Legalize Marijuana and Prostitution

[eyeball]

Odd? The Conservatives are more socialist than the NDP? So you are a socialist like most Canadians.

Nope, the Conservatives are more authoritarian. I'm less authoritarian than at least 37% of Canadians, far less.

The Conservative strength today owes itself to political correctness and government intervention in just about every area of our lives except where government has been traditionally mandated to intervene - justice. I think Harper is answering a call to cut down on crime and not be so wishy-washy with criminality. You don't like it and think it a move to some sort of socialist fascism.

No I think its a deliberately engineered move towards moral authoritarianism.

Especially, since it treads a little bit on your territory. Attempting to bring some regulation in that may affect you. Well, that was coming anyway no matter who won the election. It has a global momentum and is not a Canadian phenomenon. I am speaking of course about the codex alimentarius. The NDP would wholeheartedly embrace this. It is to Harpers' credit he hasn't.

So find out the NDP position on the codex alimentarius. It will really frighten you.

Do the Black Helicopters keep you up at night? You seem like the sort that would naturally be freaked out by the development of any sort of One World Government. Assuming such a thing ever happened in our lifetime my concern would be that it would still screw everything up due to its lack of transparency and accountability. Just like the governments we have now do.

I'm actually leaning towards thinking a collapse of national governments on a global scale is more likely. I'm just afraid that when some strong-man emerges in the wake of this in North America that he'll consolidate his authority and power on the basis that all the problems of the world should be laid at the feet of the leftists, whoever they may be. They'll be burned in ovens, hung from trees, and buried in trenches wherever they're found. I think the obvious acrimony and hatred that's evident on forums like these are setting the tone for the ultimate crack-down that will follow the economic and social collapse that could very well be the result of the crisis currently tearing up Wall Street.

The water-hole is getting smaller and the animals are getting meaner. We're no better off than a bunch of rats in a cage.

[PoliticalCitizen]

What was so successful? It is still around. Because it has dropped off your radar screen doesn't make for success.

I suppose prohibiting it's use in public places has something to do with the drop in usage. I suppose cutting off underground markets has something to do with it's drop in usage. I suppose overtaxing it has something to do with it's drop in usage. I suppose that honest people being harrassed has something to do with the drop in usage, they tend to want to be sociable.

How would that work with drugs? Prohibiting their use in public places? Cutting off the underground markets? Overtaxing it? Harassing criminals not to use drugs.

Cigarettes always were legal. Drugs have not been. With cigarettes they took something legal and started to prohibit it. With drugs they are already illegal and prohibited. So how does that compare?

You are not working with the same clientel with cigarettes as you are with abusers of currently illegal drugs.

The hard core smokers are still there and will soon turn their habit into a criminal activity trying to get their fix by by-passing the prohibitive social and economic measures government has placed before them. Sounds familiar.

Alcohol was banned some time ago in US also, wasn't it? Didn't hold for too long...

Legalization has a very strong effect especially on the young by taking away the "forbidden fruit" status.

Once you can legally get it in the store you're just a user, not a really cool guy that has "connections"...

Add to that a MoH disclaimer with some scary pictures showing you the adverse effects of usage on the packaging and the magic is completely dispelled...

[PoliticalCitizen]

Yes everyone has their own right and wrong so how can anybody know what is right and what is wrong. See. It is impossible. Isn't it. That is moral relativity. Sorry how can you say I am wrong. You can't possibly know.

I didn't say you're wrong. I just shared another point of view with you.

Why do you feel guilty about Iraqi deaths? Have you discovered some "general" or "common" moral truth?

I thought you said that was absurd.

I feel because I choose to. My lifestyle is impossible without USA which makes me indirectly responsible for their agression. But because I'm not moving out of Canada my morals may be absurd to you as I do not practice what I preach.

Yes they do and they will persuade you to make that choice too. They are not like you where you believe in choice.

They cannot persuade any thinking person. Or did you mean by force?

I never did such thing. And neither did you unless you happen to be over a hundred years old. So who do you mean by "we"? Listen, the mongols came and swept across the steppes taking our land and we fled in terror. I don't think there are any descendants of the mongols flagellating themselves over the annihilation of slavic westerners 1000 years ago and visiting guilt upon themselves. "WE", that is us, you and me, have never participated in such an activity. I hope never to do so and I think our species has become a little more civilized but I can't say we don't have room for improvement.

