CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[Wezil]

NYE - Sorry for the response delay. I was going to do this yesterday but BK's insanity in another thread had me opt for the bong instead.

Re - Conservatives at court -

They do just fine...

Really? I agree they are a godsend for the legal industry in that they keep lawyers busy but I don't see much success for the C-'s when decisions are made. What decisions are you possibly thinking of?

[Wezil]

I think I have to agree. Other leaders could have done better in any of the past three elections (Clark or McKay, for instance). The problem is that leaders like them were extremely unlikely to win the leadership. Harper or Day (etc)? The Conservatives probably chose wisely.

So a centrist (red tory) would be better but the party suffers from Tea Party disease and can only elect from the extremes? I can agree with the sentiment but I am surprised to hear you say it. I remember you chastising me a few years ago for claiming the Conservatives have yet to reclaim the progressives. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the PC's (Progressive Canadians) are still running separate from the Conservatives in this province.

OTOH, Harper has made steady gains since 2004. He's overcome most of the scare tactics the Liberals used effectively for many years to keep themselves in power. The Conservatives would never win in Quebec, it was said. The Conservatives would never win in Toronto, it was said.

"Steady gains"? Bigger minorities? The government will pass it's "shelf life" before securing a majority under that plan.

The problem for the Conservatives isn't that we haven't had a chance to evaluate and make our opinion of Harper (as more time would allow), but rather that we have already formed an opinion of Harper and it is not favourable. More time will just reinforce the image. You can put a nice sweater on him but it doesn't change who he is.

So, I guess we'll see. I think the Conservatives have to run a strong finish. To do that they may have to take risks. Last time they coasted in. This time I'm thinking they've saved powder for the final ten days, or they have another strategy. I wonder how effective they are being in their target ridings? I'm seeing very little spending activity nationally or in my region. I'm not shocked that Alberta would not see strong spending, but I am wondering where they are on the national broadcasters?

I'm not a good judge of election spending campaigns as I don't watch TV and rarely listen to radio.

I did mention earlier I am not seeing a lot of action in this riding (aside from leaders blowing in and out) in the way of local candidate engagement or literature.

[Wezil]

Are federalists in and outside of Quebec better off with a Conservative majority government or a Liberal minority going into a referendum campaign?

Harper is not a popular figure in Quebec, but would the Liberal brand be worse?

Frankly I don't think it really matters what party or leader is in office in Ottawa. This is one issue most Canadians unite behind anyway.

That said, Jack seems to be well liked in Quebec these days. Let's make him our point man.

[Wezil]

Back to this issue again...

Don't worry about law and order, Wezil. You are now a protected creature.

I wonder what this does to the mandatory minimum for six plants.

The Post editorial today addresses this issue today with a variety of half-truths and bull**** premises. They are trying to appear reasonable but can't get past their ideology.

Last Monday, for at least the third time in a dozen years, an Ontario court struck down provisions of Canada’s marijuana laws. While we support the decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana for personal use, we would prefer to see such contentious social changes made by Parliament rather than by the courts. As was the case with same-sex marriage, such seismic shifts in Canada’s traditional moral code garner more public support, more quickly, when made by Canadians’ elected representatives rather than by appointed judges.

Pot smokers and judges should also drop the façade that their legal challenges and decisions deal only with medical marijuana use by sufferers of cancer, glaucoma, chronic pain and other conditions. It’s obvious these court cases, while purportedly decided on the narrow issue of therapeutic toking, are in truth efforts to make marijuana more accessible to everyone.

For more than a dozen years, there has been a game going on between marijuana advocates and Ontario judges on one side, and Health Canada on the other. Advocates sue for easier access, allegedly only for people who need to smoke up to mitigate the nausea that results from chemotherapy and the like. When the courts order such access, Health Canada (not incorrectly) takes the ruling at face value and devises regulations about who may use pot medicinally and under what circumstances. They also specify how and when doctors may prescribe it. However, because such rules don’t deal with activists’ true goal — across-the-board pot legalization — the advocates are quickly back before the bar pleading for further expansions of the rights of medicinal weed consumers. This approach, however disingenuous, has worked. Just look at Monday’s decision.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Donald Taliano granted Matthew Mernagh, a well-known marijuana advocate who has been charged numerous times for possession or production of marijuana, a permanent stay of charges against him for having and using pot without a doctor-approved licence. Justice Taliano also gave Mr. Mernagh a “personal exemption” from criminal prosecution for the next 90 days so he may grow or buy pot freely while Ottawa revises its medical marijuana rules, as ordered by the judge.

If the court’s desire were merely to ease bureaucratic delays for patients needing marijuana, it could have given Mr. Mernagh a federal licence to buy from a government-approved grower. Instead, it effectively upended Health Canada’s marijuana protocols altogether, seemingly permitting Mr. Mernagh to grow his own pot without a licence or to buy from unlicensed (i.e. illegal) dealers. It is unlikely the court would have been so aggressive in fashioning a remedy in regard to any other drug.

