2015 Federal Election Thread

[CALGARY!]

I agree that eduction is paramount. That is the single most important way to get kids to make the right choices.

My background.

I am exposed to a lot recreational drugs as part of my volunteering, and in many cases I get to spend a while with each patient when establishing their immediate health. Most times I can tell exactly what drugs they have taken before I ask, just by look. I am trained to identify and treat people ODing and dealing with their mental health when they are melting down. I have spoken with 16 year old Ecstasy users, to addicts who have used meth for 25 years.

My experience tells me people will try it if it's legal. Most real addicts will use whatever you have and all of it.

It's my opinion that some people are prone to using drugs, even before they have used them. I believe that those people are at a higher risk of using in the first place if we legalize all drugs for sale. My solution is more based on harm reduction. Legalize and tax Marijuana, mushrooms and some non-chemical substances, and control chemical street drugs. I would look into prescribed opiates for extreme addicts and still enforce laws on manufacturers and traffickers, not street dealers and users. It's obviously not that simple, but that's my thought process. One of the factors people seem to overlook is that organized crime won't disappear if drugs are legalized. They're not just going to work at Subway, they're going to evolve with the laws. That's why we need progressive leaders. Not Conservatives. It seems that as soon the US started to realize the war on drugs is a total failure, Harper picked up the ball and started running.

I respect your view, but I firmly disagree that more people will not try drugs simply because they are their. I am quite familiar with adictions myself. I too believe some people are pre-disposed to drug addictions. In fact some newer budding research shows that there is a good posibility that a percentage of those addicted to opiates, may be clinically depressed, but because of the typical serotonin related reasons that medical research have believed to be the source of most depressions for the last few decades. Rather, now, research is suggesting that some people may be naturally deficient of active u-opiod receptors, for which the use of opiods levels them out, in the same way that SSRI's may help some who are depressed by increasing the levels of serotonin in the synapse. So, if, some percentage of people are deficient on the ability to process u-opiod signals, should they then just suffer through depression while their serotonin deficient friends receive legal and accepted treatment? I think not.

Id like to live in a world where no one is stigmatized for what they do in their free time or what they put into their bodies, as long as its not hurting anyone else.

[Warhippy]

Well Harper lied again.

Now potentially troops going IN to Syria...first NATO country to have troops on the ground, first NATO country to have a soldier killed in the line of fire and now this...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the government will present a motion in the House of Commons next week to extend and expand the current military mission in Iraq.

But while he mentioned expanding the current mission, Harper wouldn't say whether that would include Canadian troops going into Syria.

• ISIS mission: MPs approve Canada's air combat role
• Read the ISIS fight motion

"Next week, it is the government's plan to move forward with a request for Parliament for extension and expansion of the mission. And I will obviously give more details when we do that," Harper said in Mississauga, Ont.

"Let me just say, the current authorization laid open the possibility of going to Syria, although we have not done that. But we'll address issues like that next week when I make a proposal to the House of Commons."

Canada has contributed special forces operators and an air mission in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS.

The House voted in support of the mission last October, although the prime minister doesn't need parliamentary approval to send troops to battle. Harper has made it a practice to go to the House for a motion of support whenever he approves a mission.

Harper noted the current motion of support from the House doesn't close off the possibility of fighting in Syria.

[Kragar]

Id like to live in a world where no one is stigmatized for what they do in their free time or what they put into their bodies, as long as its not hurting anyone else.

Except that you live in a country with socialized medicine (assuming you live in Canada). So, if they are hurting themselves, it hurts you too - both in taxes and access to health care.

I'm not saying it's all that different than with some alcohol and tobacco users, but with the medical system stretched already, I expect that easy access to drugs would just add to the load on ERs and emergency services, and therefore health care costs.

IMO, if you want socialized medicine, then you should have to put up with government-imposed lifestyle restrictions that help minimize the collective cost of that service.

If you want people to have the freedom you claim (which I am not arguing with), then they also need to be responsible for the consequences. That means paying for insurance or the health care costs directly to deal with the adverse results of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, sports injuries, STDs, whatever.

[thejazz97]

Except that you live in a country with socialized medicine (assuming you live in Canada). So, if they are hurting themselves, it hurts you too - both in taxes and access to health care.

I'm not saying it's all that different than with some alcohol and tobacco users, but with the medical system stretched already, I expect that easy access to drugs would just add to the load on ERs and emergency services, and therefore health care costs.

IMO, if you want socialized medicine, then you should have to put up with government-imposed lifestyle restrictions that help minimize the collective cost of that service.

