As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Canadian Politics] Justin Trudeau's Great Canadian Electoral Reform Personality Test

1757678808199

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    What do you mean build popular will for reform? They really don't need a referendum or to build support again, we've accepted the results of the election, which they ran on electoral reform. They already built the support, a majority of the seats no less, now they just need to get on with it already.

    And yet:
    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/02/liberals-give-up-majority-on-voting-committee-in-major-win-for-ndp.html
    The Liberals have agreed to give up their complete control over recommending a new electoral system, requiring at least one other major party to support their ultimate proposal.

    Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef made the surprise announcement Thursday morning after weeks of criticism the Liberals were out to “stack the deck” on electoral reform.

  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake Registered User regular
    edited October 2016
    A system where less than 40% of the population can dictate the passage of laws in our country for five years at a time is, in my mind, not a good way to do things.

    Further, that certain parties can have a sizable popular vote and receive little to no representation in the same process is absurd.

    To hem and haw about this from Trudeau is awful. Further, having worked in Ottawa for a number of years, I've always been incredibly wary of electoral reform, as dictated by the Liberals. It would shock you how many of the lower level partisan underlings sing in glee towards an STV system where, quite likely, the Liberals would remain top dogs forever. They know that system is skewed, biased, and broken towards a dominant Liberal presence, and they well and truly fucking like it that way.

    I'm a Liberal, and have worked and volunteered in my few adult years in numerous campaigns and with MPs/Constituency offices between elections, and to see this sort of shlock from partisan minds always scares the shit out of me. I really don't want that to happen.

    But to keep the status quo? That's equally and undeniably unhealthy for our country's democracy.

    I can see this being the major issue in the next few years (as it should be), and I'm more than willing to put my efforts post law-school towards whichever party is serious about active change.

    But, well fuck, every party says they're for change - just not the type of every OTHER party.

    It's fucked.

    OmnomnomPancake on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    A system where less than 40% of the population can dictate the passage of laws in our country for five years at a time is, in my mind, not a good way to do things.

    Further, that certain parties can have a sizable popular vote and receive little to no representation in the same process is absurd.

    To hem and haw about this from Trudeau is awful. Further, having worked in Ottawa for a number of years, I've always been incredibly wary of electoral reform, as dictated by the Liberals. It would shock you how many of the lower level partisan underlings sing in glee towards an STV system where, quite likely, the Liberals would remain top dogs forever. They know that system is skewed, biased, and broken towards a dominant Liberal presence, and they well and truly fucking like it that way.

    I'm a Liberal, and have worked and volunteered in my few adult years in numerous campaigns and with MPs/Constituency offices between elections, and to see this sort of shlock from partisan minds always scares the shit out of me. I really don't want that to happen.

    But to keep the status quo? That's equally and undeniably unhealthy for our country's democracy.

    I can see this being the major issue in the next few years (as it should be), and I'm more than willing to put my efforts post law-school towards whichever party is serious about active change.

    But, well fuck, every party says they're for change - just not the type of every OTHER party.

    It's fucked.

    How is is "skewed, biased and broken" exactly?

    Like, you seem to be deciding it's a bad system solely on the basis that the Liberals would, in the opinion of people you have talked to, do better under it rather then an actual criticism of the system itself.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    What do you mean build popular will for reform? They really don't need a referendum or to build support again, we've accepted the results of the election, which they ran on electoral reform. They already built the support, a majority of the seats no less, now they just need to get on with it already.
    A system where less than 40% of the population can dictate the passage of laws in our country for five years at a time is, in my mind, not a good way to do things.

    This is exactly why we need popular will for reform - simply winning an election is certainly a mandate to govern, but it's not a mandate to change the fundamental rules of the system. "yay, we won power, time to fundamentally rewrite election laws" is not a good basis for a democracy.

    Look at it the other way. The Parti Québécois won majority governments multiple times in Québec's history, and sovereignty has always been the cornerstone of their platform. By your (CanadianWolverine's) standard, they would have been justified in simply declaring sovereignty without a referendum.

    sig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    A system where less than 40% of the population can dictate the passage of laws in our country for five years at a time is, in my mind, not a good way to do things.

