38561 Members
55 Forums
183194 Topics
1648769 Posts
Max Online: 1054 @ 07/29/08 07:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
#1053669 - 11/28/05 08:11 PM
Re: eNDProhibition website
[Re: IndicaSativa]
|
* CC Alumni
* Author of
Hairy Pothead
Registered: 08/13/99
Posts: 3629
Loc: 872 East Hastings, Vancouver, ...
|
Quote:
Dana your endprohibition.ca site does not work.
Right now the endprohibition.ca website can be found here: http://66.49.150.130
By November 30 it should be fully resolved onto www.endprohibition.ca
It is still a work in progress, but feedback and comments are welcome.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1053674 - 12/05/05 09:58 PM
Re: eNDProhibition website
[Re: davidmalmolevine]
|
* CC Alumni
* Author of
Hairy Pothead
Registered: 08/13/99
Posts: 3629
Loc: 872 East Hastings, Vancouver, ...
|
Quote:
Pehaps for future improvements to the resolution, you could add that
1) International Drug Control Treaties don't trump International Human Rights, Anti-Slavery and Anti-Genocide treaties.
2) The House of Commons minority report written by Libby Davies, which also supported an "non-punishment" approach.
I am actually going to put together a series of resolutions.
The first one was a call for "non-punitive" marijuana policies.
The next one is going to be a general repudiation of the drug war.
I will then also put together resolutions calling for DARE to be removed from schools, to support hemp cultivation, and so on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1053675 - 12/08/05 10:46 PM
Re: eNDProhibition website
[Re: Dana Larsen]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 10/14/05
Posts: 371
Loc: Further East than I'd like
|
Wow, Dana, I completely missed this thread until now, and just read it through in one sitting. I'm blown away by what you've accomplished!
I've been discussing with various people about cannabis, NDP and their platform (for which I now have more behind-the-sceens background). My more contentious assertions have been,
- That the magnitude, breadth and depth of cannaphobia in Canada is over-estimated, i.e. the country is ready to end cannabis prohibition now, but needs mainstream political leadership
- That prohibition has lasted mainly because there is no coherent, visible critique to challenge it in the very discourse in which it is perpetuated, the mainstream political discourse of the national leaders
- That a platform ending prohibition will bring things to the tipping point, where the rate of decided voters will accerate
- That a clear NDP backing of a coherent cannabis dividend platform will significantly increase the percentage in favor of ending cannabis prohibition outright
- That the NDP have more to gain than lose by aggressively calling for an end to cannabis prohibition, with a core of legalize-regulate-educate-medicate, and a revamping of impacted platform issues (taxes, healthcare, crime, security, sovereignty, education, industry, environment, justice, tourism, and civil liberties) to reflect the cannabis dividend
- That a cannabis industry regulated "like wine" effectively voids any crime concerns
- That the proper NDP response to the tough-on-crime statements is a smart-on-crime response which is aggressive on illegal guns, meth labs and hard drug dealers, compassionate and practical towards hard drug users, all enabled and funded by ending cannabis prohibition
- That NDP is the most credible voice on sovereignty, and should exploit it
- That cannabis prohibition is a civil-rights issue, just as sodomy laws and segregation were
- That NDP will not gain significantly without acting on the above
- That if the Conservatives form a government, any NDP gains will be irrelevant
- That right-wing candidates back their activists, and it pays off
- That practical considerations (low-turnout, bad weather, party 20 points behind) suggest that credible NDP action will payoff and weak support will mean weak turnout
I'm shocked by the Rosa Parks preemption of your resolution, but not surprised, given that marijuana, cannabis, etc. comes up with nothing on their website search. The cannabis dividend is what would give them credibility that they can deliver on the rest of the platform. Can anyone persuade us that this NDP softly, softly approach will win anything but a mediocre finish?
I think you're right to take the long view, but it seems like there are still big gains to be had. What options remain- you say resolutions, in what process? I wonder whether a stronger response from eNDProhibition is warranted. What would Rosa Parks do?
Edited by StrngrInParadise (12/08/05 10:54 PM)
_________________________
-Stranger In Paradise
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1053676 - 12/09/05 10:42 PM
Re: eNDProhibition website
[Re: StrngrInParadise]
|
Newbie
Registered: 07/11/03
Posts: 49
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
Quote:
That if the Conservatives form a government, any NDP gains will be irrelevant[/LIST]
I disagree. If it's a Conservative minority, the NDP could do a lot. The NDP could convince the Conservatives to layoff on the drug issue and the gay marriage issue -- or reverse course -- in exchange for supporting the Conservative budget and keeping the Conservatives in power.
I admit this is a stretch for two reasons. First, hard-core social conservative Conservative MPs will be reluctant to do this. Second, hard-core economic socialist NDP MPs may find some Conservative increases in economic freedom objectionable.
If, however, these two groups -- the two most anti-freedom groups in each party -- could be hushed in the name of partisan solidarity, it could be very beneficial for personal freedom.
For example, if anti-control activist Garry Breitkreuz could work out a deal with anti-drug war activist Libby Davies, and the two parties followed, personal freedom could increase substantially, or, at least, stopped from disappearing at such a fast pace.
I actually think this is better than a Liberal minority. When this is the case, the NDP usually do not talk about personal freedom issues at all. They usually use their leverage to push economic socialism (i.e. more funding for housing, establishing state-monopoly healthcare, etc.).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: BongPixie, CaliGrower, chrisbennett, Dana Larsen, FranCouver, Fred_the_Plumber, frmrgrl, goodster, jacob, JodieEmery, OCNORML, puff_tuff, stinkweed
|
Previous Topic
Index