If you want people to have the freedom you claim (which I am not arguing with), then they also need to be responsible for the consequences. That means paying for insurance or the health care costs directly to deal with the adverse results of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, sports injuries, STDs, whatever.

People want the freedom to do with they want, but without the consequences.

[Kragar]

People want the freedom to do with they want, but without the consequences.

Ain't that the life!!

[thejazz97]

Ain't that the life!!

Yes, but unfortunately, consequences are very real.

[aGENT]

I expect that easy access to drugs would just add to the load on ERs and emergency services, and therefore health care costs.

You couldn't get easier access to drugs than we have now FWIW. It's actually far more likely to lessen health care costs (not to mention police, court etc costs).

[Kragar]

You couldn't get easier access to drugs than we have now FWIW. It's actually far more likely to lessen health care costs (not to mention police, court etc costs).

Agreed on police/courts. The "war on drugs" isn't cheap.

I know some here have suggested that some people only use because it's illegal, but IMO having cheap drugs and zero worry of breaking the law would increase usage (if not the number of users), which was more what I meant with "access to drugs". I don't disagree with you about access now.

[aGENT]

Agreed on police/courts. The "war on drugs" isn't cheap.

I know some here have suggested that some people only use because it's illegal, but IMO having cheap drugs and zero worry of breaking the law would increase usage (if not the number of users), which was more what I meant with "access to drugs". I don't disagree with you about access now.

Which means at "worst" health care costs remain pretty stable. You might get a few more "curious" people but you'd also have far cleaner drugs, less OD's less paramedic costs etc, etc. Overall I'd expect we'd see that as a net benefit.

We'd also be a healthier, happier community with less crime.

[CALGARY!]

Which means at "worst" health care costs remain pretty stable. You might get a few more "curious" people but you'd also have far cleaner drugs, less OD's less paramedic costs etc, etc. Overall I'd expect we'd see that as a net benefit.

We'd also be a healthier, happier community with less crime.

We certainly would see a net benefit, or, at worse, a break even with where healthcare costs are today in terms of money in vs money spent. Everyone disagreeing should research how much money from the $10-$13 price of a pack of cigarettes goes to healthcare, at one point it was nearly 70%, I expect it to be somewhere close to that still. If the same principle were applied to drugs there would be either neglidgable or positive impact on the healthcare systems costs related to treatment of drug incidents.

Likewise, again, having clean, pure, quality controlled drugs, with knowledgeable users would drastically reduce overdose's and ER visits for ingestion of unknown substances.

As well, freeing everyone of the stigma associated with drug use would allow people to go to a doctor and plain out say, hey, my friend and I were shooting morphine and he's ODing, without fearing being arrested, thus eliminating any guesswork required by the doctor as to what needs to be done, and likely saving lives.

Money saved in law enforecement/court proceedings and prison sentences would provide a massive boost to government funds.

[Kragar]

Which means at "worst" health care costs remain pretty stable. You might get a few more "curious" people but you'd also have far cleaner drugs, less OD's less paramedic costs etc, etc. Overall I'd expect we'd see that as a net benefit.

We'd also be a healthier, happier community with less crime.

I see what you are saying, and perhaps health care costs would be about the same, but I would think they will still rise due to current users using more. But, what you say about cleaner drugs may have enough of an impact to counter that. I haven't heard enough either way to understand the overall impact of poor quality drugs, but your point is valid.

Even if everything you say is correct, and it is a net benefit, I believe my original point still stands: if people want the right to do what they want, they should be the ones bearing the costs of the consequences and be responsible for their health care. If the government is paying the bills, then they can make the rules. With freedom should come responsibility.

[CALGARY!]

I see what you are saying, and perhaps health care costs would be about the same, but I would think they will still rise due to current users using more. But, what you say about cleaner drugs may have enough of an impact to counter that. I haven't heard enough either way to understand the overall impact of poor quality drugs, but your point is valid.

Even if everything you say is correct, and it is a net benefit, I believe my original point still stands: if people want the right to do what they want, they should be the ones bearing the costs of the consequences and be responsible for their health care. If the government is paying the bills, then they can make the rules. With freedom should come responsibility.

I agree, therefore the taxes they would pay on their drugs would go into providing healthcare and addiction services support, just like tabacco and alcohol users currently do.

[Warhippy]

Harper now under fire for misusing tax dollars for partisan and misleading ads. By a staunchly Conservative watchdog group

A government waste-watching group once headed by Defence Minister Jason Kenney is calling out the federal government for using taxpayer money to pay for partisan ads.

