SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[Guest American Woman]

It is separate from the executive and legislative branches.

But still part of the federal government, then. Same as ours.

And no. You're obviously not really interested in learning since you have been proven wrong on many issues in this thread alone and continue to assert those same errors, refusing to acknowledge the facts presented to you from many sources. In internet terms that is called trolling.

Accusing me of trolling rather than address the issues I've raised - just because you don't agree with them - is a sign of weakness.

Edited October 9, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

you might find this intetesting American woman

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=5519896

Thanks. I'd already read that this ruling might set the stage for prostitution - and I'm thinking it could set the stage for a lot of things if "health" takes precedence over "the law."

[charter.rights]

But still part of the federal government, then. Same as ours.

Accusing me of trolling rather than address the issues I've raised - just because you don't agree with them - is a sign of weakness.

Don't be so stupid. I and others have debated and presented facts disputing your point of view. There comes a point when one refuses to learn that you just quit trying. No, you are just trolling.

When YOU start presenting factual information and sources and get rid of your "my opinion trumps all" attitude, maybe then people can have a healthy debate with you. Until then, you are just trolling. Typical American on a Canadian Board.

[Guest American Woman]

Don't be so stupid. I and others have debated and presented facts disputing your point of view. There comes a point when one refuses to learn that you just quit trying. No, you are just trolling.

When YOU start presenting factual information and sources and get rid of your "my opinion trumps all" attitude, maybe then people can have a healthy debate with you. Until then, you are just trolling. Typical American on a Canadian Board.

This is rich. You accuse me of having a "my opinion trumps all" attitude - as you tell me to shut up if I don't agree with you. But yeah. "Typical American."

And no, you haven't "debated and presented facts" regarding my point of view because there are some things that are simply our points of view - your point of view hasn't been "proven" - and there are points I've raised which have been totally ignored - as I've been told to shut up, accused of trolling, and insulted for being an American. And believe me when I say I am learning - y'all are teaching me a lot.

[waldo]

And to learn about Canada. And boy oh boy, am I learning.

Methinks a lot of you can't handle views/opinions coming from Americans.

And believe me when I say I am learning - y'all are teaching me a lot.

and has one of the biggest learning aspects been for you to realize that, from a Canadian perspective, your self-avowed claim to being a so-called progressive, doesn't stand up? Notwithstanding it also doesn't stand up within your own country...

Edited October 9, 2011 by waldo

[Guest American Woman]

and has one of the biggest learning aspects been for you to realize that, from a Canadian perspective, your self-avowed claim to being a so-called progressive, doesn't stand up? Notwithstanding it also doesn't stand up within your own country...

:lol: :lol:

[waldo]

And to learn about Canada. And boy oh boy, am I learning.

Methinks a lot of you can't handle views/opinions coming from Americans.

And believe me when I say I am learning - y'all are teaching me a lot.

and has one of the biggest learning aspects been for you to realize that, from a Canadian perspective, your self-avowed claim to being a so-called progressive, doesn't stand up? Notwithstanding it also doesn't stand up within your own country...

:lol: :lol:

clearly, words fail you

Edited October 9, 2011 by waldo

[Guest American Woman]

clearly, words fail you

You're finally right. Words do indeed fail me. The laughter, however, continues ..........

[waldo]

You're finally right. Words do indeed fail me. The laughter, however, continues ..........

does your continued laughing reflect you don't accept my statement on your self-avowed claim to being a progressive? Here's a hint: claiming to be a Democrat doesn't entitle you to automatically claim to be progressive in your thinking/views

[Guest American Woman]

does your continued laughing reflect you don't accept my statement on your self-avowed claim to being a progressive? Here's a hint: claiming to be a Democrat doesn't entitle you to automatically claim to be progressive in your thinking/views

Keep trying to deflect, Waldo; obviously that's easier than addressing what I've said, but sorry, I'm not going there. That's what my continued laughter reflects.

[waldo]

Keep trying to deflect, Waldo; obviously that's easier than addressing what I've said, but sorry, I'm not going there. That's what my continued laughter reflects.

no deflection, none whatsoever... you are being presented directly, front and center. You offered derisive reference to learning about Canada, to your learning from Canada, to your being taught by Canadians, to your assertion that 'some of us can't handle your views/opinions'. In turn, I most certainly didn't deflect from that... I highlighted it and responded accordingly. No deflection, none whatsoever. You, on the other hand, appear to be deflecting from questions being raised about your self-proclaimed 'progressive' views/opinions... so you bluster, you deflect... that's, as you say, easier than addressing said questions.

