Jagmeet Singh - Taxes are an investment in the future

90 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2018-02-22 21:55

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You can be sure the right wing will go to war against these taxes.Probably more for the reason that these new tax hikes are designed to help people. The right wing LOATHES that.

Really?

I'm ready to believe that they resent tax hikes because they could have spent that tax money on a new sports car or whatever. But the *real* reason they resent it is because it would buy some books for an underpriveleged student or something, and they just can't abide that because they're Montgomery Burns? That's just acting out.

"They hate anything that's beautiful!!" "They must destroy it!!!!"

Oh Magoo. If you can take a break from sarcasm,just answer me this. Does the right wing support welfare programs? Are the right wing interested in improving Canadians health care. (and when I ask that question,I'm talking about improving it for those who cannot afford private insurance)? Do they care if you live or if you die? Have they any empathy for the marginalized? Those living with addiction,those living on $5 a day? Is it not true that it is right wing governments federal and provincial who like to gut services to hand tax cuts to the well to do?

Yeah,they pretty much are Mr.Burns. And they hate any kind of legislation that is designed to help people,particularly the sick and poor. They don't even care about the welfare of Veterans but they sure like to use them as props wrapped in the flag at sporting events. Enlighten me and prove me wrong.

Thu, 2018-02-22 23:15

#53

Ken Burch

OK...so some people resent tax hikes. What is your point? 2015 proved that it doesn't work for the NDP to appease anti-tax feeling.

The way to diffuse the resentment is to do what the Left has argued for:
1) Do a tax plan that focuses on increasing taxes on the rich, and LEAD with the "tax the rich" part in your pre-campaigna and campaign arguments;

2) Be specific on what the increase will be spent on (it's doomed to failure to put tax hikes to balance the budget first-only the rich care about whether the budget is balanced or not, and the way to persuade everybody else is to emphasize that it will go to new spending and on what services will be funded BY the spending).

That's why it's important to restore PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.

Any party that makes it's primary policy commitment one of balancing the budget AND not increasing taxes is a party that is automatically agreeing to run a government that does nothing that benefits the people.

Thu, 2018-02-22 23:14

#54

Ken Burch

And as to the right wing, there's nothing the NDP could do to stop the right wing from attacking it other than agreeing not to be NDP when in power. No point in trying.

Fri, 2018-02-23 13:53

#55

Sean in Ottawa

This is a good direction. The NDP has to be clear who would pay the tax, how much and how that would be spent. It is more simple talking tax cuts than expenditures. People want to know the spending will help them. The NDP may have to do some work (Or Broadbent Institute) oncomparing lower tax countries with Canada and what we get for the additional money (healthcare just one thing).

Fri, 2018-02-23 14:06

#56

Sean in Ottawa

As we watch, over the decades, the tax cut discussions, the economic landscape has been changing.

Many of us remember the tax cut arguments of the 1980s. Voting opinions are about numbers when it comes to elections.

Inequality has grown and what that means is that the pool of middle class voters who feel they would significantly benefit from tax cuts has been shrinking. The number with lower incomes who pay less tax and need benefits from an activist government has grown. While the wealth is still there, it is concentrated in the hands of fewer voters to focus on tax cuts. They may still want the cuts but they are a smaller voting base.

This is not to say that the mantras won't work, but that the real interests of an overtaxed middle has been shrinking with the middle itself and as the money concentrates, there are fewer voters representing the greed at all costs point of view.

On the other hand as people are vulnerable, lower income people are sensitive to any threats of tax as they are desperate. Arguments about greater tax fairness and relief for the bottom are more likely to work now as more people than in a long while are no longer considering themselves in the middle. This means that they may be attracted less to what is aimed to help the middle than an effort to help the lower rungs. Inequality, is creating a change in economic demographics that favour a more active government and a more distributive tax regime. Included are those formally in the middle class who are increasingly looking at retirement and pensions and living on low income.

More people want to know what government can do for them than what it might stop taking away. That is the consequence of years of the government surrendering to increased inequality.

At some point when too many are low income the tax cut argument fails politically.

So now, the parties will have to come through with specifics on who will get the benefits, what the investments will cost and who will pay. This is a more mature discussion. People who are fragile economically will not want spending without the rest of the equation but they also will not want the tax cuts at all costs mantra either.

Fri, 2018-02-23 18:21

#57

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Oh Magoo. If you can take a break from sarcasm,just answer me this. Does the right wing support welfare programs? Are the right wing interested in improving Canadians health care. (and when I ask that question,I'm talking about improving it for those who cannot afford private insurance)? Do they care if you live or if you die? Have they any empathy for the marginalized? Those living with addiction,those living on $5 a day? Is it not true that it is right wing governments federal and provincial who like to gut services to hand tax cuts to the well to do?

