Drugs: Decriminalization vs. Legalization

FTA Lawyer · September 29, 2005

FTA clearly doesn't smoke or keep up to date.
The original amount proposed was up to 30 grams. For those of you who do smoke that is a little over an ounce - which is a ton of weed. (excuse the pun)

The most recent version of the bill has reduced the amount for possession to 7 grams, a quarter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite right that I don't smoke...but I do recall the reduction from the originally proposed amount due to U.S. pressures.

It was a compromise position because the U.S. was pushing hard for Canada to scrap the whole idea. Rather than do that, they agreed to reduce the amount that would be decriminalized.

My apologies for any confusion shoop...I have my hands full keeping up to date on enacted legislation...makes it pretty hard to keep track of all developments with "proposed" legislation. Thanks for pointing out the error.

FTA Lawyer

FTA Lawyer · September 29, 2005

Further to FTA Lawyers' excellent response, the purpose of decriminalization is to end the 'felony' charges for possession of small amounts of weed, and have it a 'misdemeanor', with incredibly less work for the courts. Not only would they have to press and convict on charges, almost all of the 'convicted' apply for pardons, entailing more paperwork, and those caught with a joint are, for now, still in the same 'criminal class' as thieves, murderers and rapists...

However, if you have as much as posession of a single joint on your record, you can forget being admitted into the "land of the free", just south of us.... Which, given the magnitude of the crime, in many circumstances is an unreasonable punishment... It could result in loss of employment with an international firm.... Inability to attend family funerals, etc....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Felony" and "misdemeanor" are U.S. terms, and they don't really properly translate across in these circumstances.

In our system we have indictable (more serious) and summary conviction (less serious) offences. Many of our criminal offences are "hybrid" because the Crown can choose to proceed either way, depending on the facts and the accused's previous history.

Decriminalization doesn't mean reducing from indictable to summary (as theloniusfleabag suggests with the felony to misdemeanor analogy). In fact, possession of 30g or less of marijuana is already automatically a summary conviction offence under the current version of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA).

These convictions currently lead to the criminal records and subsequent associated problems that err is talking about.

Decriminalization means literally you would get a ticket if an officer catches you in possession (of what will likely be around 7g now...thanks again shoop). No criminal offence, no criminal record, no court at all (unless you dispute paying the fine and want to set a trial date).

If found holding more than the prescribed amount, then you will still be charged and dealt with per the status quo in the criminal justice system.

The whole point of decriminalization, therefore, is to recognize that:

1. Pot is not the horror drug the U.S. would make it out to be;

2. Lots of youth are being condemned with criminal records for an offence most people don't really see as an offence (i.e. smoking a joint) and therefore, are less motivated to avoid further criminal convictions;

3. Many citizens, across all demographics, are at risk of major repercussions if caught with a single joint...most of which are way out of proportion to the gravity of the "crime";

4. The police and Justice system are spending WAY TOO MUCH time and money to "criminalize" otherwise law-abiding citizens for very minor possession offences.

I'm still for full legalization (including regulation and taxation), but decriminalization may be a baby step that needs to be taken first so that opponents can ease into the idea.

FTA Lawyer

Canuck E Stan · September 30, 2005

NDP view on cannabis.

Jack Layton's NDP: Position on Issues? Free Munchies For All!

Jack is interviewed on Pot -TV.net by Marc Emery.Check out the video interview on the RealVideo clip.

Jack Layton calls marijuana "a wonderful drug", and said that he would go further than simply decriminalizing cannabis, he would legalize it with provisions for home use, cafés and personal grows-ops, according to an interview on the "Pot-TV.net" web site.
Watch Jack Layton on this RealVideo clip. The clip's beginning alternates between either an ad in which they promote commercial-grade grow lights for your grow-op; or a shrill performance artist yelling about the virtues of getting high on drugs. Layton then does sort of a cheap NDP TV ad spot in French and English in which he introduces himself as Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and then goes on to talk about how Canadians should be able to smoke pot without getting bothered by the law. He directs viewers to the NDP web site and encourages viewers to go and visit.

Far out man,like this dude is like soooo cool and definately groovy.Cafe joints ah, I can dig it man.

err · October 1, 2005

NDP view on cannabis.

What is presented in this article is not the NDP position. Most readers would recognise the author of your quote to be an extreme right-wing wing-nut who has taken to attacking Jack Layton personally with his straw-man arguments. (birds of a feather.... . ya you Canuck..) This slur would definitely be to try to discredit some of Layton's stances that Canadians clearly agree with...

