Trudeau names ex-TO top cop Bill Blair pot head

142 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

Here's one,
"It is very fitting and that pithy comment tells me you judge the youth you claim to work with. I could have sworn you used the term loser before an edit but maybe not." Well lets here you swear that called the people I work with " losers". So, anyone reading that would have some doubt that maybe I called them losers or even worse because it fits in with the little dishonest meme you have tried to develop. I said no such thing or anything like that. But hey that's how smears work. As for your opinion of me, after seeing your behavior I must confess I take great pride in your negative view of me. After all, one way of judging ourselves is by the enemies we make. So please keep the personal insults up, they are balm to my ego.

kropotkin1951

What you just quoted doesn't even come close to the bar for libel. Insults are not libelous if they were then you would be guilty of libel but as it is you are only guilty of using words you obvioulsy don't know the real meaning of.

jjuares wrote:

I am not sanguine about legalization as I see use going up. And that is supported by data.

This was the first inanity from you that cause me to respond. It is piure bullshit and you had the audacity to claim legalization will increase usage. That is the kind of moralistic stupidity I wanted to highlight. Here are some facts to add to your obvious prejudice against legalization. Portugal has seen a decrease in drug use since they legalized efverything and made it a health issue.

http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-al...

The Netherlands has seen a decrease in drug use in their population as well but the fatc that it is still illegal to grow it and it is tightly regulated means that criminal elements are still involved in the business.

In Canad we need a better model than the Nederlands and the Blair is not the man to dliver real change. As I said above at post #10, before you decided to engage with me.

Quote:

I predict that this fascist pig is going to recommend that only the large corporations that Harper put in place for medical marijuauna should be licensed growers and the RCMP will continue to arrest anyone who wants to grow their own. It will not be like beer and wine it will be far more draconian and restrictive.

Liberal Tory same old story.

But go back to attacking me for my views why don't you.

 

Pondering

Pretty crappy having positions projected on you and having quotes taken out of context to misrepresent your views isn't it JJ. 

JJ's balanced view is pretty well expressed in post #17.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

My position is solidly with immediately legalizing most drugs and decriminalizing possession of all drugs. The real 'ravages of drug use' in particular,cannabis,can be seen in our jails and prisons.Prohibition is the problem.The 'making a case for it' ship has long since sailed. It's been debunked and has been proven to be a spectacular failure.

I feel the Liberals are dragging their feet on this. Should have been decriminalized first session.

BTW,this 'moral authority' attitude is so 19th century. People get high,well sooo-prize! Move on and let it go. Live and let live.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Pretty crappy having positions projected on you and having quotes taken out of context to misrepresent your views isn't it. 

Says the master of that style of posting.

kropotkin1951

alan smithee wrote:

My position is solidly with immediately legalizing most drugs and decriminalizing possession of all drugs. The real 'ravages of drug use' in particular,cannabis,can be seen in our jails and prisons.Prohibition is the problem.The 'making a case for it' ship has long since sailed. It's been debunked and has been proven to be a spectacular failure.

I feel the Liberals are dragging their feet on this. Should have been decriminalized first session.

BTW,this 'moral authority' attitude is so 19th century. People get high,well sooo-prize! Move on and let it go. Live and let live.

I agree completely with this assessment. My 27 year old son told me many of his friends were going to vote for the first time because they thought the Liberals were promising immediate legalization and the NDP was too cautious on the issue. The good news is that after this they will likely never vote Liberal again.

How can you tell a Liberal politician is lying during a campaign? Their lips are moving.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
By the way libel suits are some of the hardest suits to win in a court of law. The courts generally want to see more than just insults before they make a legal ruling that someone has been libeled.

As I understand it, they're harder in some jurisdictions than in others (Canada being among the easier, the U.S. being among the hardest) and this can lead to "Libel tourism" -- choosing to launch a libel suit in an "easier" jurisdiction than the one you live in.

But I have to think -- as a non-lawyer -- that it would be very, very difficult in any jurisdiction to put legs on a libel suit involving an anonymous or pseudonymous person.

"Clearly, Johnny Bananas practices bestiality!" -- how will Johnny prove that his actual, real-world reputation or livelihood have been injured?

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

My position is solidly with immediately legalizing most drugs and decriminalizing possession of all drugs. The real 'ravages of drug use' in particular,cannabis,can be seen in our jails and prisons.Prohibition is the problem.The 'making a case for it' ship has long since sailed. It's been debunked and has been proven to be a spectacular failure.

