Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

How do you feel about Trudeau actually lying about why he has changed his position in regards to legalizing weed then? Does that reflect on him in any way particularly? Do the ends justify the means in this case because its apparent Canadians would like this change? If the Cons did a sudden about face in the same direction, would there be no backlash because of the flip flop aspect?

The politician you should fear is not the one who flip-flops. Flip-flopping demonstrates an ability to react to new information (or to re-assess old information, which is why the "timeline" argument is kind of bogus).

Originally Posted by transplant99

As for the weed thing..im all for legalizing it and whanot, but the disingenuous reasoning Pierre light has for doing so is a freaking joke.

He didn't say the charges against his brother was the only reason, did he? There is no reason to believe that he is lying. He might be, but there's no evidence for it and I find it quite improbable that after the marijuana issue came up at convention he wouldn't think about his late brother and charges against him.

This makes you pretty much the worst kind of voter (assuming you vote). A politician takes a position that you seem to actually prefer, but because he plays for the wrong team you assume that he's lying about thinking about his dead brother, and attack him for flip-flopping (a term straight out of the rebuplican handbook on demonizing critical thinking). Do you not realize the mental gymnastics you're going through as a result of cognitive dissonance between the party you've convinced yourself is the best having policies inferior to those of the party you think of as the enemy?

You then go on to create hypotheticals contrary to fact to try to make it appear like you're not as hyperpartisan as you are, when pattern indicates that with those disclaimers you are likely lying to us, and possibly to yourself as well. You will always find something to dislike about the Liberals. And if you don't, you'll make something up.

Talking to you about politics is like talking to a Christian about God. It's hard to rationalize someone out of a position when they didn't rationalize themself into it. You have belief in the Conservatives that is straight up faith.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm actually quite peeved with the NDP on this one. Mulcair said that the NDP's position is NOT to decriminalize, but reduce sentences. So he's positioned himself in the centre between the Conservatives and the Liberals. He's pandering to the middle and annoying his base, who are fickle enough to vote for the Liberals. Well I'm not, but I am fickle enough to vote for the Greens if they have a good candidate running.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'm actually quite peeved with the NDP on this one. Mulcair said that the NDP's position is NOT to decriminalize, but reduce sentences. So he's positioned himself in the centre between the Conservatives and the Liberals. He's pandering to the middle and annoying his base, who are fickle enough to vote for the Liberals. Well I'm not, but I am fickle enough to vote for the Greens if they have a good candidate running.

66% of Canadians support decrimininalization or legalisation. So if Mulcair was aiming for the middle, he missed. Decriminalization or legalisation is now the centrist policy (it captures the "middle" 33%, as well as the left 33%, assuming the law and order crowd are on the right).

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

The politician you should fear is not the one who flip-flops. Flip-flopping demonstrates an ability to react to new information (or to re-assess old information, which is why the "timeline" argument is kind of bogus).

He didn't say the charges against his brother was the only reason, did he? There is no reason to believe that he is lying. He might be, but there's no evidence for it and I find it quite improbable that after the marijuana issue came up at convention he wouldn't think about his late brother and charges against him.

This makes you pretty much the worst kind of voter (assuming you vote). A politician takes a position that you seem to actually prefer, but because he plays for the wrong team you assume that he's lying about thinking about his dead brother, and attack him for flip-flopping (a term straight out of the rebuplican handbook on demonizing critical thinking). Do you not realize the mental gymnastics you're going through as a result of cognitive dissonance between the party you've convinced yourself is the best having policies inferior to those of the party you think of as the enemy?

You then go on to create hypotheticals contrary to fact to try to make it appear like you're not as hyperpartisan as you are, when pattern indicates that with those disclaimers you are likely lying to us, and possibly to yourself as well. You will always find something to dislike about the Liberals. And if you don't, you'll make something up.

Talking to you about politics is like talking to a Christian about God. It's hard to rationalize someone out of a position when they didn't rationalize themself into it. You have belief in the Conservatives that is straight up faith.

Then by all means...feel free not to.

You are an apologist for everything Justin does, which is fine as you feel that is OK. He is still a liar and got caught....no biggie though.

You sure seem to think you know me pretty well in that narrow mind you live in, which again...knock yourself out, but you couldn't be more inaccurate.

[Daradon]

Of all the things the NDP should move towards the center on, this is not one of them, heh. Kinda of a weird hill to pick. Considering they picked up a lot of the youth vote last time, you'd think having a more left position on this, like they have on virtually every other issue, would be a no brainer.

I'm impressed with Mulcair in question period and as the leader of the opposition, but the NDP just doesn't have the platform to be a ruling party. Without Layton those that voted for them last time around will probably go back to their other parties.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Old people and our neighbors to the south.

You sure about that?


Respondents aged 55- to- 64 were the most likely to support legalization or decriminalization, with 73% supporting a shift. All other demographics polled in the mid- to- high- 60s in support of marijuana law reform.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Then by all means...feel free not to.

You are an apologist for everything Justin does, which is fine as you feel that is OK. He is still a liar and got caught....no biggie though.

