Canadian Politics Redux

1102103105107108131

Comments

  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    So are you two happy about this, or no? I wondered if this was a point for the feds in your minds or what.





    It's a point against.

    They're contradicting their actions which are occurring at the same time.
    What do you mean they're contradicting their actions? How so?
    From your article:

    A civil liberties group is calling out the federal government for a perceived double standard, questioning how it can appeal a ruling against solitary confinement while at the same time saying it is trying to end the controversial practice
    Pure spin (as civil liberty groups do way too often, unfortunately). Or maybe pure stupidity, I'm not really sure.
    I was being tongue in cheek a little bit - sorry. It was an arguably bitchy way to start a conversation about solitary confinement, and it went over like a bag of bricks. FWIW, the appeal is clearly being done because the feds want to control the issue and take the credit. Once they've done that on a federal level, provinces will be free to enact it on the provincial level, using the federal legislation as their framework. In other words, they want to go top down with it. Yes, it's scummy (with possibly legit legal considerations too), but it's not a double standard.

    No need for an apology. I knew you were talking about me and meltdown though lol (it wasn't hard to figure out).

    How have you come to the conclusion you have? 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,993
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    So are you two happy about this, or no? I wondered if this was a point for the feds in your minds or what.





    It's a point against.

    They're contradicting their actions which are occurring at the same time.
    What do you mean they're contradicting their actions? How so?
    From your article:

    A civil liberties group is calling out the federal government for a perceived double standard, questioning how it can appeal a ruling against solitary confinement while at the same time saying it is trying to end the controversial practice
    Pure spin (as civil liberty groups do way too often, unfortunately). Or maybe pure stupidity, I'm not really sure.
    I was being tongue in cheek a little bit - sorry. It was an arguably bitchy way to start a conversation about solitary confinement, and it went over like a bag of bricks. FWIW, the appeal is clearly being done because the feds want to control the issue and take the credit. Once they've done that on a federal level, provinces will be free to enact it on the provincial level, using the federal legislation as their framework. In other words, they want to go top down with it. Yes, it's scummy (with possibly legit legal considerations too), but it's not a double standard.

    Ehhh, I don't really agree that it isn't a double standard. The feds' plan does not necessarily align with what has been found to be unconstitutional; it changes some aspects but I don't think it adequately addresses the core issues. There's no doubt that ad-seg is abused now; the feds' plan pretties it up a bit but it's still open to abuses, which are not good for prisoners and not good for corrections officers. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,993
    Goodness, it seems that the Conservatives are hypocrites. 

    More than 20 child killers sent to healing lodges since 2011, figures show

    Offenders were transferred under both Conservative and Liberal governments

    More than 20 child murderers have been transferred to Indigenous healing lodges since 2011, according to numbers from Public Safety Canada.

    At least 14 of those offenders were held in healing lodges while the previous Conservative government was in power.

    The federal government released those numbers in response to a request from CBC News Network's Power & Politics in the wake of a wave of outrage over child killer Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to an Indigenous healing lodge in southern Saskatchewan last December.

    She was transferred back to a traditional prison in Edmonton last week.

    News of McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge became public in September and quickly became a point of heated political debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives tabled a motion, later voted down, that demanded the Liberal government condemn the transfer and overturn it. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in response, accused the Official Opposition of being "ambulance chasers."

    Responding to a request from CBC News, a spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale said child killers were sent to healing lodges under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper as well.

    (continued in the article)

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/child-killers-transferred-healing-lodges-1.4903540
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Goodness, it seems that the Conservatives are hypocrites. 

    More than 20 child killers sent to healing lodges since 2011, figures show

    Offenders were transferred under both Conservative and Liberal governments

    More than 20 child murderers have been transferred to Indigenous healing lodges since 2011, according to numbers from Public Safety Canada.

    At least 14 of those offenders were held in healing lodges while the previous Conservative government was in power.

    The federal government released those numbers in response to a request from CBC News Network's Power & Politics in the wake of a wave of outrage over child killer Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to an Indigenous healing lodge in southern Saskatchewan last December.

    She was transferred back to a traditional prison in Edmonton last week.

    News of McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge became public in September and quickly became a point of heated political debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives tabled a motion, later voted down, that demanded the Liberal government condemn the transfer and overturn it. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in response, accused the Official Opposition of being "ambulance chasers."

