The right not to be offended?

[DrGreenthumb]

I was called a "snow nigger" once. I laughed.

When confronting an opposing idea try to understand it thoroughly then poke holes in any parts that may be logically flawed. Come to think of it doing the same for your ideas would be helpful in examining what you actually stand for. Name calling or more subtle insults (ie surely only an idiot would think...), while they shouldn't be illegal, serves no purpose in debate.

You might want to quote my whole statement if you are going to quote me, or was it your purpose to make it look like I have those racist beliefs? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The point of my original post that you quoted was that people who use terms like that shouldn't get offended and have a hissy fit when they are rightly told that they are bigots. I was making a snide comment about my being reprimanded for calling someone who used those terms a bigot.

My point was that it should not be illegal to "say" anything but people who say ignorant things like that should be ridiculed for doing so.

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, that is a pretty conservative point of view.

I'm glad you put a small c there. I'd hate to have any of my views associated with the Conservative party., lol

I voted conservative when the conservatives were progressive. I could never vote for the Conservative party in its current incarnation. I don't like authoritarian governments who do not respect my civil liberties. Until Harper and his ilk get through their thick skulls that they have no right to prohibit plants, they will NEVER get my vote, and I will work furiously against them in every way possible. Last provincial election I worked at least 10 hours a day for free for my local NDP candidate just so I knew I had done everything in my power to defeat the conservative candidate. (Btw we smoked him like a fatass joint)My candidate won by a huge margin, and got the most votes that any candidate has ever gotten in this constituency. I am much more interested in federal politics than provincial, and I will work even harder to defeat the conservatives in the next election. All it would take is to repeal prohibition and I'd work just as hard for them as I do against them.

[White Doors]

I'm glad you put a small c there. I'd hate to have any of my views associated with the Conservative party., lol

I voted conservative when the conservatives were progressive. I could never vote for the Conservative party in its current incarnation. I don't like authoritarian governments who do not respect my civil liberties. Until Harper and his ilk get through their thick skulls that they have no right to prohibit plants, they will NEVER get my vote, and I will work furiously against them in every way possible. Last provincial election I worked at least 10 hours a day for free for my local NDP candidate just so I knew I had done everything in my power to defeat the conservative candidate. (Btw we smoked him like a fatass joint)My candidate won by a huge margin, and got the most votes that any candidate has ever gotten in this constituency. I am much more interested in federal politics than provincial, and I will work even harder to defeat the conservatives in the next election. All it would take is to repeal prohibition and I'd work just as hard for them as I do against them.

So you base your vote on the one issue of marijuana?

The Conservatives aren't doing anything to change the laws of cannibas use that weren't already there.

The laws they introduced were for dealers only.

[Wild Bill]

So you base your vote on the one issue of marijuana?

The Conservatives aren't doing anything to change the laws of cannibas use that weren't already there.

The laws they introduced were for dealers only.

yeah, and going after dealers has proven so effective in the past!

Al Capone is laughing in his grave...

More money down a rat hole to appeal to a particular voting demographic. I might as well have voted Liberal!

[DrGreenthumb]

So you base your vote on the one issue of marijuana?

The Conservatives aren't doing anything to change the laws of cannibas use that weren't already there.

The laws they introduced were for dealers only.

Charges for Cannabis possession have gone up 30% across Canada since the conservatives got in. Coincidence? Not likely. In some cities charges have gone up by as much as 50%. If I shouldn't blame the conservatives for that who should I blame? The police? Again, I don't think so. How much has that extra 30-50% cost the taxpayers? Mandatory minimum jail sentences for anything to do with pot is not worth the money it will cost. If you agree that pot possession is not worth putting somebody in jail for then I'm not sure why you think growing it or selling it is. Big drug war =Big Government=huge cost to taxpayers.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm glad you put a small c there. I'd hate to have any of my views associated with the Conservative party., lol

I voted conservative when the conservatives were progressive. I could never vote for the Conservative party in its current incarnation. I don't like authoritarian governments who do not respect my civil liberties. Until Harper and his ilk get through their thick skulls that they have no right to prohibit plants, they will NEVER get my vote, and I will work furiously against them in every way possible.

It's a civil liberty to get high?

How much did you actually 'furiously' do against the Conservatives in the last election?

If you actually looked at the issues you probably never would have voted PC. They were always the least progressive of the three mainstream parties.

