[DerbyX]

putz putz:

I guess your right dealing in Cocaine, Meth, heroin and the such, is drug dealing that doesn't warrant a minimum sentence.

Plus, they are not talking about jailing "teens" that deal in MJ. Read the damn piece! They are talking about jailing MJ offences that are linked to organized crime and/or us a weapon in the process.

I swear you cons won't be happy until you have jaywalking as a capital offence.

$1:

Critics have warned the legislation would flood jails and imprison drug addicts and young people rather than drug kingpins, who will continue to thrive, while small-time dealers are knocked out of commission.

The bill would impose one-year mandatory jail terms for marijuana-dealing when it's linked to organized crime or a weapon is involved.

"organized crime" can be very subjective and pretty much all dealing aside from the grow your own variety can be considered that and all this legislation will do is fill jails and raise the taxes you cons always bitch about.

It won't impact crime in the least, deter drug dealers in the least, or do any thing other then provide jobs for lots more defence lawyers.

BTW, I do think that virtually all drugs should be considered a personal choice. Feel free not to indulge but don't tell me what I can ingest lest I decide to start telling you what you can and cannot do.

[leewgrant]

DerbyX DerbyX:

leewgrant leewgrant:

DerbyX DerbyX:

No. They are blocking a bad law on its own accord. My example just highlights what will happen when poorly written laws are allowed to exist

The place to block a "bad law" is in the Commons. If the Libs supported it before for political reasons and are using the Senate to block something they don't really like they are just being dishonest.

NO. The place to block any law is either location. That's entirely what the senate is for. In this case it can justifiably be said they aren't doing it for political reasons but because they think its a bad bill.

Either the senate is being bitched at for being nothing more then a rubber stamp or they are being accused of unfair partisanship. In both recent cases in the news they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Constitutionally you are right. But if the bill is changed and goes back to the Commons that is when legitimate debate takes place - by the elected representatives of the public, not those with a lifetime sinecure.

If the bill is returned to the Senate by the Commons unchanged from the original bill the Senate should then defer to the Commons and pass it.

[DerbyX]

leewgrant leewgrant:

Constitutionally you are right. But if the bill is changed and goes back to the Commons that is when legitimate debate takes place - by the elected representatives of the public, not those with a lifetime sinecure.

If the bill is returned to the Senate by the Commons unchanged from the original bill the Senate should then defer to the Commons and pass it.

I'm sure that constitutionally the senate is in the right. The senates job is to review bills and pass, alter, or reject them. Constitutionally they and the commons are theoretically equal.

What you are objecting to however is not their function but their appointment process which is a different matter all together.

While I don't object to an elected senate it always amuses me that people believe they will behave any better then our already elected officials. What evidence do we have of this?

[bootlegga]

I always thought the Senate was a forum for "sober second thought", not rubber stamping legislation.

[ridenrain]

Unelected, unaccountable and ineffective.
This is crass party politics, pure and simple.

When Chretien or Martin was in power, the senators would never block or ammend any bills. Ignatieff and his party passed this bill as it was so who are these appointed, retired insiders to tamper with it? Who are they accountable to?

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Unelected, unaccountable and ineffective.
This is crass party politics, pure and simple.

When Chretien or Martin was in power, the senators would never block or ammend any bills. Ignatieff and his party passed this bill as it was so who are these appointed, retired insiders to tamper with it? Who are they accountable to?

They're accountable to same people Harper's 27 new Senate cronies are...

[ridenrain]

So it's OK when the Liberals do it?

Through their elected representitives, the voters of Canada approved of this bill. By what right do these appointed hacks have to change it?

[leewgrant]

DerbyX DerbyX:

leewgrant leewgrant:

Constitutionally you are right. But if the bill is changed and goes back to the Commons that is when legitimate debate takes place - by the elected representatives of the public, not those with a lifetime sinecure.

If the bill is returned to the Senate by the Commons unchanged from the original bill the Senate should then defer to the Commons and pass it.

I'm sure that constitutionally the senate is in the right. The senates job is to review bills and pass, alter, or reject them. Constitutionally they and the commons are theoretically equal.

What you are objecting to however is not their function but their appointment process which is a different matter all together.

While I don't object to an elected senate it always amuses me that people believe they will behave any better then our already elected officials. What evidence do we have of this?

When they are elected they can behave any way they want. They will be subject to the will of the people every so often. Not like now.

[DerbyX]

leewgrant leewgrant:

When they are elected they can behave any way they want. They will be subject to the will of the people every so often. Not like now.

Our elected officials are behaving badly with very little reprecussions so I wouldn't bet on them acting any better. Regardless, the senate is currently acting entirely withing its right.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

So it's OK when the Liberals do it?

Through their elected representitives, the voters of Canada approved of this bill. By what right do these appointed hacks have to change it?

Yeah, like you would have had a problem if it had been a con majority senate rejecting or changing something like say the gun registry bill.

[ridenrain]

Had the senate ever stalled or ammended a bill under Chretien or Martin? Not that I remember. They are within "their rights" but they are unaccountable to Canadians.

This is another classic example of Liberal paternal arrogance and should be worth another drop of 5 to 10 points for poor Iffy.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Had the senate ever stalled or ammended a bill under Chretien or Martin? Not that I remember. They are within "their rights" but they are unaccountable to Canadians.

This is another classic example of Liberal paternal arrogance and should be worth another drop of 5 to 10 points for poor Iffy.

Can you prove that? I just love how you claim Iggy is the right guy and claim you admire him but he's running for the wrong party. Proof that its not the man or the issues but the party. Seems like we know who votes only Conservative regardless after all.

Assuming that the senate never rejected or amended any Liberal why should they have. They only put forth great legislation.

[ridenrain]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Assuming that the senate never rejected or amended any Liberal why should they have. They only put forth great legislation.

There you go.. Liberals by divine providence know what's best and average Canadian voters shouldn't worry their pretty little heads over important things like this.

How does it feel to see your party shattered and panicked?

[ASLplease]

Derby, have you ever voted NDP or Conservative?

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Assuming that the senate never rejected or amended any Liberal why should they have. They only put forth great legislation.

There you go.. Liberals by divine providence know what's best and average Canadian voters shouldn't worry their pretty little heads over important things like this.

How does it feel to see your party shattered and panicked?

You voted Reform and Alliance. Never once did those parties even come close to the lowest Liberal levels and shattered is what happened to them and the PC party.

How'd you feel about that?