Wild Bill

Morris, where are you getting the info for your opinion? I was plugged into that industry for years, visiting the station engineers to sell them electronics parts. I have many friends who are DJs and such, all over Ontario. Everything I've seen and been told says that YOU are wrong! Stations have been buying what are called "playlists" for years. Supplying companies have "numbers" on the appeal of every song, at any particular time slot of the 24 hour day. Some songs give better numbers of listeners in the morning than late at night, depending on if you just woke up or if you are relaxing in an easy chair, or cruisin' in a car through the evening with your friends, a la Wayne Campbell/Mike Meyers. They NEVER work without a playlist because most of the managers no longer are in touch with the music of their target audience. Either their age is wrong or they aren't big fans of their stations genre. It's not a problem. That's what the playlist companies do! Without the numbers managers have no confidence in the appeal of a particular song and the numbers are the exclusive driver of every broadcaster. Numbers determine listeners and listener numbers determine what you can charge for your commercials. That's how a station pays its bills! Playlists of course have led to some negative consequences. First off, the Canadian Content rules. Stations have to play about 30% of their music from Canadian sources. They do, from the same old list every day! It costs money to stay on top of what's popular today in Canada so unless your format is specifically aimed at the kids, why bother? Much easier to simply keep playing the same old Lightfoot, Rush, or whatever. Are they overplayed? Sure, but who cares? It keeps the government off the station's back, cheap! There's absolutely no effort from the CRTC to help grow new Canadian music. 30% is required, new or old. Stations do it the cheapest way possible. Also, an entire era of music has vanished from the radio! Old hippies like me remember how in the late 60's and early 70's FM radio was king! It was a new avenue. Up till then it was mostly for classical music, leaving all the popular music to AM radio. As rock and roll evolved, with the psychedelic bands like Jefferson Airplane, Steppenwolf, Mountain and many others moving to album markets, all the serious listeners of the time followed it to the FM band. There were big changes between the AM and FM industries. First off, AM had kept scrupulous records of what they played. DJs pulled their own playlists but they kept track of what they played along with any phone calls and listener reactions, both good and bad. That's where the data for the Playlist companies of today originated. Those were the seeds of their "numbers". FM jocks didn't keep any numbers at all. They were usually too stoned! They pulled their own songs to play. The old 3-minute AM format for a song was a thing of the past. Some album songs would run 10-12 minutes. Some even took up 30, the entire side of one album! These cuts were great for a DJ that needed a break for the washroom! Because FM left no number history, companies forming playlists for today's "classic rock" stations rely on AM Top 40 numbers from those times. So we never hear all the songs that generation listened to on albums. We only hear the Top 40 3 minute hit version. Many hugely popular album bands never had an AM pop hit! They sold millions of albums yet are never heard today. Occasionally we hear a station like Q107 in Toronto hiring some old DJ who worked in those days to make playlists of album rock. That's where they get "Psychedelic Sundays" and other special programming but most of the week is still done with "numbers" playlists. Some folks think this is part of the reason why the age demographic of boomers who grew up in the formative years of rock no longer listen as much to the radio. It's not that they don't like music any more. They just don't hear what they were weaned on! When they were teenagers they wouldn't have been caught dead listening to AM radio! AM was for manufactured pop music, with manufactured stars appealing to pre-pubescent young girls. No, that boomer demographic had choices. They likely still have collections of their preferred music, either on CD or they may even have kept their own vinyl. If radio won't play what they really like then screw radio! There is the added advantage that old farts like me can leave their CDs in the car with no worries about some kid breaking in to steal them. No kid today would want a CD of Crowbar, Rhinoceros or Mountain! Actually, kids today no longer buy or steal CDs at all! It's all downloads. Download sales are still not that popular with boomers because the selection tends to be limited. Lots of Lady Gaga and current artists but a very poor library of older rock. MBA's at iTunes can tell their staff "Don't bother chasing sales with the Boomers! They don't download much!" Of course they don't download much. There's nothing for them but cuts from Lady Gaga. So anyhow, as I said I have a lot of input from that industry, Morris. Everything contradicts your claim. What ARE you basing it on?