    Further, that certain parties can have a sizable popular vote and receive little to no representation in the same process is absurd.

    To hem and haw about this from Trudeau is awful. Further, having worked in Ottawa for a number of years, I've always been incredibly wary of electoral reform, as dictated by the Liberals. It would shock you how many of the lower level partisan underlings sing in glee towards an STV system where, quite likely, the Liberals would remain top dogs forever. They know that system is skewed, biased, and broken towards a dominant Liberal presence, and they well and truly fucking like it that way.

    I'm a Liberal, and have worked and volunteered in my few adult years in numerous campaigns and with MPs/Constituency offices between elections, and to see this sort of shlock from partisan minds always scares the shit out of me. I really don't want that to happen.

    But to keep the status quo? That's equally and undeniably unhealthy for our country's democracy.

    I can see this being the major issue in the next few years (as it should be), and I'm more than willing to put my efforts post law-school towards whichever party is serious about active change.

    But, well fuck, every party says they're for change - just not the type of every OTHER party.

    It's fucked.

    I'm in favour of an STV system, for three reasons:
    1. It's an incremental improvement on our current system. It will solve the problems of FPTP, but won't be so different as to confuse people. And insuring people are not confused by the electoral system is pretty important in a transparent democracy.
    2. Unlike many proportional representation schemes I've heard (such as the Ontario one a few years back), it does not require creating an expensive new chamber full of partisan patronage appointments to represent the vote proportions.
    3. It will not, as you say, be biased towards a Liberal presence. It will be biased towards a centrist presence. It just so happens right now that the Liberals are the centrist party, between the left NDP and the far-right CPC. But that brings me to my third point - it will encourage parties to strive for the middle to maximize their 2nd and 3rd place appeal, instead of building a base in the extremes of the spectrum.

    sig.gif
  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake Registered User regular
    Sorry, I made presumptions on that.

    It follows that, regardless of party or candidate positions at a given time, many perceive the Liberals as the middle way, or the centrist party. The NDP supporters will rank NDP first, and then rank Librals as second, before Conservatives. Vice-versa, the Tories will chose Grits over the NDP as their second choice.

    The logic follows that the liberals might dip and dive in support, but they're pretty steadfast from polling and opinions as a lot of people's second choice.

    A lot of Liberals like that, at least in theory. It's doubtful we'd use a pure STV system. And changing perceptions of parties as historical bodies might make the above less true. Stuff like Alberta going NDP reminds everyone that the West might hate Liberals SO much they'd choose the NDP over them. OR in a certain election the party might go completely against their perceived 'history', i.e. 2015 NDP saying, 'fuck yeah let's balance 'dat budget', etc.

    So, I'm wary of that system specifically because Liberals like it so much. And because, in theory, it would actually benefit them quite a lot.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    So what system would you suggest?

    sig.gif
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    "Does this system benefit the Liberal Party?" is not a good criteria on which to judge an electoral system from either end.

  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    and thus is the crux of why electoral reform will be hard.

    conservatives will always want FPTP because that is genreally how they get into power
    Liberals will genereally prefer the STV system because they're the first or second choice of most people, thus increasing their chance of getting into power
    NDP and smaller parties will want proportional representation because that gets them the biggest chance of getting the most seats most of the time.

    So now even picking an electoral system becomes a partisan issue that can fall on party lines.

    And I'm no expert on this, and frankly haven't looked, but does electoral reform of any meaningful magnitude require opening the constitution? If it does, than it'll never happen.

    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    As much as the liberals might benefit from being everyones second choice, they might equally be disadvantaged by being fewer peoples first choice when they are no longer afraid of vote splitting. It may further disadvantage them with regional or even riding specific outliers where voters feel more free to vote their concience instead of pragmatically.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    Yeah, they were my safe second choice versus my first choice of the ndp, this last election. Only voted liberal when it became apparent that it was down to them or the cons for my riding

    jnij103vqi2i.png
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    The political landscape can change, so judging it based on how existing party lines would be drawn isn't relevant to me.