I didn't mean personally, but collectively as "Europeans". The mongols moved out of most Slavic countries. The European colonists declared themselves American and moved the indigenous population out. We, as in you and me, live on the land of the slaughtered nations.

No extermination? Read about the Ukrainian famine of 1933 where all the land was confiscated. Are you a marxist? Shouldn't you feel guilty about the millions of Ukrainians who were "exterminated" at the hands of the Communists. Ignore socialism in government at your peril. Killing people is acceptable when they are out to kill you. Murdering people is not acceptable.

Communists are not a nation. Many Ukrainians were in the Communist party so it cannot be considered genocide. It was, however, a very cruel and unfortunate decision.

The American aboriginals were not "out to kill" the Europeans, the opposite is true.

Everyone has to work and contribute to society. There is choice in how you contribute. You can also choose not to contribute but I don't suggest it. It would be preferable to slave for peanuts - once again though it is a choice.

It cannot be called a "choice" when it's the only legal thing to do.

[Oleg Bach]

Labour that produces no wealth is not work. It is a fantacy. Those involved in the I T technology do not really work..they pour one glass of water in to another glass and then back again - no real material that sustains life is produced. I had a friend who worked of a major American ensurer. He became the "producer of the year" - then they fired him for incompetence. Of course there was a buy out package after a small suit. I used to ask him - "Joe what do you really do?" - He could not answer. What I witnessed is that the corp would fly him to distant spots and he would get stuttering drunk and then return. The gave hime a few hundred grand a year for doing nothing.

This buisness about having intelligent people work for "peanuts" is not better than not working. It's amazing how the corporate world enriched "Joe" the idiot - and he was an alcholic twit...WHILE bright and principled people are forced into low paying positions or harrassed by the feds untill they are on welfare...no wonder this phenomena that I witnessed in North America has led to the destruction of the economy - The corporates hire the mediocre because they are controlable - Booze made Joe uncontrolable and now he drives a school bus - now he actually works.

[WIP]

That is the yardstick for defining socialists, and yes, the vast majority of Canadians are socialist and the majority of the conservative party are socialists. Fascists are socialists too. Sorry I dont' believe in a central authority running people's lives, their healthcare or their education so count me out as a socialist fascist.

Yes, and opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one! I already figured out fairly accurately where you stand on the issues; what I was interested in finding out is how much consideration you those who've arrived at different conclusions.

Not a lot apparently! This is the yardstick for defining socialists and the vast majority of Canadians are socialists -- and since you hate socialists so much, you cannot respect that vast majority of people and consider their opinions worthwhile!

Yes you willingly accept the opinions of your trusted authority figures in health and education otherwise you would have to determine your own course of action in both. Not much can be done about it when you have an ideology you need to adhere to.

I guess it never occurred to you that the majority of "socialists" that you hold in so much contempt, do not see complex issues like health and education in simple black/white terms. I know national healthcare is bureaucratic and costly, but I'll take it over the American solution of expensive private healthcare for the rich; substandard employer-provided health insurance for the middle class, and no health coverage for the poor or unemployed.

In education, I was all for the privatization schemes that promise better, more efficient education such as charter schools and voucher systems, but I have changed my mind for one very important reason: public schools provide a place where children from different races, religions and ethnic backgrounds have to meet and at least tolerate each other. Children of first generation immigrants become aware of different types of people on a personal basis that their parents may or may not have. In recent years, I have noticed in my area, that the numbers of Muslim students in the public school system has dropped off precipitously, and I assume that their parents are sending them to the ever-growing Muslim religious academy where they may be getting a fine education, but they are only co-mingling with other children from Muslim families, and less likely to interact with non-Muslims outside of school.

For me, this is not a good sign, to have the education system even more balkanized (let's do away with the Catholic schools also), and one reason why a lot of conservatives and conservative-leaning Ontarians stomped all over John Tory's vote-getting scheme of diverting education tax dollars to religious schools, even though we did not want to reward Dalton McGuinty with a 2nd term -- Tory's scheme was a deal-breaker.

To sum it up, even people who have given a lot of thought about these kind of issues, may choose an option they aren't crazy about because they don't want the alternative! And before I forget, since this thread is about dealing with vices such as drugs, prostitution, and we could add abortion, pornography and many others to the list -- it is stupid to portray everyone who wants a pragmatic approach to these problems as sinners who just want to fornicate and do drugs -- many, if not most of us who are on the free choice side are here because we've taken an honest look at the problems of prohibition, and decided that they are ineffective and more damaging to society in the long run.

