personal_ideaology

Same place where your statistics come from, The FBI's uniform crime reports, I suggest you re-check yours at the local "Public" library. Privatizing ICBC would yeild no substancial returns for the general public, it is a relatively small piece of the operating budget, rates remain consistantly lower than Ontario, and accident victems are better compensated for their injuries. In short, its worth the tax payers subsidies. B.C. public corporations have consistently pulled in an exuberant amount of revenue for the tax payers over the years. BC hydro made over 1 billion dollars in profit selling energy to California's deregulated electricity market. Companies in California still owe the Powerex Corp, over $280 million dollars. Sorry I have no desire to see ENRON involved in any shape or form, in the Canadian electricity market. In addition, British Columbia has the third lowest rates in Canada following Quebec and Manitoba. Can't say that about Ontario thanks to that bafoon Mike Harris. No of course not, instead you respect Ronald Reagan, a man who waged a personal war against the Sandinista's and funded right wing para military guerilla's to roam through the countryside burning hospitals, mutilating women's genitalia, and arranging mass firing squads of children. I highly doubt this, but as for Toronto, it wouldn't suprise me, due to the drastic rise in homelessness, after nearly ten years of Tory rule. Typical rude response form another self concieted conservative. This is what I get for trying to place nice with an individual whose idealogy is based on pure self interest and the pursuit of profit. Sir, my facts are sound, and being a student all I get to due is "read" but unfortuantly not all of us have the extra leisure time review statistics at are whim, most of us are too busy struggling to get by, and I've got papers due.

Crime rates since the post war period in the United States peaked in 1982, under Ronald Reagen, when drastic cuts to social services took place. In some places the individual crime rate was as high as 6000 persons for every 100,000 person counted. The economic policies during the Reagen era, did not produce a trickle down effect, unions declined, salaries declined, but inequality amongst the rich and poor greatly increased. Admittedly there was strong job growth, but these were mainly poor paying service sector jobs that replaced the disappearence of stable paying manufacturing jobs, due to increased offshoring, and job flight to Mexico. The crime rate began to escalate under Richard Nixon with the advent of the "war on drugs", Peaked under Reagan, and then peaked again under George Bush senior before tapering off under Clinton. This is not always true, British Columbia has a state run automobile insurance company, and we pay some of the lowest premiums in the Canada, much lower than Ontario or New Brunswick. Private insurance is normally more exuberant than public insurance. As for public versus private outside essential services, you won't get an argument from me, I'm not a fan nationalization. Well although I've never seen statistics on European poverty lines, I can tell you that West Germany and Scandanavia are consistently picked above the United States in terms of quality of life, year after year via reports from the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. Americans in general may have more disposable income, but statistics show the nations listed above, live healthier, have lower stress rates, shorter work weeks and longer vacations. As for crime rates, admittely countries like Holland and Finland are far above the United States, but the US still has the most violent crime rate, and out of all G7 cities Washington DC I believe is still the homicide capital. As for the legalization of drugs I would never advocate for that, I'm for decriminalization not legalization. Just because we supply the addict with thier fix doesn't mean we liscence companies to market heroin. Anyways I agree, we should be prosecuting the big time dealers not the small time junkies. As for liberatarainism, I would buy into it if I thought it would produce a better quality of life, but no one has sold me on it yet.

I think its all a matter of proximity, September the 11th showed that the United States was not immune to terrorism, but yet they are not directly across from North Africa, like Spain. Spain, Italy, Greece and Albania all trade heavily with the countries on the otherside of the medditarean, and you might even be able to draw a parrallel between the US and Mexico, in regards to emigration and cross border trade. Everybody knows Spain was in the Iraq war largely for its own national interests, a desire to pick up the financial contracts that France and Germany lost out on. Simply put, if Europe joins in on the war on terrorism, they are going to get the brunt of most of the terrorist activity because of their close proximity to the middle east. As we have seen with the United States, this escalation is just going to lead to full scale imperialism buy the west over the middle east, and although in theory I appreciate what Bush and Blair are trying to due, I can't help but think the terrorism would subside if we adopt a hydrogen ecomomy, and slowly withdraw from the region.

Scrapping welfare would just lead to more taxes for rising crime, and more people falling through the cracks, highly immoral. If social programs were eliminated there would be no great economic boom as a result, people would be scrambling to buy private welfare insurance, private unemployment and private health care, which would be far more costly. The trickle down effect is utter idealogical BS, just like Marxism, libertarainism in practice does not work. I don't know? but I can tell you christianity and capitalism don't mix, at least not the new testament. Its too bad that North American christianinty has been taken over by a small right wing sect, that re-interprets the scripture to its liking. If anything it deters a younger generation from even giving the bible a chance. Maby Eastern Europe and the UK, but not the rest of North Western Europe; Germany and Scandanavia are consitantly ranked higher in terms of quality of life than the United States. In the United States opium was decriminalized from 1890 to 1905, and during this time its use dropped by over one half, when it was banned, opium use started to drastically rise. Decriminalizing drugs takes away the deviance aspect which makes it alluring in the first place, for instance only 2.4% of people in Holland have tried cocaine compared to a staggering 12% in the US. Not to mention the United States taxpayers payed over $81 billion dollars during the 90's to fight the war on drugs. Finally, if your so concerned about liberty ,why would you support a plan that has led to a virtuous police state, war zones in urban communites, and a mass violation of civil rights. Not even the Fraser or Cato institute support prohibtion, its a lost cause, just forget about it, the US narcotic policy is an utter flop and prime example of the wrong road to take.

