens? Hundreds? You ever develop actual statistics? And more importantly, are you sure your friends had the flu? There are many common diseases that give similar symptoms to the flu (even though the virus has no relation). Even food poising can give the same type of fever and chills people associate with the flu. Well, I did a google search based on influenza, vaccine, death rate, and effectiveness and found plenty of studies in various peer reviewed articles which show their effectiveness. Just curious, what sites are you looking at? There are many 'anti-vaccination' sites that are based on bad science. Not sure why exactly you consider it a 'monopoly'. There are many respectable 'peer reviewed' journals that a proper experiment can be written up in. We have hundreds of companies that make drugs, diagnostic equipment, etc. We have thousands of researchers in private and academic settings. We have hundreds of thousands of doctors with practices. Where's the monopoly? Hey, if you have any idea of how to prove something works and isn't due to the placebo effect, I'd love to hear it. It may be a flawed system, but its the best we have. You're right... western medicine didn't find the right treatment of ulcers right away. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every little folk remedy is actually going to be beneficial. For every case of an effective folk remedy or 'natural cure' that was ignored by science, I can find one (probably many more than 1) natural cure which is ineffective. And surgery (surgical techniques have greatly improved over the past decade). And public health issues (such as effects of smoking, or diet in death rates). And Diagnostics (new blood tests, detection methods, etc.) Scientists research that stuff because it leads to better health. What exactly would you recommend they study?

A totally irrelevant statement. (A Libertarian would not jail the addict in the first place, but he wouldn't pay for his drugs either. So trying to link the 'cost' of incarceration with the cost of providing drugs is irrelevant.) So, once again... if you are claiming that Emery is a Libertarian, where is the proof that he will cut or eliminate Welfare? That he will cut or eliminate Social housing? That he will cut or eliminate government-run health care? That he will work to curtail the activities of human rights commissions when they investigate 'hate speech'? You know, if you actually bother reading an actual history book, you'll learn that the fascists (as represented by WW2 Germany and Italy) were truly evil, detestable people, willing to engage in such attrocities such as genocide. Your attempts to link the conservative government with such barbarians is, quite frankly detestable. It belittles the truly malevolent actions that were carried out by Hitler et al. Frankly, I think its rather disgusting. Do you really think the holocaust was such a minor event that it can be equated to anything that the current government is doing? Not only have you shown a complete and total ignorance of what the concept of 'libertarian' is, but you are showing a complete and total ignorance over basic 20th century history. Nobody said it would. How would taking money out of my pocket to pay for someone else's expenses enhance MY freedom?

Isn't it up to the courts to decide whether it was illegal? Its not against the best interest of those who shop there... after all, if wages are forced to increase, it will increase prices. Even if someone is a careful shopper and only shops for things at walmart for things that they are sure are cheap, they end up loosing out. There are estimates that the lower prices provided by Wal-Mart's competition in food alone save $50 billion to U.S. consumers, and those most benefiting from the savings are poor people. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5112700687.html Wait a second... first of all, you say you're "not saving that much money". Doesn't that actually imply that you are saving money (even if its not as much as you might think)? So if you're saving money, doesn't that actually help the people that shop there? Secondly, there was a study done by an economic think tank (Global Insight) which suggested that the competition provided by Wal-Mart actually keeps prices over 3% lower overall (not just at Wal-mart, but across all retailers) than it would otherwise. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/07/business/walmart.php And this is different from other large retailers, how? Lets see, Zellers/Hudson's bay: American Owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company) Sears: American Owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears,_Roebuck_and_Company) Futureshop/Best Buy: American Owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shop) Ummm..... I've already posted statistics about this previously. Wal-Mart may have huge profits, but that's only because the company itself is so big. Their net profits (3.5%) are within about 0.1% of retail industry average, and much much smaller than the profit margins of other industries (fast food industry 12.9%, manufacturing industry 6%). If you've got money to invest, Wal-mart may be a 'safe' investment, but you can get much higher returns elsewhere. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry328044 Except that Wal-Mart's wages and benefits packages are pretty much competitive with other large retailers like K-mart and Target... From: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-404212,00.html Wal-Mart's wages are competitive with those paid by rivals such as Kmart and Target. ...its stock plan has been a wealth builder for many lower-level employees...two-thirds of its managers come from the ranks of store associates, which is what Wal-Mart calls all employees. Yeah, Wal-Mart employees may earn less than doctors, lawyers, etc. But, for better or for worse, they are often unskilled workers; normally, when people lack certain skills they should expect their wages to be affected. Not accurate at all... While some specialty shops may loose out, others manage to survive (and some even see their business improve). And often the locations of the specialty shops that go out of business get taken over by other specialty shops. Wal-mart is not in competition with small specialized shops. You don't go to Wal-mart if you need a particular service, or want the higher quality merchandise available From : http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/WalMart/Walmart.pdf Contrary to popular belief, our results suggest that the process of creative destruction unleashed by Wal-Mart has had no statistically significant long-run impact on the overall size and profitability of the small business sector in the United States. By the way, ever see the TV series Bullsh*t, by Pen and Teller? (A great series, where they debunk all sorts of myths.) In one episode, they talked about people opposing Wal-Mart. They went on a tour of some city that successfully fought to keep Wal-Mart out...the guy was pointing out all the businesses that had closed (and this was the city that kept wal-mart from opening a store there). So people have to comparison shop... what's the problem with that? When you say the prices of non-staple items are 'often' 'more' expensive, how often is often? and how much 'more' is more? Those are such vague terms as to render your argument meaningless.