I feel the Liberals are dragging their feet on this. Should have been decriminalized first session.

BTW,this 'moral authority' attitude is so 19th century. People get high,well sooo-prize! Move on and let it go. Live and let live.

I agree completely with this assessment. My 27 year old son told me many of his friends were going to vote for the first time because they thought the Liberals were promising immediate legalization and the NDP was too cautious on the issue. The good news is that after this they will likely never vote Liberal again.

How can you tell a Liberal politician is lying during a campaign? Their lips are moving.

This isn't like in the states where people voted for it and the states complied. The Liberals are going to have to own this. It will be a main point of Trudeau's legacy so he has to make sure it is not only done responsibly but also appears to be done responsibly. That means openly consulting with the various entities involved. He has to gather as much support as possible.

I would like immediate legalization, doesn't seem complicated to me, but I am not surprised it isn't their top priority. They want to do this low key or as low key as will be possible. I expect to see the process started within the next few months but I never expected immediate decriminalization because he never made that commitment as far as I can recall.

kropotkin1951

Thanks for the Liberal apologist view. Anything Trudeau doesn't do, that was promised during the election campaign is not realy his fault. Now I understand fully, thanks.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks for the Liberal apologist view. Anything Trudeau doesn't do, that was promised during the election campaign is not realy his fault. Now I understand fully, thanks.

I think I will give him a bit more than 3 months to deliver, like maybe 4 years.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks for the Liberal apologist view. Anything Trudeau doesn't do, that was promised during the election campaign is not realy his fault. Now I understand fully, thanks.

I think I will give him a bit more than 3 months to deliver, like maybe 4 years.

Yup you would and all those young people who believed it will be understanding when they are arrested over the next four years. He wouldn't want to move quickly on this promise given it only means lives ruined by arrest. Its not like it would affect business relations with our allies like the Saudi's. Its only Canadian lives that he is playing with.

kropotkin1951

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

What you just quoted doesn't even come close to the bar for libel. Insults are not libelous if they were then you would be guilty of libel but as it is you are only guilty of using words you obvioulsy don't know the real meaning of.

jjuares wrote:

I am not sanguine about legalization as I see use going up. And that is supported by data.

This was the first inanity from you that cause me to respond. It is piure bullshit and you had the audacity to claim legalization will increase usage. That is the kind of moralistic stupidity I wanted to highlight. Here are some facts to add to your obvious prejudice against legalization. Portugal has seen a decrease in drug use since they legalized efverything and made it a health issue.

http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-al...

The Netherlands has seen a decrease in drug use in their population as well but the fatc that it is still illegal to grow it and it is tightly regulated means that criminal elements are still involved in the business.

In Canad we need a better model than the Nederlands and the Blair is not the man to dliver real change. As I said above at post #10, before you decided to engage with me.

Quote:

I predict that this fascist pig is going to recommend that only the large corporations that Harper put in place for medical marijuauna should be licensed growers and the RCMP will continue to arrest anyone who wants to grow their own. It will not be like beer and wine it will be far more draconian and restrictive.

Liberal Tory same old story.

But go back to attacking me for my views why don't you.

 


I attacked you? Okay, that may be debateable. However,I didn't fabricate like you did. And all one has to do is look at the beginning of this post. It looks like an attack to me and a rather personal opinion at that. I never used words like " stupidity" to describe any of your posts. Finally Paladin and I were exchanging posts and opinions. You engaged me not the other way around. This is beyond parody. Oh the irony. Now may be we can give this a rest?. We have exchanged enough useless venom. I hate you and you hate me etc. Etc etc.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks for the Liberal apologist view. Anything Trudeau doesn't do, that was promised during the election campaign is not realy his fault. Now I understand fully, thanks.

I think I will give him a bit more than 3 months to deliver, like maybe 4 years.

Yup you would and all those young people who believed it will be understanding when they are arrested over the next four years. He wouldn't want to move quickly on this promise given it only means lives ruined by arrest. Its not like it would affect business relations with our allies like the Saudi's. Its only Canadian lives that he is playing with.

The Liberals are not Quebec Solidaire. While they sometimes do I don't expect a fish to fly. It would be great if they decriminalized immediately but that was not a commitment they made either in their platform or verbally. The Liberals are doing what they were elected to do.

Currently it's illegal but I imbibe anyway and in choosing to do so I am taking a risk. If I get arrested it won't be Trudeau's fault. I could choose to simply wait until it is legal and so can young people.

