Friday, January 8, 2016
but, can you explain to me the difference between allodial title and fee simple?
but, this is really just another example of how the united states constitution is out of date.
you've got crazy people running around thinking it makes sense to have private fiefdoms exist on the same level as the state, in 2015. and they'd take slaves, if you let them, too. total feudalism.
a new document is clearly necessary, that specifies what is standard in the civilized world: that the state owns the country under allodial title, has the right to eminent domain, can raise taxes, etc.
and, if these yahoos don't like that, i'm guessing there's some spots of land in antarctica that haven't been claimed yet.
but, this is really just another example of how the united states constitution is out of date.
you've got crazy people running around thinking it makes sense to have private fiefdoms exist on the same level as the state, in 2015. and they'd take slaves, if you let them, too. total feudalism.
a new document is clearly necessary, that specifies what is standard in the civilized world: that the state owns the country under allodial title, has the right to eminent domain, can raise taxes, etc.
and, if these yahoos don't like that, i'm guessing there's some spots of land in antarctica that haven't been claimed yet.
at
21:42
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i disagree with senator paul on most things, but one of things that i agree with him on (or at least agreed with his father on) was the idea of pulling back the american empire. i wish he would have tied these things together, because that's the narrative that's missing.
i don't like guns. i don't want to be anywhere near them. if i know you have a gun in your house, i won't go in your house. and, i think the idea of "temporary insanity" is reason enough for people to...bans don't work. up in canada, most people just don't want guns around. that's the only way forward that can actually work - people collectively making that choice. the most responsible gun owners in the world can snap, lose their head and kill their partners. i just don't think the risk is worth any benefit. but, like i say - that's a social evolution. that's not a legislative priority. and, it's only a small number of gun deaths.
and, so, despite everything i just said, i'm fully cognizant of the reality that restricting the supply is a failing approach. we're just finally coming to terms with the reality that this approach doesn't work with drugs. it doesn't work with guns either.
drawing the connection between a militarized state that treats every problem like a hammer and gun violence within that state is key. again: i hate guns. but, the united states doesn't have a gun problem. the united states has a war economy problem.
it would have been nice to see him pull that together.
again: i don't agree with much of what paul has to say. but, i don't agree with much of what hillary has to say, either. if i was an american, i'm not sure i'd conclude that clinton was actually the lesser evil if her opponent was paul.
i don't like guns. i don't want to be anywhere near them. if i know you have a gun in your house, i won't go in your house. and, i think the idea of "temporary insanity" is reason enough for people to...bans don't work. up in canada, most people just don't want guns around. that's the only way forward that can actually work - people collectively making that choice. the most responsible gun owners in the world can snap, lose their head and kill their partners. i just don't think the risk is worth any benefit. but, like i say - that's a social evolution. that's not a legislative priority. and, it's only a small number of gun deaths.
and, so, despite everything i just said, i'm fully cognizant of the reality that restricting the supply is a failing approach. we're just finally coming to terms with the reality that this approach doesn't work with drugs. it doesn't work with guns either.
drawing the connection between a militarized state that treats every problem like a hammer and gun violence within that state is key. again: i hate guns. but, the united states doesn't have a gun problem. the united states has a war economy problem.
it would have been nice to see him pull that together.
again: i don't agree with much of what paul has to say. but, i don't agree with much of what hillary has to say, either. if i was an american, i'm not sure i'd conclude that clinton was actually the lesser evil if her opponent was paul.
at
21:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
nope (final album mix)
originally created in april, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 4, 2015
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/nope-4
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/nope-4
at
17:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
useless (final album mix)
recorded in jan, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. remixed july 2, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/useless
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/useless
at
17:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
a psycho kills a cow (final album mix)
so, this insane little tune actually took me all day to remaster.
the highest quality source i have for this is a 56 kbps mp3 from oct, 1997. but, here's the thing: it was constructed almost entirely from 8-bit samples. the only exception is the vocal croak at the end, which i took in at your normal 16-bit level with a mic into the back of the pc.
there was actually a lot of detail to pull out of it. and, it's consequently actually an exquisite speaker test. if you can hear multiple channels of sound, you have a pretty good speaker setup.
