ReeferMadness

Are you talking about the parts they've bombed recently, the parts they bombed a while ago, the parts they bombed a long time ago or the few parts they haven't bombed yet?

Could be. I personally follow no church. I respond to what makes sense at the time. But I understand the knee-jerk reaction. Whoever won't worship at the church of capitalism must be a socialist, right?

Can't push a string? What you mean is they can't "reflate" the economy. And nobody can agree on the value of the assets they hold. We're screwed. Kind of makes market capitalism look pretty dysfunctional, doesn't it? The bastion of free enterprise might find that the only way to save capitalism is to turn to socialism. Wait until the banks are ready to go under and buy them. Wait 10 years and sell them. Use the profits to recoup some of the money they're throwing away right now. Or, hey, here's a thought. For years, I've listened to followers of the church of capitalism saying that government should be downsized because they don't produce anything. The best government is no government. What do banks produce? Toxic debt? Financial products that nobody (not even the ones who dreamed it up) understand? Multi-million dollar bonuses? Maybe we don't need the banks at all.

I've sidestepped nothing. You had a debate with someone else over what I meant. If you want me to elaborate, ask me. I would say that the onus should be on the authoritarians to prove that prohibition solves more problems than it causes. I'm certain this is not true for 'soft' drugs like marijuana an hashish. It's likely not true for harder drugs like cocaine and heroin as well. I'm sure it would be cheaper, more effective and certainly much more humane to give heroin addicts free heroin and offer them counselling and treatment than to follow the current course of action (which is to wait until they turn to crime to feed their addiction and then lock them up in jails where they continue to get heroin). You're obviously not going to read my various comments either. If you did so and follow one of the links, you'd see that by some measures nicotine and alcohol are more addictive than heroin. Did you read the post? I said Reefer Madness (the movie) is

sharkman We've all agreed that gangs get a major part of their income from drugs. So, the question is, how do we cut off that income? I see three possibilities: 1) the status quo or some version of it where we can control what people put into their bodies without implementing a police state 2) implementing a police state 3) legalizing drugs to remove the excess profit created by black market economics I flatly reject #2 and I think the overwhelming majority of people will as well. I am very concerned that people will let themselves be manipulated into something resembling this due to fear. You seem to favour #1 but can't think of any examples where this has worked. Maybe you can enlighten us. The third option has been shown to work with alcohol.

If history is any indication, that's exactly what will happen. I've read that Samuel Bronfman (Seagrams) and Joseph P. Kennedy (JFK's dad) both made their fortunes selling alcohol during prohibition. So what? These guys don't sell drugs because they're criminals. They're criminals because they sell drugs (and because drugs are illegal). But now, they need to face competition without killing them. They can't beat up their customers. Again, so what? 80 years ago, that's how it was with liquor. Just because some of the same people would be involved doesn't mean that things would be done in the same way.

That reefer guy? I think he means me. It seems that a lot of people look at my handle and assume that I'm heavy into illegal intoxicants. In fact, the only drugs I use are caffeine, alcohol and vitamin pills. Reefer Madness is the name of a movie made in 1936 to scare gullible people away from marijuana. It was a deplorable, trashy piece of propaganda that claimed (among other things), that pot would make you insane and drive you to murder. Ironically, it became a cult hit as a comedy. To me, the movie is a perfect metaphor for the ease of which lies can become commonly accepted truth and authoritarians can scare citizens into surrendering their rights and freedoms.

And why is it, do you think, that we don't have huge numbers of alcohol addicts roaming around breaking and entering to steal for a fix? You have evidence for this? I don't often agree with the CATO institute but they predict crime will go down if prohibition ends. You're right. Alcohol can be a dangerous drug. They tried making it illegal once and that was a complete failure. The lesson (still to be learned, obviously) is that you can't save people from themselves. Adults have a right to make choices, even if you don't approve of those choices. Sometimes we as a society need to help people after they've made bad choices. It turns out that it is cheaper and easier to help people recover from their bad choices than to forcibly remove the choice. It's also the right thing to do. Are you calling me a drug addict???? That's absurd. I have a caffeine habit but I don't think it's ruining my life. I occasionally have a few drinks. That's it. Oh, wait - I take, get this, vitamins!!! Almost every day!! I avoid OTC meds like the plague and actively discourage my doctor from bringing out the prescription pad. You're right - alcohol is not inherently bad. Nothing is inherently bad, it's how you use something that makes it good or bad. But you seem to be one of those who thinks that illegal drugs are on some completely different level than legal ones. Check this out. In terms of addictiveness, nicotine is rated the worst for dependence (over cocaine and heroin) and alcohol produced the most severe withdrawal symptoms. No. Legalizing and regulating allows us to lessen the harm of drugs. As I said before, you can't save people from themselves. I'd like clarification on this. You appear to be accusing me of being a drug dealer. Clearly, you don't pay attention to the American "war on drugs" which has been an abysmal failure. Four hundred thousand people are in jail but drugs are available as ever. Right. Back to the original topic of discussion. They're shooting each other because of the money they make from selling drugs. If you want this to stop, you legalize the drugs. Legal businesses have legal remedies when their deals go sour. The don't normally resort to shoot-outs on the street.

