Decriminalization vs. Criminalization

[FTA Lawyer]

I believe all laws should be enforced and enforced equally; if people or the courts feel the laws should not be enforced, then they should change them.

I believe that laws that lead to "victimless crimes" are themselves unethical and go against the spirit of criminal law and freedom in this country. A crime should be based on a "does-it-do-harm-to-others?" litmus test.  In that sense, breaking what you perceive to be an unethical law can be considered a moral choice. Sort of like Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus. Though I don't necessarily think history (or this discussion group) will ever look upon me so favourably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well honestly, if you want to make some kind of analogy to Rosa Parks, then you ought to get your ass off the basement couch where I would bet you have been doing most of your crusade for legalized pot...go to a public place, call the cops, smoke a joint in front of them, get charged with simple possession and take a run at the law which you deem to be "unethical".

Follow the lead of Mr. Krieger if you're not sure how to make a test-case in our system.

Otherwise, you're just a pot-head in your basement bitching how the man is screwing you by trying to keep your bud away from you.

I don't mean this response as a personal attack, because of course I don't know anything about you, but come on...step up and BE Rosa if you want to suggest a similarity.

Who knows, maybe you will be a hero for pot smokers nationwide if you can demonstrate the "victimless" nature of your crime and convince the court that marijuana possession is not properly the subject of the criminal law.

FTA

[wellandboy]

The argument agianst social conservative is weak at best. First, actually dealing with many Conservatives, the picture painted of bible thumping anti-abortionists, simply doesn't exist in any substantial way. My experience is "average" Canadians.

Besides when we look around we see the politically correct, mainly from the left who demonstrate far less tolerence. I term this the tyranny of the morally indignant, whose mission is to transform good manners, politeness and grace into meaningless drivel.

Sorry, it's early, it's cold, I rant...

[newbie]

Besides when we look around we see the politically correct, mainly from the left who demonstrate far less tolerence....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being on the left I have to wonder what you talking about re intolerance? Which side in NOrth America favours no abortions (woman's right to choose)no same sex marriage, hatred spouting talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly to name only a few), lying Presidents, Presidents who invade countries and carpet bombs a main city killing thousands, Christian evangelist calling for the death of foreign leaders and anyone interferring in their holy Trinity Broadcast system, neo-nazi Christian movements who kill homosexuals, and the list goes on. And if you think we (lefties) have a problem with the above, you'd be 100% right. If it's intolerant to stand up and expose and challenge basic human rights violations, then it would only be directed towards the creators of such inhumane actions. You see, Liberals generally don't tar all their opponents with the same wide brush, like Stephen Harper and Jack Layton do on a consistent basis. And oh, so far two U.S. Ambassadors to Canada have seen fit to involve themselves in our affairs. So again, you tell me who the intolerant ones are?

[wellandboy]

Besides when we look around we see the politically correct, mainly from the left who demonstrate far less tolerence....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being on the left I have to wonder what you talking about re intolerance? Which side in NOrth America favours no abortions (woman's right to choose)no same sex marriage, hatred spouting talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly to name only a few), lying Presidents, Presidents who invade countries and carpet bombs a main city killing thousands, Christian evangelist calling for the death of foreign leaders and anyone interferring in their holy Trinity Broadcast system, neo-nazi Christian movements who kill homosexuals, and the list goes on. And if you think we (lefties) have a problem with the above, you'd be 100% right. If it's intolerant to stand up and expose and challenge basic human rights violations, then it would only be directed towards the creators of such inhumane actions. You see, Liberals generally don't tar all their opponents with the same wide brush, like Stephen Harper and Jack Layton do on a consistent basis. And oh, so far two U.S. Ambassadors to Canada have seen fit to involve themselves in our affairs. So again, you tell me who the intolerant ones are?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice try-your references to the American right don't apply here. I'm not talking about that particular movement and am not in favour of that extreme element. Intolerance abounds on the extemes of every ideology. Most Canadians do not fit into that mould; which is my point. This another Liberal attempt at picturing the Conservative Party's hidden agenda, it's pathetic. We need look at the last 12 years of Liberal Government and see a lack of transparency and government reform that might actually improve our democratic process.

The claims of American Ambassadors getting involved in our affairs has only been after Liberal Prime Ministers provoking the Americans. It might play well in Liberaland, but is misplaced and misguided. That's why we have diplomats and since those diplomats have been Liberal appointees it's no wonder we haven't made progress on issues like soft wood lumber.

[normanchateau]

no wonder we haven't made progress on issues like soft wood lumber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on how you define progress. The US reduced it's duties on softwood lumber from 27% to 20% last year. On December 5, 2005, the US Department of Commerce reduced the duties from 20% to 11%. This followed shortly after Paul Martin addressed powerful business groups in the US and reminded them how dependent the US was on Canadian energy and how NAFTA had ruled in Canada's favour. It followed Martin's rebuke of Bush at an international conference. It followed Frank McKenna informing various media and the American public of Canada's position on softwood lumber.