Funny thing about names, people put waaaay to much stock in them.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[M.Dancer]

Smoking pot does not make you a bad parent.

Being constantly stoned makes you a bad human, parent and a waste of skin. They don't particularily drink, because I assume it getsin the way of doing hot knives bottle tokes and consumes money otherwise spent of weed.

The romanticisation of weed has to be one of the bigest farces going round.....

[White Doors]

The romanticisation of weed has to be one of the bigest farces going round.....

I'll second that.

right up there with the native myth.

[DrGreenthumb]

Being constantly stoned makes you a bad human, parent and a waste of skin. They don't particularily drink, because I assume it getsin the way of doing hot knives bottle tokes and consumes money otherwise spent of weed.

The romanticisation of weed has to be one of the bigest farces going round.....

who said anything anout being "constantly" stoned? Are you "constantly" shitfaced if you are someone who likes to have a beer once in while?

How does one "particularily" drink?

The romanticism of weed? Not exactly sure what you mean by that either. I don't think pointing out the "actual effects" of smoking pot to counter the bullshit propaganda spread around by prohibitionists could be called romanticizing it. There has never been any scientific or rational reason for criminalizing Cannabis. It has always been based in racism and fear mongering. These things often appeal to the conservative base but anyone who bothers to do any investigating of their own soon finds out that when it comes to cannabis the government and the police cannot seem to tell the truth.

"Reefer makes darkies think they are as good as white men"- Harry Anslinger, america's first drug czar.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'll second that.

right up there with the native myth.

And what exactly is the "native myth"?

[M.Dancer]

who said anything anout being "constantly" stoned?

Sorry if you are only half up to speed...the parents I am talking about wake and bake, are toasted at lunch and smoke before and after dinner...they are in a constant state of high.

Oh yeah, and they hold jobs too....but most people would call them burn outs.

[Argus]

I find intriguing (and encouraging) that the Left is now championing individual rights. It seems to me that this is how the NDP seeks support from younger people nowadays (eg. LGBT rights, marijuana, abortion). The NDP defends the individual's freedom to choose.

The Left does not and has never championed individual rights. It might take up an individual case as a cause celebre for a larger purpose, but the Left, by and large, does not believe in individuality. It doesn't say so, of course, but then it doesn't like to admit it doesn't believe in freedom either.

[Argus]

Maybe I should say the conservatives want to be nice to pedophiles, because their base is christian fundies, and priests are far more likely statistically than the rest of the population to be pedophiles?

Do you have a citation for that, or are you just blowing noxious fumes out your ass like usual?

[Argus]

Not this again. Remember in 2004 when Stephen Harper made statements similar to Paul Martin being a supporter of Child Porn.

The Conservative Majority vapourized. Harper verified that he was a scary guy. And the election lost.

I hope this isn't a tactic to be used in the future. Just puts voters off.

I don't think it's dishonest to say that if there is any party in the House which would most like to severely punish pedophiles, rapists, murderers and robbers it is the Conservatives. Meanwhile, the Liberals and NDP have done their very best to oppose every new initiative in that direction. While in power, the Liberals turned the prison system into a temporary babysitter, and turned the prisons over to the prisoners. Womens prisons, in particular, are little more than a joke. Karla Homolka lived the good life in her little cottage "prison", better than poor people do on the outside. Punishment is a dirty word to the Left. Instead they want to understand criminals, and help them to better themselves.

[DrGreenthumb]

It's a civil liberty to get high?

How much did you actually 'furiously' do against the Conservatives in the last election?

If you actually looked at the issues you probably never would have voted PC. They were always the least progressive of the three mainstream parties.

Funny thing about names, people put waaaay to much stock in them.

It is a civil liberty to do what I want with MY OWN BODY. That means I should be able to choose not to wear my seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet , eat fatty food, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or pot, and alter my consiousness however the hell I choose to. Unless I violate the rights of another citizen it is none of the state's or anyone else's business what I do with MY OWN BODY.

