Illegal Drug Use in Canada

[jdobbin]

What if your lawyer did cocaine lines with his wife every new years eve ,going on thirty years now?

???

The drug business is not in existence because of the addicts you see everyday on the street.

I think that any person or political party who advocated straight up legalization would probably not get anywhere. You've probably seen how fast some ideas will get shot down.

I think what will be acceptable would be decriminalization of marijuana at the very least. This won't make either side happy but it will probably avoid the inevitable backlash.

[Visionseeker]

The Netherland's experience hasn't shown any of that. Hookers have yet to pay taxes. Sex and drug tourism is out of control, and the locals are upset. Underground drug trafficking and prostitution still exists.

Underground prostitution still exists. But it's the "bargain barn" and you get what you pay for. They have 3 tier prostitution while we have a 2 tier system. There is much better on a harm reduction front (both for the client and provider).

As for the locals being upset, it's more a question of a NIMBY movement by wealthier people moving into districts bordering the district who would like to see the drunken louts find somewhere else to play, and not an attempt to criminalize the trade.

[shavluk]

I think that any person or political party who advocated straight up legalization would probably not get anywhere. You've probably seen how fast some ideas will get shot down.

I think what will be acceptable would be decriminalization of marijuana at the very least. This won't make either side happy but it will probably avoid the inevitable backlash.

I'm not condoning anything I speak about the reality we live with.

If some one as a doctor or lawyer or judge or school teacher or firemen and god forbid even police men can admit that they themselves have themselves tried them well then the issue of criminalization is and has to be the problem.

I understand society and the rules and see the moral dilemma some hide behind.

We naturally are naked yet the thought of everyone having that right is scary to some as well.

I know what you mean and its not about the proliferation of drugs for me ,quite the opposite.

Its just that the reality always slams me in the head.

One of the richest man in this province ,owned harmony airlines ,had a liberal ex minister on board , had it all , got caught with 14 grams of rock coke and 2 hookers,,was calling for Jaime graham the chief and I wondered who he pissed off.

Shuts down every thing and moves back to china ,may never hear about what happened on his case but a lot lost their jobs and only crime made money and we will spend much more.

Reality ,,, liberals that happen to own houses busted for grow ops,,, I could go there.

Legalization verses regulation ?

I also believe in the right to die society.

Of course I just watched my mom go out in a very undignified way so I may be as biased as I was before her struggle.

Everyone wouldn't go out and try heroin ,,, I can assure you.

But if I am ever in my mom's shoes I will use my last dying breath pulling it from your bible.

And by the by I have no illusion I will even get to the ballot with a party based on my very well learned education of this politics beast. I was already side tracked in the ndp after I provided the actual tools layton asked for and would have needed to back up his speech to marijuana party members when he had us fold and join him as he said he would legalize,,hahhahha.

I also was denied running for the leadership of the BC Green Party because of some people like some here who blush every time I speak and maybe don't hear me when I say "I deny my criminal record and I was framed".

I will stand as an independent if I have to, as people should know that there is another way, another choice ,, not very pretty but much less painful and hugely cheaper.

We will have less crime because we will stop looking under the bed with a flash light.

My 2 cents

Its like saying gays should be jailed to me unpalatable.

Edited October 6, 2007 by shavluk

[Canadian Blue]

I think that their are definitely pros and cons to each side, I've even been surprised to hear that some people on the right have even called for drug legalization. In my own opinion it all depends on what the drug does to a person, and the long term effects. I don't view Marijuana as harmful and I don't see why we should continue to spend money fighting it when we should instead focus on much harder drugs.

[geoffrey]

Have you ever used pot? Do you think it is a fair punishment to carry around with you a lifetime? Even with a pardon, you can be forbidden to travel anywhere outside of Canada the rest of your life.

Small time posession will not get you a criminal record if you have your head on straight.

[Guest coot]

Small time posession will not get you a criminal record if you have your head on straight.

What are you talking about? I know a guy with a criminal record for smoking a joint outside a bar. He had no prior convictions and that remains the only stain on his record. Once again, you base your opinions of fantasy. Tell us again how it's impossible to only smoke a small amount of dope.

Edited October 6, 2007 by coot

[Guest coot]

I've even been surprised to hear that some people on the right have even called for drug legalization.