Canuck E Stan · October 1, 2005

What is presented in this article is not the NDP position. Most readers would recognise the author of your quote to be an extreme right-wing wing-nut who has taken to attacking Jack Layton personally with his straw-man arguments. (birds of a feather.... . ya you Canuck..) This slur would definitely be to try to discredit some of Layton's stances that Canadians clearly agree with...

Hey man like take it cool.

We're like not talking about the messenger here,we're like talking about the message.Dig? The message is in the video.

Let's try someone who's not a "extreme right -wing wing nut"

BC Marijuana Party prepares for coming campaign, while their former leader now backs the NDP.

In Canada's last federal election, Emery encouraged Canada's pot-people to leave the Canadian Marijuana Party and support federal NDP Leader Jack Layton. Emery based his support on Layton's Pot-TV appearance, where Layton called marijuana a "wonderful substance" and said his party supported a system where cannabis could be legally purchased by adults at licensed cafes (CC#47, Canada's NDP leader on Pot-TV).

This interview was in 2003

2003 Interview between Marc and NDP Federal Leader Jack Layton.

Layton couldn't spell out the details of the NDP's proposals to legalize marijuana in Canada. But he assured Pot-TV viewers that it would be a part of a comprehensive update to the NDP platform, which would appear on their website "in the next two or three months."

http://www.ndp.ca/

Help me here would you,iI'm looking for the comprehensive update to the NDP platform on marijuana

NDPOT.CA DOES NOT ENDORSE ANY PROVINCIAL NDP PARTIES THEY ARE ALL PROHIBITIONISTS

It appears that once the NDP get elected the message changes.

err · October 1, 2005

Layton couldn't spell out the details of the NDP's proposals to legalize marijuana in Canada. But he assured Pot-TV viewers that it would be a part of a comprehensive update to the NDP platform, which would appear on their website "in the next two or three months."

Actually, there was a whole page on it last year. It doesn't appear to be there right now, but they do have to continue to update their site...

It appears that once the NDP get elected the message changes.

We're still waiting for it to happen... If you'll note, there's been some activity on that front federally.... Perhaps this is a good time for it to go ahead, with a minority government.... The deep-rooted Liberal principles (anything to stay in power) will probably force them to capitulate on this issue.... However, there are more pressing items on the agenda for the upcoming months, so hang on tight and we'll see what's coming....

Canuck E Stan · October 1, 2005

Jack's pot.tv show was in 2003,where are the details promised 2-3 months after the program, on the legalization of weed?

Six months to go til the next election call,shouldn't the public see the NDP agenda on legalizing marijuana by now? Or is it a hidden agenda?

How come the present NDP provincial governments in power aren't supporting Jack's movement with Legalization?

As an NDP supporter don't you think answers are required to these questions if you want public support with legalization?

err · October 1, 2005

Jack's pot.tv show was in 2003,where are the details promised 2-3 months after the program, on the legalization of weed?

It was part of their last federal election platform. They have since changed their web site....

Six months to go til the next election call,shouldn't the public see the NDP agenda on legalizing marijuana by now? Or is it a hidden agenda?

Why don't you email Jack Layton... his address is [email protected]

How come the present NDP provincial governments in power aren't supporting Jack's movement with Legalization?

Because it is a federal matter ?????

As an NDP supporter don't you think answers are required to these questions if you want public support with legalization?

What a good idea. Why don't you email Jack Layton... I guarantee he'll answer.

However, since you challenge the credibility of the NDP on issues, how about asking the Conservative/Alliance/Evangalist/Reform opinion on abortion.... Where do they stand... because they toned it down significantly and then denied their position before the previous election.... When the cock crows three times, or when the Gomery inquiry comes out, what will their position be....

August1991 · October 1, 2005

NDP
The party platform is silent on the issue of both grow-ops and personal use of marijuana. However, federal NDP leader Jack Layton has urged the Canadian government to act on decriminalization, and has said Canadians are entitled to choose to use marijuana personally.

tyee

On abortion, Harper said, "as prime minister, I will not bring forth legislation on the issue of abortion."
He added, "as your leader, if you disagree with me on these matters, I will not call you stupid or label you a threat to Canadian values. As leader, I care less about your views on these matters than whether you are prepared to respect the views of those who disagree with you."

