What does the NDP need to change before the next election? x3

143 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Remind doesn't seem to recall that when Mulcair mused about water sales, he was a Minister in a Liberal government.

And that he was demoted from the environment portfolio because his views were too green for the Liberal party.

And that he left that cabinet to join a party that had never elected a single member in a general election in Quйbec.

And he won his byelection, and his election - first in history.

And that Thomas Mulcair is the [b][i]co-DEPUTY LEADER[/i][/b] of the party.

Oh my God, what have I done - when remind's BC friends realize this, they will all leave the NDP, forever! Because they're scared the NDP will sell their water!

Sometimes reading these threads makes me nostalgic for Lewis Carroll.

By the way, if people want to condemn Mulcair and blame him for the future destruction of the party, they should perhaps learn to spell his name properly.

Mojoroad1

My response to the smear.

[img]http://blog.thismagazine.ca/archives/P__mugshot-gordon-campbell%20copy.j...

...And he's STILL premiere of BC.

remind remind's picture

not needed at this time

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

George Victor

And when all the peronalities have been discussed and categorized, and the entrails (media) have been dissected, just what is it that you expect party/leader to achieve in the absence of a plan for a truly sustainable future?

This "yapping poodle" still wonders, after all the fury of critical broadsides:

quote:

But just how much bloody time do you strategists think we have?


Unionist

Remind, you should stop attacking me personally. I have never, not once, stooped to that level with you. It does you no credit.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
[b]...And he's STILL premiere of BC.[/b]

I agree. It's a shame the Liberals can run a lowlife like Campbell in B.C. - and have him elected premier - while a candidate of integrity like Kirk Tousaw feels the pressure to resign in order not to hurt the party's chance. Something deeply awry there.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Remind, you should stop attacking me personally. I have never, not once, stooped to that level with you. [/b]

LMAO, trying to change the subject matter of Mulcair? And yes you did, in this very thread and in another one yesterday that I called you on too.

Anyhow apparently, you wish to shift the discourse, and I can't be bothered with your nonsense, so will just disregard this thread any further.

V. Jara

quote:


Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
[b]Here is one Suggestion that to an extent the NDP did do in the election, but must do much much more of.... I know people hate to bring up U.S politics as a shining light of an example BUT..... I mentioned this to Peter Tabuns, for Ontario Strategy and it should apply Federally. In the U.S the Dems, under Dean decided a few years ago to no longer focus all their resources on just the "swing states". (In Canada that would be NDP friendly, or 'contestable' ridings.) there it was called "the 50 state strategy"...and guess what, it paid off! The NDP IMO should follow that idea...as they have been at least during election time. It really was no accident Layton kicked off in the NDP Heart of Darkness - Calgary - because it made a very important statement to voters in Alberta...we're not writing you off because you are "un-winnable", same in Quebec. This must continue across Canada - and not just during elections. I know for a FACT that in the past many of party brain trust focused on the opposite. I think now they get it - or at least did this election. Hopefully the NDP will continue to try and make inroads everywhere.

[url=http://www.democrats.org/a/2004/06/a_50_state_stra.php]50 State Strategy Synopsis.[/url][/b]


Been reading the [url=http://ndpoutsider.blogspot.com/2008/09/closing-financing-gap-part-1.htm... lately [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ?

V. Jara

The BC election campaign was poorly run this time around. The signs were late so the Conservatives were able to establish the "early lead" in swing ridings like Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. The NDP forced out Marijuana Party candidates in ridings where having Marijuana Party candidates would have played well. At the same time they alienated many voters in Canada's most pro-marijuana province. The NDP was also caught completely flat-footed by the attacks that were hurled at it in BC. The NDP also soft pedaled their ethnic advertising and outreach strategy this time, leaving the door wide open to the Conservatives. This helped the party (but didn't cause the party) to lose in Surrey North and take a dive in ridings like Newton-North Delta and Fleetwood Port Kells. There was almost zippo in the NDP's BC plan, which is why I assume it was presented by Libby Davies and not Layton. The NDP ran to make gains in the interior but didn't flog the resource questions effectively.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: V. Jara ]

KenS

I don't know enough to say whether the BCNDP deserves the blame for how things went.