    I'd rather evaluate each system on its own merits, and doing so I prefer anything over FPTP and don't want party fighting to torpedo that.

    Right now I like STV for the reasons Richy laid out. #3 is particularly attractive since I am a little sick of political extremism these days.

    OrokosPA.png
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Infidel wrote: »
    The political landscape can change, so judging it based on how existing party lines would be drawn isn't relevant to me.

    I'd rather evaluate each system on its own merits, and doing so I prefer anything over FPTP and don't want party fighting to torpedo that.

    Right now I like STV for the reasons Richy laid out. #3 is particularly attractive since I am a little sick of political extremism these days.

    Yeah. Thinking about how this might change things long-term, is STV likely to create more political parties? I can see how PR would result in more, smaller political parties, but I'm not sure STV does.

  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Infidel wrote: »
    The political landscape can change, so judging it based on how existing party lines would be drawn isn't relevant to me.

    I'd rather evaluate each system on its own merits, and doing so I prefer anything over FPTP and don't want party fighting to torpedo that.

    Right now I like STV for the reasons Richy laid out. #3 is particularly attractive since I am a little sick of political extremism these days.

    Yeah. Thinking about how this might change things long-term, is STV likely to create more political parties? I can see how PR would result in more, smaller political parties, but I'm not sure STV does.

    I don't see how it hurts them, but I don't think it especially encourages them, no. They are still more viable than in FPTP.

    Mostly I feel pragmatic that STV can happen but PR may distract and shutdown the whole reform. I'd accept PR but I won't accept FPTP, and I fear pushing PR makes the latter more likely to be the outcome. I've had discussions with family on voting reform and while I understand STV and PR and all sorts of election schemes, it's hard enough to get them to understand STV alone. PR and anything where we move away from ridings and direct election has just about everyone balking. While PR may be a reasonable position in discussions where everyone is relatively informed in politics like this thread, ime it is totally not on the radar with public at large.

    OrokosPA.png
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Surprise, turns out Ezra Levant is a fascist fanboy

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited October 2016
    Infidel wrote: »
    The political landscape can change, so judging it based on how existing party lines would be drawn isn't relevant to me.

    I'd rather evaluate each system on its own merits, and doing so I prefer anything over FPTP and don't want party fighting to torpedo that.

    Right now I like STV for the reasons Richy laid out. #3 is particularly attractive since I am a little sick of political extremism these days.

    on the first point, you're 100% right, however good luck getting the political parties to look at something past more than "what is the best way for us to win the next 2-3 elections." The people that run the parties don't care about what will be good 20-40 years from now, because most of them won't be around 20-40 years from now. there just sadly isn't that much forward thinking.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Infidel wrote: »
    The political landscape can change, so judging it based on how existing party lines would be drawn isn't relevant to me.

    I'd rather evaluate each system on its own merits, and doing so I prefer anything over FPTP and don't want party fighting to torpedo that.

    Right now I like STV for the reasons Richy laid out. #3 is particularly attractive since I am a little sick of political extremism these days.

    on the first point, you're 100% right, however good luck getting the political parties to look at something past more than "what is the best way for us to win the next 2-3 elections." The people that run the parties don't care about what will be good 20-40 years from now, because most of them won't be around 20-40 years from now. there just sadly isn't that much forward thinking.

    Yep. It will be super unfortunate if the NDP fighting on representation of the committee ultimately ends up sticking us with FPTP. I'd much rather Liberals ram through anything else.

    OrokosPA.png
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited October 2016
    If they don't get anything done: "Liberals broke their election reform promise, vote for us"
    If they do: "Liberals picked a system that benefits only them, vote for us to fix it"

    It is an issue where they can only lose, and maybe win with a small subset of voters

    Phyphor on
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    God damn it, why do I always gotta be in a subset ... if only there was a voting system that would make that subset not feel "wasted" or "split"...

    steam_sig.png
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    If they don't get anything done: "Liberals broke their election reform promise, vote for us"
    If they do: "Liberals picked a system that benefits only them, vote for us to fix it"

    It is an issue where they can only lose, and maybe win with a small subset of voters

    Yet they still campaigned on it heavily and then turned around less than a year later an go "meh, no one REALLY wants now that WE are in power!"