The US first imposed tariffs on softwood lumber in the 80's when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister before NAFTA even existed. Mulroney used a different form of diplomacy. He drank with Ronald Reagan. He sang with Ronald Reagan. He bent over for Ronald Reagan. Yet every effort to reduce softwood tariffs was rebuffed by Reagan. Mulroney and his Conservative diplomats were totally unsuccessful in getting even a token reduction in tariffs. That's one of the reasons Mulroney negotiated NAFTA. He figured with an objective free trade agreement in place, the US would need to comply with it's rulings.

Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently?

[BubberMiley]

Well honestly, if you want to make some kind of analogy to Rosa Parks, then you ought to get your ass off the basement couch where I would bet you have been doing most of your crusade for legalized pot...go to a public place, call the cops, smoke a joint in front of them, get charged with simple possession and take a run at the law which you deem to be "unethical".

Well, FTA, I am no Rosa Parks. I just used that analogy to demonstrate that sometimes conscientiously breaking the law can be a moral stand. But I'm far too cowardly to deliberately get arrested. If you therefore find it unethical for me to be stoned and b*tching at the man in my basement, well, I can live with that. That wasn't what the debate was about anyway.

[normanchateau]

Who knows, maybe you will be a hero for pot smokers nationwide if you can demonstrate the "victimless" nature of your crime and convince the court that marijuana possession is not properly the subject of the criminal law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thousands of Canadians have already been jailed for the crime of simple possession. I believe we're past the point where anyone else needs to be jailed to make Canadians aware of this unjust law. Canadians are aware. I assume the 69% who support decriminalization are already aware that the law is unjust. The government is aware and that's why they tabled the decriminalization legislation. The NDP and BQ will support the legislation although it's been reported that Layton would prefer legalization to decriminalization. At this point, decriminalization doesn't require one more person going to jail. It requires only that Stephen Harper and his band of social conservatives not be elected.

[shoop]

You know Normie. If you would reduce the rhetoric and hatred a little. (i.e. quit using phrases such as "band of social conservatives" when it doesn't apply to most CPC MPs at the dissolution of last parliament) you might actually move some people. But using such spiteful wording only polarizes the issue.

It requires only that Stephen Harper and his band of social conservatives not be elected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[wellandboy]

no wonder we haven't made progress on issues like soft wood lumber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on how you define progress. The US reduced it's duties on softwood lumber from 27% to 20% last year. On December 5, 2005, the US Department of Commerce reduced the duties from 20% to 11%. This followed shortly after Paul Martin addressed powerful business groups in the US and reminded them how dependent the US was on Canadian energy and how NAFTA had ruled in Canada's favour. It followed Martin's rebuke of Bush at an international conference. It followed Frank McKenna informing various media and the American public of Canada's position on softwood lumber.

The US first imposed tariffs on softwood lumber in the 80's when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister before NAFTA even existed. Mulroney used a different form of diplomacy. He drank with Ronald Reagan. He sang with Ronald Reagan. He bent over for Ronald Reagan. Yet every effort to reduce softwood tariffs was rebuffed by Reagan. Mulroney and his Conservative diplomats were totally unsuccessful in getting even a token reduction in tariffs. That's one of the reasons Mulroney negotiated NAFTA. He figured with an objective free trade agreement in place, the US would need to comply with it's rulings.

Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Post NAFTA, the Liberals took power and the American bashing commenced. Recent events with both NAFTA and WTO rulings (real diplomacy by professionals not appointees) have allowed some progress on this dispute. Liberal rhetoric has done nothing, nada, zero to influence this progress. The difference between Harper and Martin is to stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand. That's what leaders do.

[normanchateau]

You know Normie. If you would reduce the rhetoric and hatred a little. (i.e. quit using phrases such as "band of social conservatives" when it doesn't apply to most CPC MPs at the dissolution of last parliament) you might actually move some people. But using such spiteful wording only polarizes the issue.

It requires only that Stephen Harper and his band of social conservatives not be elected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right Shoopie. To suggest all CPC MPs are social conservatives is as bad as suggesting the entire Liberal party is corrupt even though no Liberals outside Quebec were even remotely linked to adscam.

Returning to the topic of the thread:

At this point no one needs to go to jail to make the point that marijuana should be decriminalized. All they need to do is not vote for Stephen Harper. The NDP, BQ, Liberals and Greens all support decriminalization.

[shoop]

Thanks.

Completely agreed about Adscam. If the Liberals just lose all their seats in Québec as a result it will be ultimately just.

Have you seen any one poster here post as much about corruption as you have about social conservatism? Can you please respect that and move on...

You're right Shoopie.  To suggest all CPC MPs are social conservatives is as bad as suggesting the entire Liberal party is corrupt even though no Liberals outside Quebec were even remotely linked to adscam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

no wonder we haven't made progress on issues like soft wood lumber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Recent events with both NAFTA and WTO rulings (real diplomacy by professionals not appointees) have allowed some progress on this dispute. Liberal rhetoric has done nothing, nada, zero to influence this progress. The difference between Harper and Martin is to stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand. That's what leaders do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You call this an answer to my question?

