Harper government to re-introduce bill to

jdobbin · November 17, 2007

You still have Dion as a "leader" and he still doesn't speak English. In an election, he would be the focus of news day after day after day - which would inevitably lead to a plunge in Liberal fortunes. He would also be torn apart in any kind of debate with Harper.
Guy, if you can't prioritize you have no business being in management at ANY level.

I think it is the priorities of the Tories that pushed them down to 35% and lower in the polls. Not exactly majority support.

Argus · November 17, 2007

I have an even better idea Argus, how about we keep track of every alcohol purchase, and keep each alcohol purchase in a national database so when employees don't show up for work, their employers can see how much booze they purchased the night before? Also employers could then check how much alcohol the person applying for a job has consumed in the past year and decide not to hire them. Cops could check if alcohol was purchased by a vehicle owner just by checking their plate and use the information as probable cause to pull them over and demand blood/urine samples?

I wouldn't ever hire an alcoholic, but by the same token I would never hire a pothead.

At my work, we have had no problems with drinkers over the past year, but extensive problems with potheads. We had three clerks who were potheads, and all had major issues with basic duties, were unreliable, and had to be let go. One was an emotional mess because of her and her spouse's heavy use of pot, and the economic problems that brought on. Her ex sent money for the kids school clothes and she spent it on pot. We have another employee still with us, very good, but messed up, in large measure, due to pot, and her spouse is also a heavy pothead.

You might think pot doesn't ruin lives like alcohol does but you're wrong.

old_bold&cold · November 17, 2007

The long gun registry just does not work. I have 3 rifles and so does my wife. e keep a fair amount of amunition around for target shooting (we live in the country and have enough land to do so). We did register all our weapons several times and kept getting requests to re-register as data was lost etc.. After the fouth request I said enough and that was that. Back whn the RCMP came to my house they were delighted to find these rifles, and were all rady to conficate them until they were shown all 4 registrations and the last 3 were sent by registered mail. They could not take the rifles (value over $10,000.00). They himed and hawed at the amo, but they could not do anything about that either, as it was all bought and paid for, as well as a reloaders so I could make my own bullets. That really pisses them off, as they ask about certain tips for what is called cop killer bullets, and you answer that there are way better ones now on the net. I love pulling their chains.

I like to do what is called rapid fire targets where the object is to put a target say 500 yards away and to raid fir 5 rounds in succession at the target as fast as the semi auto will allow, and see if you can put all five in as small a group as possible. This I guess might make some believe that automatic fire is happening, but it is not. Any how this plus skeet shooting are hobbies and if I did not make my own reloads it would be very expensive.

The fact that I did register my guns and did so many times and the fact that they lost it all again and had no record, meant that the police wasted all that time on me, when all they needed to do was ask. I still keep all my papers in a safe place, so I can show I did as requested. I did refuse to re-submit the papers again but gave the police copies so they can if they wished, but my duty ended with four attempts to do the right thing. I would imagine that most of the people who registered early on had all their data lost as well, as it was said the lose was 100% back then. So as for all those who did as they were asked and followed the rules they are probably not even on the registry computers any more. That proabably is thousands of people. I think these guys wasted a lot of time and money and they should not be allowed to remain on the government payroll to monitor something that is really flawed from conception.

fellowtraveller · November 17, 2007

Nobody will miss the registry, for obvious reasosn: 1) the cops know it is wholly unreliable in predicting the presence of weapons in a household 2) criminals, oddly enough, have pretty much unanimously failed to register their weapons 3) a very large number of normally law abiding citizens have chosen to not register a very large number of legal weapons. None of those three would be altered by eliminating the registry.

It is a law widely flouted and will continue to be useless no matter what the federal govt does. The recent decision to abandon the long gun registry is more than symbolic, since it will hopefully drag the hapless Dion kicking and screaming to the polls. If nothing else, it will allow him to leave politics with a small shred of personal dignity remaining.

I hope the Liberals can raise enough to buy poor Stephane a spine.

sharkman · November 17, 2007

The fact that I did register my guns and did so many times and the fact that they lost it all again and had no record, meant that the police wasted all that time on me, when all they needed to do was ask. I still keep all my papers in a safe place, so I can show I did as requested. I did refuse to re-submit the papers again but gave the police copies so they can if they wished, but my duty ended with four attempts to do the right thing. I would imagine that most of the people who registered early on had all their data lost as well, as it was said the lose was 100% back then. So as for all those who did as they were asked and followed the rules they are probably not even on the registry computers any more. That proabably is thousands of people. I think these guys wasted a lot of time and money and they should not be allowed to remain on the government payroll to monitor something that is really flawed from conception.

