http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/15/pol-milewski-harper-war-on-drugs.html
QuoteNews conferences with Canada's Prime Minister don't happen every day — which, of course, increases the likelihood that, when he does hold one, he'll make news.
But it's even rarer that you'll hear Stephen Harper concede that the war on drugs is a failure.
It happened, though, after two days of listening to Latin American leaders explaining just how costly, and bloody, the war is.
Harper met Canadian journalists at the summit in Cartagena, Colombia, on Sunday and readily admitted there are differences among the leaders over the exclusion of Cuba from the Latin America summit. He admitted, too, that there was a disagreement over British rule in the Falkland Islands.
But Harper was not ready to agree that the division over drug policy is so clear-cut. Rather, he insisted that there is much agreement. Then came the most interesting quote of the day.
"What I think everybody believes," Harper said, "is that the current approach is not working. But it is not clear what we should do."
This would be intriguing from any prime minister. From Stephen Harper, whose government's crime bill ratchets up the penalties for drug possession, it was startling.
Lest anyone think he'd undergone a conversion in Cartagena, Harper quickly added the other side of the story.
Drugs, he said, "are illegal because they quickly and totally — with many of the drugs — destroy people's lives."
Was marijuana the exception he had in mind? We never got to ask. But perhaps that was enough eyebrow-raising for one day.
..So how does one go about getting Canadian citizenship? Because I'm totally down with monarchy and poutine.
BB suddenly screamed out in horror.
Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2012, 01:11:59 PM
BB suddenly screamed out in horror.
Yes, I'm sure the Albertan Hillbilly Brigade will begin their talk of secession again after they read this. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Fireblade on April 16, 2012, 01:06:13 PM..So how does one go about getting Canadian citizenship? Because I'm totally down with monarchy and poutine.
Live here legally for five years (some exceptions for certain classes of visa), and you qualify.
Best way is to get a job in a category there are shortages for (and thus get a work visa), marry a Canadian or have qualifications there are shortages for.
I wouldn't expect Harper to roll back the laws on weed, however. It's not in his character. But you could smoke up pretty hassle free in most places, I believe.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 16, 2012, 01:06:13 PM..So how does one go about getting Canadian citizenship? Because I'm totally down with monarchy and poutine.
Live here legally for five years (some exceptions for certain classes of visa), and you qualify.
Best way is to get a job in a category there are shortages for (and thus get a work visa), marry a Canadian or have qualifications there are shortages for.
I wouldn't expect Harper to roll back the laws on weed, however. It's not in his character. But you could smoke up pretty hassle free in most places, I believe.
Well shit, I don't have many marketable skills and I'm already married. Guess I'm stuck in my third world shithole of a country. :(
Meh, I couldn't live in Canada. I don't even speak the language.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 01:17:51 PM
I wouldn't expect Harper to roll back the laws on weed, however. It's not in his character. But you could smoke up pretty hassle free in most places, I believe.
But it is the laws, not the practice, that enriches the drug lord scum. It would be ironic if Harper chose the path that most benefits the drug lord scum: a legal ban for high prices, but practical tolerance that enlarges markets... unless, of course, the criminal scum is the group Harper most
wants to help in this area.
Quote from: Fireblade on April 16, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Well shit, I don't have many marketable skills and I'm already married. Guess I'm stuck in my third world shithole of a country. :(
But at least the gays cannot marry there and so ruin your own marriage. :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 01:25:56 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 16, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Well shit, I don't have many marketable skills and I'm already married. Guess I'm stuck in my third world shithole of a country. :(
But at least the gays cannot marry there and so ruin your own marriage. :showoff:
Yeah, after TES got married up in Iowa, the sanctity of my marriage was instantly ruined. :(
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 01:24:36 PMBut it is the laws, not the practice, that enriches the drug lord scum. It would be ironic if Harper chose the path that most benefits the drug lord scum: a legal ban for high prices, but practical tolerance that enlarges markets... unless, of course, the criminal scum is the group Harper most wants to help in this area.
Yeah. I don't think the Hells Angels are big Conservative supporters (they could be, though), so I'm willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt on that; I don't think he's actively looking out for the interests of drug cartels. Mostly, I think he's just punting on the issue. I expect he'd like to crack down a bit more, mostly on principle, but it may not be a vote winner.
Well, insofar as Harper agrees that the current approach isn't working, that's encouraging. But methinks his instincts are not to go the extra step and realize that more of the same will also not work, and change direction.
But who knows? I've been surprised before. Harper is more pragmatist than idealist. Thing is, he tends to demonstrate his pragmatism by turning a blind eye to stuff he's supposed to be ideologically against (like gay marriage) rather than actively changing stuff. Can't do that with the drug war, even if the cops can.
That story is one of the worst examples of the CBC taking things out of context in some time. And that is saying something for the CBC.
During the conference the South and Central Americans pushed for some form of movement toward legalization. From new reports the US and Canada were opposed to such a move. Instead, as a compromise, everyone agreed that the issue of the drug trade be further studied (ie very much the do nothing option). The one concession made by the US and Canada was that all aspects of the issue was to be studied (including the possibility of some form of legalization).
