Jump to content

Legaliiize It!

Mitch Cronin

By Mitch Cronin
in Airline Aviation Forum

Recommended Posts

IFG

IFG

Posted
Posted

:Scratch-Head::Scratch-Head:

OK, but Malcolm, you're the one flaunting the law here - or did you mean flouting? :P

Cheers, IFG :b:

Cheers to you too but I did mean

flaunt verb \ˈflȯnt, ˈflänt\

: to show (something) in a very open way so that other people will notice

: to show a lack of respect for (something, such as a rule)

2

: to treat contemptuously <flaunted the rules :biggrin1:

Err .... what 'appened inside me post? :whistleblower::stirthepot:

IAC, I'm curious about your reference for that. Don't have my old Webster's or OED handy, but Google's definition comports with my own understanding:

flaunt
flônt,flänt/
verb
verb: flaunt; 3rd person present: flaunts; past tense: flaunted; past participle: flaunted; gerund or present participle: flaunting
  1. 1.
    display (something) ostentatiously, esp. in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
    "newly rich consumers eager to flaunt their prosperity"
    synonyms: show off, display ostentatiously, make a (great) show of, put on show/display, parade;
    brag about, crow about, vaunt;
    informalflash
    "he flaunts his young wife as if she were the prize heifer at the county fair"
    • dress or behave in a sexually provocative way.

I'm suspecting one of those 'new' English dictionaries that rolls with the changes a bit sooner. Flaunt meaning flout is so frequently used (and "flaunted the rules" would be an e.g.), that hitherto incorrect usage is probably becoming accepted (a la irregardless etc.)

Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
IFG

IFG

Posted
Posted

Thanks - I note from Merriam's usage discussion: "Although transitive sense 2 of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard". The shifts in language are intriguing, and it's pointless to resist strong trends; this one was probably inevitable.

:white:

With apologies for thread creep (tho' this one had probably run its course at least for this round), being curious, I was checking usage and I stumbled over this, which sums up it all up rather well :D:

".... I, being the sanctimonious word jerk that I am, took it upon myself to educate him as to the difference between “flout” and “flaunt.” ....

Now we come to a classic dilemma in English usage and lexicography. All major English usage books continue to label the substitution of “flaunt” for “flout” as a slam-dunk error. But the usage is so widespread that dictionaries would be remiss if they didn’t list the common “disregard” usage of “flaunt” as a secondary definition. The job of a dictionary is to describe how language is used, not to rap the knuckles of (or to Tase) its users.

The imperfect solution is to continue to observe the distinction yourself but not to freak out (or lapse into lecturing) when confronted with the “wrong” usage of “flaunt” to mean “disregard.” The flip side of that coin is that you should be especially careful when speaking to, or writing for, an audience that is likely to know the difference between the words. That the book on writing you mention used the disputed “flaunt” repeatedly is indeed surprising, but may be an indication that the days of “flout” are fading faster than I had thought."

[ http://www.word-detective.com/2011/03/flout-flaunt/ ]

Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
dagger

dagger

Posted
Posted

CNN Poll: Support for legal marijuana soaring

politicalmugshot.jpg?w=30
Posted by

CNN Political Unit

Washington (CNN) - In a major turnaround from past decades, a majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana, according to a new poll.

The CNN/ORC International survey released Monday also indicated that the number of people who say smoking pot is morally wrong has plunged.

Fifty-five percent of those questioned nationally said marijuana should be made legal, with 44% disagreeing.

The CNN/ORC findings are similar to a Gallup poll conducted in October.

According to the CNN poll and numbers from General Social Survey polling, support for legalizing marijuana has steadily soared over the past quarter century - from 16% in 1987 to 26% in 1996, 34% in 2002, and 43% two years ago.

The survey found interesting divides on the issue.

"There are big differences on age, region, party ID, and gender, with senior citizens, Republicans, and Southerners the only major demographic groups who still oppose the legal use of pot," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Two-thirds of those 18 to 34 said marijuana should be legal, with 64% of those 34 to 49 in agreement.

Half of those 50 to 64 believe marijuana should be legal, but that number dropped to 39% for those age 65 and older.

Support stood at 60% in the Northeast, 58% in the West, 57% in the Midwest, but just 48% in the South. Sixty-two percent of Democrats and 59% of Independents, but just 36% of Republicans, backed legalizing marijuana. Fifty-nine percent of men but just 51% of women supported making pot legal.

Attitudes have dramatically changed

Why has support for legalizing marijuana tripled since the 1970s and 1980s?

"Attitudes toward the effects of marijuana and whether it is morally wrong to smoke pot have changed dramatically over time," said Holland. "That also means that marijuana use is just not all that important to Americans any longer."

In 1972, about a year after President Richard Nixon declared drugs "public enemy Number One," 65% said the use of marijuana was a very serious problem for the United States. Now that is down to 19%.