First of all, I doubt very much whether there are any real drugs that have been proven worthless... companies spend huge amounts of money to actually have some sort of effect. (If you have a list of ineffective drugs, I'd like to see it... even if there are some, the list of ineffective drugs would pale in comparison to the list of ineffective 'natural' products.) Now, you are right in that many approved drugs have ended up having serious (or even deadly) side effects... thalidomide and phen phen come immediately to mind. The difference is that real drugs actually do have the chance to actually help people. The vast, vast majority of 'natural' cures do absolutely nothing (over and above the placebo effect) to actually cure anything. Most people will accept a small risk (even if its deadly) if there is a chance it will greatly improve their lives. Most people will not be willing to accept a similar risk if there is no chance it will help. And before you start claiming that natural medicine works, I'd suggest you look up the terms double blind study, control group, peer review, and the placebo effect. Yes, I'm sure there are ton of anecdotes about how people get cured from herbs, etc. But then there are also anecdotes about people being cured by Peter Popoff and other religious figures. When proper double blind studies are done with actual control groups, most 'natural medicine' is shown to be no more effective than, well, doing nothing. (Note however that I did say most 'nautral medicine is ineffective. There are a some cases where plants have indeed been used as the basis for successful treatment. However, this does not mean that all alternative treatments are effective.) Remember, the plural of anecdote is not 'date'. Given the fact that I'm only hearing about this 'interpetation' third hand, I don't quite agree with what you claim it means. You can probably continue to say "take 2 or 3 capsules". You just can't say "take 2 or 3 capsules to cure disease X" if there's never been any actual scientific studies that show your capsules actually cure disease X. That's what's meant by 'character' and 'merit'.