my laptop totally fails. even through the bassy phones, strangely. there's some sub frequencies going on down there - try it through a subwoofer. but, be careful with the volume to start...
the first ten tracks have now been replaced. i believe that 12, 14, 16 and 18 will require no editing. the other segues (11,13,15,17,19) are in an undetermined state. i will have to do something or other with all of them, or they'll no doubt sound flat in sequence. but, it may just be a question of running them through the izotope patch for the song before or after them.
i dunno. i know i wanted this done yesterday before lunch...
it can't be too much longer, though.
initially created in 1997. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-psycho-kills-a-cow
the highest quality source i have for this is a 56 kbps mp3 from oct, 1997. but, here's the thing: it was constructed almost entirely from 8-bit samples. the only exception is the vocal croak at the end, which i took in at your normal 16-bit level with a mic into the back of the pc.
there was actually a lot of detail to pull out of it. and, it's consequently actually an exquisite speaker test. if you can hear multiple channels of sound, you have a pretty good speaker setup.
my laptop totally fails. even through the bassy phones, strangely. there's some sub frequencies going on down there - try it through a subwoofer. but, be careful with the volume to start...
the first ten tracks have now been replaced. i believe that 12, 14, 16 and 18 will require no editing. the other segues (11,13,15,17,19) are in an undetermined state. i will have to do something or other with all of them, or they'll no doubt sound flat in sequence. but, it may just be a question of running them through the izotope patch for the song before or after them.
i dunno. i know i wanted this done yesterday before lunch...
it can't be too much longer, though.
initially created in 1997. remastered from source and resequenced on jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-psycho-kills-a-cow
at
16:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
those unemployment numbers are inaccurate. everybody knows this. i won't get into it. the real unemployment rate in the united states (u-6) is at 9.9%, and even this is widely understood as an underestimate. a more realistic real unemployment number for canada is around 15% - and that's the acknowledged underestimate.
here's the thing: bringing back all these manufacturers isn't all about the dollar. it's largely about automation. in the united states, it's even about expanding systems of prison labour (your nikes may now be made by inmates, rather than foreign children; is that an improvement?). but, thankfully, we don't have that here.
if a firm can automate a factory in canada for the north american market, it can actually save on *shipping* by bringing the factory back here. gdp goes up. no jobs are created.
we see the same problem with stimulus spending. walmart's profits may go up by 137%. no jobs will be created.
this historic decoupling of gdp growth from job creation is something that policy makers need to get their head around. it was an absolutely valid assumption up until about 1995 that gdp and jobs are going to move in the same direction. and, because offshoring moved jobs and gdp at the same time, there wasn't initially a decoupling process from "free trade" - that took time to set in. but, with automation, the link breaks. you can no longer assume that increasing gdp will create jobs.
i really think we need a fundamental rethink. if we're automating everything, why not take advantage of it? maybe a 15% unemployment rate isn't the end of the world, if it's accompanied by artist grants and an increased focus on unpaid social work.
there's no question we need to diversify beyond the oil. there's no future in the industry.
but, we're setting ourselves up for a fail if we think re-industrialization is a job creation strategy. it's good for specialists, of course - robotics experts. but that's not what anybody is thinking when they imagine the process.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
here's the thing: bringing back all these manufacturers isn't all about the dollar. it's largely about automation. in the united states, it's even about expanding systems of prison labour (your nikes may now be made by inmates, rather than foreign children; is that an improvement?). but, thankfully, we don't have that here.
if a firm can automate a factory in canada for the north american market, it can actually save on *shipping* by bringing the factory back here. gdp goes up. no jobs are created.
we see the same problem with stimulus spending. walmart's profits may go up by 137%. no jobs will be created.
this historic decoupling of gdp growth from job creation is something that policy makers need to get their head around. it was an absolutely valid assumption up until about 1995 that gdp and jobs are going to move in the same direction. and, because offshoring moved jobs and gdp at the same time, there wasn't initially a decoupling process from "free trade" - that took time to set in. but, with automation, the link breaks. you can no longer assume that increasing gdp will create jobs.