You sure seem to think you know me pretty well in that narrow mind you live in, which again...knock yourself out, but you couldn't be more inaccurate.

I said it was difficult to sway people like you through rational argument. I did not say that it was impossible. And anyways, maybe that's not my goal?

Calling me a Trudeau apologist is laughable, since you might remember that I like Martha Hall-Findlay for the Liberal leadership. If you were to criticize Trudeau's position on supply managment, I'd be right on board with you. Sure, I'd prefer Trudeau to Harper, though.

He's a liar who got caught? Here's the quote again: "Trudeau said his brother's legal trouble over a small quantity of marijuana was one of the experiences that influenced what he has called an "evolution" in his thinking on marijuana laws." Emphasis mine. So you're saying that something his brother went through would have zero influence on his thinking. That's not even remotely likely, never mind sufficiently likely to start calling him a liar.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I just don't see it being a real monetary issue within a 275 BILLION dollar budget... Cigarette taxes raised about 6 Billion last year and I don't think MJ would be anywhere near that.

Saving on crime and punishment would be difficult to measure, but I don't imagine you would see any cuts to spending with a change in the legal status.

Well considering 6 out of 275 would be 2.2%, that's not a small amount in federal budget amounts. (And I agree it probably wouldn't hit ciggy taxes either, but using that as a starting point) As well, any savings anywhere would also help. Maybe we wouldn't see a savings as the budget would still get used, but it would improve the system them, by allowing that money to be used elsewhere. I think it's a little simplistic to poo poo the importance it could have overall. Don't forget it could have real benefits in health care too. Mostly on a patient side, but still significant monetary benefits.

[Flash Walken]

Tranny and CaptainCrunch must really love this guy to be trolling this thread so hard.

Spurned lovers?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Tranny and CaptainCrunch must really love this guy to be trolling this thread so hard.

Spurned lovers?

Quality contribution once again by you.....i guess i should know better than to expect otherwise.

What about the subject?

[RougeUnderoos]

I'm sure nothing will come of it, but this is interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08...n_3816626.html

CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I. — A law professor has accused Justice Minister Peter MacKay of misleading the public by saying Justin Trudeau broke the law by smoking pot.

While it is illegal to grow, traffic or possess marijuana, smoking weed is not a criminal offence.

University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran has written to the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society asking that they investigate MacKay, a former provincial Crown prosecutor and, as the current Attorney General of Canada, the person charged with enforcing the rules of the land, for unprofessional conduct as a lawyer.

[corporatejay]

Meanwhile in Alberta, Redford can't get out of her own way.

https://twitter.com/ABPremierComms/s...219200/photo/1

[SebC]

I'm with Smith on that one.

[Rathji]

I wonder if her position has changed in the last 10 years.

I know my personal opinion on the matter certainly has.

[metallicat]

Exactly. That isn't exactly a relevant comparison of quotes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I wonder if her position has changed in the last 10 years.

If Smith's has regressed to prohibitionist thinking, I'll retract my endorsement of her position on this issue. Usually people advance with society though.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Meanwhile in Alberta, Redford can't get out of her own way.

https://twitter.com/ABPremierComms/s...219200/photo/1

The stupid... it burns.

A couple of things come to mind:

• This looks like an attack ad coming from a government account… is that even legal campaigning? (Legit question, anyone know?)
• The WR is now intolerant backwater rednecks… AND pot smoking hippies?
• Did some one really think they were pulling off the movie-poster floating heads thing with this design?

[FlamesAddiction]

When you look at Harper's position on many topics, he "flip-flopped" quite a bit from the time he was forming the Reform Party. If 1980s Harper could see himself now, he would probably be ashamed.

With Harper though, he never really articulated that his ideas have changed, but rather, he seems to have sacrificed them in order to move himself into a higher paid position. He's a political sellout. Granted, he would never have been elected if he didn't, but I would rather he have the courage of his convictions.

But I do think that Harper and Trudeau have more in common than people think. They both know that they are trying to win a popularity contest and will say whatever they think they need to in order to win. It's difficult to know where any politician truly stands. You can't believe any of them as they are all liars.

[nik-]

She also called it a gateway drug, so her stance is pretty hilarious.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You can't believe any of them as they are all liars.

New to politics? Of course they are all liars. The key is to pick the most competent liar. Harper is a liar but he has not embaressed Canada on the world stage nor has he brought the country down economically. Can any Liberal supporter say with confidence that Trudeau isn't going to put his foot in his mouth and embaress the country or even realizes the magnitude of the position of PM? When I hear him talk I don't hear a man that is taking his job seriously. Everytime he opens his mouth he contradicts something he said earlier almost like nothing he says is calculated or thought out. He looks to me like a playboy that is having a good time riding his dad's coat tails being propped up because of who he is and not what he can actually do. The kid was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and hasn't had to work a hard day in his life so to him it's all win-win because if he get's to be PM it will be another unearned priviledgethat he can run with and if he doesn't I doubt he really cares because the alternative is to continue the playboy life.