No smoking in car with kids

[eyeball]

Alcohol is the only drug that leads directly to criminal behavior? That's pretty doubtful. Marijuana and Ecstacy might make people pretty benign and mellow, but some drugs cause users to become agitated, violent, and destructive.

Talk to a cop, my nephew is in the RCMP and he says about 50% of his calls are to domestic disputes, most of which are characterized by alcohol-fuelled violence.

[socred]

The government knows it has to prohibit pot and many of the people who hate the nanny-state will just as blithely shrug that off by stating "if you can't do the time don't do the crime".

I get a real chuckle over so-called libertarians who decry the nanny-state while voting for political parties that are forever cracking down, getting tough and imposing more law and order. Ten bucks says a vast majority of Conservative MP's think Ontario should scrap this new law and that Ontario get off its people's backs. Its perverted.

Interesting that you lump me into something that I don't know anything about.

As far as I'm concerned ALL drugs should be decriminalized. The government has no right to tell you what substances you can put into your body.

Most laws should be abolished. Lawyers become politicians and write laws in order to promote the "legal industry".

And the laws that remain should be laws prohibiting things like murder, theft etc..........., and the government should crack down on people who commit those crimes. As far as I'm concerned, first degree murder should be punishable by death. Why should the taxpayers pay approximately $40,000- $50,000 per year to keep someone like Picton alive? Once he's found guilty, they should take him out back and death by firing squad, which would cost the taxpayer a few dollars. His life isn't even worth that. Children who commit adult crimes like murder should be tried as an adult, and if found guilty of first degree murder, they should be killed as well. Convicted felons do not have rights. Once you've taken the rights away from someone else, you forfeit your rights.

[AngusThermopyle]

Children who commit adult crimes like murder should be tried as an adult, and if found guilty of first degree murder, they should be killed as well.

And don't forget those heathen bastards who go through the express line with more than ten items.

[eyeball]

Interesting that you lump me into something that I don't know anything about.

As far as I'm concerned ALL drugs should be decriminalized. The government has no right to tell you what substances you can put into your body.

Most laws should be abolished. Lawyers become politicians and write laws in order to promote the "legal industry".

Ten bucks says you held your nose and still voted for Harper.

[socred]

And don't forget those heathen bastards who go through the express line with more than ten items.

If you don't understand the difference between someone who takes someone else's life, and someone who enters the express line with more than 10 items, then I truly feel sorry for you.

[socred]

Ten bucks says you held your nose and still voted for Harper.

Stephen Harper was not in my riding, so I had no opportunity to vote for him.

Personally, I feel that ballot box democracy is a sham. However; in the last federal election I voted for someone in the Canadian Action Party.

[AngusThermopyle]

then I truly feel sorry for you.

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm supremely smugly happy with my life.

I feel sorry for those who don't recognize a tongue in cheek reference when they see it.

[socred]

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm supremely smugly happy with my life.

I feel sorry for those who don't recognize a tongue in cheek reference when they see it.

Don't feel sorry for me, for I am very happy with my life.

The "tongue in cheek" was inappropriate, since you were comparing murderers to people who take too many items into an express line. While the latter is annoying, the former is heinous.

Edited March 7, 2008 by socred

[guyser]

As far as I'm concerned, first degree murder should be punishable by death.

Mssrs Millegard, Morin and many others dont share that view.

[AngusThermopyle]

Mssrs Millegard, Morin and many others dont share that view.

Thank you Guyser. I think my point was a little too cryptic for Socred to "get".

[socred]

Mssrs Millegard, Morin and many others dont share that view.

It would always be up to the jury to decide whether the evidence was so overwhelming that the sentence warranted the death penalty. The fact that the death penalty is available does not mean that everyone convicted of murder would receive it.

That does not mean that some innocent person might not accidently be sentenced to death. Innocent people die all the time, it's a shame, but a fact of life.

What is more disturbing is that people like yourself defend keeping murderers alive by claiming that there is a remote chance that some innocent person might receive the death sentence. The chances that an innocent man would receive the death sentence would be very remote, since the jury would most likely not hand down that sentence if there wasn't an almost absolute certainty that the person actually committed the crime.

Edited March 7, 2008 by socred

[socred]

Thank you Guyser. I think my point was a little too cryptic for Socred to "get".

Yes, I'm overwhelmed by your intelligence because you do not support the death sentence. Please enlighten me on your liberal ways.

[AngusThermopyle]

Yes, I'm overwhelmed by your intelligence because you do not support the death sentence. Please enlighten me on your liberal ways. laugh.gif

LOL.

