PocketRocket

Current Pot laws are based on misinformation, ignorance, and outright lies bandied about in the early part of the last century. Propaganda abounded. Testimonials about how a single hit on a joint could turn a man into a "raving, drooling lunatic". Of course none of the testimonials came from anyone who had actually tried pot, or even seen anyone else try it first-hand. If you have any doubt of this, do a google search into how, when and why marijuana laws were created and enacted in Canada. I may rave, but I seldom drool

THELONIUS: LOL. It made me chuckle. But the fact that DIGBY'S grammatical prowess is not up to that of some others on this board should not be used as a shot against him. I often disagree with his points, but he does present them in a respectful manner. I would far rather sit down beside a gentleman I disagree with, than a cad whose opinions coincide with my own.

The initial reports were "grow-op". However, 2 news reports I heard yesterday stated that the whole episode began with a bailiff who went to the farm to collect a truck. The perpetrator had defaulted on his payments and the vehicle was being repossessed. While he was there, the bailiff saw parts from several new trucks, which had been chopped up, presumably for sale. The perp then released guard dogs, who chased the bailiff off the property. The bailiff then called the police, and waited for them. It went on to say that the plants were only discovered after the fact, and that there were only about 20 "mature" pot plants. So, it is more likely that this was a "chop-shop" operation, wherein stolen vehicles are cut up, and the parts are sold at a high profit. This is a lucrative business, although highly illegal. Add all this to the fact that the perpetrator had a long history of violence, a fascination with guns, and several past instances of confrontations with the police, and the marijuana slant becomes nearly, if not completely, irrelevant. News sources are always quick to post "Drug crime" stories. It is sensationalism, which sells a lot more papers than "Auto-theft-ring" stories. We'll see how this develops in the coming days.

SWEAL: You seem to be pretty savvy. I've read some very intelligent posts from you. So, does it really come as any surprise to you that ANY political party will use ANY bit of news which they can spin to serve their own agenda??? The bigger the news, the bigger the spin. It's called politics. As an FYI, there are also some pro-pot groups already using this incident in an attempt to further their agenda. It goes both ways. That being said, I don't have to like it. And I don't. :angry:

.......the true north strong and free, and stand on guard, oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee...... The sense of patriotic love of country displayed in this thread is truly heart-warming

Does anyone know of ANY news service in North America which is truly and completely unbiased??? As for this..... ....if it makes you happy to believe this, then by all means enjoy yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean or who is "to blame", nor what they are to be blamed for. Presumably you speak of who is to be blamed for the water shortage in the USA. Well, some may blame the USA themselves for wasteful usage of their vast H2O resources, but not me. I blame Saddam Hussein for the water shortage in the USA There we are. Does that make you happy??? On a more serious note, there are ways to recycle water, like most other resources. Holding tanks, precipitators, etc. Most water used in a household could be re-used many times over. I do not see that being done. Eventually, America's water needs will far outweigh the availability of the water itself, if current trends continue. In some instances, ie; backyard swimming pools, salt water could be used, rather than wasting fresh water. And yet we see tens of thousands of backyard swimming pools in California, where water shortage is a chronic problem, all filled with good, sweet, fresh water, open to sunlight, subject to evaporation, and eventually simply being drained and replaced. This kind of behaviour is typical of North American thinking (I include Canada here). If it's free, or even very cheap, we view it as an endless resource.

The way you worded this, ie "Canadians", rather than "Canada" shows you are speaking of the Canadian people, not Canada's government or policies. I'm wondering what you base this enlightened bit of trivial on????

Hmmm. When I hit the link, all I got was a blank page

9/11 is still a big deal because.... 1) It was one single really big successful attack 2) The WTC was an international icon 3) It was on US soil. 1st time foreigners successfully attacked on the US mainland. 4) It was a multi-pronged assault. 5) It showed how vulnerable we all really are. A terrible wake-up call. 6) It has become the new American rally-cry. I guess "Remember the Alamo" had become outdated. 7) We have so many great images, both video and still-pic, so it's easy to keep re-hasing it and keep it fresh in people's minds. I'm sure there's lots more reasons.