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I feel I should point out that I've seen an interview with the journalist who interviewed Trudeau on this issue. She reports that the quote she gave was accurate, but complained that writing it down strips it of context and tone and intended meaning. Most crucially, she said Trudeau was very disappointed as he said it.

    He is a man who actually wants to do electoral reform, but is disappointed that people have become so content with his government that public will for reform has evaporated over the past year.

    sig.gif
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    I'd love to see some proof that people are just fine without reform.
    Liking the current govt doesn't mean we love the process...

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I'd love to see some proof that people are just fine without reform.
    Liking the current govt doesn't mean we love the process...

    Numbers from November 2015 show that only 42% of Canadians feel electoral reform is needed (p. 4) and FPTP is the preferred system for 43% of Canadians (p. 12) including a plurality of partisans of all three major parties (p. 14... even a plurality of NDP supporters, despite their party getting screwed by FPTP every damn election!).

    Now that was a year ago. I can't find more recent numbers; there is a more recent Ipso survey but it is behind a pay wall. But this article about it indicates that 65% of Canadians feel this should be decided by referendum (dispelling the idea someone suggested earlier that Liberals use their majority mandate to just push it through) and only 19% were aware that the reform consultations had started (so clearly not many people are paying attention to this issue).

    sig.gif
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Thanks Richy.
    I hate my countrymen. "My team won, woo! Everything's all better!" is infuriating :/

  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited October 2016
    I've always had a feeling that you're going to have a hard time convincing people of a different voting system. The one we have now is basically the same voting system for everything we've ever used as children, and is perceived as being "completely fair". 6 > 5 > 4. So 6 wins. At best you might convince people that it's jank how 6 wins when 9 don't want it, and it's certainly easier to convince when you really hate that 6. But otherwise? "Too bad, them's the breaks, higher number wins, better luck next time".

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    I think STV is their best bet for convincing people for a different system. It's simple enough for the public to grasp onto - the same system but you rank people instead, you can still vote for just one if you want, still have the same districts and members - yet good enough to fix the most glaring issues

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    I think STV is their best bet for convincing people for a different system. It's simple enough for the public to grasp onto - the same system but you rank people instead, you can still vote for just one if you want, still have the same districts and members - yet good enough to fix the most glaring issues

    My wife (who is the least political person ever) understood it after I took a minute to explain it. It's a pretty common sense system.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2016
    Richy wrote: »
    I feel I should point out that I've seen an interview with the journalist who interviewed Trudeau on this issue. She reports that the quote she gave was accurate, but complained that writing it down strips it of context and tone and intended meaning. Most crucially, she said Trudeau was very disappointed as he said it.

    He is a man who actually wants to do electoral reform, but is disappointed that people have become so content with his government that public will for reform has evaporated over the past year.

    Even reading the article the impression one gets is that he wants alot of public support for changing the system (which fair enough) and the whole public consultation thing has turned up alot less support then they'd thought there would be.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    I think STV is their best bet for convincing people for a different system. It's simple enough for the public to grasp onto - the same system but you rank people instead, you can still vote for just one if you want, still have the same districts and members - yet good enough to fix the most glaring issues

    This is the biggest reason I like STV. It's straightforward and easy to understand and given the prevalence of strategic voting in Canada, people get it.

  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    I wouldn't mind STV or proportional representation, though I can see how PR wouldn't be favored as much since it makes for "bigger" government in that there will be additional seats depending on the breakdown of votes and those additional seats will be made up of, I'm not exactly sure, party appointees or people who ran but didn't get in in their own riding?

    If they want to change I think they'll need some kind of advertising blitz to let people know what the preferred system is and what countries are making it work. Also throwing in the downsides of FPTP would be helpful since most people only see the effect once every four or five years.

    steam_sig.png
  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    steam_sig.png
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Daimar wrote: »
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    Money well spent to have some boots on the ground gathering info. Colorado is the go to example of legalization done well.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    Curious, since I know zip about the topic. What did CO do better than WA in terms of legalization?