You're surprised that they would be consistent in their belief in personal freedom and lack of government involvement in our daily lives?

[buffycat]

With respect to cannabis (I won't use the racist term marijuana) the easiest way to eliminate the criminal element involved currently in the production of the kind herb is to allow adults to grow their own. A reasonable amount would be six plants per adult per household - et voila - crime reduction almost immediately (given the few months needed for the plants to reach maturity).

WRT other drugs - I'm supportive of outright legalisation and regulation - period. Addiction is a health issue - not a criminal one.

LEAP

Prohibition DOES NOT work, never did, never will. All that occurs is an increase in crime, corruption of public officials and punishment of those who really need medical help.

Time to all take our proverbial heads out of the sand and actually deal with the issue of Abuse - NOT use.

edited to add: I did not vote in the poll because it was lacking the clear and obvious choice of NO penalty wrt cannabis.

Edited October 6, 2007 by buffycat

[jdobbin]

Small time posession will not get you a criminal record if you have your head on straight.

If you are arrested for any pot possession and convicted, you will have a criminal record. The only way you wouldn't is if you beat the charges. There is no latitude in this. Convictions are up 30% this year.

[old_bold&cold]

First off you said a guy got caught for smoking a joint outside a bar. Another pot head genius I guess. Of course he got caught the idiot should be be caught and charged with being too dumb to breath. Also you think that people should be allowed to do anything they want in their own homes as stated earlier. Well I think child molesting is probably done in their own homes, and incest. shoudl that also be allowed?

Should you be allowed to due drugs like speed i n your own home? Where children amy easily get it and OD? You whole out look on this does not conform to what society will tolerate, and no your extreme views will never become law, not even in part. You hurt your whole cause because you take extreme positions.

As I said earlier, this is in draft mode with the Harper government, and yes If the voters could take a reasonable approach to this like a one time, no criminal record and small fine approach, and get the masses agreeing to this, then and only then could we probably be able to things changed. Hell the Rantings of Shavlik, Tbud and Coot, plus many others will only do harm to what should be a responsible approach to this problem. Pot will never be totally leagl in Canada, because the vast majority of voters will not allow that happen. We might at best see it moved to the food and drug summary conviction, like speed was in the late 1960's, but even that would be a long road, and would have to be done in small steps over time. Speed will never again to back to that list. Hell I could make a whole wack of cash if they ever legalized drugs, but I am not so addelled that I would even think that it will happen in my life time. People here are getting caught up in the postings of many new comers here that, have rally disrupted the normal flow of responsible debate, with really outlandish ideas. While it is hard not to answer these positions, it really is not that surprising. The smart users of pot, are not that worried about getting caught, because they use it responsibly and do not try to make issues of it to draw attention to their misddeds. The ones screaming from the roof tops, are not very wise and judging from their rehtoric they have isses with being caught, because they are dumb enough to light up in public and probably right next to law enforcement. The one is supposed to be an owner of a strip club, and it should come as no surprise that most of these type of businesses rely on the addiction (usually Cocaine or Heroine ) to keep the flow of women willing to work there. That is just a fact, and no you will not find it in stats canada, but anyone who has ever been on the other side of the law will know this.

For me I do not allow people in my home to smoke pot there, but if they want to take it outdoors that is okay, but they must keep all their stash on themselves. I have 20 acres so we are no where near any pubblic eyes. I will not alow any hard drugs in my home period, because due to my past and the fact that when I went back to college to become a biochemical engineer, I have been watched by law enforement very closely, so anyone bringing hard drugs to my home, will not be there once I find out, period. I have lost many an old friend over this thing, but it is better losing them then having to do worse after an arrest. I have taken my stance, and that is after having been involved, and knowing what it is all about. I stand by my beliefs. I also gave up drinking many years ago, because right after college, I stayed sober during many lparties and watched as people made total assholes of themselves and talked and said thing that could have easily cost them their lives or the lives of other friends. I have no problem with people drinking in my home and I keep a well stocked bar, even though I may only once ot twice a year half a couple drinks here and there. My neices and nephews all drink and they know that if I see them drunk I will not allow them to get behind the wheel, and they do not even try to give me a hard time about this. My adoptive children came from alcohol abusive back grounds, but by my raising them they all seem to be resonsible social drinkers. So, yes I walk the same as I talk.

