Uruguay government plans to sell marijuana

Forum: Politics Page 2 of 2  1 2  
Author: [Politics] Topic: Uruguay government plans to sell marijuana
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/22/2012 11:07:55 PM
She isn't on your money? 
Renton PM Renton
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6240
 
Renton
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 6/22/2012 11:23:38 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by rick3117:

British Subject 

Commonwealth Citizen

Renton PM Renton
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6240
 
Renton
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 6/22/2012 11:27:07 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by rick3117:

SO the queen can't dissolve parliament? 

 

No... nice try. ONLY the Prime Minister can dissolve parliament.

Taken from a NY Times piece.

On Sunday, Harper visited Governor General Michaelle Jean and asked her to dissolve Parliament. The governor general is the representative of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain, who is Canada's head of state, but the position is purely ceremonial and obeys the wishes of the prime minister.

Renton PM Renton
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6240
 
Renton
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 6/22/2012 11:28:13 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by rick3117:

She isn't on your money? 

 

So is a Polar Bear, Beaver & Loon... what's your point?

rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/23/2012 7:19:31 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Renton:

Commonwealth Citizen


Semantics
Renton PM Renton
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6240
 
Renton
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 6/23/2012 8:38:43 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117:


Semantics

Semantics you say...

You're pointing to outdated terms, as a way of trying to show that my country is owned by another. The truth is that not a single person in the UK is capable of making a decision that affects people in my nation (which includes the Queen and their Prime Minister). You are the one arguing semantics, instead of understanding that the monarchy is only a figure head, ceremonial in nature, and incapable of ruling over Canadians, since we have our own constitution and charter of rights and freedoms. The monarchy can't pass even the simplest of laws here in Canada, because they have no power.

Lets be honest, we both know that as a Canadian I have far more rights than you currently enjoy, yet you're attempting to paint my people with a brush that doesn't exist.
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/23/2012 5:22:25 PM
Like the right to free speech?  Oh wait no, you can be imprisoned for speaking mere words.  

You are misunderstanding what my central point was. 

It is positive vs. negative rights. 

What rights as a canadian do you have?  Who gives them to you?  
Renton PM Renton
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6240
 
Renton
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 6/23/2012 7:01:14 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117:

Like the right to free speech?  Oh wait no, you can be imprisoned for speaking mere words.  

You are misunderstanding what my central point was. 

It is positive vs. negative rights. 

What rights as a canadian do you have?  Who gives them to you?  

 

Where did you get that beauty from?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Taken from the article...

The rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter include:

Fundamental freedoms (section 2), namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.

Freedom of expression in section 2 also has a more wide-ranging scope than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's freedom of speech.

The only difference is that since our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is far more encompassing than your Constitution, often our courts have a decision to make as to which section is to be followed for the betterment of society. Rulings have been made against Hate Speech, and rightfully so, and those rulings cite section 1 which restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Hence we as Canadians do a far better job at balancing positive vs. negative rights.

As for what rights I have... plenty... even more than you do.

I can smoke weed, without fear of getting a criminal record. I could drink at a younger age. Friends who are happy can marry. I can place a wager online without restriction. My government isn't contolled by lobbyists, with political donations being a nominal $1,000 per corporation or individual. I have the right to free healthcare. Yet I also have most of the rights you do.

My rights were given to me by no one, I was born with them, the same as you. For the crowd that was born prior to 1982, they asked for them, and were given them by the British Monarch. Things change, we didn't fight for them in battle like you Americans did, we didn't feel we needed to.

thirdperson PM thirdperson
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1642
 
thirdperson
Participation Meter
Veteran
Posted: 6/24/2012 12:15:09 PM
After 9/11, USA became a paranoid nation more willing to sacrifice human rights in favor of national security.  Since Canada wasn't attacked, the nation remains a civil society with more freedoms..  As for free speech, Canadian law is reasonable in punishing pomoters of hatred toward innocent victims such as blacks, person and gays.
Crusher13 PM Crusher13
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4339
 
Crusher13
Participation Meter
Veteran
Posted: 6/24/2012 1:07:54 PM
Great debate Renton vs Rick

Wow, finally, a country legally opening  a weed market  I just worry about their exports? Uruguayian
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/24/2012 6:57:46 PM
I completely disagree with the idea that there should be a law restricting hate speech. 