But that is a big problem with federal NDP ground campaigns: depending on the sections.

Its NOT a centralization versus decent question. The regional campaigns could be even more decentralized.

The problem is assuming that the sections are going to determine pretty much on their own who runs the campaign and everything except a message and organizational outline from Ottawa.

These days, there is a lot more talent and discipline in the federal party than in any of the sections. The sections are moribund, and very nepotistic to boot.

George Victor

quote:


The problem is assuming that the sections are going to determine pretty much on their own who runs the campaign and everything except a message and organizational outline from Ottawa.

These days, there is a lot more talent and discipline in the federal party than in any of the sections. The sections are moribund, and very nepotistic to boot.


Right on.

And a clearer, more focused economic platform, explaining just how workers from B.C. to Newfoundland could expect to benefit from a greened economy by way of continued employment along with fail-safe opportunities for investing in that economy would not help to bring about that direction, end the nepotism? Reference to creating means for enhanced opportunities to actually have savings at the end of their working life would not lift the discussion?

Look at what the above puerile exchange on marijuana and water managed to settle with reduction to personalities and speculation on those personalities winning a hearing from electorates in Rimouski or lotus land.

Or would reference to means by which the market can be made to work for workers be too great a concession to capitalism while we await the revolution?

Or how would you explain the lack of coherence and tendency to dispute the angel-carrying capacity of pinheads?

Dana Larsen

quote:


Marijuana use does not significantly impair driving ability.

Nonsense.


I know this will result in major thread drift, but I had to respond to the comment above.

There are a myriad of studies which show that moderate doses of marijuana, in the amounts commonly used by most people, is not significantly impairing, and is certainly far less impairing than legal doses of alcohol, as well as less impairing than tiredness, using a phone, or sunlight glare. Marijuana use is not a statistically significant cause of accidents.

For example, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.
[url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm]http://www...

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."
[url=http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1161/a02.html]http://www.mapinc.org/ne...

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability."
[url=http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/cannabisanddri... ft4764[/url]

The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."
[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/rep... art4-e.htm[/url]

A 1992 study by the US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, titled 'The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers' found that "The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”
[url=http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450#Crash]http://www.norml.org/...

You can find links to many more studies into the effects of cannabis on driving here: [url=http://cannabisfacts.ca/druggeddriving.html]http://cannabisfacts.ca/drug...

However, as with any psychoactive substance, dosage is as important as the specific substance. Eating a large quantity of pot food will be much more impairing than smoking a joint.

A final question that will need to be resolved about marijuana and driving is how to deal with the growing number of legal marijuana users. There are thousands of Canadians who are permitted to use marijuana for medicinal use. Are they all permanently banned from driving? Or does their medical status make the marijuana magically non-impairing for them only? This will become especially pertinent under "drugged driving" laws which use a bloodtest to determine if you have been using marijuana.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: Dana Larsen ]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]... perhaps an appropriate contrite comment from Dana about having used a bad tactic to advance a good cause or something like that.[/b]

Yeah.

Dana Larsen

quote:


One thing the NDP must change is not booting out candidates like Kirk Tousaw for using drugs. That's shameful, and I have yet to hear the outrage over that. As for Dana, his story here is like his original one. He did nothing wrong, and anyway it was long ago, and anyway look at all the others, etc. A little more connection with how real people think is required before he runs again.

I feel badly for Kirk, because I wonder if he would have resigned had I not been the first one to get attention. My video clips were a lot more extreme than his, and there were a lot of other confusing issues in my videos other than simple use of marijuana.

