Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BubberMiley

  1. But when Harper keeps his actual positions so close to his vest, or obviously waters them down to appear more electable, this gives voters a chance to see what he really stands for. If CPCers are going to discount it as an "8-year-old speech--that means nothing," I'd like to seem them identify the positions he discusses that they don't agree with.

  2. I realize Leafless's writing style leaves a lot to be desired in terms of being able to understand just what he's getting at so it probably slipped past you, but I'm just referring to the following quote from earlier in this thread that was defending Harper's apparent inability to feel the love.

    Love- "An intense feeling of deep affection or fondness for a person or thing."

    I would say, I to would be unable to express those kind of seniments especially after being left in the destructive hands of the Liberals for to many years of merry making.

  3. I think Martin was simply unwilling to give a serious answer to a ridiculous question, so he had to plan a reaction--think of something funny to say. On that, he was maybe not so successful.

    Martin would look more foolish if he appeared to take seriously a question so obviously derived from the FoxNews "War on Christmas."

    I would give Harper the same benefit of the doubt. It's sometimes difficult to react to obviously foolish questions, and I'm sure that during his pause after being asked whether he loved Canada, he was just thinking "WTF?"

  4. He also said that he would increase funding to the military. In any case, most of the coalition of the willing involves countries making a symbolic effort of a few troops (or knitting a few booties for the American soldiers). Canada could certainly afford a few troops, but obviously Harper feels that would be politically damaging. Such a brave leader.

  5. It’s kind of ironic how the anti-decriminalization forces are the ones coming up with half-baked data to support their arguments. And when their arguments are shut down, they never respond because they’re happy to leave well enough alone. They have the status quo on their side.

    Argus has said things like:

    Which I can say is exactly why pot is banned. Because society doesn't want people smoking pot, because it doesn't approve of pot, and because it feels those who use one mind-altering substance are more likely to try other mind-altering substances which are more dangerous.

    Isn’t it potentially more damaging to group a relatively innocuous drug (in that you can’t OD from it) with more dangerous drugs like crystal meth and cocaine under the Criminal Code? By doing so, you strengthen the black market network to the point where it is prominent in every high school (the current black market is practically founded on the criminalization of weed) and create a situation where kids might think “Hey, I’ve had no negative side effects from smoking weed and it’s a lot of fun. This law makes no sense. Maybe meth, which is covered under the same law, is equally innocuous and fun.”

    If weed is a gateway drug (though after more than 20 years of daily smoking, I haven’t moved on to anything stronger), it is only one because its criminalization strengthens the black market and promotes disrespect for the law. That’s why I think this is an issue that doesn’t just affect pot-smokers. In fact, if people are truly serious about wanting to protect kids from drug dependence and would like to reduce or eliminate a primary source of revenue for organized crime, they should recognize the “salience” of this issue and call for decriminalization.

  6. Waitaminute! I've had a few puffs and I can think more clearly. Maybe making something illegal and banning it are essentially the same thing. Nonetheless, that's irrelevant because the product still doesn't disappear after it's been banned; negative legal consequences are only imposed. And the point was, those negative legal consequences are unfair when there are no victims from the crime.

    Now, back to my session.

  7. Uhmm, explain it to me. If you ban something, you are making it illegal. If it's not illegal, it's not banned.

    I'm glad they banned murder. I can rest easy it will never happen again.

    So you DON'T know of a difference. Interesting.

    If something has been banned, that means it's gone, eradicated, no longer among us. If something is illegal, that means it's frowned upon and there are negative consequences for it.

    And you call other people morons.

  8. They might want to look at how consumption of alcohol increased dramatically under prohibition and has steadily declined since. No, wait, they wouldn't want to look at that, because they don't care for actual facts. Just bizarre arguments, like some drug addicts have done bad things therefore the status quo must be maintained (because it's working so well).

  9. This argument is going in circles. It seems that the CPCers will never listen to reason on this issue. What it comes down to is they want the right to criminalize anything that conflicts with what they perceive as a "traditional value", even if it involves something completely victimless. (And even if it could potentially improve the existing situation.) This is why, as a former PCer, I could never support the existing party.

  10. No, I enjoy it too much to stop. That would make me instantly nostalgic, and I see no reason to stop other than potential lung damage and stupid laws.

    But again, we're talking small amounts here, so I don't think Canada would become Hell's Angels central because they're allowed to possess half an ounce of pot. I also don't see any reason for increased usage. The existing laws don't limit access in any way (in fact, they facilitate it to minors). I wouldn't be surprised if usage were reduced under decriminalization because the black market would collapse, leaving it in the hands of the few who would bother to grow their own.

  • Create New...