[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Malthus, in your own post you comment on how the Senate is hardly a very authoritative source on, well, anything.

The Senate is generally useless as an institution - but that doesn't automatically discount what they write. 

Here's the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse:

The "Centre on Substance Abuse" has a trifle of an axe to grind ... namely, the assumtion that drug use is an evil to be combatted. From their website:

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse changes lives by bringing people and knowledge together to reduce the harm of alcohol and other drugs on society .

I would not trust them to be wholly objective on this topic any more than I would trust NORML.

However, be that as it may, look at what you quoted:

Although the weight of evidence clearly reveals significant
psychomotor impairment as a result of cannabis use, it has
been suggested that experienced users may be aware of
their state of intoxication and impairment and attempt to
compensate for it by employing behavioural strategies such
as slowing down, increasing headway, and reducing risktaking
behaviours (Smiley, 1986). These tactics, however,
may not be sufficient to compensate for all the impairing
effects of cannabis—especially unexpected events and
higher-order cognitive functions such as divided attention
tasks and decision making. Attempts to compensate may
be at the expense of vehicle control—e.g., speed control,
lane position variability, reaction time—reflecting deficits in
the ability to allocate attention. In summary, the research
evidence leaves little doubt that cannabis has detrimental
effects on driving performance, particularly when used in
combination with other substances, most notably alcohol.

Note that this is pure argument by speculation. They mention the same issue that the Senate report mentions, only to discount it--with absolutely no evidence. The relevant sentences: "These tactics, however, may not be sufficient to compensate for all the impairing effects of cannabis—especially unexpected events and higher-order cognitive functions such as divided attention
tasks and decision making. Attempts to compensate maybe at the expense of vehicle control—e.g., speed control, lane position variability, reaction time—reflecting deficits in the ability to allocate attention."

Note the repeated "may". They do not even claim to know whether this is actually true. They certainly cite no actual evidence, other than pure assertion. 

Then look at their conclusions (which you bolded): "In summary, the research evidence leaves little doubt that cannabis has detrimental effects on driving performance, particularly when used in
combination with other substances, most notably alcohol."

Totally uncontroversial - no doubt use of pot has "detrimental effects" on driving performace (and absolutely no doubt it does when combined with booze, as booze, we all agree, is a problem). However, this in no way states how significant this "detrimental effect" is.

The Senate report found the same - namely, that pot has some "detrimental effect". However, that isn't the issue. Lots of things have a "detrimental effect" on driving. The issue is whether that "detriment" is sufficient to require outlawing the substance altogether because someone may, potentially, drive while high.

Point here is that the amount pot is bad for driving is very controversial indeed - as your own source states - and all they have to counter the arguments in opposition is that the effects claimed by others "may" not operate as claimed.

It also gives evidence that 2.6% of respondents admitted to driving within 2 hours of consuming marijuana in the last 12 months (compared to 8.4% for alcohol), and that in a survey of drivers seriously injured in automobile accidents, 13.9% tested positive for cannabis.

Again, meaningless. One needs to know a bunch of other things before such statistics indicate causation.

You know I hate to argue from authority so I try to back up with links, but I have practiced in this area for years now.  You are the first person who has ever suggested that smoking up before driving is not a concern.  On the other hand I've heard plenty of even expert witnesses say it is.  Parliament has certainly recognized it is.

I never said smoking up while driving was not a concern. I said smoking up while driving is not as significant a concern as drinking while driving (to the same level of use). A very different thing.

I agree smoking while high is risky, stupid, and ought to be illegal. However, actually objectively examining the evidence, I cannot agree that the problem rises to the same level of significance as alcohol use, and the distorted, speculative, and plain incorrect reasoning of those with a vested interest in the status quo isn't convincing me that the problem rises to that level of significance. 

[crazy canuck]

I don't know why I find pictures of Justin Trudeau so hilarious. He just seems to love mugging for the camera and doing goofy things so much. Like he is a five year old trapped in a grown man's body.

I bet he loves to stare at himself in the mirror and make funny faces.

Ironically I find it very reassuring.  The main point he made in yesterday's press conference is that he is going to let the ministers he appoints be decision makers in their various portfolios.  He is essentially going to be the front man and let the very good talent he has behind him do the hard lifting. One important thing we learned about him during the election is that he follows the advice given to him very well and he has bright people advising him.