If we confine the program to those just on welfare, there would be no need to violate anyone's rights. In Canada welfare comes with specified terms of agreement, so simply put, if they wanted their welfare cheque they would have to agree to the program. You may not be able to save them, but at least you know your tax dollars went to food and shelter, instead of narcotics. I don't agree with this comment at all, western europe has had a far greater success rate in helping addicts recover than the United States, who chooses to punish addicts instead of supporting them. Most addicts are so demoralized, that willpower does not suffice, and today the majority will be infected with HIV before they get a chance to turn things around. I like udawg's proposal, so long as it stays within the "confines" of those suffering from substance abuse. I also think it should go in conjunction with legally supplied heroin and cocaine facilities, which have led to a reduction in property crime and addiction, in specified European cities. We should also have needle exchanges to reduce HIV and hepatitis, and social counselling in co-ordination for welfare for work programs to build self esteem. Finally, i think we should demcriminalize most narcotics and take the growing profits out of organized crime. All of this, by the way, will be less costly to the tax payer,than the already balooning bureacracy needed to employ those to enforce prohibition. Anyways that's my two bits, take it or leave it. .

Assuming that the addicts would be employed by social services for some sort of welfare for work program, and thus recieve their paycheques from the government to begin with, I have to dissent with the following objections. There are many problems with this. How do you decide what a person is to spend? If you set a low limit on, say, groceries, what if a person blows all their money on a very expensive delicatessen and then doesn't have enough to eat that month? If you set a high limit and a person spends all their money at the cheap cash-and-carry grocery store, what of the remainder that they don't need to spend but are obliged to? Which companies are you going to let people spend at? All grocery stores, or just some? How do you police it and make sure that unethical businessmen or drug dealers are not setting up phony grocery store businesses? Food stamps have been around for a long time and as of yet the Hell's Angels haven't decided to set up phony grocery stores to cash in on the stamps lol, honestly considering that you can make up to $300,000 dollars on one kilo of raw opium, I don't think organized crime would be too interested. You want to talk about invasion of privacy and surveillance, go take a walk through any major metroplis city in the United States and smile at the dozen security cameras probing the sidewalks, because they would prefer to persecute addicts and let them engage in property crime, instead of setting up those "socialist" programs. The United States tax payers spent over $81 billion dollars in drug related law enforcement between 1990-1999. That's a high price to pay for society that advocates for no government intervention. I don't see how your analogy follows, the Soviet Union and nazi Germany were extremly authoritarian societies, that were previoulsy, military based colonial empires. The countries in western europe currently engaged in the type of program being discussed, are far more libertarian than the U. S. police state. I think a better analogy would be to state that the prohibition policies of the US could snowball into Pinochet-ism. After all, Augusto Pinochet was an advent free marketer, admired by Reagan and Thatcher.

Coming from Vancouver and being left of centre, I find this paticular information hard to believe. If the NDP makes gains it will be in the rural and interior ridings of British Columbia, the Provincial liberal party's strongest support at the moment is in Vancouver's lower fraser valley region, the liberal blowback will not come from most urban ridings. The NDP in British Columbia also does not usually recieve the ethnic vote during federal elections, the Liberals normally do, and for this reason I perdict the liberals will hold on to ridings like Vancouver-South Burnaby. Another reason why thier will be no major breakthrough in the Fraser Valley, is because despite the sponser ship scandel, Paul Martin still has a broad support out here. This means that the left of center vote in middle class communites like Port Moody/Coquitlam, will probably be split down the center allowing the CPC to sneak in. Lastly, if the CPC elects Harper as their leader, the former Alliance with still retain alot of the protest vote in B.C. Despite this, the NDP in urban areas has three shoe in's 1) Vancouver East 2) Burnaby-Douglas 3) New Westminster/Coquitlam They also have a "very" good chance of knocking of CPC member Chuck Cadman off in -North Surrey and with the unpopularity of Hedy Fry they could take Vancouver Centre. Outside of the lower mainland the NDP will most likely regain Esquilmalt and Kamloops, possibly Skeena and a few others. Lets also try to remember that the average University Proffesor tends to be a little more left leaning than your average folk. So in total I think the NDP has the potential to win 7 or 8 seats in B.C. , 1/4 of the ridings yes, 1/2 no way! Does anyone know how they will do in Atlantic Canada?

While I agree with your idea, I don't think this policy would have a positive effect unless Provincial government's were given the go ahead, to legally supply addicts with thier narcotic fix. The reason why this policy would be a failure standing on its own, is because property crime and violence would most likely skyrocket as addicts became desperate to find income through other means. Which of course would lead to more government expences to be doled out for criminal trials, ect. But if we were to implement this policy and supply drug addicts with their fix, through strict supervision, I think the policy would be a success.