Oleg just didn't think it all the way through. Most people who are not involved in direct manufacturing don't. Once you explain some important details it all becomes more clear.

Sorry Oleg but your protectionist idea is not as easy as it sounds. First off, say goodbye to having a computer! Canada has virtually no semiconductor industry, aside from a very small number of niche market devices. Transistors and computer chips have to be made in great volumes, by the physics involved. The volumes necessary for our own market would just not be nearly enough to make it worth while to run the production machines. We'd either be competing for world market volumes or we just wouldn't be able to play in the game at all. There are lots of other products we need and use every day that fall into the same category. So unless we're prepared to all become Amish and subsist on farming, fishing and cutting trees then a protectionist approach like yours just isn't feasible. It's not that we absolutely couldn't make those devices, but how would you like to pay $25,000 for a laptop you could buy in Best Buy for $600? As for the little girl in your example, is "keeping things secret" really feasible? You don't think that in this modern world the knowledge of how much more free and rich we all live won't leak into her country? That not only will she know what she's missing but that she will also know that we don't give a damn about her? It's altogether too easy to see where that scenario would end up. As Bruce Cockburn once sang "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make somebody pay!"

I dunno if I'd fit in. First off, they'd probably lynch me when they discovered I'm NOT a conservative! That would truly be ironic, considering how many on this board seem to think I am, just because I haven't swallowed the leftwing KoolAid. And I've never had a problem with Jews. After all, it's just religion and I've always thought people have the right to believe any cockamamie thing they want. Besides, Gene Simmonds is a Jew and he gave us a much needed dollop of great rock and roll! As for gays, most times I can't tell and don't give much of a damn. After all, it's not likely a gay would want MY old and wrinkled ass so what should I worry about? Again, one of my friends is gay but more importantly, he's a great drummer! I do have a prejudice against the music of some gays. Show tunes, ABBA and Lady GAGA make me cringe when I hear them played! If they want music played by gays why not choose Slayer?

I think you'd be surprised at how many "small c conservatives" smoke pot. More importantly, there is a far larger number of small c conservatives who may not smoke it but feel it is harmless enough that it doesn't deserve the Prohibition treatment. Besides that, many truly resent their taxes being spent in a frivous manner on a trivial issue, with no expectation of any effective results. When they read in the paper about someone getting 5 years for growing a few plants in his basement they will not applaud the government! Rather, they will mutter a curse about all their tax dollars being wasted while real criminals walk the streets with impunity. I really don't think you have any life experience behind your opinion of this matter. Back in the 60's, we ran stats of just those in our high school that we KNEW smoked pot! It was over 87%! Times changed and likely most of those young hippies have long since stopped indulging in the weed but their attitudes towards it were set in that era. They do NOT buy the "Reefer Madness" trip! Now the Tories want to make this a political factor? When this "boomer" demographic is now right in the middle of the age group that supports the Conservatives? What the hell for? What do they expect to gain? It doesn't matter what you say the present Tories are doing, Scotty. What counts is how many voters are feeling taken for granted and if that's a significant number that could affect an election. I'm betting that it IS! And you are taking them for granted yourself! You dragged out how conservatives lost power when the vote was split, as an implied warning for those dissatisfied today to just shut up and do what they're told. Well, WHY was it split? IMHO, the vote was split because Mulroney and his bunch totally lost the respect of their troops on the ground. They took them for granted, that they would keep coming out to volunteer every election, working those phones and banging in those lawn signs. What did it matter that the party couldn't care less about the values and feelings of their supporters? Who ELSE did they have to vote for? I still vividly remember those times. Manning gave us an alternative we APPROVED! For most of us this was the first time it had happened politically to us in our entire lives. All the pentup anger and frustration against the PC party burst like water through a dam. Reform membership rose like a meteor and the PCs were essentially erased from the map. If those Mulroney era Party brass had not caused all that anger and frustration Reform would never have gotten off the ground. The PCs did it to themselves. People warned of splitting the vote then and it didn't matter a whit. You see, the vote would not be split if the PC party could be wiped out! That was all but accomplished when Harper sold us out to MacKay. So if the present Tory party keeps becoming more and more arrogant they may very well cause the same set of events. Folks have learned a few things from the vote splits of the 90's. They will concentrate on marginalizing those PC type Tories that are left and leave THEM with no one else to vote for! Someday the Liberals will get their act together. Perhaps someday a new party will be formed, a la Reform. Meanwhile, those old-style PCs are strutting around all proud of themselves because they ended up in control of the new party. What they appear to be too self-centred to notice is that it doesn't really matter if they control the party. They also have to be popular with enough voters! If they keep pissing off this demographic and that demographic AND alternatives come along then they could find vast numbers of "disenfranchised conservatives" voting with their feet and walking away, spitting at what they left behind! These are very interesting times. Everything Harper claims he's been trying to achieve is in danger and he seems oblivious to it. "After all", he thinks. "Who else can they vote for?"