Lifesite

theloniusfleabag · October 2, 2005

Dear August1991,

He also reiterated his promise to allow MPs to cast free votes on moral issues. "And that's why I will always allow all of your MPs to vote freely on matters of conscience," he said.

What of those that vote according to the will of the majority of their constituents? Shall they go the way of Kilgour and Kindy? What of those that ignore the majority will of the constituents? This statement is, again, patently absurd and typical of Canadian 'pseudo-democracy'.

He's also said the sale of B.C. marijuana has been used to finance guns for Afghan rebels, and reportedly declared that decriminalization could lead the United States to close the border with Canada.

That is the most asinine thing I have read in a long time. I am not saying it might not have been true 1% of the time, but 99% of the time, Afghani drugs (opium and hashish) enter N. America, until recently, pretty much straight across for arms.

Canuck E Stan · October 2, 2005

Err,

It was part of their last federal election platform. They have since changed their web site....

Did they change their stance on legalization of Marijuana when they changed their web site too? They sure don't have anything to say about it on their "new" web site.

QUOTE(Canuck E Stan @ Oct 2 2005, 12:34 AM)
How come the present NDP provincial governments in power aren't supporting Jack's movement with Legalization?

Because it is a federal matter ?????

I seem to recall you lumping provincial Liberal and Conservative parties with their Federal counterparts as being the same when it comes to issues. Are you saying the NDPers of provincial stripes are not the same as Federal NDPers?Advocats of legalization seem to think they are not.Maybe Provincial and Federal governments really don't think the same.

However, since you challenge the credibility of the NDP

All I want ot know is the details of the legalization of Marijuana that YOUR party is promoting,I assumed that since you are a strong advocate of NDP policy on the subject you would clue us in.

Obvoiusly you know no more than we do.I will contact Jack for the details,maybe you should do the same so you know what your supporting.

Black Dog · October 5, 2005

The only thing that concerns me with the idea of legalisation is that we'd have R.J Reynolds and Philip Morris swooping in and capturing the industry. I'd rather see the day where I can mosey over to the Farmer's market on a Saturday afternoon and buy some good quality homegrown.

As for sticking with faile dpolicies becaus ethey may offend our neighbours, well: it's hardly our fault the U.S. is so far behind in terms of social progress.

BHS · October 5, 2005

The only thing that concerns me with the idea of legalisation is that we'd have R.J Reynolds and Philip Morris swooping in and capturing the industry. I'd rather see the day where I can mosey over to the Farmer's market on a Saturday afternoon and buy some good quality homegrown.
As for sticking with faile dpolicies becaus ethey may offend our neighbours, well: it's hardly our fault the U.S. is so far behind in terms of social progress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Marijuana is a weed species. It grows everywhere. Like beer, it's easy enough to make/grow at home. Unless legislation specifically treats it as a controlled substance, the farmer's markets will abound with pot. It's the laws controlling growing and manufacturing and distribution that make the tobacco and alcohol business interests rich, not the free market. Lay the blame where it belongs, with big-government regulation freaks.

Further, RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris are American tobacco companies. Wouldn't Imperial Tobacco or MacDonald Tobacco be a more apt reference? I mean, Philip Morris can't even sell it's signature Marlboro brand in Canada because Imperial already owns the trademark here.

2) It's interesting to me that you see "social progress" as being confined to the narrow terms of your own special interests, like pot legalization, and that this would lead you to the conclusion that the US is anything other than progressive. All of the concepts of modern labour law and publicly funded medical care that the world's "progressive" movement like to go on about found their first footing in the US. In fact, it's hard to find a single "progressive" concept that the US hasn't already embraced at one time or another, in one state or another, for at least a trial period of time. The world's leading lights in NGO peacenik/eco-concious/progressivist organisations all have their headquarters in the US. It's the freest country in the world, in every way that counts.

Black Dog · October 5, 2005

1) Marijuana is a weed species. It grows everywhere. Like beer, it's easy enough to make/grow at home. Unless legislation specifically treats it as a controlled substance, the farmer's markets will abound with pot. It's the laws controlling growing and manufacturing and distribution that make the tobacco and alcohol business interests rich, not the free market. Lay the blame where it belongs, with big-government regulation freaks.
Further, RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris are American tobacco companies. Wouldn't Imperial Tobacco or MacDonald Tobacco be a more apt reference? I mean, Philip Morris can't even sell it's signature Marlboro brand in Canada because Imperial already owns the trademark here.

