Alex Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Yeah sorry, I didn't realise. Let's just introduce another unknown entity into our already pretty fucked up society. Is it not already in our society? Over half of our young people have tried it. What does that tell you about the success of keeping it illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Over half of our young people have tried it. What does that tell you about the success of keeping it illegal? Yeah, and 75% of people smoke normal cigarettes before they're of the correct age. By your reasoning, because a large number of people are doing it anyway, we should just cancel that law. Most people speed in built up areas, even if only fractionally on occasion. Should we abandon all speed limits everywhere? Just because a large number of people break the law, doesn't mean we should just drop it. alcohol, however, can cause violence and is far greater harm to society. If alcohol was only discovered today, would it be made legal? No. Why should we exacerbate the problems society has by attempting to make a right with two wrongs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I'll vote for whoever believes in personal and accountable integrity !! Perhaps I'll not be voting after all !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Not something which comes top of the agenda I'm afraid. Just a point I've thought of. As several of you have submitted answers to lawnmower's questions and perhaps one or two are really interested in more active involvement perhaps you would like to get together to discuss the possibilities. I know you disagree on some of the issues but this is understandable as they are pretty controversial but if anyone is seriously interested perhaps they may like to contact me by pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Right, let's do what Grumble did, and ask, Would you vote for Amadeus? Europe - for or against For - A strong union of countries can achieve more in today's environment, than many single countries could ever do. I'm with you on a lot of your points but, if your 'YES' to Europe means a greater degree of integration then I'm afraid we come to the parting of the ways. In my opinion, large political entities are far more prone to inefficiency and/or concealed corruption simply because such things are much easier to hide. They also lack the flexibility to deal with changing circumstances and that provides a clue as to why all large 'empires' ultimately dissolve. If the ethos of the EU was to remain purely an economic one - with no more than a reasonable degree of cooperation on matters such as defence and foreign policy - then it would be acceptable. But I think many countries have demonstrated that they are simply not prepared to contemplate a 'United States of Europe.' PS I also have a sneaking fear that you'll lever Stu Peters into Legco and make him Minister of Transport! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Haha I am sure stu could do a good job compared to the other jesters who have came and gone. I personally think europe is to corrupt as it is, the EU is bad enough with the way the french have worked it for themselves and spain. If the UK ever join europe that will be the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Yes, straight to LegCo please...none of this throwing yourself on the mercy of the electorate nonsense - it'd be too much like waiting for the RAJAR results to quantify if you've been doing a popular (rather than necessarily good) job. Transport would be good, but I'd need a MUCH bigger office. Possible manifesto then...sack the horse trams and double the parking on Douglas Prom. Install ticket machines for on-street parking to raise money to improve the roads. Tougher limitations on teenage 'R' drivers, compulsory retests after motoring convictions and for older drivers, vehicle forfeiture in cases of uninsured or unlicenced drivers, and a programme of driver enhancement training leading to graded licences. Hang on - cancel that...being a minister would make me an Honourable...now that's one step TOO far! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Stu, The title could be changed to a Dishonourable to fit in .. but I can't see you being able to qualify....but who knows in time...power corrupts and all that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Charles you say power corrupts but how can Ministers have power ? Knowledge = Power = Corruption. Now this means that the Minister's have to have Knowledge, This must mean the Isle of man council of ministers are not corrupt at all then And stu you talk far too much sense for a career in politics, get yourself a personality transplant and you might just sneak in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 You are a man of great intellect obviously. Michael Foucault said knowledge = power and it would appear to be the case. Your thoughts about the fact that government ministers know little is the excuse that Ronald Reagan used when he had problems. I can't remember is quite effective. It certainly works in the Isle of Man and has saved many a minister's career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 I'm with you on a lot of your points but, if your 'YES' to Europe means a greater degree of integration then I'm afraid we come to the parting of the ways. In my opinion, large political entities are far more prone to inefficiency and/or concealed corruption simply because such things are much easier to hide. They also lack the flexibility to deal with changing circumstances and that provides a clue as to why all large 'empires' ultimately dissolve. If the ethos of the EU was to remain purely an economic one - with no more than a reasonable degree of cooperation on matters such as defence and foreign policy - then it would be acceptable. But I think many countries have demonstrated that they are simply not prepared to contemplate a 'United States of Europe.' I agree that larger systems make it easier for money to be wasted or corruption to take place - it would be foolish to think otherwise, and the past has unfortunately shown this to be true on many occasions. However, I still believe that not all is doom and gloom regarding it - the biggest problems at the moment appear to be Britain's thinking and acting towards the EU, and the fact that the whole