You're suggesting a dangerous game, Scotty. There are more and more people in more and more categories who voted and intend to vote Tory simply because they saw them as the least offensive choice. Harper has already made it perfectly obvious he has driven a stake through any and all Reformer principles in the new supposedly merged Tory party. The attitude seems to be "Who else can they vote for?" Now the Tories are targeting those who puff a little weed instead of drinking alcohol. What's next? How many demographics are the Tories going to blow off with "Who else can they vote for?" I don't know if you're old enough to remember but this is EXACTLY the same attitude prevalent in Mulroney's Tory party! The MSM even had a term for it - "disenfranchised conservative" meaning a conservative who had to vote for Mulroney's bunch only because he had no other alternative. This arrogance is what helped split the Conservatives and launch Reform! There was a huge number of pissed off people who felt they had been taken for granted and abused. When Manning offered them an alternative that looked better they bailed on the old Tories in droves! Are we heading for the same thing again? If the Tories keep this up they WILL make many people start to wonder if endless Liberal governments might be better than this sort of situation! It would not surprise me if someone, somewhere, maybe with some of the old Reform crowd is watching and planning, waiting as the present Tories keep putting straws on the camel's back. The old Tories have been so successful in seizing control and stamping out the Reform elements that they seem to have totally forgotten that their popular support at the time of the merger was literally mice nuts in comparison to that for the Alliance/Reform. This is NOT a healthy situation and if the Tory party is made up of too many people who share your attitude then it may very well happen all over again...

BM, I can only speak for myself. I support those Tory principles that I happen to agree with. The others - I don't! I've never been the type of political supporter who will back a party right or wrong. If I think it's wrong then I won't support it. Period and end of story. That being said, I've never been offered a perfect match to my own values. Reform came close, if only for its streak of populism. If the party voted to adopt a position that I did not share I at least had a possibility of getting it changed, albeit after a lot of work. With all the other parties it's always been the same old crap. They tell you what they stand for and you are expected to swallow ALL of it! There isn't a man or a God to whom I would surrender my own reason in such a way. I learned at an early age that just because someone has more power than you doesn't make him any smarter. Usually its the reverse! So it's not that I have so little respect for conservatives. I just have little respect for Scotty's views on this subject!