Big-government regulation? You mean big-money copulation. Those laws ceded control of the market to corporations. Somehow I doubt they kicked up much of a fuss about it. And I picked American tobacco companies simply because they are household names.

2) It's interesting to me that you see "social progress" as being confined to the narrow terms of your own special interests, like pot legalization, and that this would lead you to the conclusion that the US is anything other than progressive. All of the concepts of modern labour law and publicly funded medical care that the world's "progressive" movement like to go on about found their first footing in the US. In fact, it's hard to find a single "progressive" concept that the US hasn't already embraced at one time or another, in one state or another, for at least a trial period of time. The world's leading lights in NGO peacenik/eco-concious/progressivist organisations all have their headquarters in the US. It's the freest country in the world, in every way that counts.

I'm not denying that many progressive touchstones are rooted in America. The difference is the U.S. seems to be intent on rolling them back, whether it is through weakening organized labour, relaxing environmental regulations, prosecuting those who buy cheap pharmacuticals or any other of a host of initiatives designed to push America back in time. I celebrate the gifts America's progressives have given to the world. It is its future that I fear.

BHS · October 5, 2005

Big-government regulation? You mean big-money copulation. Those laws ceded control of the market to corporations. Somehow I doubt they kicked up much of a fuss about it. And I picked American tobacco companies simply because they are household names.

Big money copulation. I like it, kind of has a ring to it. I'm going to change my signature to include it.

I'm guessing you came from a household where nobody smoked. Lucky you.

I'm not denying that many progressive touchstones are rooted in America. The difference is the U.S. seems to be intent on rolling them back, whether it is through weakening organized labour, relaxing environmental regulations, prosecuting those who buy cheap pharmacuticals or any other of a host of initiatives designed to push America back in time. I celebrate the gifts America's progressives have given to the world. It is its future that I fear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The secularist segment of the Republican party (It's true! They exist!) knows that they're never going to win on the big social issues that the Dems get all frenzied up about. For instance, the "right to privacy" (what eureka calls the "natural right" that gives Roe v. Wade it's authority) discovered in the Constitution by Justice Blackmun and his cohorts isn't going to be overturned any time soon, and they aren't serious about trying. The religious wing of the party will be trying to put an end to abortion forever, but they need the secularists to win elections, and the secularists will withdraw their support if the religious types get too uppity. It's all understood in a "below the radar" way. The common front is an illusion to meant to make the Dems crazy. And apparently, it works.

Organized labour is dying all by itself. The purpose of organizing was to win acceptable wages and working conditions for "the working class" (scare quotes because America and Canada are classless societies, ahem). All of the greatest hopes of the original labour movement were realized long ago. But just shutting down is against the nature of any successful movement, and so it continued to perpetuate itself by coming up with exciting new demands, many of which have also been met by it's various corporate victims over the years. Many of those victims are now deceased, or struggling on life support: the steel industry, the auto industry and the airline industry are three economic sectors where unions had their greatest successes, and those industries are now in trouble because of their inability to remain competitive.

Who wants to be in a union anyway? Every union member I've ever met (except for the professional unionists, who were without exception total commie rhetoric-spouting scumbags) hates the union even more than they hate the company that employs them. And I've never met a union member who didn't hate his employer with a passion. What a magnificent way to spend the bulk of your adult life.

I have nothing to say about "environmental regulations", because I have only the vagues idea of what you might be refering to. Other than to say that a lot of environmental regulations that have been put in place over the years were founded on junk science and eco-paranoia, and rightly belong in the dustbin. Like safety regulations, it's easy to go overboard, precisely because it's conversely difficult to argue against "safety" or "a cleaner environment".

Prosecuting blah blah blah cheap pharmaceuticals: So you think Americans (or Canadians) should be allowed to import drugs from any other country, operating outside of our national regulatory oversight? Isn't that kind of making all of our regulations about how pharmacies operate moot? Because that's essentially what you appear to be in favour of. Why should American regulators, and the voters who put them in power, trust us any more than they trust the Chinese? Whatever. When your cheap cancer drugs from Paraguay turn out to be Tic Tacs, well, you know why.

You've pretty much run the gamut of reasons why the Americans (read the Republicans) are trying to push back progress, so I can't imagine what other reasons you might be thinking of.

August1991 · October 5, 2005

Thanks, BHS, for your posts above.