The number who said marijuana is a gateway drug (47%), is down 23 points since 1972. The number who said marijuana is addictive (50%), is down 10 points. And the number who said marijuana is physically harmful (43%) is down 23 points.

"Clearly there are some reservations about marijuana, but not the widespread fear that existed during the original War on Drugs in the 1970s," added Holland.

The biggest change indicated by the poll reflected the number of people who said smoking pot is morally wrong. In 1987, 70% said it was, making it a sin in the minds of more Americans than abortion or pornography.

Now, that number has been halved - just 35% today said smoking marijuana is morally wrong.

Widespread agreement that it is not morally wrong may be one of the bigger drivers of the pro-legalization movement.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International, from January 3-5, with 1,010 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FireFox

FireFox

Posted
Posted

Polls are for dogs Dagger.

When it comes to actually putting your name down to change a law...it seems things are different.

Dec. 6, 2013.

Sensible BC Petition Fails To Gather Required Signatures

"Sensible BC has been smoked out.

The deadline for the petition for marijuana decriminalization to be handed into Elections BC is Monday, and it's expected to fall well short of the threshold required to trigger a referendum. The most recent estimates peg the petition at around 200,000 signatures, when they need approximately 400,000 to force a vote."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/03/sensible-bc-petition-fails_n_4380693.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dagger

dagger

Posted
Posted

Polls are for dogs Dagger.

When it comes to actually putting your name down to change a law...it seems things are different.

Dec. 6, 2013.

Sensible BC Petition Fails To Gather Required Signatures

"Sensible BC has been smoked out.

The deadline for the petition for marijuana decriminalization to be handed into Elections BC is Monday, and it's expected to fall well short of the threshold required to trigger a referendum. The most recent estimates peg the petition at around 200,000 signatures, when they need approximately 400,000 to force a vote."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/03/sensible-bc-petition-fails_n_4380693.html

Washington. Colorado. More to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...
dagger

dagger

Posted
Posted

Watching last night's boozy reaction to the Jays game, both in the stadium and outside, I wondered if we would ever see a "weed rage" to match the booze filled riots we see after sporting events (Montreal, Vancouver, etc). Probably not, since weed makes most people I know a bit mellow, not sick or belligerent. The only rush you are likely to see is to the convenience store to grab the last bag of chips. And while weed can smell, well so can stale beer. Weed can leave a bit of a mess if enough people discard their tiny little butts, but then you can't hurt anyone throwing an empty weed package - thinking of jurisdictions which sell it over the counter in packages rather than in little plastic baggies. You can kill someone throwing a beer bottle. So while I am not knocking those who have sincerely felt concerns about legalizing weed, and I have no dog in this fight since I am a non-user and not going to become one, I think the social ills of alcohol will always be substantially greater than those of marijuana. And legalizing and regulating has the potential to divert billions of dollars going into the hands of petty and organized criminal elements and put it to more socially useful purposes, also reducing the prison population over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

It will be interesting to see, if the Liberals win a working minority, what happens with the desire to legalize "weed". As far as I am concerned sale though existing liquor outlets would be the best way to handle it along with the appropriate tax rate. At the same time, I see no reason why taxes on liquor could not be increased as has been done with tobacco so as to cut down the consumption or at least gain revenues to deal with the resulting ongoing addiction problems of alcohol. Any additional tax revenue would need to be streamed to treatment and not simply dumped into general revenues


Like Dagger I do not ​use "weed" but I do use alcohol but an additional tax would not cripple my enjoyment.


Link to comment
Share on other sites
DEFCON

DEFCON

Posted
Posted

While I can appreciate and share your thoughts on the matter in general Malcolm, I do have a problem with the notion of taxation; I think there’s just too much of it. If the people want weed, let them have their friggin weed, but to tax it means the taxpayer will have to fund an enforcement division to protect the revenue stream. As it is, if a guy can grow an ounce of weed in his yard every month for free, is it reasonable to expect that he’ll be ready, willing and ‘able’ to shell out $400 a month, or nearly 5K annually for the privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boestar

boestar

Posted
Posted

So you already pay 31% tax PLUS the HST on beer purchased at the beer store and you are OK paying more? Thats insane.

If you really want to get your panties in a bunch. That same beer purchased at the LCBO has ZERO, ZILCH, NADA tax on it except the HST and guess what....You pay the same price. I suppose you are OK with that too.

Fine if it is a preventative measure but it is NOT. It is a cash grab by the government and the government agency known as the LCBO.

(This applies to Ontario other provinces may differ....But ALL pay less tax than Ontario on their beer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DEFCON

DEFCON

Posted
Posted

I have a friend that's been making, even bottling his own beer for the past twenty-five years. He recently gave me his estimate on his tax savings over the period...I told him he drinks too much beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...