Dutch01

I've personally dispatched hundreds of loads of water from various areas in Southwestern Ontario to the US. I haven't done any of those loads for about 8 years now, they don't pay enough. My memory isn't the greatest, it's possible Nestle was not among those shippers. But the point still stands. We are giving away our water for a song, and a LOT of it is going down the road to the US. I'm not saying squash Nestle and kill the industry and attendant jobs. I'm saying we need to be limiting the draw based on long term sustainability, and charge a fair price for what we do let them draw. Fair to Canadians, since it's their resource.

"Nestle Canada has three permits to take up to 8.3 million litres of water every day for bottling, while Nestle Waters Canada a division of Nestle Canada has a half dozen Ontario permits allowing it to take an additional 12 million litres a day." http://globalnews.ca/news/2900501/ontario-to-review-water-taking-permits-for-nestle/ If this isn't true, Nestle should sue Global News and the Canadian Press (or at least demand a correction). I don't care about what the real number is. I do care that we are practically giving away what will someday be the most valuable substance on Earth for corporations to profit. A while back people tried to organize a boycott of a single gas retailer (it may have been Petro Canada, I forget) on the premise we can't boycott 'em all and still get to work. I think the same play is in motion here and Nestle is a convenient target. If special interest groups generate news stories that get Canadians thinking about conservation, I'd say that's a good thing.

As an FYI, Nestle is pulling water under multiple company names, they are pulling 20,000,000 in total: "Nestle Canada has three permits to take up to 8.3 million litres of water every day for bottling, while Nestle Waters Canada a division of Nestle Canada has a half dozen Ontario permits allowing it to take an additional 12 million litres a day." This puts them on par with the concrete plant. Nestle is a good target, because we can't very well stop building with concrete without a substitute. We can (and should imo) stop Nestle from shipping our water to the USA. (I'm in the trucking business, there are dozens of loads available everyday carrying water to the USA for Nestle. Some are saying water is low impact on the environment, but creating those bottles, trucking then around the continent, and then having many of them end up in a landfill hardly qualifies as environmentally friendly)

I realize you can't run a government like a corporation, but they should still be expected to maximize the value of any resources that are extracted. I'd go a step further and say it should all go into a fund that is dispersed to us. After all, those resources are 1/36,286,378 mine (and yours).

Wow! That's got to be the prettiest fish I've ever seen.

That was a pretty good fight, I have to hand it to Connor (even if it pains me),he backed up all his trash talk. Anthony Johnson's KO was insane, looks like he'll get another shot at Cormier

I sure hope so. Connor's head is too big already. He'll be insufferable if he wins!

Who's watching? Who ya got? I'm hoping Diaz takes it again.

I phoned the Park this morning and they confirmed it. Looks like I'm fishing Restoule only moving forward.

I'm curious about this too, might be just the workaround to get me back on some Algonquin lakes (my old boat had a 20 which is allowed on some lakes). There are lots of PP's with horsepower restrictions.....

If only I could get away with that with the CO! I'm going back to Restoule in a few weeks, I'm glad I found this out now.

I hope that's not accurate, I've been there more than once with my 40hp ?

That's gotta be your shortest post ever, scuro2 ?

I agree completely, one of the funniest shows I've ever seen. I still crack up at episodes I've seen 3 times. It's pretty raunchy for a cartoon too.

They aren't being magnanimous in doing so. The SOC told them they had to! Just sayin'

That will never happen, sadly. Plenty of the current licensed providers can be traced back to connections within the government.

Read Tashkin and find out. I love that I can present a reference to widely accepted scientific finding that marijuana does not cause lung cancer, and what I get in response is "well what about this other thing over here?". Yes, COPD and Emphysema are ugly. You can get that from burning any compound in the world and inhaling the fumes, and yet we haven't banned every compound in the world. I can use marijuana every hour for an entire lifetime and have ZERO chance of getting COPD and Emphysema - marijuana does NOT have to be smoked. Do you contribute time, money, or effort to trying to ban tobacco, vehicle exhaust, factory emissions and so on? All of those things contribute to COPD and Emphysema. The fact is, it is irrelevant what marijuana does to my body, because it is my choice alone to use or not to use.

Muddler, multiple people have referred you to Tashkins study, I suggest you do some Googling. Your opinion is directly contradicted by a esteemed Pulmonoligist and Professor of Medicine at UCLA. His study concluded that even long term use showed a statistically insignificant DECREASE in the prevalence of lung cancer among Marijuana users. Also, there are many ways to use marijuana without smoking it.

Gbay already addressed the synthetic question, but I'd like to add that THC is only one of many active components in MJ. There are other cannabinoid and terpenoids that work with THC in varying mixes depending on the strain in question. Most people who use Marinol (synthetic THC in isolation) find it to be ineffective, and in some cases it makes people sick. There's no need for synthetic anyways. There are many different ways to use MJ that don't require smoking. Your link is a part of the problem. You're NOT getting straight facts from an organization whose raison d'etre is to tell you "drugs are bad, mmmmkay?". This organization is funded by the regime that is responsible for prohibition in the first place. They're not going to give you "both sides of the story". One suggestion I have is to read about the studies done by Dr. Donald Tashkin (a Pulmonologist and Professor of Medicine at UCLA). This is good, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

I think that Hillary cut a deal last time, she wouldn't fight Obama for the nomination, but she got to be next. It's obvious from the leaked emails that they were never going to let Bernie be their candidate. I think that's a huge mistake. He's not perfect, but I think he'd do better than Clinton against Trump. One possible "silver lining"; maybe the DNC cut the same deal with Bernie (ie. he's next) in order to get his endorsement for Hillary (and avoid a big lawsuit I'm sure). Pure conjecture on my part but it's at least plausible, and you can't say that about almost anything that Trumps says ?

Mispost, sorry.

I agree with you completely, but to be fair its on both Clinton and Trump. That these two are the "best candidates" the system could come up with should embarrass all Americans, left and right.

Agreed!

Oh, in that case nevermind anything I wrote about Trump. I'm sure he's a good guy. Classic defection.

Jedi, you make a number of good points here. I'm a recreational user, I make no claim to have a medical need. I do agree some people use medical marijuana as an excuse for recreational use. Initially, when there really was no medical access, it was a legitimate cause. The legalization lobby saw this as a foot in the door and jumped on board. This worked for them, and medical access softened a lot of people's opinion on the issue. I never got a license because I believe that would be conceding a choice to the government that I believe is mine alone to make. I don't accept that anyone else has the right to tell me I can't use weed, just as I don't have the right to tell them what to eat or drink (or smoke). So in the end I agree with you that people who want to smoke recreationally should just say so. I think there is no question flowers (dried marijuana) will be legalized. It's the easiest to prepare and most commonly used form of cannabis. I don't think THC content labeling will be required, but it will be easily accomplished if so. Mass Spectrometer testing would be feasible imo, and will only get cheaper as demand increases. Consider that the first time a human DNA genome was sequenced for a private individual it cost him $3 billion. Now it can be done for $3 thousand. The idea of spending $50 to test the thc content in a pound of weed that will sell for perhaps $3,000 or more retail would not be an undue hardship. I think they will actually be tougher on edibles. I have some first hand experience with them and find dosage much more difficult to manage. I think they should focus on dosage control by limiting the maximum size of one serving to an industry agreed upon single dose size. For example, one cookie, candy or chocolate can only have up to 50mg of THC (I picked a random number, I'm not sure what it should actually be). If the user wants a higher dose, they can't buy a stronger or bigger cookie, they just have to eat two. This way a consumer can have some confidence that if they only eat one dose of any edible, they're not going to get royally messed up. As for growing, they will likely be forced by the Supreme Court to allow growing for medical users. Since recreational legalization is voluntary by the liberals and not likely to be seen as a right to access issue by the Supreme Court, I do not see them allowing me to grow my own. I could easily grow a year's supply of top notch stuff for a couple bucks (after the initial equipment outlay). They'll never make tax revenue off that, so I don't see it happening. You're probably right, it's not going to be a free-for-all, no matter what it looks like.