Arguably the more dangerous that a drug is, the more imperative it is for said drug to be legalized and regulated. Existing Canadian policy is predicated on the idea that if you already experimented with heroin supplied by the black market, and a bureaucrat has deemed you an addict, you should get free supply. The problems with this policy is that (a) you do not need to be an addict in order to overdose on a drug, (b) a bureaucrat can fail to properly designate you as an addict, and (c) free supply creates its own perverse incentives, such as supply diversion.
If we had a regulated market and we gave designated addicts money with which to potentially buy supply, without giving supply per se, we would solve most of the above problems.
Melissa Lantzman may have been dubious to call you a "radical drug advocate", but now you do know one. :)
Cannabis is one of the lesser known Cancer treatments. Edibles as well as CBD drops have been known to help with chronic pain and illness. When tested in animals dying of deadly illness the animals were revived and lived longer than those who did not recieve cannabis treatment. People who are not ill might not need medicine. Cannabis might not be for everyone. My real concern is the use of pesticides on cannabis especially medical cannabis.
I stopped reading at Lesson #1: Conservatives are consistently wrong about drug policy.
Why even go there? The topic is an interesting one - the end of prohibition on pot and what happened afterwards. But lesson #1 serves no purpose in that discussion, other than as a sound byte Nate came up with as part of his pursuit to be a leader of a party.
Political parties adopt positions that, above all else, will get them votes. At the time, surveys told us that two-thirds of voters didn't want to legalize it. The position of the Conservative party was the quiet path, nothing more.
The Liberal Party (both fed and provinces) follow the path of least resistance themselves. In the most recent federal election, the Liberals ran far and fast to wash their hands of the universally unpopular carbon tax. Did they suddenly rethink the effectiveness of a carbon tax or was it the typical knee-jerk positioning to gain power? Nate signed up for that switcheroo despite passionate speeches to chastize the Conservatives for their opposition to it.
And how about Doug Ford decision to end the nonsense that was Brewer's Retail. He didn't expect the sky would fall if Ontarions could buy a beer from the corner store. Execution aside, he was right and the previous Liberal governments didn't get right.
Let's keep the theme of 'Uncommons' intact. Talk about interesting issues without being so partisan.
I have a problem with 'green mantra ' because it is made from recycled plastic and therefore 'poison' (it's a carcinogenic substance) and it is produced and sold and consumed. This can't be true 😞
Thank you for your leadership on this, including for your work in limiting cannabis advertising. You mentioned the very different Ford Govt approach… do you think that gambling ads should be more limited, or even banned?
I remember there has been concern about street drugs being cut with worse drugs (for instance, marijuana that contains traces of crystal meth, or heroin that contains traces of fentanyl) that resulted in severe reactions, up to and including death, in users taking their typical dose but not knowing it contained another substance. I wonder to what extent legalisation of marijuana has reduced cases of this, and whether this might inform policy concerning drugs like heroin, especially in our efforts to combat the scourge of fentanyl.
A back-bencher who had no influence on cannabis legalization policy in Ottawa *whatsoever* pretends he had a seat at the table. OK.
Arguably the more dangerous that a drug is, the more imperative it is for said drug to be legalized and regulated. Existing Canadian policy is predicated on the idea that if you already experimented with heroin supplied by the black market, and a bureaucrat has deemed you an addict, you should get free supply. The problems with this policy is that (a) you do not need to be an addict in order to overdose on a drug, (b) a bureaucrat can fail to properly designate you as an addict, and (c) free supply creates its own perverse incentives, such as supply diversion.
If we had a regulated market and we gave designated addicts money with which to potentially buy supply, without giving supply per se, we would solve most of the above problems.
Melissa Lantzman may have been dubious to call you a "radical drug advocate", but now you do know one. :)
Cannabis is one of the lesser known Cancer treatments. Edibles as well as CBD drops have been known to help with chronic pain and illness. When tested in animals dying of deadly illness the animals were revived and lived longer than those who did not recieve cannabis treatment. People who are not ill might not need medicine. Cannabis might not be for everyone. My real concern is the use of pesticides on cannabis especially medical cannabis.
I stopped reading at Lesson #1: Conservatives are consistently wrong about drug policy.
Why even go there? The topic is an interesting one - the end of prohibition on pot and what happened afterwards. But lesson #1 serves no purpose in that discussion, other than as a sound byte Nate came up with as part of his pursuit to be a leader of a party.
Political parties adopt positions that, above all else, will get them votes. At the time, surveys told us that two-thirds of voters didn't want to legalize it. The position of the Conservative party was the quiet path, nothing more.
The Liberal Party (both fed and provinces) follow the path of least resistance themselves. In the most recent federal election, the Liberals ran far and fast to wash their hands of the universally unpopular carbon tax. Did they suddenly rethink the effectiveness of a carbon tax or was it the typical knee-jerk positioning to gain power? Nate signed up for that switcheroo despite passionate speeches to chastize the Conservatives for their opposition to it.
And how about Doug Ford decision to end the nonsense that was Brewer's Retail. He didn't expect the sky would fall if Ontarions could buy a beer from the corner store. Execution aside, he was right and the previous Liberal governments didn't get right.
Let's keep the theme of 'Uncommons' intact. Talk about interesting issues without being so partisan.
I have a problem with 'green mantra ' because it is made from recycled plastic and therefore 'poison' (it's a carcinogenic substance) and it is produced and sold and consumed. This can't be true 😞
Thank you for your leadership on this, including for your work in limiting cannabis advertising. You mentioned the very different Ford Govt approach… do you think that gambling ads should be more limited, or even banned?
I remember there has been concern about street drugs being cut with worse drugs (for instance, marijuana that contains traces of crystal meth, or heroin that contains traces of fentanyl) that resulted in severe reactions, up to and including death, in users taking their typical dose but not knowing it contained another substance. I wonder to what extent legalisation of marijuana has reduced cases of this, and whether this might inform policy concerning drugs like heroin, especially in our efforts to combat the scourge of fentanyl.
Your articles are so informative and thoughtful. Always. Thank you