In terms of whether I did "something wrong" in the making of my Pot-TV videos and some of the other controversial things I have done or said, I have to say that I have not received one negative comment from anyone since I resigned my nomination. Not one person has emailed me to tell me I am a bad guy or that I should be ashamed. Not a single person has posted anything negative to my facebook pages.

When I searched the blogosphere for mentions of my name I found a few people who were mocking me, but nothing with any real animosity or attacking me. Most of the media coverage treated the whole situation as amusing instead of as a serious and immoral act on my part.

And even here on this thread, where certainly it would seem plausible that some NDPers would be mad at me for mucking up the federal campaign, there's no haters telling me off. I am actually surprised as I expected more anger to be directed towards me from somebody. All the feedback I have received has been sympathetic and positive.

My point in listing the many other politicians who have used pot or been involved in the illegal drug scene in some form was simply to point out that the voters don't seem averse to electing people who are pot smokers or alcohol drinkers, or who have broken the drug laws or behaved somewhat irresponsibly in the past.

Frankly, I think that if myself and the NDP campaign had been better prepared, we could have weathered the controversy over my videos, and it would not have harmed the party's vote. But I am not in charge of the national campaign, and under pressure from the BC Campaign Chair, and from some within my own campaign team, I felt it was best to step back.

The decision to resign was mine. I could have insisted on staying on, and I could have forced the BC Campaign Chair to get Jack Layton involved in the decision. But I decided not to do that. I didn't want to make this into a battle between me and the party, and I didn't want to give Layton more headaches to deal with.

George Victor

quote:


And even here on this thread, where certainly it would seem plausible that some NDPers would be mad at me for mucking up the federal campaign, there's no haters telling me off. I am actually surprised as I expected more anger to be directed towards me from somebody. All the feedback I have received has been sympathetic and positive.


You have my sympathy, too, but you would never have my vote. There are other issues out there that must not be lost sight of in the haze of your habit. And for every parent concerned about their kids' doings from senior public school on, you would not register at all - studies aside.

Dana Larsen

quote:


If you think anyone in BC wanted Dana or Kirk to step down, you are sorely mistaken, that decision was made by the Ontario brain trust and I suppose by the candidates themselves, so they say.

Nope. The only conversation I had was with Gerry Scott, BC Campaign Coordinator. He definitely wanted me to resign, and to my knowledge he expressly did not involve the national team or Layton in the decision.

However, ultimately the decision was mine. And despite my regrets and my personal desire to keep going, I think a resignation was necessary.

However, most people don't understand how it went down. I actually resigned before the videos came out on the news. I actually resigned because of calls from the Globe and Mail about coca plants being sold at the Vancouver Seed Bank, which I co-founded and still help out at.

This article is the most accurate about how it happened: [url=http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n877/a01.html]http://www.mapinc.org/d...

quote:

LARSEN RESIGNS AS NDP 'NOT CAMPAIGNING ON COCA PLANTS'

The co-founder of the B.C. Marijuana Party resigned yesterday as the federal NDP candidate for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast riding.

Dana Larsen, 37, resigned after questions about his involvement in the Vancouver Seed Bank and Tokers Lounge on East Hastings Street.

He used to manage the retail outlet, which sells seeds of rare and medicinal plants, including coca plants, the basis for cocaine.

He is no longer associated with the store and according to an employee coca seeds are not stocked anymore.

"We're not campaigning on coca plants," said Gerry Scott, B.C. campaign manager for the federal NDP. "It wasn't acceptable. It was a distraction and that's the end of it."

The party will select another candidate "as soon as possible," Scott said.

Larsen ran as a member of the Marijuana Party of Canada in 2000 and as a member of the B.C. Marijuana Party in 2001. He also wrote a book called Hairy Pothead and the Marijuana Stone and authored the Pot Puzzle Fun Book.


quote:

I agree with Unionist that driving while stoned is a complete loser for legalization advocates.

