McGuinty Refuses to Raise the Drinking Age

[M.Dancer]

But Mr. McGuinty said he believes the parents of teenagers would do a better job of stopping young people from drinking than tougher laws.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Ummmm...no. Parents can't follow their kids 24 hours a day and once a kid turns 19 he or she is definately going for a beer....or a shooter....or 21 shooters.

The first line of defense are the people who work in the industry, whether it's the LCBO, Brewers Retail or the waiters and waitresses....raise the age and they will see it is enforced, not parents.

[eyeball]

Using alcohol is a priviledge, its not a right. Given the potential dangers to individuals and society I think an argument could be made for licencing drinkers as well as sellers and distributors. This licence should include a periodic medical fitness exam and a test of a person's awareness of the dangers. The holder of the licence should stand to lose their licence if they abuse their priviledge by public drunkeness, getting in trouble with violence or the police or if they fail their medical exams.

As an added precaution, ignition interlock systems could be made mandatory for holders of both a driving and a drinking licence. Especially for first-timers and in their case I think I'd also make them install engine speed governors in their cars.

Edited April 1, 2008 by eyeball

[AngusThermopyle]

Using alcohol is a priviledge, its not a right. Given the potential dangers to individuals and society I think an argument could be made for licencing drinkers

Sure, why not? While we're at it lets license every other damn thing we can think of. Anyone wants to license me because I like to relax and have a couple of beers on the weekend after putting in a 60 hour week is welcome to go get stuffed.

[guyser]

Using alcohol is a priviledge, its not a right. Given the potential dangers to individuals and society I think an argument could be made for licencing drinkers as well as sellers and distributors. This licence should include a periodic medical fitness exam and a test of a person's awareness of the dangers. The holder of the licence should stand to lose their licence if they abuse their priviledge by public drunkeness, getting in trouble with violence or the police or if they fail their medical exams.

As an added precaution, ignition interlock systems could be made mandatory for holders of both a driving and a drinking licence. Especially for first-timers and in their case I think I'd also make them install engine speed governors in their cars.

You forget the wink wink...

[eyeball]

Wink wink?

[DrGreenthumb]

Sure, why not? While we're at it lets license every other damn thing we can think of. Anyone wants to license me because I like to relax and have a couple of beers on the weekend after putting in a 60 hour week is welcome to go get stuffed.

Precisely the way I feel about those who think they have the right to stop me from having a toke after a hard day's work.

[guyser]

Wink wink?

Yes, as in "pulling our legs"

It was pretty funny , although not serious. Good one.

Edited April 1, 2008 by guyser

[M.Dancer]

Yes, as in "pulling our legs"

It was pretty funny , although not serious. Good one.

He's serious. He doesn't see himself as a stalinist or one of the cadre of the cultural revolution but he's not far from one.

It's okay though, it's for out own good.....just like anyone with responsibility should be monitored (by whom?) 24 hours a day and that corporate boards should have political correctness officers but appointed to them.

[DrGreenthumb]

Using alcohol is a priviledge, its not a right. Given the potential dangers to individuals and society I think an argument could be made for licencing drinkers as well as sellers and distributors. This licence should include a periodic medical fitness exam and a test of a person's awareness of the dangers. The holder of the licence should stand to lose their licence if they abuse their priviledge by public drunkeness, getting in trouble with violence or the police or if they fail their medical exams.

As an added precaution, ignition interlock systems could be made mandatory for holders of both a driving and a drinking licence. Especially for first-timers and in their case I think I'd also make them install engine speed governors in their cars.

Don't you think they should just install a chip in our brains that can monitor all our thoughts and actions and deploy electroshock treatment whenever we have an impure thought or consume a non governmentally approved substance? We could all just let Harper decide what actions/thought would require punishment. After all who knows better how we should behave than our Ottawa daddy?

[AngusThermopyle]

After all who knows better how we should behave than our Ottawa daddy?

This statement is a little unfair in my opinion. Since being a member of this Forum I've observed that its usually those who lean left who desire more government control of our lives and actions. In fact there are numerous examples where they advocate more control over our thoughts and words as well.

