World Affairs

[Meg 368]

The problem with legalization, particularly of marijuana, is that it opens a can of worms that we are not prepared to answer.

Why not? Legalize it and tax it. It works with alcohol.

[Easy Bakes 253]

The problem with legalization, particularly of marijuana, is that it opens a can of worms that we are not prepared to answer.

Why not? Legalize it and tax it. It works with alcohol.

because then every one will say, legal pot then why not Cocaine and heroin?

[matheuspaulo 62]

Alcohol was legalized, but no one ask for another "drugs". rejection is normal in conservatives countries.

  Edited June 21, 2012 by matheuspaulo  

[hym 358]

The problem with legalization, particularly of marijuana, is that it opens a can of worms that we are not prepared to answer.

Why not? Legalize it and tax it. It works with alcohol.

Alcohol's main advantage over marijuana (other than social acceptance) is fairly predictable intoxication analysis. The general rule of thumb is that a healthy individual clears 1 alcohol unit per hour, and once a person's BAC drops below a certain threshold, alcohol presence in the bloodstream is typically a non-factor in physical performance. (In work environments where safety considerations are driving factors, that threshold is usually 0.000.)

The impact of marijuana intoxication on a person is significantly less predictable. Person A could take a hit of marijuana and be good to drive an hour later while Person B could take the same hit and not be good to drive for the next 2 days. Even worse, some individuals can use marijuana for recreational purposes just one weekend and suffer off-and-on impacts from it for weeks later. Rates at which the body cleans itself are highly variable; some people test positive for only a few days after use while some remain positive for weeks (and in some cases, months).

From a public safety standpoint, this is a relative non-issue if the state has laws permitting an officer to level DUI charges without needing proof. However, that doesn't solve the problems for employers. As OSHA requires employers to provide a safe work environment for their employees, employees who use marijuana represent a significant problem. If any such employee becomes involved in an incident, or is in anyway tied to an incident that impacts other individuals, the company has been opened to a massive liability. Due to the fact that there is no good way to prove that a marijuana using individual was or wasn't under the influence of marijuana at the time of connection to the incident, it is effectively impossible to prove innocence. From the company's standpoint, the only responsible thing to do with a marijuana using employee is to fire that individual. Admittedly, in office type jobs a marijuana using employee isn't as significant a threat as he would be in a manufacturing position, but the concerns are similar. (For some perspective, the chemical/petrochemical industries typically require extensive drug testing as a condition to any job offer. For most, a single positive result on anything is proof that you are a "user" and will revoke your offer and bar you from offers in the future for as long as the company keeps those records on you--and those records can be kept for decades.)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Society in general is too liberal on drugs. It is time to put a serious stigma on drug users and get over the idea that the users are poor victims of the relentless drug cartels. The slap on the wrist that most users get is insufficient.

I am against imprisoning anyone for doing harm to themselves but it wouldn't hurt to make them feel like slime somehow.

Seen on a bumper sticker in Phoenix, AZ many, many years ago "I'd rather be a goat roper than a doper".

[matheuspaulo 62]

Society in general is too liberal on drugs. It is time to put a serious stigma on drug users and get over the idea that the users are poor victims of the relentless drug cartels. The slap on the wrist that most users get is insufficient.

I am against imprisoning anyone for doing harm to themselves but it wouldn't hurt to make them feel like slime somehow.

Seen on a bumper sticker in Phoenix, AZ many, many years ago "I'd rather be a goat roper than a doper".

Of course that they arent victims of drug cartels, but governments need try another way to solve this problem. militar way has proved to be inefficient. i think that countries with that problem need redistribute income. drugs and criminality are related with poverty, i mean, invest in education instead of arms and officers would be a start.

  Edited June 21, 2012 by matheuspaulo  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

If Marijuana possession and growing are decriminalized on a national level, then states would be able to legalize it within their borders, since California did but national forces can still butt in. Or am I mistaken?

[raja_indy14 8]

Society in general is too liberal on drugs. It is time to put a serious stigma on drug users and get over the idea that the users are poor victims of the relentless drug cartels. The slap on the wrist that most users get is insufficient.

I am against imprisoning anyone for doing harm to themselves but it wouldn't hurt to make them feel like slime somehow.

Seen on a bumper sticker in Phoenix, AZ many, many years ago "I'd rather be a goat roper than a doper".

I might agree if 'society' wasn't so hypocritical and inconsistent about drugs. There's also the fact that social stigma's are context-dependent. If you are out on the streets drunk in the mid-afternoon there is a huge social stigma attached, while if you get completely trashed in a club or at a house party it is generally acceptable (although it varies greatly between different people). There already are significant social stigma's associated with the use of certain drugs and high variability between drugs. Often, certain drugs are considered more glamorous (generally associated with the drug of choice for the wealthier classes) and others more degenerate (generally associated with those drugs available to marginalized people). For instance the difference in social perception between powdered cocaine versus crack cocaine, while marijuana is decidedly 'middle class'.

