[ShepherdsDog]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

It's a good plan politically to hit some notes with the young crowd.

Hey OTI, your ignorance is showing Turns out the two largest imbibing groups are young people and those 50 and OVER!!
Yep, turns out a lot of over 50s used to smoke weed but gave it up for the responsibilities of raising families. Now that their responsibility in that regard is finished and they no longer have big bills to cover, they can go back to enjoying a bit of what mother nature provides.

Yet the 50+ group won't vote for a party for that sole reason where young people just might.

+5

[1Peg]

andyt andyt:

What does that have to do with legalization? How do they do it now?

I'm not the one that wrote the article, why don't you ask them?

And I'll QUOTE the article AGAIN, ok Andy?

$1:

The motion in question states that "a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving

."

I don't know how they "do it now". That's why I was wondering, genius.

[1Peg]

andyt andyt:

I'd sit down and smoke weed with Kate any old time, if I still smoked weed, tho with her I might make an exception. Liz might be a little too freaky.

What does this have to do with article, andy? hmmm?

[andyt]

1Peg 1Peg:

andyt andyt:

What does that have to do with legalization? How do they do it now?

I'm not the one that wrote the article, why don't you ask them?

And I'll QUOTE the article AGAIN, ok Andy?

$1:

The motion in question states that "a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving

."

I don't know how they "do it now". That's why I was wondering, genius.

They use behavioral tests. Impairment can mean many things, not just by drugs or alcohol. If you're not fit to drive, they can prevent you.

[andyt]

1Peg 1Peg:

andyt andyt:

I'd sit down and smoke weed with Kate any old time, if I still smoked weed, tho with her I might make an exception. Liz might be a little too freaky.

What does this have to do with article, andy? hmmm?

By itself, nothing. If you read Dan's comment just above mine tho, maybe your confusion will be lifted.

[1Peg]

andyt andyt:

1Peg 1Peg:

I'm curious to see how they plan to enforce impaired driving.... How do you prove someone is impaired..

Your question implies there's a huge mass of law abiding people out there who would love to smoke weed and would go whole hog on it the minute it's legalized. But, they're not so law abiding that they would refrain from driving stoned. Pretty silly proposition, you've got to admit.

If we really cared about impaired driving, we'd ban alcohol.

My question is legit AND doesn't imply anything, I'm sorry you took it that way, I think.

Lets say I smoke a joint at home and decide to go to a buddies place.... I'm not driving straight and a cop pulls me over. He tests me for alcohol with a breath test, but it detects no alcohol in my system. He decides that I may be stoned as he looks into my glossy eyes.... How can he prove that I'm impaired? A blood test? No sir, I smoked a joint 3 days ago, that's why I have THC in my blood.

Nobody cares if it's illegal or not. They still smoke it and know that they can get away with it.

I smoke weed myself and have for many many years. I smoke it in my back yard and I really could give a flying fuck if someone calls the police on me, really.

[1Peg]

andyt andyt:

1Peg 1Peg:

andyt andyt:

I'd sit down and smoke weed with Kate any old time, if I still smoked weed, tho with her I might make an exception. Liz might be a little too freaky.

What does this have to do with article, andy? hmmm?

By itself, nothing. If you read Dan's comment just above mine tho, maybe your confusion will be lifted.

Oh, I was just curious since you asked me the same thing. I don't really care what you post about and you should do the same. Why would you even ask me that? Just to be a prick?

Son, my middle name is prick, have a seat. Thanks in advance.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

They use behavioral tests. Impairment can mean many things, not just by drugs or alcohol. If you're not fit to drive, they can prevent you.

Ahh, the road-side behavioural test. The cops keep that under the seat. How do you think up this shit? There are several different impaired driving charges. Two of them are alcohol-level specific (Driving with blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.08mg/ml of blood, and Care and Control of a vehicle with bac > 0.08). Then there's simply Impaired Driving. It is this charge than can be laid for impairment by things other than alcohol (including narcotics or even sleepiness). But for conviction on that charge, there must evidence of driving impairment. So if you're high but aren't otherwise breaking the rules of the road, you can't be convicted. There is no legal limit for any substance other than alcohol. Therefore, conviction requires evidence related to the quality of driving.

[1Peg]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

They use behavioral tests. Impairment can mean many things, not just by drugs or alcohol. If you're not fit to drive, they can prevent you.

Ahh, the road-side behavioural test. The cops keep that under the seat. How do you think up this shit? There are several different impaired driving charges. Two of them are alcohol-level specific (Driving with blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.08mg/ml of blood, and Care and Control of a vehicle with bac > 0.08). Then there's simply Impaired Driving. It is this charge than can be laid for impairment by things other than alcohol (including narcotics or even sleepiness). But for conviction on that charge, there must evidence of driving impairment. So if you're high but aren't otherwise breaking the rules of the road, you can't be convicted. There is no legal limit for any substance other than alcohol. Therefore, conviction requires evidence related to the quality of driving.

Thank you Lemmy.

[andyt]

And the Liberals would ensure stiff penalties for impairment, and 1peg asked about impairment and I answered. Nowhere was there a mention of a legal limit of blood TCH.

It's a problem now, it would be a problem under legalization. But legalization won't make it much worse of a problem. Get it?

[QBall]

Wow, this is the horse the Libs are backing their future on? Smacks of desperation to me. The Liberals are the last party one would consider to have Libertarian values.

[Lemmy]

QBall QBall:

Wow, this is the horse the Libs are backing their future on? Smacks of desperation to me. The Liberals are the last party one would consider to have Libertarian values.

Why? The whole concept of Trudeau's Just Society, the Charter of Rights and the statement that "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" lean strongly libertarian. Remember, liberal and libertarian are, in many ways, synonymous terms.

But you're right, this is a desperate party, just as the Conservatives were desperate in the early 90s. And, just as the PC party had to re-group, re-think and re-brand itself, so must the Liberal party today. While I agree with marijuana legalization, I don't think that it's a significant enough issue to pedestal as the principal platform to rebrand the Liberals. If they're going to hang their hat entirely on this issue, then they're making the same mistake that the NDP party made in the 1990s when they abandoned their position as the socialist party in favour of becoming the special interests' party (marijuana, same sex issues, etc). That virtually destroyed the party's core support and it took the collapse of the Bloc Quebecois to halt the slide (and I'm not convinced that that reversal is anything but temporary).

However, if the Liberals choose a wider platform, let's call it "progressive reform", as the general basis for their party's rebirth, I think they'd definitely be onto something that would attract support across a wide variety of political ideologies.

As Trudeau said "Liberalism is the philosophy for our time, because it does not try to conserve every tradition of the past, because it does not apply to new problems the old doctrinaire solutions, because it is prepared to experiment and innovate and because it knows that the past is less important than the future."

[Canadian_Mind]

Eh, I'm going to wait for their position on the military, sovereignty, the economy, and foreign policy before I start waving the big red L around again.

[Lemmy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Eh, I'm going to wait for their position on the military, sovereignty, the economy, and foreign policy before I start waving the big red L around again.

Yeah, no question. They'll need a lot more substance (pardon the pun) to their platform to garner any support from anywhere other than the under 21 demographic.

[ShepherdsDog]

A little rae of sunshine?