Barefootkitten, I think you are confused, neither I nor any other person on this planet really gives a shit what you think about smoking pot, it isn't any more of your business than your choice not to smoke is any of mine. Nobody is trying to get you to start smoking anything but there sure are some outspoken and opinionated people trying to eradicate smoking from the face of the earth.

Smoking pot is nothing like heroin and it doesn't matter what you call it, they are totally different issues.

There is also a desperation out there for all drugs to be lumped together under one umbrella.

This discussion is about POF and the confusion surrounding filters, as explained in the original post. My main points address this by pointing out one source of that confusion - overly broad and wide-sweeping filters. It's really quite simple. Give people the option to be more clear and there will be less confusion.

The "facts" about marijuana are unclear at best. The glaring lack of case studies and other scientific endeavours will change very quickly now that the U.S. is beginning to move towards legalization. The propaganda used against pot is ridiculous. I would seriously doubt that even 9% of the population gets addicted to smoking pot. All of the information I read up on (back when I cared) was perfectly clear on the fact that canabis is non-addictive. Some people will develop a kind of dependence (that 9% I'm guessing) that is similar to addictions but it isn't the same thing. Habit-forming was the term used, I believe.

I live in Vancouver BC, serious heroin addiction is rampant here. Children don't play in parks with bare feet. When you work outside downtown, the day begins by doing a needle sweep across the work site. Shattered souls shuffle about the streets at all hours of the day and night in some parts of the city. I know people in East Van who don't lock their cars at night because they are tired of paying for new windows. Petty property crimes and break-ins are commonplace. Many of these problems are generally associated with addiction issues. We also have InSite here to try and help address some of this. As far as I understand it, this city is one of the most progressive in NA in trying to face addictions from a healthcare perspective.

Pot smoking is not the problem. At all. When I was in college, I had friends who did heroin and others who smoked pot. They were totally different crowds who didn't really like one another all that much. One of the high-functioning junkies died of an overdose. The worst I've ever seen a pot head suffer was a coughing fit or maybe laughing until they peed. I'm not trying to demonize heroin addicts or anyone else but these are very real issues and you cannot equate them to pot smoking no matter how much you would like to.

I get that some of you really, really hate pot or any kind of smoke at all or whatever else. I'm glad you have these nifty filters, I'm certain they are serving you well.

I'm talking about folks who aren't all worked up about this issue however and recent political events would suggest that there are an awful lot of them out there. For these people, your nifty anti-drug filter is overkill. We have all sorts of drop-down options to fill out on our profiles, why should a "What kind of drugs do you use" one make much difference to you?

Filters can only prevent someone who filled out their profile honestly from contacting you.

How do women with husbands/partners make time for their relationships? Surely if couples with kids can make time for each other - then surely so can a single mum, dating a bloke? No?

So your tax return has never been audited? You have never been asked for identification when obtaining a government service?

As for the case in Canada, it was to do with criminal prosecutions and how DNA evidence is obtained.

The Court ruled that fair investigative practices require preauthorization of searches by a neutral, independent person based on evidence under oath that an offence has been committed

Drivers test - what "service from the government" are you receiving for taking a drivers test?

Its very simple: the REASON would be to protect the rights of the child to know his/her father....hinging your argument on the word "reason", means that the "reason" is open to interpretation.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a primary purpose of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to prevent the government from improperly intruding on a individual’s privacy. Unjustifiable intrusions must be stopped before they happen...

...The Court ruled that fair investigative practices require preauthorization of searches by a neutral, independent person based on evidence under oath that an offence has been committed and that evidence of that offence is likely to be found at the place to be searched....

...Canadians have a high expectation of privacy in their home, in their personal information such as medical records, and in their DNA to list a few areas. Searches touching on areas such as these require high standards of proof and heavy burdens on investigators before they will be proper.

DNA search practices are a good example of how our law of search and seizure developed. When DNA first became an investigative tool Canada did not have any special search provisions for DNA....Parliament responded with a series of amendments to legislation that created a scheme that required judicial preauthorization for DNA searches, limited sampling techniques, restricted the type of information the sample could be analyzed for to exclude private medical information, and placed restrictions on the use of DNA profiles.

*sigh*
Rape is not fraud.

There's nothing like a bunch of self-appointed Constitutional scholars trying to tell us what the Constitution means, as if their interpretation is the only correct one.

^^^False assumption.
The government is for the people, by the people and of the people as you say. The government's obligation is to act for the good of the people. In other words, in order to protect all of these things the government has the ability to sacrifice the rights of some in order to protect the rights of the majority. That is where the loophole in your entire argument exists.