i really think we need a fundamental rethink. if we're automating everything, why not take advantage of it? maybe a 15% unemployment rate isn't the end of the world, if it's accompanied by artist grants and an increased focus on unpaid social work.
there's no question we need to diversify beyond the oil. there's no future in the industry.
but, we're setting ourselves up for a fail if we think re-industrialization is a job creation strategy. it's good for specialists, of course - robotics experts. but that's not what anybody is thinking when they imagine the process.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
at
11:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Stockpicker
I think some of us have our priorities really screwed up:
Unemployed at 7%,
dollar at $0.71,
Healthcare underfunded,
100,000 Canadians living on the street,
2,500 vets living on the street,
Native Canadians drinking filthy water,
Economy, due to oil price in the toilet,
Federal debit growing higher,
Ontario Electrical power 2.5X that of USA,
Manufacturing leaving Canada in droves,
but lets make sure we get our pot into corner stores.......really?
Jessica Murray
legalizing marijuana will create a lot of jobs - and not just in the recreational industry. there's huge possibilities for spin-off jobs.
the status quo has us continually destroying billions of dollars worth of valuable fiber that could be used for plastics, papers, clothing, fuel and all kinds of other things. the entire plant is valuable. but, producers today just take the buds and destroy the rest of it.
the long term focus needs to be on reversing the petro state that harper let take control, whether due to design or to incompetence. oil has a limited future, altogether. expensive oil has no future at all.
marijuana is the future. oil is the past.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
I think some of us have our priorities really screwed up:
Unemployed at 7%,
dollar at $0.71,
Healthcare underfunded,
100,000 Canadians living on the street,
2,500 vets living on the street,
Native Canadians drinking filthy water,
Economy, due to oil price in the toilet,
Federal debit growing higher,
Ontario Electrical power 2.5X that of USA,
Manufacturing leaving Canada in droves,
but lets make sure we get our pot into corner stores.......really?
Jessica Murray
legalizing marijuana will create a lot of jobs - and not just in the recreational industry. there's huge possibilities for spin-off jobs.
the status quo has us continually destroying billions of dollars worth of valuable fiber that could be used for plastics, papers, clothing, fuel and all kinds of other things. the entire plant is valuable. but, producers today just take the buds and destroy the rest of it.
the long term focus needs to be on reversing the petro state that harper let take control, whether due to design or to incompetence. oil has a limited future, altogether. expensive oil has no future at all.
marijuana is the future. oil is the past.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-poloz-divergence-us-canada-resource-industry-1.3393832
at
11:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
so, is it winter yet?
well, there's no snow. i was just outside on the grass, and the ground is not really frozen yet - although it's a little firm. that should soften back up entirely in the next few days. we haven't yet had an extended period of subzero temperatures. we briefly made it down to -10 overnight on tuesday morning. but, that's not uncommon, here, in october. and it was only for a few hours.
they're forecasting three days of cold weather starting on monday, but the numbers have been revised upwards repeatedly. a few days ago, they were forecasting a low on tuesday of -16. that's been changed to -11. we'll see if we actually get there. but it looks like we'll see the same thing: a few hours around -10. that's not an extended period below freezing. "normal" nighttime lows here this time of year are around -10. we're barely hitting that, this year, at all. we may end up with something like ten hours below -10 for the whole year.
i'm at this point willing to suggest that we've merely had an extended autumn, and that it looks set to transition directly into spring. like i say: there's only so much winter can do to assert itself, if it can't manage to freeze the ground or establish a snow cover.
i acknowledge it's largely a definitional issue. some people will claim that winter starts at the moment of the first flurry, but then you're extending winter most years from september to may - and that's outrageous. winter in canada requires more stringent conditions: an extended period of subzero temperatures that is at least able to freeze the ground and is accompanied by a visible snow cover. that seems unlikely. so, winter still appears to be cancelled down here, in this little southern crook of canada - although i know this is not the case elsewhere in the country.