[Bob]

How I love that concept of "judicial activism". It can be invoked every time a judge makes a ruling someone doesn't like.

There's a great series of chapters here which I can't duplicate here from Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" outlining and giving several historical examples of the phenomenon that is judicial activism. Even earlier than Brandeis (and Pound before him), we heard undefined rhetoric of "social justice" from Supreme Court Justices in the USA. This is frightening, where certain judges viewed themselves as the anointed ones whose role was now expanded into creating "social justice", rather than their real mandate: implementing the laws passed by the democratically elected government. Judicial activism is when a judge considers him or herself the arbiter of "social needs", without having any knowledge or expertise whatsoever regarding the issues upon which they would arbitrate. Brandeis himself stated that there was a growing trend among judges towards "a better appreciation by the courts of existing social needs". Since when are judges in a position to estimate "social needs"? They are there to interpret the law, and understanding "social needs" is far beyond their knowledge or expertise. This is about elites going above and beyond the the boundaries of their professional competence. Brandeis himself stated that he wanted the law to "reflect the will of the people", when of course the will of the people is expressed through elections.

"While there are many controversies over particular aspects of the law, the most fundamental controversy has long been over who should control the law and who should change the law. American intellectuals, since at least the middle of the 20th century, have overwhelmingly favoured expansion of the role of judges beyond that of applying laws created by others to themselves remaking the law to fit the times. Which is to say, making the law fit the prevailing vision of the times, the vision of the anointed intellectuals. Where the constitution of the United States is a barrier to this expanded role of judges, then judges have been urged to "interpret" the constitution as a set of values to be applied as judges choose, or update it as they think appropriate. Rather than as a set of specific instructions to be followed. That is what judicial activism means."

This is what we're talking about, and for you to write off "judicial activism" as meaningless rhetoric simply reveals your obliviousness of the history of judicial activism in either the Canadian or American contexts.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

Don't be so stupid. I and others have debated and presented facts disputing your point of view. There comes a point when one refuses to learn that you just quit trying. No, you are just trolling.

When YOU start presenting factual information and sources and get rid of your "my opinion trumps all" attitude, maybe then people can have a healthy debate with you. Until then, you are just trolling. Typical American on a Canadian Board.

i just wanted to point out my post on page 20:

'possession' is different than "under influence".

this is not the first time american woman has made a mistake and when confronted is not willing to accept that she's made a mistake. everyone can see what the act says. my suggestion is not to bother with her. she's hopeless.

[cybercoma]

That simple, eh? I don't see things your way, so I'm wrong. And I'm not learning. That's the best you can come back with. This is starting to get downright comical ...... as the learning continues.....

You're not wrong because you don't see things a certain way; you're wrong because even Agee being presented with facts and having your misconceptions corrected or addressed you still trot out the same ignorant remarks 12 pages later

[Sir Bandelot]

Another interesting factoid:

Contrary to its official goals, the US has suppressed research on drug usage. For example, in 1995 the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) announced in a press release the publication of the results of the largest global study on cocaine use ever undertaken. However, a decision in the World Health Assembly banned the publication of the study. In the sixth meeting of the B committee the US representative threatened that "If WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches, funds for the relevant programmes should be curtailed". This led to the decision to discontinue publication. A part of the study has been released. Several government-sponsored reports by commissioned experts have pointed to public substance abuse treatment as opposed to criminalization as the only effective way to battle the public health crisis caused by drugs; these recommendations have been mostly ignored by US government officials, and in some cases suppressed.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade- U.S._Government_involvement

The preceding section of that paragraph reads like a crime against humanity.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Bob]

Another interesting factoid:

Contrary to its official goals, the US has suppressed research on drug usage. For example, in 1995 the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) announced in a press release the publication of the results of the largest global study on cocaine use ever undertaken. However, a decision in the World Health Assembly banned the publication of the study. In the sixth meeting of the B committee the US representative threatened that "If WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches, funds for the relevant programmes should be curtailed". This led to the decision to discontinue publication. A part of the study has been released. Several government-sponsored reports by commissioned experts have pointed to public substance abuse treatment as opposed to criminalization as the only effective way to battle the public health crisis caused by drugs; these recommendations have been mostly ignored by US government officials, and in some cases suppressed.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade- U.S._Government_involvement

The preceding section of that paragraph reads like a crime against humanity.

