Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8639
Reputation: 287.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the big question I have after reading thru some of the articles , is why exactly is Marijuana legalisation seemingly the federal governments top priority ?

it seems to have been a promise created to win over a tough to turn out at the polls % /segment of the millennial voters . but they've since decided it was important enough to actually implement

some say its for tax revenues but some articles seem to indicate they don't think they'll be a lot of tax revenue rate away and it could take time to develop a legal market . and there not even sure how much tax to charge at this point .

they also claim its being done to keep it away from kids ? which doesn't make a lot of sense as being legal means it will become much more common . and many households will have " legal " marijuana that will be easily accessible to kids , much like how they currently steal parents alcohol or pills .

they also plan to create new offenses making it illegal to provide marijuana to youths , punishable to a crazy " 14 years in jail " . ok but is any judge really going to send someone to jail for 14 years for providing marijuana to a high school party ? that just sounds outside the realm of anything any sensible judge is going to do . I bet even with the changes they'd be lucky if the judge even gave the guy a fine and probation .

also the police aren't likely to focus much time and resources on trying to crack down on teen marijuana use . as its virtually impossible to get reliable information out of the high schools as to who's responsible for it . as among there culture , they've pretty much decided its legal and so many of them are smoking it no one really cares anymore .

they also have similar charges on the books relating to alcohol , its illegal to sell or provide alcohol to people under 19 here, even though alcohol use among teens seems rather widespread and common . its rather rare to read about someone being charged with this offense . the police simply aren't interested in cracking down on teen parties and underage drinking . unless there has been a serious complaint or something bad happened there . and even if the police showed up it be virtually impossible to determine where the alcohol originated from

so even if the police show up at some high school party and find a baggy of pot it be virtually impossible to determine how it got there and by who ?

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5663
Reputation: 281.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Chantal Hebert came as close as anyone to explain the motive behind this bit of legislation -- this was one of their high impact promises, and if they don't deliver on it, they will look like they will have failed with all their election promises. In other words, they are doing it for appearance's sake. Particularly in the wake of their spectacular failure on the proportional representation front.

When you are the third party, sitting in Parliamentary limbo, having to wait for the windy Thomas Mulcair to suck all the oxygen out of the room before you get your chance in the spotlight, you are prone to making splashy comments that garner you some headlines. That way, the public remembers you are still out there, deep in the political wilderness. They notice.

And then, they got power ... with all those gaudy, not-very-well-thought-through promises out there. The worst was their opposition to the 'first-past-the-post system. They clearly had no better plan, and tried to evade that appearance by involving a Parliamentary committee. But in the end, it fell flat, and they had actually stirred up a vocal minority of support on campuses. where crazy ideas flourish.

And more and more, their lack of economic foresight, let along a plan, is becoming obvious. For all their deficit spending , they have not given us more infrastructure (to date) or a more dynamic economy. So, that is shaping up to be a disaster. They're at the wrong end of the business cycle.

So, all that is left is legalizing the noble weed. And it is just as bad as their other signature policies.

Of course, this isn't going to keep marijuana out of the hands of the kids. Karly Homula only got 12 years for three murders, and importers face seven years, but it is usually pleaded down to possession for the purposes of trafficking.

It is going to be hard, given marijuana's underground history and its ease of cultivation, to monopolize and tax it. It's another mess.

All that's left is selfies with the Food Court crowd, and he's done that to death.
Progressive Tory

Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1198
Reputation: 119.7
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If teens want to smoke pot they'll do it, whether it's legal or illegal. Just like they'll drink if they want too. Yes, they should be discouraged from doing both but it happens.

If parents are so afraid of their children smoking pot or drinking alcohol then lock them up in your house and don't let them go out, I'm sure that'd be much better than them ever smoking a joint.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8639
Reputation: 287.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( landlords are deeply concerned about the possibility it could be legal for there tenants to have a small grow op . due to health and safety concerns associated with growing marijuana indoors )

Landlord group wants stricter limits on where Canadians can grow marijuana

Cannabis Act would let people grow up to 4 plants at home

By Andrew Foote, CBC News Posted: Apr 15, 2017 5:30 AM ET| Last Updated: Apr 15, 2017 5:30 AM ET

John Dickie is president of the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, which is raising concerns about the federal government's proposed marijuana legalization bill. He says he shared those concerns with the government's task force that consulted Canadians on the bill.