I guess for an answer to that question, we'll just have to wait until the next time the Doctor Phil Show features guests from Sodom and Gomorrah Boy oh boy, I bet that show will get big ratings

California??? Maine??? C'mon, tell me. Where is this stoned state??? I wanna visit.(Sorry, I couldn't resist) This is hyperbole. There is, of course, some very potent weed out there. There is also some really lame grass. The same can be said of 20 years ago. I smoke now, I smoked then (not on the job, of course). I remember back then, if you wanted some killer weed, you paid more money, depending, of course, on availability. Often you would get burned on a deal and get lame crap. The same can be said today. I have purchased total crap in the past few years. I have also come across some wicked stuff. It's really luck of the draw. That depends. How much more tax money is everyone willing to pay so that the Dept of Labour can put inspectors out on boats to check out all the fishermen every day??? Personally, I think we get taxed enough. Now I'll probably get flamed for this, but as a long-time user, I can say something from experience. The more you smoke, the less stoned you get. If you use pot on a daily basis, all day long, you barely get buzzed. Your body builds a tolerance to weed very quickly. So these "stoned" fishermen may not be "stoned" at all. They may simply be maintaining a mild buzz. In fact, if they're using as much as you claim, and as regularly as you say, they might not even be getting buzzed. Now I do not condone using any sort of drug or alcohol in the workplace, and this post is not meant to be justification for doing so. This is simply meant as information.

Then that particular prof is a pompous ass who doesn't recognize the difference between her personal opinion and verifiable fact. A history teacher should know better. On the other hand, to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she was fishing for someone to fight back. Not having been there, it's tough for me to say. Hell, I supported the troops and I'm not even American. The troops are not to blamed for the actions/policies of the administration. The troops did not start the war. They did, however, have to fight it, and survive it. Some didn't manage the latter. Of that 95%, IMHO, several are asses, and the rest are sheep who will do, think or say whatever prof tells them. Glad to hear it. You've learned a valuable lesson; when attending that particular professor's seminars, bring gravol.

A loose cannon like Parrish can hardly be seen as representing the general public, and her generalization "those bastards", could well have meant the administration only. I never heard whether or not that was clarified. As for her re-election, perhaps her constituents find her belligerent type of honesty refreshing. While touring the US in a band several years ago, I proudly wore my Canadian-flag-sweatshirt. My message was not so much "I'm not American" as it was "I'm proud to be Canadian". My bandmates thought I was nuts. They were afraid the shirt would cause me to get in a fight. There was only one incident, which wasn't really much of an incident at all. One moron working in a gas station asked me "why the hell" I'd be proud of being Canadian. I didn't take it too personally as it was a guy in his 40's, possibly even 50's working a gas bar at minimum wage. Picture-perfect stereotypical movie-hillbilly. Teeth missing. Lips stained from chewing tobacco. Bad breath you could smell from 10 feet away. No rocket-scientist, he. Other than being a "proud American", he surely had little else to be proud of. Every other person I spoke to was very nice, very respectful, and in some cases politely curious. For purposes of travelling abroad, well, in Europe, Canada's contribution to WWII is still appreciated. We are appreciated. And yes, if I ever get to travel in Europe, I will wear my flag. For both reasons. Americans are not appreciated in many parts of the world, and I see no point in being mistaken for an American by someone who may decide an American would make a good target today. Interestingly enough, there's a company in the USA which is making a bundle selling t-shirts with Canadian flags on them. They are most often purchased by Americans who are travelling abroad. The stated purpose, as given by the originator in a CBC radio interview, is to provide protection for Americans by "disguising" them as Canadians. Other products the company puts out are trivia books so travellers can bone up on topics most Canadians are familiar with. This supposedly completes their "disguise".

