Non_Partisan

Alcohal prohibition in Canada never had widespread support across the country, it was enacted individually by the Provinvce's in the early 20th century, than reppealed in the 1920's largely due to the unpopularity of the law. No sane politician would advocate for the prohibition of alcohal today, because it would be political suicide. Tobacco was never prohibited because its link to cancer wasn't exposed until the 1960's. Prohibiting soft drugs as you stated before also become's problemtic because it becomes a cash cow for organized crime, so its better to tax it. I could be wrong, but I think the majority of Canadians are in principal, in favour of legalizing marijuana. Our soverienty on this issue though, is somewhat restricted because of our right of centre cousin to the South. If we were to legalize it there would most likely be economic and social ramifications for Canadians in terms of trade and border crossing. Add that into the mix and most Canadians probably don't think legalizing marijuana is worth it. What is going on in California is interesting but I wouldn't get to excited. If it passes it will be in conflict with federal law, and with the Republicans poised to retake the senate in the upcoming elections, I doubt any amendments will be made to it to accomadate California.

I second that your quote. Anyways haven't taken the test in a while and....mushy middle Economic Left/Right: -1.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

Okay fair enough but here you state.... Your previous posts have shown your not an advocate of prohibition, so if the government was consistent across the board with mind altering substances, what would your ideal solution be if not restricted legalization? decriminalization? The problem with saying the government is inconsistent in its message towards substance abuse, is that in a democracy the government reflects the will of the general public, they have chosen that alcohal and tobbaco should remain legal, others should not, regardless of the health implications. Every illicit narcotic has negative health implications, the question is how much more is it going to cost the tax payer if we legalize another illicit substance? Is the health care system going to be futher strained because of the negative mental and physical health implications of decriminalizing or legalizing further substances?

If you read the earlier posts, I am not looking to defend prohibition because I am open to restricted legalization if it can be proven it will be more cost effective for the tax payer. I am however oppossed to people who don't want to throw the book at gangsters because they feel prohibition is the problem, and therefore legalization is the only route.

Well then for next time.... If you are quoting a neo conservative please use citations, otherwise your remarks can be misinterpreted to appear that you personally believe neo cons can rule through deception because the public is too stupid.

The general public has decided that alcohol and tobacco should remain legal. If this upsets you so much than go start a campaign for its prohibition. Your spinning the issue, were not talking about the small fry. The RCMP and Vancouver Police Department weren't complaining about dime corner dealers, they were complaining that their job was futile because peddlers connected to major criminal gangs consistently walked. Really??? The Anti Gang Law didn't cause the Province of Quebec billions of dollars. In fact it saved the Province a considerable amount of money by ending a gang war that had previously allowed biker gangs to roam about relatively unimpeded. But perhaps you would like to go back to having 11 year old children getting killed in the streets from car bomb shrapnel??? Likewise, Ontario has introduced their own anti gangland legislation and have upheld challenges to the federal law, by incarcerating the scumbags. But in British Columbia, the Provincial court allows the same sort of ilk to walk. It's easy to critisize the status quo, the hard part is offering a credible alternative. So I will say it for a third time. people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer. So far you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support this argument.

That would be a good argument if you were advocating for the prohibition of alcohol. All narcotics whether legal or illegal have costly negative health effects, that is why most illicit drugs are illegal. For better or worse the general public has chosen otherwise for alcohol and tobacco. Yes it is true that overall crime rates are generally low, but gang activity in British Columbia has been on the rise since the 1990's. A lot of people including myself believe it's because the BC courts have been too soft on drug peddlers. Over the years the RCMP and the Metro Vancouver police have expressed frustration over the revolving door for drug charges in British Columbia. Now I agree with you that the gangs in B.C. would take a big hit if their primary source of income was taken away from them, but as I said before, people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer. The Fraser Institute consists of a bunch of Libertarian ideologues, they are more concerned with pushing libertarianism than they are about finding sound policy issues to problems. If you are going to argue for restricted legalization, I'd suggest researching the studies and statistics of those countries that have chosen that route. You cannot draw an analogy between Mexico and Canada. Mexico has a large degree of abject poverty in comparison to Canada. People in Mexico choose the drug trade because there is little or no alternative for many of them. The Bacon Brothers had a lot of choices, they chose to become scumbags because they obviously didn't have any respect for their community, and do not fear the law. There is a lot of evidence that soft laws lead to crime, (ie the results of Johnson's Great Society in the late 60's, pre Giuliani New York City, permissive welfare states in Europe) Some of us on this forum don't trust human nature and believe this to be true.