Americans have an absolute defense against being imprisoned for speaking words built into our Constitution.  
Renton PM Renton
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6240
 
Renton
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 6/24/2012 8:27:21 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117:

I completely disagree with the idea that there should be a law restricting hate speech. 

Americans have an absolute defense against being imprisoned for speaking words built into our Constitution.  

I understand your position, but to say you have absolute defence is false.

Exceptions to freedom of speech in the US.

As the United States becomes more progressive in nature, the list of restrictions is certain to grow. That's a matter of fact, and not open to debate.
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/24/2012 9:35:11 PM
It is pretty clear that the prevailing progressive ideology is at odds with the U.S. Constitution, that much is obvious. 
Not open for debate?  
I will tell you what is open for debate, here in the U.S., Progressive ideology.  There is a serious push-back, that I can see plainly every day. 

Americans are waking up to the 1984/Brave New World nightmare that progressives are trying to perpetrate bit by bit.  

I think that as we watch Europe fail, and drag us into a sustained depression,  it will be hard to justify the progressive/liberal dogma with a straight face.  


wallstreetcappers PM wallstreetcappers
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 51478
 
wallstreetcappers
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Posted: 6/24/2012 9:39:44 PM
rick,

I am quite sure the founders did not anticipate the level of hate and ineptitude we currently have in society.

Hate, anger, biases, extremes are not what the founders were interested in protecting.


Renton PM Renton
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6240
 
Renton
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 6/24/2012 9:53:52 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

rick,

I am quite sure the founders did not anticipate the level of hate and ineptitude we currently have in society.

Hate, anger, biases, extremes are not what the founders were interested in protecting.


 

Well put.

rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/24/2012 10:15:34 PM
Are you kidding me?  
They lived in a time when you could own black people. 
Sitting politicians dueled each other over insults. 

Hate speech and hate crime laws are a joke. 
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/24/2012 10:16:00 PM
I would contend that there was 10X more hate in early america. 
be easy PM be easy
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15420
 
be easy
Participation Meter
MVP
Posted: 6/25/2012 12:53:53 PM
Rick, i'd be interested in more of this conversation about which country has more freedom for their citizenry. i just returned from a couple days vacation up in MOntreal, and it is night and day

here in the states, if i want to get high, gamble, and buy a blow job, there's millions of people here in positions of so called power that i am forced to subordinate to, that will tell you that i belong in jail for just doing what normal people like to do

while in Canada, while getting high, gambling and buying blow jobs, everyone is walking around with big fat friggin smiles on their faces. And it's not a (hey darn you, i will use the justice system for personal profits at your expense) type of smile you see on the suits in the USA. It's a (hey, how friggin rad is it to be free to do what you want to do without fear of some busy body in a suit, or some lackey of the state with a badge and a gun assaulting you and putting you in a cage) type of smile. It was quite refreshing to breath the clean air of genuine freedom

now i also am not naive enough to ignore that theirs is likely just a different brand of monster, but i digress.

and as to the comments about hate three centuries ago vs modern day, it is absurd to say that people were more tolerant of other races back then. For the most part, modern day Americans are very tolerant of others regardless of skin color, and dare i say we as a collective are fairly liberal in our beliefs. The divide we witness today is merely a result of (intentional) policy from those that profit from our current system of rule,,,,divide and conquer
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/25/2012 6:46:23 PM
Those are some good points.  
I think that the legislation against marijuana, Prostitution, and gambling are against our founding documents.  I do not feel that the federal govt. has any right to dictate their morality to us, the states may, but the federal govt. has overstepped their bounds.  I think that utilizing the commerce clause as a catch-all to perpetrate these things is unconstitutional.  

The progressives that keep trying to regulate, tax, and control every aspect of our lives have ensured that they can find legal justification for their transgressions, albeit a very flimsy legal justification in my opinion. 