Drug use in canda is by and large a big problem. It is not one that will be fixed even in a generation. But I see hope with the younger generation now, that is more leary of those who want to deal them drugs. I live in a rural community outside of Ottawa, and I had a neighbour kid who has had many problems, ask me for help because a local pot dealer was after him for money because of the pot he sold him and he did not know what to do, and his single mom could not help. I did help him out, if he told me exactly who this dealer was and made me a promise he would not ever seek another source and I would see that his present source would never sell to him again. I also made him promise that he would get a summer job with a welder friend of mine and when done school seek an apprenticeship. Well that dealer never agin sold anything to him and he was actually pretty much taken out of the area as his own sources were not happy with him. Yes I paid off my heighbours drug debts, alos letting him know that if there was ever a second time, he would never be found in our area again. Seems to have worked. The kid now has his welders and gas fitters license and is working out west, making good money. But for a wile it could have gone in a bad way for this kid. That is why even soft drugs cause problems. Also why it will never be legal to the public at large. As for the dealer, yes he is living and is in and out of jail on a regular basis, but he now stays mostly on the reservation in Cornwall Island.

[LonJowett]

First off you said a guy got caught for smoking a joint outside a bar. Another pot head genius I guess. Of course he got caught the idiot should be be caught and charged with being too dumb to breath. Also you think that people should be allowed to do anything they want in their own homes as stated earlier. Well I think child molesting is probably done in their own homes, and incest. shoudl that also be allowed?

Debating this issue is largely a waste of time, because for some reason those who favour criminalization do not have the brains to understand the difference between a crime that has victims (i.e., child molestation) and one that has no victims (i.e., a grown adult smoking pot in their homes). They are also unable to tell the difference between a grown adult smoking pot in their own home and one giving drugs to kids. So who is the one who should be charged with being too dumb to breathe? The guy minding his own business or the fuckhead who can't tell the difference between a real crime and a victimless one?

[shavluk]

The one is supposed to be an owner of a strip club, and it should come as no surprise that most of these type of businesses rely on the addiction (usually Cocaine or Heroine ) to keep the flow of women willing to work there. That is just a fact, and no you will not find it in stats canada, but anyone who has ever been on the other side of the law will know this.

***** -quote

I am assuming you are talking about me? You are obviously just an old fool.

""THIS IS JUST A FACT ""?????? as you say ,,again you have no clue and you spew such garbage you really do.

"Rely on the addictions" hahhahhahhahhahhahhaha

You maybe do but these businesses don't ,,,,,,my oh my you are silly.

And I could care less what your trade is or your view , because you lie as stated above.

First off Mr repeater you take general comments you may have read some where and mix them with your own lack of morals and weak ability to deal with your own addictions.

I became involved in that club simply because of money owed to me, and ,,,and ,,and because I could not get a job with anyone else as I was awaiting jail for the framing I had been through.

Yes they even went out of their way to have me denied jobs.

Police were still busy stabbing my reputation in the back by their underhanded stories and lies like you spew.

None of the people that worked there were addicted to anything like heroin but all were to alcohol as you probably know.

You are just a sad old man period ,very negative and only your opinion seems to matter.

I have way more faith in the youth of today than you do obviously and things will change in my life time.

You are about you ,plain and simple.

You don't even trust your own past to see the truth.

I see no reason for you to keep giving us this view you have, we get it.

Go some where else if you don't like us giving another view or choice to voters.

Harper just shot his own foot off as thousands of conservatives will now for sure be voting GREEN, as my in box shows.

WATCH !!

YOU EVEN KNOW THIS WAS A MISTAKE !!

I have the Da Kine Cafe court case coming up on the 15th.

It has taken 3 years to come to trial and the person charged is the one who ran in the last BC provincial election from jail.

Now any sane government should have seen that the right to a fair and speedy trial has been sorely overlooked as this person has been living with court imposed conditions for over 3 years now and what he has gone through is a travesty.

I was in court when his wife was given 17 months for her part and when statements from the mayor (now senator Campbell) and many ,many departments of the city were all called hear say and deemed inadmissible even though they proved they had the cities knowledge that they were going to provide the medical cannabis that the federal government was withholding.