There are so many things that could be wrong... perhaps you misunderstood what the CFIA manager said. Perhaps the manager didn't know themselves. (You said they 'seemed' pretty certain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were accurate.) Heck, for all I know you aren't even being honest with me (since you obviously have a vested interest in seeing C-51 defeated). So, I'm basically getting 3rd hand descriptions based on testimonials from people who may or may not be 'experts', and who may or may not be basing their opinions on accurate date. In that case perhaps you can point out the relevant sections of C-51 that are going to drive up your costs and drive you out of business. You still haven't answered the question... are you against any and all safety regulations (basically putting the requirement on the user to know the risks) or is it just C-51 that you're concerned about? Well, first of all, bill C-51 doesn't classify 'natural medicines' as drugs... it creates a kind of brand new class. Secondly, when you do any sort of work (with drugs or with food), you always risk contamination. The process of griding up and putting that garlic into the capsule can be a problem. (In fact, earlier on I gave a reference where 'herbal' viagra was laced with real viagra.) And just because you may take steps to ensure your stuff is clean, not everyone does. A good analogy would be food... we have laws to prevent 'bad' food from being sold; however, that doesn't negate the need for additional checks on restaurants to make sure the food that was safe when it came from the farm is actually handled safely during preparation. Lastly, there is the issue of claims... if you buy a bag of "essance of seaweed" or whatever cr*p people like to use, its not necessarily making any claims as to its abilities. But if its on a package, with a label that says "this will cure all your ills", then not only to you have to worry about safety, you have to worry about false claims. Oh, could it be because people have gotten ill and died by using such 'natural' medicines? Sometimes, they get sick or die because of something in the 'natural' medicine itself. Sometimes, they get sick or die because they stop taking properly prescribed medicines and go with an ineffective 'natural' cure instead. Some examples: http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...e4-151339bc833a ...55-year-old Michael Berggren died in a single-vehicle rollover after unwittingly taking prescription estazolam in a herbal sleep medicine... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/12/...e=related_story Some men in their 30s who went to emergency rooms after taking herbal sex pills were presumably otherwise healthy, but they showed the transitory side effects of the active ingredients in regulated impotency pharmaceuticals, such as difficulty seeing clearly or severe headaches, records show. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jht.../05/nboy05.html A BABY died from a rare disorder after being denied conventional care by his parents who held strong beliefs in alternative medicine, an inquest was told yesterday. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Nagpur/...how/2688359.cms he Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Wednesday directed the state government to file a report of forensic analysis about adverse effects of the homeopathic tonic ‘Sati-F' which was reported to be responsible for deaths of three persons. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-g...4117959740.html She had died within three days of sepsis (bacterial infections) which had caused bleeding in her lungs and airways....Her father, Thomas Sam, who practised and taught homeopathy, had applied homeopathic remedies...A forensic pathologist, Ella Sugo, told the court a micro-organism which was commonly found in broken skin, was isolated in Gloria's blood, urine, skin and eyes. (note: antibotics might have been able to save this child, yet the father was applying ineffective homeopathic treatments) When you take something that's labeled an 'alternative medicine', you think that its undergone the same type of scrutiny that real medicine has gone. Most people assume the stuff is A: Safe and B: effective. Often, it is neither.

That is not as easy as you make it sound, allowing of course for a very minor player in the game.For one the marketplace does in some ways sefl regulate. As a storeowner one has to have reasonable assurance that the product is safe. A small company needs to rent space, and a landlord wont do it without certificates of insurance, thereby indemnifying the landlord and potential lawsuits . Yeah, but we're not necessarily talking about natural health products sold at retail stores or some company that has an easily identifiable location, etc. We're talking about manufacturers, many of whom are "minor players", and who may not even sell their stuff through normal retail channels (instead, selling things on line, or through private sales. True, Wal-Mart might be careful about selling dangerous stuff at its stores, but I doubt a web hosting company is going to care too much if someone puts up an online herbal health store.) A 'pure' libertarian would probably agree that self-regulation is the way to go (not only for product safety but for workplace safety, etc.) This is one of the areas that I tend to disagree with Libertarians however; I think Yes, self regulation does work in many cases, but many individuals will be willing to risk their reputation to make a quick buck. And the nature of the alternative health care market (smaller companies with limited capitalization, no name brand recognition, and often individually owned) limits the ability of the market to self regulate.

You know, you've made various claims before about how 'herbal' business is going to be horribly affected by c-51, but I've never actually seen real proof. (It was claimed that you had talked to people in the government to find out the effect, but that doesn't make much sense... after all, why would low level government worker know how to interpret the effects of a bill that hasn't even passed final reading.) Once again (since you seem to be ignoring the question)... if you think this bill has the government offering too much protection, then do you think the government should have any say in product safety or fraudulent claims? Should I be able to run a restaurant that has rats and mice in the kitchen? Should a drug company be able to sell untested medication? Or is your concern only for bill C-51 and 'natural' health care products.