Personally, I drink alcohol and I wouldn't want those stigma's attached to me. Ethanol is one of the most addictive and harmful drugs and yet one of the most widely consumed, regardless my government (Manitoba) has a monopoly on the distribution and retail of liquor. That is perfectly socially acceptable while Ecstasy, a far less harmful and addictive drug, is illegal and criminal (even though practically the only danger associated with it is through toxic additives and impurities associated with the fact that its production is unregulated).

Other drugs are considered perfectly acceptable, even desirable (caffiene), while others have only recently had stigma's attached after massive public advertising campaigns (tabacco, although even now the stigma is attached to smoking rather than the nicotine itself). Many prescription drugs are widely available that have affects similar to illicit drugs or with potentially life-threatening side effects.

Overall, there are many cases where the social and legal acceptability of a drug is completely irrational and not based on the potential for harm or dependence. Reducing the use of certain harmful drugs could be reduced by greater emphasis on treatment and prevention instead of criminalization. Other drugs could be rendered more socially acceptable and less harmful through regulated legalization. Many of the social harms associated with the drug trade are identical to the ones that arose during the era of Prohibition.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Society in general is too liberal on drugs. It is time to put a serious stigma on drug users and get over the idea that the users are poor victims of the relentless drug cartels. The slap on the wrist that most users get is insufficient.

I am against imprisoning anyone for doing harm to themselves but it wouldn't hurt to make them feel like slime somehow.

Seen on a bumper sticker in Phoenix, AZ many, many years ago "I'd rather be a goat roper than a doper".

I might agree if 'society' wasn't so hypocritical and inconsistent about drugs. There's also the fact that social stigma's are context-dependent. If you are out on the streets drunk in the mid-afternoon there is a huge social stigma attached, while if you get completely trashed in a club or at a house party it is generally acceptable (although it varies greatly between different people). There already are significant social stigma's associated with the use of certain drugs and high variability between drugs. Often, certain drugs are considered more glamorous (generally associated with the drug of choice for the wealthier classes) and others more degenerate (generally associated with those drugs available to marginalized people). For instance the difference in social perception between powdered cocaine versus crack cocaine, while marijuana is decidedly 'middle class'.

Personally, I drink alcohol and I wouldn't want those stigma's attached to me. Ethanol is one of the most addictive and harmful drugs and yet one of the most widely consumed, regardless my government (Manitoba) has a monopoly on the distribution and retail of liquor. That is perfectly socially acceptable while Ecstasy, a far less harmful and addictive drug, is illegal and criminal (even though practically the only danger associated with it is through toxic additives and impurities associated with the fact that its production is unregulated).

Other drugs are considered perfectly acceptable, even desirable (caffiene), while others have only recently had stigma's attached after massive public advertising campaigns (tabacco, although even now the stigma is attached to smoking rather than the nicotine itself). Many prescription drugs are widely available that have affects similar to illicit drugs or with potentially life-threatening side effects.

Overall, there are many cases where the social and legal acceptability of a drug is completely irrational and not based on the potential for harm or dependence. Reducing the use of certain harmful drugs could be reduced by greater emphasis on treatment and prevention instead of criminalization. Other drugs could be rendered more socially acceptable and less harmful through regulated legalization. Many of the social harms associated with the drug trade are identical to the ones that arose during the era of Prohibition.

If you have noticed lately there are advertising liquor on TV lately, used to be a gentleman's agreement you could not advertise hard liquor on TV, now you see commercial for Jameson s Whiskey and Jack Daniels.

The ones i hear on the radio have started to say "Enjoy day drinking responsibly"

Day drinking? who drinks during the day?

It was considered a big no no to drink during the day, it got you considered as an alcoholic if you couldnt at least wait till after work to start on drinking.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Tobacco used to be allowed to be advertised on TV and alcohol has always been advertised on TV. I see no liberalization of alcohol acceptance.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ouch!

If you know any adult that has had this done, you know these guys are not in for any kind of picnic.

I wonder if the HIV rate among Muslims and Jews is lower than the gen. pop.

  Edited June 22, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Rio+20 Ends in Frustration

These so-called world leaders have spent a week enjoying Rio and doing exactly nothing much. Missing at the conference table were representatives from Big Oil, Big Military/Industrial, Big Banks. These people cannot accomplish anything while the corporate world holds their leash.

[airman15 4,111]

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely..

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely..

No doubt. I forget which Greek or Roman first said that, but if you know your history you only have to go back as far as Gaius Marius and Sulla to see horrible examples. Caesar was mild, compared to them. And then there was Tiberius and his protoge, Caligula.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Muslim Brotherhood's Mursi declared Egypt president

Mr. Mursi has resigned all his posts within the brotherhood and of his party. The Egyptians have a better hope for freedom now since the ruling military have declared they well turn over power to him by June 30.

However, without a legislature and a constitution, it becomes his job to foster the creation of both.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Muslim Brotherhood's Mursi declared Egypt president

Mr. Mursi has resigned all his posts within the brotherhood and of his party. The Egyptians have a better hope for freedom now since the ruling military have declared they well turn over power to him by June 30.