Everyone knew what was going on as they operated for 4 months with health Canada sending patients there for cannabis.

Only because of people like you did they come with helicopters and swat teams at rush hour in Vancouver to smash it down.

You speak like some hardcore semi reformed alcoholic , very bitter and very cynical.

Sounds like we wont change your opinion because of this fear you have , so be it.

Stop spreading your illusionary view as it just makes you look like a bully.

I did say that the cop who framed me was himself charged for raping children in martinsville, Sask and beat the charges when all the children identified his brother who didn't lose 50 lbs or shave off his beard or lose his glasses and still looked just like the cop did.

Just for your enjoyment the Saskatchewan government ended up giving him 1.3 million tax payer dollars after he sued after beating the charge,,,,funny that's just how much I lost when he framed me.

His name is popowich ,check it out

Now GO AWAY as we wont!

[geoffrey]

If you are arrested for any pot possession and convicted, you will have a criminal record. The only way you wouldn't is if you beat the charges. There is no latitude in this. Convictions are up 30% this year.

I don't see why any Crown prosecutor wouldn't allow you to plea bargin out of a criminal record or get 'alternative measures.'

I also don't see why any officer would press charges unless you were a complete asshat to them. I know many people that were reasonable with the police, and they ended up getting their weed taken, but not charged. No cop is interested in wasting a day off showing up in court for 1 or 2 grams. No judge would be that unreasonable either.

Do you have any cases where someone has been convicted for 1 or 2 grams of marijuana after being full cooperative with authorities?

I did a search on Canlii for marijuana convictions over the last 5 or 6 years. I searched through the first 3 pages. Every single conviction or case was based on purpose of trafficking. I cannot find any evidence whatsoever of simple posession of 1 or 2 grams even making it to court.

Now let me tell you how I reason this. If there is 30 charges for growing and trafficking for every 1 of simple posession... that guy with the simple possession was likely an ass to someone along the way.

I stand by my statement. People don't get records for simple possession if they are reasonable. I find no evidence of simple possession being brought to court on a consistant basis without aggrevating factors (large sums of cash, weapons, ect.).

--

By the way. Looking at some of the case law, it seems advisable to measure out weed ahead of time. Having a scale in your vehicle or on your person is certainly going to get you a trafficking charge. Interesting.

--

Further, courts seem to be completely reasonable when people are cooperative. Take a look at R v. DANIEL PATRIC HOGAN and TERESA CATHERINE HOGAN.

The police found 26 plants in a grow up, but the judge let them off on simple possession instead of trafficking. 26 plants is definitely for trafficking.

--

Here is a good way to end up in jail:

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text...000abqb713.html

Selling weed through the a mailbox. Lucky the guy didn't get the associated mail related charges.

[jdobbin]

Do you have any cases where someone has been convicted for 1 or 2 grams of marijuana after being full cooperative with authorities?

I did a search on Canlii for marijuana convictions over the last 5 or 6 years. I searched through the first 3 pages. Every single conviction or case was based on purpose of trafficking. I cannot find any evidence whatsoever of simple posession of 1 or 2 grams even making it to court.

Now let me tell you how I reason this. If there is 30 charges for growing and trafficking for every 1 of simple posession... that guy with the simple possession was likely an ass to someone along the way.

I stand by my statement. People don't get records for simple possession if they are reasonable. I find no evidence of simple possession being brought to court on a consistant basis without aggrevating factors (large sums of cash, weapons, ect.).

Back in July, stats were released on how many arrests and convictions for pot possession there were in Canada.

Many cops say they throw in possession on simple traffic stops for things like a broken traffic light. The traffic light won't get you a criminal record but the simple pot possession does.

From the Canadian Press story.

http://www.thestar.com/article/233760

The number of people charged plunged from 26,882 in 2002 and remained relatively steady, below 19,000, for the three years that decriminalization was being debated in Parliament.

But police say many pot-smokers - especially younger ones - appear unaware that the bill never actually passed.

So even if marijuana consumption remains as illegal in Canada as it has been since 1923, police say some people are toking more boldly than they've ever toked before.

Which makes it far easier to arrest them.

"You'd have a youth smoking a joint out on the street without any fear of being caught," said Toronto police Det. Doug McCutcheon.

"You go to any high school and do a quiz. Find out how many kids realize that it takes three readings (in the House of Commons), plus Senate approval, before something happens."

