Well we know where the liberals stand now

Gmack420 said:

If we want any real change we need the red headed stepchild of federal politics to do it.

Click to expand...

Lmfao

It's been legal for years here in Colorado and shockingly enough, the sky hasn't fallen!

Drinking and driving rates have declined, statistics related to hard drug use are all down, from OD rates to petty crime. The state has seen a healthy economic impact and has been able to raise tax revenues from legal sales to help bolster the state's budget.

Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

ttystikk said:

It's been legal for years here in Colorado and shockingly enough, the sky hasn't fallen!

Drinking and driving rates have declined, statistics related to hard drug use are all down, from OD rates to petty crime. The state has seen a healthy economic impact and has been able to raise tax revenues from legal sales to help bolster the state's budget.

Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

What are the limits down there for med patients? grams per day, possession, plant count...does it have a caregiver program? basically everything lol sorry but all info i find is different

WHATFG said:

They shouldn't be detrimental to a party that said they were prepared to legalize...

Click to expand...

Obviously smoke and mirrors or them collabing in the room with smoke and coke on mirrors.

bigmanc said:

What are the limits down there for med patients? grams per day, possession, plant count...does it have a caregiver program? basically everything lol sorry but all info i find is different

Click to expand...

Broad strokes; can grow six by yourself, a dozen per household without any documentation at all, any size, indoors. With cards, up to as many as you can get numbers for. You can have an unlimited amount in your home. As a private individual, you may not sell. Caregivers can ask for donations and for money to cover growing expenses. Dispensaries and commercial ops operate under totally different rules.

Canada is is turning into Australia, but with less pretty things to distract you from the fact that you live in Australia.

I guess there's always the Northern Lights and LSD...

WHATFG said:

They shouldn't be detrimental to a party that said they were prepared to legalize...

Click to expand...

That position hasn't changed. Trudeau stuck to it and reaffirmed their position and why.

That's what stuck out to me, he condemned her statements and still stuck to his position. So what was it in the statements made that would make the party want her gone?

I see the cancer society statement to be the most dangerous to the party. If the libs look like they're slamming the CS it will have huge ripple effects amongst voters.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/six-figure-salaries-the-norm-at-top-charities/article4352708/

Yeah I don't think she's off the mark much at all. Why is a charity CEO getting paid that much money? you can look at the yearly donations for the Canadian Cancer Society and it's not much more then what they are paying their employee's.

Charities are big business which form allegiance with other big business with related interests. You can find articles all over the internet about doctors being silenced because the Cancer society says alternative practices don't work. Practices that are reducing people's cancers. They want to give you meds to cause cancer then they want to give you a billion scans filled with radiation then next it's the lovely Chemotherapy to "Cure" the cancer.

What she said holds some water and requires some investigation. If the Canadian Cancer society is going after RSO, which I am sure is what she is referring to, then the Canadian Cancer Society deserves the criticism it has received. As people the world over are using RSO right now. Most notably is probably Tommy Chong who's going threw his second bout of Cancer right now.

I'm only disagreeing with the statements made that refer to the libs changing their policy or somehow coming across hypocritical.

There is a time and a place for accusations and potentially controversial statements to be made, during an election isn't that time.

The woman handed the other parties a loaded gun with her statements, whether or not we agree with her doesn't matter at this point. All that matters is the opposition parties having a fighting chance against the CON machine.

ricky1lung said:

I'm only disagreeing with the statements made that refer to the libs changing their policy or somehow coming across hypocritical.

There is a time and a place for accusations and potentially controversial statements to be made, during an election isn't that time.

The woman handed the other parties a loaded gun with her statements, whether or not we agree with her doesn't matter at this point. All that matters is the opposition parties having a fighting chance against the CON machine.

Click to expand...

No no no...she was nominated by her constituents..fuck Justin...

WHATFG said:

No no no...she was nominated by her constituents..fuck Justin...

Click to expand...

If one of my employees needed to go I wouldn't care who nominated them for the position.

Constant spin around here sometimes, the sky isn't falling, the libs did not change their position. They removed a potentially loose cannon and volatile representative who had said some things that could have huge ramifications for the party as a whole.

Really, what else is there to this story? Where is there any evidence to support the claim that the libs have changed their position?

I won't vote for Justin, for reasons much larger than mj but I do disagree that there is anything to the story other than protecting the party from her.

Protect from what? You can't say you support mj but not the people promoting it...

WHATFG said:

Protect from what? You can't say you support mj but not the people promoting it...

Click to expand...

Protect the party from their membership who make controversial statements that can then be spun out of context.

Just like what is happening in this thread.
You can't go making statements about a highly respected organization that helps millions of Canadians and their families during an election.