Sorry I don't quite follow you, its up to the pro legalization crowd to prove that prohibition is good public policy?

Not necessarily, I don’t adhere to any one rigid political ideology, to me it’s about choosing the most cost effective policies in curbing crime and disease for the tax payer. If it can be proven that restricted legalization is more effective than prohibition than it’s worth looking at. If you are going to go the route of prohibition though, you need tough laws to curb criminal involvement in the drug trade, otherwise you create a moral hazard. The Bacon Brothers like many new age gangsters who belong to the Red Scorpions and the UN gang are not growing up in abject poverty. They are middle and working class kids who do not fear the law and therefore do not fear the consequences of becoming drug pushers. They are suckers for the profits of prohibition only because they get petted with the velvet glove instead of smacked with the iron fist.

Ah! the prohibition debate, the never ending argument!!! i don't like a system that creates predators and victims either eyeball, but you'de have to convince me that the pro's of restricted legalization outweigh the cons, in other words drug use and addiction would go down, not up if legalized.

Point taken on public saftey, it just angers me that my money was going to protect a living scumbag. Wow! the mom works at a credit union and the dad is employed by the Abbotsford School District, what hardship the Bacon Brothers must have endured growing up playing their Nintendo. If there was ever an argument that we need tougher criminal laws in this country the Bacon Brothers are it. But I suppose some sociologist will come along and argue that they are victims of society.

I never said Chomsky supported the abolition of property, I said that he has favoured societies past and present that have eliminated private property or have put restrictions on its access to ownership. In the following article he favours the Israeli kibbutzim settlement that was based around communal property and in this article and others he has spoken well of the short lived Anarchist movement during the Spanish Revolution that also engaged in communal property. I of course will give you the link. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm In fact Chomsky has consistently given favour to current societies that engage in communalism such as the Zapatista movement in Mexico and shack dwellers movement in South Africa, while being consistently critical of property rights. It is curious at best that Chomsky attaches his name to so many communal societies, and not all of them have been benevolent, as this includes his downplaying of atrocities carried out by the Khmer Rouge. Noam Chomsky has described himself as a Libertarian Socialist, primarily because Anarchism can be used to define Libertarian Anarchism, which advocates for free market capitalism. In a 1970 book written by French Socialist Daniel Guerin in support of the ideals of Anarchism, Chomsky writing the preface states. “A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.” ..... “The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist” http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm Thus Chomsky feels private property and the ability of private enterprise should be restricted a point he makes clear in an interview with the Washington Post. “I think a decent society should protect rights to private property within limits, but not concentrations of private power that infringe on the freedom and rights of others, including exploitation of labor, and that convert any democratic forms into what have been called sometimes "hierarchical democracies," like ours” What are these concentrations of private property? Superstores like Walmart and the Home Depot? The land assets of mining, oil and other recourse companies??? Lenin allowed for private property within limits as well. Wikipedia describes Libertarian Socialism as “a group of political philosophies which aspire to create a society that is non-hierarchical, without private ownership of the means of production or an authoritarian state. Chomsky has also stated that he is a sympathizer of Anarcho Syndicalism which advocates the abolishment of private property for controlling the means of production. I stand by my word Chomsky is a red anarchist. I believed I stated before that I thought that Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual; unfortunately he aligns himself with an extreme political ideology, anarchism. You put down the intelligence of the general North American public by calling them stupid. In your own words, "No, neoconservatism advocates rule through deception by a coterie of intellectuals, the advisors to the throne, so to speak, because the public is too stupid." If you’re on the far left this doesn’t surprise me because traditionally leftist intellectuals often hold contempt towards the general public and feel that they are not bright enough to know what is best for them, and thus need guidance by socialist elites. I already jokingly said that a young adult couldn’t read three pages of Freidman without falling asleep. I don’t think Chomsky is responsible for the Black Bloq, but he is a gateway into anarchism for many troubled young adults in Canada. I feel the same way about other forms of anarchist indoctrination whether it be your local Anarcho poverty society or an anarchist punk rock band espousing the overthrow of the state. I view all political extremists in North America as vultures looking to prey upon the young to further their cause. Say what you want about Ann Coulter, but her indoctrination tells youths to get a job, work hard and invest your money, I haven`t seen many Coulter fans throw bricks through Starbuck windows.