I rarely visit a convenience store in my neighbourhood, not because the owners and employees are all Korean, but because they have very little that I want, and their prices are typically high.

You could certainly accuse me of not shopping there because they're Korean, and you could point out that someone who hates Koreans would not shop there, ergo I must hate Koreans, but from a logical point of view that would be about a Grade 8 argument.

Similarly, if I don't give a few toonies to a panhandler, it's a bit much to conclude that I must want to watch him wither from hunger, as though those were the only two possible options.

Yes, "the rich" don't want to pay taxes -- just like literally everyone. That's not the same as "... because they hate the poor and delight in their suffering". Think beyond cartoon stereotypes, even if it's less satisfying.

Fri, 2018-02-23 18:43

#58

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Fine. Defend the right wing. They're so misunderstood. They're humaitarians who are misunderstood. Got it.

Fri, 2018-02-23 19:08

#59

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Defend the right wing. They're so misunderstood.

Alan, you seem to think they're all the Monopoly guy with Richie Rich's head on top.

Whether we agree with them or not, they have their own interests, values and beliefs, independent of your imagination. I'm not defending those interests, values or beliefs when I say that you can't just make up stuff that you want to believe.

Sat, 2018-02-24 00:42

(Reply to #59) #60

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Defend the right wing. They're so misunderstood.

Alan, you seem to think they're all the Monopoly guy with Richie Rich's head on top.

Whether we agree with them or not, they have their own interests, values and beliefs, independent of your imagination. I'm not defending those interests, values or beliefs when I say that you can't just make up stuff that you want to believe.

OK,I hear you,Magoo.

But I find their political perspective vile and despicable. That's not my imagination,take a right winger like Andrew Scheer..his politics when concentrated to its very core is a hatred of the poor,the marginalized and programs that help people.

That's not Richie Rich or Montgomery Burns. That's Andrew Scheer. And his Conservatives are no better.

If you want to view them as human,I respect that. But I think they only try to look like a human being when on TV.

And if we were talking about American right wingers,cutting social services by $1.5 TRILLION to hand out massive cuts to the extremely wealthy,they actually do fall into the Monte Burns category.

Again,that's not my imagination.

I despise the right wing and everything they stand for so we will never agree about this,there's no point talking about this subject.

That is not my imagination.

Sat, 2018-02-24 01:33

#61

NorthReport

Mutant luxury logic raises its head in opposition to making Canada a tuition-free country

Student loans were introduced in the 1960s to provide access to university and colleges for middle- and lower-income families because only the wealthy could afford to attendbefore then.

Since then, not only have universities and colleges hosted large populations of students from middle- and lower-income families, so too has the marketplace upped its demands for university degrees and college diplomas for employment.

These requirements have contributed to a spiralling student-loan debt crisis that forces young people (the poor) to attend postsecondary institutions even when they cannot afford it because they need employment.

According to the Canadian Federation of Students, as of 2012 the student-loan debt in Canada totaled $28 billion. (More information is available here.)

In 1997-98, the federal government created a social class of disenfranchised student-loan debtors by prohibiting a bankruptcy discharge for 10 years after ceasing to be a student.

Unlike the access that all other insolvent debtors had to a bankruptcy discharge for impossible debt problems, bankrupt student-loan debtors who were not a party to fraudulent or vexatious misconduct were barred from getting a second chance like everyone else.

This draconian measure (an act of Parliament) continues in 2018 although it's been reduced from 10 to seven years.

Perhaps a universal system for discharging bankrupt student loan debtors should join the social justice cry for tuition-free postsecondary education.

Many countries embrace universal no-fees for postsecondary students, including France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, and Germany. It is not just a handful of youthful protesters who seek a fair and affordable way to find employment and get started in life making the argument.

Finally, the Vancouver Sun article relies heavily on a Canadian economist to mock and question those who seek an end to tuition fees for Canadians.

This brings up one of my favourite quotes from economist Edgar R. Fiedler: “Ask five economists and you'll get five different answers—six if one went to Harvard."

https://www.straight.com/news/1035411/douglas-p-welbanks-mutant-luxury-logic-raises-its-head-opposition-making-canada-tuition

Mon, 2018-02-26 14:58

#62

mark_alfred

I'm glad to see Singh openly speaking of taxes and public services as a benefit for society. His statement of the internet ("information highway") as something that should be public infrastructure is interesting, and could be of appeal to people. Internet connectivity is a cost to people, so providing a public option at a lower cost could hold real appeal.

