[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Being opposed to commissions is not the same as "not caring". 

keep beating the drums, some of our friends are a little deaf on the issue.  However, I challenge them to tell me exactly how many of these commissions, provincial or federal provided any tangible results.

[viper37]

But I don't know, what have the states like Colorado done about this?

They spent money to study the phenomena:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27421987/marijuana-involved-12-percent-colorado-state-patrol-dui

It reports that 12% of DUI infractions are for pot users, but that's only the first year there are such stats, so it's impossible to say anything about it.

[viper37]

I hope the Canadian government follow through on legalising marijuana.  It seems quite obvious to me that the war on drugs has failed miserably.  People continue to have easy access to drugs, a significant portion of the population don't think it is a problem, criminal organisations continue to benefit from the ban on drugs, and huge amounts of resources have been wasted. 

It is time to try an alternative approach. 

the are are murder is pretty much a defeat too.  so is the war against rape.  so is the war against theft.
There are still murders, rape and thefts everyday in the world where it is illegal.
We even stopped prosecuting shoplifting because it was seen as too much a hassle and supposedly rehab would work better.  It only removed some crimes from the official stats, making for more positive crime stats to be presented by politicians talking about our peaceful country compared to the savages in the south

[Valmy]

I hope the Canadian government follow through on legalising marijuana.  It seems quite obvious to me that the war on drugs has failed miserably.  People continue to have easy access to drugs, a significant portion of the population don't think it is a problem, criminal organisations continue to benefit from the ban on drugs, and huge amounts of resources have been wasted. 

It is time to try an alternative approach. 

the are are murder is pretty much a defeat too.  so is the war against rape.  so is the war against theft.
There are still murders, rape and thefts everyday in the world where it is illegal.
We even stopped prosecuting shoplifting because it was seen as too much a hassle and supposedly rehab would work better.  It only removed some crimes from the official stats, making for more positive crime stats to be presented by politicians talking about our peaceful country compared to the savages in the south

Murder, rape, and theft have all been in decline for decades. A rather strange result for something that has triumphed and defeated law enforcement and has a significant part of the population thinking they are all ok. Oh wait none of those things are true for those crimes...so why are they comparable again?

[Malthus]

But I don't know, what have the states like Colorado done about this?

They spent money to study the phenomena:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27421987/marijuana-involved-12-percent-colorado-state-patrol-dui

It reports that 12% of DUI infractions are for pot users, but that's only the first year there are such stats, so it's impossible to say anything about it.

Yes, it appears to be a totally meaningless statistic. Particularly as it isn't clear how the cops determined pot was involved.

For one, only half of those were cited for pot only - the other half for pot and "other substances" (again, presumably, mostly booze, but it doesn;t say).

For 2014, The State Patrol reported that troopers issued 5,546 citations for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Of those, 674 — about 12.2 percent — involved suspected marijuana use, either alone or in combination with other intoxicants. For 354 of those citations — about 6.4 percent of the total, or one in every 16 — marijuana was believed to be the only substance involved.

For another, the story mentions "levels found in blood" - namely, that the blood level wasn't recorded. As is well known, residue of pot lingers in the blood for days - long after the "high" has vanished. So users who aren't high could easily be tagged for pot use, even though it cannot affect their driving at all. Moreover, it doesn't mention actual convictions.

The State Patrol did not provide statistics on the marijuana blood levels found in the cases or how often the citations led to convictions.

For yet another, the stats only record suspected DUI - which is a crime in and of itself - and not effect of pot on accident rates (which is the 'why' of why DUI with pot is bad). 

I guess my point is pretty simple: if pot was as bad for driving as drinking, we would know it, because it would be a major factor in accidents - like drinking is. There would be no question about it, because while the test to determine pot use requires recording levels in blood, that test would more naturally apply to people involved in serious accidents than people stopped at roadside DUI stops.

[Barrister]

YOu're incorrect Malthus.  While pot can linger in urine for days (because we can only detect the inactive metabolites), when testing blood they can test for the active ingredient (i.e. the one that makes you high).

I think your logic is faulty here.  Determining marijuana alcohol impairment is hard, so we can't determine to what extent it's involved in serious accidents.  You take that lack of evidence as proof that there isn't a problem.

The evidence does seem to show it's a problem, it's just hard to do so conclusively.

[Jacob]

One thing I find interesting - my FB feed is lighting up with "Trudeau announces [X]" and "Trudeau is going to do [Y]" where [X] and [Y] are pre-election promises and platform planks. However the FB poster is reacting as if they are post election policy announcements.

Basically, other than examining the date line of the article or through a close reading of the article (and who does that, right?) it looks like Trudeau is now taking all sorts of initiative and acting on all sorts of things right now.

I wonder how that is going to affect the perception of the government moving forward (and future governments as well), to have pre-election promises re-announced and/or understood as actual action immediately after the election.

[Barrister]

One thing I find interesting - my FB feed is lighting up with "Trudeau announces [X]" and "Trudeau is going to do [Y]" where [X] and [Y] are pre-election promises and platform planks. However the FB poster is reacting as if they are post election policy announcements.

