How this works - Macleans.ca
 

How this works


 

Be careful what you say in public.

Here’s how the Tory memo quotes him on marijuana: “I am a big fan of decriminalizing marijuana.” Young people tell me we should make it legal and “take the money and do something with it. I understand that.”

Here’s what he said when asked about legalizing marijuana: “Yeah, I’m not a big fan of that. I am a big fan of decriminalizing marijuana. I understand the argument. And I tell you . . . this has been raised at schools like Auburn and Dartmouth High, the kids are saying, look, why don’t you make this legal, take the money and do something with it? I understand that. I just don’t know that we are at a place where we need to be legalizing more things that are dangerous.”


 

How this works

  1. I agree with Mike Savage's nuanced position. I support decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, without actually legalizing it. The Tory memo is blatantly dishonest – it suggests that the Liberals plan to legalize drugs.

    • Children. With joints. In our schools. They're making this up.

      • I hate to think that today's youth are doing things that will mess up their brains…

        How can we teach them to say no to public education?

    • The only people who don't like legal marijuana are gangsters. Decrim is a half-measure and will do nothing to stop organized crime. I guess it will take another Customs Scandal before people finally get this through their thick heads.

  2. Man, it was only yesterday that the PM said the following in Haiti to our troops.

    Some of you have been . . . faces of human misery. . . . What is the moral of the story? . . . Passionate in disaster, that says so much about Canada.

    I can't believe he would insult our brave men and women like that — the Van Doos, no less! And this in a speech that the media and most of us here at Maclean's have called a fine tribute to Canadian relief efforts. Goes to show, you just read between the lines and the hidden agenda just jumps out at you. We're not making this up.

    • Nicely done ;)

  3. "Be careful what you say in public" doesn't seem like the right lesson here. Savage didn't say anything wildly controversial.

    How about "Never trust the Conservative Party to quote an opposition MP in a fair and accurate manner". Not as punchy, but probably better advice.

    • What a bunch of Douchebeggs.

  4. If you combine Harper speeches from 1993, 2001, and 2006, you get the sentence "I […] enjoy […] taxes"

    Can you believe he said that ?!?!

    And Jack, you missed what will surely be the most controversial part of the Haiti speech: "We've […]caused unimaginable distress, injury and death, […] exceeding all reasonable expectations . […] Now, […] our government will provide […] war and […] disaster. That says so much about […] God ."

    Boy, I bet he wishes he could have that one back!

    • Militant Christians find that sort of thing deeply offensive. The PM just blew his whole nutjob constituency.

  5. Just goes to show you can't really trust quotes you find on political websites. They're not just out of context, they're blatant misrepresentations.

  6. Wow. Aaron Wherry writes a post about how Conservative MPs use selective cut and paste to misrepresent a position.

    Kettle, this is pot. You're black.

    • So you'll provide us with the examples of Liberals or Dippers using the 10 percenters to misquote Conservative MPs in 5…. 4….. 3….

      • Well I was talking about Wherry's habit of using selective cut and paste, not "official" Liberals or Dippers.

        But since you brought it up…does the Liberal one about the body bags in the native communities count? I realize that "no vaccines, just body bags" is more of a slogan than a direct quote, but you have to admit the intent was there…

        • So no examples of anyone else taking a quotation and editing so it comes to mean almost exactly the opposite?

          I'll let you a little off the hook though. I have no doubt that if you dug, you would find some MP who has done exactly that.

          What you won't find is an entire campaign built on doing that though. The Conservatives have done this with Stoffer, accusing him of supporting the gun registry, with Ignatieff and their whole "Just Visiting" half quotation campaign, with Ignatieff and their whole anti-Ukranian "quarter quotation" campaign, with the Cotler and the Liberals and half quotations to show support for Durban II, etc.

          There's a reason he's called Say Anything Steve.

          • Why would the MPs have to do it when their friends like Wherry and the CBC do it for them?

          • The media doing it to create a narrative. Oh yes, that is something they only ever do to conservatives. Yup. Right. Sure thing.

        • Wherry tends to post multi-paragraph excerpts of articles, statements, speeches, and whatnot. He always links to the full version.

          Yes, that's pretty much exactly like cobbling together bits of sentences to either intentionally or obtusely mislead people, then declaring that the original speaker meant something he clearly didn't just in case the hackjob was too subtle for people.

      • Better yet: an example of Wherry misquoting Conservative MPs…

        Yeah, not gonna hold my breath here.

    • More like "you're black, so we're going to bust you for pot." White kids go on their way.

      Anyone who supports drug prohibition is a racist.

  7. All blatant Conservative Party of Canada dishonesty aside, there is of course that libertarian-leaning contingency of conservatives that maintain that legalization is exactly the way to go, as opposed to decriminalization.
    The Vancouver Sun's Ian Mulgrew wrote a very good book about this – Bud Inc. When he interviewed Dutch cafe owners about decriminalization, the thing they said they hated most about decriminalization was how the government was happy to collect the taxes from their businesses that come from the sale of pot, while at the same time leaving them at the mercy of criminals for their supply.
    In supporting the outright legalization of marijuana, Mulgrew makes the point that decriminalization as a policy rewards organized criminals for the murder, mayhem and destruction of property in which they engage to maintain their stake in a naturally existing product whose legal status is the major source of its destructiveness. Hmmm…

  8. far out.

  9. Hey, our government has to do something to get out the youth vote!

    • Hey, great to see you have an ID account, toby!

  10. Am I the only one here who doesn't see this subtle distinction between "decriminalizing" something and "legalizing" it?

    • Not sure. You may be the only person who expects to understand everything without thinking about it, but that too is unclear.

    • Jaywalking is illegal, shoplifting is criminal.

      • What's the word for "between the lex"?

  11. there is no such thing as "decriminalized". It is a non-word, used by non-people, to describe a non-thing. It is a word used by cowards who are afraid to speak truth to power.

    Something is either legal, or it isn't. Alcohol was never "decriminalized", it was "regulated". Anything less than full-on legalization of marijuana is, by default, a subsidy to organized crime.

    Finally, If we accept that the government can tell us what we can do with our own bodies then we must accept their ownership. That means the government owns us all – like pets, cattle, or slaves – and that we have only the rights that they grant. Anyone willing to accept that deserves no rights.

    • I think we're in agreement on what the law *should* be, but as Jack points out above, something can be illegal without being a crime. If marijuana possession ceases to be a crime but remains illegal (like jaywalking), then at least that's a step in the right direction.