I definitely want it decriminalized immediately but that it doesn't seem to be happening is not a disappointment because I wasn't expecting it.

If young people believed something he didn't say that would be called a fantasy.

quizzical

lying liars interesting read they are going back to 50 year old laws to say "we can't"

Quote:
Trudeau: I want to legalize weed, but they won't let me

Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements [critics cite] do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions.

voice of the damned

So lemme get this straight. The treaties obligate us to outlaw certain drugs, unless our "constitutional, legal and administrative systems" dictate otherwise.

In layman's language "We agree to outlaw weed. Unless we decide not to."

Thanks for further stoking my suspicions that most of these "international treaties" are just BS anyway.

quizzical

yup i guess Justin figures his voters are too stupid to realize he using a BS 1961 law to say "i can't they won't let me". lyin liar.

mark_alfred

Talk & spin.  It's what Libs do best.

kropotkin1951

Gee the Libeal braintrust had never heard of these treaties when they made their promises?  I guess that either makes them idiots or liars.

quizzical

the articles i read suggested they did know because Chretien knew back in 2003 when he was toying with it lightly.

jjuares

While it looks like the Liberals may try and weasel out of this promise I believe in the end they will keep it if no other reason that not only will this not cost anything but may in fact bring in another revenue stream to the government coffers.

mark_alfred

Very possible.  It'll be like the Ontario government who've set up liquor stores and lottery booths on every corner.  Add marijuana to the mix.  Or, it will be a perpetual work-in-progress whose completion will always be just one election away.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

yup i guess Justin figures his voters are too stupid to realize he using a BS 1961 law to say "i can't they won't let me". lyin liar.

Except Trudeau didn't say anything of the sort. That was, as usual,  a completely misleading headline that was not upheld within the article.

 

 

wage zombie

Pondering, if we don't have legalization by the next election, do you see yourself continuing to support Trudeau?

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
yup i guess Justin figures his voters are too stupid to realize he using a BS 1961 law to say "i can't they won't let me". lyin liar.

Except Trudeau didn't say anything of the sort. That was, as usual,  a completely misleading headline that was not upheld within the article.

i thought it paraphrased what he said pretty closely.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

New Toronto-based Jewish student group:Liberals hypocritically concerned about international pot regulations – not Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s criminal behaviour

It was revealed last week through an access to information request that the Federal Liberals may backtrack on their promise to legalize marijuana over concerns about potential conflicts with international trade regulations. Meanwhile, they promote trade with Israeli companies illegally operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and are selling arms to the Saudi government whose beheadings of political dissidents have accelerated.

“It is hypocritical to backtrack on pot legalization due to legal concerns, while supporting the importation of illegal Israeli settlement goods into Canada,” says Ben Losman, spokesperson for the newly-formed Independent Jewish Voices – University of Toronto (IJV-U of T). “Our government needs to focus on serious matters such as Canada’s implicit endorsement of Israel‘s continued illegal expropriation of Palestinian land.  As we are concerned about human rights, Canada must also stop a multi-billion dollar arms sale to the authoritarian Saudi regime, notorious for its violent repression of civilian dissent.”

Paladin1

I wonder if Trudeau was actually oblivious to Canada's signatures on these regulations or if he didn't mention it on purpose in order to get votes.

I'm surprised the conservatives didn't point out the regulations and the BS promise during the campaign.

Mr. Magoo

Canada only reasonably shares a border with one other country, the U.S., and two (or is it three?) of their states have legalized pot.

If they give us grief over legalization we could always say "well, there was just SO MUCH pot flowing into Canada from Colorado that we decided that 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'"

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
yup i guess Justin figures his voters are too stupid to realize he using a BS 1961 law to say "i can't they won't let me". lyin liar.

Except Trudeau didn't say anything of the sort. That was, as usual,  a completely misleading headline that was not upheld within the article.

i thought it paraphrased what he said pretty closely.

He didn't say anything at all so how could it be paraphrased?

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

New Toronto-based Jewish student group:Liberals hypocritically concerned about international pot regulations – not Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s criminal behaviour

It was revealed last week through an access to information request that the Federal Liberals may backtrack on their promise to legalize marijuana over concerns about potential conflicts with international trade regulations. Meanwhile, they promote trade with Israeli companies illegally operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and are selling arms to the Saudi government whose beheadings of political dissidents have accelerated.