That is so funny and sad at the same time. The only thing the registry was ever good for was making liberals feel safe. Actual safeness would cost another 500,000,000,000, and involve the military confiscating criminals.

It would be nice to see Dion grow some cajones and vote Harper's bill down. I'd love to have an election on this issue.

Shakeyhands · November 17, 2007

I wouldn't ever hire an alcoholic, but by the same token I would never hire a pothead.
At my work, we have had no problems with drinkers over the past year, but extensive problems with potheads. We had three clerks who were potheads, and all had major issues with basic duties, were unreliable, and had to be let go. One was an emotional mess because of her and her spouse's heavy use of pot, and the economic problems that brought on. Her ex sent money for the kids school clothes and she spent it on pot. We have another employee still with us, very good, but messed up, in large measure, due to pot, and her spouse is also a heavy pothead.

You might think pot doesn't ruin lives like alcohol does but you're wrong.

I know what you mean, I mean, me myself know a number of "pot heads" One is an executive chef with a very large Canadian company who has responsibility for I'd say about six major restaurants and hotel kitchens, one is a International Sales Director for a decent sized application provider, one even runs the Emergency Managment office for one of Canada's largest regional municipalities....

Point being Argus, you can't paint everyone with such large brushstrokes...

Edited November 17, 2007 by Shakeyhands

DrGreenthumb · November 17, 2007

Also Argus you have to differentiate between the effects of the drugs themselves and the effects of the legal consequences of using those drugs.

Alcohol causes physical withdrawl symptoms like hangovers. This is a direct effect of the drug alcohol. It lowers inhibitions and causes people to act impulsively and often violently. These effects are directly attributable to the drug alcohol. Alcohol is a factor in most violent crime, and in a very high number of fatal car accidents.

A person being broke because they cannot afford to buy alcohol would be a secondary effect of the drug dependance and would probably be worse under a prohibition model where alcohol was say 10 or 20 times more expensive than it would be currently.

The effects you attribute to pot are the same type of secondary effect and would not be present if a person could plant their own weed next to their tomatoes in their flowerbeds and not have to pay anyone for it. Even people who wanted to buy would surely not be going broke when cannabis prices fell to a natural level.

sharkman · November 17, 2007

So you don't think having everyone growing their own pot (and smoking more because of it) would have any downside? Get real.

DrGreenthumb · November 17, 2007

Nothing is absolutely harmless, but any downside to people being free to grow and consume their own pot is certainly no justification for the continued harassment of peaceful otherwise law abiding citizens.

The senate report of 2002 concluded after studying all the relevant information that the prohibition of cannabis creates far more harm the the substance itself ever could.

If we are not free to consume what we wish we are not living in a free country. If we do not own our own bodies who does? the state? isn't that slavery when men are owned?

sharkman · November 17, 2007

Yes, we do not live in a free country. There are otherwise clearheaded professional people, for instance, who collect child porn. In this nonfree country we do not allow that, or many other behaviours that permit the harming of another person. There are also laws against harming oneself. The use of narcotics, though pleasurable and an escape, can do both. I suggest you quit if you can.

DrGreenthumb · November 17, 2007

Only a complete moron would compare cannabis use with child porn. funny how so many that take this tack also happen to be conservatives. There is a clear victim in child porn. The fact that you equate these things really just makes you seem like some kind of sicko as well as an idiot.

Laws against harming yourself are senseless, there is no crime until you victimize someone other than yourself. There are many many things more harmful to oneself than cannabis and they are not illegal.

trex · November 17, 2007

If Harpers government falls he can still run for US President. Should be no problem, he has a dual citizenship

Fortunata · November 17, 2007

If Harpers government falls he can still run for US President. Should be no problem, he has a dual citizenship

Say what?

capricorn · November 17, 2007

If Harpers government falls he can still run for US President. Should be no problem, he has a dual citizenship

What are you talking about?

Harper was born in Toronto. Only American born politicians can become President. Ask Arnie.

Moxie · November 17, 2007

Old wrote: think these guys wasted a lot of time and money and they should not be allowed to remain on the government payroll to monitor something that is really flawed from conception.

I concur, lets shut down this money sucking pit and fire all those that have done little more than diddle their fingers whilst collecting a nice paycheck.

LOL Trex, stay in the pot thread you almost make sense in that one.