Your skirting the issue, I never said anything about Stalinism or Marxism. Chomsky is an admirer of both Bakunin and Goldman who advocated for the elimination of private property. Chomsky himself believes that the right to own private property should be restricted to prevent large enterprises from controlling the means of production. He has consistently supported movements that have abolished or restricted private property. He is a red anarchist. He is a red anarchist. That is radical. I`ll say it again. Neo Conservatism still does not advocate the dismantling of our constitutional democracy, Anarchism does. I am glad that you hold the general public`s intelligence in such high esteem, perhaps a socialist intelligentsia will one day guide them towards the utopian light, unlikely though. I never said Chomsky is responsible for the Black Bloc, but he is defiantly a gateway into the ideology of Anarchism. I would have no hesitation to bet large amounts of money that you would find numerous texts of books by Chomsky if you raided the houses of the Black Bloq. Friedman, lol. I don`t think a young adult could get through three pages of Friedman without falling asleep. Friedman had nothing to do with Pinochet`s rise to power the CIA did. Despite Thatcher`s claim that it was Chicago school economics that have led to Chili`s dynamic economy, Pinochet experimented with variety of economic policies including Keynesianism. As for Christianity, most white supremacists hold Christianity in contempt. National Socialism is based around nature worship, Nordic mythology and the occult teachings of Madame Blavatsky, not Christianity. You cannot compare a 3000 year old text to modern writing. The KKK however, has traditionally distorted biblical versus for their own gain, and I do think that they should be dealt with. How is Ann Coulter more extreme than Chomsky? As much as I loathe Ann Coulter, she is a stalwart defender of the American constitution and republican democracy, she is not advocating anarchism which seeks to dismantle our British parliamentary system. Show me evidence that she is and I’d gladly slap on advisory sticker on her mouth.

Noam Chomsky is an admirer of the ideals of Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, both who advocated for the elimination of private property. Chomsky himself has routinely publically favoured societies, both past and present, that have either eliminated private property or have put restrictions on its access to ownership. He himself believes that private property rights should be limited to prevent private enterprise from controlling the means of production, and that anarchism is voluntary socialism that should be run by workers councils. Chomsky is a pinko red anarchist. If he was any more red he`d be from Mars! The difference between neo conservatism and anarchism is that neo conservatism isn't advocating the dismantling of our constitutional democracy; anarchism is. If you are going to make a career out of criticizing your own government and condemning capitalism as inheritively exploitive, than you should at least be able to offer up some positive realistic alternatives, instead of broad base notions of voluntary socialism. I disagree with his statement on the grounds that he states neo liberalism is formless and utopian. Neo liberalism isn`t formless, its been practiced under constitutional democracies with some measure of success. To my knowledge Friedman and Hayek never advocated that capitalism would lead to utopia. Marxism and anarchism on the other hand have. I never said he has a responsibility to improve the lives of the impressionable youth he indoctrinates through his writings on anarchism, I said that he takes no responsibility for turning them against capitalism, who many as consequence, will spend their youths rallying against the system instead of pursuing upward mobility. If you were to raid the homes of the Black Bloq, I`m quite positive you wouldn`t find many books by Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman, however I bet money you’d find a lot of books by anarchist rock stars Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klien. I don't see it as draconian at all. I think there should be some sort of advisory warning, verbal or written on political content that is extremist in nature. Extremist in that the ideology is ultimately at odds with our constitutional democracy. This would include Fascism, National Socialism, Communism, Anarchism and Islamic Fundamentalism. It may do more harm than good by making it taboo for teenagers, but there should be some action taken to prevent these ideologies from indoctrinating impressionable or troubled youth in our society.

I should have chosen my words more carefully in my last statement. I was alluding to anarchists abroad who believe violence is necessary to overthrow the capitalist state. The Noam Chomsky comment brings up an interesting issue though. He is defiantly one of the world's top intellectuals, I've read at least three books by him, and he's excellent at critiquing and researching the abuses of his own government. He is also however, an anarchist and in my opinion an ideological fanatic. To my knowledge, Noam Chomsky has never incited violence to achieve his methods, but I still have problem with him, chiefly because he's been instrumental in convincing thousands of impressionable youths that state capitalism is inherently evil and corrupt and should be replaced by some loosely defined democratic communes that will lead us to some near utopia. Yet he himself doesn't offer any reasonable solution. Depict, if you can, how an ideal anarchist society would function day-to-day. What sorts of economic and political institutions would exist, and how would they function? Would we have money? Would we shop in stores? Would we own our own homes? Would we have laws? How would we prevent crime? I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we have to learn, by struggle and experiment. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm I personally think Noam Chomsky is a kook, he's not a policy maker he's an ideologue. He doesn't take responsibility for indoctrinating impressionable people into anarchism, who for many spend their lives rallying against the system and instead of improving their own position in life. So would I bar him from the country, no, but if he's invited in there should defiantly be some sort of warning on his content.

I don’t view it as sticking our heads in the sand to pretend it doesn’t exist. You can go to the library and read Mein Kampf, and you can go on the internet and watch Zakir Naik give a speech, but I wouldn’t invite him into the country, just as I wouldn’t invite Alfred Rosenberg to give a speech in Canada to drum nazi support, if it was 1936. I don’t believe in censorship, but I do believe in national security, we don’t allow criminals into the country, nor should we allow those whose motive is to circumvent our constitutional democracy. The black Anarchists who rioted in Toronto didn’t magically appear, its been a movement that’s been growing since the last G20 because some very twisted adults have been indoctrinating some very troubled youth that capitalism is their barrier towards utopia. I wouldn’t invite anarchist intellectuals into the country either.

Wow I really think the left has dropped the ball on this one. They should be looking at installing an international Glass-Steagall Act for a globalized economy, not looking for another tax grab. I understand the argument against the moral hazard, "the banks know they are too big to fail so widespread abuse and speculation is going to happen again, lets be prepared." but its the wimps way out, creating a moral hazard by saying thumbs up do it again. Get tough, get some balls and pass legislation to prevent another bubble and bust!!!

What angers me is that my tax dollars are being spent to protect these guys. I don't agree with the counter argument that it's protecting the citizens. Let the guy walk unsupervised for 48 hours and bang he's dead problem solved. http://www.financialpost.com/careers/story.html?id=1382399 I've seen the home where the Bacon Brothers grew up and its a hell of a lot nicer then the home I grew up in. These guys didn't become criminals out of abject poverty, they're new age gangster, brats, they made thier own bed let them die in it.

Hmmmm, and this is step 2 for Canada http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece Well at least they get to keep thier women down in the UK.

I personally view it from a security angle. If you abhor the values of western culture and democracy you shouldn't be here. All we need is for him to come here and give a speech that profoundly influences young Muslims towards homegrown political extremity. We've already had one incident. The problem with the free speech argument is that you will always have a certain number of dispossessed people in the country that are ripe for indoctrination, so in essence your spreading the seeds that will allow the plant to grow down the road, whether it be Islamic fundamentalism, National Socialism or Anarchism.