[eyeball]

Since being a member of this Forum I've observed that its usually those who lean left who desire more government control of our lives and actions. In fact there are numerous examples where they advocate more control over our thoughts and words as well.

Funny isn't it, I've observed precisely the same thing but in reverse. Right-wingers talk endlessly about freedom and democracy and getting the government off people's back yet they can't spend taxpayer's money fast enough on the very things the state brings to bear on people the hardest, more police, more surveillance, more prisons, more military.

My desire to subject the senior most government officials to our souveillance (to view from below) needs to be looked at in the context of the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis on the Political Compass.

I consistently score way down near the bottom and you'll find Stalin up at the other end of the axis with the likes of Stephan Harper, George Bush, Robert Mugabe and probably Morris.

Edited April 2, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

I consistently score way down near the bottom and you'll find Stalin up at the other end of the axis with the likes of Stephan Harper, George Bush, Robert Mugabe and probably Morris.

Probablyt because you don't understand the questions.

Sort of like thinking that spending money on the military has any effect what so ever on the freedom of he people. Lets face it, you are in a state of perpetual confusion. Try taking the test again, preferably on nothing stonger than tea this time, and after reading caefully the definitions of te terms used.

Edited April 2, 2008 by M.Dancer

[AngusThermopyle]

things the state brings to bear on people the hardest, more police, more surveillance, more prisons, more military.

Now thats interesting. I'm curious, just exactly when has our government used the police and military to oppress and "bear on people the hardest"?

[M.Dancer]

Now thats interesting. I'm curious, just exactly when has our government used the police and military to oppress and "bear on people the hardest"?

Oh come on. Don't let reality get in the way of his paranoid political phantasies...

[DrGreenthumb]

This statement is a little unfair in my opinion. Since being a member of this Forum I've observed that its usually those who lean left who desire more government control of our lives and actions. In fact there are numerous examples where they advocate more control over our thoughts and words as well.

That is nonsense dude sorry. It is the Conservatives who feel they have the right to make laws that force their will on the rest of us, using the police as their hired thugs to imprison us for lifestyle choices that they disaprove of. See Homosexuals, see drug war, see immigrants

You think being forced to be liscened before you can drink alcohol is bad, try being imprisoned for just having a 12 pack in your fridge, or a mandatory minimum sentence of say six month for one beer making kit.

I used to buy all the tripe about the conservatives being for small government, until I opened my eyes and saw them for the fascist controllers they really are.

How would you like a government that gave the police the power to scan your house with a BIR camera(FLIR CAMERA PUN) as they fly over in a helicopter, and if they saw a cold zone the size of a case of beer they could get a warrant to search your house for beer? Then if they found some they could sieze your assets, put your kids in foster care and throw you in jail. Of course any more than 3 beers and you must be trafficking, so they get to take your new fishing boat that you saved up for over the last 5 years.

Edited April 2, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[AngusThermopyle]

You think being forced to be liscened before you can drink alcohol is bad, try being imprisoned for just having a 12 pack in your fridge, or a mandatory minimum sentence of say six month for one beer making kit.

I used to buy all the tripe about the conservatives being for small government, until I opened my eyes and saw them for the fascist controllers they really are.

How would you like a government that gave the police the power to scan your house with a BIR camera(FLIR CAMERA PUN) as they fly over in a helicopter, and if they saw a cold zone the size of a case of beer they could get a warrant to search your house for beer? Then if they found some they could sieze your assets, put your kids in foster care and throw you in jail. Of course any more than 3 beers and you must be trafficking, so they get to take your new fishing boat that you saved up for over the last 5 years.

In response to this I have only one thing to say.

What the hell are you talking about?

[DrGreenthumb]

In response to this I have only one thing to say.

What the hell are you talking about?

You seemed pretty disgusted at the idea that the government should have anything to say about wether you can have a beer in your own home after a "60 hour work week". I was inviting you to imagine how much greater the intrusion we face as cannabis users from the government. You think a needing a liscence to drink would be an intrusion? You think the government would be overstepping its bounds by requiring that do you not?