The stillborn bill by the previous Liberal government would have made possession under 15 grams a non-criminal offence punishable by fines starting at $150.

Nearly half of Canadians have committed the crime spelled out in Section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It sets out a maximum six-month prison sentence and a $1,000 fine for anyone caught with 30 grams of marijuana or less.

Liberalization advocates say 600,000 Canadians unfairly carry a criminal record because of existing laws. They call the decision to scrap decriminalization wrong-headed.

According to the CP story, only half of people picked up for pot possession get charged. It is inconsistent to the say the least.

The longer CP story is here:

http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/marijuanabusts.html

Edited October 6, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

some laws need to be reformed, not followed blindly if they are unjust. or where the punishment does not fit the crime.

some can still get away with it... i guess robert blake would know more about that

Then by all means reform them. In the mean time, why do dopers expect actual convictions to be expunged to make it easier to cross the CanAm border or get a security sensitive job? This is just an extension of the victimless crime (i.e. public order or consensual crime) position in lieu of actual legalization or decrim. Yet there are many other such crime and convictions. I guess the dopers just whine the loudest.

[Guest coot]

This is just an extension of the victimless crime (i.e. public order or consensual crime) position in lieu of actual legalization or decrim. Yet there are many other such crime and convictions. I guess the dopers just whine the loudest.

Many other victimless crimes? Can you name one, other than prostitution?

[old_bold&cold]

Debating this issue is largely a waste of time, because for some reason those who favour criminalization do not have the brains to understand the difference between a crime that has victims (i.e., child molestation) and one that has no victims (i.e., a grown adult smoking pot in their homes). They are also unable to tell the difference between a grown adult smoking pot in their own home and one giving drugs to kids. So who is the one who should be charged with being too dumb to breathe? The guy minding his own business or the fuckhead who can't tell the difference between a real crime and a victimless one?

Well genius, how many times have we heard about a child getting into Mom and dad stache? How many toddlers have ODed because they ingested Dad's hard drugs? You sure do not know victimless crime now do you. By the way you do not have the right to do what you want in your own home, and you never did have that right, and will never have that right. The laws of the land cover your home, your office and anywhere else in the country. If you do prostitution from your own home, you are charged with keeping a common bawdy house. No real victim there either.

Face it, what these people want is to be above the law. Sweet and simple, they figure the laws do not apply to them. The prisons are full of these same type who have taken that same attitude to the next level. Once again I say anyone who openly smokes pot in public should be caught and charged, because he is stupid the endth degree. I speed all the time on hiways, and I know that if I go 120 KPH I will not be caught by if I go 125KPH I will be fined for that, and not just the speed over 120, but the whole amount over the posted 100KPH.. The same goes for this. Smoke your pot away from all others and never in public, and chances are you will not be caught. But if you are a criminal with an active history of crime and convictions, then even having it in your home, is a big risk now isn't it. I said before that out my way we have many busted each year for growing pot. We all know the planes and helicopters that fly over all the area are using spectrometers to fine outdoor grown pot and Infrared detecors to fine indoor grow ops. As I said people are arrested every year for this, and most have repeated records on this so they go away for 4-7 year stints and then are back. They loose their farms and homes and all they possessed, and yes they start again, mostly doing the same thing expecting a different result.

The last attempt to change the laws on pot never came about and it still has the same law as it always was, but these geniuses think that times have changed, and so they become more and more public in their use, and then cry when caught. Get over it and grow up. The law is the law and if you are going to break it, at least do some thinking about how to do that without being dumb. By the way, it is those who do not understand this that cry the loudest and point all the fingers at others.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many other victimless crimes? Can you name one, other than prostitution?

I can name several public order / legal prohibitions and circumstances that result in criminal prosecution and convictions:

- Pornography

- Obscenity

- Public nudity

- Motor vehicle licensing and operation

- Censorship

- Zoning

- Helmet / Seat Belt / Child Restraint

- Alcohol and Tobacco

- Trade export restrictions

- Minimum wage and right-to-work labor

I'm sure there are others. Yet only the dopers whine so loud when labeled with the scarlet "D".

[Guest coot]

Well genius, how many times have we heard about a child getting into Mom and dad stache? How many toddlers have ODed because they ingested Dad's hard drugs?

