[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

This is why I say it's a waste of time engaging you on any conversation. You take it around and around in circles, and it never goes anywhere. This is the same conversation we have over and over again. Nothing new.

Your conversations about pot never go anywhere so it's funny to hear you talk about it as if it's others controling the circle-jerk of your pro-pot spam.

On your reply,

Your comprehension is lacking.

That doesn't say anything about it being impossible for the government to control, I'm talking about the governments using sin taxes as a cash cow and marijuana will likely be no different.

Never once did I say drugs were impossible control. I clearly said the government is more interested in the cash from higher taxation and not controlling the black market. The Liberals in the 1990's-2000's proved that.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

That doesn't say anything about it being impossible for the government to control, I'm talking about the governments using sin taxes as a cash cow and marijuana will likely be no different.

Probably true. But sin taxes are good. Sure, they're regressive but discouraging harmful behaviour is at least as important as raising revenue, especially when we're talking about behaviours that eat into our healthcare budget down the road.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Never once did I say drugs were impossible control. I clearly said the government is more interested in the cash from higher taxation and not controlling the black market. The Liberals in the 1990's-2000's proved that.

Who was in provincial power during that period? Did they help to "prove that" along with the federal Liberals? And you're ignoring the more important fact that taxation has affected the smoking rate. Fewer people are smoking, saving long-term tax dollars in the healthcare sector. Do those same Liberals get some credit for that or was your last sentence more about partisan bashing than reality?

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Who was in provincial power during that period? Did they help to "prove that" along with the federal Liberals? And you're ignoring the more important fact that taxation has affected the smoking rate. Fewer people are smoking, saving long-term tax dollars in the healthcare sector. Do those same Liberals get some credit for that or was your last sentence more about partisan bashing than reality?

No partisan bashing at all. You get very defensive when someone mentions the Chretien Liberals in a negative light. Always.

Curt mentioned the Liberals to make his point, not I. He was trying to hail the Liberals as the masters of controlling the black market when I used his point to show that controlling the black market took second place.

Taxes were raised by both the Harris/Eves PC's and the McGuinty Liberals. They all take the blame when it comes to increased prices/reduced usage in Ontario.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

No partisan bashing at all. You get very defensive when someone mentions the Chretien Liberals in a negative light. Always.

No I don't. It's not defensive to point out your hackery. Not only am I not a Liberal, I was (embarrassing though it is to admit in retrospect) working for the Reform Party during Chretien's days.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curt mentioned the Liberals to make his point, not I. He was trying to hail the Liberals as the masters of controlling the black market when I used his point to show that controlling the black market took second place.

Taxes were raised by both the Harris/Eves PC's and the McGuinty Liberals. They all take the blame when it comes to increased prices/reduced usage in Ontario.

You say blame, I say credit. Reducing smoking in our population is a priority and rightfully so.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

No I don't. It's not defensive to point out your hackery. Not only am I not a Liberal, I was (somewhat embarrassingly in retrospect) working for the Reform Party during Chretien's days.

Every single time anything remotely negative about Chretien or Martin comes into a discussion, you fly in and work on the defence or the deflection. Years of it on this forum to refer to.

Pointing out facts isn't 'hackery'? Coming in and yelling 'hack' when anyone mentions the Liberals is hackery.

Curtman brought forth the discussion of the Liberals, not me. I used his point and turned it around on him to make my point which was completely valid. The Liberals did prove they were able to control the black market (notice I didn't give credit to the Ontario PC's who also lowered taxes) but their increases in taxes proved that controlling the black market isn't a priority.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Reducing smoking in our population is a priority and rightfully so.

Agreed.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Every single time anything remotely negative about Chretien or Martin comes into a discussion, you fly in and work on the defence or the deflection. Years of it on this forum to refer to.

Only when the negative statements are partisan exaggerations and/or lies.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman brought forth the discussion of the Liberals, not me. I used his point and turned it around on him to make my point which was completely valid. The Liberals did prove they were able to control the black market (notice I didn't give credit to the Ontario PC's who also lowered taxes) but their increases in taxes proved that controlling the black market isn't a priority.

But you conveniently forgot to mention Harris' role in the affair at all until I prodded you into it. That's not defending Chretien/Liberals, it's doling out criticisms fairly, which is something you never do.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Only when the negative statements are partisan exaggerations and/or lies.

So why are you here? My point was neither.

Lemmy Lemmy:

But you conveniently forgot to mention Harris' role in the affair at all until I prodded you into it. That's not defending Chretien/Liberals, it's doling out criticisms fairly, which is something you never do.

Nor did I give him the credit that was due or mention the many other Premiers that took similar action. Why?

Curt was specifically talking about the role the Liberals played in the controlling contraband and I was responding in kind. I didn't give any credit or criticism to the Ontario PC's or any other provincial party because that wasn't what we were talking about.