I agree as well. Most people believe that marijuana impairs driving, and trying to convince them otherwise is not easy, especially during an election campaign and right after they've seen me on the news about to toke before driving.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
[b]
My point in listing the many other politicians who have used pot or been involved in the illegal drug scene in some form was simply to point out that the voters don't seem averse to electing people who are pot smokers or alcohol drinkers, or who have broken the drug laws or behaved somewhat irresponsibly in the past.[/b]

That's correct. That's why no one who did any of those things needs to withdraw their candidacy. That's why it was outrageous that Kirk was pressured to withdraw (and I'm not impressed by those who claim that there was no pressure, that it was his own decision, etc.).

I admire your activism and I support it. But you still don't get that you can't be a candidate until you express some understanding that those videos don't connect with real people. I read your posts carefully, and unfortunately, I still don't hear that recognition.

ETA: Whoops Dana, we cross-posted - and I just read that recognition in your last post. Good move.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Dana Larsen

quote:


you can't be a candidate until you express some understanding that those videos don't connect with real people.

I don't understand what you are saying.

By "real people" do you mean the older, voting generation that has less knowledge and experience with marijuana and psychedelics than does the average person under 35?

I'm not actually sure that anyone has to connect with those videos in order for me to be a candidate.

However, there are millions of Canadians who have used marijuana and psychedelic substances. Many of them might be able to connect to me more readily than to other politicians who are not honest about their own past or present use of marijuana.

(I actually made two dozen video shows for Pot-TV. In all of them I am smoking pot and talking about marijuana and drug policy issues. Some of the shows are silly, some are serious. In one episode I took LSD, in another I smoked DMT. All of these videos are still available for viewing at Pot-TV.net but in an older Realplayer format.)

What specifically do you want me to say that I'm not saying? I'm not ashamed of making those videos, and for the most part I think they are pretty good and certainly groundbreaking in their own way.

Let's take a moment to remember Christopher Mayhew, UK Labour MP from 1945 to 1974. In 1955, while he was a sitting MP, Mayhew took part in a televised psychedelic experience. Under the guidance of his friend, Dr Humphry Osmond, Mayhew ingested a dose of mescaline and allowed himself to be filmed for the duration of the trip. Part of this footage was included in the 1986 BBC documentary "LSD - The beyond within." [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Mayhew]http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Dana Larsen

I suspect this thread will be closed for length soon.

So to bring this all back to the original thread topic, I think the NDP needs to reconcile their internal disconnect on the marijuana issue.

I believe that Layton is more friendly towards the marijuana movement than his advisors within the party. This has been evidenced many times. This disconnect makes the party's dealings with the marijuana activist community come out strained and causes confusion for everyone.

As cannabis activists we represent a growing and very politically aware demographic. It is frustrating for us how the NDP embraces our cause between elections, then tries to distance themselves from us during election campaigns. All we want to do is help, but the party can't seem to figure out what to do with us.

For instance, in 2003, Marc Emery printed up some flyers with Jack Layton's quote about the NDP supporting a legal environment for marijuana. Emery was distributing these flyers across the country to encourage the marijuana movement to vote for the NDP. Gerry Scott got into the media saying that he was going to sue Emery for printing these unauthorized flyers. Yet Layton would endorse and sign the flyers whenever people brought him one to ask his opinion on them. This kind of mixed-messaging is a blunder.

This same kind of confusion happened in this campaign. The party didn't know how to deal with videos of past marijuana use, and as a result there was a panic when these videos hit the media.

Dana Larsen

Unionist: I appreciate your comments and I understand where you are coming from. I just wanted that to be clear. I always try to be open to criticism and different ideas.