You can say that hate speech laws are good, but they just set a poor precedence of imprisoning and sanctioning people for ideas that are deemed distasteful or counter- to the prevailing wisdom of the day. Minority opinions (even if racist, or prejudiced) must also be protected. It is rarely a majority opinion that tyrants seem to sanction .  As per the famous supreme court decision (paraphrased)  The remedy to hateful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.   


thirdperson PM thirdperson
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1642
 
thirdperson
Participation Meter
Veteran
Posted: 6/25/2012 7:39:46 PM
Laws evolve to fit community acceptance and the greater good.    Constitutional limits to free speech are reasonable.  Without them, free speech could be  harmful when misused to incite violence, commit libel/slander or distribute child porn. 
dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27850
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 6/25/2012 7:59:43 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117:

Those are some good points.  
I think that the legislation against marijuana, Prostitution, and gambling are against our founding documents.  I do not feel that the federal govt. has any right to dictate their morality to us, the states may, but the federal govt. has overstepped their bounds.  I think that utilizing the commerce clause as a catch-all to perpetrate these things is unconstitutional.  

The progressives that keep trying to regulate, tax, and control every aspect of our lives have ensured that they can find legal justification for their transgressions, albeit a very flimsy legal justification in my opinion. 


You can say that hate speech laws are good, but they just set a poor precedence of imprisoning and sanctioning people for ideas that are deemed distasteful or counter- to the prevailing wisdom of the day. Minority opinions (even if racist, or prejudiced) must also be protected. It is rarely a majority opinion that tyrants seem to sanction .  As per the famous supreme court decision (paraphrased)  The remedy to hateful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.   




But there are certain groups of people that are willing to engage in reckless spending in the name of these things being huge concern and some make themselves feel better... and much of this stems from a blurring of the lines of church/state... another issue that our founding fathers would be outraged to see today...

I agree with you on states rights to a degree, and a fundamental problem is that these groups look to go supreme court/national and try to force their theocracy upon everyone...

As far as free speech goes, I am actually more on your side... I think that people should have the right to express themselves and their hate/anger...  This will expose them for what they are and how they think...  the problem I have is perhaps is when it is lies/slander and considering how people put information and come to conclusions today there can be some scary outcomes... but I am not sure exactly of the governments place in all of that...

dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27850
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 6/25/2012 8:52:02 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Renton:

Research on the effects of marijuana has shown that it does impair ones ability when decision making. I'd like their to be some law, whereby in legalizing marijuana, we are not making it readily available to the criminal element in our society, or if we do, they are held to a higher standard. 

Anyone who has a criminal record (that is non marijuana related) within the last 7 years, and has not received a pardon, in my eyes, needs to remain sober for the benefit of society. Criminals should not be given the luxury of being able to smoke a joint or getting drunk, due to past transgressions. I'd like to extend that to alcohol consumption in some way. The problem is we have no way of knowing at the point of sale whether someone has a criminal record.

We could impose a system, such as Uruguay is attempting to do, in having users register with the government. Or we could stiffen sentences and pass a law that makes it illegal for someone with a criminal record to get high or drunk. They ought to remain sober for societies sake, it sounds intrusive, but I'd like it to be used as an incentive to remain law abiding.

Of course it could be tweaked to include only violent criminal acts, or specific acts, but personally I'd like it to be all encompassing.


Some would argue that violent criminals might actually do better high then sober/drunk...  but I get the spirit of the law... intrusive sure, but I get the whole incentive thing...

In the states you see people being die hard 2nd amendment people and that everyone should have the right to arms... unless you are a felon... then you should be stripped of your 2nd amendment rights...  and it is funny that those that champion 2nd amendment rights/freedom are often the same people that want stiffer penalties/criminalization resulting in less freedoms/rights...  and of course the reckless spending behind it all as I pointed out earlier...

rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 6/25/2012 9:34:14 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by thirdperson:

Laws evolve to fit community acceptance and the greater good.    Constitutional limits to free speech are reasonable.  Without them, free speech could be  harmful when misused to incite violence, commit libel/slander or distribute child porn. 

Constitutional limit to free speech = oxymoron. 

Obviously in the case of child porn there is a victim with rights. In the case of inciting  violence there is an act that there are laws for. 

Forum: Politics Page 2 of 2  1 2  
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.