Bloc could hold balance of power in a hung parliament:

[dialamah]

That's like asking what GST somebody wants to raise.

Never mind, I found it anyway.

ETA: It's the *hike* where he doesn't lower the EI as much as Harper planned to do, isn't it? Luckily, it seems most Canadians can tell the difference between a "hike" and a "smaller decrease".

Edited October 15, 2015 by dialamah

[Smallc]

By the way, has Justin's refugee plan been priced out yet?

It's in the Liberal red book.

[Smallc]

The drug policy is where we disagree. The opium war was essentially fought because of a country full of zombies.

The amount of marijuana use in this country would probably astound you. There's no point in relegating the profits from such an enterprise to organized crime while leaving society with the costs.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Society has already drawn the line somewhere else.

The problem with crime policy is that what is deemed as reasonable is wide open to interpretation.

And it doesn't really matter what the Conservatives do. It's clear that the courts will only allow so much change.

[Topaz]

Well, I do believe if u pay off your card and not use it they will cancel it, so I'm told.

[Topaz]

You think the Tories would make big changes to Parliament and have it open? Have the MPs with more power and the PM less. One Tory tried that and the senate turned the Bill down. If we don't make changes to Parliament then it doesn't matter much who is in the PMO.

[blueblood]

The amount of marijuana use in this country would probably astound you. There's no point in relegating the profits from such an enterprise to organized crime while leaving society with the costs.

Society has already drawn the line somewhere else.

And it doesn't really matter what the Conservatives do. It's clear that the courts will only allow so much change.

Yes a lot of people smoke marihuana. I would rather that be the drug the cops are chasing around rather than progressing the next step up. - cocaine. Although not as harmful as cocaine and booze, it still isnt healthy. Also one has to go by metrics of how successful prohibition is. For example people say alcohol probibition was a failure. Well it did get repealed, but there are some interesting stats regarding the success of prohibition.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

In my opinion it is better to have consumption of all mind altering drugs down (booze included) as it is an expense to health care.

The way to keep money out of the hands of organized crime is to kill demand for vice's. And that happens when society deems said vice as taboo. Pot isnt deemed taboo.

Ill ask you this, should cocaine, ecstacy, heroin be legal as organized crime makes a lot of money off of that?

[Smallc]

Yes a lot of people smoke marihuana. I would rather that be the drug the cops are chasing around rather than progressing the next step up. - cocaine.

You think that if marijuana becomes legal, people will jump to cocaine just because?

Although not as harmful as cocaine and booze, it still isnt healthy.

No smoke is healthy (and one of those two things is legal, not helping your point). We're already paying the price, whilst getting no benefit.

Also one has to go by metrics of how successful prohibition is. For example people say alcohol probibition was a failure. Well it did get repealed, but there are some interesting stats regarding the success of prohibition.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

In my opinion it is better to have consumption of all mind altering drugs down (booze included) as it is an expense to health care.

That's an argument for legalizing and taxing it.

The way to keep money out of the hands of organized crime is to kill demand for vice's. And that happens when society deems said vice as taboo. Pot isnt deemed taboo.

And it never will be. Not to the point where people stop doing it.

Ill ask you this, should cocaine, ecstacy, heroin be legal as organized crime makes a lot of money off of that?

They are a totally different class of drugs. That said, they should be decriminalized. Putting people in jail for their use benefits no one.

[Moonlight Graham]

Unfortunately people are sick of harper even though his platform makes a lot of sense.

Harper's election platform is completely irrelevant. Meaningless campaign lip-flapping means nothing next to 10 years of actual actions as the governing party.

[blueblood]

You think that if marijuana becomes legal, people will jump to cocaine just because?

No smoke is healthy (and one of those two things is legal, not helping your point). We're already paying the price, whilst getting no benefit.

That's an argument for legalizing and taxing it.

And it never will be. Not to the point where people stop doing it.

They are a totally different class of drugs. That said, they should be decriminalized. Putting people in jail for their use benefits no one.

The article says that alcohol consumption went down. Which is a net win to society. And yes i do think people will make the jump to cocaine as there is a segment of the population that consumes narcotics for the fact that they are illegal. Rather chase a somewhat harmless drug then one more dangerous imo.

Im saying that booze consumption went down and possibly marijuana consumption will rise as its legal as there is a different segment of society that obeys the law. I like to see less mind altering things on the street.

Its not about people completely stopping doing something as there will always be people for whatever reason that smoke cigarettes. Consumption of liquor was down as a result of prohibition and extrapolating that result suggests that marijuana use will rise which isnt a win either.

Having hard drugs criminalized as shown by the study i provided on prohibition shows that consumption went down. China went to war with england because of opium initially being legal but over time their country became full of addicts and their economy was in shambles. It might not be nice to throw people in jail, but thats one tool to deter a significant segment of the population from engaging in drug use.