It seems to me like we're all on the same team here, and the debates are usually more about the strategy which will best allow us to achieve our common goals. I haven't felt personally attacked by anything anyone has posted here, and as a person who aspires to public office I don't mind criticism and commentary about my work.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
[b]By "real people" do you mean the older, voting generation that has less knowledge and experience with marijuana and psychedelics than does the average person under 35?[/b]

No - I'm much older than that and I have knowledge and experience and some current usage of marijuana and psychedelics, definitely before you were born. And so does everyone I know who I grew up with. Where did you get that 35 figure from? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

[b]I'm not actually sure that anyone has to connect with those videos in order for me to be a candidate.[/b]

I didn't say that. Here's what I say: Probably 1/10 of 1% of the population would be left indifferent by a photo of a political candidate smoking marijuana while driving and stuffing 20 joints into his face. I know you don't get it. That's the problem, Dana.

quote:

[b]What specifically do you want me to say that I'm not saying? I'm not ashamed of making those videos, and for the most part I think they are pretty good and certainly groundbreaking in their own way. [/b]

Well, what I want you to say is: "Those videos are childish, stupid, and irresponsible - that's not the way to effect political and social change." But I kinda get that I'm not going to hear that.

remind remind's picture

Thanks for clearing that up, Dana I cannot believe Gerry Scott's actions on any of these accounts. I am writing him a letter and CCing Jack and the national party.

Dana Larsen

quote:


Well, what I want you to say is: "Those videos are childish, stupid, and irresponsible - that's not the way to effect political and social change." But I kinda get that I'm not going to hear that.

Let's keep in mind that what you saw on the news represented the most extreme 20 seconds taken from about 20 hours of video. And yes, the brief clips shown on the news did portray me as childish and irresponsible.

However, I am not going to disavow all of my Pot-TV videos, which include some silly stuff and also a lot of good information, because of 20 seconds of clips which make my shows look like something they are not.

I believe that educating people about the real effects of psychedelic drugs and other banned substances is a part of the way to effect political and social change.

So by taking LSD and showing its actual effects on a human, I think that I was serving to educate people about the actual effect of this substance. I didn't take LSD in a childish or irresponsible manner. My LSD video is the most popular one I made, and it's just me talking and walking around the Sunshine Coast with my video camera. For me, it is interesting precisely because I don't do anything crazy or irresponsible, I just talk and describe my internal state and the experience of being on psychedelics.

As for the clip which shows me apparently about to drive and toke, I will say that I don't advocate driving while using marijuana, and although I did sometimes toke and drive in the past, it's not something I do anymore. I would add that small doses of pot don't usually impair driving ability, but it is always best to err on the side of caution.

But overall my videos for the show, called The Weedy Wednesday Smokefest, are just me, at home with a video camera, smoking some pot and discussing marijuana news and events. I leave it to others to decide if that is childish, but it certainly isn't irresponsible.

Ultimately as I mentioned above, I had already resigned by the time the videos became an issue. In terms of my personal political career, the question is will these videos mean that I can never again run for the NDP? Or was it simply the timing of their release which was the real problem during this election.

Dana Larsen

quote:


Probably 1/10 of 1% of the population would be left indifferent by a photo of a political candidate smoking marijuana while driving and stuffing 20 joints into his face. I know you don't get it.

The ratio might be a bit off, but I do agree. Strategically the debate around marijuana and driving is a difficult one. And it is made much more difficult when trying to defend my apparently irresponsible personal behaviour instead of debating the theory of whether marijuana use is actually impairing enough to represent a social problem. That is part of the reason why my stepping back as a candidate was a good decision.

The story behind that big mouthful of joints is that we had been rolling up joints for a big party the next day. We were just goofing around when I picked up a bunch and pretended to light them. Of course we didn't actually light any, we were just pretending.

