So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[eyeball]

Shouldn't we then, make that the law, with actual limits that are simple to understand? Also, true decriminalization, with fines issued, could yield a great deal of money for governments.

How progressive, gorge the beast on the backs of ordinary Canadians. I'd rather legalize pot Colorado style and tax the snot out of the putrescently rich and ridiculously powerful instead.

[eyeball]

I dunno. You're arguing with the converted on that one. I think banning it is about as workable as banning alcohol was a hundred years ago. That's been pretty obvious for years now. But Harper isn't going to change it because that would mean going back on what he's said before, and he'll never do that. Maybe his successor will.

Nice touch, fine marijuana users rather than tax them. Only a rabid social justice warrior could suggest such a thing while comparing pot to booze in the very same breath.

[Smallc]

How progressive, gorge the beast on the backs of ordinary Canadians. I'd rather legalize pot Colorado style and tax the snot out of the putrescently rich and ridiculously powerful instead.

That's step two. You have to do these things slowly, IMO.

[eyeball]

Of course...except with conservatives even the little ones, that means sometime next century or two, especially if it means getting a little more freedom from the all-effing-mighty Crown. Wouldn't want to rush a system that's served us so slowly for so long now would we?

[Smallc]

Of course...except with conservatives even the little ones, that means sometime next century or two, especially if it means getting a little more freedom from the all-effing-mighty Crown. Wouldn't want to rush a system that's served us so slowly for so long now would we?

I'm only partially conservative.

[eyeball]

So just one century, not two? Like I said how progressive.

[jbg]

Ignoring global warming is something only delusional fools take part in.

Great empty-headed slogan.

[On Guard for Thee]

Great empty-headed slogan.

Maybe follow the context before you make empty headed comments.

[eyeball]

I was almost certain that marijuana decriminilization was on the way.

I imagine you think I'm just being flippant when wondering how many centuries this is going to take but you have heard of the Le Dain Commission right? You do realize we've already been going down this road nearly half a century.

That's step two. You have to do these things slowly, IMO.

You're what, barely 25 or so as I recall.

Young incrementalist conservatives probably freak me out the most.

Edited August 12, 2015 by eyeball

[waldo]

Only long-lived GHGs are relevant in the context of global warming. Don't purposely mislead people.

the only misleading is yours... serial misleading! Again, you were the only one to speak of global warming. In the context of smog (not global warming), you incorrectly asserted that GHGs had no relevance/consideration. If you persist I will simply re-quote my post that clearly and definitively showed the error you made. Quit covering your backside and quit purposely misleading the peeps!

.

[drummindiver]

In further reading the policy announcement, it doesn't look like marijuana is even the issue. They're specifically wanting to protect children from hard drugs and addiction. That's what I mean about nuance -- while I am essentially a libertarian when it comes to what adults want to put into their own bodies, I also absolutely believe that we have to do whatever it takes to keep hard street drugs away from kids. That's a very tough middle ground to balance.

Sorry, how does pot have anything to do with hard drugs and addiction? Clearly, incontrovertibly, weed is not a gateway drug, or most of North America and the rest of the world would be on the nod right now.

Their stance on harm reduction is even more frightening. I can understand the NIMBYism of ppl not wanting safe sites I. Their neighbourhood. On the other hand, helping decrease crime, overdoses, and disease helps everyone.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Please avoid thread drift and trolling.

Ch. A.

[cybercoma]

Of course...except with conservatives even the little ones, that means sometime next century or two, especially if it means getting a little more freedom from the all-effing-mighty Crown. Wouldn't want to rush a system that's served us so slowly for so long now would we?

Tomorrow never comes.

[Smallc]

Tomorrow never comes.

Tomorrow comes eventually. on social issues, I wish it would come earlier for many Conservatives and conservatives.

[Bryan]

Folks,

Please avoid thread drift and trolling.

Ch. A.

I see no drift. The topic is reasons to vote conservative. There are lots of them. And many people disagree with them too. It's VERY broad.

[Charles Anthony]

I see no drift.

Thank you for the affirmation! Our intervention worked!

The thread drift/trolling posts were taken down.

Alternatively, you could consider my post to be trolling and then you could ignore it! Now, move on and carry on with on-topic discussion.

[Argus]

Of course...except with conservatives even the little ones, that means sometime next century or two,

A lot of conservatives have little or no respect for potheads. And seeing the potheads on this forum and their often barely literate, idiotic positions on most subjects, one can easily understand why.