At the heart of Mr. Mernagh’s complaint was his failure to find a doctor prepared to sign his marijuana licence. In the absence of a prescriber, the court permitted him to take his treatment into his own hands. But what if Mr. Mernagh had been desirous of taking strong painkillers to treat his multiple conditions, yet could find no physician to write him a prescription? It’s seem unlikely a judge would have created for him a Constitutional right to oxycontin or morphine, and given him permission to buy from a street dealer if no medical profession would supply his need.

So long as marijuana advocates want to legalize their drug using the backdoor excuse of medicinal need, they must consent to have doctors act as gatekeepers to their drug of choice. But that gatekeeping system — put in place a decade ago as a means to balance legitimate medical needs with marijuana’s status as a generally illegal drug — has broken down thanks to an unstated alliance between activist judges and straight-up activists.

As noted above, we share their ultimate policy goal: Marijuana should be decriminalized, and possibly even legalized. But this is not the way to do it.

That is why it is preferable to be up front in the marijuana debate, and to settle the matter in the House of Commons rather than in the courts. Canadians are amongst the greatest per-capita consumers of marijuana in the Western world. A quarter or more of our adults have smoked it at least once. So it shouldn’t be hard to find broad-based public support for decriminalization — by legislation rather than judge-made law.

National Post

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/18/national-post-leave-marijuana-decriminalization-to-parliament/

1. The courts must act when Parliament refuses to do their job (see also the prostitution issue).

2. Health Canada fails at providing the drug not (as the Post argues) "When the courts order such access, Health Canada (not incorrectly) takes the ruling at face value and devises regulations about who may use pot medicinally and under what circumstances.". They devise regulations and the drug is unavailable.

3. "If the court’s desire were merely to ease bureaucratic delays for patients needing marijuana, it could have given Mr. Mernagh a federal licence to buy from a government-approved grower." And upend Health Canada's regulatory regime? Sucking and blowing at the same time.

4. "Instead, it effectively upended Health Canada’s marijuana protocols altogether, seemingly permitting Mr. Mernagh to grow his own pot without a licence or to buy from unlicensed (i.e. illegal) dealers. It is unlikely the court would have been so aggressive in fashioning a remedy in regard to any other drug." Name me another drug you can produce at home?

5. Marijuana is not in the same category as "strong painkillers" but what the heck, throw that in there to scare the kids anyway.

6. The system set up a decade ago did not fail "thanks to an unstated alliance between activist judges and straight-up activists", it failed because that was what it was designed to do. The government met the court requirements by setting up a system whereby if anyone got anything it was low grade kife.

7. "As noted above, we share their ultimate policy goal: Marijuana should be decriminalized, and possibly even legalized. But this is not the way to do it.". Liars. They are using the way it is evolving as a fig leaf for their true opposition. If they really supported decriminalization they wouldn't publish such weak-assed editorials hiding behind Parliamentary inaction.

[Asher]

[Fake Boris]

Are federalists in and outside of Quebec better off with a Conservative majority government or a Liberal minority going into a referendum campaign?

Harper is not a popular figure in Quebec, but would the Liberal brand be worse?

The Liberal brand is much better.

Harper would have a hard time campaigning against a referendum; his French sounds like Dion's English. Ignatieff is more credible on the national issue (wrote a book on it), and the Libs have a political team to speak of in Quebec. Tory MPs in here are meaningless puppets.

[Asher]

The Liberals are now attributing things other people said to Harper in their new attack ads. Then shrug it off when called on it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/grits-shrug-off-tory-accusation-they-fabricated-harper-quote/article1989627/

[Wezil]

Right or wrong the Conservatives have zero credibility when it comes to "truthiness" in ads. It's just not an issue they will get any sympathy on.

[Asher]

Have they invented/misattributed quotes before?

It's one thing to be a typical political attack ad (insinuations, etc), it's quite another to blatantly invent quotes. Especially one as incendiary as the ones the Libs chose.

[Wezil]

The quote wasn't "invented", it was attributed to the wrong person.

Tempest in a teapot as the article points out as Harper has said nearly identical things himself.

[Wezil]

Compared to the **** the Conservatives have been shoveling for years this is a non-issue.

Live by the sword...

[Asher]

The quote wasn't "invented", it was attributed to the wrong person.

No, the quote was invented. Harper never said it, ergo it was invented.

The fact that someone else said those words doesn't mean the Quote attributed to Harper was not invented.

Tempest in a teapot as the article points out as Harper has said nearly identical things himself.

Then they should feel free to use it.

[Fake Boris]

IIRC there are cites of Harper openly mentioning privatized healthcare before his political days.

The libs falsely attributed that one to him because it's more incendiary, but the basis of the insinuations are true.

Still unacceptable, though.

[Asher]

Compared to the **** the Conservatives have been shoveling for years this is a non-issue.

Live by the sword...

This is nonsense. "HE STARTED IT" or "But they do it too!" should be no excuse.

There should be zero tolerance for falsehoods or unsubstantiated assertions and insinuations in political advertising.

[Fake Boris]

The problem with lies, is that they're always easier to make than disprove, in the context of a campaign where people only hear snippets on the media.

The Libs are clearly panicking - they've given up on being "clean", which they have mostly been in their history.