Regarding taxes, I recall last election speaking with a mother of two young kids about the NDP's childcare promise of $15 a day childcare. She was impressed. She asked me how they would pay for it. I said they'll get the revenue from a two point increase in corporate taxes. Immediately she said, oh, that will mean higher costs for us all -- corporations will pass that onto the consumers.

So, even if a tax raise is not affecting people directly, and even if the proposed social program that is funded by such a tax increase is potentially beneficial to the person, they may still be leery. The feeling against tax hikes is quite strong.

So, good for Singh to try to change this. Allies of the NDP, like Tom Parkin, are also out pushing the idea of taxes as a route to good things for all. See PARKIN: Jagmeet Singh's big bet on tax fairness and infrastructure

Mon, 2018-02-26 15:42

(Reply to #62) #63

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Defend the right wing. They're so misunderstood.

Alan, you seem to think they're all the Monopoly guy with Richie Rich's head on top.

Whether we agree with them or not, they have their own interests, values and beliefs, independent of your imagination. I'm not defending those interests, values or beliefs when I say that you can't just make up stuff that you want to believe.

Yes, they have their own interests-interests which, in virtually all cases, are NOT the interests of the non-wealthy global majority.

You can't make stuff up about them, but you don't really have to.

The past thirty-seven years proves it's impossible to achieve anything progressive, democratic or even humane by deferring to the wealthy. What part of "It's us or them" are you not understanding?

Mon, 2018-02-26 16:19

(Reply to #63) #64

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Defend the right wing. They're so misunderstood.

Alan, you seem to think they're all the Monopoly guy with Richie Rich's head on top.

Whether we agree with them or not, they have their own interests, values and beliefs, independent of your imagination. I'm not defending those interests, values or beliefs when I say that you can't just make up stuff that you want to believe.

Yes, they have their own interests-interests which, in virtually all cases, are NOT the interests of the non-wealthy global majority.

You can't make stuff up about them, but you don't really have to.

The past thirty-seven years proves it's impossible to achieve anything progressive, democratic or even humane by deferring to the wealthy. What part of "It's us or them" are you not understanding?

Here's the problem. Right now we have a Liberal government. Of course NDPérs are not going to happy with that. Leftists will consider them right wing and that may well be true. It's a question of how far right they are. I think the Liberals are Centrists. Middle of the road party.

The Liberals are promising 2 very,very important PROGRESSIVE policies. OK<1 may be more important to some than others but none the less.

Cannabis will be legal this year. It's currently being held up by Conservatives in the Senate. Happily,they can only delay it,not kill it. Just about every province has figured out where to sell it and whether one can grow independantly or not. It's a fait accompli. Businesses have been incorporated. Legal growers to supply government run cannabis businesses.

This may not be a big deal issue for some,but it's a big deal for many. And any leftist should support such legislation as it will end the unjust arrests and criminal records currently being practiced. You don't have to be a 'pothead' to support this legislation. It's been a long time coming. It was supposed to happen in 1971.

If that doesn't float your boat,the Liberals want to implement a National Housing Act. Something desperately needed in our cities and supported by the NDP. THIS legislation is hugely important especially to those who are currently payiong up to 80% of their incomes on rent alone.

I understand it's not the right party or the right colours but it's progress.

Harper has been gone for 3 years. Has anybody not learned anything? I find it maddening that there are some here that have absolutely no problem with a Conservative majority. The Cons are WORSE in 2018 than they were in 2015. And a Conservative government in the next election will see these 2 progressive policies disappear instantly.

Here's a small snippet of what to expect from a Conservative government.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-pledge-to-recognize-jerusa...

You want to really know what to expect from them,take a long hard look at what's going on in the US. Clearly,the new Conservative playbook is inspired by the nightmare taking place down south.

And if that's not bad enough,Québec and Ontario are going Blue. It's not clear that Notley will hold on to power in Alberta (I doubt it)

A 90% Blue Canada and a solidly blood Red America is a recipe for disaster for everyone on the Left. Who knows how many years or decades it will take to undo the imminent damage that will take place.

If you're going to spend all your energy hating on a Canadioan political poarty,it would be more productive to turn that vitriol on Scheer and his Conservatives.

There is a lot on the line. I'm not suggesting everyone vote Liberal but people should have the stomach to take them for another 4 years. This will give the NDP the time to move themselves from 20% in the polls to maybe 30 or 35% and who knows. It's going to take Singh some time to convince Canadians he's the man for the toip job. He should do town halls up and down Canada relentlessly pushing his agenda.