Giving a child dangerous substances is a crime and it should be. Parents are allowed to keep Draino (among countless other dangerous products) in their homes, but they must also be responsible to make sure kids don't get access to them. So yes, possession of weed is still a victimless crime; the other crime you speak of (i.e., negligence) is what involves a victim.

I can't understand how you in one sentence can say "these people feel the law doesn't apply to them" and then, in the next paragraph, admit that you drive considerably over the speed limit. It makes sense that your dangerous driving habits are illegal though, because you ignore what traffic engineers have determined to be safe and then willfully risk other people's lives.

Other than the drug law (and the prostitution law), there is nothing else on the books that can be described as "victimless," including the laws you admit to breaking. All the other crimes one might commit in their own home involve hurting another party. In a free society, if a grown adult wants to partake in an activity that hurts no one else, we should always be allowed to do so, without exception. This is what makes us free. I can't understand why anyone who believes in freedom would be willing to allow this unprecedented legislation to stand.

[Guest coot]

- Obscenity, public nudity, and other things that are censored force other people to endure something that makes them uncomfortable, thus making them victims. I'm all in favour of making weed illegal in public places. I don't think kids should be exposed to it. I'm talking about in your own home.

- Motor vehicle licensing and operation: If there were no controls on motor vehicle operation, people who did not know the rules of the road would be allowed to drive. This would likely result in many, many victims.

- Zoning: If your neighbour built a vinyl siding plant in his garage, you would probably feel like a victim when your property value disappeared and you started getting black spots on your lungs.

- Helmet / Seat Belt / Child Restraint: Okay, I'll give you the seat belt and helmet laws, but the child restraint laws protect children who would otherwise be victims of their parents' negligence.

- Alcohol and Tobacco: They're still legal, but you're not allowed to drive drunk or spew secondhand smoke in a public place, because then someone else is victimized.

- Trade export restrictions: Though I don't agree with these laws, they are there to protect national industries from being "victimized" by unfair competition.

- Minimum wage and right-to-work labor: That one's easy. The victims are obvious.

And most of these aren't criminal code crimes and don't even involve a criminal record.

[Argus]

Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol by virtue of the fact that it is not physically addictive.

I note you deliberately using the word "physically" as opposed to psychologically. I know a woman with three kids, divorced, lives with a major pothead, and she's one herself. They never have any money because they spend it all on pot. The ex sent money for the kids back to school clothes and they spent it on pot. She was fired last week for multiple abcences and poor work habits. Her life is a mess because of pot. Should she go to jail? Hell no. The guy who sells the pot should go to jail, though.

The guy who smuggles or sells coke, crack or heroin should go to a high security work camp - for life - on the first offense.

[bush_cheney2004]

And most of these aren't criminal code crimes and don't even involve a criminal record.

Sorry, you asked for a list...I provided it...and you are wrong. These can/do result in criminal records, and are victimless.

Edited October 6, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest coot]

How do you know it's the pot, and she's not just stupid? Why should the entrepreneur who sells the pot have to pay because she can't control herself? It sounds like she's an unfit parent, but chances are she'd be an unfit parent if she'd never touched weed.

Edited October 6, 2007 by coot

[bush_cheney2004]

How do you know it's the pot, and she's not just stupid? Why should the entrepreneur who sells the pot have to pay because she can't control herself? It sounds like she's an unfit parent, but chances are she'd be an unfit parent if she'd never touched weed.

More rationalization...only pot deserves victimless status compared to all other public order crimes. Amazing!

[Guest coot]

Sorry, you asked for a list...I provided it...and you are wrong. These can/do result in criminal records, and are victimless.

Whatever. Every item on the list except the seat belt/helmet laws involve a victim. The seatbelt thing is questionable anyway because it's a rule of the road. Using the roads, one sacrifices a good deal of individual liberty to facilitate the overall system. One could say going through a red light at 3 in the morning when no one else is around is also a victimless crime, but it isn't, because it compromises the integrity and authority of the traffic management system, and that hurts everyone. And anyone who has been hit by an unseatbelted 300-pound projectile in a car crash would probably call themselves a victim.

So yeah, I take that back. Everything on your list involved a victim. Pot-smoking still doesn't. I shall continue to whine.