[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Yeah, but the point is you still need to co-ordinate with 13 separate jurisdictions to make sure they do regulate it in some meaningful fashion, and to make sure those regulations are in place by the time of legalization.

That doesn't sound insurmountable to me. I'd expect there'd be plenty of precedent and institutional infrastructure for managing this sort of thing.

[Barrister]

Yeah, but the point is you still need to co-ordinate with 13 separate jurisdictions to make sure they do regulate it in some meaningful fashion, and to make sure those regulations are in place by the time of legalization.

That doesn't sound insurmountable to me. I'd expect there'd be plenty of precedent and institutional infrastructure for managing this sort of thing.

Nothing here is insurmountable*.  But it is fucking hard to do.



*Well, the testing for impaired driving might be.  As mentioned in the article, the 5ng limit set in Washington is entirely arbitrary.  The biology is quite different than for alcohol (where we have great science behind the 80mg limit).  The Libs will have to decide whether to try and go with an arbitrary limit, or not have any kind of testing regime at all.  Both have their plusses and minuses.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, but the point is you still need to co-ordinate with 13 separate jurisdictions to make sure they do regulate it in some meaningful fashion, and to make sure those regulations are in place by the time of legalization.

That doesn't sound insurmountable to me. I'd expect there'd be plenty of precedent and institutional infrastructure for managing this sort of thing.

Nothing here is insurmountable*.  But it is fucking hard to do.

Naw, if I was advising them on this file I would suggest that the Feds create a model statutory and regulatory framework that the Provinces could adopt or adapt as they see fit.  It should actually be pretty easy.

[Barrister]

And whadaya know, today I'm withdrawing an impaired by drug case because, despite the driver being all over the road, despite him displaying all the classic indicia (slow, deliberate movements, blood shot eyes, dazed, difficulty following directions), and despite there being marijuana joints within reach, I can't actually prove he had been using marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not saying this case is because of Trudeau - far from it.  But it is a reminder to me of the hazards of legalization. 

[Admiral Yi]

And whadaya know, today I'm withdrawing an impaired by drug case because, despite the driver being all over the road, despite him displaying all the classic indicia (slow, deliberate movements, blood shot eyes, dazed, difficulty following directions), and despite there being marijuana joints within reach, I can't actually prove he had been using marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not saying this case is because of Trudeau - far from it.  But it is a reminder to me of the hazards of legalization. 

Why can't you just get him on reckless driving without the influence component?

[Barrister]

And whadaya know, today I'm withdrawing an impaired by drug case because, despite the driver being all over the road, despite him displaying all the classic indicia (slow, deliberate movements, blood shot eyes, dazed, difficulty following directions), and despite there being marijuana joints within reach, I can't actually prove he had been using marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not saying this case is because of Trudeau - far from it.  But it is a reminder to me of the hazards of legalization. 

Why can't you just get him on reckless driving without the influence component?

There's a long answer to that...

For years defence counsel would always needle Crowns to take a plea to "careless driving" under the Traffic Safety Act, instead of proceeding on the charge as laid.  It got to the point were a substantial % of impaired charges were pled out in this way.  Which led to insurance companies starting to treat "careless driving" convictions the same way they did as impaireds, which made it quite difficult to prosecute true caseless driving cases.

So the directive came down from on high.  Crowns shall not take a plea to a lesser charge on an impaired.  If you can't prove it, pull it.  Otherwise, run your case.

It's a change I support, because way too many charges were being pled down because it was a busy day, defence had a weak but not completely impossible argument.  So it gave my colleagues more of a backbone and we've gotten more convictions.

What I will do (since this guy is on release terms not to possess drugs, due to his upcoming trafficking trial) is plead to breaching the terms.

[Monoriu]

Nice article about the potential pitfalls involved when you legalize marijuana:

See, I'm not the only one saying this opens up a bunch of complications when it comes to driving...