And I'm underwhelmed by your baseless assumptions. The fact is that most would describe me as a conservative. Nice try though, if you were a pumpkin.

[guyser]

That does not mean that some innocent person might not accidently be sentenced to death. Innocent people die all the time, it's a shame, but a fact of life.

Well with that reasoning, go right ahead. Who could argue with killing innocent people!

What is more disturbing is that people like yourself defend keeping murderers alive by claiming that there is a remote chance that some innocent person might receive the death sentence.

Uh...yeah.

And when we find out that the lead investigator , a la Guy Paul Morin, lied on the witness stand what do we do then? Could we like...you know....bring Morin back to life ?

But it seems I am the "disturbed" one since I want people to live, but you are not disturbed even though you have no problem letting the state kill innocent people. Ok....I think.

The chances that an innocent man would receive the death sentence would be very remote, since the jury would most likely not hand down that sentence if there wasn't an almost absolute certainty that the person actually committed the crime.

My thoughts are if one is convicted of a crime, all reasonable doubt has been removed.

Apparently, you think differently.

[Wilber]

Back to no smoking in car with kids. They are doing the same thing in BC. Irresponsible to smoke in any enclosed area with children but I wonder how much time the police will be able to devote to this one. I think it may be fairly low on their priority list. Still, if the idea alone puts a few people off doing it, that would be OK.

[DrGreenthumb]

Back to no smoking in car with kids. They are doing the same thing in BC. Irresponsible to smoke in any enclosed area with children but I wonder how much time the police will be able to devote to this one. I think it may be fairly low on their priority list. Still, if the idea alone puts a few people off doing it, that would be OK.

More likely it will show young people that A. It is ok to break the law, hell even their parents do it

B. It is easy to break the law and not get caught

C. Cops are a joke

[eyeball]

More likely it will show young people that A. It is ok to break the law, hell even their parents do it

B. It is easy to break the law and not get caught

C. Cops are a joke

This is where this gets sticky for the anti-nanny law and order types. These folks routinely decry the state telling people what they can and cannot do but they also place a very high premium on the state maintaining law and order. They want politicians to make laws, instead of judges and they expect the state to enforce the laws it makes and the public to do their duty and obey them. They have very little tolerance for scofflaws and particularily young ones, but here they are advocating that parents not only hold the law in contempt but to actually break it in front of their children.

[eyeball]

I'm not saying there's no argument to protecting children or the health of your neighbours from your own actions. I'm just saying that from what I've seen these past few years there are a lot of people just leaping at the chance to make their neighbour do what they say!

It goes to character, and it's NOT pretty!

This brings to mind my involvment with our regional district's area planning committee. The province gave us the task of putting an official community plan together and its hard not to get the sense that by the time the dust settled everything was illegal unless it was otherwise stated as such or you got a variance. Predictably our "community" plan document and by-laws seem to have become weapons that nosy snitch-minded people can use to cause problems for neighbors they happen to dislike.

I remember when we used to be able to drive naked on the beach and store old wrecks in the yard, hell you could even cut down a tree if you wanted...now its all civilized and orderly and driving on the beach would be worse than offering your kids a smoke. Cutting down a tree will just about get you shot and old wrecks are sure to cause a visit from the by-law officer.

The main reason I've been involved in our APC these last 25 years is to try and maintain some of the old freedoms we took for granted. Does this mean I'm actually some kind of conservative that fears change and yearns for the past? Ewwwww, that feels even weirder than driving naked.

[kuzadd]

http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/serv...d=1048540765610

what percentage smoke?

Canadian smokers aged 15 and older

1965-50%

1985-35%

2006-19%

Fifteen percent (15%) of Canadian households reported at least one person who smoked inside the home every day or almost every day.

why did I ask?

Because if this was behavior done by the majority, rather then quite a small minority, as it was when I was a kid, the government wouldn't even consider it! They would not dare risk the wrath of half of voters who in 1965 were smokers.

what are the income levels of the smokers?

http://www.health.gov/communication/ehealt...x4/figure44.htm

Family Income Level Percent

Poor 33

Near Poor 29

Middle/High Income 21

also smoking is a bastion of the lower classes.

Of course there are exceptions.

Therefore, this law is an opportunity to score feel good political points "oh yes , we really care" on a small percentage of the population, who are largely lower income, and therefore not likely either to vote.

If the smokers were largely affluent, this would not happen.