Argus · November 18, 2007

I know what you mean, I mean, me myself know a number of "pot heads" One is an executive chef with a very large Canadian company who has responsibility for I'd say about six major restaurants and hotel kitchens, one is a International Sales Director for a decent sized application provider, one even runs the Emergency Managment office for one of Canada's largest regional municipalities....
Point being Argus, you can't paint everyone with such large brushstrokes...

Yes. You can. I'm sure you can name a lot of alcoholics that manage to function quite well, too.

That doesn't mean you can say alcoholism is a good thing, or an unimportant thing. It's a major failing of the spirit and intellect. So is being a pothead.

Argus · November 18, 2007

Only a complete moron would compare cannabis use with child porn. funny how so many that take this tack also happen to be conservatives. There is a clear victim in child porn.

Technically, you're wrong. Most child porn is merely evidence of child abuse. The child abuse has a victim, not the pictures and videos taken as souvenirs. For that matter even stories, drawings or cartoons taken from the imagination are child porn, yet without victims.

Laws against harming yourself are senseless, there is no crime until you victimize someone other than yourself. There are many many things more harmful to oneself than cannabis and they are not illegal.

Paying oodles of money to organized crime harms us all.

Argus · November 18, 2007

Nothing is absolutely harmless, but any downside to people being free to grow and consume their own pot is certainly no justification for the continued harassment of peaceful otherwise law abiding citizens.
The senate report of 2002 concluded after studying all the relevant information that the prohibition of cannabis creates far more harm the the substance itself ever could.

It is not the prohibition which causes harm. It is the violence and criminality and the police efforts to combat it which result from the decisions of people like you to ignore the law which causes the harm.

Argus · November 18, 2007

The effects you attribute to pot are the same type of secondary effect and would not be present if a person could plant their own weed next to their tomatoes in their flowerbeds and not have to pay anyone for it. Even people who wanted to buy would surely not be going broke when cannabis prices fell to a natural level.

Perhaps, if we could paint all the potheads purple so we could be sure to recognize them and never trust them with an important or responsible job.

Moxie · November 18, 2007

Perhaps, if we could paint all the potheads purple so we could be sure to recognize them and never trust them with an important or responsible job.

Trust me Argus, once you see one of them stoned you will notice the signs of being "High" on the job. Dumber than a sack of hammers and twice as dense is the first sign and it goes down hill from there.

rover1 · November 18, 2007

All in all, the gun registry as presently constituted should be eliminated, in my view.

My observation is that it has been costly and ineffective and has not served the purposes desired by its proposers.

Whether or not it could have served such purposes is a matter of debate, but it clearly has been unsuccessful.

The worst feature of the present law is that it has created controversy where none existed before. Long gun control has always been something of a non-issue in Canada, as opposed to other countries, and it should remain so.

A big waste of money.

old_bold&cold · November 18, 2007

I do not have trouble spotting heavy pot users and it is not that I go looking for them, but rather you find them whenthey are trying to make change a a cashier and they lose all ability to count it seems, or they just can not concentrate on a menial task, that a 5 year old could do without problems. But I guess that there are some who are not pot heads that have that same problem, but they are of the dumb canine variety.

If people want to smoke pot, they need to go where no one is around and smoke it privately. If not they get caught and fined. Those who grow more then a plant at a time will be charged with dealling and production to deal, and that is more costly and criminal records to boot, and no the type that prospective employers will agree to let go by. So yes smoking pot does harm you in many ways. Even it it were legal, employers who do not have to hire you, will still hold that against you, but you will be a regular hit at the unemployment line.

But what does this have to do with the Long gun registry. It really is a waste of time and money, wheil the issue with pot etc and fines actually gains money, and most do nto care about these idiots getting criminal records either. Harper will never look at decriminalising pot for all offenders, but may make a small concession on the small quanity first time caught type of thing, but the fines will be very high for that and it will only be a one time thing. Anyone looking for more with this government is almost as wacko as Shavluk. For now though lets get back to the Long gun registry.

sharkman · November 18, 2007

Only a complete moron would compare cannabis use with child porn. funny how so many that take this tack also happen to be conservatives. There is a clear victim in child porn. The fact that you equate these things really just makes you seem like some kind of sicko as well as an idiot.
Laws against harming yourself are senseless, there is no crime until you victimize someone other than yourself. There are many many things more harmful to oneself than cannabis and they are not illegal.

Why don't you re-read my post, and notice I haven't made any edits on it. It is quite clear that I didn't compare pot use with child porn. Maybe you should cut back on the toking a little, dude. :lol: