IT Employment

General discussion


American refugee's in Canda??

By Oz_Media ·
I know the headline in the paper threw me for a loop. Why would Americans to to the Canadian border and try claiming refugee status??
Apparently, you have a wierd understanding of the new marijuana laws here.
Since passing the new controversial marijuana law, American's have been coming to the Canadian border and claiming medical marajuana refugee status. (woulda been handy in high school for skipping those boring classes)

Apparently some Americans thuink we can smoke freely here without penalty while others feel that we have legalized marijuana.

In 2002, one could walk down the main downtown thoroughfare while smoking a joint, the cops didn't do anything because they know that it would get dragged through the courst costing a lot of money and the city couldn't issue a fine or press criminal charges that would stick, it was expensive for the city and the taxpayers.

All they have done now is decriminalize it so they can write tickets for offenders and get some money back into the system. NOW, if someone was to walk down the street smoking a joint, they get fined, if they have less than 1/2 ounce.


So all in all, smokers didn't benefit, the government did (as usual) but oh well, life goes on and nothing seems to have really changed here.
Not quite the uprising of free dope to the world that was expected by some.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Americans hear what they want to

by TheChas In reply to American refugee's in Can ...

I am continually amassed by how few Americans even listen to the news, let alone read the news paper, or get the details of a news event.

Add to this the popular morning radio personalities who wantonly spread mis-information. (Both because they don't want the details, and their brand of news is more popular.)

It then is a wonder that any of us know what is going on at all.

It is the same issue as when you answer a question with an answer that is correct, but not what the peer wants to hear. You answer is rejected.

To add further perspective, my son had the local paper route for the daily paper. Less than 30 percent of the homes on the route subscribe to the paper.

My daughter had a route for the FREE weakly local news. 10 percent did not want it at ALL!
Another 15 percent or so left the paper out, or threw it away.


Collapse -

Not to bash you guys but...

by Oz_Media In reply to Americans hear what they ...

Do you think this is in part due to illiteracy? I know literacy was a major concern of Americans at one point but don't know where you all stand now, I'm sure it is not as bad as it used to be.

Perhapse the news is repeated so often between TV channels people don't feel the need to know otherwise, or perhapse they feel it is all the same opinion, read one source you've read 'em all?

I think it is the same here though, my neighbour delivers the morning news, (did you know that all routes require that the carrier is over 16 and has a drivers licence now, they are not kids with the carts here anymore, they deliver by car)he has told me he delivers about 8-10 papers per block, which is more than when he was living in Alabama.
I still feel 8 papers per block leaves a lot of people out of the loop, even though it is only one source of news, interesting how our papers here are run by conservatives but focused on liberal readers with liberal writing styles.
Are we all just starting to turn our backs on the real world and focus on ourselves more due to higher population? An increase in population is often the cause of selfish behavior, larger egos and less concern toward your fellow man.

Maybe it's time to leave pc's and go to the mountains to live a real life.

Collapse -


by generalist In reply to Not to bash you guys but. ...

Personally I would blame things on the non-desire to read as opposed to illiteracy. While illiteracy creates one group of non-readers, the bulk of the non-readers just don't have the desire to do so.

As a result, they pick up their information from sources like television, radio and gossip. Even worse, they filter out what they don't want to hear in favor of what they desire.

You might be right about people turning their backs on the real world and focusing on themselves. A small circle of friends is much easier to comprehend than the rest of the neighborhood or even another country. So people end up creating their own boxes and staying within them.

Collapse -

News Avoidance

by TheChas In reply to Not to bash you guys but. ...

While I can attest that the US education system is not the greatest, and many people cannot read as well as they should, the real problem is news avoidance.

TV stations program game shows and sit-coms opposite the other stations news programs as they know that there is a large market for something other than the news.

Of course, most US TV news is simply a collection of "popular" sound-bites.

Even among those who watch the news or read the paper, there are only 2 topics that get significant attention:
Weather and Sports.

Many people change radio stations the moment anything that even sounds like news comes on the air.

Ignorance is bliss!


Collapse -

God help the rest of the world ...

by jardinier In reply to News Avoidance

if a majority of the populace of the most powerful nation on earth don't want to know what's happening.

Australians from all social strata are very interested in keeping up with the news. Most will read at least one newspaper a day; most who are not working will listen to talk-back radio; most tradesmen listen to talk-back radio while they are working; almost EVERYONE watches at least one TV newscast per day (and they do NOT have to compete with game shows, which are broadcast at different times), as well as various current affairs programs.

All radio stations broadcast a brief summary of the latest local and international news every hour. Sure, sport is perhaps the biggest drawcard, but NEVER at the expense of news. I am an incorrigible extrovert, and talk to anyone, anywhere, any time. Everyone I talk to is aware of the most important news events both at home and overseas.

Most of the people who do read the free local newspapers reader the "Letters to the Editor" section, which covers topics local, national and international.

Collapse -

Misquote alert - Who ever said majority?

by maxwell edison In reply to God help the rest of the ...

There you go again, Julian. Chas made a perfectly innocent (but valid) statement, and you take something and stretch and twist it in the worst kind of way to justify your criticism of the United States and its citizens. (And you wonder why I think you're disingenuous.) But we've come to expect that of you. He never said "majority", but you took it that way - and repeated it that way. Moreover, you can't state with any degree of certainty or credibility that the general population of Australia, measured by a percentage of the population, is any more news/political savvy than that of the US, or any other country for that matter. Don't make a statement of fact unless you can back it up with facts - and in this case, you can't.