"The Swedish meteorological institute (SMHI) define winter as when the daily mean temperatures go below 0 °C (32 °F) for five consecutive days"
i think that this is pretty good, and i do think we've nearly met this definition. but, what if you have four consecutive days three times, each separated by several days? that might be what happens, here.
i also think you need a bit more: you also need a frozen ground. that should be nearly automatic after five actual cold days, but not if the temperature is just hovering around zero, which is really what we've seen - we only had a few hours of actual cold, and will only get a few hours more next week. so, maybe a better mean temperature is -2.5, being halfway to -5 - and then we're not there.
and, if there are further ambiguities, the question of snow cover must be the final determinant that trumps everything. if we end up in this highly ambiguous position, but there's no snow? no winter.
maybe a better definition is a 20 day period where the total average temperature - not an average of the averages, just a flat average, hourly - is below zero. but, then you wouldn't know you had winter until it was done - or at least halfway done.
well, there's no snow. i was just outside on the grass, and the ground is not really frozen yet - although it's a little firm. that should soften back up entirely in the next few days. we haven't yet had an extended period of subzero temperatures. we briefly made it down to -10 overnight on tuesday morning. but, that's not uncommon, here, in october. and it was only for a few hours.
they're forecasting three days of cold weather starting on monday, but the numbers have been revised upwards repeatedly. a few days ago, they were forecasting a low on tuesday of -16. that's been changed to -11. we'll see if we actually get there. but it looks like we'll see the same thing: a few hours around -10. that's not an extended period below freezing. "normal" nighttime lows here this time of year are around -10. we're barely hitting that, this year, at all. we may end up with something like ten hours below -10 for the whole year.
i'm at this point willing to suggest that we've merely had an extended autumn, and that it looks set to transition directly into spring. like i say: there's only so much winter can do to assert itself, if it can't manage to freeze the ground or establish a snow cover.
i acknowledge it's largely a definitional issue. some people will claim that winter starts at the moment of the first flurry, but then you're extending winter most years from september to may - and that's outrageous. winter in canada requires more stringent conditions: an extended period of subzero temperatures that is at least able to freeze the ground and is accompanied by a visible snow cover. that seems unlikely. so, winter still appears to be cancelled down here, in this little southern crook of canada - although i know this is not the case elsewhere in the country.
"The Swedish meteorological institute (SMHI) define winter as when the daily mean temperatures go below 0 °C (32 °F) for five consecutive days"
i think that this is pretty good, and i do think we've nearly met this definition. but, what if you have four consecutive days three times, each separated by several days? that might be what happens, here.
i also think you need a bit more: you also need a frozen ground. that should be nearly automatic after five actual cold days, but not if the temperature is just hovering around zero, which is really what we've seen - we only had a few hours of actual cold, and will only get a few hours more next week. so, maybe a better mean temperature is -2.5, being halfway to -5 - and then we're not there.
and, if there are further ambiguities, the question of snow cover must be the final determinant that trumps everything. if we end up in this highly ambiguous position, but there's no snow? no winter.
maybe a better definition is a 20 day period where the total average temperature - not an average of the averages, just a flat average, hourly - is below zero. but, then you wouldn't know you had winter until it was done - or at least halfway done.
at
11:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
schizoid (final album mix)
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 12, 2015 & reprogrammed on dec 31, 2015. corrected and remixed on jan 3, 2016. sequenced jan 5-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/schizoid
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/schizoid
at
10:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
abusive (final album mix)
initially created in june, 1998. remastered from various sources on jan 5, 2016. sequenced jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/abusive
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/abusive
at
10:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
mwp (final album mix)
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected nov 19, 2015. sequenced jan 5-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/mwp
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/mwp
at
10:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
confused (final album mix)
initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 5, 2015. remixed july 12, 2015. electronics added on july 16, 2015. sequenced jan 6-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/confused
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/confused
at
10:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
symphony #0 (final album mix)
written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at the end of may, 2015. remastered from the 2014 & 2015 sources on jan 6, 2016. sequenced on jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/symphony-0-3
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/symphony-0-3
at
09:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
fuck the dead (final album mix)
originally created in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 5, 2015. expanded on jan 3, 2016 & sequenced jan 6-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-the-dead
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-the-dead
at
09:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the phantom of the opera (final album mix)
recorded in 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016. sequenced jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-phantom-of-the-opera
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-phantom-of-the-opera
at
09:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i did your mom (final album mix)
initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996. recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 18, 2015. sequenced jan 6-8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-did-your-mom
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/i-did-your-mom
at
09:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
a sickening obsession (final album mix)
initially written & recorded in 1997. re-recorded in feb, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various sources on jan 6, 2016. sequenced jan 8, 2016.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-sickening-obsession
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-sickening-obsession
at
09:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i really don't think that "selling the plan to the public" is much of a serious issue. check some polls. you don't see those numbers on any other issue, really. it might be the closest thing to a consensus position in the country, perhaps excluding universal health care.