    Responding to a request from CBC News, a spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale said child killers were sent to healing lodges under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper as well.

    (continued in the article)

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/child-killers-transferred-healing-lodges-1.4903540

    Gawddammit.

    I guess the point is... everybody sucks.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • fifefife Posts: 3,261
    I would rather have Mulrney than the PC leader now who has said that he does't like the legalization of pot and voted against the marijuana law. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    fife said:
    I would rather have Mulrney than the PC leader now who has said that he does't like the legalization of pot and voted against the marijuana law. 
    Fuck, not me. Anyone who still carries that attitude around doesn't have the right mindset to lead in this day and age. Being against legalization demonstrates, to me, that a person's attitude is stuck in the past, and not fully capable of putting logic before stigma. There is no way someone like that isn't going to use that same problematic thinking in other areas.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • fifefife Posts: 3,261
    PJ_Soul said:
    fife said:
    I would rather have Mulrney than the PC leader now who has said that he does't like the legalization of pot and voted against the marijuana law. 
    Fuck, not me. Anyone who still carries that attitude around doesn't have the right mindset to lead in this day and age. Being against legalization demonstrates, to me, that a person's attitude is stuck in the past, and not fully capable of putting logic before stigma. There is no way someone like that isn't going to use that same problematic thinking in other areas.
    sorry confused here.  when you say "fuck, not me"  are you saying you rather have the current PC leader over Mulruney? 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,059
    PJ_Soul said:
    fife said:
    I would rather have Mulrney than the PC leader now who has said that he does't like the legalization of pot and voted against the marijuana law. 
    Fuck, not me. Anyone who still carries that attitude around doesn't have the right mindset to lead in this day and age. Being against legalization demonstrates, to me, that a person's attitude is stuck in the past, and not fully capable of putting logic before stigma. There is no way someone like that isn't going to use that same problematic thinking in other areas.
    Mulroney: supports legalization
    new pc leader: against legalization
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    Goodness, it seems that the Conservatives are hypocrites. 

    More than 20 child killers sent to healing lodges since 2011, figures show

    Offenders were transferred under both Conservative and Liberal governments

    More than 20 child murderers have been transferred to Indigenous healing lodges since 2011, according to numbers from Public Safety Canada.

    At least 14 of those offenders were held in healing lodges while the previous Conservative government was in power.

    The federal government released those numbers in response to a request from CBC News Network's Power & Politics in the wake of a wave of outrage over child killer Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to an Indigenous healing lodge in southern Saskatchewan last December.

    She was transferred back to a traditional prison in Edmonton last week.

    News of McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge became public in September and quickly became a point of heated political debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives tabled a motion, later voted down, that demanded the Liberal government condemn the transfer and overturn it. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in response, accused the Official Opposition of being "ambulance chasers."

    Responding to a request from CBC News, a spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale said child killers were sent to healing lodges under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper as well.

    (continued in the article)

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/child-killers-transferred-healing-lodges-1.4903540

    Gawddammit.

    I guess the point is... everybody sucks.
    The justice system or lack of justice is not one party responsibility...both the liberals and tories have had plenty of chances to improve the system and toughen sentences.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    fife said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    fife said:
    I would rather have Mulrney than the PC leader now who has said that he does't like the legalization of pot and voted against the marijuana law. 
    Fuck, not me. Anyone who still carries that attitude around doesn't have the right mindset to lead in this day and age. Being against legalization demonstrates, to me, that a person's attitude is stuck in the past, and not fully capable of putting logic before stigma. There is no way someone like that isn't going to use that same problematic thinking in other areas.
    sorry confused here.  when you say "fuck, not me"  are you saying you rather have the current PC leader over Mulruney? 
    Yeah, I'm the confused one. I misread and thought you were saying you'd prefer the leader against legalization.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    PJ_Soul said:
    So are you two happy about this, or no? I wondered if this was a point for the feds in your minds or what.




    I have always been under the assumption that solitary confinement was just another tool in the correctional systems toolbox to keep some semblance of control.  How do you discipline inmates serving very long sentences who commit infractions within the institution?  I guess you could charge them and let the courts deal with it, but any sentence the courts hand out will be served alongside his/her sentence.  Paul Bernardo was recently found with a weapon, the correctional system decided not to proceed to court.  I'm sure the prison punished him some way.