sharkman, I agree that there is a lot of pointless bickering on this topic. According to a front-page spread on Sunday's Victoria Times Colonist, the police are blaming the gang wars on drugs. (If they were honest, they would admit that the problem is actually due to the obscene amounts of money they make on drugs which are directly attributable to prohibition) It was eyeball (I believe) who summed it up nicely. If you want to stop drug use, you'll need a police state. Our neighbors to the south have tried everything that Harper wants to do (and a whole bunch more) and they've gotten nowhere. I'm sick of hearing that the police need more 'tools' or the courts are too soft. Conversely, if you really want to control drugs, legalize and regulate. This won't cure the gang problem overnight but it will definitely take a big bite out of their revenue stream and that will reduce their size. And when I say legalize, I mean everything except for perhaps the worst of the worst (e.g. crystal meth, PCP, maybe crack). Everyone who is seriously interested in this topic should acquaint themselves with what happened during the alcohol prohibition years: Consumption initially went down but then began a steady growth year over year Alcoholic beverages became stronger to make them easier to conceal Without regulation, poisonous alcohol was being produced and sold Criminal gangs flourished as they took over the alcohol trade in many major cities It was rumored there were more "speakeasies" in New York during prohibition than saloons before prohibition Although overall consumption declined (at least initially), there is no evidence that it declined for problem drinkers IOW, it was a total failure. Yet here we are, nearly 100 years later, trying to do the same stupid thing with drugs! And we haven't even touched on whether it is legitimate for the state to tell people what they can't put in their bodies. If drugs are legalized and regulated, then we have at least some control over potency and toxicity. We save money on police, court and prison costs that could be put towards drug rehabilitation and social programs. We can raise money on taxes. Education programs can be used to reduce drug abuse as they have been very successful with cigarettes and somewhat successful with alcohol. There would probably even be research into safer ways for people who want to alter their consciousness. Someone did raise a valid point that it will be difficult for us to legalize without permission from those south of the border who know much better than us. It would also require us to withdraw from the UN Single Convention. Difficult is not impossible and I think there are large chunks of the world that would abandon the convention if they were shown a success story.

Your phone company told you that your line is probably tapped? What is your phone company? Does that mean they think that some amateur is doing it? Surely, if it was the cops they wouldn't be so incompetent. Or would they? Bizarre.

Oh, yeah. They're just like Picassos - minus the genius, creativity, talent or any sign of coherence.

Oleg, you should be the last one to lecture me (or anyone) on credibility. Your postings are so rambling, I rarely read, much less reply to them. The term I used was 'Gestapo mentality' and I borrowed it from an acquaintance who happens to be a former cop. He acknowledged that it's an occupational hazard for police to get carried away and abuse their authority. There is a tendency for them to treat everyone with suspicion. I'm not going to respond to the rest of the blather in your post - it's too ridiculous.

I'm ashamed and afraid of my national police force. Four officers attacked one man without making any reasonable attempt to communicate with him. Yes, a taser was supposedly a non-lethal device but they shocked him 5 times!!!! And then they sat on him. And then they ignored him while he died. Their excuse is that he was holding a stapler. Since then, it's been one big cover-up. First they confiscated the video and the video's owner had to retain a lawyer to get it back. The officers' notes contained all sorts of things that never happened, like a guy screaming and attacking them. They met as a group and discussed the matter. This part alone is amazing. Say the police came to a scene where 4 guys and the body of a fifth guy who the other 4 claimed they killed in self-defence. Would they let the 4 guys sit in a room to get their stories aligned????? Of course, as is normal in these cases, there was no serious attempt to find anyone culpable. The police protect their own. They were criticized by the witnesses who described Dziekanski as confused and frustrated but not as dangerous. They were critized by the fireman as unprofressional. They've been criticized by use of force experts for not knowing what the hell they were doing. They've been criticized by the Government of Poland for withholding information. Now, reading what's happening on the witness stand, it's one big travesty - an embarrassment to Canada. One after another, these members of our national police force are having to watch what happened and recant substantial portions of their own statements. They were tired. They didn't remember it happening that way. All they can remember clearly is that they were deathly afraid of a man with a stapler. God help us all. Probably one or two of them will face some minor sanctions because of the public outrage. But the only reason for the public outrage is the video. Had they been successful in suppressing it, the inquiry, had there been one, would have been nothing more than people arguing over differing versions of what happened. We need and deserve a police force without a Gestapo mentality. And we need civilian oversight of all police forces.