So if we were to label any of the Federal (and provincial) parties 'evil' The Cons own it.

Mon, 2018-02-26 16:49

(Reply to #64) #65

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

So if we were to label any of the Federal (and provincial) parties 'evil' The Cons own it.

Let me make an anaolgy as simple as candy.

Imagine you have a candy brand and it is advertised as tasting like chocolate but really tastes like it has already been eaten. And you have a product labeled as poison. Sure poison is worse than excrement but the only people who buy the poison are the ones who want it becuase it is labeled as such. The real crooks are the ones selling excrement as chocolate. Those selling the crappy chocolate saying "well it is better than poison" miss the point that, given honest choices, people might actually choose chocolate that tastes like chocolate.

I do not have to like the bait and switch of the Liberals just because they will screw us more slowly than the Conservatives. In fact, I can consider the Liebrals, who swallow up progressive votes preventing anything really progressive from winning, as the real problem. That opinion, like it or not, is legitimate.

Mon, 2018-02-26 16:51

(Reply to #65) #66

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

So if we were to label any of the Federal (and provincial) parties 'evil' The Cons own it.

Let me make an anaolgy as simple as candy.

Imagine you have a candy brand and it is advertised as tasting like chocolate but really tastes like it has already been eaten. And you have a product labeled as poison. Sure poison is worse than excrement but the only people who buy the poison are the ones who want it becuase it is labeled as such. The real crooks are the ones selling excrement as chocolate. Those selling the crappy chocolate saying "well it is better than poison" miss the point that, given honest choices, people might actually choose chocolate that tastes like chocolate.

I do not have to like the bait and switch of the Liberals just because they will screw us more slowly than the Conservatives. In fact, I can consider the Liebrals, who swallow up progressive votes preventing anything really progressive from winning, as the real problem. That opinion, like it or not, is legitimate.

Policy,Sean. Policy. More important than if the Conservatives are 'honest'about their evil.

I'd rather get SOME of the policies I want than NONE.

I don't need to come up with an analogy.

Mon, 2018-02-26 19:58

(Reply to #66) #67

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

So if we were to label any of the Federal (and provincial) parties 'evil' The Cons own it.

Let me make an anaolgy as simple as candy.

Imagine you have a candy brand and it is advertised as tasting like chocolate but really tastes like it has already been eaten. And you have a product labeled as poison. Sure poison is worse than excrement but the only people who buy the poison are the ones who want it becuase it is labeled as such. The real crooks are the ones selling excrement as chocolate. Those selling the crappy chocolate saying "well it is better than poison" miss the point that, given honest choices, people might actually choose chocolate that tastes like chocolate.

I do not have to like the bait and switch of the Liberals just because they will screw us more slowly than the Conservatives. In fact, I can consider the Liebrals, who swallow up progressive votes preventing anything really progressive from winning, as the real problem. That opinion, like it or not, is legitimate.

Policy,Sean. Policy. More important than if the Conservatives are 'honest'about their evil.

I'd rather get SOME of the policies I want than NONE.

I don't need to come up with an analogy.

I am talking about policies. The Liberals run on policies the NDP propose and then come into power and don't do them. If the NDP ran agaisnt the Conservatives they would win sometimes and we would ahve some of these policies.

Get the water -- your straw man is on fire. I too would like some of the policies I want than none.

I think I would get more if the Liberals did not suck the progressive air out of campaigns and deliver less than if they were not there and a party who would deliver made the same proposals.

Tue, 2018-02-27 00:25

#68

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

There's no straw man to burn.I'm being honest and straight forward,I'm not handing you any BS.

Do you think I'm happy with our situation? I'm just explaining the situation we're in. I'm not straw manning anything.

An increase in Conservative support could bring out the ABC crowd. People who in any other situation would vote NDP. So it's bad news for the NDP as it always is when the Conservatives come close to winning a majority.

Look at it this way. The Cons win a phony baloney majority,the Liberals become the Opposition and the NDP has no voice at Parliament becasue they'd lag far below the 2 parties.

As it stands the Liberals are 'stealing' NDP ideas. I say let them. Let them steal the entire NDP platform. If these policies pass,I couldn't care if it came from an Orange party,a Red party or even a Blue party (and we both know that wouldn't happen in a million years)

If the Tories became progressive. If they were still the Joe Clark Progressive Conservatives,I wouldn't be running around with my hair on fire. But the current party are far right radicals,the mirror image of the Trump Republicans.

That's what concerns me. I just can't accept it. And I'd have no choice but to do what I can to stop them. Stop them at the election,not stop them with a hashtag on twitter when the election is over..

