[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I see Trudeau is once again floating the legalization and taxation of pot.  According to Grallon he is also a "miltikulti"

Worth a second look?  If it was anyone else than him I would say certainly yes - worth a second look.  I just cant get over my first negative impression of him.

Best case for Trudeau (re: you) is that he slowly and painfully digs himself out of the first impression hole by not fucking up and occasionally even doing better than that, combined with post-Harper Conservatives (whenever that is) who act like a shower of idiots (much like the post-Chretien Liberals self destructed)?

Pretty much.

I like what Harper is doing.  I am not sure I will have the same confidence in any of the people who might take over when he steps down.  I hope that isnt for another election cycle or two.  By that time either the Liberals will have a decent leader (they had some good contenders last time around) or Trudeau will have matured.

[Jacob]

I've pretty much made my peace with Harper. There are (and of course will be) bits that rub me the wrong way or that I'll disagree with and I'll certainly complain about those; but on the balance his governments have been solid and competent, and have not strayed too far from the Canadian consensus.

[crazy canuck]

I like the idea of going back to the old wording for your national anthem.  I am a bit surprised the the NDP have come out opposed to the idea.  Seems this is an idea that they should be quick to support.

[Grey Fox]

I'm ok with it, especially since the french version is still unaltered.

[crazy canuck]

And now the Feds are going to restrict the few times doctors prescribe herion as part treatment for addiction when all other forms of treatment has failed.

The governments position - we want to help people stop using drugs.

The best response I have heard thus far - telling an addict for whom all other treatment has failed that they simply need to stop using heroin is like telling an overweight diabetic patient that they are not going to recieve any more insulin shots because they just need to lose weight.

I am wondering who the Conservatives think they are appealing to with this kind of move.  BB and I have our philosophic differences over the legalization question.  But it strikes me that the medical use issue is signficantly different as it involves the judgment of a doctor.

[Malthus]

I'm ok with it, especially since the french version is still unaltered.

Yeah, all that stuff about upholding the cross. 

[Grey Fox]

We're assholes like that.

[viper37]

And now the Feds are going to restrict the few times doctors prescribe herion as part treatment for addiction when all other forms of treatment has failed.

The governments position - we want to help people stop using drugs.

The best response I have heard thus far - telling an addict for whom all other treatment has failed that they simply need to stop using heroin is like telling an overweight diabetic patient that they are not going to recieve any more insulin shots because they just need to lose weight.

I am wondering who the Conservatives think they are appealing to with this kind of move.  BB and I have our philosophic differences over the legalization question.  But it strikes me that the medical use issue is signficantly different as it involves the judgment of a doctor.

well, if that's the case, it sure is stupid.  There's a big difference between free drugs to injection sites and medically supervised injections.

[Barrister]

And now the Feds are going to restrict the few times doctors prescribe herion as part treatment for addiction when all other forms of treatment has failed.

The governments position - we want to help people stop using drugs.

The best response I have heard thus far - telling an addict for whom all other treatment has failed that they simply need to stop using heroin is like telling an overweight diabetic patient that they are not going to recieve any more insulin shots because they just need to lose weight.

I am wondering who the Conservatives think they are appealing to with this kind of move.  BB and I have our philosophic differences over the legalization question.  But it strikes me that the medical use issue is signficantly different as it involves the judgment of a doctor.

I had to hunt to find the article.  I was getting myself all ready to argue with you CC, but the exemption they were seeking was exceedingly limited, so I think it was short-sighted to deny it.

[Malthus]

Apparently, Parizeau of all people came out swinging against the Quebec gov't's modest proposal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-charter-goes-too-far-says-former-quebec-premier-parizeau/article14674313/

The guy infamous for blaming "ethnics and the money vote" now says the current Quebec Charter "goes too far", is "frightening" immigrants, and allows federalists to pose as the "real defender" of minorities. 

[Malthus]

And now the Feds are going to restrict the few times doctors prescribe herion as part treatment for addiction when all other forms of treatment has failed.

The governments position - we want to help people stop using drugs.