That's all this is about, yet all of a sudden the libs have gone anti pot?

I don't understand why someone from BC running in BC would have an issue making pro-marijuana comments. That's what I don't get. I'd expect her to make these comments because of the region she is from the party she is in and the people she represents.

But instead she's booted and Trudeau starts making comments of how the people that grow and provide themselves medicine now are gang members and drug runners. He's just digging his fucking hole deeper and deeper over this pot issue.

It's not the pot issue itself it's how he's handling the issue that his party thought would benefit him in an election. As clearly illustrated here the longer this goes on the more votes he's losing from some very very pro-pot people.

You don't hear Mulcair doing what Justin is doing, he sticks to the script decriminalize. What Trudeau is doing is demonizing and setting up for John Players and Co. to take over Marijuana production in Canada. Fuck that.

And in addition fuck anyone that wants to equate growing and providing Cannabis in this country to fucking gun runners.

Cancer's not big business... How silly of me to think that big pharma might have an issue with people treating themselves and surviving with a quality of life...pull your head out of your ass Ricky...the Libs are not sticking to the program as far as I'm concerned...and I know it's not the only issue, but it's an important issue to me...

Mr.Head said:

I don't understand why someone from BC running in BC would have an issue making pro-marijuana comments. That's what I don't get. I'd expect her to make these comments because of the region she is from the party she is in and the people she represents.

But instead she's booted and Trudeau starts making comments of how the people that grow and provide themselves medicine now are gang members and drug runners. He's just digging his fucking hole deeper and deeper over this pot issue.

It's not the pot issue itself it's how he's handling the issue that his party thought would benefit him in an election. As clearly illustrated here the longer this goes on the more votes he's losing from some very very pro-pot people.

You don't hear Mulcair doing what Justin is doing, he sticks to the script decriminalize. What Trudeau is doing is demonizing and setting up for John Players and Co. to take over Marijuana production in Canada. Fuck that.

And in addition fuck anyone that wants to equate growing and providing Cannabis in this country to fucking gun runners.

Click to expand...

Wow, more spin.

What Trudeau has said is that the current prohibition makes it easier for kids to get pot than even a pack of cigs. He stated that the current system enables gang financing and puts money in the pockets of gang members and gun runners.

I agree with those statements and I'm sure most everyone here is smart enough to know that the current situation does in fact do those things.

You guys are pretty smart, I'm a bit surprised you're not seeing this for what it is and are taking clear statements and spinning them.

WHATFG said:

Cancer's not big business... How silly of me to think that big pharma might have an issue with people treating themselves and surviving with a quality of life...pull your head out of your ass Ricky...the Libs are not sticking to the program as far as I'm concerned...and I know it's not the only issue, but it's an important issue to me...

Click to expand...

It's not my head that's in anyone's ass.

Can someone take the statements made and clearly support the argument that the libs have changed their policy without spinning the conversation away from facts to make their argument.

If I'm wrong, I have no problem accepting that.

ricky1lung said:

Wow, more spin.

What Trudeau has said is that the current prohibition makes it easier for kids to get pot than even a pack of cigs. He stated that the current system enables gang financing and puts money in the pockets of gang members and gun runners.

I agree with those statements and I'm sure most everyone here is smart enough to know that the current situation does in fact do those things.

You guys are pretty smart, I'm a bit surprised you're not seeing this for what it is and are taking clear statements and spinning them.

Click to expand...

When the party says one thing and does another that's a problem for me...they said they would legalize and regulate...what more have they said except that if one of our candidates is pro pot publicly, we will nix them...what did I miss here? Why no comment oh how cancer is big business? Legalization is not going to change kids getting there hands on anything...and as long as someone wants to control the plant, there will be a black market...no stoping that...my apologies for the ass comment...

What is their policy?

I think their policy is so unclear that it's hard to say anyone is right or wrong. We don't know where they are going to sell it. The tax level, whether they will still be irradiating it. Is it going to allow new business into the Cannabis industry or is tobacco and Alcohol manufacturers going to take it over? Am I going to be able to grow for myself? Or am I going to be labeled a gangster criminal gun running child abuser for growing in my house? Are they going to give medical patients their grow rights back? Or are they going to tip toe around the LP's so they don't get sued for Harper and Ambrose's horrible ideas?

I'm lost as to what their policy is. I don't know where they stand on the issue, I know they keep throwing around the world legalize while they don't even know what that means themselves.

Most importantly how long is it going to take?

My concerns are when the Ex-Toronto Police Chief is on TV spewing reefer madness do they really want to legalize as a party or is this for votes?