Yes, there are lots of problems associated with legalising marijuana.  But there are huge problems associated with criminalising it as well.  No solution is perfect and nobody is saying it is.  All we can do is compare two imperfect solutions and see which one is better.  Canada and many, many other countries have spent decades, untold billions of dollars and paid a heavy social price to pursue the "let's make it illegal" option.  With dismal results to show for the effort.  It is time to try another solution, even if there are risks involved.  Not trying another approach seems to be the more expensive option now.  You can always switch back if the new approach doesn't work. 

[Barrister]

You can always switch back if the new approach doesn't work.

No, we can't.  It will be politically impossible.

[Monoriu]

You can always switch back if the new approach doesn't work.

No, we can't.  It will be politically impossible.

It was once politically impossible to legalise marijuana

[viper37]

paid a heavy social price to pursue the "let's make it illegal" option.  With dismal results to show for the effort. 

I don't know about the US, but in Canada, no one gets arrested solely for smoking pot.  Even if you were dealing drugs, if marijuana is the only thing you sell, police tends to turn a blind eye to this.  In Montreal, pushers are on a corner of the street and police on the other.

Police raids for the war on drugs applies to stronger stuff; marijuana is a byproduct of their seizures.  I can't remember a recen case where the police infiltrated a gang that dealt solely in marijuana.  Going after pot represents the same costs as going after coke, heroine, metamphetamines, ecstasy and all that stuffs.

If Trudeau's supporters want to convince me about the costs of the war on drugs, they'll have to at least have the honesty that they want all drugs present and future to be legalized.  Otherwise, it just does not make any difference.  When you arrest someone for smuggling cocaine and he has pot in his possession, it requires no extra costs to charge him with that.  It's like going to a place for drug trafficking and realizing he also has an illegal collection of prohibited weapons.  The weapons are a bonus.

When alcohol was decriminalized in the past, Liberal supporters like the Bronfman, who used to do a lot of smuggling to the US became legit with their illicit money and became billionaires with Seagram.  Later, they would move all of their assets from Canada without paying a single tax dollars, thanks the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, now close adviser to Justin Trudeau.  Today, another group is poised to the same, and that is the reason why Trudeau wants to legalize a dangerous product.

[viper37]

You can always switch back if the new approach doesn't work.

No, we can't.  It will be politically impossible.

It was once politically impossible to legalise marijuana

and next what?  cocaine?  It has no real danger in small doses after all.  I suppose a case will be made for some recreational mushrooms too.  Then ecstasy? All it does is make you dance all night long, apparently.
The same arguments about the failure of the war on drugs could be made for all of these drugs.  The same supposed inocuity could be invoked.  It's not like you suffer permanent brain damage from one single use.

[Jacob]

and next what?  cocaine?  It has no real danger in small doses after all.  I suppose a case will be made for some recreational mushrooms too.  Then ecstasy? All it does is make you dance all night long, apparently.
The same arguments about the failure of the war on drugs could be made for all of these drugs.  The same supposed inocuity could be invoked.  It's not like you suffer permanent brain damage from one single use.

Man, that would really put a dent into organized crime profit margins.

[Admiral Yi]

In Montreal, pushers are on a corner of the street and police on the other.

Also around the big statue on the side of the mountain.

[Barrister]

You can always switch back if the new approach doesn't work.

No, we can't.  It will be politically impossible.

It was once politically impossible to legalise marijuana

And it took, what - 80 years to reverse that decision?

[viper37]

and next what?  cocaine?  It has no real danger in small doses after all.  I suppose a case will be made for some recreational mushrooms too.  Then ecstasy? All it does is make you dance all night long, apparently.
The same arguments about the failure of the war on drugs could be made for all of these drugs.  The same supposed inocuity could be invoked.  It's not like you suffer permanent brain damage from one single use.

Man, that would really put a dent into organized crime profit margins.

just like legalizing alcohol and gambling destroyed organized crime, I suppose.