“It is hypocritical to backtrack on pot legalization due to legal concerns, while supporting the importation of illegal Israeli settlement goods into Canada,” says Ben Losman, spokesperson for the newly-formed Independent Jewish Voices – University of Toronto (IJV-U of T). “Our government needs to focus on serious matters such as Canada’s implicit endorsement of Israel‘s continued illegal expropriation of Palestinian land.  As we are concerned about human rights, Canada must also stop a multi-billion dollar arms sale to the authoritarian Saudi regime, notorious for its violent repression of civilian dissent.”

Organizations like this would have more credibility if they avoided lying.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

New Toronto-based Jewish student group:Liberals hypocritically concerned about international pot regulations – not Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s criminal behaviour

It was revealed last week through an access to information request that the Federal Liberals may backtrack on their promise to legalize marijuana over concerns about potential conflicts with international trade regulations. Meanwhile, they promote trade with Israeli companies illegally operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and are selling arms to the Saudi government whose beheadings of political dissidents have accelerated.

“It is hypocritical to backtrack on pot legalization due to legal concerns, while supporting the importation of illegal Israeli settlement goods into Canada,” says Ben Losman, spokesperson for the newly-formed Independent Jewish Voices – University of Toronto (IJV-U of T). “Our government needs to focus on serious matters such as Canada’s implicit endorsement of Israel‘s continued illegal expropriation of Palestinian land.  As we are concerned about human rights, Canada must also stop a multi-billion dollar arms sale to the authoritarian Saudi regime, notorious for its violent repression of civilian dissent.”

Organizations like this would have more credibility if they avoided lying.

You must be talking about the Liberal party of Canada.

 

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Canada only reasonably shares a border with one other country, the U.S., and two (or is it three?) of their states have legalized pot.

If they give us grief over legalization we could always say "well, there was just SO MUCH pot flowing into Canada from Colorado that we decided that 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'"

Yup all those young people in Vancouver who were stupid enough to believe Liberal lies must be wondering if it is against international law why they can just drive to Bellingham where it is legal.

This is a red herring by a a Liberal Tory same old story government.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

New Toronto-based Jewish student group:Liberals hypocritically concerned about international pot regulations – not Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s criminal behaviour

It was revealed last week through an access to information request that the Federal Liberals may backtrack on their promise to legalize marijuana over concerns about potential conflicts with international trade regulations. Meanwhile, they promote trade with Israeli companies illegally operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and are selling arms to the Saudi government whose beheadings of political dissidents have accelerated.

“It is hypocritical to backtrack on pot legalization due to legal concerns, while supporting the importation of illegal Israeli settlement goods into Canada,” says Ben Losman, spokesperson for the newly-formed Independent Jewish Voices – University of Toronto (IJV-U of T). “Our government needs to focus on serious matters such as Canada’s implicit endorsement of Israel‘s continued illegal expropriation of Palestinian land.  As we are concerned about human rights, Canada must also stop a multi-billion dollar arms sale to the authoritarian Saudi regime, notorious for its violent repression of civilian dissent.”

Organizations like this would have more credibility if they avoided lying.

You must be talking about the Liberal party of Canada.

No, I am referring to the student group. I am also surprised at the gullibility of those who believe headlines without actually reading the associated article.

Neither Trudeau nor the Liberal party has said anything at all about backing down on legalization. There was a briefing note that said government will have to prepare documents explaining how Canada is proceeding, not asking permission.

The United States is also a signatory to these treaties and it didn't stop them from legalizing in some states.

I think most of you do believe it will be legalized by the Liberals and you're pissed because it makes them seem more on the left making the NDP *appear* to be redundant.

kropotkin1951

No Pondering most of us think that Liberal politicians lie and lie and lie and lie. I have seen them go back on major promises in every election where they won and I have voted in. I started with the 1972 election and have voted in everyone since.They hardly ever lie they obfusicate and use weasel words so that they can make "promises" that disappear after they win.

Zap your frozen is a great example. Trudeau the First promised he would not bring in wage and price controls and ran hard on that issue. After the election we found out that what he meant was I'll only bring in wage controls not price controls.

This pot stuff is the same kind of disinformation and obfusicaton. They ran on legalizing pot not decriminalizing pot because it sounded better. They knew all along that they were not going to legalize it. Its  real easy to legalize pot all you have to do is remove it from the section of the criminal code that lists prohibited products. That is what they implied with their language during the election. Now they have suddenly woken up to the fact that they actually want to decrimilize it not legalize it.

