40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The NDP just aren't a viable option with Layton in charge.

Disagree, they aren't viable with their policys, Canada may lean more left then the US but no THAT far left. The NDP will likely never be more then a small party.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If the legally sold pot is taxed ridiculously, why are people buying it?

We already have a thriving cottage industry of people willing to flout the law and risk prison time to sell pot, do you really think they'll become law abiding entrepreneurs who shovel over huge percentages of their profits to the government if what they do is legalized rater than risk fines for a failure to remit taxes?

Will they close up shop just because there are gov't run pot sellers?

Will people who already go to illegal sellers choose to pay riduculously more from gov't approved, tax charging dealers as opposed to their regular illegal dealers who sell significantly cheaper?

Enlighten us as to how this works. . . .

I assume it will work similarily to cigarettes and alcohol?

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If the legally sold pot is taxed ridiculously, why are people buying it?

We already have a thriving cottage industry of people willing to flout the law and risk prison time to sell pot, do you really think they'll become law abiding entrepreneurs who shovel over huge percentages of their profits to the government if what they do is legalized rater than risk fines for a failure to remit taxes?

Will they close up shop just because there are gov't run pot sellers?

Will people who already go to illegal sellers choose to pay riduculously more from gov't approved, tax charging dealers as opposed to their regular illegal dealers who sell significantly cheaper?

Enlighten us as to how this works. . . .

Cigarettes and alcohol are controlled and taxed by the government... Don't see too much illegal trading of that stuff.

Anyways...

Marijuana shouldn't be legalized / controlled / taxed until they come up with a test that is similar to the breathalyzer. We need to be able to determine if people are driving high before I'll accept it as a 'legal' activity.

Also, if it is controlled like alcohol, I'm assuming that there will be an age limit similar to alcohol. This might cut into the profitability of that industry

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I assume it will work similarily to cigarettes and alcohol?

But if your local drug dealer can still get you pot for cheaper than the government can most people would go to him to save a buck, and stiff the government out of their taxes too. There will still be a black market for pot if the legit stuff is taxed too high. Kind of like when cigarette taxes rose and smuggling from the US increased.

[CaptainCrunch]

Even if you might it legal, you might make more for the government, you might have people buying the government dope, however the people that are making those billions off of the industry are not going to go away. They might find a way to grow more potent stuff then the government is selling. If they don't pay taxes its going to be cheaper to go to your dealer. They might fight other dealers for a share of decreasing markets, or they might start pushing harder stuff a lot harder.

I have my doubts that removing prohibition is going to make things easier on the cops, or make the drug problem go away, but the government will see a bump in revenues.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

Cigarettes and alcohol are controlled and taxed by the government... Don't see too much illegal trading of that stuff.

There is a pretty big trade in illegal smokes especially in Eastern Canada.

On the Alcohol stuff even when prohibition ended that was big corporation gaining control of that industry, is that what we're talking about? Putting dope in the hands of the cigarette manufacturers, because that would be great.

But with Prohibition the government effectively went about breaking the backs of the illegal booze manufacturers before they lifted the government rules on it, and liquor distribution was mainly controlled by very few back them. The growth and distribution or dope is handled by a lot of different gangs and organizations and it would be next to impossible to shot it down.

Different situations.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

Cigarettes and alcohol are controlled and taxed by the government... Don't see too much illegal trading of that stuff.

See the Cap'n's post above re: trade in illegal smokes.

But more importatly, cigarettes have never been illegal and therefore there was never a big incentive for illegal tobacco growers. As such, when the gov't decided to tax the hell out of smokes, people had little choice in whether to pay the high price or not.

If the gov't tries to sell pot at a hugely marked up price, there's an industry selling a cheaper alternative already in place.

[Devils'Advocate]

Okay. I'm all signed up to have a sign and to volunteer for the NDP. In the past I have gone door knocking, but since I don't have the whole platform memorized, I felt uncomfortable... I'd be hit with questions like "What is the NDP platform on disabled people?" and I'd be like "Uh.... they are for equality and removing barriers". People don't want generic platitudes and I don't have all the details memorized. I know the issues that are important to *ME* inside-out and backwards... but being able to discuss a whole platform is a very difficult job.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay. I'm all signed up to have a sign and to volunteer for the NDP. In the past I have gone door knocking, but since I don't have the whole platform memorized, I felt uncomfortable... I'd be hit with questions like "What is the NDP platform on disabled people?" and I'd be like "Uh.... they are for equality and removing barriers". People don't want generic platitudes and I don't have all the details memorized. I know the issues that are important to *ME* inside-out and backwards... but being able to discuss a whole platform is a very difficult job.

Ok, as a possible NDP voter, explain to me why the NDP voted against the increase in age from 14 years to 16 as the age of consent and will the NDP change the age back to 14 if they are voted into power?

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, as a possible NDP voter, explain to me why the NDP voted against the increase in age from 14 years to 16 as the age of consent and will the NDP change the age back to 14 if they are voted into power?