[Argus]

Sorry, how does pot have anything to do with hard drugs and addiction? Clearly, incontrovertibly, weed is not a gateway drug,

It's still not something to be encouraged.

Their stance on harm reduction is even more frightening. I can understand the NIMBYism of ppl not wanting safe sites I. Their neighbourhood. On the other hand, helping decrease crime, overdoses, and disease helps everyone.

It does nothing to decrease crime. It might decrease overdoses, but so what? As far as I'm concerned if every junkie in the country died overnight that would be something to celebrate

[WIP]

It has a decay time of like 12 years. I wouldn't exactly call that short-lived.

It's not like it's a giant mystery of which are the most relevant human emitted greenhouse gases when it comes to global warming. CO2 is by far the most important, followed by CH4 and N2O. These 3 contribute to the vast majority of the change in GHG radiative forcing. Then you have a small amount of radiative forcing from other gases such as CFC-12 and CFC-11.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

And a melting Arctic could release methane from permafrost and clathrates over a period of centuries before it's all gone....so it's not going to be all over in 12 years by any sense of imagination! Since some so called skeptics like Anthony Watts are having to eat their words denying an El Nino would happen this year now that the Pacific has entered a powerful El Nino phase, wouldn't you think that the Precautionary Principle would have been wise to follow on a subject that means literally life or death?

[-1=e^ipi]

And a melting Arctic could release methane from permafrost and clathrates over a period of centuries before it's all gone....so it's not going to be all over in 12 years by any sense of imagination!

You are confusing the decay time of tropospheric methane with the temperature-methane feedback. We have a good idea of what the temperature-methane feedback was during the Pleistocene from ice core data (it's about 75 ppb/C) and we also know that the methane-temperature feedback is much smaller today since there is less permafrost to melt at the margin as we are in an interglacial period.

wouldn't you think that the Precautionary Principle would have been wise to follow on a subject that means literally life or death?

The precautionary principle is a dumb principle in all cases, it is basically the position of infinite risk aversion. It leads to decisions that ignore all empirical evidence, and the precautionary principle is the same logical form as Pascal's Wager. The precautionary principle leads to absurd policy recommendations such as we should put snowshoes on all cattle:

[drummindiver]

You are confusing the decay time of tropospheric methane with the temperature-methane feedback. We have a good idea of what the temperature-methane feedback was during the Pleistocene from ice core data (it's about 75 ppb/C) and we also know that the methane-temperature feedback is much smaller today since there is less permafrost to melt at the margin as we are in an interglacial period.

The precautionary principle is a dumb principle in all cases, it is basically the position of infinite risk aversion. It leads to decisions that ignore all empirical evidence, and the precautionary principle is the same logical form as Pascal's Wager. The precautionary principle leads to absurd policy recommendations such as we should put snowshoes on all cattle:

or make policy based on 15yo social media warriors recommendations, right Mr. Mulcair?

I believe the term the cool kids are using for both principles these days is "doubling down" . Us old school hepcats refer to it as "hedging your bets".

Edited August 12, 2015 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

It's still not something to be encouraged.It does nothing to decrease crime. It might decrease overdoses, but so what? As far as I'm concerned if every junkie in the country died overnight that would be something to celebrate

I agree, drug use shouldn't be encouraged. There are instances where medicinal marijuana are indicated though.

I also don't believe pot should be a criminal charge. many young ppl have a record for substances that are less harmful than alcohol.

I have lost many friends to addiction. I was never happy because they were just a junkie who died.

The cost of safe sites is minimal compared to the cost of treating diseases spread by needles. Overdoses take professionals off the front lines. The ppl dying may have been friends or loved ones.

on this point, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited August 12, 2015 by drummindiver

[cybercoma]

A lot of conservatives have little or no respect for potheads. And seeing the potheads on this forum and their often barely literate, idiotic positions on most subjects, one can easily understand why.

I didn't know you smoke weed.

[Topaz]

I wonder how many Tories who do smoke pot won't be voting for Harper? They really should stop sending ppl to jail for it instead big fines but then again look what smoking tobacco is doing to ppl and alcohol and the governments reap the taxes, so why not add another addition and maybe the police can save some money and put those making money on it, out of business.

[Argus]

I wonder how many Tories who do smoke pot won't be voting for Harper?

If legalizing pot is more important to them than anything else, then they're not likely to be Tories.