• Veterans Affairs ads that cost $4.3M fell flat with viewers: report
• Ottawa adds another $11 million to ad budget as year-end nears
• Ottawa's ads called a pre-election campaign funded by taxpayers

In a release issued Wednesday, Canadian Taxpayers Federation federal director Aaron Wudrick points to several recent ad campaigns that have been in heavy rotation, including the anti-pot messaging launched last year and commercials touting new tax cuts.

"These ads are all paid for with your tax dollars," he notes.

And while he acknowledges that, in some cases, such campaigns serve a "legitimate purpose" by providing the public with important information about available programs and services, that wasn't the case with the

$2.5 million spent on ads for the Canada Job Grant — a program that, Wudrick points out in his release, "didn't even exist at the time."

"The reality is that for an incumbent government, the temptation to torque ads for partisan gain will always be great," Wudrick said.

"If a government can use public dollars to 'inform' Canadians by conveniently putting a positive spin on the governing party's policies at the same time, they probably will."

This, he says, "is not only a waste of precious resources — it's also an affront to fairness in a democracy."

"Further, it violates the democratic principle that public dollars shouldn't be directed towards partisan ends."

The federation wants Ottawa to establish an independent third party to vet proposed government advertising to ensure a non-partisan tone.

3rd party oversight needed: CTF

Wudrick points out that the Province of Ontario has had an independent ad review process since 2004.

"It's time for the Harper Conservatives to follow Ontario's lead and implement similar third-party oversight of its advertising," he concludes.

• READ the full CTF commentary on taxpayer-funded ads here

The critique comes just days after Liberal finance critic Scott Brison blasted the Conservatives for spending millions on what he described as "wasteful and ineffective partisan ads."

He claimed the government has spent more than $750 million on ads since taking office in 2006.

In 2013, Liberal MP David McGuinty introduced a private members' bill to appoint a federal advertising commissioner, who would work within the Office of the Auditor General to review all proposed government advertising for potentially partisan content.

According to the most recent spending projections, the government recently added an additional $11 million to the available advertising budget for this year, which now totals $65 million.

Ad budget boosted

As reported by The Canadian Press last month, the bulk of that newly committed money is earmarked for four departments:

• Finance, which got $3.5 million in additional cash to sell the government's much self-touted Economic Action Plan, including newly promised tax credits and benefits.
• Defence, which received $3 million to continue its latest recruitment campaign.
• Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which added $3 million to its budget for promoting its services to new Canadians.
• Canadian Heritage, which will have $1.5 million to put together a new campaign to highlight the planned celebrations surrounding Canada's 150th anniversary in 2017.

On Tuesday, CBC News reported that a $4.3-million ad campaign launched by Veterans Affairs Canada last year was deemed "effective" by the department despite internal polling that revealed the ads were mocked and derided by many viewers.

• Veterans Affairs ads that cost $4.3M fell flat with viewers: report

While the Conservatives will likely be able to dismiss Brison's complaint as a standard political attack, it might be more difficult to dismissWudrick's call for an outside review process, given the long-standingcrosslinks between the CTF and the party.

In addition to Kenney, who served as the federation's CEO prior to his election to office in 1997, Conservative MP John Williamson was the organization's federal director for several years before signing on as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications in 2009.

Several former ministerial staffers, including one-time Kenney press secretary Candice Malcolm and ex-Harper aide Kevin Lacey have also worked with the CTF since leaving the Hill.

Neither Williamson nor the Prime Minister's Office have responded to requests from CBC News for comment on the CTF's call for a third-party review process of taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns.

=================================

Did you catch that number?

Almost $800 MILLION since 2006

Voter apathy does more damage to this country and a dozen wars in a desert ever could

[aGENT]

I see what you are saying, and perhaps health care costs would be about the same, but I would think they will still rise due to current users using more. But, what you say about cleaner drugs may have enough of an impact to counter that. I haven't heard enough either way to understand the overall impact of poor quality drugs, but your point is valid.

Even if everything you say is correct, and it is a net benefit, I believe my original point still stands: if people want the right to do what they want, they should be the ones bearing the costs of the consequences and be responsible for their health care. If the government is paying the bills, then they can make the rules. With freedom should come responsibility.

Yeah, I'm totally in favour of "sin" taxes just like alcohol and cigarettes.

[aGENT]

Did you catch that number?

Almost $800 MILLION since 2006

Voter apathy does more damage to this country and a dozen wars in a desert ever could

Amen brotha.