However, without a legislature and a constitution, it becomes his job to foster the creation of both.

And hopefully the same old generals dont populate that legislature

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Muslim Brotherhood's Mursi declared Egypt president

Mr. Mursi has resigned all his posts within the brotherhood and of his party. The Egyptians have a better hope for freedom now since the ruling military have declared they well turn over power to him by June 30.

However, without a legislature and a constitution, it becomes his job to foster the creation of both.

And hopefully the same old generals dont populate that legislature

There is no legislature. The recent election was turfed because of irregularities, so the generals are still in control. Getting them to stand down is going to be a problem. Mr. Mursi will have to collect some kind of interim cabinet to get going.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Muslim Brotherhood's Mursi declared Egypt president

Mr. Mursi has resigned all his posts within the brotherhood and of his party. The Egyptians have a better hope for freedom now since the ruling military have declared they well turn over power to him by June 30.

However, without a legislature and a constitution, it becomes his job to foster the creation of both.

And hopefully the same old generals dont populate that legislature

There is no legislature. The recent election was turfed because of irregularities, so the generals are still in control. Getting them to stand down is going to be a problem. Mr. Mursi will have to collect some kind of interim cabinet to get going.

i meant after the constitution is in place

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Don't hold your breath waiting for an Egyptian constitution. How long did it take for the forefathers of the U.S. to hammer out the original document? How long before the First Amendment? The Canadian Constitution took us from 1967 to 1987 before we got something acceptable to nine out of 10 provinces. One of these days, Quebec will realise which side of the bread the butter is on. Constitutional conventions are always slow and very argumentative.

Meanwhile, back at the bickering bar:

The EU is talking at last about a single central fiscal regulator with veto powers over national budgets. This is a hit in the sovereignty, and most of these countries will scream like scalded cats if something like that really happened. Germany because it has the most to lose fiscally, and some of the little guys because they exist only on national pride. France never goes along with anything especially if it is something the Germans want. They've been bickering since the fall of the Roman Empire.

[airman15 4,111]

China: Apple pays $60M US dollars to settle iPad case

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

China: Apple pays $60M US dollars to settle iPad case

For unknown reason, I got a blank page from that link. Here is another.

Frankly, Scarlett ...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Compare Eastern Ukraine with Quebec.

It isn't that long ago that English was the only official language in Canada. There was a lot of angst among Francophones, and finally both English and French were enshrined in the Constitution as official languages. The Ukraine hasn't gone that far, yet. However, in Canada, we also have situations where local languages are used in an official capacity. Inuktatut is the de facto official language in Nunavut, and is spoken in the legislature. English and French services remain available by law.

In the Ukraine, one can understand the reaction, however. The cooling off period has only been around two decades, and memories of Soviet days are still fresh and the wounds remain open. There is undoubtedly a serious fear factor that the Russians may return in some way, and the Ukraine has good reason to not want any such thing. It is less than a century since Stalin attempted to exterminate Ukrainians by starvation.

My lump of history is hearing echoes of the Sudetenland situation in Czechoslovakia from the 1930s. If the Russians are thinking imperial thoughts again, this would be a start.

  Edited July 4, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, I know school is out, but current affairs should interest everyone. This is starting to look like my Op-Ed Column.

Misfortune Passes Everywhere.

Apparently there have been other instances in the last week in other countries as well. Saw a news clip on CBC/National about a town in the U.K. that got a month's rain in less than an hour.

Ominous in the Russian article is the comment by the pipeline operator that the "landslide" is moving towards his operation. That was the only mention of the ground moving.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

WW I graves desecrated.

The Franks and the Goths still don't love each other. It is likely that there will continue to be this kind of stupidity forever. European Union? Not while idiots like these are around.

---

Egyptian President countermands Military Decree.

Properly so. The military works for him, not the other way around. What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

There are lots of interesting by products.

  Edited July 8, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

So?

There are many growing pains in getting the military, and its appointed court to let go the reins they've held for so long. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

Apparently, the military are really treating Mr. Mursi with kid gloves.

The reaction.

  Edited July 9, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A peaceful result.

Behind all this, it is possible the Generals are just fed up with ruling this unruly state. The article mutters about a constitution but I don't think there is one.

And 11 hours later we find.

The military controlled court were good boys. The power struggle continues.

  Edited July 10, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ethical banks?

A miracle. I always thought that was an oxymoron.

---

Egypt.

From all appearances, there is some serious effort being made to avoid an out and out revolution.

  Edited July 11, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Saudi Arabia.

Well, I knew they had them, but I didn't realize it was acting like the Spanish Inquisition.

Japan

A most unfortunate country for the 21st. century. The Kami must be angry with them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

North Korea.

Perhaps a case of steel poisoning. Is it possible that the new broom has decided to sweep out daddy's dust?

Pakistan.

Clearly, the Taliban don't care about the children, only some phantom political advantage. If the government of Pakistan is powerless to act, what about the World Health Organization?

  Edited July 16, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[samima 92]

Well, you have to understand that it's not that easy.

As for NK, I really wish that they would end their nuclear campaign, and have a change of government.