Who said they'd intentionally poison them? Even if any contamination is not deliberate, it still can have unfortunate consequences. By the way, I used 'rat poison' as basically a way to identify any potential dangerous contaminant. There have been many examples of herbal products containing dangerous compounds, some natural, some not. Some were due to accidental contamination due to improper controls, others were due to deliberate attempts to alter the product. By the way, here are some examples of problems with 'safe' herbal products: http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/nettle06_02.html Nature's Way Products, Inc. ... is recalling four lots of its 100 count Nature's Way brand Nettle capsules because the product contains excessive amounts of lead. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjm/v37n1/arq09.pdf The presence of toxigenic moulds represents a potential risk of mycotoxin contamination and considering the worldwide increased use of herbal products as alternative medicines, it is necessary setting standards for toxigenic moulds in crude herbal drugs in order to reduce the risks for consumers’ health. Or how about http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/12/...e=related_story An Associated Press investigation shows that spiked herbal impotency pills are emerging as a major public health concern Except here's the problem.... by your own admission, companies that make those "natural" health care products are small... they don't exactly have strong brand recognition. A company can easily create/sell products that are unsafe, and if/when they get run out of business, they can easily turn around and sell the same stuff under a different name. For some people the chance to make a quick buck is more important than long term financial growth. (In fact, the 3rd reference I gave above illustrates this point perfectly. The 'contaminates' that were added were done so deliberately, but without the customer's knowledge.) Seems like some 'natural' product companies didn't get the memo about product safety. Do you feel that way about ALL products? Should we eliminate any and all product testing requirements? What about inspecting restaurants for cleanliness? Should a large pharmacutical company like Phiser be able to sell any type of drugs it wants without them being tested for safety? Hey, its totally fine if you feel that way... I just want to see how consistent you are. First of all, I find it ironic that you suggest that the conservatives are trying to 'protect' the wealthy over this issue. Many of those sellers of 'natural' drugs are probably much more wealthy than the thousands of share holders who have only a few shares of various drug companies in their retirement plan. Secondly, where exactly do you get the idea that the 'small producers' will not be able to afford to comply with the bill? Please point out in C-51 exactly where they will have to pay unexpectedly large expenses. Ummm... you do realize Clement actually divested himself of his shares in drug companies a long time ago? And you DO realize the hypocricy of blaming Clement for having some sort of financial reason for bringing in this bill, while ignoring the fact that By the way, I'm still waiting to hear how the NDPs policies that involve taking tax money from me and limiting what I can do economically are enhancing my 'freedoms'. Also, still waiting to see that properly conducted scientific study which shows that people can perform better when under the influence of marijuana. Also, waiting to see where exactly in C-51 you are prevented from consuming 'natural' medications.

Sorry, but there's just not enough detail to classify him as a "Libertarian". Yes, he does make a statement about how he wants to "Slash Government spending", but apart from issues involving policing, he goes into very few details about how exactly he'd do that. Would he cut welfare? What about social housing? What about privatization of health care? He's given no indication about how he feels about any of those issues (all of which would be important to most Libertarians.) Is his idea of 'slashing government spending' going to involve deep cuts to the police force, and nothing else, while continuing to spend billions on public health care, government welfare, and other social programs? In fact, some of his policies are actually anti-Libertarian. Such as: - He proposes 'free distribution' of heroin to addicts. Who would pay for that? If its the government (about the only way he would have the influence to set up a program), then he is definitely not following Libertarian ideals. (A Libertarian would give people the right to use heroin, but it would be totally up to the addict to finance his own habit. Taking tax money from me to pay for the 'free distribution' would be an unfair application of force against me.) - He wants to replace BC Place with high-density housing. However, the Libertarian approach would be to sell it to private interests, and let them do whatever they wish. Suggesting they would force the land to be used for a specific purpose would be an intrusion into property rights

You are making the mistaken assumption that being 'confident' means that you will actually be convincing enough to "hold your own". Except that other committees, while they may be 'embarrassing', at least have the potential to discover new evidence. But that's the thing... the problem pretty much is discovered to the fullest. They know who was involved (the campaign organizers and certain candidates), they know how the scheme worked (funding transfers between the federal and local candidate campaigns), and they know why they used the scheme (they had reached certain campaign limits). There ain't all that much more that needs to be discovered.