Liberal are cons and always have been.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

No Pondering most of us think that Liberal politicians lie and lie and lie and lie. I have seen them go back on major promises in every election where they won and I have voted in. I started with the 1972 election and have voted in everyone since.They hardly ever lie they obfusicate and use weasel words so that they can make "promises" that disappear after they win.

Zap your frozen is a great example. Trudeau the First promised he would not bring in wage and price controls and ran hard on that issue. After the election we found out that what he meant was I'll only bring in wage controls not price controls.

This pot stuff is the same kind of disinformation and obfusicaton. They ran on legalizing pot not decriminalizing pot because it sounded better. They knew all along that they were not going to legalize it. Its  real easy to legalize pot all you have to do is remove it from the section of the criminal code that lists prohibited products. That is what they implied with their language during the election. Now they have suddenly woken up to the fact that they actually want to decrimilize it not legalize it.

Liberal are cons and always have been.

You have zero evidence or even indication of that. The NDP had plenty of time to support legalization and chose not to until a few days before the election when they realized they were losing progressives. You don't want the Liberals to keep their commitment because you are afraid it will doom the NDP. It will doom the NDP unless the NDP steps up their game. I do hope that now that the NDP has lost they will find the courage to properly oppose TPP and CETA.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

You don't want the Liberals to keep their commitment because you are afraid it will doom the NDP.

This is stupid, stupid statement and just shows how ridiculously partisan you are. I would love to see pot legalized but during the election I warned the youth I knew that the idea that pot was going to be legalized was a lie. Decriminalized and heavily regulated possibly but not legalized.

What happened to your I'm not really a Liberal act? LMAOROF

Liberal lies are just the norm in this country.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You don't want the Liberals to keep their commitment because you are afraid it will doom the NDP.

This is stupid, stupid statement and just shows how ridiculously partisan you are. I would love to see pot legalized but during the election I warned the youth I knew that the idea that pot was going to be legalized was a lie. Decriminalized and heavily regulated possibly but not legalized.

What happened to your I'm not really a Liberal act? LMAOROF

Liberal lies are just the norm in this country.

Decriminalized and heavily regulated like alcohol. You have zero evidence, not even a tiny bit, that Trudeau plans to go back on his commitment.

It was in Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould's mandate letter to "create a federal-provincial-territorial process that will lead to the legalization and regulation of marijuana."

It seems from the article there has been a briefing note which I assume sums up the main issues that will have to be addressed one of which is international treaties, and yes they were mentioned in the press prior to the election.

I find the mention of the briefing note encouraging in that it shows they are getting to work on it right away. It seems the Liberals were right to play this as low key as possible given the presses addiction to sensational and misleading headlines.

There are plenty of real things to be critical about, like the latest on the free trade deals.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering]</p> <p>[quote=epaulo13 wrote:

New Toronto-based Jewish student group:Liberals hypocritically concerned about international pot regulations – not Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s criminal behaviour

It was revealed last week through an access to information request that the Federal Liberals may backtrack on their promise to legalize marijuana over concerns about potential conflicts with international trade regulations. Meanwhile, they promote trade with Israeli companies illegally operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and are selling arms to the Saudi government whose beheadings of political dissidents have accelerated.

“It is hypocritical to backtrack on pot legalization due to legal concerns, while supporting the importation of illegal Israeli settlement goods into Canada,” says Ben Losman, spokesperson for the newly-formed Independent Jewish Voices – University of Toronto (IJV-U of T). “Our government needs to focus on serious matters such as Canada’s implicit endorsement of Israel‘s continued illegal expropriation of Palestinian land.  As we are concerned about human rights, Canada must also stop a multi-billion dollar arms sale to the authoritarian Saudi regime, notorious for its violent repression of civilian dissent.”

Organizations like this would have more credibility if they avoided lying.

There are plenty of real things to be critical about, like the latest on the free trade deals.

 

..seems to me the students did exactly that and raised real things. and they did say may backtrack which i agree with. soon trudeau will meet with obama and get the talk.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Well,look at the bright side. This broken promise on its own seals the Liberals fate next election. Question is,who will the people turn to?

voice of the damned

alan smithee wrote:

Well,look at the bright side. This broken promise on its own seals the Liberals fate next election. Question is,who will the people turn to?