A national landlord group says the federal government should change its proposed marijuana legalization bill to ban people from growing plants in rented homes or multi-unit buildings.

Under the Cannabis Act, which was introduced in the House of Commons this week, people over the age of 18 would be able to grow as many as four marijuana plants in their homes, as long as the plants aren't taller than 100 centimetres.

The Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, which represents landlords that manage rental units across the country, said that allowance goes too far.

"Fundamentally we want marijuana growing to still be prohibited in rental units and in multiple-dwelling units, [which] include condos [and] co-operatives," federation president John Dickie told CBC News.

"Because, from that point of view, there are impacts on the neighbours."

Health, safety concerns

Dickie said people should only be able to grow marijuana in single-family homes that they own since, that way, their actions only really affect them.

He contrasted that with rented homes and multi-unit buildings, where landlords and other tenants' health and personal enjoyment could be at risk from some of the issues that might arise from growing marijuana, which include:

■Mould problems caused by the humidity required to grow marijuana, which could erode drywall and window seals.
■An overtaxed electrical system due to the grow lamps needed to keep marijuana plants alive during the winter.
■Increased fire hazards due to people drying marijuana in a household stove.
■Odours from plants getting into other people's units.

"I think the government is obviously balancing a lot of issues here," Dickie said.

"They do want to break the black market, and that's important. But we think we can break the black market if they let people [only] grow it in their own owner-occupied homes, and the product is readily available in stores or by mail order."

Open to revisiting

Dickie said he'd be open to the federal government revisiting the issue three to five years down the line, but it's too much too soon to let people grow in situations where it may affect their fellow tenants.

Provinces could, however, place further restrictions on home growing that go beyond what's in the proposed federal legislation, Health Canada spokeswoman Rebecca Gilman told CBC News in a email.

Anyone who wants to grow marijuana legally will have to follow restrictions from the federal government under the Cannabis Act, Gilman said, as well as any further restrictions that may be put into place by provinces, territories, municipalities and landlords.

Gilman said this includes following fire and building code rules.

The bill still has to be passed — and potentially changed — by the House of Commons and Senate, with the government hoping to make marijuana legal by July 1, 2018.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5663
Reputation: 281.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
If teens want to smoke pot they'll do it, whether it's legal or illegal. Just like they'll drink if they want too. Yes, they should be discouraged from doing both but it happens.

If parents are so afraid of their children smoking pot or drinking alcohol then lock them up in your house and don't let them go out, I'm sure that'd be much better than them ever smoking a joint.

But it isn't the teens that are the smokers anymore. It's a big slice of the population who smoke at least sometimes, and they know the fears are radically overdrawn.

It's easy for a parent to lament the fact that their recently graduated son seems to be smoking his brains out, but if those sons could get jobs, most of them wouldn't be smoking so much. It's easy to confuse the cause and the effect.

The bigger problem is that there are no longer many careers out there, and the best of those are reserved for women, foreigners, and 'people of colour'. Leftish politicians are all for that! But Conservatives aren't any better. They prefer to avert their eyes and feel smug. As Cosmo would say, "I saw my way through, why can't they?" But it's way worse now. Way worse.

Further, the real drug problem has to do with prescription drugs, not marijuana! It's estimated that there are 25 million opioid addicts in the USA, and there's probably another 200,000 or so in Canada. Hardcore addicts, no kidding. It isn't just in the big cities, either. There's probably a methadone clinic in your town. The government is responding with safe-injection sites, which is crazy.

All the legitimate fears that come with these opioid drugs -- a major source of which are medical professionals -- have been displaced onto a far more benign drug. All these groups that are stepping forward with their little worry are only a side-show.

Do the landlords really think, for example, that none of their tenants have plants now? And they didn't even notice. The grow-op situation -- if it still exists as it did 15 years ago, and which does real damage to landlord's property -- will certainly be improved under the new legislation simply because the need is less. It's much the same with driving while impaired. It's happening now, and nobody seems to notice.

Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 501
Reputation: 118.7
votes: 6
Location: Mississauga Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sadly there are consequences for the undeveloped human brain when youngsters smoke pot. The human brain is not fully developed till they are 25 yrs old.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5663
Reputation: 281.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whatever you are thinking of, any damage marijuana does is almost certainly peanuts compared to what opioids do to even fully developed human brains.

Silicon valley (the computer industry) is fueled by marijuana. I can see it makes people lazy, and its claims as an catalyst of the imaginaion is overdrawn, but booze and cigarettes aren't too wonderful, either. How about sugar? That could be considered an addictive drug.

But opioid drugs are damaging at an entirely different level.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8639
Reputation: 287.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the 14 year maximum sentence for providing marijuana to a youth is something that is hard to explain. and it seems highly unlikely any judge would actually give someone such a harsh sentence for a rather minor offense . I don't really understand why its included in the bill , other than as a way to try and scare people from selling on the side and not paying taxes )

Justice Minister defends proposed 14-year maximum sentence for providing cannabis to minors

Bill Curry

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Apr. 16, 2017 6:05PM EDT

A prison sentence of up to 14 years for providing cannabis to youth is shaping up as one of the early points of contention as the Liberal government prepares to defend its landmark legislation to legalize recreational marijuana.

Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, makes clear in its opening passages that the main purpose of the legislation is to prevent young people from accessing cannabis.

Those opening statements are backed up with stiff penalties, including imprisonment for up to 14 years for providing marijuana to someone 17 or under.

Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould defended that provision during an interview with CTV’s Question Period, which aired Sunday.

Globe editorial: The Liberals begin Canada’s countdown to legal pot

“We want to ensure when we legalize cannabis in this country that we keep it out of the hands of kids and do everything that we can in order to make that happen,” said Ms. Wilson-Raybould. “I am not going to apologize for the strict penalties that we’ve put in place in this legislation.”

The penalties for providing marijuana to a minor would be much more severe than those currently in place in relation to alcohol. In Ontario, for instance, the sale of alcohol to a minor carries a maximum sentence of one year.

In the state of Colorado, where legal marijuana stores have been operating since Jan. 1, 2014, selling alcohol to minors is treated as a misdemeanour offence in a similar way to Ontario.

For marijuana, only individuals aged 21 or older are allowed to buy or possess cannabis products in Colorado. As it relates to providing marijuana to minors, the state set four levels of offences based on the quantity of product as well as whether or not the minor is more than two years younger than the adult. The potential sentences range from six months to 32 years.

Craig Jones, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Canada (NORML Canada), said the penalties in the Canadian bill for providing marijuana to someone 17 or under simply don’t make sense.

Mr. Jones said it would be highly unlikely that a judge would impose such a penalty. He also said groups like his would challenge the provision in court as unreasonable.

“For the last 50-odd years, governments have put out this scenario of this trenchcoat-wearing, fedora-clad stranger hovering around the perimeter of schoolyards selling drugs of all kinds to children,” he said. “But the truth is that most kids who acquire cannabis get it from their siblings or a friend a couple of lockers down the hallway. I just can’t envision a scenario in which a judge thinks that a 14-year sentence is applicable to what is probably, in most cases, a first offender. It just struck me as a kind of ridiculous thing that will get amended in committee review.”

The government tabled the 144-page bill on Thursday before the House of Commons rose for a two-week recess. The government also tabled a related bill, C-46, that updates impaired driving laws.

Conservative Senator Vern White, the former chief of police in Ottawa, said he’s not concerned by the 14-year maximum sentence. He said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence, judges will use their discretion.

“I’m fine with it because really it’s [for] an extreme case,” he said. “I think judges will take into account the age difference, whether or not they were friends, whether the buyer was a frequent buyer. All that kind of stuff is still going to be considered.”