Edited September 29, 2008 by WIP

[Oleg Bach]

Anyone that wants legal dope and hookers wants the people to be stupider then they already are. Perhaps those with little ability and lots of political ambition will find a stoned and bonered population easy to manage - I am suspect of anyone that encourages people to be stupid..dope makes you dumb - so do hookers.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Anyone that wants legal dope and hookers wants the people to be stupider then they already are. Perhaps those with little ability and lots of political ambition will find a stoned and bonered population easy to manage - I am suspect of anyone that encourages people to be stupid..dope makes you dumb - so do hookers.

No, Oleg.

Anyone who believes prohibition is necessary for things that do not endanger the lives and well-being of people thinks that people are stupid TODAY.

[Pliny]

Nope, the Conservatives are more authoritarian. I'm less authoritarian than at least 37% of Canadians, far less.

No I think its a deliberately engineered move towards moral authoritarianism.

What would you consider not authoritarian? Policies like affirmative action? Minimum wage laws? High taxes for the rich? Are these policies of moral authoritarianism or not

?

How does authoritarianism relate to leadership? How do laws relate to authoritarianism? Is it less authoritarian to have a law enforcing minimum wages or a law criminalizing possession of marijuana?

Do the Black Helicopters keep you up at night? You seem like the sort that would naturally be freaked out by the development of any sort of One World Government. Assuming such a thing ever happened in our lifetime my concern would be that it would still screw everything up due to its lack of transparency and accountability. Just like the governments we have now do.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. A one world government would be quite authoritarian, I'm sure.

I'm actually leaning towards thinking a collapse of national governments on a global scale is more likely. I'm just afraid that when some strong-man emerges in the wake of this in North America that he'll consolidate his authority and power on the basis that all the problems of the world should be laid at the feet of the leftists, whoever they may be. They'll be burned in ovens, hung from trees, and buried in trenches wherever they're found. I think the obvious acrimony and hatred that's evident on forums like these are setting the tone for the ultimate crack-down that will follow the economic and social collapse that could very well be the result of the crisis currently tearing up Wall Street.

The water-hole is getting smaller and the animals are getting meaner. We're no better off than a bunch of rats in a cage.

I see....the sky is falling.....as it has been since we first appeared on earth....and life goes on.

[Pliny]

Alcohol was banned some time ago in US also, wasn't it? Didn't hold for too long...

Legalization has a very strong effect especially on the young by taking away the "forbidden fruit" status.

Once you can legally get it in the store you're just a user, not a really cool guy that has "connections"...

Add to that a MoH disclaimer with some scary pictures showing you the adverse effects of usage on the packaging and the magic is completely dispelled...

I wouldn't say "completely dispelled". I would say some people are suffering quite badly from the prohibitive restrictions of government. The average person doesn't see too much of it, perhaps but they probably don't see too much of drug addicts either.

[DrGreenthumb]

Cigarettes always were legal. Drugs have not been. With cigarettes they took something legal and started to prohibit it. With drugs they are already illegal and prohibited. So how does that compare?

Tobacco, a plant, was ALWAYS legal like every single other PLANT in creation. Men like you have given yourselves the right to pass laws against plants. Calling plants drugs and supposing that you have the right to prohibit other people's use of them does not mean that those plants weren't always legal until you passed laws against them. "Drug" prohibition is less than 100 years old. Before people like you came around and started deciding for everyone else which plants they could use ALL plant based "drugs" were legal for 1000's upon thousands of years.. How does that compare??

Logic is NOt your strongpoint is it?

[Pliny]

Yes, and opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one! I already figured out fairly accurately where you stand on the issues; what I was interested in finding out is how much consideration you those who've arrived at different conclusions.

Not a lot apparently! This is the yardstick for defining socialists and the vast majority of Canadians are socialists -- and since you hate socialists so much, you cannot respect that vast majority of people and consider their opinions worthwhile!

Now don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't hate socialists. Socialism is merely organizational structure. I disagree with national governments believing they are the organization that runs society. They are an organization but they are only supposed to allow the freedom and liberty of it's citizens to direct themselves and co-operatively direct society by protecting those freedoms and liberties.

As far as giving others consideration, I will state my opinion and argue why I hold the opinions I do. That's all I can do. Since you hold the opinion of the majority you have somewhat of an advantage. I hold some conservative social values but I am not about to enact them in law because I do not believe it is the government's position to determine social values. You may hold your own but I nkow you would like most of your opinions to be enacted in law. Those opinions of yours are right of course and deserve to be enacted in law, right?