Tue, 2018-02-27 07:49

#69

Pondering

The Conservatives aren't in power right now and they aren't offering up policy to be criticized. The Conservatives won't be saying much about the NDP either. The path to power lies primarily through taking down the Liberals. The Liberals are in power right now so there are actions to criticize.

Singh has a steep uphill battle to climb. Trudeau is still riding high in the polls. If you were a bookie what odds would you put on the next election? Short of some extremely dramatic event Trudeau will probably get another majority. At worst he will have a minority government, and that would surprise me. (Pleasantly).

If the Conservatives managed to pull off a minority due to vote splitting the pressure would be heavy on the Liberals to make a deal with the NDP and take power. Trudeau has banked heavily on being progressive. The Green/NDP coalition in BC is an excellent example.

Pharmacare is a bribe many Canadians will readily accept. Gender based analysis of government policy will sit very well with women.

Trudeau is still wearing teflon. Watch the polls. He is doing fine.

I think that when Scheer's platform comes out Singh will criticize it.

As to criticism of Conservatives on this site, threads die quickly because everyone agrees. There is nothing to discuss. A lot of it goes without saying.

Tue, 2018-02-27 08:29

(Reply to #69) #70

mark_alfred

alan smithee wrote:

If that doesn't float your boat,the Liberals want to implement a National Housing Act.

That's the first I've heard of this. Do you have more details of this?
[edit] Okay, I found some information on this here. http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeaus-plan-to-make-hous...

Yes, well, it's something I suppose.

Tue, 2018-02-27 19:07

#71

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
As it stands the Liberals are 'stealing' NDP ideas. I say let them. Let them steal the entire NDP platform. If these policies pass,I couldn't care if it came from an Orange party,a Red party or even a Blue party (and we both know that wouldn't happen in a million years)

I mostly agree. At the same time, I'd have liked to see how the NDP could have handled legalizing marijuana. The current plan stops just short of requiring pot smokers to get a signed affadivit from both parents and all four grandparents before they can be sold a half gram of bad weed, paid for in Bitcoin. I feel the the NDP might have been able to make it all a bit less like buying alcohol in 1966.

Tue, 2018-02-27 19:09

#72

mark_alfred

Singh comments on the federal budget: http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/cpac-special/episodes/59643560

Tue, 2018-02-27 20:02

(Reply to #72) #73

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
As it stands the Liberals are 'stealing' NDP ideas. I say let them. Let them steal the entire NDP platform. If these policies pass,I couldn't care if it came from an Orange party,a Red party or even a Blue party (and we both know that wouldn't happen in a million years)

I mostly agree. At the same time, I'd have liked to see how the NDP could have handled legalizing marijuana. The current plan stops just short of requiring pot smokers to get a signed affadivit from both parents and all four grandparents before they can be sold a half gram of bad weed, paid for in Bitcoin. I feel the the NDP might have been able to make it all a bit less like buying alcohol in 1966.

The NDP supported decriminalization only. They felt more studies were needed on the powerful new marijuana. I sure wish I could get my hands on that superweed.

Implementation could be better but it's not a big deal because the truth will out once it is legal. The provinces that are the most liberal will have the most success. The ones that are most restrictive will have their plans fail.

Surprisingly they still don't get it. They think users will happily trot off to their crappy stores because they would prefer to buy legal. They still imagine the "Black Market" is controlled by organized crime so people have to meet with shady characters to get pot. They still don't seem to get that they have to either absorb or compete with the black market.

Tue, 2018-02-27 20:03

(Reply to #73) #74

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Singh comments on the federal budget: http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/cpac-special/episodes/59643560

Well that made me feel better. He's a smart man.

Tue, 2018-02-27 20:42

(Reply to #74) #75

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Singh comments on the federal budget: http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/cpac-special/episodes/59643560

Well that made me feel better. He's a smart man.

It is a good response. After the Liberals' tax plan sold as for the middle class that helped the top, the argument that it does not address equality is important. Comments on pharmacare are also good. Especially important is the argument that this already has been studied and is getting no money.

I like that Singh was very balanced. It is a much better communications approach than we saw previously.

He acknowledged the pay equity step in a good way.

He was very, very credible. This is what balance gives you -- your criticisms are believed when you praise some things and criticize others. I like also that he did not demonize. This type of presentation bodes well for the NDP in the next election. It also bodes well for the possibility that NDP proposals will be listened to and implemented even if the NDP do not win. Very strong showing.