When dealing with different races, it becomes easier to tell. That is why, myself being the 'common denominator' makes my case on those. Either way, a child is going to look like either, one parent, the other, or a mixture in-between.

Oh well, the way I look at it is I'm not raising a finger for a child that I dont know is mine. And of course, I dont know its mine until there is a DNA test.

There have been two women that got pregnant while messing with me, and have had the child obviously not be mine. What sucks is that my stats (job/car/past) made me the best "candidate" and so they acted upon their natural desire to have the best man raise the child. However, I did nothing knowing that we werent exclusive, and by the looks of the children, we all knew. But the saddest part these women wouldnt have stopped me from raising their children, had I been THAT guy. And I truly believe the majority of women would do the same.

marijuana is not a drug it is an herb. I use it for problems with my hands and arms. you would never know if i was taking my medicine or not. Sometimes a heavier dose is needed for a muscle spasm. and that sure beats getting shitfaced and hung over from a pharmaceutical pill. SO YES I USE MARIJUANA ,, NO I DO NOT DO DRUGS. thank you.

People willingly give up their rights to privacy all the time. In the case of DNA testing, how is THAT privacy any different than your personal information your doctor already holds in confidence?

Pregnant women go through many tests, blood tests included, so adding the early DNA test in there is not any more inconvenient.

One of the Universal Rights under the UN is that every child has the right to know his or her parents.

So, mothers feelings supercedes the childs right to know his or her father?

Tell that to any man accused of molesting a child or beating his wife.

Police checkpoints come to mind. So does airport security, and getting a background check prior to buying a firearm.

Do children not have a right to know who their fathers are? Perhaps some medical background along with it? "The best interest of the child" only seems to hold water when mom wants money.

Well, the well-known study that was done found that of almost 400,000 DNA tests done, 30% of them proved that the tests were negative... in other words, more than 100,000 kids in the U.S. were matched to the wrong father. Now, granted, these were tests that were requested over a period of time and the study was done a number of years ago, but that is 100.000 cases.

"I ain't illegal or wrong unless you get caught"

You can pretend all you want that I am the one in the wrong, and it's my RIGHT as someone who is being strung along to have my say about it so quite with your trying to adult bullcrap.

It's simple, tattooed people should pair up with others with tattoos.

And the *real* biological father should be paying child support.

If he is not, then the court should go after him, garnish wages, etc, to get the money that should be getting paid.

This is not the non-biological "boyfriends" responsibility, he had no part in creating that child(ren) and should he - out of the goodness of the person he is, take on that responsibility for a while - when/if the relationship falls apart... well, why would you want to *penalize* him for being a guy willing to take on that responsibility (if only for a while)??

mis·take an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc

ac·ci·dent an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap:

I think I prefer the idea of being a mistake! Or in reality I enjoy being a basta* d.

Strange...but Ontario...daycare costs are fully covered for someone earning $20,000 plus the additional government assistance programs.....you sure you are not forgetting something?

Yes, one, and by nature of him being an accident and not intended he is by all means a mistake.

From the point of view of a man getting involved with a woman with a fatherless child he will view it as another man's mistake,if it was'nt then more than likely said other man would be around. My ex is re-married the last I heard and I could care less what he considers my bio-child or his own for that matter.

There's a big difference between being around a GF's kids and wanting to be on the hook for supporting them. I'm not saying he should'nt spend time with them,but just thata act should'nt be used against him financially if he decides he no longer wants to date mommy. The difference between that sort of mentoring of your own children and someone else's is pretty big,with the main difference being that with your own children you would do it because you genuinely care about them. If it's your GF/BF's kid(s) you are just doing it to appease them,once that relationship is gone that bond is broken unlike a bond with your own children.

I am really sick and tiered of supporting single women, and the unwanted children they bring into this world
our society, has just gone nuts
why on earth do we reward very very bad behavior from women who have a child, then get everything and more from welfare
here, if a woman has an unwanted or fatherless child,she gets very good housing,transportation, free education, day care,(!!!!)and all the benefits a union worker would get,the money workes out to be 15 dollars an hour,and a lot more after 4 kids!!
this is crazy!

There is mounting evidence that these types are actually dual zygote conjoined twins with a normalized distribution of body parts that are anatomically correct..... So the person could have a female brain and female secondary features such as fat distribution etc.... and still have the primary sex organs as a male.... the only way to be sure is to take tissue samples from each body organ and do a DNA test on each internal organ/body part looking for a mismatch...

So, clearly, you would have no issue having the paternity test done by blood test before the kid is born, correct?