Are you not aware of how the US reacted to the NAFTA and WTO rulings? They ignored them. The US Department of Commerce rolled back the duties after Martin and McKenna escalated their criticism of the US for not complying.

Mulroney, like Chretien, was totally ineffective in getting any concessions from the US. But there have now been two major reductions in the softwood lumber duty since Martin took office. Of course it helps that Martin has reminded the US that Canada is the world's largest supplier of energy to the US.

And even Harper, if asked how he'd handle softwood lumber, would have come up with a less superficial and more meaningful response than he'd "stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand."

[wellandboy]

no wonder we haven't made progress on issues like soft wood lumber.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Recent events with both NAFTA and WTO rulings (real diplomacy by professionals not appointees) have allowed some progress on this dispute. Liberal rhetoric has done nothing, nada, zero to influence this progress. The difference between Harper and Martin is to stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand. That's what leaders do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You call this an answer to my question?

Are you not aware of how the US reacted to the NAFTA and WTO rulings? They ignored them. The US Department of Commerce rolled back the duties after Martin and McKenna escalated their criticism of the US for not complying.

Mulroney, like Chretien, was totally ineffective in getting any concessions from the US. But there have now been two major reductions in the softwood lumber duty since Martin took office. Of course it helps that Martin has reminded the US that Canada is the world's largest supplier of energy to the US.

And even Harper, if asked how he'd handle softwood lumber, would have come up with a less superficial and more meaningful response than he'd "stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

[normanchateau]

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would Stevie have done?

[err]

Mulroney, like Chretien, was totally ineffective in getting any concessions from the US.  But there have now been two major reductions in the softwood lumber duty since Martin took office. Of course it helps that Martin has reminded the US that Canada is the world's largest supplier of energy to the US.

Actually Norm, Mulroneys team couldn't get a NAFTA deal with the United States that wouldn't compromise Canada's positions on several issues, including energy. The negotiators came back empty handed.... But Mulroney sent them back to Washinton with the instructions to "Make a deal at whatever cost".... So Mulroney sold us to the Americans...

At least Cretien had the testicular fortitude to tell the Americans that we wouldn't play "shoot the Iraqi" with them.... Our previous Liberal leader had balls in dealing with the Americans too... It's just the CPC types that want them to control our country.....

[shoop]

Dealt with the issue firmly, respectfully and professionally. Guarding Canada's sovereignty while maintaining a working relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. Does anybody disagree with Harper's response to the column in the Washington Times? Why?

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[wellandboy]

Dealt with the issue firmly, respectfully and professionally. Guarding Canada's sovereignty while maintaining a working relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. Does anybody disagree with Harper's response to the column in the Washington Times? Why?

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Shoop, that just about says it.

[scribblet]

Dealt with the issue firmly, respectfully and professionally. Guarding Canada's sovereignty while maintaining a working relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. Does anybody disagree with Harper's response to the column in the Washington Times? Why?

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, Wednesday on CBC radio at 8:00 Harper did say that our government will not send troops to Iraq, but wants to encourage American success there. He said our role is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. I am sure we willl have better relations with the U.S. (and rightly so) should Harper become PM.

[normanchateau]

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do:

October 13, 2005

Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels.

September 9, 2005

Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue.

Source for the above:

http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp

I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar?

[wellandboy]

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do:

October 13, 2005

Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels.

September 9, 2005

Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue.

Source for the above:

http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp

I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense.

[normanchateau]

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do:

October 13, 2005

Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels.

September 9, 2005

Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue.

Source for the above:

http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp

I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's?

Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate?

[wellandboy]

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do:

October 13, 2005

Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels.

September 9, 2005

Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue.

Source for the above:

http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp

I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's?

Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We won't know until Jan. 23. The distinction is not the message but the delivery. The Liberals throw in the anti-American comments for reasons known only to themselves.

[normanchateau]

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do:

October 13, 2005

Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels.

September 9, 2005

Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue.

Source for the above:

http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp

I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's?

Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We won't know until Jan. 23. The distinction is not the message but the delivery. The Liberals throw in the anti-American comments for reasons known only to themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We won't know whether you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory measures against the US until January 23rd?

We won't know whether you agree with Harper taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate until January 23rd?

[wellandboy]

Oh yeah, Frankie and Paulies sniping has softened the US position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would Stevie have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do:

October 13, 2005

Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels.

September 9, 2005

Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue.

Source for the above:

http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp

I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's?

Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We won't know until Jan. 23. The distinction is not the message but the delivery. The Liberals throw in the anti-American comments for reasons known only to themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We won't know whether you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory measures against the US until January 23rd?

We won't know whether you agree with Harper taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate until January 23rd?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes. The really beauty of this little exchange is that at least I've got you off your pot crusade...at least for a while.

[The Honest Politician]

POT?

Oh my god that stuff is evil. I saw a guy smoke it once and he started to laugh. Then he couldn't stop smiling. Before I knew it he had made himself a sandwich and went to sleep. It just as bad as that crack that people die for $10 over. I would much rather my child get drunk and become violent then have them smoke a joint and pass out.