Legalizing All Drugs

Ok, everyone who reads this knows that I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but of late there has been a lot of talk in the press about legalizing all drugs. This is certainly an extreme view amongst legalization circles, and on this one I am not entirely decided. I mean on one hand, its not really my business what someone else injects into their body, if they want to kill themselves slowly or quickly that's their business, on the other hand many drugs are highly addictive and once a person starts its hard to stop, although I reject the notion that after one taste you can be hopelessly addicted to ANY substance for life, I don't care how addictive it is using anything once does not make you an adict.

The money that would be saved in enforcement would be beyond measure really, but how much of that would just be redirected to health care due to deteriorating health. There is a simple solution to that and say you can't get treated under governemnt health plans for ailments resulting from dangerous behaviours, it has to come out of your own poket. This is something I am actually rather a proponent of, ie if you are an alchoholic and your liver has issues, you have to pay for the treatment, if you are a smoker and get lung cancer you have to pay for the treatment, if you are a meth adict you have to pay for the treatment to get you out. However accidents and general illnesses of course would be covered. Of course the problem with this line of thought is where do you draw the line? Is a skydiver elegiable for coverage if his shute malfunctions? Skydiving is a dangerous activity.

In my mind marijuana obviously should be legalized, the proven negative effects are so incredibly small as to not even count. There is no logical reason to keep marijuana illegal. Other drugs, I still am unsure about. Though, as with marijuana, regulation is always the better option to prohibition.

Election

Ok, so Harper finally saw fit to call an election. So much for his promised set election dates eh, but who honestly expects politicians to follow through with election promises once they are in office.

But now that the elections are eminent campaigning is in full swing, though I did notice some Conservative election signs up before the actual call, but lets ignore that (just like I am sure Elections Canada will), and now Harper and his Conservatives have announced an additional 9billion in spending on the first day in parliament since the call, but Harper expects Canadians to believe that this sudden spending spree has nothing to do with the elections. Come on Mr. Harper, how stupid do you think... oh wait, you got in for one term already, obviously the average Canadian voter is really that stupid.

Goodbye Howie

Howard Hampton announced that he would not be seeking re-election as leader of the Ontario NDP. All I can think to say is good riddance. Don't get me wrong Howie's not a bad guy, and I don't disagree with his politics. So If I think he's a pretty swell guy and his politics are inline then why I am I saying good riddance. Howard has all the personality of a wet noodle, and if charisma were measured on a scale of 1 to 10 he would score -999.

If the NDP ever want to become serious they need a leader who can, oh I don't know, lead. Howard Hampton has made great strides in his time in Northern Ontario and environmental issues, and these accomplishments should be recognized by the NDP, but lets hope the next leader of the NDP doesn't have a CN Tower sized pickle shoved up his arse.

Cluster Bomb Cluster F*ck

Ok, I am all for banning cluster bombs, they are nasty and pose long term danger, but come on people, this cluster bomb treaty is a joke. 111 countries signed the treaty, the most notable countries missing from the list; USA, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel. In other words the countries that make and use cluster bombs are opposed to the treaty, and those who are cluster bomb targets are supporting and signing it.

Any bets that Iraq and Afghanistan were first in line to sign this one. Why don't the countries that support this treaty just post signs at the border that say "No Cluster Bombs Please" just like those signs we like to put on our mailboxes that say "No Flyers Please", I am sure it will be just as binding.

What is the point of a treaty that cannot be enforced due to the fact that the people who have the weapons that are being banned refuse to sign it? It's like saying "don't hit my face, I am too pretty" before entering a bar brawl.

An Argument For Polygamy/Polyandry/Polyamory

I have posted on this blog about my beliefs that same sex marriage should remain legal, primarily because the government should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens. Now, with polygamy so much in the news due to the Texas case of the splinter Mormon group that practiced polygamy and was raided, I thought I would go on record as to my reasons for supporting polygamy as well.

Now I should clarify, I do not support what the Texas group was doing should the claims prove true. In fact it is not Polygamy specifically I support but rather Polyamory. Lets start with a definition of the terms associated with polygamy:

Polygamy: the desire, practice, or acceptance of a man having more than one loving female partner

Polyandry: the desire, practice, or acceptance of a woman having more than one loving male partner

Polyamory: the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving partner

Thus I am in favor of allowing a person (male or female) to have more then one spouse (male or female) so long as all parties are consenting adults. As with my support of Same Sex Marriage, no church should be forced to recognize such a union, but should a church choose to recognize such a union then the government should not have the right to step in and say the union is invalid.

In short I feel that the government has no right to determine who should be deemed a married person and who should not. The government should completely get rid of the state sanctioned marriage business and allow the churches and other organizations to manage it. There is no logical reasons for a state run marriage business, and that is all it is a state run business.

In the case of the Texas group we are not just talking polygamy as the issue, but statutory rape. Not all the women involved were consenting adults, and in those cases the government should certainly step in and rescue the women involved. If, upon reaching the age of consent, the women choose to return then that is their business, not the governments.

American's Charge Man For Pornography

I have always said that American's are too interested in puritanical laws, now this case takes the cake. This guy is not peddling child porn, his models are of age, he is not distributing his porn unsolicited, he is a porn producer and he sells his porn on the internet and in stores. A legal business, however the fine people of Washington were apparently offended by what he was selling. Talk about ridiculous charges.

Reprocussions of Bill C-484

Bill C-484 is a private members bill introduced to the commons as "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)". In effect it says that anyone who causes harm to a pregnant woman in a manner which could cause harm to a child is guilty of a crime in addition to the crime of assault against the expectant mother, it also basically allows prosecutors to charge someone who murders a pregnant woman with both the fetus' and the mother's murder.

In essence the thought process behind this bill is a well intentioned one. You kill a pregnant woman you are guilty of double homicide, because killing a pregnant woman is particularly evil. There is a flaw in the bill however. It seems to me, and several other opponents of the bill that it de facto gives a fetus rights as a person.

What's wrong with this? Well if a fetus is a person then anyone who has performs an abortion commits murder and could face charges. Now technically the Bill specifically excludes abortions in which the mother consents, so the right to choose is still technically protected, but it is dangerous start.

Not to mention the fact that basically it will have little or no effect on prison time, since in Canada multiple sentences are served concurrently not consecutively.

The law already allows judges to take mitigating circumstances such as pregnancy into consideration when sentencing, so this bill is at best superfluous at worst it is dangerous first step to damning the right choose abortion.