I like to know that too.

[Sparks]

^^ Doesn't that have to do with protecting consenting teens from potential legal trouble if they're sexually active with each other? That was my interpretation but admittedly, I have no idea.

As for the election itself, seeing as I'm in Harper's riding, my vote means exactly nothing. And I'm not going to vote for a poor candidate - what anyone running against Harper will be.

Spoiled ballot it is, I guess.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Sparks

^^ Doesn't that have to do with protecting consenting teens from potential legal trouble if they're sexually active with each other? That was my interpretation but admittedly, I have no idea.

As for the election itself, seeing as I'm in Harper's riding, my vote means exactly nothing. And I'm not going to vote for a poor candidate - what anyone running against Harper will be.

Spoiled ballot it is, I guess.

So, you don't support Harper? Or you don't support the conservatives? Or both?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, as a possible NDP voter, explain to me why the NDP voted against the increase in age from 14 years to 16 as the age of consent and will the NDP change the age back to 14 if they are voted into power?

So, the NDP did not vote for the current legislation that passed through the Senate earlier this year? We're discussing in the American election thread about people who maliciously spread lies they know to be false.

If you are referring to the 2006-2007 legislation that failed, it just raised the age of consent to 16, with no provisions for 15 year olds having sex with other 15 year olds.

If you are referring to certain NDP supporters that were against the 2007-2008 legislation, most of that was people that were upset that there was no change to the age of consent for anal sex which remains 18. Therefore a 16 year old girl can have sex with a 30 year old guy, but a 17 year old gay man can't have sex with anyone, including another 17 year old. Personally, I think Layton should have stuck to his guns and fought for the rights of gay men harder. Though I gather that you disagree?

[troutman]

Those Harper ads are giving me the creeps.

He is half Jimmy Kimmel, half lifeless mannequin.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So, you don't support Harper? Or you don't support the conservatives? Or both?

I live in Harpers riding and he is likely the worst MP in the country. I have seen absolutely zero from the guy as an MP for Calgary SW.

No townhalls, no mailouts, no communication at all. I know he is busy doing things like running the country and debating which of his promises he will break next, but a little communication from our elected representative would be what his job entails.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So, the NDP did not vote for the current legislation that passed through the Senate earlier this year? We're discussing in the American election thread about people who maliciously spread lies they know to be false.

Not sure what you mean by this because the NDP have voted against raising the age of consent the last few times it was introduced.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

When Conservative MP Rick Casson's bill was put to a vote Wednesday night, 99 parliamentarians voted in favour of increasing the minimum age of consent for sex by two years, to 16.
Another 167 MPs voted against the bill.

That was the bill in 2005 that addressed the issue directly.

If you are referring to certain NDP supporters that were against the 2007-2008 legislation, most of that was people that were upset that there was no change to the age of consent for anal sex which remains 18. Therefore a 16 year old girl can have sex with a 30 year old guy, but a 17 year old gay man can't have sex with anyone, including another 17 year old. Personally, I think Layton should have stuck to his guns and fought for the rights of gay men harder. Though I gather that you disagree?

I do give credit for the NDP for voting for Bill C-2, which encompassed many other crime amendments but was not specifically for the age of consent issue (it was in there and thank goodness passed).

But my question is, you think Layton should have voted down the crime bill just so gay men under 18 can have bum sex?

[Devils'Advocate]

It didn't have to be an either/or situation. The NDP asked for an amendment so that homosexual teens would have the same rights as heterosexual teens. The Conservatives refused to make the change. I'd love to know why the Conservatives refused to give equal treatment to homosexuals.

So you did know that the NDP voted for Bill C-2 which included the "age of consent" provision, yet you post here claiming that the NDP were against raising the "age of consent" from 14 to 16 and suggesting that they would change it back. That's what I meant by maliciously spreading lies.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It didn't have to be an either/or situation. The NDP asked for an amendment so that homosexual teens would have the same rights as heterosexual teens. The Conservatives refused to make the change. I'd love to know why the Conservatives refused to give equal treatment to homosexuals.

Why does it have to have amendments? Just vote for that bill as-is and then introduce another one to deal with the homosexual anal sex aspect.

It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing stance.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by driveway

but any system that's pretty much guaranteed to:

A) prevent majority governments
and
B) allow small fringe parties appropriate representation in parliament

is okay by me.

Lovely.

We've had the first minority government in ages, have had little other than partisan insults, and you want to work towards MORE of it?

[Ronald Pagan]

We've had the first minority government in ages, have had little other than partisan insults, and you want to work towards MORE of it?

?

This was the longest standing and most productive minority government in Canadian history.

3 budgets were passed, at least 7 major policy initiatives were implemented including cutting taxes writ-large, an unpopular war effort was maintained, and an election wasn't even triggered by parliament.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a majority government in the past 20 years that has accomplished more.