    I still support the use of solitary...but with changes.  I was surprised to read that solitary carries no end date.  So 2 of the changes I would like is for there to be a maximum someone can spend in solitary and an end date.  

    One of the things I discovered when touring the Kinston Pen, is that the correctional system constantly evolves.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    Andrew Sheer has since reversed his opposition to cannabis and has no intention of re-opening the debate.  If Harper had introduced Cannabis legislation, the liberals would have voted no.  That's what the liberals and conservatives do ... oppose each other.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    If solitary confinement is only a day or two at the very most, used as a way to calm inmates down and as a form of discipline, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Any longer than that, though, and it can start driving inmates mad, and that is completely unacceptable. I would assume the best form of discipline would be to withdraw privileges that the inmates value (that does NOT, of course, mean withdrawing rights. I know there are cases where they withhold shit like TP from inmates as punishment, and other things that are actually necessities, not privileges). But that should be done carefully too, for the same reason solitary confinement should be kept to very short stints. The last thing they should ever do is punish in a way that will make criminals more angry, more bitter, and more crazy. Most of them are in fact getting out some day (and even those we know aren't have to be treated the same way just because of the technical possibility with 25 years without parole max). So all efforts should go towards keeping them sane, in recovery and constantly in a state of rehabilitation, which doesn't happen if they aren't treated with a level of respect (appropriate to the situation). Punitive actions and treating people as less than human within prison don't generally serve that goal as far as I can tell. There is a huge body of research that supports this. That is why things like healing lodges may very well be the best thing in a lot of cases, even if someone's crimes sicken us.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • fifefife Posts: 3,261
    Andrew Sheer has since reversed his opposition to cannabis and has no intention of re-opening the debate.  If Harper had introduced Cannabis legislation, the liberals would have voted no.  That's what the liberals and conservatives do ... oppose each other.
    actually what he really said and I am guessing you mean when he was interviewed in Quebec was that it would be hard to change back a law to what it was but that he would review certain parts of the law. 
    I know its fits a narrative but i disagree with you that if Harper did this that the liberal would have voted no.

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    edited November 2018
    fife said:
    Andrew Sheer has since reversed his opposition to cannabis and has no intention of re-opening the debate.  If Harper had introduced Cannabis legislation, the liberals would have voted no.  That's what the liberals and conservatives do ... oppose each other.
    actually what he really said and I am guessing you mean when he was interviewed in Quebec was that it would be hard to change back a law to what it was but that he would review certain parts of the law. 
    I know its fits a narrative but i disagree with you that if Harper did this that the liberal would have voted no.

    I also disagree with that. There is no way the libs wouldn't have opposed that. They only would have campaigned for different details in the legislation (and they probably would have been superior) ... slowed it down, perhaps, just to fight to improve it, but they wouldn't have voted against it at the end of the day.
    And yeah, Sheer hasn't changed his attitude. He just knows it would be a mistake to try and change the law now because it's too late, and citizens support it. It's his attitude about it that actually matters though, in the bigger scheme of things. I would personally never consider voting for anyone who is against legalization, even if they will have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. It's the mindset that concerns me - such mindsets bleed into other issues. Same for anti-abortionists. Even if they say they wouldn't attempt to change the laws around it (that would be because it would be a nail in their coffin politically), I still would never vote for any person who actually is opposed to abortion rights.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    PJ_Soul said:
    If solitary confinement is only a day or two at the very most, used as a way to calm inmates down and as a form of discipline, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Any longer than that, though, and it can start driving inmates mad, and that is completely unacceptable. I would assume the best form of discipline would be to withdraw privileges that the inmates value (that does NOT, of course, mean withdrawing rights. I know there are cases where they withhold shit like TP from inmates as punishment, and other things that are actually necessities, not privileges). But that should be done carefully too, for the same reason solitary confinement should be kept to very short stints. The last thing they should ever do is punish in a way that will make criminals more angry, more bitter, and more crazy. Most of them are in fact getting out some day (and even those we know aren't have to be treated the same way just because of the technical possibility with 25 years without parole max). So all efforts should go towards keeping them sane, in recovery and constantly in a state of rehabilitation, which doesn't happen if they aren't treated with a level of respect (appropriate to the situation). Punitive actions and treating people as less than human within prison don't generally serve that goal as far as I can tell. There is a huge body of research that supports this. That is why things like healing lodges may very well be the best thing in a lot of cases, even if someone's crimes sicken us.
    Would you be opposed to 23-hour lockdown within their own cell?  With 1 hour exercise a day by themselves until their off restrictions?  I will agree, if someone is getting out, then it's in all our best interest that the inmate comes out with some skills and is not suffering from some anger issues because of the correctional system.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    edited November 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    If solitary confinement is only a day or two at the very most, used as a way to calm inmates down and as a form of discipline, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Any longer than that, though, and it can start driving inmates mad, and that is completely unacceptable. I would assume the best form of discipline would be to withdraw privileges that the inmates value (that does NOT, of course, mean withdrawing rights. I know there are cases where they withhold shit like TP from inmates as punishment, and other things that are actually necessities, not privileges). But that should be done carefully too, for the same reason solitary confinement should be kept to very short stints. The last thing they should ever do is punish in a way that will make criminals more angry, more bitter, and more crazy. Most of them are in fact getting out some day (and even those we know aren't have to be treated the same way just because of the technical possibility with 25 years without parole max). So all efforts should go towards keeping them sane, in recovery and constantly in a state of rehabilitation, which doesn't happen if they aren't treated with a level of respect (appropriate to the situation). Punitive actions and treating people as less than human within prison don't generally serve that goal as far as I can tell. There is a huge body of research that supports this. That is why things like healing lodges may very well be the best thing in a lot of cases, even if someone's crimes sicken us.
    Would you be opposed to 23-hour lockdown within their own cell?  With 1 hour exercise a day by themselves until their off restrictions?  I will agree, if someone is getting out, then it's in all our best interest that the inmate comes out with some skills and is not suffering from some anger issues because of the correctional system.
    Yes, unless the inmate is absolutely fucking psychotic or something, even on regulated meds, I would oppose isolating inmates like that for any significant amount of time, because it is terrible for their psyches. That will likely drive them nuts too. Just not AS nuts a solitary confinement will. Ideally, all inmates should have some level of socialization, education, opportunities for participation, etc, to the greatest extent possible, depending on what's possible for the inmate, keeping safety in mind. I'm not talking about a 24 hour time out - that's fine. But if you mean beyond a day or two, I think this would cause more harm than good. This isn't for their sake. It's for everyone else's sake. Again, I'm not opposed to discipline to try and control out of control inmates... FWIW, I'm also no opposed to forcing inmates to take medications that might help their behaviour. But only if it's HIGHLY monitored under strict regulations. I obviously don't support any system that just drugs up prisoners to keep them docile. I'm talking about justified cases.
    And that leads me to think about prisoners with serious mental illnesses. I think that issue needs a lot more attention.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    fife said:
    Andrew Sheer has since reversed his opposition to cannabis and has no intention of re-opening the debate.  If Harper had introduced Cannabis legislation, the liberals would have voted no.  That's what the liberals and conservatives do ... oppose each other.
    actually what he really said and I am guessing you mean when he was interviewed in Quebec was that it would be hard to change back a law to what it was but that he would review certain parts of the law. 
    I know its fits a narrative but i disagree with you that if Harper did this that the liberal would have voted no.

    I have no problem with him or even Trudeau reviewing the law.  Legalization is new, governments should monitor and review, make changes where the law falls short.  Just like medicinal, at one time your doctor had to fill out the forms to be approved by Health Canada, then you have issued a card (licence), going through Health Canada could take months.  The law got reformed, now all you do is get your dr. to fill out a very simple form,  the dr. office faxes it to the supplier you want...done.  But if anyone took Sheer seriously, then that's on you.  Common sense tells us there is no going back, by the time the next election rolls around their will be thousands of licensed shops coast to coast to coast...now go into an election campaign threatening to shut down lucrative legal business's...good luck.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    No, nobody's ever going to try and repeal the law now. It's a done deal.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    Andrew Sheer will not be PM and likely out as Conservative leader within a few years.  The guy is the creepiest fucking politician I've seen.  Someone needs to wipe that stupid arrogant smirk off his face.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    Andrew Sheer will not be PM and likely out as Conservative leader within a few years.  The guy is the creepiest fucking politician I've seen.  Someone needs to wipe that stupid arrogant smirk off his face.
    Yes, he's terrible. I don't understand wtf they were thinking picking him in the first place... If that's the best they've got, they're in big trouble for the long haul... and while I'm tempted to be pleased about that, it's actually rather scary. It makes me worry they're going to go more radical right in some kind of attempt to solidify a hardcore base. But hopefully they're going to be smarter than that and aim to find someone who appeals to the younger generations. That would mean being liberal on the social issues and sticking to common sense fiscal conservatism without attacking social programs that people depend on, tougher sentencing, being sure to not be anti-environment, proposing common sense immigration reform that doesn't employ any fear mongering ... and someone with a fucking personality would help too...... All that is a TALL order for the Conservatives. I'm not sure they can ever pull that off. I mean, I wouldn't vote for them anyhow, but at least if they could manage something like that and won, I wouldn't choke on it. ;) 
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    PJ_Soul said:
    Andrew Sheer will not be PM and likely out as Conservative leader within a few years.  The guy is the creepiest fucking politician I've seen.  Someone needs to wipe that stupid arrogant smirk off his face.
    Yes, he's terrible. I don't understand wtf they were thinking picking him in the first place... If that's the best they've got, they're in big trouble for the long haul... and while I'm tempted to be pleased about that, it's actually rather scary. It makes me worry they're going to go more radical right in some kind of attempt to solidify a hardcore base. But hopefully they're going to be smarter than that and aim to find someone who appeals to the younger generations. That would mean being liberal on the social issues and sticking to common sense fiscal conservatism without attacking social programs that people depend on, tougher sentencing, being sure to not be anti-environment, proposing common sense immigration reform that doesn't employ any fear mongering ... and someone with a fucking personality would help too...... All that is a TALL order for the Conservatives. I'm not sure they can ever pull that off. I mean, I wouldn't vote for them anyhow, but at least if they could manage something like that and won, I wouldn't choke on it. ;) 
    Well, there have been questions raised about the legitimacy of him winning the leadership.  In my opinion, he stole the leadership from Bernier.  Agree, the conservatives need to move back to just right of center, just like the liberals need to move back to just left of center.  But that's a debate for another day I suppose.  Eventually, the PC's will rise to power again, that's just the way things go in politics guess. They have people in their ranks who would be good leaders, why they don't run, I do not know, most likely money.  I know if I was Trudeau, I'd want Singh in the H of C, sooner than later ... he will likely drive NDP voters to the liberals.  I think Sheer is the last of the Harper conservatives that will have much influence.  No matter what happens, Cannabis legalization is here to stay.  The law will get tweaked over time, I believe they plan on allowing edibles to be sold in the future.  I'm not worried.


    Compared to what's going on in the States, all 4 federal party leaders are far more competent than the current POTUS.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    PJ_Soul said:
    Andrew Sheer will not be PM and likely out as Conservative leader within a few years.  The guy is the creepiest fucking politician I've seen.  Someone needs to wipe that stupid arrogant smirk off his face.
    Yes, he's terrible. I don't understand wtf they were thinking picking him in the first place... If that's the best they've got, they're in big trouble for the long haul... and while I'm tempted to be pleased about that, it's actually rather scary. It makes me worry they're going to go more radical right in some kind of attempt to solidify a hardcore base. But hopefully they're going to be smarter than that and aim to find someone who appeals to the younger generations. That would mean being liberal on the social issues and sticking to common sense fiscal conservatism without attacking social programs that people depend on, tougher sentencing, being sure to not be anti-environment, proposing common sense immigration reform that doesn't employ any fear mongering ... and someone with a fucking personality would help too...... All that is a TALL order for the Conservatives. I'm not sure they can ever pull that off. I mean, I wouldn't vote for them anyhow, but at least if they could manage something like that and won, I wouldn't choke on it. ;) 
    Well, there have been questions raised about the legitimacy of him winning the leadership.  In my opinion, he stole the leadership from Bernier.  Agree, the conservatives need to move back to just right of center, just like the liberals need to move back to just left of center.  But that's a debate for another day I suppose.  Eventually, the PC's will rise to power again, that's just the way things go in politics guess. They have people in their ranks who would be good leaders, why they don't run, I do not know, most likely money.  I know if I was Trudeau, I'd want Singh in the H of C, sooner than later ... he will likely drive NDP voters to the liberals.  I think Sheer is the last of the Harper conservatives that will have much influence.  No matter what happens, Cannabis legalization is here to stay.  The law will get tweaked over time, I believe they plan on allowing edibles to be sold in the future.  I'm not worried.


    Compared to what's going on in the States, all 4 federal party leaders are far more competent than the current POTUS.
    A truer thing has never been said, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,059
    what's with you two today? enough with the kumbaya shit, get back to throwing daggers! :wink:
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,224
    edited November 2018
    what's with you two today? enough with the kumbaya shit, get back to throwing daggers! :wink:
    I know it's weird, lol. It's making me uncomfortable. :lol:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    I'm turning a new leaf.  I only post here when high.  See pot would end all wars...lol
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    Canadians Divided Over Legal Age For Marijuana, Angus Reid Institute Poll Suggests

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/14/canada-legal-weed-poll_a_23589387/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR0HRvoa1JjiOERwTPXr9j7Z9ZKxDSlFOlwhsZAgBOYtjyU1SqcHtvOPEAQ

    Can someone more knowledgeable, please explain why weed is bad for the young brain, but contact sports that cause concussions to seem to get a pass.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,993
    Canadians Divided Over Legal Age For Marijuana, Angus Reid Institute Poll Suggests

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/14/canada-legal-weed-poll_a_23589387/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR0HRvoa1JjiOERwTPXr9j7Z9ZKxDSlFOlwhsZAgBOYtjyU1SqcHtvOPEAQ

    Can someone more knowledgeable, please explain why weed is bad for the young brain, but contact sports that cause concussions to seem to get a pass.
    They’re both bad for the developing brain. I don’t see contact sports getting a pass, I see a lot more recognition about the dangers of concussion and steps taken to prevent them or minimize the impact.  

    One difference, of course, is that not everyone who plays sports will get a concussion, but everyone who smokes weed is being affected by it.  
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 6,393
    Canadians Divided Over Legal Age For Marijuana, Angus Reid Institute Poll Suggests

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/14/canada-legal-weed-poll_a_23589387/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR0HRvoa1JjiOERwTPXr9j7Z9ZKxDSlFOlwhsZAgBOYtjyU1SqcHtvOPEAQ

    Can someone more knowledgeable, please explain why weed is bad for the young brain, but contact sports that cause concussions to seem to get a pass.
    They’re both bad for the developing brain. I don’t see contact sports getting a pass, I see a lot more recognition about the dangers of concussion and steps taken to prevent them or minimize the impact.  

    One difference, of course, is that not everyone who plays sports will get a concussion, but everyone who smokes weed is being affected by it.  
    Thank you.  I appreciate your response.  So what about all those very successful potheads?  Are they just lucky?  And when I say free pass, maybe its the wrong wording.  Are concussions the only time contact sports cause issues?  From my limited knowledge of the brain, it sits in a gel-like substance, sort of floats in the skull ... wouldn't impact of any kind that causes the brain to move excessively in the skull potentially cause brain injury long-term.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,059
    Canadians Divided Over Legal Age For Marijuana, Angus Reid Institute Poll Suggests

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/14/canada-legal-weed-poll_a_23589387/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR0HRvoa1JjiOERwTPXr9j7Z9ZKxDSlFOlwhsZAgBOYtjyU1SqcHtvOPEAQ

    Can someone more knowledgeable, please explain why weed is bad for the young brain, but contact sports that cause concussions to seem to get a pass.
    They’re both bad for the developing brain. I don’t see contact sports getting a pass, I see a lot more recognition about the dangers of concussion and steps taken to prevent them or minimize the impact.  

    One difference, of course, is that not everyone who plays sports will get a concussion, but everyone who smokes weed is being affected by it.  
    Thank you.  I appreciate your response.  So what about all those very successful potheads?  Are they just lucky?  And when I say free pass, maybe its the wrong wording.  Are concussions the only time contact sports cause issues?  From my limited knowledge of the brain, it sits in a gel-like substance, sort of floats in the skull ... wouldn't impact of any kind that causes the brain to move excessively in the skull potentially cause brain injury long-term.
    in the same way not everyone becomes an alcoholic from drinking, or not every baby is damaged from their mother drinking while pregnant, not everyone who smokes weed will become depressed, or anxious, or have mental health issues. it will effect everyone differently. the importance is just that people know the risks involved. 

    I've been smoking weed since i was 14. could it be the cause of my mental health issues? absolutely, but there's really no way to know at this point. I know plenty of people I smoked with (and people who smoked much more) haven't been affected by mental health like I have. 
Sign In or Register to comment.