Good advice for anyone.

I don't recall mentioning your name, CHLOE. You seem to have taken my comments to heart all on your own, as though you feel the shoe which I described fits. Interesting. I wonder what Dr Phil would say??? "Seeks to act know and think later". Is it just me, or is this an oxymoronic statement?? By "seeking", you are implying premeditation, or forethought. A plan. As for your opinion, it's as valid as anyone else's, and I would never attempt to deny you the right to voice it. Where else would my outrage stem from. You all claim that safe sex works, yet you still have millions who refuse it. You have STDs on the rise and doctors wanting to develop the vaccine because after all, it is on the rise. STD's are on the rise for the same reason that some people are too stupid to take an umbrella when they go out in a rainstorm. Hence, also, the number of people who have maxxed out all their credit cards I guess that depends in part on which side of the sinister act you're standing on. I'm sure, for example, that Saddam never saw himself as a villain. The bad guy never does. But in my particular post, you will notice that I added the rider about "hurting no one". No no no no no. Please continue to post as you see fit. The whole point is to discuss things from different standpoints. If we all simply agree on everything, it kind of wipes out the whole point of having these forums. I for one have learned a lot in various political forums. Some of what I have learned I do not like, but all the same, I have come away more knowledgeable for having participated. Tolerant. Like I said, if it causes no one any harm, then I have no business passing judgement. As a side note, I personally rate Doctor Phil's show as a cross between pop-psychology and Jerry Springer. Phil has brains, but he still maintains a low-key circus atmosphere. But please don't get upset by this CHLOE, this is just my opinion. I know many people who enjoy his show. I simply do not appreciate what he has to offer. I had no problem with the show until I heard about the case a couple years ago where the good doctor had as his guests a couple members of a Fat-People support group. Apparently, they were told that Phil wanted them on the show to bring their plight into the public eye. The group's mandate is to help hopelessly obese people come to terms with their condition, and to help them regain some self-esteem. Once they were actually on the air, the women were absolutely stunned when Phil started laying into them about how they should all be working to get thin and healthy, about how they were simply using the group as a tool to justify their obesity and take the lazy way out. The women, obviously having no experience with on-camera confrontation, were totally flabbergasted, and for most part stunned into silence. And they were obviously hurt by what they saw as a betrayal. Pop psychology is one thing, but preying on people this way in the name of ratings (and make no mistake, the purpose of ANY tv show is to get ratings) is a totally different beast. Last I heard about it, the group had launched a lawsuit against Phil and his show.

Its not religion, it's people, there's a difference between the two... so get it right. In this case; WE=Generalization meaning the human race. I would think that would be easily understood. Sorry if I caused you to have a fly in your soup But *sigh* to clarify, many people who are particularly fanatical in their religious beliefs are, as their precursers have been for centuries, killing each other over the way each chooses to worship the same god. Does this make you happier???

T&E: Evidently you missed my first post in this thread, way back on the first page, wherein I said "That he is mad, I will not argue". So I am NOT saying that Dubya is NOT insane. In this thread I am simply contesting the criterion by which the original article is judging him to be so. As for my previous post, which you slammed quite nicely (good job), I was simply making a couple points.... 1) The numbing of the general populace via immersion in scenes of horror, both factual and fictional..... and, most importantly, right at the very end of that post is something you conveniently seem to have missed..... 2) In other words, Bush is truly convinced that he is on a justified crusade. I believe he fooled even himself into believing that, along with a large portion of the American public. When it comes to his actions, I condone nothing. I justify nothing. That post was simply an attempt to look at Bush's actions and motivations from a somewhat different perspective, which seems to be the overall tenor of this thread. Personally, I think the man is a self-rightious, deceptive ass, but that's a personal feeling. When debating I generally try to leave personal feelings out. When I do post personal feelings on a matter, I generally add a disclaimer to let folks know that. Is that better???