I guess it never occurred to you that the majority of "socialists" that you hold in so much contempt, do not see complex issues like health and education in simple black/white terms. I know national healthcare is bureaucratic and costly, but I'll take it over the American solution of expensive private healthcare for the rich; substandard employer-provided health insurance for the middle class, and no health coverage for the poor or unemployed.

No one said the American system was perfect. they do have a better chance of fixing it than we do of fixing ours.

Change here is met with all sorts of sloganeering, I'm sure you've heard "Don't touch our Health care!!" Canada was 30 in developed nations. The US was 37th, I believe. Pretty close, overall. But I think the evaluations favour ocialist systems. Many people say health care in Canada is free , a rather naive viewpoint, but an illustration of how ill-informed we are regarding the cost of healthcare to us as individuals.

In education, I was all for the privatization schemes that promise better, more efficient education such as charter schools and voucher systems, but I have changed my mind for one very important reason: public schools provide a place where children from different races, religions and ethnic backgrounds have to meet and at least tolerate each other. Children of first generation immigrants become aware of different types of people on a personal basis that their parents may or may not have. In recent years, I have noticed in my area, that the numbers of Muslim students in the public school system has dropped off precipitously, and I assume that their parents are sending them to the ever-growing Muslim religious academy where they may be getting a fine education, but they are only co-mingling with other children from Muslim families, and less likely to interact with non-Muslims outside of school.

For me, this is not a good sign, to have the education system even more balkanized (let's do away with the Catholic schools also), and one reason why a lot of conservatives and conservative-leaning Ontarians stomped all over John Tory's vote-getting scheme of diverting education tax dollars to religious schools, even though we did not want to reward Dalton McGuinty with a 2nd term -- Tory's scheme was a deal-breaker.

Well, you are in favour of legislating what you feel is right. You don't think education should be balkanized. Do you wish that because you wnat people to learn tolerance by interacting or do you not like Muslims and would like to see them assimilated as much as possible?

To sum it up, even people who have given a lot of thought about these kind of issues, may choose an option they aren't crazy about because they don't want the alternative! And before I forget, since this thread is about dealing with vices such as drugs, prostitution, and we could add abortion, pornography and many others to the list -- it is stupid to portray everyone who wants a pragmatic approach to these problems as sinners who just want to fornicate and do drugs -- many, if not most of us who are on the free choice side are here because we've taken an honest look at the problems of prohibition, and decided that they are ineffective and more damaging to society in the long run.

Well, I am on the free choice side as well. The majority of people are respectful, honest and friendly, even if they are socialists. Those that wish to indulge in activities that are not really constructive to society and are in fact, detrimental should be allowed to do but they should not demand entitlement to help them live that lifestyle.

If society does not yet have the solutions to these social problems government should not be wasting resources trying to solve them. The individual has just as much chance of rescuing himself as does the government. Society does have charity and that help is better than what you could get form government.

[Pliny]

Tobacco, a plant, was ALWAYS legal like every single other PLANT in creation. Men like you have given yourselves the right to pass laws against plants. Calling plants drugs and supposing that you have the right to prohibit other people's use of them does not mean that those plants weren't always legal until you passed laws against them. "Drug" prohibition is less than 100 years old. Before people like you came around and started deciding for everyone else which plants they could use ALL plant based "drugs" were legal for 1000's upon thousands of years.. How does that compare??

Logic is NOt your strongpoint is it?

I think it is. Where have I called for laws to be enacted to prohibit the use of marijuana or prostitution?

I hold conservative values but I do not agree those values should be enacted in law. You go ahead Dr. Greenthumb and relax with a fatty.

I don't need laws to set my personal values in cement and I don't think anyone should have their values set in law.

Tobacco has always been legal but now they are starting to restrict it and prohibit it's use. Soon one will not be able to smoke tobacco in one's own home.

[TCCK]

Tobacco has always been legal but now they are starting to restrict it and prohibit it's use. Soon one will not be able to smoke tobacco in one's own home.

GOOD, then maybe one day a goverment body will have the big brass balls to do this, why they ignore the fact that there are 26 chemicals added to cigarettes that are illegal for the commom person to buy and if you put the same consentration of those chemicals in a teaspoon that are from the cigarettes in 1 pack and then swallowed it YOU WOULD DIE IN 5-10 MINUTES!!!