Believe it or not, not everyone needs/requires top quality stuff for all their uses. I'm not a handyman; I'm quite happy with a low-end basic models for my power tools. I'm not a stereo-phile. I'm quite happy with a basic stereo and don't have the need to have 10,000 watts of surround sound output with a 25 disk CD changer. Interesting that you lumped Zellers in with with Wal-Mart as a retail outlet specializing in lower-priced items. Is your concern against Wal-Mart specifically or with all 'discount' material? Do you automatically look down on anyone who purchases lower cost items regardless of where they purchase them? They're also quite narrow in the Zellers I shop at. It is true that there is a bit more room in the Bay and Sears, but I've also found those stores have less merchandise (at least merchandise I'm interested in.) Easier to have more room when you don't sell as much stuff. I've had the same experience in Zellers and Sears the last time I was there. (Sears is particularly frustrating since they tend not to have cashiers near the exits.) Its a department store. If you want personalized service, go to some speciality store or boutique. But, you tend to pay more for such service. Fine if you want to spend the money for it. I choose not to. I've experienced long lines at Zellers too. Wait a sec... how exactly would you know how long the lines are in Wal-mart? Early on you were questioning why anyone would shop at wal-mart and suggesting your only experience is when you 'peer in'. I don't need to shop at late hours. However, I do occasionally find it convenient. Not everyone wants to follow the same schedule. More open hours gives you more options. But its not necessarily the case in smaller retail shops (you know, one of those stores that you seem to think is better than Wal-mart.) Like it or not, pretty much all stores sell stuff that was made in China or other foreign countries. Zellers does. Sears does. My local Loblaws does. Only way you can prevent it is if you eliminated trade between the 2 countries. (Should also be noted that there have also been product recalls/defects with stuff made/manufactured in North America.)

Well, like I said, some things you can get cheaper at Costco. My experience wasn't quite the same. Maye its a western vs. eastern Canada thing. When it came to electronics, I found that best-buy and future shop were competitive with what I could get at costco. (But then, I'm not into building computers). As for food, you could get good deals if you were willing to buy (for example) 3 loaves of bread at a time, but I don't have to storage space to make that worth while. As for the quality of merchandise... it may be true that Costco has a higher average quality, but often I don't need stuff that's top-of-the-line. I didn't need the high-price VCR with every possible feature; I was quite happy going to futureshop and getting the more basic model.

I had a Costco membership for a while. The rumours of its 'great prices' are overrated. Yeah, you could buy some stuff cheaper (especially if you were willing to buy in bulk), but in many cases I could get the same stuff cheaper at other stores. Not to mention the fact that people have to pay memberships. I do find it ironic that there would be complaints about the looks and customer service of 'wal-mart' in a previous post, yet here you're praising Costco. The costco stores I've been in have been a lot less attractive (More or less just big warehouses, with little effort done on interior design), and have had much worse customer service (longer lines at the checkouts, customers restricted to American express only, much shorter opening hours.) Well, lets see... Last year their profit margin was 3.5%. That's within 0.1% of the industry average for retail sales. Compare that to, say, manufacturing (net profit average 6.2% in 1998), or the fast food industry (industry average 12.9% in 2007, or McDonalds with 18.9%) http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/resea....asp?symbol=wmt http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encycl...fit-Margin.html http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsu...&Symbol=MCD So, while Wal-Mart isn't necessarily poor, the reason they have so much total profit is because they're so big.

Why does it have to be bad publicity? Well, given the fact that the committee seems to have a majority of opposition members, I sincerely doubt that they'll be taking many actions that actually make the conservatives look good. The tories have already stated their claims many times, to the Media, to the courts, and to the house of commons. What exactly do you think will be different during committee hearings? Useful legislation has resulted before. If there really is a need for new legislation, then the committee's activities are actually counterproductive. Like I said, pretty much everyone knows how the tories were running their scheme. Instead of wasting time trying to call witnesses who will basically just repeat stuff that was already known, they could actually start coming up with amendments now.