Did you criticize Curtman for not discussing the roles the Premiers had? Didn't think so.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Did you criticize Curtman for not discussing the roles the Premiers had? Didn't think so.

I mostly ignore Curt.

[Unsound]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I was (embarrassing though it is to admit in retrospect) working for the Reform Party during Chretien's days.

Going off topic, what do you find embarrassing about that?

Not that I supported everything they stood for, certainly some of their social conservatism was of no interest to me. I do however think they did a good thing in making western Canadians feel connected to the plitical process again. i also found their amatuerism and openess to be refreshing, even as it was frustrating at times to see stupid mistakes that helped out the Chretien liberals.

[Lemmy]

I was young, fresh out of university and, as a econ undergrad, indoctrinated to despise government spending and debt. Reform was a fresh concept, attractive to young people frustrated with the Conservative-Liberal establishment. I'm embarrassed because of all the social conservatism and redneckism that came with the reform movement. Those days were also a time when I was fully fooled by Mike Harris' "common sense revolution", which, likewise, turned out to be a crock of shit bill of goods in retrospect. Ahh, the follies of youthful idealism.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Probably true. But sin taxes are good. Sure, they're regressive but discouraging harmful behaviour is at least as important as raising revenue, especially when we're talking about behaviours that eat into our healthcare budget down the road.

I don't think they're so good. The sin taxes go up so high that I'm not interested in the sin anymore. Cuban cigars are agood example. Probably costs about $5 or $10. In BC, you'll pay about $70 for a decent Cuban.

As I've stated, with pot, you can get it easily and cheaply as is. In terms of the general principle of individual liberty, I support legalization, but practically, it will probably make it harder to get and more expensive.

There is a lot of really bad advocacy science happening in the field of public health. The first thing they don't tell you is, the way their studies are run does not account for the fact that alcoholics, smokers risk-takers and hedonists of all varieties save money by dying younger. Instead what they do is add up the total cost of, say, lung cancer or liver disorders and use that as the total cost to the system for smokers and drinkers. What they won't do is take an "average" smoker and and an "average" non-smoker and total their resapective costs to the health care system.


Or, they assume that since alcohol is "involved" in a high percentage of criminal behaviour that alcohol causes that behaviour. In fact, there are several counterexamples. The most obvious is prohibition in the US, where just about every type of crime increased.

[Lemmy]

Let me rephrase. All taxes are irritating and come with side-effects and unintended consequences. But if we accept that we need to generate tax revenue, the question then is what is the best form of taxation. When I say I support sin taxes, what I mean is that I prefer them to other forms of taxation, like income tax. We should be taxing behaviours we hope to discourage (like smoking and drinking and burning carbon), not earning income. We should be ENCOURAGING, not discouraging people to earn income.

You're right about legalized pot. Users will continue to use illegal sources if the government tries to take too big a slice of the pie or if the system is inconvenient or the product of poorer quality. The government will need to emphasize that the "new system" is being created to reduce gangs, promote liberty, etc. But in the end, it will be economics, not morals that determine whether legalizing creates a net-improvement.

You make a good point about "average" smokers/non-smokers when we try to cost the impact of smoking on healthcare. There are lots of considerations that need to be made. It may actually turn out that a smoking population has lower healthcare costs. If someone drops at 50 from a heart attack, that doesn't cost the system a dime. If they live to be 95, that's 45 more years of healthcare services to provide with the costliest years being those last 20. Cold mathematics, sure, but facts just the same.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The Liberals did prove they were able to control the black market

Excellent. It makes no difference really if it was the Liberals, or the Conservatives, I'd support either one if they would embrace this policy. Tax and Regulate was able to reduce the black market, and has also been effective at reducing usage.

Do you support the taxation and regulation of marijuana?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I used his point and turned it around on him to make my point which was completely valid.

You are agreeing with my point so far.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Excellent. It makes no difference really if it was the Liberals, or the Conservatives, I'd support either one if they would embrace this policy. Tax and Regulate was able to reduce the black market, and has also been effective at reducing usage.

Personally, I find it sad and somewhat pathetic that you would support a party based on a sole issue like this when we have far greater issues to tackle as a Country.

Curtman Curtman:

Do you support the taxation and regulation of marijuana?

At this time, no.

This is because I've yet to see anything credible on how the drug will be manufactured, who will manufacture it, how it will be sold, how much it'll be sold for and how it will be distributed. There's too many unknowns to be able to offer a 'yes' to a solution that may be worthwhile pursuing.

Add to that the addiction our governments both Federally and Provincially have with sin taxes, I can see the price getting out of hand and one of the key benefits of regulation goes by the wayside when the government prices themselves out of the market.

[Curtman]

I'm not asking you what party you support. I'm asking g if you support policy that works over policy that doesn't. If your political allegiance prevents you from doing that, just say that.