Wed, 2018-02-28 07:15

(Reply to #75) #76

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
As it stands the Liberals are 'stealing' NDP ideas. I say let them. Let them steal the entire NDP platform. If these policies pass,I couldn't care if it came from an Orange party,a Red party or even a Blue party (and we both know that wouldn't happen in a million years)

I mostly agree. At the same time, I'd have liked to see how the NDP could have handled legalizing marijuana. The current plan stops just short of requiring pot smokers to get a signed affadivit from both parents and all four grandparents before they can be sold a half gram of bad weed, paid for in Bitcoin. I feel the the NDP might have been able to make it all a bit less like buying alcohol in 1966.

The NDP supported decriminalization only. They felt more studies were needed on the powerful new marijuana. I sure wish I could get my hands on that superweed.

Implementation could be better but it's not a big deal because the truth will out once it is legal. The provinces that are the most liberal will have the most success. The ones that are most restrictive will have their plans fail.

Surprisingly they still don't get it. They think users will happily trot off to their crappy stores because they would prefer to buy legal. They still imagine the "Black Market" is controlled by organized crime so people have to meet with shady characters to get pot. They still don't seem to get that they have to either absorb or compete with the black market.

The only thing the Liberals REALLY screwed up was not coming up with a federal law for all the provinces to follow. Giving the provinces the power to make their own rules regarding legal cannabis was a HUGE mistake. Some provinces will have a competent and profitable cannabis industry and some will be half assed and provide a product that those who smoke it won't be satisfied with.

As an aside,I have to say that it makes me rip the hair off my head everytime someone brings up 'The pot these days is different than what people were smoking 40 years ago'

Um,yes it is. But back before hydroponics,there was a lot a hashish floating around that was as strong as any pot you'll find today. That's what we were smoking back in the day. Montreal's hash was renowned as much as our smoked meat ,poutine and 'gentleman's ' clubs. That is the honest to Gord truth. I've heard from health professionals explain that people used to buy the leaves and not the bud and the bud is stronger than anything people were smoking 30,40 or 50 years ago. It's a lame argument that is lacking in facts. They are treating it as if it is LSD. I have this argument with my doctor from time to time. It's not honest and it is hyperbolic to say the least.

End of rant.

Wed, 2018-02-28 12:47

(Reply to #76) #77

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

The only thing the Liberals REALLY screwed up was not coming up with a federal law for all the provinces to follow. Giving the provinces the power to make their own rules regarding legal cannabis was a HUGE mistake. Some provinces will have a competent and profitable cannabis industry and some will be half assed and provide a product that those who smoke it won't be satisfied with.

I disagree. The provinces would have been up in arms as they control alcohol sales. Aside from that they vary in how strict they want to be. The stricter provinces would put pressure on the feds for the most restrictive laws possible. Whatever was decided would leave no room for comparison of outcome.

This way some provinces will get it right, or at least closer right. BC, New Brunswick and Alberta seem most likely to have the most reasonable laws. So much for Quebec and Ontario being progressive.

Wed, 2018-02-28 13:29

(Reply to #77) #78

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

This way some provinces will get it right, or at least closer right. BC, New Brunswick and Alberta seem most likely to have the most reasonable laws. So much for Quebec and Ontario being progressive.

You just proved my point. This is the reason why there should have been a federal law passed where cannabis would be taken from a cateogory 1 drug to a the same category as alcohol.

This would restrict provinces from not partcipating with federal law. Provinces like Ontario and Quebec would have to follow the law.

What you're suggesting is the complete opposite. Provinces should have been held obligated on following federal laws explicitly enforcing the legal sales and production of cannabis. Whether they are in favour or not.

The people of Ontario and Quebec are going to get fucked because their provincial governments have the power to halt progress. They should never have that power. If this is acceptable,then what is the point of the federal government? All federal law would not apply to any of the provinces. The feds would be irrelevant,impotent and unnecessary.

Without the provinces being obligated in following federal law,abortion would be illegal in most of the country and gay marriage as well.

I strongly disagree with you. In this instance you are wrong.

Wed, 2018-02-28 19:22

#79

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Without the provinces being obligated in following federal law,abortion would be illegal in most of the country and gay marriage as well.

I took a quick Google peek, and it appears that while federally, abortion is legal, availability and regulations do vary by province.

Equal marriage is probably different in that, to the best of my knowledge, marriage isn't of special interest to any province.

Wed, 2018-02-28 20:03

(Reply to #79) #80

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Without the provinces being obligated in following federal law,abortion would be illegal in most of the country and gay marriage as well.

I took a quick Google peek, and it appears that while federally, abortion is legal, availability and regulations do vary by province.

Equal marriage is probably different in that, to the best of my knowledge, marriage isn't of special interest to any province.