That entire paragraph is editorializing masquerading as objective information, as we've come to expect from Wikipedia. There's one support/cite link for that entire paragraph, rife with allegations and innuendo, which leads us here. The link is also misleading, as it is labelled as if it is directly from the WHO (as if anyone gives a damn what the WHO says, I certainly don't), when it is directly linked from an interest group. If anyone chooses to do a Google search on the "study" referenced, which apparently was entitled, "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project", you will not find any links from the WHO website. Basically, that's another 100% bullshit article in Wikipedia advancing a dishonest political agenda intended to smear American politics. What a shocker!

It almost sounds as if you want Canada to base its drug policies on recommendations from the WHO, as if being an "international" organization somehow elevates its judgement to some special level.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Bob

[bush_cheney2004]

...It almost sounds as if you want Canada to base its drug policies on recommendations from the WHO, as if being an "international" organization somehow elevates its judgement to some special level.

Oh, it's worse than that. Ultimate blame for US policy is never far from the impotent and pathetic decrim efforts related here for Canada. US states have been more active than any Canadian province, but you wouldn't know it from reading these posts.

[Sir Bandelot]

US states have been more active than any Canadian province, but you wouldn't know it from reading these posts.

I read that now the Fed is moving in and shutting down state-sanctioned medical pot programs. This after initially Obama said he would not interfere with the states own medical pot laws.

[Sir Bandelot]

Oh yeah, one more thing, if you think the CIA does not conduct illegal drug operations- see Iran/ Contra.

[Bob]

Oh yeah, one more thing, if you think the CIA does not conduct illegal drug operations- see Iran/ Contra.

Oh cool, where's bloodyminded when you need him? I think that's one of two subject that he loves going into.

[Bob]

Oh, it's worse than that. Ultimate blame for US policy is never far from the impotent and pathetic decrim efforts related here for Canada. US states have been more active than any Canadian province, but you wouldn't know it from reading these posts.

I don't understand this post.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't understand this post.

Our would be decrim wonks in Canada will gaze at efforts in California only to lament that but for "US policy", all drugs would be legal in Canada. Then again....can't expect much in the way of logic from druggies!

[Bob]

Our would be decrim wonks in Canada will gaze at efforts in California only to lament that but for "US policy", all drugs would be legal in Canada. Then again....can't expect much in the way of logic from druggies!

Oh, of course. I didn't know what "decrim" was. I thought it was some new word.... Gotcha. Yes, these weed junkies are not known for their knowledge or consistency. They can be depended on, however, to blame everything on "American policy".

[olp1fan]

Oh, it's worse than that. Ultimate blame for US policy is never far from the impotent and pathetic decrim efforts related here for Canada. US states have been more active than any Canadian province, but you wouldn't know it from reading these posts.

I don't see how that is possible since Canada was the first country to legalize Medical Marihuana

it was about to be decriminalized but the US threatened Canada

also the americans pressured harper to shut insite down

[Guest American Woman]

You're not wrong because you don't see things a certain way; you're wrong because even Agee being presented with facts and having your misconceptions corrected or addressed you still trot out the same ignorant remarks 12 pages later

Ummmm. No. You haven't presented me with any "facts" to prove your claims. You keep repeating your interpretation of the law, even though the law clearly states that possession for USE is illegal and that even if possession is not on your property, if it's for your use, it's possession - which is against the law - which makes USING it without breaking the law impossible.

I've cited numerous sources supporting my "ignorant" claim, supporting my interpretation that 'using illicit drugs is illegal,' and those sites include reports prepared for the Canadian Senate and Canadian government sites.

Yet you keep "trotting out" your claim 12 pages later, insulting me, because I don't accept your claim, even though you have cited no source that supports your claim that USING illicit drugs in Canada isn't illegal. That's your claim; your interpretation. It is NOT fact - the fact is, it's impossible to use without possessing.