i think the "clear up resources" part is probably closer to the truth. it's just delegating a time consuming process. the fact that blair was once the police chief was likely not a particularly decisive factor.
that said, i dunno. i think this is something you need to throw a lawyer at - particularly one with a background in international law. they have some.
i'm sure he'll get it done. but, i suspect he'll be delegating a lot of the work, himself. it's not really a law enforcement issue. it's more of a constitutional issue.
i think we should just pull out of these conventions altogether, and maybe convince others to, too. they're basically useless in stopping trafficking. the bigger issue is how pulling out of the treaties affects prescription medication. and, really, these things - illegal trafficking and legal trade in prescription medication - should not be under the same conventions.
if we could find a way to denounce the trafficking portion while maintaining the medicine portion, that would be ideal. the support might be there, although it may require ignoring the united states. but, listen - this is a failure. american hegemony is rooted in the success of american-built institutions, not the continued adherence to failed initiatives in global policing. i don't feel any particular reason why the world should hold to failed policies, just because they say so.
something that's not often brought up in this discussion of marijuana legalization is the situation in india. you hear about colorado and uruguay and portugal and the netherlands. but, marijuana has *always* been entirely legal in india. they've signed the conventions, but they got an exemption on it due to religious reasons. marijuana is a "sacred plant" in certain indian religious contexts. something similar happened in bolivia, with the coca plants - they pulled out, got an exemption and rejoined.
i'm not suggesting that's the answer. i'm just pointing out that there are certain levels of flexibility.
but, working all that out and how the provinces react to the feds is....it's a constitutional issue. really.
one approach is this: one could argue that the law is unconstitutional on the ground that it does restrict that religious freedom. and, then the treaties become unenforceable.
see, here's the thing, though: why hasn't that happened yet? it seems like a pretty slam-dunk approach. the supreme court would no doubt rule that a law that forbids people from taking part in a ritual is, in fact, unconstitutional. why haven't they, then?
the point is that we need something like this. we don't have to send an essay to the united nations. but, we shouldn't give them the finger, either. there has to be a way forward that takes advantage of something in our internal governance that contradicts the treaties, or otherwise renders them unenforceable.
or, we need to make the choice to withdraw.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-blair-to-lead-liberal-task-force-on-marijuana-legalization-source/article28075636/
Bud tugley
There is no need to regulate tomatoes, or tomato growing, or tomato trafficking. If this is legal, those who want it will grow it, or buy it from mom and pop growers.
And that is perhaps a bigger issue - getting grow ops out of houses. They are a fire and electrical hazard and a big enough grow-op, run for a few years will completely ruin a house; turn it to bulldozer bait.
deathtokoalas
you're missing the point about international legal treaties.
the reality is that it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a unilateral declaration of legalization in canada could lead to us being excluded from certain pharmaceutical trading norms, and possibly even be the target of sanctions.
this needs to be done carefully. it's not worth people losing access to their pills over. and, that's not alarmist, either.
my point was that i don't think that bill blair has the background necessary to do this. it should be in the hands of a constitutional and international law scholar, not a glorified thug with a baton.