You seem to base your argument on an implied premise - that there are either few or no Tory voters who would not respect a crackdown on pot. I would suggest that there is only the tiny evangelical portion of the Tory support that would fall into that category. I have nothing but my own life experience but I would bet a month's pay that you're dead wrong! I think you must have grown up in a rather sheltered community not at all representative of Canada as a whole. If the Tories proceed with this approach, why don't we sit back and see just what sort of reactions, positive or negative, they get? I really think that whoever in the Tory party is driving this has NO affinity for the ordinary man! It doesn't matter if you approve or not of pot smoking. It exists and attacking it will have political effects. As I said before, all downside and little upside. All you gain is the 1423 evangelical Christians, who all don't even live in the same riding. Judging by your words Scotty, while you're entitled to your opinion if you ever became Harper's campaign manager I think the Liberals and the NDP would throw the biggest celebration Ottawa has ever seen. You seem to equate your own personal feelings with mainstream voting patterns. It really doesn't appear to truly equate!

I won't disagree with you about having disarmed ourselves, Molly. Not that I would want to see a Chicago-style gangster society with shootouts all the time. Then again, look at Jane & Finch in Toronto! However, giving up our own guns only is sensible if we can trust the authorities to do a better job of protecting us than we can by ourselves. In some of our larger cities, that has become something of a debate. And no, our military capacity is not inherently defensive. We would never spend the money to do a credible job! Fortunately, we DO have Uncle Sam and we DO have oceans between us and today's beligerent nations. The problem is that we have allies to support and responsibilities to peacekeeping. Much better to oust a Khaddafi or an Idi Amin when he is still small. If Hitler had been stopped at the Polish border millions of people would never have died. Isolationist politicies have consequences as well, the obvious being that countries that are far away and lack the resources to be a threat to us can carve out empires and change that situation. The UN has no armies of its own. It depends on countries like Canada and others to supply soldiers and weapons. Many countries cheap out and let others bear an unfair share of the burden, like with Canada in Afghanistan. Maybe we should do the same. Who cares if an Afghani girl can't go to school? The answer is that if those who throw acid in her face are unopposed there may come a day when they are big enough to demand that we stop schooling OUR girls! Unilateral pacifism has never, ever worked! It just gets a lot of innocent people hurt and killed. True, most countries have done some things they should not be proud about but SOME countries are FAR, FAR worse than others! One of my yardsticks has to do with tactics. For instance, Israel has hurt and killed Palestinian civilians mostly because of collateral damage. With Hamas, Israeli civilians ARE the targets! To me, that's more than enough to make up my mind where I stand. War is messy and sadly it can be impossible not to harm innocents but when you TARGET innocents then you are simply an animal and should be put down as if you were rabid, IMHO. That's why I so strongly oppose the native protesters at places like Oka and Caledonia. I actually agree with most of their claims. I just totally lost respect for them when they used non-native neighbours as cannon fodder. They could've HUNG McGuinty for all I cared! Just don't attack the townsfolk. No, a certain amount of military strength will ALWAYS be required by any nation that wants to be respected on the world stage and wants to protect its sovereignty. I simply feel that Canada is still far below that level. If you're old enough to remember the Billy Jack movies in the hippy days then you should also remember that if Billy Jack hadn't have been such a tough SOB all the hippies would have been slaughtered!

Fair enough! However, perhaps you would be good enough not to accuse ME of having no reasoned opinion and being hypocritically emotional!

Thought this link might be relevant to the discussion: http://news.yahoo.com/portugal-drug-law-show-results-ten-years-experts-180013798.html Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked. "There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law."

Agreed, Eyeball! However, also included in such a study should be our alliances. Who would we aid and who would we ignore or abandon? We have strong ties with Britain and surely if she were attacked we would be of the first to fight beside her. What about France? or Poland, if someday Russia decided to re-assert control? We saw what happened in WWII when countries pursued a "Neville Chamberlain" policy, allowing Germany to eventually seize all of Europe and start a most bloody world war. Still, is the situation similar today? Would anybody WANT to invade a country that's bankrupt, like Greece? We do have allies now and allies expect support, not "fair weather" friends. They would also expect support to be real and worthwhile. Is Canada capable of rendering effective military support right now? Could we have defended the Falklands? Could we defend ourselves in a real fire fight? We were careful not to challenge either side too strongly during the Kosovo conflict, because we would have been wiped out! We were so badly overmanned and outgunned! Our UN blue helmets just made us easier targets. Stupid rules of engagement from fatass rear echelon political types didn't help either. Serb and Croat soldiers were quite a cut above the typical Taliban. Or would we just sit here behind our ocean moat and dither around while the rest of the world went up in flames? Watching while our historical allies and our business and commerce markets are blown away? Giving more money to better schools while we were at it, I suppose. I think the use of schools as a factor has got me upset. What use is a school to a young Afghanistan girl if there are no soldiers or police to see she can go to one safely, without getting acid thrown in her face? Protection is always primary. Without it you can't have anything else!