Try and imagine for a minute that the government devoted as much time and money to denying you your weekend beers as they devote to denying us cannabis users our relaxant of choice? Makes the idea of a drinking liscence seem pretty tame by comparison.

They fly over our homes and scan them with special cameras, to try and catch us growing a damn plant that we enjoy using. How would you feel about a government giving that kind of power to police to look inside your home without any warrant, just so they could make sure you didn't get to have your weekend beer?

That was you that thought drinking liscences would be an overstepping of government bounds was it not?

I didn't think the post was that confusing

[AngusThermopyle]

Okay, now I see the point you're making. It would have made more sense if you'd stuck a "what if" in there, such as, what if you could be imprisoned for the 12 pack of beer...

I'm not arguing with you, I agree that our laws relating to Cannabis use and possesion are absolutely ridiculous. Many times in the past I've wondered why a far more harmfull drug like alcohol is accepted when one that is far more benign like Cannabis is illegal. I remember reading quite some time ago that the prohibition was enacted due to economic reasons. As to the truth of what I read I really cant say, it did make a lot of sense though.

So yes, I agree. I think we should scrap those ridiculous laws altogether. Of course you'll get those who argue that it causes crime etc. What actually causes crime is the actual enactment of prohibition itself. Thats just my personal opinion though.

[Alta4ever]

That is nonsense dude sorry. It is the Conservatives who feel they have the right to make laws that force their will on the rest of us, using the police as their hired thugs to imprison us for lifestyle choices that they disaprove of. See Homosexuals, see drug war, see immigrants

You think being forced to be liscened before you can drink alcohol is bad, try being imprisoned for just having a 12 pack in your fridge, or a mandatory minimum sentence of say six month for one beer making kit.

I used to buy all the tripe about the conservatives being for small government, until I opened my eyes and saw them for the fascist controllers they really are.

How would you like a government that gave the police the power to scan your house with a BIR camera(FLIR CAMERA PUN) as they fly over in a helicopter, and if they saw a cold zone the size of a case of beer they could get a warrant to search your house for beer? Then if they found some they could sieze your assets, put your kids in foster care and throw you in jail. Of course any more than 3 beers and you must be trafficking, so they get to take your new fishing boat that you saved up for over the last 5 years.

Are you daft? Homosexuals are not jailed by the police for being gay...The police exist to portect society, just because your on the wrong side of the law doesn't make them hired thugs. Again you use the fascist tag are you really out of argument already.

[DrGreenthumb]

Okay, now I see the point you're making. It would have made more sense if you'd stuck a "what if" in there, such as, what if you could be imprisoned for the 12 pack of beer...

I'm not arguing with you, I agree that our laws relating to Cannabis use and possesion are absolutely ridiculous. Many times in the past I've wondered why a far more harmfull drug like alcohol is accepted when one that is far more benign like Cannabis is illegal. I remember reading quite some time ago that the prohibition was enacted due to economic reasons. As to the truth of what I read I really cant say, it did make a lot of sense though.

So yes, I agree. I think we should scrap those ridiculous laws altogether. Of course you'll get those who argue that it causes crime etc. What actually causes crime is the actual enactment of prohibition itself. Thats just my personal opinion though.

I'm glad you were able to understand my point, and even more glad that you agree with me. It really astonishes me how most conservatives I talk to are such hypocrites when it comes to the law and how we should apply it to different substances like pot and alcohol. Refreshing to encounter someone who can think logically.

Dancer thought he was defending pot prohibition by asking me if glue, gas and solvents caused any harm even though they are legal. He still hasn't answered me as to whether he thinks making them illegal would make them less harmful, or whether less people would use them if they were illegal, and if he thinks anyone would still find a way to get gas, glue, or solvents when they are illegal and sell them at an inflated price.

He'd rather waste time attacking me over not crediting wiki for a cut and paste defition of fascism I provided.

Easier to distract with nonsense than follow the gas, glue and solvents question to its logical end.

I used to vote conservative but that was because of my bellief that they were for small government, and least likely to interfere in citizens lives. This bunch in Ottawa have definitely changed my mind, it seems funny that the NDP have become a home for those who are concerned with keeping civil liberties. Some of the logical truly conservative folk like yourself should really try and get your party to adopt more sensible drug policies. It would be good for your party and for Canada.