Will this report end up on the same dusty shelf all such reports inhabit? I dont see any reason why this will be any different.
What a non-story.
"The current approach isn't working, but there's no agreement on what the proper approach should be."
Well d'uh.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2012, 02:14:07 PMFrom new reports the US and Canada were opposed to such a move. Instead, as a compromise, everyone agreed that the issue of the drug trade be further studied (ie very much the do nothing option).
In a nutshell.
Steady as she goes.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 01:38:16 PM
Yeah. I don't think the Hells Angels are big Conservative supporters (they could be, though),
They are Federalists, that we know for sure, but I've no idea wich party they pick, though. Italian mafia on the other hand is clearly pro-Liberal.
So where does Europe get its cannabis from? Is it all produced locally at this point or is there still some kind of long-distance hash trade?
Appalachia has gotten heavily into weed cultivation.
AFAIK Morroco used to be a prime exporter. I doubt that has changed much.
I think it's a pretty big leap to take Harper's comment as some sort of legalize it code phrase. I'd be pretty surprised if The current regime went that direction, You could also take it to mean that they will get even tougher on drug crime, were you the paranoid type.. Gotta fill those new prison/work farms somehow. :p
nothing story.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on April 17, 2012, 12:02:40 PM
I think it's a pretty big leap to take Harper's comment as some sort of legalize it code phrase.
It's Fireblade. I don't think he created the thread title in an effort to be accurate. :P
Quotenothing story.
Agreed. There's no way the criminals are going to let the politicians screw them over by being smart about the drug issue. And no way Harper is going to throw away the votes of the drug lord scum and the right wing at the same time by doing something smart. Dumb wins elections and gains the approbation of the crooks. Dumb is win-win for Harper.
Quote from: Josephus on April 16, 2012, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2012, 02:14:07 PMFrom new reports the US and Canada were opposed to such a move. Instead, as a compromise, everyone agreed that the issue of the drug trade be further studied (ie very much the do nothing option).
In a nutshell.
Someone called?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 07:42:45 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 16, 2012, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2012, 02:14:07 PMFrom new reports the US and Canada were opposed to such a move. Instead, as a compromise, everyone agreed that the issue of the drug trade be further studied (ie very much the do nothing option).
In a nutshell.
Someone called?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMK3XGO27k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMK3XGO27k)
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 07:40:43 AM
Dumb is win-win for Harper.
And law enforcement keeps its budgets! :yeah:
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2012, 02:20:27 PM
.
"The current approach isn't working, but there's no agreement on what the proper approach should be."
...and therefore we have no option to carry on with the current approach which we at least
know doesn't work.
Quote from: Gups on April 18, 2012, 10:40:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2012, 02:20:27 PM
.
"The current approach isn't working, but there's no agreement on what the proper approach should be."
...and therefore we have no option to carry on with the current approach which we at least know doesn't work.
Yeah, the drug law change is inevitable. The question is which party is going to make it a formal plank in an election campaign. My prediction is that whoever does that will, in Canada at least, win the election for a whole variety of reasons not the least of which is it makes the most sense.
If I was advising the NDP, I would tell them to move quickly on the issue. They are not going to lose votes from there core by taking this move and they stand a very good chance of attracting right of centre voters who recognize the present drug policies only enrich the criminals - with all the violence that comes with that.
If I was advising the Conservatives, I would tell them to move quickly on the issue because, being a fiscal conservative party, it makes the most sense from a fiscal point of view. The current laws act as a subsidy to the criminal element. The government spends billions of dollars on criminal law enforcement which on a practical level does nothing but raise the risk and therefore profit margins of the drug trade. I would advise the Conservatives that they would take a lot of votes from the left if they shifted from treating drug as a criminal to a medical issue. And the bonus is that the taxes realized from the money already spent on drugs would actually fund the medical system for this and everything else - something which, as a fiscal conservative, I would support.
If I was advising the Liberals I would shoot myself.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 17, 2012, 06:55:36 AM
AFAIK Morroco used to be a prime exporter. I doubt that has changed much.
It's changed a lot. Nobody outside Iberia smokes rocky (or hash generally) much any more. In northern Europe its all hydroponic skunk shit, grown in houses with the electricity rigged.
Quote from: Gups on April 18, 2012, 10:40:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2012, 02:20:27 PM
.
"The current approach isn't working, but there's no agreement on what the proper approach should be."
...and therefore we have no option to carry on with the current approach which we at least know doesn't work.
Since making any substantial changes runs the very real risk of making the drug problem worse, not better - yes. Until we have some idea what might work staying the course is probably the best option.
My impression is that one of the serious obstacles to Canada legalizing and controlling various currently illegal drugs (esp. cannabis) is the US. At least in the past, the argument was that the US would respond to legalization with a number of regulatory actions that would be very inconvenient and potentially harmful to the Canadian economy; the main thing that was mentioned were more stringent border controls to the degree that it would hurt trade.