[viper37]

Note that this is pure argument by speculation. They mention the same issue that the Senate report mentions, only to discount it--with absolutely no evidence. The relevant sentences: "These tactics, however, may not be sufficient to compensate for all the impairing effects of cannabis—especially unexpected events and higher-order cognitive functions such as divided attention
tasks and decision making. Attempts to compensate maybe at the expense of vehicle control—e.g., speed control, lane position variability, reaction time—reflecting deficits in the ability to allocate attention."

oh, come on!

Can you imagine a drunk driver coming to the judge and saying shit like this? 
-"Your honor, I knew I was drunk, I have a lot of experience in getting drunk.  I took every precautions I could: I drove 10km/h below the speed limit, I used a road no one ever uses to get to my home, it took me 30 minutes more than usual. Yet, I know, I hit someone, and I am very sorry for it.  But it's its own damn fault for being in the middle of nowhere at 4:00am!"
- Prosecutor: "Sir, it was 10 in the morning and you were in a school zone.  With a school bus."

I'm guessing that man would be sent to jail, and he should.  Why would that be different for a stoner?  the argument you are using here is the same as I've heard many drunk drivers use: "I'm not dangerous!  I am an experienced driver, unlike all those kids!  I know what I'm doing, and I'm driving slowly to be extra careful."  And yet, these are the people that end up causing accidents.

[viper37]

One important thing we learned about him during the election is that he follows the advice given to him very well and he has bright people advising him.

if that is the case, than I'd like to vote for his advisors, not him.

[Jacob]

Ironically I find it very reassuring.  The main point he made in yesterday's press conference is that he is going to let the ministers he appoints be decision makers in their various portfolios.  He is essentially going to be the front man and let the very good talent he has behind him do the hard lifting. One important thing we learned about him during the election is that he follows the advice given to him very well and he has bright people advising him.

Yeah, if it plays out like that I'll be pretty pleased.

[Jacob]

One important thing we learned about him during the election is that he follows the advice given to him very well and he has bright people advising him.

if that is the case, than I'd like to vote for his advisors, not him.

You did. They are his MPs.

[Valmy]

I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate viper did not vote for any Liberal MPs.

[Malthus]

oh, come on!

Can you imagine a drunk driver coming to the judge and saying shit like this? 
-"Your honor, I knew I was drunk, I have a lot of experience in getting drunk.  I took every precautions I could: I drove 10km/h below the speed limit, I used a road no one ever uses to get to my home, it took me 30 minutes more than usual. Yet, I know, I hit someone, and I am very sorry for it.  But it's its own damn fault for being in the middle of nowhere at 4:00am!"
- Prosecutor: "Sir, it was 10 in the morning and you were in a school zone.  With a school bus."

I'm guessing that man would be sent to jail, and he should.  Why would that be different for a stoner?  the argument you are using here is the same as I've heard many drunk drivers use: "I'm not dangerous!  I am an experienced driver, unlike all those kids!  I know what I'm doing, and I'm driving slowly to be extra careful."  And yet, these are the people that end up causing accidents.

Uh, no. I see you did not actually read my post. 

If you had, you may have read this (to quote, well, myself):

I agree smoking while high is risky, stupid, and ought to be illegal. However, actually objectively examining the evidence, I cannot agree that the problem rises to the same level of significance as alcohol use, and the distorted, speculative, and plain incorrect reasoning of those with a vested interest in the status quo isn't convincing me that the problem rises to that level of significance.

[Jacob]

I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate viper did not vote for any Liberal MPs.

Yeah, but he had as much opportunity to vote for Trudeau's advisors as he did for Trudeau himself, so his false dichotomy is just that - false.

[crazy canuck]

I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate viper did not vote for any Liberal MPs.

Yeah, but he had as much opportunity to vote for Trudeau's advisors as he did for Trudeau himself, so his false dichotomy is just that - false.

[Malthus]

I don't know why I find pictures of Justin Trudeau so hilarious. He just seems to love mugging for the camera and doing goofy things so much. Like he is a five year old trapped in a grown man's body.

I bet he loves to stare at himself in the mirror and make funny faces.

Ironically I find it very reassuring.  The main point he made in yesterday's press conference is that he is going to let the ministers he appoints be decision makers in their various portfolios.  He is essentially going to be the front man and let the very good talent he has behind him do the hard lifting. One important thing we learned about him during the election is that he follows the advice given to him very well and he has bright people advising him.