Basically, other than examining the date line of the article or through a close reading of the article (and who does that, right?) it looks like Trudeau is now taking all sorts of initiative and acting on all sorts of things right now.

I wonder how that is going to affect the perception of the government moving forward (and future governments as well), to have pre-election promises re-announced and/or understood as actual action immediately after the election.

Yeah, I've seen a few of these as well.  Kind of annoying.

The machinery of government moves quite slowly.  While there are a handful of things he can do quickly, such as withdrawing CF-18s from the mid-east, most of what he wants to do requires either passing a budget, or passing legislation.  Both of which will have to wait until the new year.

[viper37]

Well I know what I think.

The problem is that the solutions I would prescribe (attempt to promote private industry on reserves, including private ownership of land and housing) would be resisted by the native leadership.  And according to native leadership, the problem is one of the federal government not giving them enough money.

This is the very short version - I could go on for pages but need to get some more work done.

I think that promoting private industry on reserves - including private ownership of land and housing - is pretty far removed on the chain of causality in some of these cases. I don't see, for example, how that would help with the Highway of Tears murders, or with the killings that are related to domestic violence (apparently a fair number).

Not is not.

these murders&disapearance as BB indicated, are a cause a poverty.  Poverty leads to dangerous life styles to survive.  Other social factors will also come into play, but by reducing poverty, it will have a net effect.

Right now, it's extremely difficult for indians to get out of poverty when they are born into it.  Think about how you start a business, most of the time.  You mortgage your house, use some of your capital and start/expand your business.  Can't do that if you indian and living on a reservation, the house is not yours, the land is not yours.  Want to renovate that house? Well, it's not yours, so why bother, and where to find the cash anyway?  Want to get out of the reservation?  Well, you lose a bunch of priviledges that made poverty easier to live with, making it near impossible to succeed at first, plus, there are the social factors, how you were raised and how people will perceive you.

If we want to solve the indian problem in this country, private ownership of the land and of their houses will have to be on the table, otherwise whatever we do is doomed to fail.

[viper37]

Murder, rape, and theft have all been in decline for decades.

Depends where you look

A rather strange result for something that has triumphed and defeated law enforcement and has a significant part of the population thinking they are all ok. Oh wait none of those things are true for those crimes...so why are they comparable again?

They are crimes and they still exist.  If you want to base your argumentation on "oh, it's a failure, we still have this", than all crime fighting is a failure.

[Valmy]

They are crimes and they still exist.  If you want to base your argumentation on "oh, it's a failure, we still have this", than all crime fighting is a failure.

That is not the argument. The problem with pot, and why alcohol prohibition failed so miserably in my country, is the social acceptance of its use. That means the primary impact of it being illegal is allowing the black market to thrive and enrich criminals. It is hard to imagine people being in favor of being murdered, raped, or stolen from so I don't think those crimes map onto prohibition laws very well. Gambling would be a better example.

[Malthus]

YOu're incorrect Malthus.  While pot can linger in urine for days (because we can only detect the inactive metabolites), when testing blood they can test for the active ingredient (i.e. the one that makes you high).

My point, though, is that in this article they expressly claim that blood levels were not mentioned - nor were convictions. So there is absolutely no way of knowing from the article what the "12%" figure represents (other than the fact that they *do* state that half of that percentage concerns multiple substances). 

I think your logic is faulty here.  Determining marijuana alcohol impairment is hard, so we can't determine to what extent it's involved in serious accidents.  You take that lack of evidence as proof that there isn't a problem.

There is currently no evidence that it is a significant problem. The onus, typically, is on the person asserting the existence of a problem to demonstrate it, and its significance. Easy to prove alcohol impairment in driving is a significant problem - but despite years of trying, no-one has succeeded in doing so with pot. The reason, apparently, is that the drugs impact humans in different ways, pot impairment simply doesn't have the same impact on driving as alcohol imparment at an equivalent level. This isn't my conclusion BTW - it is the conclusion of folks who actually study the question.

Note that isn't to say that pot impairment and driving is a good idea - just that it isn't a problem of the same, or even roughly the same, significance as alcohol impairment, and so the fact that it can't be treated the same is a really unconvincing reason to oppose legalization.

The evidence does seem to show it's a problem, it's just hard to do so conclusively.

This "evidence", as stated in the above-noted article, is worthless for proving anything, for the reasons I outlined. it is a meaningless statistic.

Have you reviewed the Canadian evidence I posted from the Senate report? They surveyed the scientific evidence in some detail on this exact point (effect of pot on driving). See their conclusions on the matter. Do you agree or disagree with their conclusions, and on what basis? 

[PRC]

Canada's newest Prime Minister... and a member of the rebel alliance!

[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.