It's all understood in a "below the radar" way. The common front is an illusion to meant to make the Dems crazy. And apparently, it works.

True.

Organized labour is dying all by itself.

In Canada, I believe that 25% of private sector "workers" are now unionized compared with 75% of public sector "workers". Unions are increasingly a "government" institution.

It's interesting to me that you see "social progress" as being confined to the narrow terms of your own special interests, like pot legalization, and that this would lead you to the conclusion that the US is anything other than progressive.

Seeking freedom in narrow fields now sustains much of the Left.

----

And BD:

Big-government regulation? You mean big-money copulation. Those laws ceded control of the market to corporations.

Do you mean the government cannot regulate corporations?

theloniusfleabag · October 7, 2005

Dear BHS,

I concur with August1991, excellent post.

All of the greatest hopes of the original labour movement were realized long ago

Indeed, the need for unions went out around the same time that the baseball bat was outlawed as a negotiation tool.

the steel industry, the auto industry and the airline industry are three economic sectors where unions had their greatest successes, and those industries are now in trouble because of their inability to remain competitive

I think a perfect example of this is WestJet. They treat their employees well, make it a fun place to work, and are not unionized. A union would kill them.

crazymf · October 7, 2005

Hey dudes,

I just got back from a 3 week bike trip down into New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee and back. Got chased out by Rita. Had a lot of fun. Miss me? No? Oh well.....

In a free society, shouldn't every adult citizen be free to decide for him/herself what he/she can put into his/her own body?

Within reason, yes. Anything to blatant excess, no. However, as all taxpayers cover the rehab already, I'm not sure drugs shouldn't be taxed somehow. Maybe some or all drugs should be controlled by the government.

Until then, they are illegal. I live with that.

Canuck E Stan · October 7, 2005

What a good idea. Why don't you email Jack Layton... I guarantee he'll answer.

In the interest of all the posters I did e-mail Jack Layton shortly after Err's comment on OCtaber 1st,requesting the NDP position on Legalizing Marijuana. I've yet to receive an answer.

But on another issue of drugs,prescription type.

A person who I know (Pharmacist) formally of Windsor, Ontario,who worked at Big V pharmacy in that city(cybercoma should know that name) and later moved to Vancouver, made some interesting observations about presciption drugs being sold in those two cities.

When applying for a job in Vancouver he was told that this particular store fills over 600 prescriptions a week and questioned wheither he could handle that load.

His response was,what's the big deal,we filled 2500 a week in one store alone in Windsor.

Now knowing that Windsor's population is far smaller than Vancouver, and it probably has fewer Drug stores than Vancouver the difference still seems extreme.

I asked why the difference? The Pharmacist said he felt it was because of a couple of factors.

One, the Auto workers paid only $.35 per prescription(I do not know if this is still the amount,but it was from about 1965 to about 10 years ago) So drugs are cheap.

The other point he said was that he felt Doctors in Windsor,knowing that drugs were cheap for the auto workers,prescribed them more often as a instant remedy for their ills rather than use an alternative method.

I know one auto worker in Windsor who argued with his doctor over a back pain, insisting that the doctor not give him pills(caused drowsiness,he operates machinery) ,but to do something else to relieve his pain.He recieved Physio therapy instead.

My point here, I guess, is would user fees make a difference to the amount of drugs being prescibed if people paid more for them,and would alternative methods to drugs come more into play if peope refused to pay the high cost of these drugs by insisting they receive other ways of treatment. Would not the over use of drugs be kept in check?

I was going to suggest that Ontario votes the way it does because of high drug intake,but I really don't have any proof of that.

So can user fees cut down on drug presciption use/abuse?

theloniusfleabag · October 8, 2005

Dear Canuck E Stan,

My point here, I guess, is would user fees make a difference to the amount of drugs being prescibed if people paid more for them,and would alternative methods to drugs come more into play if peope refused to pay the high cost of these drugs by insisting they receive other ways of treatment. Would not the over use of drugs be kept in check?

Mos people operate on faith. Faith that the drug companies have done a lot of R&D so therefore the drugs must work. Faith that the doctor knows what he is doing. This is not an entirely misplaced faith, but occasionally it is. Certain drug companies offer 'kickbacks' to doctors and health region authorities if they push certain drugs.

