Sir Bandelot

And if there was an avenue to show that the claims of health benefits were bogus, this would have been their opportunity to do so. The fact is, they didn't. Their submission did not challenge the science at all. Neither the government nor the supreme court has time to re-hear cases over and over based on some details that might have been overlooked. These are important cases that have major ramifications across the country. The government lawyers didn't just meet over lunch a few times, to decide on what their arguments against insight would be. So I don't buy the bunk your selling here. Give it up. If there was an easy avenue to defeat these claims, it would have already been carried out.

There is no evidence whatsoever that these claims are false, or intentionally fabricated. If so, it is the governments responsibility to prove it in their submission to the case. Since they did not, it seems to be you who are making baseless claims here.

Good post, do you happen to have a link to the actual (complete) court decision?

What do you mean, they didn't look at the question? In the link from the OP: The Chief Justice noted that supervised injection sites are being operated successfully in many other countries, including 70 cities in six European countries and in Australia. “These sites are evidence that health authorities are increasingly recognizing that health care for injection drug users cannot amount to a stark choice between abstinence and forgoing health services,” she said. “Successful treatment requires acknowledgment of the difficulties of reaching a marginalized population with complex mental, physical, and emotional health issues. as one example of evidence they must have looked at. They didn't just look at results in the immediate area of Insite.

Please, it appears no matter what she won't accept it. Let this go now, so we can move on.

Have you considered voicing your concerns to city council? Or is it too late for that.

Clearly, these are not matters of simple application of the law. The word you have introduced is interpret. Interpretation is required when issues are complex, like when a precedent has been set in another decision, or some requirement has not been met within a reasonable time frame. Previous cases before the supreme court have depended on factors like these. The role of the supreme court becomes most important, for example in interpreting whether or not some issue is permissible under the constitution. Although public opinion is not binding, the appellant has the right to present their arguments toward the merits of the case. It is the interpretation of constitutional issues and charter rights that determine the outcome of the case, and decisions are binding on all lower courts. So in that sense, their interpretations do create the law.

Bob attempts to bring sobriety to a thread that has otherwise gone 'loopy'. But what do you mean, illegal evidence. Seems to be their claim that it has reduced the number of deaths or outbreak of disease is not questionable. Doesn't it make sense to treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not criminal? Given that an addict primarily does not harm others. Any argument that they support narco-terrorism by buying their dope from the black market is secondary, it stems from prohibition itself. And in any case, possession charges are not dependent on the source of the drugs. Even if the drugs are not procured from criminals, one still will be charged with possession. Why shouldn't the supreme court listen and acquiesce to the demands of the public? Drug laws, and laws for things such as prostitution really stem from a society's moral values, and are not necessarily criminal offenses. If in the course of time people's attitudes change, the laws are outdated and need to be changed.

Suggest, if a person does not see something no matter how often the attempt is made to explain it, we leave that person with their illusions.

You'll never find a t-shirt that says anything like what I've got to say. On the other hand, what have you got of your own ideas to contribute. Aside from mere nay-saying of anything unique that's said here, aside from picking out the specks in other people's eyes, which is always the easiest and safets thing to do in any forum. And how many Nike and Reebok T-shirts, do you own...

I've already stated my views on the importance of the Monarchy. The difference is, I don't see it actively fulfilling that role. If properly carried out, that role could be so important in ensuring justice and equal opportunity. But I see it failing in its role, and I say it is because they are disinterested. They are not even capable of understanding. the distance is greater than the ocean that separates us, it is one of culture, of blood. Only Canadians born and raised in this country can understand our problems, our needs. Our home and native land

Not quite. The point was almost raised, before I was distracted that it is not necessary to consider Faith and Reason as two irreconcilable things. If one expands the concept of faith to include intuition, or metaphysics, then look to different eras of human history, the renaissance, we see what the human is capable of, when we embrace the totality of our being. As a cultural movement, it encompassed a flowering of literature, science, art, religion, and politics, and a resurgence of learning based on classical sources, the development of linear perspective in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as well as social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo... Because without the dream, there is no seed for the new idea. We must cross the bridge that separates right brain/ left brain thinking. For just as our brain is separated into two hemispheres, so too is our world. It's only when we admit to ourselves what we are naturally, and find a means to resolve this conflict, that meaningful progress will be made.