Why would anyone want to smoke that??? (Remember I was a smoker for many years!)

And I see parents of small children forcing their kids to endure a ride with mom or dad in the car and the child has no say about what is being forced into their body, I BELIEVE THAT should be illegal and seriously cracked down on.

WHo cares if the government makes of few bucks on taxing cigarettes, stop it and 10-15 years from now the government would not have to drop billions into the health care system to deal with all the smoking related diseases and health problems related to second hand smoke.

Edited September 30, 2008 by TCCK

[guyser]

WHo cares if the government makes of few bucks on taxing cigarettes,

The govt cares. If they didnt, they would restrict it, but since it is a cash cow they wont.

stop it and 10-15 years from now the government would not have to drop billions into the health care system to deal with all the smoking related diseases and health problems related to second hand smoke.

The tax money raised exceeds the expenditures for health care. Smokers die earlier and cost them less.

Got a study for the second hand smoke?

[independent]

GOOD, then maybe one day a goverment body will have the big brass balls to do this, why they ignore the fact that there are 26 chemicals added to cigarettes that are illegal for the commom person to buy and if you put the same consentration of those chemicals in a teaspoon that are from the cigarettes in 1 pack and then swallowed it YOU WOULD DIE IN 5-10 MINUTES!!!

Why would anyone want to smoke that??? (Remember I was a smoker for many years!)

And I see parents of small children forcing their kids to endure a ride with mom or dad in the car and the child has no say about what is being forced into their body, I BELIEVE THAT should be illegal and seriously cracked down on.

WHo cares if the government makes of few bucks on taxing cigarettes, stop it and 10-15 years from now the government would not have to drop billions into the health care system to deal with all the smoking related diseases and health problems related to second hand smoke.

Good post but the if they stopped it all together it would go underground and the criminals would make the money off of it instead of the government. I think slowly restricting it like they have was the best way to go. I find it rather odd but for some reason men have cut back and women seem to be smoking more. I have not figured that one out.

[DrGreenthumb]

GOOD, then maybe one day a goverment body will have the big brass balls to do this, why they ignore the fact that there are 26 chemicals added to cigarettes that are illegal for the commom person to buy and if you put the same consentration of those chemicals in a teaspoon that are from the cigarettes in 1 pack and then swallowed it YOU WOULD DIE IN 5-10 MINUTES!!!

Why would anyone want to smoke that??? (Remember I was a smoker for many years!)

And I see parents of small children forcing their kids to endure a ride with mom or dad in the car and the child has no say about what is being forced into their body, I BELIEVE THAT should be illegal and seriously cracked down on.

WHo cares if the government makes of few bucks on taxing cigarettes, stop it and 10-15 years from now the government would not have to drop billions into the health care system to deal with all the smoking related diseases and health problems related to second hand smoke.

And while they are at it why not also pass laws against everything else unhealthy? Criminalize YOU for the FEW drinks you OCCASIONALLY have. Criminalize people who drink coffee, pepsi, eat french fries, donuts, don't get the government mandated required ammount of excersise per day, etc etc?

If you are against passing laws that criminalize people who choose different recreational activities that you personally don't approve of PLINY, then I apologize for characterizing you that way. You do realize that by supporting a government that reeks of paternalistic authortarianism you actually DO support criminalizing other people's lifestyle choices tho don't you? When conservatives stand up and tell Harper to get his goovernments nose out of the citizen's private lives and that is reflected in a change in conservative's policies of criminalizing that which is not really criminal then I will stop hating the Conservative party. The problem is that as long as Harper and his goons can't differentiate between sin and crime, they are a threat to civil liberties, and are putting us on the slippery slope to a theocracy. Hence the nickname for the Conservative party, Christian Taliban.

It is also importanty to remember and stop kidding yourself, Cannabis was also always legal until the last 80 or so years, as was poppies and coca. Just because a previous government decided to criminalize these plants, with no basis in fact and science I might add, does not mean that LEGAL is not their NATURAL state. It seems kind of illogical to me to think you can pass a law against nature.

[eyeball]

WHo cares if the government makes of few bucks on taxing cigarettes, stop it and 10-15 years from now the government would not have to drop billions into the health care system to deal with all the smoking related diseases and health problems related to second hand smoke.

Instead it would have to drop billions more into the war on drugs. Of course we'd still have all the health problems.

