Scotty

And I am one of them. However, given Harper's rather notorious 'pragmatism' if he really thought much of his base was in favour he'd be going for it. I did a quick scan for polls and the latest I find is last year, where Angus Reid says just over half of Canadians are okay with legalizing it. But the trick is to read the fine print. Those who believe that possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use should not be a crime tend to be men (54 per cent), under the age of 25 (58 per cent), as well as supporters of the NDP (63 per cent), Green Party (59 per cent) and the Bloc Québécois (58 per cent) So most of those who believe pot should be legalized are of an age group which doesn't vote, and which largely supports the left wing parties anyway. Numbers like that are not going to convince Harper to legalize anything.

Such a law would not be legal as it's unconstitutional. And I think your comparison is silly. You say my use of Fritos is extreme? How so? Why is my desire to eat fritos frivolous compared to people's desire to smoke weed?

As opposed to what? Voting for them because of their charismatic leadership? Because of their exciting and innovative policy initiatives? Were you ever operating under the belief the Tories and Harper would be friendly towards pot smokers? I certainly never got that impression. I doubt many people did. There are three things I'd like to point out. One, these Tories are still much more conservative than the PCs. Two, these tories have not entirely sold themselves to Quebec (mind you, they tried), and so are paying more attention to the needs of the West, where Reform arose, than the PCs did. And conservatives can remember what happened the last time the conservative vote was split - more than a decade of incompetent Liberal government with no real opposition to reign them in. But in any event, I'm not sure what your point is since most small c conservatives would be unlikely to be growing pot anyway, nor to have much sympathy with those who do.

Like I said, if the government announces corn chips are going to be illegal, you can just give them up. You don't have to seek out that guy in the back alley and buy illegal corn chips. You don't have to take risks. It's not like the government is banning something you can't do without. And while I might think a ban on corn chips is dumb, it's a matter of weighing what I like and don't like about any given party. What I do like about them outweighs what I don't like about them. Do I want to vote in an opposition party which promises to get rid of the ban on corn chips, but also thinks the hug-a-thug school of justice can educate rapists and killers into not being such bad people? Nope.

Why? Why do you expect everyone else to heroically refuse to obey a law for the sake of some freaking Fritos, and risk their jobs, and going to prison with a bunch of slack jawed scumbags? I might think a law banning Fritos was dumb but I'm not about to go to jail for it. No one but an idiot is going to take up arms and shout "Give me Fritos or give me death!" It's just a corn chip, you know. I can live without it. And if you can't live without your pot then I feel sorry for you.

Kurt Cobain. He has one song - Smells Like Teen Spirit. Chez FM plays it at least every couple of hours. George Thorowgood. Again, he has one song - One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer. Anything by AC/DC or Metallica. I can't tell if they have more than one song. Whatever they play, the screaming and pounding sounds the same.

I think people who smoke cigarettes are idiots, too, if that makes you feel any better.

Yes. I like Fritos corn chips. But if the government brought in a law which could put me in jail for six months for having Fritos around the house I'd stop buying Fritos. How complicated does this have to be for you?

I doubt the tories plan on rounding up a million people. But by stiffening the laws it will cause the more intelligent ones to, perhaps regretfully, decide it isn't worth the risk. As to the others, the addicts who have to have their pot no matter the risk, throwing a few into prison as an example isn't going to make many people cry, at least, not many people inclined to vote for the Conservatives.

You are forgetting, WB, that while millions of Canadians might smoke pot, those who actually care a lot about the freedom of pot smokers are more likely to be liberals or NDPers or Greens than Tories. The Tory base is generally all in favour of crackdowns on drug users. And even if they don't really care overmuch about pot smokers, well, they're not shedding a lot of tears for them either.

