Canadian Politics Redux

1103104106108109141

Comments

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    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.

    If I knew what factor or factors made it so that some people would be negatively affected by weed while others are not, I'd be rich. Are teens who don't experience negative effects from using cannabis "just lucky"? Maybe they are, in the sense that they are lucky enough to have a particular set of genes and other circumstances that has allowed their brain to develop in a way that is more resilient and less affected by cannabis. Some people undeniably have a genetic predisposition to psychosis, for instance, and are more likely to become psychotic when using cannabis than others. Others are more likely to experience anxiety, and so on. 

    What you're talking about with the brain moving "excessively in the skull" is a concussion, so I'm not sure what the question is. You can get brain injuries that are not concussions in sports, but much less commonly, because they would be things like crush injuries, skull fractures, etc. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    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.

    If I knew what factor or factors made it so that some people would be negatively affected by weed while others are not, I'd be rich. Are teens who don't experience negative effects from using cannabis "just lucky"? Maybe they are, in the sense that they are lucky enough to have a particular set of genes and other circumstances that has allowed their brain to develop in a way that is more resilient and less affected by cannabis. Some people undeniably have a genetic predisposition to psychosis, for instance, and are more likely to become psychotic when using cannabis than others. Others are more likely to experience anxiety, and so on. 

    What you're talking about with the brain moving "excessively in the skull" is a concussion, so I'm not sure what the question is. You can get brain injuries that are not concussions in sports, but much less commonly, because they would be things like crush injuries, skull fractures, etc. 
    So do you think the age should be raised to 21?  I understand that some of the concern is associated with THC content being much greater today than, say 20 years ago.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    This is an oddly fascinating article from the Guardian on Alberta's rat-free status.

    The comment about "two rats a month" was amusing, as well as the mention of Alberta's borders that inexplicably leaves out NWT.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/15/alberta-rat-catcher-phil-merill-canada-pest-free
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    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.

    If I knew what factor or factors made it so that some people would be negatively affected by weed while others are not, I'd be rich. Are teens who don't experience negative effects from using cannabis "just lucky"? Maybe they are, in the sense that they are lucky enough to have a particular set of genes and other circumstances that has allowed their brain to develop in a way that is more resilient and less affected by cannabis. Some people undeniably have a genetic predisposition to psychosis, for instance, and are more likely to become psychotic when using cannabis than others. Others are more likely to experience anxiety, and so on. 

    What you're talking about with the brain moving "excessively in the skull" is a concussion, so I'm not sure what the question is. You can get brain injuries that are not concussions in sports, but much less commonly, because they would be things like crush injuries, skull fractures, etc. 
    So do you think the age should be raised to 21?  I understand that some of the concern is associated with THC content being much greater today than, say 20 years ago.

    I don't have a good answer on what the age limit should be, honestly. I'm trying to balance practicality with health. I'm strongly in favour of legalization, due to the evidence of overall health benefits to a population when substance use is not criminalized, but it's certainly possible for there to be areas of drawbacks even if the larger picture is positive. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    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.

    If I knew what factor or factors made it so that some people would be negatively affected by weed while others are not, I'd be rich. Are teens who don't experience negative effects from using cannabis "just lucky"? Maybe they are, in the sense that they are lucky enough to have a particular set of genes and other circumstances that has allowed their brain to develop in a way that is more resilient and less affected by cannabis. Some people undeniably have a genetic predisposition to psychosis, for instance, and are more likely to become psychotic when using cannabis than others. Others are more likely to experience anxiety, and so on. 

    What you're talking about with the brain moving "excessively in the skull" is a concussion, so I'm not sure what the question is. You can get brain injuries that are not concussions in sports, but much less commonly, because they would be things like crush injuries, skull fractures, etc. 
    So do you think the age should be raised to 21?  I understand that some of the concern is associated with THC content being much greater today than, say 20 years ago.