--
Saysomething2
If there is a ‘formidable challenge’ on a federal level then hand it off to the Provinces and support them in their own legalization of it.
deathtokoalas
canada has the opposite system of the united states. the federal government has 100% control of the criminal justice system. that's in the division of powers in the constitution, and was designed specifically to prevent the provinces from having "states' rights", as our founders saw the system of states rights as the cause of the american civil war.
so, the provinces cannot move forward until the federal law changes. there is no provincial law to modify; there is no provincial criminal code for a law to modify to exist within.
the western provinces don't even have their own police forces; it's all under the jurisdiction of the rcmp.
--
this is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQXvWq1upUc
i think the "clear up resources" part is probably closer to the truth. it's just delegating a time consuming process. the fact that blair was once the police chief was likely not a particularly decisive factor.
that said, i dunno. i think this is something you need to throw a lawyer at - particularly one with a background in international law. they have some.
i'm sure he'll get it done. but, i suspect he'll be delegating a lot of the work, himself. it's not really a law enforcement issue. it's more of a constitutional issue.
i think we should just pull out of these conventions altogether, and maybe convince others to, too. they're basically useless in stopping trafficking. the bigger issue is how pulling out of the treaties affects prescription medication. and, really, these things - illegal trafficking and legal trade in prescription medication - should not be under the same conventions.
if we could find a way to denounce the trafficking portion while maintaining the medicine portion, that would be ideal. the support might be there, although it may require ignoring the united states. but, listen - this is a failure. american hegemony is rooted in the success of american-built institutions, not the continued adherence to failed initiatives in global policing. i don't feel any particular reason why the world should hold to failed policies, just because they say so.
something that's not often brought up in this discussion of marijuana legalization is the situation in india. you hear about colorado and uruguay and portugal and the netherlands. but, marijuana has *always* been entirely legal in india. they've signed the conventions, but they got an exemption on it due to religious reasons. marijuana is a "sacred plant" in certain indian religious contexts. something similar happened in bolivia, with the coca plants - they pulled out, got an exemption and rejoined.
i'm not suggesting that's the answer. i'm just pointing out that there are certain levels of flexibility.
but, working all that out and how the provinces react to the feds is....it's a constitutional issue. really.
one approach is this: one could argue that the law is unconstitutional on the ground that it does restrict that religious freedom. and, then the treaties become unenforceable.
see, here's the thing, though: why hasn't that happened yet? it seems like a pretty slam-dunk approach. the supreme court would no doubt rule that a law that forbids people from taking part in a ritual is, in fact, unconstitutional. why haven't they, then?
the point is that we need something like this. we don't have to send an essay to the united nations. but, we shouldn't give them the finger, either. there has to be a way forward that takes advantage of something in our internal governance that contradicts the treaties, or otherwise renders them unenforceable.
or, we need to make the choice to withdraw.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-blair-to-lead-liberal-task-force-on-marijuana-legalization-source/article28075636/
Bud tugley
There is no need to regulate tomatoes, or tomato growing, or tomato trafficking. If this is legal, those who want it will grow it, or buy it from mom and pop growers.
And that is perhaps a bigger issue - getting grow ops out of houses. They are a fire and electrical hazard and a big enough grow-op, run for a few years will completely ruin a house; turn it to bulldozer bait.
deathtokoalas
you're missing the point about international legal treaties.
the reality is that it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a unilateral declaration of legalization in canada could lead to us being excluded from certain pharmaceutical trading norms, and possibly even be the target of sanctions.
this needs to be done carefully. it's not worth people losing access to their pills over. and, that's not alarmist, either.
my point was that i don't think that bill blair has the background necessary to do this. it should be in the hands of a constitutional and international law scholar, not a glorified thug with a baton.
--
Saysomething2
If there is a ‘formidable challenge’ on a federal level then hand it off to the Provinces and support them in their own legalization of it.
deathtokoalas
canada has the opposite system of the united states. the federal government has 100% control of the criminal justice system. that's in the division of powers in the constitution, and was designed specifically to prevent the provinces from having "states' rights", as our founders saw the system of states rights as the cause of the american civil war.
so, the provinces cannot move forward until the federal law changes. there is no provincial law to modify; there is no provincial criminal code for a law to modify to exist within.
the western provinces don't even have their own police forces; it's all under the jurisdiction of the rcmp.
--
this is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQXvWq1upUc
at
08:43
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)