No surpise - he's said all allong he'll be more "collegial" in style (in sharp contrast to Harper's "dictatorial" ways).

We will eventually see if "collegial" ends up meaning "indecisive empty suit ruled by the party machine and unable to make any hard decisions", or "wisely allowing shared responsibility to bring a multiplicity of human talents to bear on manifold issues".  Right now we are in the honeymoon phase, so Trudeau can do little wrong ... for, say, six months. Or such shorter period as the next big chrisis dictates. 

[Barrister]

I agree smoking while high is risky, stupid, and ought to be illegal. However, actually objectively examining the evidence, I cannot agree that the problem rises to the same level of significance as alcohol use, and the distorted, speculative, and plain incorrect reasoning of those with a vested interest in the status quo isn't convincing me that the problem rises to that level of significance.

Maybe we're talking past each other then.

I'm assuming Trudeau is going to follow through on his comments to legalize pot (though I have faint hope grown-ups will convince him otherwise).

In doing so though I hope that lots of thought is given as to how to safely do so.  I've focused a lot on pot and driving because it's the area I know best, but there are a lot of potential complications.  When it comes to driving, I hope they also bring in new provisions to make it easier to prosecute people driving while under the influence of pot.

What I'm afraid of is that they simply delete marijuana from the CDSA and call it a day, not having worked through any of the implications of legallizing pot.

[Valmy]

I don't know why I find pictures of Justin Trudeau so hilarious. He just seems to love mugging for the camera and doing goofy things so much. Like he is a five year old trapped in a grown man's body.

I bet he loves to stare at himself in the mirror and make funny faces.

Ironically I find it very reassuring.  The main point he made in yesterday's press conference is that he is going to let the ministers he appoints be decision makers in their various portfolios.  He is essentially going to be the front man and let the very good talent he has behind him do the hard lifting. One important thing we learned about him during the election is that he follows the advice given to him very well and he has bright people advising him.

No surpise - he's said all allong he'll be more "collegial" in style (in sharp contrast to Harper's "dictatorial" ways).

We will eventually see if "collegial" ends up meaning "indecisive empty suit ruled by the party machine and unable to make any hard decisions", or "wisely allowing shared responsibility to bring a multiplicity of human talents to bear on manifold issues".  Right now we are in the honeymoon phase, so Trudeau can do little wrong ... for, say, six months. Or such shorter period as the next big chrisis dictates. 

I just look forward to him playing one-on-one Basketball with Obama or something goofy like that. He seems the type.

[viper37]

You did. They are his MPs.

The guys who wrote the program work for Power Corp.  Last I checked, they weren't on the ballot.
I like politicians with brains, not pretty boys (or girls) easily manipulated.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know why I find pictures of Justin Trudeau so hilarious. He just seems to love mugging for the camera and doing goofy things so much. Like he is a five year old trapped in a grown man's body.

I bet he loves to stare at himself in the mirror and make funny faces.

Ironically I find it very reassuring.  The main point he made in yesterday's press conference is that he is going to let the ministers he appoints be decision makers in their various portfolios.  He is essentially going to be the front man and let the very good talent he has behind him do the hard lifting. One important thing we learned about him during the election is that he follows the advice given to him very well and he has bright people advising him.

No surpise - he's said all allong he'll be more "collegial" in style (in sharp contrast to Harper's "dictatorial" ways).

We will eventually see if "collegial" ends up meaning "indecisive empty suit ruled by the party machine and unable to make any hard decisions", or "wisely allowing shared responsibility to bring a multiplicity of human talents to bear on manifold issues".  Right now we are in the honeymoon phase, so Trudeau can do little wrong ... for, say, six months. Or such shorter period as the next big chrisis dictates.

Certainly he is in a honeymoon phase.  But most of his path is already set out for the next bit.  He will introduce the new taxation bill as his first order of business, then its just a matter of going to international conferences and looking all Prime Ministerial while his ministers set about to the hard work of implementing all the election promises.  That part is going to be relatively easy.  The big test is going to be when some external event that is unforeseen happens.  But Trudeau will simply fall back on his ministerial talent cabinet.  He doesn't come across as thinking that he is the brains of the operation. Which is actually the smartest position for him to take.  So he isn't exactly dumb either.