msj/august: Your responses are typical of people who think that market capitalism controlled by fiscal stimuli is the pinnacle of human evolution. It must be painful when you come to realize it's all downhill from here. Given a choice between being in debt and not being in debt, most people would choose to not be in debt. So debt is at best, a necessary evil. But it's necessary only if you wear the type of blinders the two of you obviously have. Is debt necessary? I don't think so. Debt is a dual manifestation of consumerist greed and societal inequality. Neither one of those is necessary so debt is unnecessary. Can debt be positive? Standing inside your capitalist paradigm, it is the only realistic way in today's world for most people to own a home. It can be used if you are clever (and lucky) enough to time the wild and bizarre market swings so as to make money "investing" (or, more accurately, speculating). If you stand outside that paradigm, it could be argued that debt is a useful motivator to get people to work harder (more on this later). As a motivator, it is coercive and we should all aspire to better motivators. Well then, what about the downsides of debt? There's a line of argument that says that debt is the premier means of controlling the unkempt masses. If you can keep people focused on paying off expensive items all their lives, they need to focus all their efforts on income-producing work. That means that they will not have the time or effort to understand that they're being exploited, much less do anything about it. That may sound like a conspiracy theory but it works equally well as an unintended consequence of our economic system. Then there are the societal implications of msj's "smart investors", the ones who buy up real estate and rent it back to people who can't afford to. These people are a large part of the reason that a lot of people out there can't afford to own a home. When they buy up properties, they increase the demand and help to drive up the price. Not only are these people "smart" enough to get in before the bubble - they helped cause the bubble. Their debt (along with that of a bunch of other "not-so-smart" speculators) is making the world a worse place for the rest of us. But who cares? It's a fee world, isnt it. Now let's get back to the point that I made originally, the point that august carelessly generalized to "Is debt bad?". As I said earlier, at best debt is a necessary evil. A system that [relies/i] on debt for its continued operation is asinine. Too much debt and..... well, we can all see the results. Not enough debt and the money supply collapses. How ridiculous is that? Let's build a system that just assumes that people will never want to get out of debt. I watch the pundits wring their hands in agony over what must be done to get the American consumer spending? I haven't heard anyone ask "Does the American consumer need anything more?" Or even "Would the American consumer be any happier if s/he had more?" No, it's accepted that the American consumer must get back to the consumerist trough and perform the duty of spending.

The basic problem with capitalism as it is currently practised is that it is premised on debt. If everyone pays off their mortgages and stops running up their credit cards, the whole thing collapses. It seems to me that this whole miraculous economic expansion over the last 15 years was completely artificial. It was based on increased debt. Obviously, that's a short term strategy. Now they appear to be attempting to reproduce the same circumstances that produced the mess in the first place. Where's the sanity in that? I think the U.S. government should buy up the banks at fire-sale prices and wait for the economy to recover. Use the profits to offset all of the government debt that is going to be piled up.

Re-read your post. It isn't just STV - the tone of your entire post is just blah. The world's going to hell in a handbasket so everyone should just give up now. Wow, that statement of sympathy reeks of sincerity - well, it reeks, anyway. Well that must prove it. If it's not big news in Ontario, it can't be happening in BC, right? The landscape of politics will change when people demand it. Systems can only encourage specific types of behavior. The current system encourages two-party systems. If you happen to feel comfortable with one of the two parties and are willing to live with near-dictatorship, then you might be happy with the current horse-race system. If you like your politics nuanced and creative, not so much.

geez, Max. What a depressing post. I've just lost my job at a place I've worked for 15 years and I feel I should be cheering you up! I don't agree with your conclusion that PR in BC is dead. The campaign hasn't yet got off the ground but there is some strong organization behind it. It's been endorsed by quite a few notable individuals including David Suzuki, Preston Manning, Andrew Petter and Rafe Mair. It's also being endorsed by quite a number of newspapers including the Vancouver Sun and the Province. The major parties won't get behind it for two reasons: 1) It will cost them seats to minor parties so they'll actually have to work with other parties to get things done 2) It will empower MLA's at the expsense of the party leadership STV is good for democracy but not so good for traditional party politics. You're right that there are a lot of economic problems right now and it's all the more reason people should be getting behind this. The best democracy and the best legislation results when politicians can get over their political differences and work together. STV doesn't guarantee that but it does make it much more likely. Vote YES for BC-STV on May 12.

