cbacon

About the juvenile offenders issue: Harper's "tough on crime" platform provides more reliance on the police state and throwing kids in jail rather than addressing the underlying social problems. These sorts of policies do nothing to lower crime rates and will cost us a fortune.

We'd sooner have Proportional Representation than any of the left parties merging. Though the former isn't likely in the foreseeable future, unfortunately.

NDP's Ruby Dhalla

oh hello Sania

Canada has been constantly cutting taxes for the past fifteen years, we don't need to keep doing it. Taxes in Canada are already among the lowest in the first world, we don't need lower taxes.

As an NDP supporter, i'm really disappointed with Jack Layton's decision to oppose Elizabeth May participating in the debates.

Communities get together and get drunk all the time. Doesn't mean its going to result in more car crashes if you lower the drinking age. Surely you can see that kids sneaking booze into the woods would be more dangerous if didn't have the sort of restrictions that prohibits their access. Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that. Because all evidence from other countries says this isn't the case. "It will happen" isn't a convincing argument and kids still access alcohol anyway. This is a contradictory statement. You can't say people should have the right to control their own body if we're going put restrictions on it. Criminalizing something that there is a large market for does not work, period. Sure, many drugs are dangerous, which is why harm reduction and education are essential. And really, combating drugs has little to do with stopping the flow of drugs, but more to do with controlling inner-city populations. Tell that to the countries in Europe, Australia and in Vancouver that have effective drug rehabilitation programs, including safe injection sites for drug addicts. And this is the case for many adults too. That website didn't provide any convincing arguments, just more reason for increasing enforcement. It promotes nothing more than a police state and works on the assumption that kids need to be controlled.

Ok, but either way they'll end up drinking regardless of an age limit. A person is more likely to use something if they're taught how to use it properly. There's nothing hypothetical here. Granted, there are many bad parents that drink a lot and their kids internalize these values. That's a different problem entirely and one that can be addressed by allowing minors to live where they want, free from oppressive violence that is customary among thse sorts of households. These situations are unfortunate, but prohibiting their access to access doesn't solve the problem. Again, if they're drinking with the community, they're less likely to cause harm to themselves and others And actually, the burden of proof is on you since the topic in question is whether we should lower the drinking age, but all of the arguments here defending the status quo are all hypothetical. There's not even any reason to believe that letting kids drink would result in an increase in drinking, since for the most part kids who want to drink can and do get alcohol. Harm reduction and education, it not at home then at school, simply makes more sense. And all these stories about minors hurting themselves with alcohol...you know adults do that all the time as well, right? I think we need to have a rational attitude towards drug use starting from the assumption that a person should have the right to control their own body and drug use. As for minors being stupid or spoiled, I think that's pretty blatant anti-youth prejudice. It's common to denegrate young people and youth culture.

Says the guy that compared learning how to abuse alcohol to learning how to drive a car? Not sure what Eric said originally but learning to drive is an appropriate comparison. People don't get licenses unless they've been taught how to drive. If kids are taught to drink responsibly then they're less likely to abuse alcohol.

You seriously don't understand the difference? And your stating that with the premise that drinking is wrong?

Yeah, I suppose if your consistently binge drinking with your parents at 16 its probably not a good idea. But I think, in general, kids are less likely to start drinking recklessly once they have the ability to do it if they have learned something about alcohol and drank it with parents, rather than the kid whose parents said "No booze until you're 18! Then you can do what you want and I don't care!"

Exactly. Prohibition does not work. I don't believe the state should not inhibit anyone's access to drugs or alcohol. So 5 year old's should be allowed to purchase beer? I don't think its realistic for a 5 year old to want to drink beer. But let's take for example, a 12-year old. Some kids that young do drink and it's really sad if they're getting sloshed. But I'd rather they have to do it in full view of the community than out in the woods, especially if they're drinking dangerously. A bar will cut you off at some point.

Obviously measures would need to be in place to ensure safe use of prescription drugs, but its access to such drugs that warrants discussion. In the context of alcohol, a 16 year old can buy booze in many european countries and all the evidence shows that they have less binge drinking and fewer alcohol related fatalities. This is because prohibition is a stupid idea that doesn't work, has never worked, for any substance, ever, and we should thoroughly reject the idea. Not to mention it relies on a police state.

Exactly. Prohibition does not work. I don't believe the state should not inhibit anyone's access to drugs or alcohol.

Well, it's pretty evident that the guy is mentally unstable, so he deserves psychiatric assessment and care. I'm not one for prisons, but this is a case where he needs to be isolated for the sake of public safety. There needs to at least be an attempt to rehabilitate him. But if he is beyond rehabilitation, he still should be treated humanely.

rabble rabble throw him to the lions rabble rabble

Though the trailer doesn't look that great, i'm hoping XF2 makes enough to warrant a third movie so they can wrap up the the alien colonization storyline that's suppose to take place in 2012

I say she steps on Galactica and points out "you!" before fading to black :/

So yeah, exciting times over here. - Federal budget introduced - Afghan mission extended to 2011 - Probable election looming What you think?

guys how do i get my PS2 online to update rosters i lost that CD that came with the bundle years ago :/

Tough shit. I'll explain it to you. We are all part of a community and we have an obligation to take care of each other. Without the community, you don't exist and neither does "your" money. When people are hurt, by violence or powerlessness (institutional violence), we are all diminished. This parental license you speak of is so off the wall and morally abhorrent I don't know where to begin.

Yeah i've never understood that either. I get most of my music via message boards, torrents and when all else fails, soulseek.

Ahh why are these games in the afternoon

There were opportunities to help the rebellion from within to oust Saddam.