Other offences currently in the Criminal Code that carry maximum 14-year sentences include producing child pornography, attempting to leave Canada to commit terrorism and aggravated assault of a peace officer.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5663
Reputation: 281.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I find most appalling about this is the dishonesty. This is not the way legal penalties should be arrived at.

It's true, the maximum penalties are not what judges impose, but they make the will of Parliament known. The signal to the judiciary will be that the public puts a high priority on keeping marijuana out of the reach of 'children'. They may impose heavier penalties as a result, and then the mysterious workings of the legal profession will come into play. The next thing you know the charge will be pleaded down to something more reasonable. Perhaps a new charge will be developed. Who knows?

Does anyone really believe that you can allow individuals to grow four plants while keeping out of the hands of the underaged? I think the politicians are doing this for appearances sake. And that's no way to make law.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5663
Reputation: 281.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This has to do with the opioid crisis, as measured by drug overdose deaths, which can be used as an index of the growth of the use of opioids. It's also from the USA, but the same pattern, perhaps a little less extreme, would likely take place in Canada. The time period is between 1990 and 2015.

Since 1990, the number of Americans who have died every year from drug overdoses has increased by more than 500 percent. In 2015, more Americans died from drug overdoses than from car accidents and gun homicides combined.

It’s the worst drug overdose epidemic in American history, spurred by rising drug abuse, increased availability of prescription opioids and an influx of potent synthetics like fentanyl and carfentanil.

“It’s horrifying,” said Dr. Dan Ciccarone, a heroin researcher and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s not even the magnitude — it’s the steepness at which it’s climbing.” Preliminary numbers for 2016 suggest that overdose deaths are growing at a rate comparable to the height of the H.I.V. epidemic.

The opioid epidemic has not fallen equally on all races or regions. Like an infectious disease, drug overdoses have emerged in clusters around the country.

Among those 15 to 44 — the age group in which drug overdose accounts for the greatest share of deaths — there are vast differences across racial categories and between urban and rural places. Despite the perception of the epidemic as primarily afflicting the rural working class, drug overdoses account for a greater percentage of deaths among the young in large cities and their suburbs, with urban and suburban whites most at risk.

Allowances have to be made for the different societies, but Canada usually has the same pattern in these things, at a lower level and perhaps lagging by a year or two. The main point to come away with is that the number of opioid deaths in Canada probably now exceeds that of traffic accidents, HIV-AIDS in its peak years, and gun deaths combined. Worse, it is rapidly increasing, and it tends to strike down young people who ought to have many years of their lives ahead of them.

And we are worrying about keeping marijuana out of the hands of the kids?

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8639
Reputation: 287.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trudeau’s pot law makes it open season on all drivers

Bonokoski 2016
By Mark Bonokoski, Postmedia Network
First posted: Monday, April 17, 2017 01:42 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, April 17, 2017 02:01 PM EDT

Irony, hypocrisy and cops. Nothing good can come from this trio when all three are put in play.

On Monday morning, for example, with no reference to his late father being the moving force behind it, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released a statement celebrating the 35th anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“I remind Canadians that we have no task greater than to stand on guard for another’s liberties,” said Trudeau.

“The words enshrined in the Charter are our rights, freedoms, and — above all — our collective responsibility.”

Too bad the irony of this has eluded him.

While his father Pierre famously proclaimed the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, his son now apparently sees no hypocrisy in allowing police to stick their noses into our vehicles and haul us out without the need for that invasion to be preceded by suspicious behaviour or suspected wrongdoing.

It’s a rights breaker that would have Pierre Trudeau rolling in his grave at the family plot in rural Saint-Remi-de-Napierville.

For hidden in the folds of the new Cannabis Act, tabled in the Commons last week to begin the process of legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, the Liberals bragged that the legislation would also include the toughest laws against impaired driving in the world.

In doing so, the new law, if adopted, would drop the requirement that police need reasonable suspicion that a driver has been drinking before demanding a breath sample.

This is unquestionably a violation of our constitutional right to be free from unwarranted searches and detainment.

A cop sticks head into your car, smells nothing, observes no glassy eyes, hears no slurred speech, and yet still demands you step out of your car to take a roadside breath test?