As I've addressed in another post, my position IS based on reason! MY reasoning! We are both entitled to our own opinions. Your opinions are not necessarily MY facts! My emotionalism is a reaction to what I consider faulty logic and essentially leftwing greed for social resources causing a danger to myself and those I care for. I consider it one of the primary duties of any government to protect the lives of its citizens. Using poorly equipped soldiers for UN photo-op missions and letting new recruits die for a few years while our defenses are built up, as in the World Wars to me cannot help but provoke an emotional reaction. To me, those deaths at the start of the World Wars were an inevitable result of government policy. Therefore, such policies must take the blame! When the results are so blatantly logical and obvious, the only conclusion possible is that governments and those who support such policies must have a very low value on the lives of those pledged to our defense. They cannot be so stupid as to not see the inevitable results, therefore they must at least tacitly condone them.

And don't forget, millions of Canadians will stand and cheer, certain to vote Tory next election! NOT!

It is not MY "underlying assertion", good Dr. Dre. It is YOUR underlying assumption! I've never advocated a HUGE military or a gigantic debt! I agree that there should be a balance. It's just that historically I believe that Canada has been severely UNbalanced in favour of social programs! I view our military as a small number of brave, well-trained people equipped with bows and arrows. Since Pearson's time it has really been just a token force totally inadequate to ever even try to defend our coasts. Rather, it has been something we can send to UN missions, earning glory to our politicians for their support, even if in real terms it amounted to a few F-18's with obsolete electronics and Friend or Foe ID technology, some "canteen" supply ships and some frigates that can't be sailed due to an exhausted budget for fuel and insufficient manpower to crew them anyways. Toss in a few very good snipers and some northern Inuit reserves and that's about it for our military! I mean, when the balloon went up in Kosovo Serbia outgunned us enough that if the ocean was not a factor they could have conquered our entire country! We keep falling down the list as we rush to put our resources into more vote-grabbing welfare programs. Who's next to outgun us? Bangladesh? As I said in my previous post, we have ALWAYS done this! The problem is that today wars are a "come as you are" type thing. The shooting starts and is fought with whatever you have on hand TODAY! It will be over in a few days, weeks or possibly some months. No time to build a Commonwealth Training School for Allied pilots. No time to change your factories over from tractors and cars to tanks. You either win, repel an assault or you just lose. There are no other options. Our entire military, not just combat soldiers but every cook and bottle washer, would not quite fill Skydome in Toronto. So basically, you're defending a position where we've been spending mice nuts on defense by making accusations that what people like me would like would bankrupt us! That's balanced spending? That's reasonable protection for my kids and those of others? The only thing that has saved our asses is that Uncle Sam is forced to defend us. For this we often spit on him and complain that he doesn't agree with our foreign policy, calling him a warmonger while we hide behind him. Not you personally, Dr. Dre, but we both know that it IS a popular view!