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Daimar wrote: »
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    Maybe I'm stupid but it doesn't cover it in the article either but doesn't Taxes - enforcement cost ignore the cost of marijuana policing and encarceration now?

    I just don't see how this is possible...

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Daimar wrote: »
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    Maybe I'm stupid but it doesn't cover it in the article either but doesn't Taxes - enforcement cost ignore the cost of marijuana policing and encarceration now?

    I just don't see how this is possible...

    Yes it totally does.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Daimar wrote: »
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    Maybe I'm stupid but it doesn't cover it in the article either but doesn't Taxes - enforcement cost ignore the cost of marijuana policing and encarceration now?

    I just don't see how this is possible...

    Yes it totally does.

    so this is just anti-legalization politicians being shady to try and sway people on the fence?
    I don't smoke it so I only care from a humanitarian standpoint (stop locking people up for drugs) and sweet sweet tax money from vices.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited October 2016
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Daimar wrote: »
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    Maybe I'm stupid but it doesn't cover it in the article either but doesn't Taxes - enforcement cost ignore the cost of marijuana policing and encarceration now?

    I just don't see how this is possible...

    Yes it totally does.

    so this is just anti-legalization politicians being shady to try and sway people on the fence?
    I don't smoke it so I only care from a humanitarian standpoint (stop locking people up for drugs) and sweet sweet tax money from vices.

    Me too, and I also REALLY want to get the money out of the hands of gangs and into the hands of government. (I know there are a lot of small time dealers etc, but I have a feeling if you trace them back far enough, you end up with an organization that is engaging in human trafficking and other unsavory things.)

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Daimar wrote: »
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    Maybe I'm stupid but it doesn't cover it in the article either but doesn't Taxes - enforcement cost ignore the cost of marijuana policing and encarceration now?

    I just don't see how this is possible...

    Yes it totally does.

    so this is just anti-legalization politicians being shady to try and sway people on the fence?
    I don't smoke it so I only care from a humanitarian standpoint (stop locking people up for drugs) and sweet sweet tax money from vices.

    Me too, and I also REALLY want to get the money out of the hands of gangs and into the hands of government. (I know there are a lot of small time dealers etc, but I have a feeling if you trace them back far enough, you end up with an organization that is engaging in human trafficking and other unsavory things.)

    I 100% agree.
    I like my organized crime Elected :) (mostly tongue in cheek....mostly)

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited October 2016
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Daimar wrote: »
    The Alberta justice minister is back from Colorado from their fact finding trip about legalizing marijuana. They must be spending a bunch on enforcement because I've heard stats about the tax money they're bringing in from time to time and it sure sounds like a lot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-colorado-marijuana-legalization-ganley-1.3819654

    Maybe I'm stupid but it doesn't cover it in the article either but doesn't Taxes - enforcement cost ignore the cost of marijuana policing and encarceration now?

    I just don't see how this is possible...

    Yes it totally does.

    so this is just anti-legalization politicians being shady to try and sway people on the fence?
    I don't smoke it so I only care from a humanitarian standpoint (stop locking people up for drugs) and sweet sweet tax money from vices.

    Me too, and I also REALLY want to get the money out of the hands of gangs and into the hands of government. (I know there are a lot of small time dealers etc, but I have a feeling if you trace them back far enough, you end up with an organization that is engaging in human trafficking and other unsavory things.)

    My dealer is a nice family man BUT somewhere down the supply chain are bad people doing bad things.

    Once it goes legal I would, morally, have no choice but to only buy legal.

    Especially since I am generally so vocal about it and like supporting small businesses.

    Hopefully the goverment has some plan do do with my taxes dollars generated.

    In other cannabis news...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/shoppers-drug-mart-medical-marijuana-1.3820131

    Them sweet optimum points!

    Disco11 on
    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Just throwing this idea out there: Magic Timbits

    Make it happen Trudeau!

Sign In or Register to comment.