How much does (and should) a potential very negative response from the US figure into deliberations about legalizing cannabis (and possibly other drugs) in Canada? To what degree is such a negative response likely?
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2012, 12:30:54 PM
My impression is that one of the serious obstacles to Canada legalizing and controlling various currently illegal drugs (esp. cannabis) is the US. At least in the past, the argument was that the US would respond to legalization with a number of regulatory actions that would be very inconvenient and potentially harmful to the Canadian economy; the main thing that was mentioned were more stringent border controls to the degree that it would hurt trade.
How much does (and should) a potential very negative response from the US figure into deliberations about legalizing cannabis (and possibly other drugs) in Canada? To what degree is such a negative response likely?
I suspect that's a very real concern, in particular if we took more agressive steps to liberalize drug laws. Unless such a reaction was co-ordinated with the US I think they would undoubtedly put in much stricter border controls.
Now that's not an excuse to do nothing however, but is definitely a limiting feature.
Considering Canada is our #1 trading partner I would think there would be a powerful lobby against that sort of action.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:35:59 PM
Considering Canada is our #1 trading partner I would think there would be a powerful lobby against that sort of action.
Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country. Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country. Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?
We needed to do that because Canadians attacked the US Capital once already. They are a nation of terrorists.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:35:59 PM
Considering Canada is our #1 trading partner I would think there would be a powerful lobby against that sort of action.
Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country. Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?
Good question; what
would Valmy
et al do if they had a reason?
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country. Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?
Have these impacted trade at all? There is not really a strong 'freedom to cross borders' lobby in DC.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 12:43:42 PM
Good question; what would Valmy et al do if they had a reason?
This is the second time you have made comments about this. Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in? I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 12:43:42 PM
Good question; what would Valmy et al do if they had a reason?
This is the second time you have made comments about this. Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in? I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.
I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country. Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?
Have these impacted trade at all? There is not really a strong 'freedom to cross boarders' lobby in DC.
Supposedly, though I don't know if there have been hard numbers. Longer wait times at the border have caused havoc for just in time manufacturers relying on cross-border components, for example.
They would build a wall between the two countries.
Question is...would they use brick or wood? :hmm:
Another wood in the wall? Nah.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
This is the second time you have made comments about this. Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in? I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.
If you are a member of the group being discussed, then you use the first person plural. If not, you don't.
If you mean a person or group that you do not belong to, then first person is not appropriate. This isn't a "protocol," it is just a rule of grammar. And, yes, it would make me happy to have you and others use proper grammar. All that improper "us" and "you" makes trolling too easy.
Valmy: saying "our #1 trading partner" is, of course, fine. You are part of the group that trades with Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.
"You guys" when responding to a poster who is not one of the guys (who would make the rules) is poor usage of the language. It's not a difficult rule, once you understand the concept of first, second, and third person.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.
"You guys" when responding to a poster who is not one of the guys (who would make the rules) is poor usage of the language. It's not a difficult rule, once you understand the concept of first, second, and third person.
But as a voter, surely Valmy is one of those involved in making the rules.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 12:43:42 PM
Good question; what would Valmy et al do if they had a reason?
This is the second time you have made comments about this. Am I not supposed to use 'we' when referring to the government of the country I live in? I was not aware of this protocol but if it is a problem I can refer to 'the US government' if it makes you happy.
It's best to ignore grumbler. He's a faggot.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 01:21:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
I similarily didn't see what the problem was in using "you guys" to refer to the US, but if it is something grumbles has a bee in his bonnet over then I'll take it under advisement.
"You guys" when responding to a poster who is not one of the guys (who would make the rules) is poor usage of the language. It's not a difficult rule, once you understand the concept of first, second, and third person.
But as a voter, surely Valmy is one of those involved in making the rules.
Valmy is not a US citizen.
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2012, 01:51:33 PM
Valmy is not a US citizen.
The US government disagrees.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:35:59 PM
Considering Canada is our #1 trading partner I would think there would be a powerful lobby against that sort of action.
Why - the US has already imposed drastically stricter border controls in the lst ten years despite zero evidence of any security threat coming from this country. Imagine what you guys would do if you actually had a reason?
Exactly, Those Guys ( :P @ Grumbler) did drastically increase border security. It is difficult to imagine what more those guys could do. ie the horrible hypothetical regarding resticted border access has already occurred.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2012, 01:51:33 PM
Valmy is not a US citizen.
The US government disagrees.
Who do you think knows better between grumbler and the US government vis-a-vis your citizenship?
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 01:21:37 PM
But as a voter, surely Valmy is one of those involved in making the rules.
No. In the US, very few rules are created by voters. We have legislatures and executives that make the rules, and all voters do is elect the legislators and top executives (who then appoint most of the other executives). It isn't like ancient Athens or anything.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2012, 01:51:33 PM
Valmy is not a US citizen.
The US government disagrees.
Who do you think knows better between Neil and the US government vis-a-vis your citizenship?