[Argus]

How about lowering the middle income bracket and increasing payments to poor seniors, most families with children, and to provinces and municipalities for infrastructure? Those things won't depress anything.

How's he gonna pay for all that? Oh, with borrowed money...

[Smallc]

How's he gonna pay for all that? Oh, with borrowed money...

The 7% decrease in the middle tax rate is paid for by creating a new upper rate. The rest of it is with a relatively small amount of borrowed money that I can live with.

[Smallc]

The article says that alcohol consumption went down. Which is a net win to society. And yes i do think people will make the jump to cocaine as there is a segment of the population that consumes narcotics for the fact that they are illegal. Rather chase a somewhat harmless drug then one more dangerous imo.

Consumption went down, but society collected nothing from the consumption that happened. It's questionable that it was a financial positive. As to the people who consume something simply because it's illegal, I'd have to see the stats on that. I would think that the number would be very low.

Im saying that booze consumption went down and possibly marijuana consumption will rise as its legal as there is a different segment of society that obeys the law. I like to see less mind altering things on the street.

There's very little if any evidence of that happening in other countries. You also have to consider that society can then collect sin taxes from marijuana, offsetting and perhaps fully compensating for any increased usage.

Its not about people completely stopping doing something as there will always be people for whatever reason that smoke cigarettes. Consumption of liquor was down as a result of prohibition and extrapolating that result suggests that marijuana use will rise which isnt a win either.

I think you're living in a dream world on this. More people are doing it than ever admit it. I can literally count on one hand the people I know who don't use it (and that includes me).

Having hard drugs criminalized as shown by the study i provided on prohibition shows that consumption went down. China went to war with england because of opium initially being legal but over time their country became full of addicts and their economy was in shambles. It might not be nice to throw people in jail, but thats one tool to deter a significant segment of the population from engaging in drug use.

I know from personal experience that throwing people in jail does not deter drug use (or much of anything). Education and treatment are key. We could pay for this through fines with decriminalization.

We're way off topic here.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The Bloc and Conservatives worked together on the niqab issue so an alliance might make sense. It would be funny to see,

though, in view of Harper's previous pronouncements.

[Wilber]

The 7% decrease in the middle tax rate is paid for by creating a new upper rate. The rest of it is with a relatively small amount of borrowed money that I can live with.

Yes, taxing the top 1% more is going to give the other 99% a 7% decrease. What rate does he plan for the top, 98%? I think that is one of the most ingenuous promises I have ever heard but people seem to be lapping it up.

[Smallc]

Yes, taxing the top 1% more is going to give the other 99% a 7% decrease. What rate does he plan for the top, 98%? I think that is one of the most ingenuous promises I have ever heard but people seem to be lapping it up.

A 7% decrease is actually only a 1.5% decrease in the rate of taxation.

[Wilber]

A 7% decrease is actually only a 1.5% decrease in the rate of taxation.

Let me try this again. So it's not really a decrease in taxation, it's a loan which will have to be paid back later because there isn't going to be enough revenue to cover it.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Let me try this again. So it's not really a decrease in taxation, it's a loan which will have to be paid back later because there isn't going to be enough revenue to cover it.

It's an exact replacement in terms of revenue.

[Wilber]

It's an exact replacement in terms of revenue.

Really, how does increasing taxes for 1% of the population add up to 7% for the rest? It doesn't so where is the rest of the revenue coming from?

[Smallc]

Really, how does increasing taxes for 1% of the population add up to 7% for the rest? It doesn't so where is the rest of the revenue coming from?

It's a tax increase for 1% of people that results in a tax decrease for people making over $44000 and up to $200000. It doesn't impact the bottom half.

[Wilber]

It's a tax increase for 1% of people that results in a tax decrease for people making over $44000 and up to $200000. It doesn't impact the bottom half.

And there is no way it will make for a 7% decrease for 91%. We are not talking about halves, we are talking about 1% vs 99%.

I'll be on the receiving end of this but it is still total BS.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Wilber

[Bryan]

It's an exact replacement in terms of revenue.

Except it rarely works that way. Tax increases on people of means usually result in lower government revenues because people with money find ways to keep it.

[Smallc]

And there is no way it will make for a 7% decrease for 91%. We are not talking about halves, we are talking about 1% vs 99%.

I'll be on the receiving end of this but it is still total BS.

That's not the claim. It's a 7% decrease for that rate.

[Smallc]

Except it rarely works that way. Tax increases on people of means usually result in lower government revenues because people with money find ways to keep it.

Possibly, but we're not talking about large changes in this case.

[Bryan]

Possibly, but we're not talking about large changes in this case.

A small piece of a big pie is still a lot of crust.

Losing $50 to me could be the same as losing $50,000 to someone else. The difference is, I'll shrug and complain but still pay it, whereas the guy set to lose $50k will make sure it doesn't happen.

[Wilber]

That's not the claim. It's a 7% decrease for that rate.

What rate, we have four?