Perhaps then we agree more than disagree, Oleg! I sold parts to the government in my career and I agree with you that there is no more screwed up and inefficient purchasing system than that of our government! I would suggest that the Forces have their own procurement departments, staffed by soldiers and NOT by civil "serpents"! Governments could grant the Forces a budget and be involved on WHICH big ticket programs were approved to be gotten but the actual control of quotes and bidding should stay with our soldiers. Theoretically, they would be free to try to buy the most within the limits of their budgets. If the budgets were set too low that could be raised in Parliament. The priorities of what is bought should be set as much as possible by those who need it. If our real need is more trucks then soldiers would buy more trucks for supplies, instead of obsolete and rusting diesel submarines that we don't need and don't have enough crewmen anyways, bought to accomplish some handshake political deal between ourselves and some other country that had nothing to do with our military needs.

Point taken! It's just at my age it was easier to remember a shorter name than Aimee Semple McPherson.

Sounds like Keith Laumer's "Bolos" might actually come true some day!

Non-sequiturs, Oleg. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we should not spend resources on soldiers, because they COULD be used in some corrupt manner! That doesn't address the need for them in the first place. It only says we should use them properly. Surely you're not claiming that there is no need for soldiers EXCEPT for corrupt purposes! Having only nukes makes no sense at all, especially to a techie like myself. It's like a carpenter trying to do various jobs with only one hammer - a 20 lb sledge! There are times when dealing with other nations when if your only choice is to capitulate or totally destroy your opponent with nuclear fire you really have no choice at all. As Robert Heinlein once said, "If you have an effective infantry you can deliver a light spank when needed, rather than an all out war." You say we should have "some conventional weapons". Isn't that the question? The most expensive armies are the ones that prove second best. You're dead and/or your people are enslaved. Canada traditionally has had old, inadequate and insufficient conventional weapons. Good schools though! Whenever a war came along we had to spend the first several years building up those conventional forces before they were good for much of anything. Our history books rarely mention how many young Canadians died in the first few years of WWI and WWII because we had no decent arms and equipment to give them. I have always considered this callous attitude toward lives as despicable as war-mongering! Frankly, if we ever had another war I'm not sure if I would want my children to enlist. If a country thinks so little of those pledged to defend it that they would send them out with bows and arrows against modern lightning then to Hell with such a country! It doesn't DESERVE to be defended!

Again, it's not that simple. If the only justification of a law is that the State is big and mean and can hurt you if you disobey then you are simply breeding disrespect and contempt for the law. Most people don't claim to have a deep understanding of the Law but they have a general feeling that it is for the most part based on rational reasoning for the protection of society. Pot smoking is a lifestyle/personal choice area and intelligent politicians (is that an oxymoron?) avoid such issues like the plague! Arguements that the Law protects us from ourselves always come across as weak and actually just enforcing some other person's personal value system, denying an individual the right to practice his own. The absurdity of circular arguements like "Pot smoking promotes Crime! Why? Because it's illegal!" make the Law look like a pompous ass. First off, as I had said, there are millions of Canadians who have or do smoke pot. This is the ONLY law-breaking act they likely do! The risk of getting caught is very minimal, literally somewhere around winning a big lottery ticket. The Tories seem bent on improving those odds to catch more people. I stand by my premise that the Tories will lose far more than they will gain from attacking marijuana users. The latest move to tighten up supply by making individuals unable to grow their own medicinal marijuana in favour of government licenced larger growers will only gain ridicule. Why? Because most people have no respect for the quality or cost-effectiveness of government grown or made ANYTHING! Politics is all about perception rather than truth or accuracy. The Tories already have a perception that they are Priscilla Goodbodies totally out of touch with the social mores of mainstream Canadians. Harper has fought the perception that Conservatives are just bible thumpers with a political agenda since his Reform days. Stockwell Day proved that there are many in the party who actually believe that evangelical Christians are a silent majority in Canada, rather than the tiny sect they truly are. If the press comes up with too many examples of otherwise ordinary Canadians having their lives ruined because of something trivial like having one plant in their basement then the Tories are going to look like a liberal's worst nightmare, a bible-thumper with the power to beat people up with the Law to enforce their prissy moral POV. Why doesn't Harper just hand Layton another 10 seats now instead and save himself a lot of time and effort?