I don't think enough people care about legalization to vote the Liberals out over a broken pledge to enact it. The polls had everyone outraged about the GST, as well, but that didn't stop the Liberals from winning re-election after it became blatantly clear they weren't going to repeal it.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Canada only reasonably shares a border with one other country, the U.S., and two (or is it three?) of their states have legalized pot.

Four(Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska), plus DC has legalized grow-your-own.

While I remain pretty skeptical that the Liberals are gonna legalize, I think it should be pointed out that the blog post called "Trudeau: I want to legalize weed, but they won't let me" bases its healine on a leaked memo, which did NOT, as far as I can tell, advise against legalizing pot, just stated, quite accurately, that Canada would have to find a way to make legalization jube with international treaties.

Which might not be such a difficult thing, if those treaties are as porous as they sound, based on what I've read.

Paladin1

I find it really weird that Bill Blair was put in this role.

 

Don't get me wrong I understand why they would do it. He's a cop and who better to know about drugs and pot than a high level police officer right?

Feels like a lack of integrity to me. If he really felt that pot was harmless and should be decriminalized then he should have spoke out about it and not collected paycheck after paycheck arresting people and putting them in jail for it.  He sure didn't mind making money but now that he's switched sides we're supposed to view him as an expert on the topic?

What other laws do the police enforce are all fucked up and should be changed?

 

If pot is fully decriminalized and legalized or whatever does that mean anyone with a criminal record steming from anything pot related will have their criminal record erased?  If they paid fines or whatever should they get their money back?

Northern PoV

Funny, some here (gleefully) predict a broken promise.  In fact, some seem go beyond prediction to characterize it as 'an already broken promise'.

LOL.  I prefer to save my negative emotions for actual bad events.

Facts:

* We got a strong commitment for legalization, cast in 'political concrete' years before the election campaign started. 

* Mandate letters re-affirm the commitment. (Immediately post election.)

* Bill Blair is appointed to lead the effort. (Within the first months of governing.) 

* The internationl treaty thing is a minor distraction - Medical MJ already breaks these treaties and - thanks to Urugray, Portugal, Vancouver, Colorado (& Wash/Org/Alaska etc), Holland etc. - both decrim & legal situations are robust models that 'are working' and not being subjected to international sanctions. 

I abhor Bill G20 Blair but I suspect the Libs will use his L&O reputation to 'blunt the inevitable reefer madness'.  Its not like they are going to put Jodie Emory in charge. ;-)

Time will tell.

voice of the damned

Paladin1 wrote:
If pot is fully decriminalized and legalized or whatever does that mean anyone with a criminal record steming from anything pot related will have their criminal record erased?  If they paid fines or whatever should they get their money back?

I wouldn't think so. If the speed limit gets raised, we don't compensate all the people who paid fines under the old system for driving at speeds that are now legal. To take just one example of law reform not being retroactive.

Pondering

epaulo13]</p> <p>[quote=Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

“It is hypocritical to backtrack on pot legalization due to legal concerns, while supporting the importation of illegal Israeli settlement goods into Canada,” says Ben Losman, spokesperson for the newly-formed Independent Jewish Voices – University of Toronto (IJV-U of T). “Our government needs to focus on serious matters such as Canada’s implicit endorsement of Israel‘s continued illegal expropriation of Palestinian land.  As we are concerned about human rights, Canada must also stop a multi-billion dollar arms sale to the authoritarian Saudi regime, notorious for its violent repression of civilian dissent.”

Organizations like this would have more credibility if they avoided lying.

There are plenty of real things to be critical about, like the latest on the free trade deals.

 

..seems to me the students did exactly that and raised real things. and they did say may backtrack which i agree with. soon trudeau will meet with obama and get the talk.

Or, he could backtrack on his decision to allow the Saudi "jeep" deal but it doesn't look likely does it? There is zero indication that he is considering backtracking. That is not what the memo said.There is zero logical connection between Israeli settlement goods and marijuana.

I am against the importation of goods from settlement areas in what should be Palestine but as far as I know we haven't signed any treaties saying we wouldn't.

The logic the students are using is "you may backtrack on weed because it's illegal therefore you should not accept goods from illegal israel settlements. It makes no sense. If they were right about the marijuana thing, which they are not, it would be due to pressure from international entities that want the treaty enforced. There is certainly no pressure from the international community to stop accepting goods from Israeli occupied territories. It's a dumb parallel and if anything it undermines their cause to make it.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

There is certainly no pressure from the international community to stop accepting goods from Israeli occupied territories.