[DrGreenthumb]

Are you daft? Homosexuals are not jailed by the police for being gay...The police exist to portect society, just because your on the wrong side of the law doesn't make them hired thugs. Again you use the fascist tag are you really out of argument already.

Not anymore they are not, but you don't have to look too far back in the law books to find laws against acts of homosexuality.

Thankfully more progressive governments have recognized these laws were wrong and stopped using the law to criminalize those people's lifestyle choices. I wish the police existed to protect society. That is not the truth anymore. The police were supposed to protect us from others not from ourselves. What we have now are health enforcement officers, and ideology enforcement officers.

When someone steals my car or assaults me i might need a cop to "protect me". If i see a plant growing in my yard, I don't think I need a cop to protect me from it.

I have no respect for the police because they don't deserve any. Any cop that breaks up a family by arresting someone for growing a plant deserves no respect. They have become nothing but pigs in the trough of prohibition. They are harming the very people they are supposed to protect.

I only give respect on an individual basis. I will respect a cop who deserves respect, I will not respect some goon just because he wears a badge.

[M.Dancer]

Dancer thought he was defending pot prohibition by asking me if glue, gas and solvents caused any harm even though they are legal. He still hasn't answered me as to whether he thinks making them illegal would make them less harmful, or whether less people would use them if they were illegal, and if he thinks anyone would still find a way to get gas, glue, or solvents when they are illegal and sell them at an inflated price.

You are really lost...As I said, you suggested that the harm from drugs comes from prohibition. I corrctly pointed out substance abuse of legal crap still causes harm therefor your premise that prohibition causes the harm is wrong.

Let me put it this way, there is more than one source of harm from drugs. There is the societal harm from users and the havoc they cause on their lives and families and then there is the associated criminal aspects. You could argue that if it was fee the criminals would go elsewhere ( and that is a pipe dream)but here still remains the harm that people do to themselves.

Whether it is legal or not, potent weed will still be expensive and will still attact black market suppliers.

[DrGreenthumb]

You are really lost...As I said, you suggested that the harm from drugs comes from prohibition. I corrctly pointed out substance abuse of legal crap still causes harm therefor your premise that prohibition causes the harm is wrong.

Let me put it this way, there is more than one source of harm from drugs. There is the societal harm from users and the havoc they cause on their lives and families and then there is the associated criminal aspects. You could argue that if it was fee the criminals would go elsewhere ( and that is a pipe dream)but here still remains the harm that people do to themselves.

Whether it is legal or not, potent weed will still be expensive and will still attact black market suppliers.

I NEVER said drugs don't cause ANY harm on their own, I said that prohibition adds extra harm. I actually said that cannabis doesn't cause grow ops and meth doesn't cause meth labs, the two boogeymen you brought up and blamed on those substances. I said prohibition causes grow ops. prohibition causes meth labs in your neighbor's garage. I should try and use smaller words and shorter sentences when I talk to you huh?

You ever going to answer the questions about glue, gas, and solvents?

Try this one too.

What is prohibition of drugs intended to accomplish? Answer that one right after the solvents questions. Then try and put 2 and 2 together. If you are still having trouble, I can explain it all again for you. I'm very patient. I'm sure I can help you, I often do volunteer work with special needs kids.

[M.Dancer]

I said prohibition causes grow ops. prohibition causes meth labs in your neighbor's garage. .

And in this you are wrong. you have the ass before the cart. It isn't prohibition that causes any of those...it's the huge amounts of MONEY that cause them. Youmight as well lobby for a gaurenteed alowance for all the good ending prohibition would do eliminating the cash cows...

[DrGreenthumb]

And in this you are wrong. you have the ass before the cart. It isn't prohibition that causes any of those...it's the huge amounts of MONEY that cause them. Youmight as well lobby for a gaurenteed alowance for all the good ending prohibition would do eliminating the cash cows...

still avoiding answering those very simple questions, neat trick, learn it from Harper?

My guess is that you refuse to answer them because honest answers would prove me right. You refuse to think logically or are you incapable?