On May 12, British Columbia will have the opportunity to adopt a new proportional electoral system. STV will not only bring increased proportionality to provincial elections, it will also have the effect of putting more emphasis on the individual MLA's instead of having all of the power with the party elite. Predictably, the two major parties are not in favour and have been largely silent on the matter, meaning that it will not receive much media coverage. On May 12, vote YES for BC-STV. See STV for BC website

Jerome, I'm not exactly sure what to make of your post. Are you trying to be ironic? You do know that the Onion is satire, right? Do you really think that W said those things?

Did you even read what I wrote? Do you even read what you write? Bruce Pardo was an electrical engineer with no previous criminal record. Marc Lepine was a university student with no previous criminal record. You can't neatly divide the world into 'law-abiding citizens" and "criminals".

Yes, it's a perfect example of what can happen when you mix a violent culture with too many weapons.

The 2nd amendment wasn't in question, only its interpretation. The supreme court narrowly decided that the 2nd amendment enshrined the right to own guns for hunting and self-defence but that right has limitations. The court overturned the outright ban but did not rule out regulation of handgun ownership and usage. I don't know you so I can't comment. All I know is I've met lots of gun owners who don't. I also read the news and see that nutbars like Bruce Pardos are all too common in your home country. Every time there is a gun control debate, some NRA apologist brings up Switzerland. Do you live in Switzerland? No? Then, I guess it isn't relevant, is it? Maybe the NRA should spend its resources figuring out why gun crime in Switzerland is so much lower than the USA. Trying to increase the number of guns in an already extremely violent society is like pouring gasoline on a fire. If you're making the case that things would have turned out differently had individuals under the rule of the Soviets been better armed, then let's hear your argument. All you've done so far is made a relatively meaningless inference. BTW, you should realize that about half of the army officers were executed by Stalin in 1937. If anyone could muster the might to stand up to him, it should have been them. Most tyants stay in power by playing off factions against each other. Saddam stayed in power well after the U.S. stopped giving him aid and Iraq is one of the most heavily armed countries on the planet.

Because Canadians watch American movies & TV; and read American magazines. Many assume that it applies to them without thinking about it. There was a time when I could recite the Miranda rights from watching American police shows. No idea to what you are referring. Unless you can be more specific, this is a random sequence of words. BTW, I'm sure you're aware that there is a longstanding controversy over exactly what the second amendment means - whether it is the right for anyone to bear arms or whether the right exists only within the context of a militia. The wording is far from clear. See this link for details. (See how easy it is to add credibility to your opinions? You should try it once in a while). I grew up in rural Alberta. I found the people who thought guns were cool were the same ones who would brag about blowing apart small animals with shotguns. IOW, the paradox of guns is that the people who want them most are too immature to be trusted with them. Not to mention all of the paranoid, mentally unstable wackos out there armed to the teeth. In a sane society, guns wouldn't be huge problem. But in a sane society, people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves. In particular, countries will histories of solving problems through bloodshed should seriously consider gun control or outright gun bans. Sound like any country you know of, BC?

It seems like gun control debates always generate the most irrational arguments, the most extreme paranoia and the most polarized positions. I really don't get why it's so controversial. Cars have been registered for decades. I don't see people protesting that "the government is trying to take away my car". There are bans on all kinds of toxic chemicals. I've never seen anyone wear a t-shirt saying "You can have my weed killer after you pry it from my cold dead fingers". But guns seem to occupy a spot deep in the psyche of the anti-government crowd. There seems to be the notion that gun control is part of some nefarious plot. Do you really think that some dictator is going to seize control and you're going to fight back with Grandpa's old .303? The anti-gun control crowd seem to believe that you can neatly divide the world into law-abiding citizens and hardened criminals/serial killers/drug-addled rapists. The truth, though, is that most murders and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. People do stupid things when they are angry, drunk or both. Gun control isn't the answer - the answer is building a saner society where people don't feel the urge to kill each other. Until we have the answer, though, gun control is a useful stop-gap.

Harper can get away with lies for two reasons: 1. He has a core constituency that would vote for him if he grew horns and revealed a 666 tattoo under his iron hair. For some people, his neo-conservative economic dogma is a religion. 2. The Conservative Party has enough money to buy the airwaves. Tell the lies enough times and they become the truth. I'd like to be more hopeful but there it is.