You complain, and then what? He’s now searching your vehicle, hauling stuff out of your trunk—all for being sober?

Oddly, however, the same legislation says “suspicion” is still needed to perform roadside tests for those suspected of driving with marijuana or any other drug in the system, no doubt to kowtow to millennial progressives, but that requirement is negated by the proposed hardline approach on alcohol where no suspicion is needed.

It covers off the coppers.

It means they can virtually stop you at any time, for no reason, and administer a roadside breath test, all which gives them ample time to ramp up suspicions about drug use if the breathalyzer doesn’t produce what they want.

Now, once upon a time, I believed you had nothing to fear from cops if you had done nothing wrong.

Spare me the wrath of the “thin, blue line,” but years in the news game have since taught me differently.

First, there is this thing called “quotas,” that supposedly do not exist, but do. Quotas for speeding tickets, quotas for arrests.

And then there are the younger cops of today, many who have to go to a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word “discretion.”

While you cannot judge a book by its cover, you can cops.

If you are pulled over by a cop with bulging biceps, his head shaved down to the nubs, wearing wraparound sunglasses, and with his hands protected by reinforced gloves that would be banned in mixed martial arts, you can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt you are not going to get a break.

You are screwed from the moment he says his first word.

If the Liberals' Cannabis Act is allowed to pass as it stands, it will become an open season on all drivers.

There are no two ways about it—for any or all of the reasons just stated.


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8639
Reputation: 287.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No plan for pot conviction amnesty amid legalization move: Liberals

Jim Bronskill — Canadian Press

Monday, April 17th, 2017

OTTAWA – The federal public safety minister says the plan to legalize recreational marijuana does not include a general amnesty for past pot convictions.

Ralph Goodale tells The Canadian Press not to expect a blanket pardon for people with records for possessing small amounts of the drug.

The C.D. Howe Institute, a prominent think-tank, has recommended the government consider pardoning people convicted of pot possession _ and drop any outstanding charges – to free up much-needed resources for legalization.

Goodale notes there is already a formal process to have a criminal record set aside.

Those convicted of simple possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana are eligible to apply for a pardon, now known as a record suspension, five years after their sentence is completed.

An internal Public Safety Canada briefing note, released last year under the Access to Information Act, said the issue of record suspensions would be “important to consider during the marijuana legalization discussions.”


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8639
Reputation: 287.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quebec Health Minister takes on Liberal MP on Twitter over pot costs

Barrette tweets Quebec should get more federal dollars because of pot legislation plan

Kyle Duggan

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

Quebec’s Health Minster Gaetan Barrette is once again throwing down with the federal Liberals on health system costs over Twitter – this time over the new cannabis legalization bill – and has managed to suck another MP into a social media exchange on federal transfer payments to Quebec.

It started over the weekend, when Barrette tweeted that the federal Liberals’ “political anthem” is “high visibility, low cost (to them)” – with the marijuana legalization legislation being just the latest example. He complained there would be no new money in the Canada Health Transfer – his ongoing political battle with the feds – to address issues...


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8639
Reputation: 287.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trudeau's marijuana plans may be deep in the weeds

iPolitics Insights

What happens to the border? How will provinces cope? Your guess is as good as any.

L. Ian MacDonald

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

All things considered, it would have been much easier for the Trudeau government to simply decriminalize marijuana. Easier, at least, than legalizing the stuff, as proposed in the legislation presented to the House last week.

The very timing of the legislation — surfacing on the last day of a sitting before a two-week spring break — speaks to the problematic nature of the issue.

Decriminalizing cannabis would have involved simply taking it out of the Criminal Code; Canadians would be able to consume it without risking a criminal record. Making it legal — as it has been for medical use since 2001 — will create a regulated industry with widespread ripple effects in marketing, distribution and enforcement, including the matter of impaired driving.

That’s just the tip of the regulatory iceberg. There will be serious implications for federal-provincial relations — the provinces and territories will be responsible for distribution and enforcement — to say nothing of how this might affect administration of the Canada-U.S. border. Canada wants a ‘smart’ border, not a slow one. While states such as Colorado have legalized marijuana, the federal government in Washington has not — and will not do so under the current Trump administration.