    I don't have a good answer on what the age limit should be, honestly. I'm trying to balance practicality with health. I'm strongly in favour of legalization, due to the evidence of overall health benefits to a population when substance use is not criminalized, but it's certainly possible for there to be areas of drawbacks even if the larger picture is positive. 
    Alcohol impairs the brain, and we allow legal consumption at 18 0r 19 depending on the province.  I guess at some point we have to let young adults make their own choices...
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    Another 'horrific' Ontario killer is living in minimum and he gets day passes
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/prisoner-transfer-shelley-christopher-cowell-woodstock-1.4902870?cmp=FB_Post_News&fbclid=IwAR06EkuZ7m7czK-pXDFRZbNEIcOG85R--leB7Yd7OE6FBjdvJPTAl0VMKzQ

    Yes, I find it absurd that he gets day parole.  I'm even more confused about why another woman would marry him.  Things that make you go hmmmm.
  • Another 'horrific' Ontario killer is living in minimum and he gets day passes
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/prisoner-transfer-shelley-christopher-cowell-woodstock-1.4902870?cmp=FB_Post_News&fbclid=IwAR06EkuZ7m7czK-pXDFRZbNEIcOG85R--leB7Yd7OE6FBjdvJPTAl0VMKzQ

    Yes, I find it absurd that he gets day parole.  I'm even more confused about why another woman would marry him.  Things that make you go hmmmm.

    The pendulum has reached its limits and is swinging back. People are tired of our lenient sentencing and our lackadaisical reform/correctional work.

    There are not people- good citizens- worthy of our best efforts and understanding because they just made a mistake. These are disease ridden vermin that have no place in society whatsoever.

    And as for the f**king idiot that married the loser... wow. You're a champion. You marry a guy who bound, tortured, beat and decapitated his ex-wife? What is wrong with you? 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    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.

    If I knew what factor or factors made it so that some people would be negatively affected by weed while others are not, I'd be rich. Are teens who don't experience negative effects from using cannabis "just lucky"? Maybe they are, in the sense that they are lucky enough to have a particular set of genes and other circumstances that has allowed their brain to develop in a way that is more resilient and less affected by cannabis. Some people undeniably have a genetic predisposition to psychosis, for instance, and are more likely to become psychotic when using cannabis than others. Others are more likely to experience anxiety, and so on. 

    What you're talking about with the brain moving "excessively in the skull" is a concussion, so I'm not sure what the question is. You can get brain injuries that are not concussions in sports, but much less commonly, because they would be things like crush injuries, skull fractures, etc. 
    So do you think the age should be raised to 21?  I understand that some of the concern is associated with THC content being much greater today than, say 20 years ago.

    I don't have a good answer on what the age limit should be, honestly. I'm trying to balance practicality with health. I'm strongly in favour of legalization, due to the evidence of overall health benefits to a population when substance use is not criminalized, but it's certainly possible for there to be areas of drawbacks even if the larger picture is positive. 
    Alcohol impairs the brain, and we allow legal consumption at 18 0r 19 depending on the province.  I guess at some point we have to let young adults make their own choices...

    Yes, I agree. I tend to favour 19. It could just be what I'm used to, but it seems more in line with other adult expectations, since by 19 (almost) everyone is out of school, can vote, etc. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    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.

    If I knew what factor or factors made it so that some people would be negatively affected by weed while others are not, I'd be rich. Are teens who don't experience negative effects from using cannabis "just lucky"? Maybe they are, in the sense that they are lucky enough to have a particular set of genes and other circumstances that has allowed their brain to develop in a way that is more resilient and less affected by cannabis. Some people undeniably have a genetic predisposition to psychosis, for instance, and are more likely to become psychotic when using cannabis than others. Others are more likely to experience anxiety, and so on. 

    What you're talking about with the brain moving "excessively in the skull" is a concussion, so I'm not sure what the question is. You can get brain injuries that are not concussions in sports, but much less commonly, because they would be things like crush injuries, skull fractures, etc. 
    So do you think the age should be raised to 21?  I understand that some of the concern is associated with THC content being much greater today than, say 20 years ago.

    I don't have a good answer on what the age limit should be, honestly. I'm trying to balance practicality with health. I'm strongly in favour of legalization, due to the evidence of overall health benefits to a population when substance use is not criminalized, but it's certainly possible for there to be areas of drawbacks even if the larger picture is positive. 
    Alcohol impairs the brain, and we allow legal consumption at 18 0r 19 depending on the province.  I guess at some point we have to let young adults make their own choices...

    Yes, I agree. I tend to favour 19. It could just be what I'm used to, but it seems more in line with other adult expectations, since by 19 (almost) everyone is out of school, can vote, etc. 
    19 seems appropriate...

    We allow tobacco consumption at 18.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,201
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    That must be a Manitoba thing, Hugh.  I've never heard of that here in Ontario.  It may be, just never heard.  12 is a way to young for alcohol consumption.  I worked with a fellow from Portugal, he started drinking wine at supper with his family at an early age.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    It’s not legal in BC 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    12?

    Seriously?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,201
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    12?

    Seriously?
    I always thought it was 12, but I just looked it up and it just says "minors", so I don't know if there is an age limit or not. 
    Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
  • fifefife Posts: 3,289
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    That must be a Manitoba thing, Hugh.  I've never heard of that here in Ontario.  It may be, just never heard.  12 is a way to young for alcohol consumption.  I worked with a fellow from Portugal, he started drinking wine at supper with his family at an early age.
    as a Portuguese person, I had my first glass of wine at 6 years old but it was mixed in with some ginger ale.  my first glass of win by itself was at 7.  while I know some children aid society workers who be worried about that i really do believe that its not a real bad thing.  it allowed me to see the effects of alcohol and it also killed the mystic around drinking.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    fife said:
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    That must be a Manitoba thing, Hugh.  I've never heard of that here in Ontario.  It may be, just never heard.  12 is a way to young for alcohol consumption.  I worked with a fellow from Portugal, he started drinking wine at supper with his family at an early age.
    as a Portuguese person, I had my first glass of wine at 6 years old but it was mixed in with some ginger ale.  my first glass of win by itself was at 7.  while I know some children aid society workers who be worried about that i really do believe that its not a real bad thing.  it allowed me to see the effects of alcohol and it also killed the mystic around drinking.  
    You back up what he told me.  He said, "it made him a more responsible drinker".  He never did say what age he was served wine, just that it was before the drinking age...
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    edited November 2018
    fife said:
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    That must be a Manitoba thing, Hugh.  I've never heard of that here in Ontario.  It may be, just never heard.  12 is a way to young for alcohol consumption.  I worked with a fellow from Portugal, he started drinking wine at supper with his family at an early age.
    as a Portuguese person, I had my first glass of wine at 6 years old but it was mixed in with some ginger ale.  my first glass of win by itself was at 7.  while I know some children aid society workers who be worried about that i really do believe that its not a real bad thing.  it allowed me to see the effects of alcohol and it also killed the mystic around drinking.  
    You back up what he told me.  He said, "it made him a more responsible drinker".  He never did say what age he was served wine, just that it was before the drinking age...

    It's a common perception that earlier introduction to drinking within the family leads to fewer problems with alcohol, but what evidence is available suggests that isn't true. I knew I had read this in the past so I looked up some articles this morning and, while there aren't a lot of good studies, what evidence there is does not support the idea that drinking earlier leads to more responsible drinking. Teens in European countries with laxer drinking laws seems to have more, not fewer, problems with alcohol abuse.

    Alcohol related motor vehicle crashes by young drivers also declined when the drinking age was raised in the US, which is a good thing.

    Also, some countries have pretty weird drinking laws. Apparently in England the youngest that children are allowed to drink in a private setting is 6. Pardon me? It says a lot about a country that some committee thought about this and said "yeah, 5 seems too young to get smashed, but at 6 they can really hold their liquor". 
    Post edited by oftenreading on
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    fife said:
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    That must be a Manitoba thing, Hugh.  I've never heard of that here in Ontario.  It may be, just never heard.  12 is a way to young for alcohol consumption.  I worked with a fellow from Portugal, he started drinking wine at supper with his family at an early age.
    as a Portuguese person, I had my first glass of wine at 6 years old but it was mixed in with some ginger ale.  my first glass of win by itself was at 7.  while I know some children aid society workers who be worried about that i really do believe that its not a real bad thing.  it allowed me to see the effects of alcohol and it also killed the mystic around drinking.  
    You back up what he told me.  He said, "it made him a more responsible drinker".  He never did say what age he was served wine, just that it was before the drinking age...

    It's a common perception that earlier introduction to drinking within the family leads to fewer problems with alcohol, but what evidence is available suggests that isn't true. I knew I had read this in the past so I looked up some articles this morning and, while there aren't a lot of good studies, what evidence there is does not support the idea that drinking earlier leads to more responsible drinking. Teens in European countries with laxer drinking laws seems to have more, not fewer, problems with alcohol abuse.

    Alcohol related motor vehicle crashes by young drivers also declined when the drinking age was raised in the US, which is a good thing.

    Also, some countries have pretty weird drinking laws. Apparently in England the youngest that children are allowed to drink in a private setting is 6. Pardon me? It says a lot about a country that some committee thought about this and said "yeah, 5 seems to young to get smashed, but at 6 they can really hold their liquor". 
    You raise excellent points.  6 is ridiculous... How drunk were those committee members?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    fife said:
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    That must be a Manitoba thing, Hugh.  I've never heard of that here in Ontario.  It may be, just never heard.  12 is a way to young for alcohol consumption.  I worked with a fellow from Portugal, he started drinking wine at supper with his family at an early age.
    as a Portuguese person, I had my first glass of wine at 6 years old but it was mixed in with some ginger ale.  my first glass of win by itself was at 7.  while I know some children aid society workers who be worried about that i really do believe that its not a real bad thing.  it allowed me to see the effects of alcohol and it also killed the mystic around drinking.  
    You back up what he told me.  He said, "it made him a more responsible drinker".  He never did say what age he was served wine, just that it was before the drinking age...

    It's a common perception that earlier introduction to drinking within the family leads to fewer problems with alcohol, but what evidence is available suggests that isn't true. I knew I had read this in the past so I looked up some articles this morning and, while there aren't a lot of good studies, what evidence there is does not support the idea that drinking earlier leads to more responsible drinking. Teens in European countries with laxer drinking laws seems to have more, not fewer, problems with alcohol abuse.

    Alcohol related motor vehicle crashes by young drivers also declined when the drinking age was raised in the US, which is a good thing.

    Also, some countries have pretty weird drinking laws. Apparently in England the youngest that children are allowed to drink in a private setting is 6. Pardon me? It says a lot about a country that some committee thought about this and said "yeah, 5 seems to young to get smashed, but at 6 they can really hold their liquor". 
    You raise excellent points.  6 is ridiculous... How drunk were those committee members?
    “Please, sir, can I have some more beer?”
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    fife said:
    and if you want to go even further, I believe it is perfectly legal for someone 12 and up to have alchohol at a restaurant or lounge as long as they are having a meal and are accompanied by an adult. 
    That must be a Manitoba thing, Hugh.  I've never heard of that here in Ontario.  It may be, just never heard.  12 is a way to young for alcohol consumption.  I worked with a fellow from Portugal, he started drinking wine at supper with his family at an early age.
    as a Portuguese person, I had my first glass of wine at 6 years old but it was mixed in with some ginger ale.  my first glass of win by itself was at 7.  while I know some children aid society workers who be worried about that i really do believe that its not a real bad thing.  it allowed me to see the effects of alcohol and it also killed the mystic around drinking.  
    You back up what he told me.  He said, "it made him a more responsible drinker".  He never did say what age he was served wine, just that it was before the drinking age...

    It's a common perception that earlier introduction to drinking within the family leads to fewer problems with alcohol, but what evidence is available suggests that isn't true. I knew I had read this in the past so I looked up some articles this morning and, while there aren't a lot of good studies, what evidence there is does not support the idea that drinking earlier leads to more responsible drinking. Teens in European countries with laxer drinking laws seems to have more, not fewer, problems with alcohol abuse.

    Alcohol related motor vehicle crashes by young drivers also declined when the drinking age was raised in the US, which is a good thing.

    Also, some countries have pretty weird drinking laws. Apparently in England the youngest that children are allowed to drink in a private setting is 6. Pardon me? It says a lot about a country that some committee thought about this and said "yeah, 5 seems to young to get smashed, but at 6 they can really hold their liquor". 
    You raise excellent points.  6 is ridiculous... How drunk were those committee members?
    “Please, sir, can I have some more beer?”
    LOL.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    Vote No campaign calls to extend election reform vote due to low voter turnout

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vote-no-campaign-calls-for-voting-deadline-extension-1.4909836?fbclid=IwAR2bkPxPhjuQJGaMAtSJdWcqh1Zvf_pet6suQzChsST_z7sYscTbwata3OA

    This really pisses me off.  I'm sure many of you know I am a supporter of direct democracy.  Something as important as this is upsetting.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,118
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    http://bfy.tw/Kv9F
  • my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    Of course we did!

    In February 2017, Li received an absolute discharge and is now living independently in a Manitoba community. The province's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he is no longer required to attend annual reviews or abide by conditions. He later changed his name to Will Lee Baker.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/greyhound-beheading-10th-anniversary-1.4760074
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 20,049
    my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    Of course we did!

    In February 2017, Li received an absolute discharge and is now living independently in a Manitoba community. The province's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he is no longer required to attend annual reviews or abide by conditions. He later changed his name to Will Lee Baker.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/greyhound-beheading-10th-anniversary-1.4760074
    What the fuck?  Why is your legal system so lenient?

    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    mcgruff10 said:
    my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    Of course we did!

    In February 2017, Li received an absolute discharge and is now living independently in a Manitoba community. The province's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he is no longer required to attend annual reviews or abide by conditions. He later changed his name to Will Lee Baker.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/greyhound-beheading-10th-anniversary-1.4760074
    What the fuck?  Why is your legal system so lenient?


    It's got nothing to do with the legal system being lenient. He was found NCRMD (not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder), the rough equivalent to the US NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity). At that point it leaves the criminal justice system entirely, like your NGRI acquittees, and enters another system. He was treated and monitored under that system until his risk was low enough that it could be well managed in the community, and then discharged to the civil mental health system, where he is still being monitored and treated.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,260
    mcgruff10 said:
    my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    Of course we did!

    In February 2017, Li received an absolute discharge and is now living independently in a Manitoba community. The province's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he is no longer required to attend annual reviews or abide by conditions. He later changed his name to Will Lee Baker.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/greyhound-beheading-10th-anniversary-1.4760074
    What the fuck?  Why is your legal system so lenient?

    LOL.  Lenient might an understatement.  The city where my father lives had a triple murder in '92, the loser killed a teenager with a gun, then went back and stabbed to death the teenager's grandparents who answered the door and saw them together.  He is on day parole ...
  • mcgruff10 said:
    my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    Of course we did!

    In February 2017, Li received an absolute discharge and is now living independently in a Manitoba community. The province's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he is no longer required to attend annual reviews or abide by conditions. He later changed his name to Will Lee Baker.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/greyhound-beheading-10th-anniversary-1.4760074
    What the fuck?  Why is your legal system so lenient?


    It's got nothing to do with the legal system being lenient. He was found NCRMD (not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder), the rough equivalent to the US NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity). At that point it leaves the criminal justice system entirely, like your NGRI acquittees, and enters another system. He was treated and monitored under that system until his risk was low enough that it could be well managed in the community, and then discharged to the civil mental health system, where he is still being monitored and treated.

    Except that he's completely in the clear and not being monitored or treated.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,430
    mcgruff10 said:
    my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    Of course we did!

    In February 2017, Li received an absolute discharge and is now living independently in a Manitoba community. The province's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he is no longer required to attend annual reviews or abide by conditions. He later changed his name to Will Lee Baker.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/greyhound-beheading-10th-anniversary-1.4760074
    What the fuck?  Why is your legal system so lenient?


    It's got nothing to do with the legal system being lenient. He was found NCRMD (not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder), the rough equivalent to the US NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity). At that point it leaves the criminal justice system entirely, like your NGRI acquittees, and enters another system. He was treated and monitored under that system until his risk was low enough that it could be well managed in the community, and then discharged to the civil mental health system, where he is still being monitored and treated.

    Except that he's completely in the clear and not being monitored or treated.

    That isn't true. He's not being monitored by the Review Board system but he's being monitored by the civil system. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 20,049
    mcgruff10 said:
    my2hands said:
    Remember the guy that ate the guys face on the bus a few years ago?

    Did you maniacs let that guy go yet? lol

    Of course we did!

    In February 2017, Li received an absolute discharge and is now living independently in a Manitoba community. The province's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he is no longer required to attend annual reviews or abide by conditions. He later changed his name to Will Lee Baker.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/greyhound-beheading-10th-anniversary-1.4760074
    What the fuck?  Why is your legal system so lenient?

    LOL.  Lenient might an understatement.  The city where my father lives had a triple murder in '92, the loser killed a teenager with a gun, then went back and stabbed to death the teenager's grandparents who answered the door and saw them together.  He is on day parole ...
    That is crazy. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
Sign In or Register to comment.