Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

BubberMiley

Members
  • Content Count

    10,819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by BubberMiley

  1. Yeah, Norm, but unlike Leafless, I love Canada no matter who's in charge.
  2. There's the scandal. I bet that $240 wasn't coming out of his pocket.
  3. And not saying how he really stands before an election makes him about as much of a chicken as not sending the troops.
  4. 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?"
  5. The only reason Manitoba is a have-not province is its high population of Aboriginals and the appalling poverty they generally live in. And that's considered more a federal than a provincial issue.
  6. 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.
  7. What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.
  8. 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: 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 sch
  9. I don't think Argus was making any accusations. He was defending it more than anything (but I'm not making any accusations either).
  10. Besides, all this talk about child porn (especially about how it isn't necessarily harmful) is ruining my buzz.
  11. 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.
  12. I'm glad they banned murder. I can rest easy it will never happen again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you DON'T know of a difference. Interesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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.
  13. Child porn is by definition harmful, even if it involves fictitious characters because it promotes the sexualization of children. Wait a minute. This is a ridicuous argument that doesn't even warrant refuting. BTW Argus, chill out and take a xanax. Just because we disagree, we're not. like, your enemies.
  14. 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).
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. Oh, and I don't like alcohol. Hurts my head. And my whole argument here has been based on not wanting to HAVE to give money to drug lords. I just want to be free to grow two or three plants of my own.
  18. First off, organized crime exists only because there is a black market. Black markets are created by criminalization of marketable products. There weren't Hell's Angels before drug laws, just like there was no Al Capone before prohibition. It seems ironic that you would forfeit Canada's sovereignty on this issue considering some states have already changed their laws in a similar way. In the 1970s, California revised their laws as follows: "in addition to repealing various minor marijuana offenses, S.B. 95 adopted six major forms affecting California's marijuana laws, which together have ha
  19. Nonetheless, if I'm making myself dim (although actual scientific studies [not conversations with a stoned guy] suggest there is absolutely no brain damage), let me be dim. How is it to society's advantage to spend millions and billions on enforcement, et cetera, to save me from making myself dim?
  20. I'm pretty chronic and I don't think...I...um...impaired or, what was that?
  21. You're right. It doesn't work. It was just one of many sites discussing cannabinoid receptors, which were discovered by neuro scientists in 1988. They are receptors in the brain which appear to have no other purpose than to receive THC. It suggest the human brain has actually evolved (or been designed, that's another debate) to accept and use THC.
  22. Still be impaired? I wish. Alcohol just interferes with your system more. It's a poison. That's why it causes liver damage. Weed only affects your lungs (negatively) and the specific THC receptors that exist in everyone's brain. (See http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/pictures/brn004.htm)
  23. I don't contest any of those points. They just don't provide any rationale for making it illegal. Lots of things are unhealthy. Some things are healthy in some ways (lung damage) but very healthy in other ways (reduced anxiety). I'm talking cigarettes now though.
×
×
  • Create New...