Canada does not need cannabis as an irritant in its relationship with Washington. This is why Ottawa is proposing up to 14 years in prison for “taking cannabis across international borders.” That should be an effective deterrent — provided users are aware of it.

How will we end up packaging and selling the weed? Well, the Retail Council of Canada is already consulting its members across the country, as well as the federal and provincial governments. The marijuana industry has become a major client for government relations firms in Ottawa and Toronto.

Ottawa will allow possession of up to 30 grams of dried or undried cannabis per adult, beginning at age 18 (or higher, if so determined by the province or territory in question). For home-grown weed, up to four plants would be permitted per residence, up to 100 cm in height. (How are the provinces and municipalities supposed to enforce that? By knocking on your door and asking how many marijuana plants you have in your house?)

As for marketing and labelling, Ottawa is proposing a plain packaging rule. There will be no Marlboro Man in Canada’s marijuana market. Prohibitions cover “packaging or labelling cannabis in a way that makes it appealing to youth.”

open quote 761b1bThere could be a significant windfall for both federal and provincial governments, but they also need to be careful not to overprice the product and drive customers back to the black market.

Will cannabis be available over the counter “from a licensed retailer,” as Ottawa proposes, or sold by provincial authorities such as liquor stores? In Ontario and Quebec, that would mean the LCBO and the SAQ — though they probably wouldn’t sell both alcohol and cannabis in the same stores. No marijuana aisles across from the Chardonnay shelf.

There obviously would be a 13 per cent HST charged on cannabis sold in Ontario, but the question is how much Ottawa and the provinces should impose in excise taxes. There could be a significant windfall for both federal and provincial governments, but they also need to be careful not to overprice the product and drive customers back to the black market and organized crime, as high taxes on tobacco have done.

The criminal element is the obvious target of the punitive measures, which would impose fines and jail terms of up to 14 years for “giving or selling” cannabis to youth under 18 years of age, or “production of cannabis beyond home cultivation.”

Then there’s the question of impaired driving under the influence of marijuana or other drugs. While they’re at it, the feds also want to give police the power to demand a breath sample to test for drunk driving without reasonable grounds for suspicion.

For marijuana or other drug use, the cops would be allowed to take “oral fluid samples” from persons suspected of driving “within two hours of having an illegal level of drugs in blood.” How will they determine the two-hour time lapse, and the “illegal level” of drug consumption? Or will the standard be more straightforward — no driving while stoned?

As for drunk driving, Ottawa’s proposal to drop the reasonable suspicion requirement is certain to face a constitutional challenge. It’s stated pretty clearly in Article 8 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

The impaired driving proposal for both drugs and drinking is certain to raise objections from visible minorities and Indigenous Canadians, who may feel they are being singled out by the cops.

As an Indigenous Canadian herself, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould must know this, but her comments last week described the bill as “one of the strongest impaired-driving pieces of legislation in the world.” As for the charter, she said the bill does not violate any constitutional rights. “Ensuring that we have safety on our roads and our highways,” she said, “is of paramount concern.”

Two Canadians in three favour marijuana legalization, including many young voters who moved to the Liberals in 2015 because of Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise to do so. In international terms, the Liberals are in a vanguard. “Canada moves boldly on marijuana,” ran an editorial page headline in Sunday’s New York Times.

As the Times editorial noted: “Should Mr. Trudeau’s bill pass, as expected, Canada would become only the second nation, after Uruguay, to completely legalize marijuana as a consumer product.”

Which isn’t to say getting there will be easy.

Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1075
Reputation: 115.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I cannot understand how these folks continue to think the electorate (at least those under 65) is this stupid.


Both illegal and prescription drugs were involved in 43 percent of deadly 2015 car crashes while about 37 percent involved alcohol. More than one-third of those who took drugs used marijuana, The Washington Post notes.

Good lord. Sponsored by an alcohol distiller study.

Next up , "Why Kids should eat candy daily" sponosred by Mars Food.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

they may be legalising it but how should it be restricted ?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB