babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
In the 2015 debate, I don't want the only guy on stage to support decriminalisation to be Bob Rae. I think that'd make us lose a good chunk of our youth vote.
You Mulcair supporters aint doing your candidate any favours by your dismissive attitudes towards...well pretty much any issue most progressives care about.
NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair answers your questionshttp://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/03/ndp-leadership-candidate-th...
His voting stand could easily be amended and refined, but has little to no chance with other potential partners anyhow. I believe he was mostly speaking to the large number of progressive voters more concerned about Harper than inhouse politics.
Gosh, three whole questions handpicked by CBC staff.
Getting all wimpy on marijuana is one way in which the NDP gets blurred with the Liberals. We don't want to be outflanked by Bob Rae.
Jack earned a reputation for being courageous and honest. It wasn't just because he smiled a lot and carried a cane. He was willing to stick his neck out, again and again, and had the intelligence to know where Canadian opinion was ready to move to him. Marijuana is one issue -- important for some voters, completely trivial to otehrs. But in aggregate, a bunch of stances (end the war in Afghanistan, LGBTQ rights now, etc.) do add up to give you a portrait of who Layton was. Even for people who didn't care about marijuana, they heard Jack Layton cut right through the BS politicla speak and just say "yes", and peoples' trust and admiration for him skyrocketed.
I like Mulcair, and I think he'd be a solid leader, and a great PM. But in aggregate, what do you get when you add up "we shouldn't talk about taxes right now", "i'm against decriminalization until we have another study"...
There are some people who appreciate that kind of old politics of "we'll sit a whole bunch of very smart people down in an office somewhere you can't visit, and I promise that in four years I'll be able to answer your question".
But it's really uninspiring for a lot of other people, especially young people like myself.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...
and if you read this puff abit closer you might see how our pals in the rightwing media will be framing him if elected leader.
I'm sure Layton, Mulcair, and even myself wanted/wants pot legalized as much as anyone else. But the best way to do that is to form government.
"Your bull in the china shop" approach to it would spell political problems particularly for the NDP.
And another thing, you don't have the market cornered on "progressive" and I get tired of the nonsensical labeling.
Is Pat saying that, if Mulcair doesn't win on the first ballot, he will never win? Being "neutral" in theory, what is he in fact advocating here?
Thanks regruve for your comments. I am personally aware of a beautiful person who may well have gone that route.
Picture, in your mind, the 2015 debate. The candidates get asked if they support decriminisation. Bob Rae says "Yes. The war on drugs has been a costly failure and has done little but criminalise generation after generation of youth and line the pockets of criminals. It has to end." Tom Mulcair says "No. Marijuana makes you insane. However, I will consider punting the decision to an outside panel of experts."
One of those two positions is well informed, clear, and politically courageous. One of them is incorrect, cowardly, and seeks to avoid responsibility for doing the right thing.
The NDP had been a forceful advocate for gay marriage going way back. It wasn't the top ballot issue for many people, and it was probably risky in that it put some blue-collar support at risk. The Liberals had been cowardly and ultimately decided that they'd punt the issue to the courts. I was proud that the NDP was the party that tackled a tough issue head on, and didn't leave the hard work to governing to unelected and unaccountable officials. I don't want to let the Liberals outflank out on decrimininalisation.
I agree, guys. It's a difference in approach.
A commission is the ultimate copout. It doesn't please the voters who care about the issue. And for all the "very reasonable people" concerned about drugs, the commission doesn't alleviate their fears. It just seems like a more shady and dishonest way of accomplishing decriminalization.
In the meantime, you don't just have to worry about the people who care about decriminalization who are demoralized. You have to worry that it becomes a pattern of "we'll get back to you later" politics. The old approach that's killed voter turnout.
I'm a pragmatist. I believe in some amount of tactics. But you can't play tactics on every issue, to the point that you're no longer telling voters what you stand for, and you're no longer offering them a real choice. You especially can't play tactics on issues where public sentiment is so ripe that the Liberals are aware of it, ready to outflank us.
And don't think that the Liberal party is above seizing the opportunity here. It's moves like this that allow them to build their narrative of "we're the real movement for change! losing all those MPs allowed us to clean out the garbage, and now we're a bold and principled party with new ideas!"
Gee, he even managed to work in that we need to keep on all the staff people from the various campaigns -- which had nothing to do with the question. He's seriously on-message.
Please. My approach is hardly 'bull in China shop". Layton made a video opening calling for such, one he never distanced himself from. Mulcair OTOH writes that smoking pot can give you *mental illness*, then retreats back behind some standard bureacratic puffery is hardly politically sensitive.
Idea that you can sneak past the corporate media and do somewthing AFTER your elected doesn't work -not for the centre-LEft. Just look at Obamas dismal record. Or the Liberals, post-Trudeau. Or Harcourt, Clark and Dosanjh. Or Bob Rae.
It also assumes that only Mulcair can win, or even that Mulcaor would win. Most Quebecois are more liberal in most ways than most Anglo-Canadians and may change their minds again if they start to think he's another Dion or Ignatieff. Its a matter of relative exposure, like anywhere.
Re progressives, the idea of we have to win (first) is standard centrist boilerplate as is the idea that there are no defining characteristics or issues between right and left. If you ran fewer editorials from rightwing sources like the Post, Globe or Gazette I might otherwise take your argument more seriously.
Doesn't mean I'm against incremental reform or political framing and discretion, etc. I'm hardly a militant ideologue. You should know that by now.
Thanks for your time tho.
+1
Actually, if anything, that article outlines some very good reasons for voting for Mulcair. They're framing him quite well in this article - a scrappy guy who isn't afraid to take on the opposition. I've always wished that the left would stop bringing knives to gunfights, and Mulcair will definitely be packing once he becomes leader. That will be a good thing. And if I thought he could be trusted to only turn those guns on the opposition, that would be great.
Unfortunately, past experience, despite his current "I'm just a gruff, loveable teddy bear" campaign, suggests otherwise. I know he's been running a positive, upbeat campaign. But I'm more interested in what people act like and the positions they take normally, than what they do while they're in campaign mode.
Eric, it is important to know what the enemy is thinking.
All I said was the best way to create policy, any policy, is usually to be the government. I never suggested it was the only way.
Look, let's be clear, even if Mulcair wins, and I think he will, and even if the NDP form government which I think it might, hopefully sooner than we think (read: last election results), we will all have to keep the pressure on, our eye on what the party is doing, as the NDP will be subjected to a huge amount of lobbying from the right.
I think the very best time to put suggestions for party policy forward is leading up to the next election. But once elected the government will need our help to implement the policies.
I'd like to see the sources for your statements abput a medical link being evidenced. People with schizophrenia using more pot than the average boozy Canuck hardly means anything statistically. They probably eat more junk food too. And of course those already prediagnosed towards this condition being affected by it means very little either. Those at high risk for schizophrenia will probably develop symptoms regardless of anything they consume, including what the doctor orders or plain tap water.
I have to say that the truth on merijuana use and "mental illness" is more grey than people want to admit. I agree 100% that having one or two puffs from a joint at a party is not going to send you into some sort of "reefer madness" style insanity. But I do know people who smoke up on a daily basis...and they are definitely "not all there" - so I think its fair to say that very regular pot-smoking will over the long-term have some neurological side effects. Drinking alcohol a lot on a regular basis almost certainly does as well.
Oh, I don't disagree on prohibition. I just get concerned that people think marijuna is entirely innocuous, which it may not be, at least not for people at risk of schizophrenia.
If Mulcair wins the job then I will follow your advice to the letter. Until then though I'm not being fobbed off as a militant footstomper or naive utopian, as the ball is still in play for everyone.
Mulcair just lost me. I wouldn't have voted him first but was thinking about voting him 2nd and definitely ahead of Nash.
Now that's pretty unlikely, I would probably even vote Nash ahead of him. I no longer trust him.
Sorry, no lying demagogues for me.
Here's a good interview with Nathan Cullen on Question Period:
http://www.ctv.ca/qp/index.html?vidId=639846#TopVideoAn
From CAMH (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health):
"There is a possible association between heavy regular cannabis use and
the onset of schizophrenia. It is not clear, however, whether cannabis use releases latent
symptoms of schizophrenia, or whether people use cannabis to help them
cope with the symptoms of an emerging psychosis.
Evidence suggests that continued cannabis use in people with
schizophrenia accentuates psychotic symptoms and worsens the
course of the illness."
http://www.camh.net/about_addiction_mental_health/drug_and_addiction_inf...
The association between cannabis and schizophrenia is very strong. The causal connections are complicated, but you should not be so confident in saying that "those at high risk for schizophrenia will probably develop symptoms regardless of anything they consume..." because many conditions can be latent and never develop unless they are triggered by particular stimulants or behaviours; this is a fundamental concept in our understanding of health and illness.
Well I watched the segment and I don't think any reasonable person could infer that from his comments. He was merely speculating on any one candidate winning on ballot 1. That's it. He also got in a rather good dig, most likely directed at Topp, for someone who is supposedly neutral.