[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

See, we're backsliding into a corrupt kleptocracy like Quebec, only with judges instead of the mafia in charge.

Analyse this situation:
- Parents pay a private school for the education of their children.  The school takes the parents money.  The school then says it can not afford to provide the services required by the child.  The school keeps the money.

If a judge were to rule that the school must either give the money back or prodivde the services it was paid for, do you think it would be an intrusion into the private affairs of a corporation?  A dangerous intrusion into the private lives of citizens?

[crazy canuck]

See, we're backsliding into a corrupt kleptocracy like Quebec, only with judges instead of the mafia in charge.

Analyse this situation:
- Parents pay a private school for the education of their children.  The school takes the parents money.  The school then says it can not afford to provide the services required by the child.  The school keeps the money.

If a judge were to rule that the school must either give the money back or prodivde the services it was paid for, do you think it would be an intrusion into the private affairs of a corporation?  A dangerous intrusion into the private lives of citizens?

That is why the argument makes no sense actually.

If a private school contracts with a family to provide certain services and then fails to do so the school will be in breach of contract and the Family and sue for whatever damage they suffered.

The government did not enter into a contract with the family to provide that particular program.  His disability was being dealt with in other ways but the family thought it was not sufficient and paid for a higher level of program then what was on offer through the public system.  That is fundamentally different.

edit:  Once the Courts get into the business of making value judgments of what services government should or should not provide and the adequacy of those services they usurp the role of elected officials who become mere delegates of the Court carrying out the Courts spending priorities.  It is a very dangerous course we are on.  I would not be surprised to see legislation expressly opting out of Constitutional or Human Rights decisions that deal with resource alocation.

[viper37]

edit:  Once the Courts get into the business of making value judgments of what services government should or should not provide and the adequacy of those services they usurp the role of elected officials who become mere delegates of the Court carrying out the Courts spending priorities.  It is a very dangerous course we are on.  I would not be surprised to see legislation expressly opting out of Constitutional or Human Rights decisions that deal with resource alocation.

The way I see it, it's pretty basic, actually.

Should the government provide the services we are taxed for.

[crazy canuck]

Should the government provide the services we are taxed for.

What services were we taxed for?  On that analysis the government would only spend the money it takes in by way of taxes because that was the only thing paid for.

[viper37]

Should the government provide the services we are taxed for.

What services were we taxed for?  On that analysis the government would only spend the money it takes in by way of taxes because that was the only thing paid for.

The government is supposed to fund education for everyone who wishes to attend elementary and high school (in Quebec, school is mandatory up to 14 years old).  That includes children with disabilities, AFAIK, because they are not specifically excluded.  Schools do receive funding for kids with special needs.  If they take this funding and affect it elsewhere, or if the amount is insufficiant to cover the real costs, why should the parent have to pay another school when they don't want to?
If the kid was in a wheelchair and the school had no elevators due to a lack of funding, should the parents pay for a private school with an elevator?

It's the same with healthcare.  I can't legally subscribe to a private insurance that will pay my hospitals bill in a private clinic if I get cancer.  I can get around that with various insurance products, but legally, they can't pay the bills.

Now what happens if the hospital says "sorry, we can't treat your cancer, we don't have the money for this" ?
Should you be compensanted by your government for seeking treatment in Seattle?

[crazy canuck]

The question of what is sufficient education is the key to your analysis.  That is a decision to be made by the people we elect to make decisions about spending our tax dollars.

He was getting assistance.  Just not the assistance he wanted.

If your analysis is correct then Canada will be bankrupt in a very short time because everyone will have needs they want met that the government simply cannot meet.

Hey, I would like round the clock medical attention at my house and instant blood work, 24 hour nursing care (make sure they are cute) and throw in some house work assistance because one never knows when my lungs might require it.

And while you are at it my kids would do a lot better at school with 24 hour tutoring (while they sleep the tutors can read to them - I heard that might make a difference).

What, you say that is too expensive?  Screw that.  Viper says people should get whatever they think might be required. 

[Drakken]

We usually refer to them as Unions.

Only when the PQ is in charge.

When they are not, we usually refer to them as private construction contractors.

[crazy canuck]

I think we are going to have a very interesting Federal election this time round.

I have been saying for a couple years here that decriminalization was a no brainer for the NDP and Liberals to adopt as a policy.  I have also thought it works well with the fiscal conservative types.  The only crowd it doesnt play well to are the social conservatives and they are few in number in Canada.


Trudeau, who will undoubtly win the Liberal nomination, has said if he is Prime Minister he will decriminalize Pot.  That will set up a very interesting election issue.  If the Tories stick to current policy Trudeau could win in a landslide.  My view is that we have reached the tipping point.  Hell, I might even vote Liberal on this issue.  I would have to put up with Trudeau for a couple years and resist the temptation to slit my wrists but getting this law changed would be worth it.