Last election I donated money to the NDP, I worked the phones, went door to door, called radio talk shows, and wrote LTE's. I joined the constituency association, and got elected to the executive. I attended the debates and asked questions that I knew would make the conservative candidate look foolish. I picked up and drove voters to the polls. I told every pot smoker I know that the NDP were "our party" and distributed quotes from members of all three parties that showed how backwards thinking the cons are when it comes to cannabis. Also I did not only campaign for the NDP in my own riding, I made day trips to other ridings where I went door to door handing out pamphlets and putting them on car windshields. The conservative position on Cannabis is definitely the minority position in Canada. Almost every person I talked to agreed that a crackdown on Cannabis was a huge waste of taxpayer's money and police resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Very few people believe the police/government propaganda about Cannabis anymore, because almost everyone has used it at some point in their life or at least knows someone who uses it, and is otherwise a law abiding, taxpaying citizen.

It makes me very angry that my government, that is supposed to work for me, uses the taxes I pay them to hunt down and cage people for anything Cannabis related.

[Argus]

I agree that this is why it is against the law, but I don't think it's a good reason. Although it may be true that our economy would suffer terribly if the black market were to collapse, sustaining organized crime is bad for all of us. The CPC may feel it's necessary to maintain the status quo because they find election financing laws too restrictive, but infringing on people's rights to smoke an innocuous plant just to ensure a tax-free income is just plain wrong.

It is NOT innocuous, and is far stronger than it was in the sixties, when pot smoking became a cornerstone of the feel-good lifestyle the Left embraces. I've known people who have destroyed their careers if not their lives through pot, and I see no reason to pretend this drug is nothing more than a happy pill with no side affects.

[Argus]

Why? You actually believe the laws are effective at reducing consumption? You obviously didn't attend my junior high.

The laws I would put in place would put drug smugglers and repeat sellers of dope into prison for the rest of their lives, doing hard labour at work camps and prison factories. I assure you that would have an affect on consumption as the price would rise dramatically.

[Argus]

del

Edited December 21, 2007 by Argus

[White Doors]

And what exactly is the "native myth"?

That they are such great environmental stewards

[Argus]

Not at all. At the age of 14, the courts and professionals have determined there is a cognizant ability to decide to have sex.

Really? Do you have any court citations or citations from child care professionals or psychologists to back that up? The age of consent is at 14 because it hasn't changed since 1890

[Argus]

Murder is a mental illness. There are laws against it but they do no good, once the law has been broken. Rather if it was treated as the sickness it really was and made attempts to legislate mandatory help for those that might kill or harm or threaten another, then we might have a better chance at reducing murders before they occurred.

Absurd, and based on not one single whit of psychological, psychiatric, or sociological evidence - or knowledge.

[Argus]

She is a dependant right up to age 21 (if in school). SO?

The legislation should follow the facts. Girls have sex at avg age of 14.5 , boys 14.1 Do we really want to charge these kids w a crime , a crime that most of us committed when we were young?

You really don't understand what people are talking about, do you? It must be so hard being you.

[Argus]

In a moral and civil society regardless of the laws, one does not kill another human being. If they do, then something has gone awry in their thinking. That off-thinking is an illness, to believe that they can benefit from murder.

Poor judgement is not a mental illness, or else we'd confine all the Liberal and NDP voters to mental institutions.

And who says that they can't profit off murder? Lots of people profit off murder and crime.

The recidivism rate of criminals is about 75%. The justice system and the punishment jail time doesn't work and neither do laws as a deterrent

You clearly know as little about criminology as you do about psychology and the motivations of crime. Laws certainly do deter, especially if they're stringently enforced. The problem is our laws aren't stringently enforced.

[Argus]

Hate to contribute to the thread rift, but the whole age of consent debate puzzles me. Well, not so much the debate itself as the examples used. For instance:

But it's okay for 40 year olds to have sex with 16 year olds (who are still children by just about every other the legal definition)?

It's just so arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. It's the recognition that maturity brings better thinking and better judgment. The current law dates back to 1890, when 14 year olds were, for all intents and purposes, adults. Many even married and had kids at that age. Realistically, the way kids are coddled now, 14 is still a child. Even 16 is tenuous, but it's a compromise. At the very least, a 16 year old has had more experience and social development, and is much more likely to recognize predatory behaviour on the part of adult men who want to exploit her.

[Argus]

That's the other thing: I just don't think there's all that many 40 years olds actually itching for some 14 year old action.

This law is mainly aimed at pimps, young men usually in their early twenties who befriend young teenagers and make them their "girlfriend", then turn them onto the streets. There is little a parent can do now when they find out their 14 year old is "dating" a sleazy looking 23 year old man. This law is meant to make life a little harder on pimps.

Apparently, that goes against the grain for the Liberals and NDP.