But to put things in perspective:

The population of Australia is what, 20 million?

The population of the United States is over 285 million - and a much more diverse population, I would hazard to guess.

If only 10% of the population remained politically "ignorant" of the various issues (in both countries), the total number of those remaining so in the US would be greater than the entire population of Australia. This might seem more significant in the US than in Australia, just because of sheer numbers, but in all likelihood the percentages are similar. And I don't think you could prove otherwise.

Moreover, English is recognized as the official language of Australia, while in the US we have been unable to pass a national official language measure, largely in part to the pandering of our Spanish speaking immigrants. In fact, we currently have about 35 million citizens who were not even born in the United States, and I would guess, although I have no numbers on this, that there are over 20 million Americans who cannot even speak English - our "unofficial" official language. Having said that, it might stand to reason that more people remain uninformed on the issues just because of a language barrier.

But let's look at some numbers. Circulation of the Sydney Morning Herald is probably between 200,000 and 300,000 daily - let's call it 12% of the total population. Yes, Australia certainly does have a lot of local papers as well, but answer this. What is the TOTAL DAILY circulation of all newspapers in Australia. I'll wait for you to find the number (or maybe you're SO informed that you just know it off the top of your head), and we'll assign a percentage of the total population. In the United States, we have approximately 2,388 daily and Sunday papers published, for a TOTAL circulation of around 115 million - about 40% of the population. This figure, by the way, represents the highest number of newspapers with the highest total circulation for any country in the world. And yes, I could prove that, but since you don't like links to sources that back up what someone states as fact, I'll just let you try to disprove it.

(But for those who would like a link to my source for this fact: - don't look, Julian.)

Would you like to compare some VERIFIABLE numbers for other sources of news gathering information, sources such as radio (and we sure have a lot of political talk shows on the radio, one of which has a higher listening audience than Australia's total population.), television (both network and cable), and magazines/newsletters. Personally, I believe that if a person took a serious - and accurate - look at the numbers, one would discover that a higher percentage of Americans are "informed" than Australians.

None of that matters, however, as you still misquoted someone, and built your very faulty argument on that very blatant misquote. But I'm not surprised, as I've discovered - and proven - that you do it quite often. But you'll do whatever it takes to bash the USA, right Julian?

Collapse -

It's a bad day for fishing ...

by jardinier In reply to Misquote alert - Who ever ...

because the fish aren't biting. Your comments are noted. Your opinion of my character and intentions are completely inaccurate and, as previously stated, libellous when posted on a public forum. But I have learned that you cannot accept criticism or disagreement with your views, so try and have a nice day despite me.

Collapse -

If it's true, it's not libel

by maxwell edison In reply to It's a bad day for fishin ...

If it's true, it's not libel (or slander)

And if you look at the message left by Chas, and then look at your reply, you will indeed see that you misquoted and misrepresented what he said.

(Just like the time I caught you misquoting President Bush.)

This seems to be common behavior for you. (My opinion, of course, based on observation.) Perhaps it's your journalism training.

Why don't you just admit that you made an error? Or do you claim that you did not misquote him?

(Right, it's beneath your dignity to justify this with a reply.)

Collapse -

legitimate inference ...

by jardinier In reply to If it's true, it's not li ...

I would say that the inference I drew from the two postings by TheChas: "Americans hear what they want to" and "News avoidance" was quite understandable.

Perhaps you would like to vent some of your vitriol on a fellow American, TheChas, for not being more specific in his comments.

Oh, and thanks for the link. I am greatly reassured to learn that Americans follow the news so intently.

Collapse -

The "inference (you) drew" . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to legitimate inference ...

....would be "quite understandable" only to those who regularly make it a practice to exaggerate to the point of being dishonest. (More of your word games there, Julian.) But I'm glad we agree that you are belong in such a category.

You said, "Perhaps you would like to vent some of your vitriol on a fellow American, TheChas, for not being more specific in his comments."

No, not at all. It's you who misquoted him, not I. TheChas, like so many other of us mere mortals, makes general comments all the time. But it's the elitist thinking snobs who continually misquote, take words out of context, and, as I like to say, take an ounce of truth and whip up a pound of lies - all to make whatever demeaning conclusion they desire. It's general practice in today's media - the world wide media, I might add - and it's all to common on these threads. If anything it is you who showed a disparaging disrespect for TheChas by intentionally taking his message out of context for the sole purpose of satisfying your own twisted political agenda.

Perhaps it's the very technical and precise nature of my thinking, but I choose my words very carefully, and I try to be as exact in my meaning as possible. Perhaps it's a skill that a non-technical person like yourself is lacking, but would do well to learn. As I said earlier, your journalism training is quite obvious, not by your grammatical style, but by the mendacious nature of your words.

By the way, you've made reference on more than one occasion about, as you described, my intolerance for the opinion of others if they were at odds with my own. To the contrary, I welcome such opinions, especially since it gives me a chance to allow someone to see an issue from a differing perspective, and I do indeed believe that you, as well as others, have a perfectly legitimate right to express such opinions (as misguided as they may be). Most of the opinions that fall into such a category barely get noticed by me, and I seldom reply. (At least not of late.) But when the opinions include disparaging remarks towards the country in which I live and love, make no mistake about it. I too have the right to stand up in her defense.

Related Discussions

Related Forums