Harper turns out to be a loser (again)

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I find that statement absolutely hilarious coming from you.

Hello tool. Why don't you go shopping for designer clothes and taze handcuffed brown people on your way?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Well that's good - you have some company.


Real Boris would have started a much better thread.

You're witty tonight. Watch out for your brain overheating.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The front. The backs are scenes of Candiana. The Queen is actually only on the $20 bill. Used to be 1's and 2's as well, but then they got changed to coins. For coins, the monarch is heads which I would say is the front as opposed to tails (the back).

Sorry, it all looks like monopoly money to me. Colors other than green on money Of course, we've now added colors too Boo!

Yeah, so, right, um, what are we talking about? Dude, like, pass the bong.

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

Mind if you hold it for me while my hands are on the steering?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Hello tool. Why don't you go shopping for designer clothes and taze handcuffed brown people on your way?

Oh, we're getting snippy. Too bad 1) you suck at it and 2) there are far better things to snap back at Oerdin about.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You're witty tonight.

You aren't.

[Fake Boris]

Thanks for your insight.

[Fake Boris]

The pattern is simple: I criticize the failings of a law that doesn't properly address the issue of drug driving, therefore I'm for people driving high.

[notyoueither]

If the basis of any arrest begins with failing sobriety tests how does this not address the issue of drugged driving?

[Fake Boris]

Easy.

1. They'll be testing for presence (that's the case of marijuana, for instance). They completely ignore the dose at which drugs become dangerous: for instance a high dose of marijuana is apparently less dangerous than the legal 0.8, while opiates actually reduce your risk over a sober driver. This especially leads to problem in the cases of drugs that stay in your body for much longer than the visible effect.

2. Since most of their tests won't be precise, an officer will be handled the task of determining whether or not the suspect is "high" through subjective observation. So basically the police is both judge and attorney: they get to decide if the guy is high, instead of having to prove it and then charge him.

The bottom line is that we're giving the police additional arbitrary power and making a crime out of something not based on rigorous numbers. All of this because our prime minister is a ****** whose sole knowledge on drugs come from circa 1970 propaganda videos.

[notyoueither]

Sorry, OB, but someone who fails a sobriety test probably shouldn't be on the road.

If they have a valid reason for failing such a test that doesn't involve drugs they can argue that at trial and hopefully give up their license voluntarily after they are found innocent.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Easy.

1. They'll be testing for presence (that's the case of marijuana, for instance). They completely ignore the dose at which drugs become dangerous: for instance a high dose of marijuana is apparently less dangerous than the legal 0.8, while opiates actually reduce your risk over a sober driver. This especially leads to problem in the cases of drugs that stay in your body for much longer than the visible effect.

2. Since most of their tests won't be precise, an officer will be handled the task of determining whether or not the suspect is "high" through subjective observation. So basically the police is both judge and attorney: they get to decide if the guy is high, instead of having to prove it and then charge him.

The bottom line is that we're giving the police additional arbitrary power and making a crime out of something not based on rigorous numbers. All of this because our prime minister is a ****** whose sole knowledge on drugs come from circa 1970 propaganda videos.

I understand your point however it is an offence already to be impaired by "alcohol or a drug" (CCC s.253(a)). This is a subjective standard different from the .08 offence which can be demonstrated by test.

It appears Harper is trying to apply some sort of ".08" standard for drugs. I share your concerns about the ability of non-invasive testing devices to be accurate.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter. As with most Harper/Conservative 'justice policy' plans this one will not pass. The announcement was for political purposes.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

The fact remains that you have no clue what you're talking about. You have no idea of how various studies were conducted, many of them under direct supervision of departments whose job was to wage the "war on drugs", that people lost their jobs over publishing results incompatible with ideological aims, etc.

The 'fact remains' that I have moderated at Bluelight.ru for ages, and have spent years reading exactly the same circle-jerk stories by the woodwork varietal of stoners who come out en-masse to support any pro-marijuana study that's listed on the front page.

The same, selective intake nobodies just as surely dismiss any study with contrary findings as a "puppet of the DEA (etc.)". More hilariously, when the study is sourced and background checked as entirely independent - these same THC flooded one-liners instead switch to talk of how the "data streams" and "method of collection" in the study are flawed, playing scientist after their stoned 9-5 day working in a box factory

Check the website out, because it's the leading educative community on illicit substances of every range - and there are plenty of smart, scientifically qualified people who spend a frustrating portion of their time having to cut down the fringe of irresponsible parrots like you.