For the record, I do not advocate smoking joints in amounts more than one at a time.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
[b]Let's keep in mind that what you saw on the news represented the most extreme 20 seconds taken from about 20 hours of video. And yes, the brief clips shown on the news did portray me as childish and irresponsible.[/b]

Thank you for that. Your statement compares favourably with some of the extreme apologias that have appeared on this site.

quote:

[b]However, I am not going to disavow all of my Pot-TV videos, which include some silly stuff and also a lot of good information, because of 20 seconds of clips which make my shows look like something they are not.[/b]

Nor should you "disavow" them. I personally have no problem with anything in those videos except for the two things I've mentioned from day one. Certainly nothing wrong with the LSD portions.

quote:

[b]As for the clip which shows me apparently about to drive and toke, I will say that I don't advocate driving while using marijuana, and although I did sometimes toke and drive in the past, it's not something I do anymore. [/b]

Thank you.

quote:

[b]In terms of my personal political career, the question is will these videos mean that I can never again run for the NDP? Or was it simply the timing of their release which was the real problem during this election.[/b]

My view: If you had made the above statement right away, there was no reason to resign.

I can't speak for the NDP, but I will try. I have told you for almost three years that [b]I do not believe[/b] the NDP will decriminalize marijuana, notwithstanding its pretentious statements, in any near future, even if they're in a position to do so. I told you in 2006 that they hadn't even made it a condition of support of two consecutive minority governments. I know you consider that they're the best bet. But the party's outrageous actions in this case (in particular with regard to Kirk Tousaw - and [b]please, everyone, no more disingenuous statements about how the party didn't pressure him to quit[/b]) and its flippant dismissal of you, are a good sign that they just don't give a shit. Pardon my rudeness.

TCD

I don't think Kirk Toussaw quit because he advocated decriminalization. Everyone in the NDP knew he advocated decriminalization. If you knew who Kirk was at all you knew his issue was pot. So, it's a bit ridiculous to claim he was forced out because of that.

He quit because there was a YouTube video of him spending about half an hour inhaling and rating the quality of various strains of pot. This played on the news - along with the footage of Dana - just about every night for a week.

I think it's pretty clear that both Dana and Kirk's ill-concieved videos were used by people who wanted to take the NDP down a peg and distract from the issues the NDP wanted to talk about.

And I think people in the NDP (and I include myself as someone out knocking on doors for my candidate) wanted to deprive opponents of their excuse to ignore the issues we cared about (which start with ending the war in Afghanistan, stopping corporate tax cuts, hiring doctors, creating a childcare space for my kid and way way way way down the list legalizing pot).

So if "outrageous actions" consist of sitting a candidate down and saying, "It's not fair but every day you stay on the ballot, you are destroying the chances of 300-odd other NDP candidates because you made a stupid video and we think you should step aside." then I'm in favour of them.

I think unionist is wrong when he says the NDP will not decriminalize marijuana if they're in a position to do so.

I do, however, think his definition of being "in a position to do so" is a little different than most people's. If Jack Layton had come out of that room with Paul Martin in 2006 and said, "The corporate tax cuts are going ahead. Schools and hospitals will still face cuts. But it's going to be a lot easier to enjoy quality bud in Canada from now on." I'd have torn up my membership. And screamed.

I think decriminalization is an idea the NDP will support - way down low on their priority list. I'm fine with that. If you want it higher (no pun intended) you can come to an NDP convention and argue about it or, probably more effectively, work with the Marijuana Party or work outside the party system entirely.

quote:

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
[b]In terms of my personal political career, the question is will these videos mean that I can never again run for the NDP? Or was it simply the timing of their release which was the real problem during this election.[/b]

The "timing" of the videos was not really the issue. They were all from way before the election. They became an issue during the election because the Liberals, and to a lesser extent the Conservatives, made them an issue during the election. And they'll almost certainly do so if you run again.

Ultimately, riding associations select their candidates but - and I hate to say it because you seem like a nice and sincere guy Dana - I wouldn't support you in a nomination in my riding. I know your opponents would simply play that clip of you smoking a joint in your car over and over and over again.

If you're a Republican you can get away with a past like that. Claim you've found Jesus. But I don't think you can get away with it as a New Dem, particularly if you want to raise the issue of decriminalization.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I'll say again that this stuff need not have sunk Dana'a candidacy (and kirk's) if properly handled. But properly means that we would have dealt with it pre-emptively, not reactively. The sketched out plan Dana outlined earlier was fundamentally sound.