Hey BC, I used her as an example, a metaphor rather than a blueprint!

Whenever I hear a suggestion like yours Molly I get this heartwrenching image of one of my daughters dead because someone made an aggressive move against Canada and we had no military capability to effectively protect ourselves. As I look down in anguish at her body I hear someone say "Well, at least she got a good education!"

Exactly, Scotty! Murderers, rapists and other criminals are obviously far more important that marijuana smokers, who for the most part are just ordinary working joes! There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who grow maybe a half dozen plants for their personal consumption. What's more, that is virtually the ONLY crime they ever commit! As I said, a cheap target. No argument that I have ever heard about marijuana laws has ever made sense to me, since it is a victimless crime and a matter of personal choice. Virtually all of the negative consequences to marijuana are a direct result of the Prohibition Laws and nothing to do with the drug itself. Still, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. The fact is that MILLIONS of Canadians don't feel that marijuana is that big a deal and if the punishments look excessive it will reflect back on the governing party responsible. The opposition parties would likely jump for joy if Harper gets tagged as a temperance-style Carrie Nation trying to use the Law as a way of forcing other folks to live by her values. It will inflame the accusations of social engineering and the perennial suspicions of a bible-belt secret agenda. Politically, it is a VERY dumb thing to do! Little upside and an enormous downside. Few citizens are afraid of someone in their town sparking a "doobie". They want the child molesters moved away from their childrens' schools. You lose support from ALL marijuana smokers and a good percentage of non-marijuana smokers! What do you gain? 1423 fanatical evangelical Christians, which is ALL of them? Their voting support is useless! They don't even all live in the same riding! When people are afraid of rabid lions you don't win brownie points for sending the police out to shoot field mice.

I agree, Dre! and 'abject retards' sadly is a perfect description! I mean, I agree with almost everything else the Tories are doing to address the problems in the criminal system. I just can't understand why they're taking the cheap shot of making a few marijuana plants such a big target. Sure, they'll get a lot more arrests and longer convictions but what will they REALLY achieve? They will make more people into criminals over an issue that has tepid popular support, at best. It can so easily boomerang to make the Tories look like "Deputy Dawgs" a la that movie, "Reefer Madness". It will be like what happened to that lady mayor in Toronto, the one before Miller, that got her knickers in a twist over the idea of a band with the name "Bare Naked Ladies" playing before City Hall, or Kissinger when in the ultimate expression of having absolutely no commonality with the American common man got upset at the idea of a "Rock Band" like "THE BEACH BOYS" play at a White House function. Worse yet, taking the cheap shot at weed will divert resources from attacking REAL criminals! There won't be enough money to catch robbers and murderers if the Tories are paying for cops to sneak into backyards at night, looking for a half a dozen pot plants! This is a CLASSIC political tactic! It makes it look like they're doing something about big problems when in actual fact they're pissing around with the little ones, making a lot of noise and sadly, fooling a lot of naive voters. Damn, Harper is looking more and more like Mulroney every day! Mulroney, the man who almost single-handedly sparked the rise of the Reform Party and brought the once proud Tory Party down to 2 seats! Once again, I say that Harper is playing a dangerous game. It's one thing to successfully leave a large chunk of his support backing him because they have no other alternative but if he keeps rubbing salt in the wound he might very well trigger the whole chain of events all over again! If you keep kicking a dog you're a fool to be surprised if it bites you!

I live in Hamilton. Since we DON"T HAVE good public transit alternatives then driving is a NECESSITY! To limit people's ability to access a necessity is smarmy at best and downright cruel at worst! Too many people that support public transit alternatives seem to put the cart before the horse, expecting people to use poor or non-existent alternatives and sit around for a generation or two expecting those alternatives to be either created or improved. Frankly, that's crap! If you want people to use an alternative you'd best first create and IMPLEMENT that alternative! Put your money where your mouth is instead of expecting people to sacrifice trying to prove YOUR dream!