Amusing PCP rant though, hope you're not driving tonight.

Ah, fruit number four from the seed planted when pretending that I've used PCP, a dozen threads ago. It's such a convenient method of nailing the easy-minds who have nothing but my own fabrication to fall back upon in insult. Hope to see you on the naive list for the next game, kiddo

Where's that statistical limit for other drugs? where did they find it?

The studies were published on DEA.org, and I do not know the statistical limits myself, because I'm not an irresponsible schmuck who would follow the claim(s), however substantiated, as justification to drive while intoxicated! Beyond which, are you seriously that f*cking ignorant that you'd challenge that two of the strongest stimulants available don't increase your accuracy and reactiveness under specific doses, during any task - including driving???

The bold theme here - which you seem to have glaringly missed; is that countless classes of drugs, under their own dose and circumstance can be claimed (and even proved) as beneficial to driving. Where the fairy tale ends is that getting high is NOT as precise an action as should be getting behind the wheel. "Moderately" blurs into "Very" stoned, and it's not your choice to make distinction between the two while there's no way of enforcably identifying the grades.

In summation: You don't even have substantiated proof to back this single study up, and if you did - you can't measure your own character dose to match whatever the study might have argued. 0/2. That's beyond a failing grade for an active conviction that endangers other people.

But thanks to your glorious input, we are now aware that once you smoked a joint and were so 0MFG!!1 5t0n3d that you've had the Revelation that anyone having any quantity of marijuana in his organism and driving should be arrested.

This time you've missed out on a key point put in writing, that the justice system does not have the time or resources to arrest every driver who has used marijauna. Want to go back and read it again, or were you so baked while reading the responses to this thread that you forgot to attribute that emboldened point to my own argument? Not even the resident OT lawyer would waste a paragraph of his time explaining the simplistic reality of the concept to you, so if you're still having trouble with the idea - get out a few dolls and a grade 9 social text to somehow grasp it alone.

(We'll get back to OMFG 5t0n3d nearer the end, for the mindless internet pop-culture sponges out there who need help on the topic)

Thanks again for your creativity. What I complained about was that "specialists" would "diagnose" suspects and establish whether or not they were "high".

"Specialists" meaning educated & accredited individuals who use non intrusive physical analysis and cohesive tests akin to walking the line to judge who needs to sit in a cell for the night. Specialists who are being leaned on by the justice system itself to only label the most intoxicated stoned drivers for possible prosecution.

That's called common sense, and once blood screening advances far enough in response to rulings against specialist argument conviction - it's called a science, and a justifiable, airtight law. This is where we start, and a legal limit mirroring screening methods of alcohol induced driving is where we end. Do you think the purpose of anything through, or is it simply "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR WEED AWAY!" at every legal threat?

[re: You can smoke weed in any Canadian city] Dude what have you been smoking?!?

I've been smoking MARIJUANA, and in downtown Calgary - the most conservative and heavily policed urban area in Canada. Ever smoke a joint in downtown Vancouver? Toronto? Montreal? If you act like a decent human being, the cop has no time or will to arrest you. You throw your 3$ spliff to the ground and GET ON WITH LIFE

Who gives a **** what it's "about"? What matters is the effect.

Right, and the effect here along your imaginative one route mind is that "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR WEED AWAY"

Did you know the Patriot Act was about terrorism? NO SH1T?!?

Wow. That has so much to do with your own mind and its shortcircuited associations with this topic, absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here whatsoever. Keep it up.

Oh great, now they'll seize my stuff and walk away with it instead of arresting me.

Smoke your weed at home if you don't want to take a risk a restrained slap on the rist from our established LAWS. Do you need this written out and attached by string to your coat pocket?

Don't forget to soak your brown shirt while you're on your way to kissing the Queen's ass, loser.

ANOTHER completely relevant topic brought up by your own chemically delusional perceptions of what people against intoxicated driving are all about. Seriously, "the Queen", now? Dare I say a working proof that daily intake of THC turns an individual into an authority fearing nut-job of the worst proportions?

Yeah, "dude", the Monarchy and I are tight. Is that ever worth a fit of laughing, as sad and obvious an outcome of daily drug use as it is

1.) THE FACT REMAINS THAT...
2.) 0MFG!!1 5t0n3d (circa 2002, me funny internet lingo insult)
3.) Amusing [insert] rant
4.) Thanks for your input, Thanks for your creativity, etc.
5.) Don't forget to [insert] while kissing [insert]'s ass [insert]

Cliche after tired, useless cliche. None of them thought up on your own, none of them even remotely applicable.

You think that perhaps the loser here is the one so concerned with calling everyone else just that? The one who's so blindly tied up in a lifestyle bias that he's now going to spend the rest of his life reassuring himself that he's "moderately stoned" enough to drive?

One of those "believe whatever benefits myself", parrots. The worst type. And feel free to add that to your unimagive grade-school lexicon of "dude" and "loser". Ridicule your one-line arguments some other place soon, I'll be completely destroying your thread from here on in <3

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Zylka
The 'fact remains' that I have moderated at Bluelight.ru for ages, and have spent years reading exactly the same circle-jerk stories by the woodwork varietal of stoners who come out en-masse to support any pro-marijuana study that's listed on the front page.

The same, selective intake nobodies just as surely dismiss any study with contrary findings as a "puppet of the DEA (etc.)". More hilariously, when the study is sourced and background checked as entirely independent - these same THC flooded one-liners instead switch to talk of how the "data streams" and "method of collection" in the study are flawed, playing scientist after their stoned 9-5 day working in a box factory

Check the website out, because it's the leading educative community on illicit substances of every range - and there are plenty of smart, scientifically qualified people who spend a frustrating portion of their time having to cut down the fringe of irresponsible parrots like you.

Oh right grandad, now you're so wise that you can describe structural patterns in argumentative processes and apply them blindly to whoever disagrees with you. You're impressive don't you know?

And who's talking about "pro-marijuana" studies? You're the one talking about science and objectivity, but how come properly assessing the dangers and effects of a drug is making yourself pro-marijuana? It's true though that given the amount of propaganda and disinformation we're subject to, it seems like anything that doesn't conclude that marijuana will turn you into a depressive couchpotato or a schizophrenic murderer is akin to being "pro-marijuana". Now that's a good starting token hypothesis, isn't it?

Ah, fruit number four from the seed planted when pretending that I've used PCP, a dozen threads ago. It's such a convenient method of nailing the easy-minds who have nothing but my own fabrication to fall back upon in insult. Hope to see you on the naive list for the next game, kiddo

So your own fabrications are a pretext for imagining that people take them at face value? I'll call naive on you, and a E for humor.

The studies were published on DEA.org, and I do not know the statistical limits myself, because I'm not an irresponsible schmuck who would follow the claim(s), however substantiated, as justification to drive while intoxicated! Beyond which, are you seriously that f*cking ignorant that you'd challenge that two of the strongest stimulants available don't increase your accuracy and reactiveness under specific doses, during any task - including driving???

Way to substantialize the debate into something that it wasn't meant to be. I honestly do not give a **** whether in and by itself, somewhere in Plato's shmockidealand, marijuana increases or not your "accuracy" (though I still think that it's a plausible idea, at least from my personal experience, at light doses). Let the stats speak for themselves - and if it turns out that stoned drivers are not that dangerous because they drive like paranoid, overzealous automats, why should it matter to the debate about criminalization that these factors aren't allegedly "internal" to the effect?

The bold theme here - which you seem to have glaringly missed; is that countless classes of drugs, under their own dose and circumstance can be claimed (and even proved) as beneficial to driving. Where the fairy tale ends is that getting high is NOT as precise an action as should be getting behind the wheel. "Moderately" blurs into "Very" stoned, and it's not your choice to make distinction between the two while there's no way of enforcably identifying the grades.

Thanks for bringing the question around: why do we do it for alcohol, and not the rest? From there feel free to call my critique of the authorities using drugs as a convenient pretext to oppress the rights of a minority to make cheap security points come election day a "sweeping and unrelated human rights generalization".

In summation: You don't even have substantiated proof to back this single study up, and if you did - you can't measure your own character dose to match whatever the study might have argued. 0/2. That's beyond a failing grade for an active conviction that endangers other people.

Oh, you do? that's your philisophical side speaking?

This time you've missed out on a key point put in writing, that the justice system does not have the time or resources to arrest every driver who has used marijauna. Want to go back and read it again, or were you so baked while reading the responses to this thread that you forgot to attribute that emboldened point to my own argument? Not even the resident OT lawyer would waste a paragraph of his time explaining the simplistic reality of the concept to you, so if you're still having trouble with the idea - get out a few dolls and a grade 9 social text to somehow grasp it alone.

Honestly - what?

"Specialists" meaning educated & accredited individuals who use non intrusive physical analysis and cohesive tests akin to walking the line to judge who needs to sit in a cell for the night. Specialists who are being leaned on by the justice system itself to only label the most intoxicated stoned drivers for possible prosecution.

That's called common sense, and once blood screening advances far enough in response to rulings against specialist argument conviction - it's called a science, and a justifiable, airtight law. This is where we start, and a legal limit mirroring screening methods of alcohol induced driving is where we end. Do you think the purpose of anything through, or is it simply "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR WEED AWAY!" at every legal threat?

The problem is that certain drugs won't impair your ability in physical reactiveness tests as much as say, alcohol. Read a bit on the procedure - you'll see that it's actually based on observation of passive symptoms and not active tests - because, as you probably know, it's not like ecstasy or coke will prevent you from touching your nose, quite the opposite.
This is where I call too much arbitrary power in the hand of the police.

I've been smoking MARIJUANA, and in downtown Calgary - the most conservative and heavily policed urban area in Canada. Ever smoke a joint in downtown Vancouver? Toronto? Montreal? If you act like a decent human being, the cop has no time or will to arrest you. You throw your 3$ spliff to the ground and GET ON WITH LIFE

Again I call BS. It depends on plenty of other factors, like being a ****** or a ***, being young or old, wearing a Che t-shirt, etc. If you've been lucky or generally act like a respectful middle class dweller, then good for you. But there are hundreds of thousands of people, in Canada, who faced arrest for simple possession, begging to differ.

Wow. That has so much to do with your own mind and its shortcircuited associations with this topic, absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here whatsoever. Keep it up.

Well NO. It has to do with you not realizing that I don't care about the PURPOSE of this law, i.e. what it's about, but rather the kind of abuse it allows, and the general attitude of the authorities regarding narcotics.

Smoke your weed at home if you don't want to take a risk a restrained slap on the rist from our established LAWS. Do you need this written out and attached by string to your coat pocket?

Wow, LAWS!!! CAPITALIZED!!! Still aren't giving up your brown shirt?

ANOTHER completely relevant topic brought up by your own chemically delusional perceptions of what people against intoxicated driving are all about. Seriously, "the Queen", now? Dare I say a working proof that daily intake of THC turns an individual into an authority fearing nut-job of the worst proportions?

Yeah, "dude", the Monarchy and I are tight. Is that ever worth a fit of laughing, as sad and obvious an outcome of daily drug use as it is

Good to see your creativity fabricating original theory about me, this time. I take it you would be too brilliant to forge something based on what I wrote?

You think that perhaps the loser here is the one so concerned with calling everyone else just that? The one who's so blindly tied up in a lifestyle bias that he's now going to spend the rest of his life reassuring himself that he's "moderately stoned" enough to drive?

And that's what it's all about: lifestyle tolerance. It seems like your own has blinded you on how the police actually acts when they find a gram or two on anyone who isn't "acceptable", and how they use their power to arrest people or blackmail them on the basis that something which SHOULDN'T BE illegal is.

As for driving stoned, well yeah: I'd drive after two beers, just like I'd drive after a small toke. And I wouldn't drive after a huge four paper blunt, just like I wouldn't after a six pack.

One of those "believe whatever benefits myself", parrots. The worst type. And feel free to add that to your unimagive grade-school lexicon of "dude" and "loser". Ridicule your one-line arguments some other place soon, I'll be completely destroying your thread from here on in <3

As opposed to what, your graduate school lexicon of "philisophical" and "LOL he likes French structuralists ahah"?
Stick to your FM talk rhetoric if you wish, hurl unrelated insults at people who criticize the failings of a cheap conservative spindoctoring show, I'll say "dude" from time to time and call it even. Though I'm keeping my "sweeping generalizations about civil liberties" for myself, as it's a public concern no amount of moderating or being a "pro" about data collection has made it go through you.

[Jaguar]

Spoiler:

Fakeboris is an idiot.