ocsi
rabble-rouser
Member: 14760
Joined: Jan 14 2007

Stockholm wrote:

 

As has been said again and again and again and again. The NDP has supported decriminalization of marijuana for many years and continues to do so. That is not the issue. Larsen and his gang want to legalize ALL drugs. I repeat ALL drugs - heroin, cocaine, crack, you name it. Only a tiny minority of libertarians support that extreme a position and even discussing it would make the party an object of ridicule.

And the fact that half a dozen people on bable are still talking about Larsen is irrelevant. There are lots of bizarre fringe issues that apark endless threads on babble that no one else on earth gives a damn about. I'd like to see evidence that vast numbers of people outside of the half dozen people posting on this thread care about this.

 

It's not just the people on Babble who are still talking about it!!  The Economist, you know, that conservative and respected magazine, has been in favour of legalizing ALL drugs for quite a while.  Please take the time to read the article and come back here if you can come up with any solid arguments against legalizing all drugs. 

I care about this issue.  I have been an NDP member for 25 years.  I have used various drugs for more than 39 years and continue to smoke daily.  And I've had a full time job for many, many years.

So what's your point again, Stock?


Investigation into treatment of Dana Larson and the marijuana resolution needed By: Darwin OConnor (114 replies) August 27, 2009 - 1:05pm
  • The issue here is not BC or By: MUN Prof. (Aug 28 2009 - 3:42pm)
  • remind wrote: If heroin By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 3:39pm)
  • melovesproles wrote: I wish By: Slumberjack (Aug 28 2009 - 3:30pm)
  • Quote:Yes, as we have seen, By: melovesproles (Aug 28 2009 - 3:26pm)
  • But Mexico is also building By: pcml (Aug 28 2009 - 3:24pm)
  • Mexico apparently did an By: Snert (Aug 28 2009 - 3:00pm)
  • Dana, I agree that it is a By: remind (Aug 28 2009 - 2:55pm)
  • edit just not worth the By: Bookish Agrarian (Aug 28 2009 - 2:49pm)
  • Quote: Larsen and his gang By: Dana Larsen (Aug 28 2009 - 2:40pm)
  • ... it is obvious the NDP By: remind (Aug 28 2009 - 2:34pm)
  • Sineed wrote: And crack By: ocsi (Aug 28 2009 - 2:17pm)
  • MUN Prof. wrote: Yes, as we By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 2:12pm)
  • To clarify, I never said By: ottawaobserver (Aug 28 2009 - 1:45pm)
  • Yes, as we have seen, single By: MUN Prof. (Aug 28 2009 - 1:40pm)
  • I have not been here for a By: pcml (Aug 28 2009 - 1:07pm)
  • Stockholm wrote: And the By: Darwin OConnor (Aug 28 2009 - 12:50pm)
  • Regulation and strict By: ocsi (Aug 28 2009 - 12:48pm)
  • Stockholm wrote: Darwin By: mahara (Aug 28 2009 - 12:42pm)
  • Stockholm wrote:   As has By: ocsi (Aug 28 2009 - 12:39pm)
  • Maybe they weren't being By: Stockholm (Aug 28 2009 - 10:51am)
  • How could they have given By: Darwin OConnor (Aug 28 2009 - 10:36am)
  • Darwin OConnor wrote: SSM By: Stockholm (Aug 28 2009 - 10:36am)
  • Darwin OConnor wrote: Even By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 10:27am)
  • SSM was unpopular in Canada By: Darwin OConnor (Aug 28 2009 - 10:11am)
  • Actually, I've never met By: Stockholm (Aug 28 2009 - 10:00am)
  • Me too, Boom Boom (nice to By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 9:47am)
  • I agree Dana was treated By: Boom Boom (Aug 27 2009 - 6:43pm)
  • ...just like in the BC By: Stockholm (Aug 27 2009 - 6:38pm)
  • I think the Green party is By: melovesproles (Aug 27 2009 - 6:31pm)
  • Daniel, I'd like to see what By: Stockholm (Aug 27 2009 - 5:33pm)
  • MUN Prof. wrote: How about a By: kropotkin1951 (Aug 27 2009 - 5:23pm)
  • How about a Royal By: MUN Prof. (Aug 27 2009 - 2:58pm)
  • There was no filibuster, By: sandpiper (Aug 27 2009 - 2:56pm)
  • I highly doubt there was By: madmax (Aug 27 2009 - 2:51pm)
  • You may want to add to it By: Daniel Grice (Aug 27 2009 - 1:10pm)