The upside however would be that for the first time in history the government could finally send a message that was consistent right across the entire spectrum of substances, that recreationally altering your mind with them is a crime - assuming this is the actual message the state is trying to send of course.

[GostHacked]

Labour that produces no wealth is not work. It is a fantacy. Those involved in the I T technology do not really work..they pour one glass of water in to another glass and then back again - no real material that sustains life is produced.

Virtual glasses, if you will. Your glass analogy can be used for so many other feilds of work.

I think people take IT for granted and just don't understand computers and IT infrastructure. Being a guy in IT and have been for several years, I'd say you are very wrong about IT. I know this is off topic, so I will just say a short bit on it. There is a problem in how it is perceived. Everything is virtual, and you cannot touch it to judge value. This is how most of us will look at it.

We are so dependant on our technology/computers, we can no longer go about our daily lives without it. I am a Systems Admin for a grocery warehouse. When it breaks, our warehouse comes to a grinding halt. Time and money is lost. When it breaks, we are the people to get it running again. People don't complain if things are working fine. And if it is working fine, then those in IT are doing their job. And when it breaks, because it will, we put in some long ass hours. I had a domain controller break the last week. I had to congifure and install a server on the weekend. 12am to 6am. Our network was in bad shape for some time before that Domain Controller went online. While you are sleeping, us in IT are working our asses off. I have been in 4 weekends in a row. I am on call 24/7.

Many just do not understand how computers work and how they communicate with each other. OH the one thing that IT has produced is this Internet thing. It takes a lot of people to keep this thing running. It is now so vital to us, nothing gets produced without it.

[WIP]

Now don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't hate socialists. Socialism is merely organizational structure. I disagree with national governments believing they are the organization that runs society. They are an organization but they are only supposed to allow the freedom and liberty of it's citizens to direct themselves and co-operatively direct society by protecting those freedoms and liberties.

This sounds like a bit of climb-down from:

That is the yardstick for defining socialists, and yes, the vast majority of Canadians are socialist and the majority of the conservative party are socialists. Fascists are socialists too. Sorry I dont' believe in a central authority running people's lives, their healthcare or their education so count me out as a socialist fascist.

QUOTE

Yes you willingly accept the opinions of your trusted authority figures in health and education otherwise you would have to determine your own course of action in both. Not much can be done about it when you have an ideology you need to adhere to.

Well, the only people I know of who think you can run a society larger than hunter/gatherer tribes without government, are extreme libertarians who are otherwise known as anarcho-capitalists. They would be the first to perish in the absence of orderly government.

There is a continual unending struggle between personal freedoms and group security, so when one side of the left/right debate has had the upper hand for too long, there is an eventual push back when they have gone to far -- like the Wall Street debacle that was largely brought on by Republican governments relaxing the regulations that separated commercial and investment banking, insurance and the securities market.

Now that the "government governs best, which governs least" mantra has hit the wall, we are in a situation similar to 1930, where the free marketeers have lost their credibility and there will be a move to the left.

[ReeferMadness]

The only people who benefit from drug prohibition are law-and-order freaks and organized crime. People talk as if laws against drugs make it harder to get them but I've never seen any objective evidence to back that up. The only way you're going to eliminate the drug trade is if you have a police state.

I think that past Liberal administrations might have legalized some of the softer drugs like marijuana were it not for the country to our south. The trouble is that there would be a huge hue and cry from south of the border, probably followed by tighter border controls. This would bring endless media stories about the effects on trade. No politician is ever going to even appear to compromise economic issues for social ones, particularly controversial ones.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The only people who benefit from drug prohibition are law-and-order freaks and organized crime. People talk as if laws against drugs make it harder to get them but I've never seen any objective evidence to back that up. The only way you're going to eliminate the drug trade is if you have a police state.

I think that past Liberal administrations might have legalized some of the softer drugs like marijuana were it not for the country to our south. The trouble is that there would be a huge hue and cry from south of the border, probably followed by tighter border controls. This would bring endless media stories about the effects on trade. No politician is ever going to even appear to compromise economic issues for social ones, particularly controversial ones.

Well with the diminishing economic power of our big neighbor to the South they may need us more than we need them in the near future, at wich point they won't care about our ganja laws.

[Alta4ever]

This sounds like a bit of climb-down from:

Well, the only people I know of who think you can run a society larger than hunter/gatherer tribes without government, are extreme libertarians who are otherwise known as anarcho-capitalists. They would be the first to perish in the absence of orderly government.