[Barrister]

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

Here's the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse:

Effects of Cannabis on Driving
Performance
Studies have assessed the nature and extent of the effects
of cannabis on a wide variety of cognitive and motor tasks
(e.g., Ashton, 2001; Berghaus & Guo, 1995; Hartman &
Huestis, 2013; Ramaekers, Robbe, & O'Hanlon, 2000).
Performance deficits have been found in tracking, reaction
time, visual function, concentration, short-term memory,
and divided attention. Studies of driving performance (both
simulated and on-road) show increased variability in lateral
position in the lane, following distance, and speed as a
function of cannabis use. Cannabis also impairs performance
on divided attention tasks — those tasks that require the
ability to monitor and respond to more than one source
of information at a time. Cannabis also compromised the
ability to handle unexpected events, such as a pedestrian
darting out on the roadway. Combining cannabis with even
small amounts of alcohol greatly increased the negative
effects on driving skills (Downey, et al., 2013; Ramaekers,
et al., 2000).
Among the effects of cannabis reported across various
studies, a common finding is increased variability in
performance. Although some of this variability can be
attributed to differences in study design (e.g., cannabis
dose, sensitivity of the task or equipment, time after
smoking) (Hartman & Huestis, 2013), there also appears
to be considerable variability among individuals. Whereas
some people may show substantial impairment after
relatively small amounts of cannabis, others show only
moderate effects after the same dose. These differences
may be related to task skill, prior experience with cannabis,
and the usual dose and frequency of cannabis use. These
differences make it somewhat difficult to predict the extent
to which a given amount of cannabis will have an impact on
a particular individual.
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.

The Risk of Collision after Using
Cannabis
Several studies have examined the risk of crash involvement
associated with cannabis use by comparing the extent to
which drivers who have used cannabis are overrepresented
in collisions compared to drivers who have not used
cannabis. Although some studies report no significant
3
Clearing the Smoke on Cannabis: Cannabis Use and Driving
increase in collision risk, recent research shows increased
crash risk beginning at very low levels of cannabis and
that the risk escalates with dose (Drummer et al., 2004;
Laumon, Gadegbeku, Martin, Biecheler, & the SAM
Group, 2005; Mura, et al. 2003). A recent meta-analysis
of studies concluded that cannabis doubled the risk of
crash involvement (Asbridge, Hayden, & Cartwright 2012).
It should also be noted that the research demonstrates
that drivers who have been using cannabis in combination
with alcohol are at significantly greater risk of collision
(Brault, 2004; Drummer et al., 2004; Longo, Hunter, Lokan,
White, & White, 2000; Williams, Peat, Crouch, Wells, &
Finkle, 1985).
Identifying Drivers Impaired by Cannabis
The detection and assessment of cannabis use among
drivers are considerably more complex than for alcohol.
Whereas most people are familiar with the usual signs and
symptoms of alcohol use (e.g., odour of alcohol, bloodshot
eyes, slurred speech, motor incoordination), the same is
not true for cannabis. However, drivers who have been
using cannabis often display one or more telltale signs
of use. These can include a distinct odour of marijuana
in the vehicle, dilated pupils, lapses of attention and
concentration, and reddened conjunctiva (the white part of
the eye). These signs are often sufficient for police officers
to form a reasonable suspicion of drug use, which allows
them to proceed with a demand for the driver to perform
the three tests of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test
(SFST)—that is, horizontal gaze nystagmus, one leg stand,
and walk and turn.
Drivers who demonstrate impaired performance on these
tests are required to accompany the officer to the station for
evaluation by an officer trained in the Drug Evaluation and
Classification (DEC) program. The DEC procedure involves
a series of tests of coordination and divided attention,
eye examinations, measures of blood pressure and
temperature, observations of the suspect, and an interview.
The purpose of the procedure is to provide the officer with
the necessary evidence to determine whether or not the
suspect is impaired, whether the observed impairment is
due to drugs, and which category or categories of drugs
are most likely responsible for the observed impairment.
Trained officers are able to identify the class of drugs
responsible for the impairment with an accuracy rate of
95% (Beirness, Beasley, & LeCavalier, 2009).
Since it was first introduced over 30 years ago, the DEC
program has grown substantially and is currently being
used in all 50 U.S. states. The DEC program was first
implemented in Canada in 1995. In 2008, new legislation
made it mandatory for drivers suspected of drug use to
participate in a drug evaluation, thereby providing the police
with the tools required to aid in the detection and arrest
of drivers whose ability to operate a vehicle is impaired
by cannabis.
Cannabis has a unique DEC profile that includes poor
coordination and balance, reduced ability to divide
attention, elevated pulse and blood pressure, dilated pupils,
inability to cross one's eyes, reddening of the conjunctiva,
and eyelid or body tremors. The evaluation concludes with
a demand for a sample of bodily fluid (blood, oral fluid or
urine) to be sent to a toxicology lab for analysis. The results
of the DEC evaluation, when combined with the findings
from the toxicological analysis of the sample, are sufficient
to proceed with impaired driving charges.

http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Use-and-Driving-Report-2015-en.pdf
(I've quoted a significant portion of the article, but the entire thing is worth a read.  It's not long)


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.

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.