They are 2 issues protected by the feds. Even Conservative governments in Ottawa don't touch those issues. And the last I checked,no province is rocking the boat on these issues either.Even though there are provinces who disagree or vehemently oppose those 2 issues. They have been made to live with it regardless.

BTW,cannabis legalization is in the same boat as gay marriage. It was/is the obvious domino to follow gay marriage. It's still looked at as a 'lifestyle' I disagree with that assertion but that's how a lot of Canadians think of gay marriage. Just like Canadans (apparently even on the left) think cannabis legalization is a 'lifestyle' It isn't. It is an unjust law and the whole purpose of legalizing it has very little to do with smoking or eating edibles. It's about stopping the arrest and criminalization of peaceful law abiding citizens.It's a victimless 'crime' Any non-violent crime is unjust. Besides maybe shoplifting.In that case there is a victim or victims.

Wed, 2018-02-28 20:10

#81

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
And the last I checked,no province is rocking the boat on these issues either.

If, by "rocking the boat" you mean actively trying to overturn this right then you're probably correct. If, by "rocking the boat" you mean making an abortion unnecessarily difficult or complicated (when the procedure itself is neither) then tell us more.

Quote:
They have been made to live with it regardless.

Seems they all get to "live with it" on their terms. Like pot!

Wed, 2018-02-28 20:30

(Reply to #81) #82

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And the last I checked,no province is rocking the boat on these issues either.

If, by "rocking the boat" you mean actively trying to overturn this right then you're probably correct.

That's precisely my point.

Quote:
They have been made to live with it regardless.

Seems they all get to "live with it" on their terms. Like pot!

Where in Canada does a woman get turned away for an abortion? Yes,it's regulated,as it should be but point to me somewhere that will not perform the procedure. Name me a place in Canada that a gay couple cannot marry,even if it's labeled a 'union' it's still a legal act. Without the federal government,people (and there are a lot of them,icluding politicians) who disagree or are active in eliminating these things would have long since have recriminalize these things.

So yes. They must live it. And yes,the reefer madness crowd is going to have to live with legal weed. But the rules should have been written by Ottawa,not the provinces. The provinces should of had the power to establish age limits,regulate where one can smoke it and how many plants someone could grow for personal use -- that's it. Not try to make the province a dry province. There's no such thing as a dry province as much as there is no such thing as a dry town. If certain provinces want to over reach and not conform to federal law,organized crime will be business as usual. Those trying to block this are fools of the highest order.

Wed, 2018-02-28 21:13

#83

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Where in Canada does a woman get turned away for an abortion?

Check this table, and look at the column titled "# of Hospital Providers". If you subtract the smaller number from the larger number, that's how many hospitals evidently cannot provide this. Sure, they can do heart transplants. Sure, they can remove your gallstones laparoscopically. But evidently not something as complex as this.

Thoughts on why any hospital shouldn't be able to do this?

Wed, 2018-02-28 21:37

#84

Pondering

The federal government has already said the provinces must allow access and it will be available mail order regardless of what the province does. The Justice minister inferred that she won't allow a zero plant limit. The provinces that are being draconian will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. I have a shop down the street from me and when I visited my daughter there was a shop a few blocks from her place.

The laws aren't working while it is illegal. I don't think the laws will suddenly work better when it becomes legal.

This will be great for studying the impact of the different regulatory systems on various things like stoned driving and how much of the market they have been able to divert from the black market which is supposed to be a goal. It will disprove the argument that more liberal regimes lead to more societal problems. They will also be able to measure which provinces successfully divert the most from the black market which is an intended goal.

I believe that Cannabis legalization has a net positive affect on society. I have read that while Cannabis found in the blood of accident victims is up alcohol is down. It is being used to replace opiods which are extremely dangerous. I believe that it has many medicinal properties that will be revealed over the next decade as researchers work on it. They will probably uncover negative impacts on health and society too.

Legalization will open the flood gates. The provinces that are resisting will fail for the same reason the laws have failed for decades. Cannabis, unlike alcohol and cigarettes, is so darn easy to produce.

People will be angry at the provinces that fail to maximize tax revenue.

This is just the beginning not the end.

Wed, 2018-02-28 23:00

(Reply to #84) #85

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Where in Canada does a woman get turned away for an abortion?

Check this table, and look at the column titled "# of Hospital Providers". If you subtract the smaller number from the larger number, that's how many hospitals evidently cannot provide this. Sure, they can do heart transplants. Sure, they can remove your gallstones laparoscopically. But evidently not something as complex as this.

Thoughts on why any hospital shouldn't be able to do this?