I start from an old-fashioned notion, that news should be news, and as unbiased as possible. I disdain the media which slant news, one way or another, or give only one side of a story. I enjoy opinion pieces, but they must be clearly labelled as such. And I don't like "News" coverage of nonsense which is not actually news. I don't care what Charlie Sheen or the Kardashians are doing, and don't hold much respect for news media which focuses so zealously on their exploits. I also don't like propaganda. Give me the facts, and let me decide. Give me one side, and push an agenda, and I get my back up. What inspired this is the current propaganda series the Globe and Mail has decided to run telling us all how wonderful Muslims are, and that any concerns about them are misplaced. I do have concerns, and I don't need some left wing crusading newspaper to give me pap to try to allay them. Address the issues in a realistic way and I might pay attention. Give me crap like this and it just irritates me. Globe and Mail As an example, the initial features a 20 year old Pakistani college student who complains about people who treat her rudely because she's wearing a Hijab. Now as the article states she is the daughter of Pakistani immigrants, we can assume she ws raised her. Yet she wears the Hijab, the thought occurred to me to wonder why she was wearing it. That would seem to be a pretty straightforward and obvious question, but of course, it's not asked or answered. So to me, you have a girl who decides to wear something which her religion doesn't require, but which will ostentatiously mark her to everyone who sees her not only as Muslim but as a traditionalist Muslim. She chose to set herself apart from everyone else in a secular society. Why? Not answered. And then the piece says, sadly Her experiences indicate that, for some young Canadian Muslims, an “us and them” mentality persists in their home country. Yet isn't that exactly what she's creating, what she's insisting on? When you set yourself apart you are TRYING to make it an "Us and them" thing. So why complain, then?

As I said, I don't support laws against pot -- except against smuggling and big time dealers. I wouldn't even mind experimenting with legalizing it and taxing it. That being said, the fact is there are laws against it, and if people are so frantic to get some burning weeds into their mouths they're willing to risk prison time don't expect me to feel sorry for them. Whether you 'support' the law or not it exists. So either amuse yourself some other way or take the risks.

No, I don't. I don't really care much about whether someone smokes pot or not. However, you asked why people would vote Conservative. I answered it. I like the idea of cracking down on violent offenders. I don't really support cracking down on potheads, but it doesn't really bother me, either. You know the law. If you're willing to risk years in jail because you're so desperate for your weed then don't whine to me afterwards.

Then we're the dominion of Canada, even if not the Dominion of Canada. So celebrating the day we became a dominion would seem to be a reasonable thing to do, and calling it Dominion Day a reasonable title.

ALL nations were ruled in that fashion, whether by European rulers or their own local dictators. What, you think the native rulers in Africa, Asia, the middle east or South America were benevolent democrats who took votes or something?

Well, it's like, you have this nice, neat, tidy little home on the street, and right next door is this huge family of slovenly, brawling oafs who are always screaming and howling and fighting, shooting off guns. Half of them are addicted to porn and pain killers, and the other half are religious wackos screaming their praise to Jesus at all hours of the day and night. And they're all so fat that when they walk by the house shakes. That family is simply bound to often come up in the conversation pretty frequently...

None do, that I'm aware of.

I would say that in most cases the British did a lot for the places they ruled, in the broad sense. The rapid devolution of power to locals in the late forties and fifties, however, was a disaster instigated by the Americans and Russians for different reasons. Many of those people were still barbarians incapable of ruling themselves with anything approaching wisdom and justice. Many have actually gone downhill since then. That can hardly be blamed on the British. The Somalians, for example, were not really colonized. They were Muslims who invaded their Christian neighbors (Ethiopia) and were in league with the Ottomans against the Christians for centuries. They were defeated by the British in the early 20th century, and, I think, occupied by Italians not that long afterwards. Sudan wasn't a colony, either. It was conquered in the late nineteth century mostly to safeguard the waters flowing into Egypt - which also wasn't a colony. Its ruler had invited the British in some time earlier. You're not distinguishing between 'colonies', as in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ie, places where the British sent hordes of people to start up a new nation, and conquered territories.

Very few seem to agree with your sentiments. And most of them seem to be separatists. The "British" monarchy is the Canadian monarchy, by law, tradition, and the will of the Canadian people. If you're not happy with that you can always leave.

And the name of the United States is the United States, not the Republic of the United States. Does that mean they're not a republic?

Some of us regard it as more important for the state to crack down on vicious, brutal murderers, rapists, and street criminals than to safeguard the rights of the sniveling wretches so desperately addicted to puffing at their weeds they're willing to risk their lives and families to get some more smoke into their lungs.

How about this? The people who are so ungodly stupid and weak, who don't care if the punishment for growing some pot is years in jail because they're so bloody desperate to put some burning weed in their mouths and suck down the smoke, will be removed from the streets, hopefully before they can breed more of their misbegotten ilk.

Oh really? What is it then? The People's Democratic Republic of Canada? While it is true that the government no longer refers to us as The Dominion of Canada, we ARE still the Dominion of Canada.

I can read quite well. What you're suggesting is that the enemy, who cares nothing for collateral damage, should be able to attack with impunity from within the confines of any built-up area, and that if we accidentally kill or even injure a non combatant while responding we should be held accountable for that. As I said, a recipe for military failure.

Pretty much anyone who has a cottage is going to spend the long weekend there. That's almost a Canadian cliche.