European Union idea still appears to be very "unsexy" to most. When thinking of it, most people will probably associate overpaid office workers in Brussels and plenty of legal mumbo-jumbo with it, rather than seing the good bits that came from it. And Britain has certainly shown that it doesn't seem to like the idea of a United States of Europe, true - just look at recent events, such as the EU rebate. An obsolete idea, that came into force when the UK was one of the poorest members - now they are one of the richest and most prospering ones, and not willing to give something back - shame, that.. It appears that the UK still likes to see itself as an independent world power, rather than just one of 25 member states. And when it comes to foreign policy and defense, it would probably like to be the 51st state... As such, the whole EU idea is still far away for the Island itself, but that doesn't mean it's not on the way. We seem to pick and mix the laws and regulations that suit us, and make sense for the local environment, so why not at least look at some of the good bits that came from the EU and get accustomed to the idea? For example, the European Parliament has introduced a "blacklist" of airlines that fail to meet safety requirements last year - companies on that list will not be allowed to operate at EU airports, yet I guess they would still be allowed to land and even operate from here (unless I'm mistaken there). The list of things we could and should catch up on is long, and Europe is a good point for orientation to make the Island fit for the 21st century and the many years ahead... And it is always easy to say "we don't need to be part of this or that" as long as we're doing fine - what if we're not doing well in future for whatever reason? Wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of back-up and be able to raise your hand and say "some more funds here, please!"... PS I also have a sneaking fear that you'll lever Stu Peters into Legco and make him Minister of Transport! Hmm..now there's an idea... Possible manifesto then...sack the horse trams and double the parking on Douglas Prom. Install ticket machines for on-street parking to raise money to improve the roads. Tougher limitations on teenage 'R' drivers, compulsory retests after motoring convictions and for older drivers, vehicle forfeiture in cases of uninsured or unlicenced drivers, and a programme of driver enhancement training leading to graded licences. Add harsh sentences for drink drivers to that, and you soooo got the job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Is it not already in our society? Over half of our young people have tried it. What does that tell you about the success of keeping it illegal? Yeah, and 75% of people smoke normal cigarettes before they're of the correct age. By your reasoning, because a large number of people are doing it anyway, we should just cancel that law. There is no law saying you can’t smoke before a certain age. Only one that says you can’t be sold tobacco. Smoking before the legal age should not be a criminal offence any more than smoking cannabis should IMO. Most people speed in built up areas, even if only fractionally on occasion. Should we abandon all speed limits everywhere? No, but maybe we should be looking at why people are breaking the law and whether or not the law is wrong in some cases. It is a generally accepted fact that people only adhere to limits they agree with. There are many many limits that are set too low, if they were set more realistically perhaps we'd have more people sticking to all limits. Just because a large number of people break the law, doesn't mean we should just drop it.Not automatically no, but surely it means that law needs looking at? If more people are breaking a law than obeying it (as with cannabis use amongst young people), that law is either flawed or wrong, and needs looking at. We live in a democratic society after all. The laws on cannabis can’t be compared with other laws, how can there be any good reason for telling people they can’t grow a plant and smoke or eat the leaves and buds? Who is that harming? It’s nanny state rubbish, there are no victims, and the law isn’t working anyway, there are more people using it than ever. Besides which, my point was mainly that the (harmful or otherwise) effects of cannabis (or other drugs) can’t be used as an excuse for keeping it illegal, as it is already being/been used by half of society. alcohol, however, can cause violence and is far greater harm to society. If alcohol was only discovered today, would it be made legal? No. Why should we exacerbate the problems society has by attempting to make a right with two wrongs? I don't see how they could ban it if it were discovered today, But that’s irrelevant, it wasn’t. Like other drugs, it’s been used for thousands of years. And like other drugs, it should be up to the individual if they want to use them. It's the biggest issue around to my mind. The laws are wrong. I'd even vote for Corkill if he planned to consider legalising/decriminalising illegal drugs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I'd even vote for Corkill if he planned to consider legalising/decriminalising illegal drugs! I think L.s.d is his speciality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Fox Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Old Pa Ned went to bed He'd had some weed Then swollowed some led And in his pants he peed.. Happy new year everyone.. Lets hope we get the goons out of Leg.Co. soon.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest but shied away from posting as I live off-island. Also I have never actually voted in any election because I have never had a constituency candidate that matched my political views. However my question to the candidate would be simple and I would like to see Mr Flynn answer. Thinking about the current Chief Constable, how the candidate for Fire Officer from the UK seemed to come from nowhere to favourite and so on my question is this: "Are you or have you ever been a member of The Freemasons or similar secret society?" No conspiracy theory comments please, I just want to be sure that the candidates genuinely want to represent all of their electorate fairly and are not standing for personal gain or to dispense favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.