See, we are told by Liberal insiders that Liberal support for C-15 makes a certain amount of twisted sense if it is considered in the light of some cold political calculus: we want a crack at the Tory "tough on crime" voter. But, on this issue, how many votes does that amount to? There is a whole swath of the Conservaverse--ably represented by the lads at Western Standard--that demand some measure of effectiveness as well as "toughness" out of our drug laws. For them, C-15 is a load of crap, for reasons your typical progressive is likely to be familiar with.
It sounds to me like the Libs are selling their souls for a terribly thin slice of the electorate. (Otherwise somebody show me some polls demonstrating otherwise)
Did Michael not say they would change some things, when the Liberals get into power..maybe the Senate will!!!
ReplyDeleteOne of my secret hopes is maybe they figure the Senate will study this to death.
ReplyDeleteIt passed first reading but it will die in committee when the house is dissolved for an election in (at the latest) the Fall. So will almost all the legislation passed through first reading. That's what happened last summer. The CPoC, despite their storm and fury have had little success with legislation
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe that you actually read the Western Standard article. It says nothing about making drug laws tougher and more effective. Instead it takes an unadulterated libertarian viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteActually, I agree with rabbit on that. Libertarians are anti-prohibitionists.
ReplyDeleteBCL:
ReplyDeleteYour "reading" of the WS article is fucked in the head. Here are some quotes from it:
The war on drugs has served as an excuse for a wholesale onslaught on our liberties and an obscene increase in government power.
...
And who are we to think that this or that individual should not consume this or that product?
...
there is no way we can expect drug consumers to defend our own peaceful rights -– to browse the internet or have guns in our bedrooms or purchase incandescent light bulbs or whatever -– if we don’t also recognize their rights to do what they please on their own property.
You misrepresented the article, and you didn't have the guts to admit it.
How is that a misrepresentation, Rabbit? The WS lads make arguements based on ineffectiveness (waste of money) and our right to do what we want with our bodies. Why should either argument be lost on progressives?
ReplyDelete