[EyeBrock]

Curtman Curtman:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Canadians wouldn't even notice the passage of C-15, unless you happen to run a grow-op.

They sure will when our prison population doubles.. Then triples.. And when the breadwinner in the family gets hauled off to jail because he grew a couple plants in a closet.

And so speaketh the self-confessed drug trafficker.

A grow-op is a fire hazard as we have seen so many times. But you are trying to justify your drug smuggling past.

Zero credibility.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And so speaketh the self-confessed drug trafficker.

A grow-op is a fire hazard as we have seen so many times. But you are trying to justify your drug smuggling past.

Zero credibility.

I have no need to justify anything to you.

We all want to see gang violence go away.

I just don't want to see you make it worse.

[martin14]

Curtman Curtman:

martin14 martin14:

' a couple ' isnt 5, which would be more than enough.

Unless....

$1:

(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;


(b) the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 years who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;


(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or


(d) the person set or placed a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another person in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area, or permitted such a trap, device or other thing to remain or be placed in that location or area.

Whatever constituting a potential public safety hazard means.. My coffee maker is a potential public safety hazard. Thats why I have fire insurance.

blah blah blah

twist and dodge and dance around.

I dont grow or use, so I dont give a shit about all the little details.

What I do care about is the Libs have killed off a bill to put drug dealers
in jail. 5 plants I could live with, 200 is a joke, and you know it.

So, while the Libs are out recruiting drug dealers too add to their
voter lists, and helping to ensure the Natives never crawl out of
the hole they are in.......

You know, people do tend to remember stupid shit like this come election time.

If the Libs had any brains, they would be more careful.


But, carry on .. I said before this will do nothing but help Senate reform.

[EyeBrock]

You think grow-ops in residential areas are ok. I think they are a public hazard.

You equate them to a toaster. Nice try at justifying your drug-trafficking days.

[PluggyRug]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You think grow-ops in residential areas are ok. I think they are a public hazard.

Me too.

Mr Curtman probably grows his plants in a toaster.

[Curtman]

martin14 martin14:

I dont grow or use, so I dont give a shit about all the little details.

What I do care about is the Libs have killed off a bill to put drug dealers
in jail. 5 plants I could live with, 200 is a joke, and you know it.

So, while the Libs are out recruiting drug dealers too add to their
voter lists, and helping to ensure the Natives never crawl out of
the hole they are in.......

You know, people do tend to remember stupid shit like this come election time.

If the Libs had any brains, they would be more careful.


But, carry on .. I said before this will do nothing but help Senate reform.

I think that's exactly what Steve said when he was asked for some evidence that mandatory minimums will do something to decrease violence. Everywhere else it has done exactly the opposite.

Give people the right to grow their own marijuana and they won't give outrageous prices to gangsters. Tightening restrictions on growers is exactly the wrong approach. It helps ensure that there is a thriving black market for them to exploit. If it's at all successful in reducing supply, it only drives prices up and makes it more profitable.

The senate once had a committee that investigated Canada's drug policy. You should read their report. Where it outlines how marijuana is largest supply of funds for organized crime in this country.

But of course, you don't care about the details right.. As long as you feel like your locking someone up, the murderers can go free.

[EyeBrock]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You think grow-ops in residential areas are ok. I think they are a public hazard.

Me too.

Mr Curtman probably grows his plants in a toaster.

More fun than eggos!

[ridenrain]

Curtman is an admitted criminal and has no credability on law & order topics.

[Curtman]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You think grow-ops in residential areas are ok. I think they are a public hazard.

Me too.

And yet you both support policies that ensure they will stay there.

[EyeBrock]

Curtman Curtman:

martin14 martin14:

I dont grow or use, so I dont give a shit about all the little details.

What I do care about is the Libs have killed off a bill to put drug dealers
in jail. 5 plants I could live with, 200 is a joke, and you know it.

So, while the Libs are out recruiting drug dealers too add to their
voter lists, and helping to ensure the Natives never crawl out of
the hole they are in.......

You know, people do tend to remember stupid shit like this come election time.

If the Libs had any brains, they would be more careful.


But, carry on .. I said before this will do nothing but help Senate reform.

I think that's exactly what Steve said when he was asked for some evidence that mandatory minimums will do something to decrease violence. Everywhere else it has done exactly the opposite.

Give people the right to grow their own marijuana and they won't give outrageous prices to gangsters. Tightening restrictions on growers is exactly the wrong approach. It helps ensure that there is a thriving black market for them to exploit. If it's at all successful in reducing supply, it only drives prices up and makes it more profitable.

The senate once had a committee that investigated Canada's drug policy. You should read their report. Where it outlines how marijuana is largest supply of funds for organized crime in this country.

But of course, you don't care about the details right.. As long as you feel like your locking someone up, the murderers can go free.

And the grow-operators can feel free to operate their fire-traps in a sub-division near you.

You really miss the issue here. But then we know you are a former drug trafficker and your opinion really is that of a selfish person who put profit over public safety.

It's not about controlling narcotic traffickers, it's about reducing the risk to public safety that grow-ops pose, you know fires in the neighbourhood and that. Houses on fire tend to worry the civilians.

Personally, you can grow as much weed as you want, just don't put others people's lives on the line with illegal hydro hook-ups in residential areas. That is where a majority of grow-ops are these days.

[Curtman]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Curtman is an admitted criminal and has no credability on law & order topics.

There you go,

"DON'T LISTEN TO HIS WORDS!!!!! THE SKY IS STILL FALLING!!!"

[EyeBrock]

And you are still a drug trafficker.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And the grow-operators can feel free to operate their fire-traps in a sub-division near you.

You really miss the issue here. But then we know you are a former drug trafficker and your opinion really is that of a selfish person who put profit over public safety.

Stop pretending I'm ignoring you.. I answered you 5 times in the last thread.

A grow op is not two plants in the basement. A grow op is 500 plants in every room of the house.

I am advocating the first, you the second.

[PluggyRug]

Curtman Curtman:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You think grow-ops in residential areas are ok. I think they are a public hazard.

Me too.

And yet you both support policies that ensure they will stay there.

Now where did I say that? Was it from your 'putting words in peoples mouths' barrel.

[Curtman]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Now where did I say that? Was it from your 'putting words in peoples mouths' barrel.

You said "Me too" right up there, scroll up.

Possibly it was, I'm assuming since you entered the discussion you have an opinion on the matter. I can only guess what it might be.