There is a continual unending struggle between personal freedoms and group security, so when one side of the left/right debate has had the upper hand for too long, there is an eventual push back when they have gone to far -- like the Wall Street debacle that was largely brought on by Republican governments relaxing the regulations that separated commercial and investment banking, insurance and the securities market.

Now that the "government governs best, which governs least" mantra has hit the wall, we are in a situation similar to 1930, where the free marketeers have lost their credibility and there will be a move to the left.

You are incorrect the wall street debacle was brought on by the las t few years of the clinton administration, the republicans tried 3 times in the last 8 years to bring in regulation and it was the democrats who blocked it.

[Pliny]

If you are against passing laws that criminalize people who choose different recreational activities that you personally don't approve of PLINY, then I apologize for characterizing you that way.

Apology accepted.

You do realize that by supporting a government that reeks of paternalistic authortarianism you actually DO support criminalizing other people's lifestyle choices tho don't you? When conservatives stand up and tell Harper to get his goovernments nose out of the citizen's private lives and that is reflected in a change in conservative's policies of criminalizing that which is not really criminal then I will stop hating the Conservative party. The problem is that as long as Harper and his goons can't differentiate between sin and crime, they are a threat to civil liberties, and are putting us on the slippery slope to a theocracy. Hence the nickname for the Conservative party, Christian Taliban.

I hold what are considered quite conservative values. I will disagree with government engineering society to agree with those values because I like my values and I would hope that no political party will hold their values to be enacted in legislation.

The Conservative party currently is answering a call to restore justice, which was lax under the just society of the Liberals, and get criminality off our streets. You happen to be on the edge of engaging in criminal activity under existing legislation and I understand your concern. I however am not concerned about drugs in the least.

I would be more concerned with my ability to defend myself so the gun registry is a bigger issue to me and the Conservatives promise to revoke this legislation. They are not enacting more legislation in our lives on the whole than would the Liberals and the NDP on average, so I will vote for them. Your big single issue is Marijuana and because the Consevative party is not for total decriminalization you believe them to be tyrants. Since the weed is your whole life I can see why you feel oppressed.

For me, the marijuana issue can wait for another day. There are many other issues more important.

It is also importanty to remember and stop kidding yourself, Cannabis was also always legal until the last 80 or so years, as was poppies and coca. Just because a previous government decided to criminalize these plants, with no basis in fact and science I might add, does not mean that LEGAL is not their NATURAL state. It seems kind of illogical to me to think you can pass a law against nature.

I am of the opinion you mistake a natural state being made illegal, it is actually the use that is made illegal.

But, I don't believe my values should be imposed on anyone by the force of law, so I do disagree with the Conservative position on keeping drugs illegal.

[Pliny]

QUOTE(Pliny @ Sep 29 2008, 07:41 PM) *

Now don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't hate socialists. Socialism is merely organizational structure. I disagree with national governments believing they are the organization that runs society. They are an organization but they are only supposed to allow the freedom and liberty of it's citizens to direct themselves and co-operatively direct society by protecting those freedoms and liberties.

This sounds like a bit of climb-down from:

Well, the only people I know of who think you can run a society larger than hunter/gatherer tribes without government, are extreme libertarians who are otherwise known as anarcho-capitalists. They would be the first to perish in the absence of orderly government.

Well, I am an "anarcho-capitalist" and somewhat of a Libertarian. What is an extreme Libertarian? An anarchist?

Anarcho-capitalism refers to no government intervention in the market. Libertarianism is a belief that force should not be initiated against another.

There is a continual unending struggle between personal freedoms and group security, so when one side of the left/right debate has had the upper hand for too long, there is an eventual push back when they have gone to far -- like the Wall Street debacle that was largely brought on by Republican governments relaxing the regulations that separated commercial and investment banking, insurance and the securities market.

Now that the "government governs best, which governs least" mantra has hit the wall, we are in a situation similar to 1930, where the free marketeers have lost their credibility and there will be a move to the left.

Actually, there is only a struggle for personal freedom, which is attempted to be secured by the concept of security in numbers or as a group.

The Wall Street debacle was not brought on by Republicans. It was brought on by intervention and regulation in the economy.

You are probably right about there being a move to the left.

[cybercoma]

I just realized why it's so mind-numbingly difficult to have a conversation on a message board. Did anyone else notice the false dilemma proposed by the original argument?