Well you got me. Congrats. But if abortion is unrestricted rather than legal,I suppose that will answer your question.

We have a seriously fucked up situation because cannabis is being legalized by the feds whereas abortion is not fully legal - in a legal sense.

So I'm back on the federal law trumps provincial law.It would technically be unconstitutional to refuse to follow the law as written by the feds.

This is why it is a huge mistake for giving the provinces the power to implement their own rules pertaining to cannabis. I see BC thriving from this new legitimate business. I see Ontario and Quebec coming up with something very half assed and difficult for customers to get their hands on cannabis legally. Or the quality will be bad,people will go back to the underground so the prime directive is lost. It's an idiotic policy by these provinces and that wouldn't be the case if the federal government passed legislation explicitly framing all the rules in regards to age limits,personal production and making the legal sale,cultivation,possession and consumption of cannabis legal straight across the bord.

That way,no headaches,no chance of provinces restricting it (again,the policy is legalization not unrestricted there is a difference)

So now you're going to see some provinces thrive and flourish with this new industry while others are kicking and screaming and have no problem with breaking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The feds should move in to obligate provinces not break the Charter rules. I could be wrong but ignoring federal law is breaking the Charter's rules if not,it should be..

In a case of restriction or refusal to go along with the law,it will hurt whatever provincial government especially if the populace of these provinces watch how a competent and successful business not to mention the money being made and the jobs being created. I foresee mass actions of civil disobedience. A lot of people will be angry and like I said in another post,you don't have to be a 'pothead' to be bemused by such a policy not for cannabis sake but the money it would generate,the businesses that would be created and more importantly,the jobs it will bring. The populace is by far more intelligent than the government. If CAQ does this,for example,they will never see a second term. Really,no bullshit.

Thu, 2018-03-01 02:03

#86

Pondering

Abortion is 100% fully legal in Canada. It's like any other medical procedure.

Thu, 2018-03-01 02:34

(Reply to #86) #87

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
In a case of restriction or refusal to go along with the law,it will hurt whatever provincial government especially if the populace of these provinces watch how a competent and successful business not to mention the money being made and the jobs being created. I foresee mass actions of civil disobedience. A lot of people will be angry and like I said in another post,you don't have to be a 'pothead' to be bemused by such a policy not for cannabis sake but the money it would generate,the businesses that would be created and more importantly,the jobs it will bring. The populace is by far more intelligent than the government. If CAQ does this,for example,they will never see a second term. Really,no bullshit.

Exactly so there is nothing to worry about. A soon as one province starts hauling in millions in taxes with no harm done people in other provinces will get pissed off and demand change.

I'm excited and happy and you should be too. In a few months Cannabis will be legal and the moment that happens they won't be able to roll it back and make it illegal again. This is the turning point after which things will only get better.

People already use quite openly and that will increase expotentially at every level of society. People will have backyard BBQs with beer and cannabis. Canada will be the country that finally proves the relative harmlessness of cannabis and other countries will follow our lead.

I'm relieved we are getting there before the US so major studies will get started here. Be happy Alan. This is one bright spot on the horizon.

Thu, 2018-03-01 04:58

(Reply to #87) #88

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

I'm relieved we are getting there before the US so major studies will get started here. Be happy Alan. This is one bright spot on the horizon.

Thank you,Pondering. I appreciate the optimism and hope. I lack both those qualities.

Thu, 2018-03-01 06:06

(Reply to #88) #89

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You can be sure the right wing will go to war against these taxes.Probably more for the reason that these new tax hikes are designed to help people. The right wing LOATHES that.

Really?

I'm ready to believe that they resent tax hikes because they could have spent that tax money on a new sports car or whatever. But the *real* reason they resent it is because it would buy some books for an underpriveleged student or something, and they just can't abide that because they're Montgomery Burns? That's just acting out.

"They hate anything that's beautiful!!" "They must destroy it!!!!"

haha ..yes,you're a funny and witty guy and your point of view is the correct and superior point of view against others. .Your wisdom holds no bounds. I got you. I think it's time for me to move along. It's futile talking to someone who envies the rich and the right wing and clearly does not like a welfare state which I support.Like many here. Those are some wonderful people you're defending. Hold on tight to your copy of Atlas Shrugged. It will lead you to Utopia.

Keep defending your wonderful people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAvA8gakl84

Ciao,Magoo.

Thu, 2018-03-01 13:58

#90

Mr. Magoo

Bored?

Because I made that post a week ago, and you've already quoted it and replied to it once.

Jagmeet Singh - Taxes are an investment in the future

Pages