The thing that strikes me as funny, albeit at the same time tragic, is the fact that for millenia untold, we've been killing each other over HOW we choose to worship the same god. Jahweh, Jehova, Allah. Same guy. Does anyone believe that He cares whether you kneel on a carpet facing Mecca when you pray, or whether you pray quietly and unassumingly in privacy facing in any direction at all, or whether you pray with many others whilst singing gospel songs??? Personally, I find the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being getting offended by the method used in offering prayer to be ludicrous. But we're still killing each other over just that. Isn't religion wonderful???

Some people are born with a narrow viewpoint that allows them to see only the values they were brought up with as being valid. Others spend lots of time and money learning to be so narrow minded. Nonetheless, there are over 6 billion people living on this planet right now, each and every person with his/her own perception of right and wrong. To me, if it does no one any harm, and causes enjoyment for the participants, then nothing is being done wrong, at least nothing worth spending time and energy condemning. Group sex is not my cup of tea, but if it works for you, knock yourself out. I do not have to participate, I do not have to watch. Neither do you. I have no business whatsoever dictating what you or anyone else does in your bedroom. You have no business dictating what is done in mine. If more people minded their own business on petty issues which do not hurt anyone, we'd have a much friendlier world.

I agree with this in part, but only if you add the rider "some people" and "Material payoff". A lot of folks do not seeks any material payoff, for many the satisfaction of knowing they have helped is payoff enough.

It could be argued that this is partly a symptom of our times. War has become a spectator sport. We have become so accustomed to seeing blood a guts being spilled on tv, both fictional and real, that war is no longer the "horror" that it once was. Except, of course, if you're in the line of fire. To Bush, Blair, et al, war is simply something that is happening far away, to other people. Whatever the REAL motivation behind this war (I don't believe we've been told the truth, and we may never be), being insulated from war's very real effects on very real people makes it easy to point at a map and say "We'll invade there", and then go home and sit down to a nice dinner. I don't believe that Bush is an "evil" man. Nor do I believe he is particularly psychotic, at least no more so than anyone who seeks public office. I think he honestly believes that he is doing the right thing. A large segment of the American population seems to agree with him. But that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I have to agree, AUGUST. I also have to agree that it was very well-written. And again, I must agree with several points from the original post. There are definitely similarities in both the motivation for the two wars, and the way in which the ongoing battle are being waged. I don't think America is making too many friends with this war. Too bad, really. Aside from Canada (pardon my nationalist bias), the USA is my favorite country.

Your appreciation is well-deserved given that Heinlein stole it from Churchill: I was not aware of this quote, but I appreciate learning of it. Thank you kindly. My favorite Churchill quote (upon having a woman tell him he was drunk) is "And you, Madam, are ugly, but in the morning, I shall be sober". Let's see now, in that previous post, you assumed that I was referring to the USA when I mentioned "arrogance". When asked who I was referring to, I mentioned Nazi Germany, among MANY others. Now you try to put words in my mouth by saying I am comparing/confusing the two, when in fact YOU are the one who dragged the USA into my earlier statement. Sorry, AUGUST, I ain't biting. Find another fish to try reel in. As for Heinlein and Churchill, both excellent gentlemen. I would have loved nothing more than to have had the priviledge to have a conversation with either of them. It seems the Progressive Conservative Party has given up the ghost as well, but on a far more permanent level. So by your definition, if the general population is not split down the middle at the polls, then that means the "democratic" system they live with is not viable??? I don't buy that definition. Besides, we had a cliff hanger during our last national election, and guess what??? The Liberals lost. They became merely a minority goverment, which is always a mixed blessing in itself. More checks and balances, but it takes a lot longer to get anything done. Still, it's better than having the Lib's as a majority... The Patriot Act is pretty scary. I would hardly call it a healthy sign.

For the same reason that farmers all pitched in to help rebuild a neighbour's barn that had burned down, instead of letting the poor chump do it for himself, IOW, because we can.