[viper37]

As we all know, absolutely no one is buying smuggled alcohol&cigarettes since these two products are peferctly legal

[Barrister]

I think we are going to have a very interesting Federal election this time round.

I have been saying for a couple years here that decriminalization was a no brainer for the NDP and Liberals to adopt as a policy.  I have also thought it works well with the fiscal conservative types.  The only crowd it doesnt play well to are the social conservatives and they are few in number in Canada.


Trudeau, who will undoubtly win the Liberal nomination, has said if he is Prime Minister he will decriminalize Pot.  That will set up a very interesting election issue.  If the Tories stick to current policy Trudeau could win in a landslide.  My view is that we have reached the tipping point.  Hell, I might even vote Liberal on this issue.  I would have to put up with Trudeau for a couple years and resist the temptation to slit my wrists but getting this law changed would be worth it.

How many single-issue pot voters are there though?

I don't have a problem with decriminalizing pot, but I do have a problem with how Chretien's attempt was explained to Canadians, and how many continue to view the idea.  Decriminalization simply means you get a ticket when you possess small amounts.  It does not make it legal!

It was interesting that Trudeau took a strong stand in favour of the CNOOC-Nexen.  I don't know that I agree with him, but nice to see someone, anyone, take a stand on that one.

[Josephus]

If the Tories stick to current policy Trudeau could win in a landslide.

Do  you really think decriminalization will be the huge issue in the next federal election? Frankly, I think most people over 30 are quite indifferent to it. Except maybe out in your hippy province. To me, in the grand scheme of things (economy, taxes, defecit, spending, health care,) coming out in favour of legalizing  pot is not going to win or lose an election.

Take Ontario as just one example because it's one I'm most familiar with. Liberals/NDP win in the GTA (Toronto) [where most hipsters tend to vote.] Most of the ridings that swing Harper's way tend to be in northern Ontario, mostly rural, retirement type places or out in the burbs dominated mostly by a middle aged white with two kids demographic who have far more pressing issues than pot.

I've been known to relax with the weed from time to time but whether it's legal or not has no effect. I won't be hitting the "cafes" any time soon. When I want it I know how to score it and smoke it leisurely in my own home, as do most of my contemporaries.

A couple years ago I got caught in a "legalize marijuana" demonstration downtown by accident. The majority of "protestors" were teenage wanna-be-hipsters wearing Bob Marley pins who aren't going to be voting any time soon.

I grant you that things might be different out your way, but I just don't see this becoming a major federal election issue.

[crazy canuck]

I think we are going to have a very interesting Federal election this time round.

I have been saying for a couple years here that decriminalization was a no brainer for the NDP and Liberals to adopt as a policy.  I have also thought it works well with the fiscal conservative types.  The only crowd it doesnt play well to are the social conservatives and they are few in number in Canada.


Trudeau, who will undoubtly win the Liberal nomination, has said if he is Prime Minister he will decriminalize Pot.  That will set up a very interesting election issue.  If the Tories stick to current policy Trudeau could win in a landslide.  My view is that we have reached the tipping point.  Hell, I might even vote Liberal on this issue.  I would have to put up with Trudeau for a couple years and resist the temptation to slit my wrists but getting this law changed would be worth it.

How many single-issue pot voters are there though?

I dont think it is a typical single issue.  It is a matter which touches on a large number of issues which is why I think decrminalization is enjoying such large support.  This isnt something only people who smoke pot will vote for.  There will be a large number of poeple like me who think spending resources on policing, trials and incarceration all of which do nothing to further the public good but rather artificially increase the cost of buying the plant and enriching organized crime is very bad public policy.

[crazy canuck]

If the Tories stick to current policy Trudeau could win in a landslide.

To me, in the grand scheme of things (economy, taxes, defecit, spending, health care,) coming out in favour of legalizing  pot is not going to win or lose an election.

That is exactly why I think this is going to be a big issue.  A group did an economic analysis of the budgetary impact of decriminalization and before accounting for the savings related to the justice system it was in the Billions in tax revenue in BC alone.  They took their data from a health Canada survey regarding pot use.

[Josephus]

Yeah, but that's too complicated for the average Joe. Conservatives need only to say that they're dropping tax rates on middle income earners and people will respond to that far more than some economic think tank on the economic benefits of legalizing pot.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, but that's too complicated for the average Joe. Conservatives need only to say that they're dropping tax rates on middle income earners and people will respond to that far more than some economic think tank on the economic benefits of legalizing pot.

I dont know, maybe it is just a West Coast issue but over here it is a pretty popular idea.  The vote in Washington State has given the idea even more credibility and a kind of road map of how to do it.  We have the added benefit of not having jurisdictional disputes or variability since it is all under Federal jursidiction.