[aGENT]

It's electoral reform for me. I'll likely be voting Liberal as well, even though I think Mulcair is much more qualified than Harper and Trudeau combined, my views being further left of NDP, and my preference for the NDP's electoral reform over Liberal's. Today at least, I don't see NDP commanding more votes than Libs on election day, but I'll happily switch if things change.

FTR, I'd happily vote Mulcair/NDP if they come out in favour of legalizing and taxing marijuana. I agree with pretty much everything else you said there.

Also quite fond of this quote highlighted below:

MONTREAL - NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is reiterating his openness to a possible coalition with the Liberals if it is necessary to topple Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

While expressing confidence he will become prime minister with a majority government, Mulcair told reporters Tuesday the scenario of a minority government cannot be excluded and that turfing the Tories is imperative.

The Opposition leader accused his Liberal counterpart, Justin Trudeau, of putting personal interests ahead of those of Canadians.

Trudeau has repeatedly stated he's not interested in discussing coalitions.

"Whenever we have opened that door, Justin Trudeau slams it shut," Mulcair said in Montreal. "My first priority is to get rid of Stephen Harper. The first priority of Justin Trudeau is Justin Trudeau."

The NDP leader said this year's election should be a three-way battle from the outset, paving the way for a social democratic government.

But if the Tories were to return, Mulcair has said a post-election alliance with the Liberals could be necessary.

A few years ago, when Liberal fortunes were plummeting, it was Mulcair who categorically ruled out a coalition.

In February 2014, Mulcair suggested his 2012 comments were intended to indicate only that he wouldn’t agree to any form of electoral co-operation with the Liberals during an election.

Mulcair reminded reporters on Tuesday that the NDP had concluded an alliance with the Liberals in 2008 but that the Grits reneged.

At the time, it wouldn't have been possible for the Liberals and New Democrats to form a coalition government without including the Bloc Quebecois, and dealing with the separatist political outfit was unpalatable to the Liberals.

"In 2008, our priority was to get rid of Stephen Harper and so we put water in our wine when we signed a coalition agreement with the Liberals," Mulcair said. "The Liberals raised their noses at their own signature and Stephen Harper is still there."

But Mulcair maintains his goal is to form a majority NDP government.

To do so, he's counting on a repeat performance in Quebec, where the party under former leader Jack Layton won 59 seats in 2011. Mulcair is hoping to do better, capturing 60 of a possible 78 seats in the province.

"We will win all the seats we already have in Quebec and we will add more — we are confident of that," Mulcair said, adding the party's policy resonates well with Quebecers.

[CALGARY!]

Personally for me, Justin T is a huge factor in the fact that I won't bother to pay much attention to the liberals other then a brief leaf through their proposed agenda. If people think Harper has alot of scandals and corruption just wait and see what this guy would be like. Like I mentioned for me it will be either the NDP or Conservatives, I know, kinda strange my top two options are opposites on the left/right scale. I'd kinda personally like to see Harper step down and allow another candidate to lead the conservatives, that might re-ignite my support of them a little. I wish the Rhino party was still around.

[aGENT]

Personally for me, Justin T is a huge factor in the fact that I won't bother to pay much attention to the liberals other then a brief leaf through their proposed agenda. If people think Harper has alot of scandals and corruption just wait and see what this guy would be like. Like I mentioned for me it will be either the NDP or Conservatives, I know, kinda strange my top two options are opposites on the left/right scale. I'd kinda personally like to see Harper step down and allow another candidate to lead the conservatives, that might re-ignite my support of them a little. I wish the Rhino party was still around.

Harper gets a lot of flack (most rightfully so) as the head of the party. But he's only doing what his ignorant, self serving party wants. Replacing him with another face doesn't change the fact that that party is simply bad for Canada and Canadians.

Frankly, unless you're a rich white man with political ties and/or business interests that align with their policies (oil, war, prisons etc) and you hate the environment, science and social programs for veterans... I really can't understand why ANYONE else would vote for that party.

Yet here we are

[thejazz97]

Harper gets a lot of flack (most rightfully so) as the head of the party. But he's only doing what his ignorant, self serving party wants. Replacing him with another face doesn't change the fact that that party is simply bad for Canada and Canadians.

Frankly, unless you're a rich white man with political ties and/or business interests that align with their policies (oil, war, prisons etc) and you hate the environment, science and social programs for veterans... I really can't understand why ANYONE else would vote for that party.

Yet here we are

Just going out on a limb here... I think there isn't actually a right answer in this election.

[aGENT]

Just going out on a limb here... I think there isn't actually a right answer in this election.

There's never a "right" answer in any election. There's a "lesser evils" answer. Yet for a couple elections in a row, people have continued to vote for the most evil. It's confounding.