If the smokers were a larger percentage of the population this would not happen.

that said, this type of law, which could be passed by any government ( Conservative or Liberal)to score political points for the "caring" government and the "caring" voters , who generally assume some type of moral superiority.

I am not even a smoker, but this is all this law is about. IMO.

[Wild Bill]

Ten bucks says you held your nose and still voted for Harper.

The poster sounded like a Libertarian. One of their beliefs is that your body and your life is your own and no one has the right to tell you what to do with them, particularly governments! They believe strongly in individual freedom, with the role of governments being to clean the streets, protect individuals and their property with the courts and cops, keep the wolves away with sufficient defense resources and not a lot else!

The Tories are far from this philosophy but at least they tend towards smaller government in our lives. To whom else could he cast his vote? The NDP, the ultimate in government planning? Certainly not the Liberals! They have been Liberal in name only for generations, if not forever.

Rather than tease him, I think you should have commended him for finding SOME choice for his beliefs among the available options!

[socred]

LOL.

And I'm underwhelmed by your baseless assumptions. The fact is that most would describe me as a conservative. Nice try though, if you were a pumpkin.

I'm not the least interested in what most describe you as.

[socred]

Well with that reasoning, go right ahead. Who could argue with killing innocent people!

Uh...yeah.

And when we find out that the lead investigator , a la Guy Paul Morin, lied on the witness stand what do we do then? Could we like...you know....bring Morin back to life ?

But it seems I am the "disturbed" one since I want people to live, but you are not disturbed even though you have no problem letting the state kill innocent people. Ok....I think.

My thoughts are if one is convicted of a crime, all reasonable doubt has been removed.

Apparently, you think differently.

All "reasonable" doubt should have been removed, but that does not mean that all doubt has been removed. Ask Millgaard. Even with the stringent standard of all "reasonable doubt" its still possible to convict an innocent man. I'm not advocating killing innocent people, that's ridiculous and an attempt to twist what I said. There will always be a very remote chance that someone who is innocent gets killed under the death penalty, because no system is perfect. However; it would be very remote, so I'm willing to take that risk in order ensure that I'm not keeping sub-humans like Picton alive at my expense.

If you want to continue this discussion, I would be more than happy in another thread, since this is a thread about smoking in cars, and I don't want to degrade it.

[socred]

The poster sounded like a Libertarian. One of their beliefs is that your body and your life is your own and no one has the right to tell you what to do with them, particularly governments! They believe strongly in individual freedom, with the role of governments being to clean the streets, protect individuals and their property with the courts and cops, keep the wolves away with sufficient defense resources and not a lot else!

The Tories are far from this philosophy but at least they tend towards smaller government in our lives. To whom else could he cast his vote? The NDP, the ultimate in government planning? Certainly not the Liberals! They have been Liberal in name only for generations, if not forever.

Rather than tease him, I think you should have commended him for finding SOME choice for his beliefs among the available options!

My political and economic leanings should be apparent from my nic. I tend to agree with alot of things the libertarians say, except their conception of money is archaic, and I'm certainly not a follower of Ayn Rand and "objectivism".

[kimmy]

Talk to a cop, my nephew is in the RCMP and he says about 50% of his calls are to domestic disputes, most of which are characterized by alcohol-fuelled violence.

I never disagreed that alcohol is frequently a contributor to violence.

What I disagreed with is your claim "The only drug that actually leads directly to criminal behaviour happens to be the one the government approves of and sells."

Alcohol is NOT the only drug that leads directly to criminal behavior. It's one of many.

-k

[Wild Bill]

My political and economic leanings should be apparent from my nic. I tend to agree with alot of things the libertarians say, except their conception of money is archaic, and I'm certainly not a follower of Ayn Rand and "objectivism".

Allow me to quote Prof. Bernardo de la Paz when I say "I can get along with a Randite!"

Myself, I agree even more when he describes himself as a "rational anarchist", this being someone who totally rejects the idea that he should just do what he's told but rather should make an intelligent, rational choice for himself about everything. So unlike the traditional irrational anarchist who breaks laws willy-nilly, a rational anarchist would first have to ask "tell me what law you're talking about and set the situation and only THEN can I decide if I'll obey or break it!"

The beauty of such a philosophy is that it is the ultimate expression of individual responsibility. A rational anarchist could never do evil and hide behind the excuse that "it was legal!" or "I did what I was told!"

Not likely you'd find a lot of corporate lawyers of this persuasion!

(Wonder if anyone other than Angus will catch this reference?)