The best response I have heard thus far - telling an addict for whom all other treatment has failed that they simply need to stop using heroin is like telling an overweight diabetic patient that they are not going to recieve any more insulin shots because they just need to lose weight.

I am wondering who the Conservatives think they are appealing to with this kind of move.  BB and I have our philosophic differences over the legalization question.  But it strikes me that the medical use issue is signficantly different as it involves the judgment of a doctor.

I had to hunt to find the article.  I was getting myself all ready to argue with you CC, but the exemption they were seeking was exceedingly limited, so I think it was short-sighted to deny it.

To provide some background: there was never any "loophole". That is a pure bullshit way for the gov't to characterize the situation.

Way it worked, is that there exists something known as the "Special Drugs Program". What this does is to allow physicians to apply to Health Canada for permission to have a manufacturer import or sell a drug that has not been licenced in Canada. If permission is granted, you get from Health Canada what amounts to a limited licence to import or sell a drug - any drug so identified and specifically approved - to a specified patient for a specified condition.

It all runs on official permission. 

[Barrister]

Apparently, Parizeau of all people came out swinging against the Quebec gov't's modest proposal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-charter-goes-too-far-says-former-quebec-premier-parizeau/article14674313/

The guy infamous for blaming "ethnics and the money vote" now says the current Quebec Charter "goes too far", is "frightening" immigrants, and allows federalists to pose as the "real defender" of minorities.

Several Quebec politicians are speaking out against the Charter - but still support a partial ban.  They want to ban religious clothing on anyone who is in a 'position of authority'.  Bouchard came out saying something similar.  Not sure if Parizeau is in this camp, or rejects the idea of any ban entirely.

[crazy canuck]

To provide some background: there was never any "loophole". That is a pure bullshit way for the gov't to characterize the situation.

Way it worked, is that there exists something known as the "Special Drugs Program". What this does is to allow physicians to apply to Health Canada for permission to have a manufacturer import or sell a drug that has not been licenced in Canada. If permission is granted, you get from Health Canada what amounts to a limited licence to import or sell a drug - any drug so identified and specifically approved - to a specified patient for a specified condition.

It all runs on official permission.

Yeah, that is sort of what I thought happened.  This government is working very hard to lose my vote.

[Malthus]

Here's an amusing blog about Ignatieff and his new book.

http://www.rickjonescomedy.com/1/post/2013/10/fire-and-ashes-and-cluelessness.html

[viper37]

Several Quebec politicians are speaking out against the Charter - but still support a partial ban.  They want to ban religious clothing on anyone who is in a 'position of authority'.  Bouchard came out saying something similar.  Not sure if Parizeau is in this camp, or rejects the idea of any ban entirely.

Bouchard:

Le compromis est assez simple, dit Lucien Bouchard: «Les signes religieux seraient interdits uniquement pour ceux qui exercent des fonctions coercitives de l'État: juges, procureurs, gardiens de prison, policiers; les services de l'État seraient donnés et reçus à visage découvert; les textes réaffirmeraient la laïcité de l'État, la neutralité religieuse, l'égalité hommes-femmes et les règles de sagesse déjà exprimées par les tribunaux.

Compromise is simple: Religious symbols would be forbiddent only to those who exercice the cohercitive functions of the state: judges, prosecutors, prison gaurds, police officers; state's services would be given and received with open face; the texts would reaffirm the laicity of the State, religious neutrality, equality between men and women and the wisdom rules already express by tribunals

I see nothing wrong with that position.  Not that PQ has any interest in seeing the charter adopted, mind you.  They want to:
a) create conflicts with Canada so that every seperatist and nationalist will rally behind them (besieged mentality)
b) get the 4-5% in a few select ridings in the 450 area (meaning Montreal subburbs, outside of the island) they need to form a majority government.

They believe the charter will allow them to that.  Option Nationale has lost its leader, so they believe (and most likely, they are right to do so) that the vote won't be divided between 2-3 seperatists party at the next election.  They also believe that no one who's already voting PQ will stop voting PQ because of the Charter.  Third, they think there are just enough xenophobes in theoritically takeable ridings to get them the majority they need.

It's also a convenient way of dividing media&public attention as no one really talks about the sad state of our economy anymore.