BDS campaign... still working!

..the latest post

quote:

UM Kairos Response is pleased to announce that the $20-billion Pension and Health Benefits Fund of the United Methodist Church has declared the five largest Israeli banks off limits for investment and has divested from the two that it held in its portfolios. This is the first time a major church pension fund has acted to preclude investment in Israeli banks that sustain Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

There is certainly no pressure from the international community to stop accepting goods from Israeli occupied territories.

BDS campaign... still working!

..the latest post

quote:

UM Kairos Response is pleased to announce that the $20-billion Pension and Health Benefits Fund of the United Methodist Church has declared the five largest Israeli banks off limits for investment and has divested from the two that it held in its portfolios. This is the first time a major church pension fund has acted to preclude investment in Israeli banks that sustain Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

There is no evidence that the Liberals are planning to bow to international pressure to maintain marijuana's illegality, which is the premise of the student group, and there is no international pressure to stop buying Israeli settlement goods.

The United Methodist church is not a nation. I am all for divestment in settlement goods and in oil and fossil fuel investments. Legally banning settlement goods is the right thing to do morally, but it's not something any Canadian government will do because of the international political implications. In any case I think that there are other steps that are more important to take in support of the Palestinians such as recognizing them at the UN and greater condemnation of the violence and deprivation visited on them.

 

kropotkin1951

It seems that the new Liberal government directs neither the military nor the national police force. Or maybe the campign promises on war and drugs was a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Quote:

Press Release: 3 Search Warrants Executed
On January 13th, 2016, Comox Valley RCMP Drug Section and General Investigation Section executed 3 search warrants in relation to licensed Medicinal Marijuana Grow operations in the Comox Valley. Warrants were executed at a residence in Courtenay and at Licensed Marijuana Operations in both Cumberland and Black Creek.

A total of 423 plants were seized, as well as several vehicles including a motorhome, three motorcycles, a snowmobile, two automobiles and a boat, which are believed to have been purchased with proceeds of crime.

"Public safety continues to be a top priority for the Comox Valley RCMP. Our officers invest a great deal of time and effort in reducing the flow of illegal substances in our community. When we receive information that someone is operating outside of the parameters of their licence we will continue to investigate and take enforcement action", said Inspector Tim Walton, Officer in charge of the Comox Valley RCMP.
Four individuals from the Comox Valley have been arrested, and charges including
Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking are being considered.

Cst. Tammy Douglas
Comox Valley RCMP

 

Mr. Magoo

FWIW, the PM does not, in fact, control the RCMP.  As the "R" would suggest, the buck stops in Buckingham Palace.

Also, I have to wonder whether this suggests what it suggests that it suggests:

Quote:
When we receive information that someone is operating outside of the parameters of their licence...

Kind of sounds like maybe they were a licenced grower who exceeded what they were licenced to grow, or sold a little "on the side".

I look forward to the day when none of this is the government's concern, but at the same time, the law hasn't been changed, and we're not there yet just because the government says "some day".

 

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

FWIW, the PM does not, in fact, control the RCMP.  As the "R" would suggest, the buck stops in Buckingham Palace.

Also, I have to wonder whether this suggests what it suggests that it suggests:

Quote:
When we receive information that someone is operating outside of the parameters of their licence...

Kind of sounds like maybe they were a licenced grower who exceeded what they were licenced to grow, or sold a little "on the side".

I look forward to the day when none of this is the government's concern, but at the same time, the law hasn't been changed, and we're not there yet just because the government says "some day".

 

Yeah, but you know, the Liberals are once again doing a bang-up job of convincing the faithful that marijuana is on the verge of being legalized, or that it's even been legalized already. Like this cartoon in the Globe a while back...

http://tinyurl.com/gl5q7se

I mean, I realize it's hyperbole, but it's still the kind of hyperbole that should be saved for AFTER pot has been legalized, not when the government is just talking about doing it, without even having announced a plan as to how it will happen.

And I said "once again", because I remember the tail-end of the Chretien years, when BC bud was getting some good reviews, and Chretien had speculated that he might smoke a joint if pot was decriminalized, and people started using phrases along the lines of "Canada: The Land Of Legal Weed."

I'm agnostic about whether we're heading for another Great Disappointment on this issue, or if the government is more serious this time around. Certainly, though, nothing that has so far happened should lead us to expect that cops will turn a blind-eye to corner-cutting dispensaries.

Pages