TCD

With respect, there is absolutely NOTHING that will make the public okay with toking and driving.

Maybe if Dana turned himself over to police and asked to be charged.

Even then he could never talk credibly about marijuana again - which, I assume, is something he wants to do.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by TCD:
[b]I think unionist is wrong when he says the NDP will not decriminalize marijuana if they're in a position to do so.[/b]

I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I still need a credible explanation as to why the NDP (including Libby Davies) hasn't put this demand in print seemingly since 2004. No room on the page?

quote:

[b]If Jack Layton had come out of that room with Paul Martin in 2006 and said, "The corporate tax cuts are going ahead. Schools and hospitals will still face cuts. But it's going to be a lot easier to enjoy quality bud in Canada from now on." I'd have torn up my membership. And screamed.[/b]

Well that's a bit odd, because Chrйtien and Martin both promoted bills for decriminalization (although they didn't go far enough, as Libby pointed out). So why would this have been a difficult item to achieve as part of a Kelowna - Child Care - Workers' Rights package, when it was already a point in common?

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]I'll say again that this stuff need not have sunk Dana'a candidacy (and kirk's) if properly handled. But properly means that we would have dealt with it pre-emptively, not reactively. The sketched out plan Dana outlined earlier was fundamentally sound.[/b]

I see merit in both arguments concerning
Dana's and Kirk's NDP candidancies, pre-emptively speaking. So both potential candidates would need to look at all their past videos and things they said in the press in the past and override some of those "negative messages".

quote:

there is absolutely NOTHING that will make the public okay with toking and driving.

So what about making utube clips that send a very different message. It's not responsible to smoke pot and drive. Also, to be able to move beyond the one issue candidacy image, community involvement in other areas so your appeal is widened. Those are some suggestions.

Unionist

What janfromthebruce said.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Well that's a bit odd, because Chrйtien and Martin both promoted bills for decriminalization (although they didn't go far enough, as Libby pointed out). So why would this have been a difficult item to achieve as part of a Kelowna - Child Care - Workers' Rights package, when it was already a point in common?[/b]


It's called priorities. Strategically, providing a "basket of goodies" would have provided them with pick and choose. Furthermore, it would have been ridiculed as what's important to the NDP. Come on Unionist, I think the optics of that would have been deriding. If they were going to add anything, democratic reform would have been my 4th add-on, and appealing across the wider political spectrum.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]
Come on Unionist, I think the optics of that would have been deriding. If they were going to add anything, democratic reform would have been my 4th add-on, and appealing across the wider political spectrum.[/b]

I was not suggesting what should have happened. I was responding to TCD's rather extreme stand that to support decrim, you have to sort of drop all other priorities. If the Liberals could push through same-sex marriage in face of the bishops threatening hellfire to Chrйtien and Martin, the NDP could keep decrim on their to-do list of 715 items at least - but it seems to be gone.

As for "democratic reform", don't go there. When was the last time you heard the federal NDP mention it in a serious context?

George Victor

quote:


I admire your activism and I support it. But you still don't get that you can't be a candidate until you express some understanding that those videos don't connect with real people. I read your posts carefully, and unfortunately, I still don't hear that recognition.


And some folks' priorities don't connect with either "real people" or the real world.

Coyote

Dana continues to maintain that driving under the influence of marijuana is not dangerous. That alone should disqualify him as a candidate for any serious political party.

Sorry, Dana, but that's the truth.

Unionist

I somewhat agree, Coyote, but I think the statements Dana made in this thread are very sincere and a good step in the right direction. The "problem", as I see it, isn't Dana, so much as those others who are declaring that these kinds of actions are compatible with candidacy. I think Dana recognizes that they are not.