I'm all for it if it helps to give a clear distinction separating the two. IE. NOT, North American Union.

It is not silly if it provides the benefits to citizens I have outlined. It would re-invigorate the role that governor general should already actively carry out. This matters not... semantics... mere nit pickin. It detracts from the main issue here. As i hinted at in my opening post of this thread, the re-establishment of symbols of Royalty, specifically the British Royal Family which succeeds by inheritance is done to reaffirm British heritage in this country. For the Queen, has no castle in Canada... There is no impetus or strong need to change anything, so status quo it shall be.

There are other examples, besides the obvious and one that is rarely if ever mentioned is the so-called "summer of legalization' in Ontario. It was, I believe in 2003 when pot laws were temporarily suspended. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii45115/2003canlii45115.pdf The events that followed have not been taken up by cannabis activists as part of their casus belli. i say they are neglecting themselves a good argument for simple fact that- nothing happened. Although, people DID smoke marijuana openly in public places in the streets of Toronto, and in rooftop cafes and parks. There was no increase in crime, there was no increase in street violence or car accidents. nothing happened, and nothing evil was reported. Some time thereafter we all know what happened, the government took steps to force the courts to re-enact the pot laws, arrests started up again, and people went back to hiding their smoking habits out of view. Criminal gangs again did a brisk business, their substantial profits going to places unknown but one can only assume, upwards.

In my opinion our system is far superiour to a republic. I understand the importance of Monarchy, if properly implemented. It is to act as a buffer to protect the rights of citizens against those who can be "bought", ie. elected officials. By giving the Monarch a life in which everything is fully provided, they should never want for anything and are not corruptable. They embody the ideal that we uphold the human being as most supreme. Hence, "First Citizen among equals". For those who are snickering now, remember we are talking about political theory here. Reality often becomes otherwise, because of constant erosion and degeneration. And that is what has happened in Canada, because the role of Governor General as representative of the Monarchy is now almost irrelevant. there are only a few instances in which the Governor general has an influential role. I want to see a more prominent role along lines of what I've said, this is especially inportant now in this corporate, global era we're in. So we need to re-work that position to give it greater significance. And to make it a purely Canadian one, where First Canadian is concerned purely with the interest of Canadians giving it their undivided attention. Not like the Queen of the Commonwealth, to which Canada is but one of many colonies.

No, not a president. 'First Canadian' replaces the role of Governor General. All other structures would remain in place. First Canadian is an elected position, but once elected would be a life-long position. With some possible exceptions. Like the Governor General, it is a position of high respect and has some authority, ut is also generally a 'figure head'. The actual powers that this position holds could be discussed. One similar concept is the Principate. Another is the Tribune I like those ideas, especially the latter in the sense that it appoints one person who is inherently non-partisan, and whose primary responsibility is to protect the rights of individual persons, as a buffer vs. the pressure to make concessions to corporate power. Unlike a president.

Um, what I said. replace Governor General with First Canadian. You know we've talked about it here before.

For one thing, Quebec does not unilaterally oppose federalism. But a President, or better yet "First Canadian" as is my preference, might be a french speaking Quebecer. The King of England will never be a frenchman. Thus the alternate model does not have to be a Republic.

The citizenship holds them. Hence, "British Royal Family"...

Who says I am not playing said game, even now? Perhaps you underestimate me, old boy.

Can the King or Queen ever be... Canadian?

I doubt you need to worry. Here in my small town there is a Chinese Catholic church just one block from where I live. But there are very few Chinese in this area where I live. There is no "China-town" as such, they are spread out among the general community. Every Sunday they come out, in the church van packed with about 20 people. the rest come in their own cars. They are all very nice... they're going to church after all. Then they go home. But if you still feel too nervous, suggest you and everyone in your family can just wear a turban. That's what Muslims like to wear and when they see you all in your turbans, they won't harm you. It worked for jbg.

In light of this however, as a bit more serious afterthought... isn't it a statement that we reconnect with our Anglo-Saxon heritage? Canada identifying strongly again with British royalty, says Canada is inheritor of British culture... the English, the Scots. Aye laddie, bring us back the days of the kilts, and play us the pipes. I'll leave it to others to draw their own inferences of what that really means.

There's only one people who can drop the crown, and that's the Brits themselves. Wouldn't we all look silly then...