I shop at Wal-mart. Are the stores ugly? No more so than any other department store, or 'big box' store like Home Depot. You don't shop at any department store because you like the looks. Are the goods 'third rate'? Not any more than in, say, Zeller's. Yes, if you went to places like Sears or some boutique in a mall you may get higher-quality brands on average, but not everyone really sees the need to buy top-of-the-line brands when just the basic brands/models will do. (And Walmart does sell name brand merchandise such as Black & Decker as well as the lower-brand stuff.) Is the service 'fourth rate'? Compared to what? I really don't need anyone to hold my hand if/when I go buy soap or kitty litter. And consider that Wal-mart has opening hours that far exceed the majority of other stores in my city, PLUS they have a return policy which is much better than many other stores. I don't buy everything at walmart. I usually shop around for the best deals. But I fail to see the logic in paying more for a tube of toothpaste and a bag of M&Ms at some specialty store just because I get some false sense of superiority by looking down at Wal-mart shoppers.

First of all, I don't even think the conservatives have released their energy plan, so its a bit early to criticize them over it. Secondly, this thread has the word "Liberal Green Shift" in the title. Its rather natural to talk about the pros and cons of the Liberal plan in it. If there are particular elements of the conservative plan for which you disagree, perhaps an appropriate thread can be created. Lastly, why exactly do we have to be in favor of one plan just because another plan may be worse? Isn't it possible that both plans suck, and both plans deserve substantial criticism?

The committee is a political one. This is how how system works. It is an adversarial one. Nevertheless, work does get done. I never claimed that work didn't get done by the committee in general, or that there wasn't a certain amount of adversarial politics. What I'm suggesting is that no useful work will be done in this instance, unless you consider bad publicity for the conservatives to be useful work. Ummm... that makes no sense. A loophole exists when there is a way to stick to the letter of the law, while violating the spirit. If there is no way to violate the letter of the law, then there is no loophole at all, and thus no legislation is needed. Well, at least that argument makes some sense. However, it is making a few questionable assumptions... - That any such findings would result in useful suggestions that could be incorporated into law before an election - That the committee is actually interested in making such suggestions/proposals, over and above the ability to simply bash the conservatives Well, did you say the system is supposed to be 'adversarial'? Are you suggesting that its necessary for the conservatives to be extra nice, while the opposition parties can be as 'adversarial' as they want?

Actually I think you are mistaken. The Conservatives have claimed that the Liberals have engaged in similar activities (although possibly on a smaller scale), although I'm sure the Liberals deny it. From: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/l...189&k=46289 The Conservatives said Thursday transfers between parties and candidate campaigns are common among all federal parties. The Tories circulated what they called a random sample of seven Liberal candidates who, they say, followed the same process of transfers and payments between the party and its candidates.

But then, you're assuming that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc will be actively pursuing spending practices by their own parties, rather than just investigating the conservatives. Given the amount of politicizing, I doubt that would happen. I disagree. If all the parties agree is it a loophole, then they can expedite legislation to close it even it is found to be legal. But if the courts rule that the spending practices were illegal, then no loophole exists. Thus, no need for any changes to existing laws. Action would only be required if it were found to be a legal loophole. Why not wait until the courts rule?

First of all, the optimal word in your post is the word "was". As in the past. Secondly, I've never claimed the conservatives were perfect. Only that the potential for their abuse of freedom was likely less than that of the NDP. Thirdly, I've noticed something... out of all of my response, the only thing you referred to was my acknowledgment of the conservative's actions. What about the rest of the post? What about the potential conflict between religious rights vs. gay rights? Do you simply not consider religious rights worth protecting? Or is it just easier for you to ignore the issue? Or how about a combination of acceptance by the majority of the conservative party, along with a recognition that voters opinions had changed? (Remember, prior to the gay marriage law, a majority of Canadians also were opposed to gay marriage.)

Yes, I know what the purpose of committees is. But what type of questions will they ask that will be relevant? We pretty much know how the conservatives organized their scheme and why, so not much to learn there. Proposals? Well, until the courts actually decide whether the Conservative's practices were legal or illegal, there's not too much than can be proposed.