"Pfizer Inc., the world's largest pharmaceutical firm, agreed yesterday to pay more than $430 million to settle criminal and civil charges that one of its divisions fraudulently marketed a popular drug, Neurontin, for unapproved uses. The company pleaded guilty to charges that its Warner-Lambert division engaged in a widespread, coordinated effort -- offering kickbacks, one-sided education classes and free trips to the Olympics and to Florida -- to encourage doctors to prescribe Neurontin for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration

from... http://www.endgame.org/corpfines3.html

Also from the same site...

The largest, $290 million, was assessed in 2001, on TAP Pharmaceuticals, a venture of Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd., which was charged with using kickbacks, travel and free goods and services to illegally market its prostate cancer drug, Lupron.

err · October 11, 2005

What a good idea. Why don't you email Jack Layton... I guarantee he'll answer.

In the interest of all the posters I did e-mail Jack Layton shortly after Err's comment on OCtaber 1st,requesting the NDP position on Legalizing Marijuana. I've yet to receive an answer.

I did get a response from Jack Layton just to put your minds at rest:

We support the decriminalization of cannabis. Decriminalization would mean that parties found guilty of possession of cannabis would be charged civilly (i.e.: fined) not criminally (i.e.: given a criminal record).

Canuck E Stan · October 11, 2005

.....that's it? Eighteen minutes on POT.TV talking about Legalization and this is it?

What happened to the LEGALIZATION he spoke about on POT.TV?

Where are all the details he promised to produce 3 months after the show?

Big difference from talking about Legalization and claiming to having a lot of details about how it would work,

then ending up supporting decriminalization like most.

Jack and the NDP are no different than any of the other politicians.Say anything to get a vote.

Disappointed response.

August1991 · October 11, 2005

For the record, 11 American states have decriminalized marijuana and 10 states allow its use for medicinal purposes.

Eleven states, including California, Maine, New York, Colorado and Mississippi, have passed decriminalization measures similar to the one on Beacon Hill without seeing measurable increases in marijuana use, Taylor said.

Cannabis News

From the same web site:

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale.
--

At 92, Friedman is revered as one of the great champions of free-market capitalism during the years of U.S. rivalry with Communism. He is also passionate about the need to legalize marijuana, among other drugs, for both financial and moral reasons.

"There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana," the economist says, "$7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes."

err · October 12, 2005

.....that's it? Eighteen minutes on POT.TV talking about Legalization and this is it?
What happened to the LEGALIZATION he spoke about on POT.TV?

Where are all the details he promised to produce 3 months after the show?

There was a complete page on their web site prior to the last election... I suppose people have a right to change slightly over the years.... It is still a "pro" response....

Jack and the NDP are no different than any of the other politicians.Say anything to get a vote.

At least he do an about face three times in one election campaign as did Harper on abortion last time just to "get votes"...

Black Dog · October 12, 2005

. The religious wing of the party will be trying to put an end to abortion forever, but they need the secularists to win elections, and the secularists will withdraw their support if the religious types get too uppity. It's all understood in a "below the radar" way. The common front is an illusion to meant to make the Dems crazy. And apparently, it works.

Roe v. Wade may not be reveresed (and contratry to your assertion that it only is kept to drive the Demsocrats crazy, they keep it to fire up the G.O.P base), but it can be rolled back. Parental consent laws, measures such as the"Unborn Victim's of Violence Act" and the "partial-birth abortion" ban (scare quotes beause the term is not recognized by the medical community, bans on federal funding to family-planning groups and others are all part of an effort to chip away at abortion rights and leave Roe V. Wade a hollow shell.

All of the greatest hopes of the original labour movement were realized long ago.

And without constant vigilance, they can be easily done away with.

Many of those victims are now deceased, or struggling on life support: the steel industry, the auto industry and the airline industry are three economic sectors where unions had their greatest successes, and those industries are now in trouble because of their inability to remain competitive.

But whether that inability to remain competitive can be laid at the fot of labour is up for debate.

Prosecuting blah blah blah cheap pharmaceuticals: So you think Americans (or Canadians) should be allowed to import drugs from any other country, operating outside of our national regulatory oversight?

A question that misses the point. The blather about "regulatory oversight" is simply a way of protecting a government-enforced oligopoly. Canadains get the same drugs as Americans, but at far lower costs (thanks to the power of the phramacutical industry lobby), so your "tic-tac" talk is nothing mor ethan scare-mongering.

You seem to have a willful blindness when it coems to big money interests and the sway they have over teh political system.