Sir Bandelot

I'm with Lukin and Muddy on this one, the school shouldn't be allowed to teach liberalist sex education as part of the standard curriculum. Offer it as an optional course that parents and students can decide if they should attend. Problem is school teachers have too much power while they conduct the class and their personal values get pushed onto the kids, who don't necessarily know that the teachers conduct is inappropriate (as with the story about the Mike Harris hater), sometimes parents don't find out what's going on in the classroom. I don't want some liberal hedonist explaining oral and anal sex to my kids, particularly at such a young age.

Thanks Bonam!

As MDcancer pointed out, it's not for sure that it does or doesn't cause cancer. I can accept that. What it means is, if it does cause cancer it can't be an obvious and highly potent carcinogen. Otherwise there would be no doubt. Having said that, lots of things cause cancer including diesel fumes. In fact there is little doubt about diesel fumes: "Exposure to diesel exhaust and DPM is a known occupational hazard to truckers, railroad workers, and miners using diesel-powered equipment in underground mines. Adverse health effects have also been observed in the general population at ambient atmospheric particle concentrations well below the concentrations in occupational settings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_matter But trucks and buses just keep on trucking. All we can say is, if Marijuana is harmful it must be a lower risk than many other things we deal with in society today. That does not mean, no risk.

Lets be clear on this- everything kills you. No "reasonable person" could believe that something like smoke is completely harmless. Tobacco, alcohol, even vitamins can kill. The question is, HOW dangerous is a substance relative to others, and secondly is incrimination the right approach to solving the problem. Why do I have to keep saying these things?

I'm not so sure how intelligent it is to use heroin and cocaine, both of which can kill on an overdose but Carl sagan did not kill himself. The use of marijuana did not destroy him. It did not damage his intelligence in any of the seemingly obvious ways you described either. I know, it must all be very complicated

The public reaction to these types of entitlements is to gripe about it and continue to pay for and vote in the same criminals. People feel powerless about the problem and resigned to the fact, such corruption is inherent to the political system. I seem to recall saying that a few posts back too. ugh I proposed, a few posts back, a mechanism in which money is injected at the grass roots level to encourage people to use air travel and spend it on vacations in other lands. This could be more effective in reviving a troubled economy than the Obama method, give the taxpayers money to the Board of Directors. there are also cross-cultural advantages in encouraging people to travel. But the larger question is, can you seen an advantage in declaring that ordinary people deserve the right to be more than slaves, that their right to quality leisure time must be protected. It's not easy to accept when the economic system is depressed, when there are other pressing issues that need money, like health care systems. But those systems always need money, don't they. When will humanity evolve their charter, to uphold the individual human being as the most deserving of all rights, more magnificent than any machine, or corporation.

Your view is not entirely incorrect, but is an oversimplification. Look into each of those terms you've mentioned, especially the first two and tell me what you find there. Then get back to me

not really. What I wrote was a purposely grammatical error, and double negative, to boot. Nothing unequivical about it

Is that where you get your facts and opinions? Despite what Seth Macfarlane thinks about it, I note some prominent and intelligent people also smoke the weed, including Carl Sagan

Where have you seen their position on it? I read their position is not based on research, which they admit. Link It's "possible" to get cancer from bus exhaust.

You keep on pushing the same red button, but the door just won't open. Because you miss the point, again. I've try to say, the government uses taxpayers money to fund extravagances for themselves all the time. And recently handed barrels of taxpayers money to corporations when they were in trouble. Why do people have no problem with these type of handouts. As i metnioned in an earlier post, isn't it better to create real economic stimulus at the grass roots level, instead of continuing to feed the absurdly rich. Why doesn't that bother people. Why do I have to keep repeating myself.

You're constant use of the phrase "That's complete nonsense" in almost every post is quite tiresome. Do you have an alternative argument then, what's your opinion on what the role of government should be? Or do you have anything worthwhile to say about anything, at all

There's lots of propaganda on the health effects, coming from both sides of the debate. But considering the apparent number of pot smokers in Canada and the US for so many years now, there should be more clear evidence based on number of cases of disease. In other words, where are the dead bodies? Habeus Corpus?

Good, becasue that stuff is what will kill you. Smoke from Mary Jane smells bad, might even get you a bit high, but doesn't causes no cancer

You would prefer the story be suppressed?

I feel exactly the same way about tobacco smokers. Can't stand to breath in their exahust. Yet we all carry on as if its ok. Use of any such substances should be confined to a private place where it bothers no one else.

My view is to decriminalize all drugs is the right move, and then to make drug abuse a medical problem, not a criminal problem.

Indeed, if smallc had his way he would replace readings from the bible in Manitoba with playboy magazine

No, as I already pointed out, the comparison is not direct but it opens up this aspect of the discussion- why is it more acceptable to some of you that politicians and bureaucrats can help themselves to tax money, with minimal oversight, and yet to return the money back to taxpayers for same is not. Because we are programed to believe that the elite in fact deserve their entitlements, so in that sense we enable them. The article I linked clearly shows the kind of lifestyle these people expect. And if you think your tax money is immune from such abuses, well I'm sure I can provide many links for you. But that should not be necessary, for intelligent adult discussion

tsk tsk I'll drink to that...

They should send you on a vacation to Saudi Arabia. That would be an education. ... Perhaps the idea is to promote a greater understanding of other cultures, by encouraging travel. Also, it's become quite apparent that travel companies and in particular Airlines have taken massive losses in profit, after September 11 with all the fear and difficulties with security, and this recent volcano problem, among others I'm sure the Airlines have lost many millions of dollars. In North America, if it was Obama he would take the tax payers money and give it to these corporations, to shore them up and try to help them survive. We puppets would moan and groan a little, but ultimately just roll over and take the hit, again. What would we gain from this? How much would the public benefit by giving our tax dollars to Airlines. A little, perhaps but not much. The alternative is what we see here. Give the people an incentive to travel. Take the same tax dollars that Obama would have given to the Airlines, where it gets used up paying for the bonuses of the Board of Directors, and instead let the people spend the money on travel directly... causing the money to be injected into the working part of the system. A far more effective approach. They spend it on plane tickets, on hotels, not to shore up the losses of the super-rich. Does that make sense? Yes it does

I don't disagree in principle, but we as a society have now moved beyond the industrial revolution. The role of government is to help elevate human beings to a point where we live in dignity. It is not their role to create the wealth, or control industries, in general but only where that is necessary for the safe continuance of society. It is human nature to be greedy and exploit others, and government must enact laws sufficient to protect people from this, and promote a culture of opportunity and fairness. The will of the people also comes into the equation. It is not enough to say, anybody can become as rich as they want, if the will of the people feel this is unethical. Their wealth would have to be redistributed. So let it be written, so let it be done

Exactly! And don't forget the blanket, with a hole cut in the middle...

Yes, I do realize that difference. but the point I made was (besides that headline grabbing my attention this morning) that our politicians do this constantly, in many cases using government money to travel all over the world. Not just to do work of course, there are many perks that come with the job, for the elite. Otherwise they wouldn't need to serve champagne and caviar at the UN. Whats wrong with a simple lentil soup

No you're not part of the EU. You're part of USA Getaways, gifts suck up most of parties’ funds