I still think it is vital to separate this from the case of Kirk Tousaw. Using marijuana, admitting it publicly, and advocating its legalization cannot be a pretext for pressuring a candidate to step down. I don't believe Tousaw did this on his own, and I think the NDP (whoever it was) has much to answer for here.

The way to decriminalization or legalization does not lie in exhibitionism and glorification - it is a matter of serious mobilization, education, and lobbying. And like any other important cause, it requires some degree of courage on the part of political parties claiming to stand for what is right.

TCD

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Well that's a bit odd, because Chrйtien and Martin both promoted bills for decriminalization (although they didn't go far enough, as Libby pointed out). So why would this have been a difficult item to achieve as part of a Kelowna - Child Care - Workers' Rights package, when it was already a point in common?[/b]

I was being a little glib earlier. I'm no Parliamentary expert but I assume, because it was a budget bill they were discussing that the only items up for discussion were budget-related. Layton could have gone to the mat, I suppose, and extracted a promise of future legislation but, as mentioned, I think the money for hospitals and affordable housing trumped out.

TCD

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I still think it is vital to separate this from the case of Kirk Tousaw. Using marijuana, admitting it publicly, and advocating its legalization cannot be a pretext for pressuring a candidate to step down. I don't believe Tousaw did this on his own, and I think the NDP (whoever it was) has much to answer for here.[/b]

Toussaw's resignation had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. He was nominated. He stood. Everyone knew what he was about. THEN the Liberals started peddling a viedotape of him judging some dope quality contest and it ended up on the national news. If it had been a videotape of him engaged in a drag race, or drinking himself silly, or berating people at a hockey game it would have had the same effect. The problem was that it made great TV and it made him look like an idiot.

It wasn't his position on marijuana that was the problem. Libby Davies has the exact same position but she didn't film herself holding a stone-a-thon.

The party asked him to resign (which is different than simply kicking someone out) because it was derailing the campaign.

adma

Why is this thread being dragged out so long, let alone by the tediously endless Dana Larsen backwash? Maybe *that's* one of the things that needs to be addressed before the next election...

enemy_of_capital

quote:


I had already resigned by the time the videos became an issue. In terms of my personal political career, the question is will these videos mean that I can never again run for the NDP? Or was it simply the timing of their release which was the real problem during this election.

Yes you should run again, if the riding association doesnt approve you contact me for personal donations toward an independent candadacy. (this is a tad on the side of treason as an NDP'er as I'm "siding against the party") How you were pressured by the BC Campaign is rediculous and anti democratic as you were selected by your riding association by majority (usually hive consensus in my experience) vote and to even tell you personally that your activism and what you do on your personal time is unacceptable is in and of itself unnacceptable. next ime you run stick to your guns Dana, not only defend yourself against slander but attack those who wish to obscure the issues. Marijuana may not be priority 1 but does that mean we should not fight for it every bit as hard as anything else> and who decides what is priority one? Was any member of the NDP ever asked what the party should consider its flagship issue? I sure as hell wasnt.

quote:

Come on Unionist, I think the optics of that would have been deriding. If they were going to add anything, democratic reform would have been my 4th add-on, and appealing across the wider political spectrum.

Think again. Ive campaigned for both. I have knocked on doors fo all ages, races, creeds and parties trying to campaign for PR and heres the dirty little secret we dont like to admit in the NDP. People are more unlikely to accept PR than full unadulterated legalization of all drugs. we have tried referendums and education campaigns and we cant get any form of pr anywhere right now. people buy the propaganda. most people in canada havent lived anywhere where PR is the norm and dont understand it. But even the older baby boomers are former love children and many if not most have used and understand drugs and the lies surrounding their use.

KenS

What is going on with the length of this thread?

Mods trying to set a record?

It has taken me a number of attempts over the course of probably 12 hours to get it to successfully load.

Ah, what the heck.

I'm going to open [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008101]The NDP needs to change what before the next election? part IV [/url], and hope this thread dissapears.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked