[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

It is essentially a victimless crime. 

No.

I am willing to listen to your arguments if you are willing to provide them

They smoke.  Smoke makes people around you sick.
They increase their odds of suffering from mental illness and therefore become a problem for all of society.
They increase their odds of suferin from lung cancer and therefore become a burden for our society, like smokers.

[Jacob]

Me neither.

Part of it is EI - employment insurance - which is predicated on you being in the country and looking for work.

For the others - the Canada Pension Plan and the Child Benefit - I believe they're basic entitlements with no reference to "having earned" it. So I presume the reason they have a residency requirement is to prevent people like Mono - and others who have citizenship but don't actually live in Canada - from collecting CPP and Child Benefit.

Does this Canada Pension Plan have nothing to do with money you've paid in?  Is it just a pension people get for being Canadian (and living in Canada at least half the year)?

I just briefly checked the relevant website and it looks like you can get CPP (which you pay into) and maybe OAS (Old Age Security, which I don't ink you pay into) when you live overseas, so at this point I'm not sure who's not getting what money on what criteria.

[Monoriu]

They smoke.  Smoke makes people around you sick.
They increase their odds of suffering from mental illness and therefore become a problem for all of society.
They increase their odds of suferin from lung cancer and therefore become a burden for our society, like smokers.

There are different solutions to different problems.  We put murderers behind bars but not cigarette smokers.  We tax smokers and educate them.  Since they are both substances that may cause health problems, how come we treat cigarette smokers so differently from marijuana users?   

[crazy canuck]

Canadian gov't to save millions of dollars by not paying out pensions to snowbirds: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-border-security-benefits-seniors-1.3290299

I suppose it's pure coincidence that it came up right after the election.

Why the crackdown on this?  Why would the Canadian government care if their pensioners left the country, aside from them spending the money out of the country?

If someone has earned a pension, why is it not their's to dispose of as they see fit, where they see fit?

The story doesn't mention pension benefits.  OAS is a direct subsidy.  EI requires people to be looking for a job. That is mainly going to affect seasonal workers who claim EI and go on vacation.  Child subsidies are also a direct grant.

[Valmy]

Ah so Jake just worded that in a confusing way.

[viper37]

They smoke.  Smoke makes people around you sick.
They increase their odds of suffering from mental illness and therefore become a problem for all of society.
They increase their odds of suferin from lung cancer and therefore become a burden for our society, like smokers.

There are different solutions to different problems.  We put murderers behind bars but not cigarette smokers.  We tax smokers and educate them.  Since they are both substances that may cause health problems, how come we treat cigarette smokers so differently from marijuana users?   

tobacco use costs more than it gives the states.

[crazy canuck]

Here is some better detail about what better monitoring actually means.  There are impacts on both sides of the border.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/five-things-you-should-know-about-the-proposed-border-program/article27023460/?service=mobile

[viper37]

Oops! That page isn't here.

We couldn't find the page you were looking for one of the following reasons:
It has moved, it never existed, or an agreement
with an outside provider has expired.

[crazy canuck]

Try this one. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/retirement/retire-travel/five-things-you-should-know-about-the-proposed-border-program/article27023460/

[Malthus]

It's as dangerous as tobacco for the lungs, it increases the chances of developping mental illness and you can't prevent pot users from driving while impaired.

Apparently, it is considerably less harmful, which makes sense - a pot smoker smokes a joint and gets high in the same way as a drinker drinks a beer - that is, they don't do it all day. A smoker smokes all day, every couple of hours. A smoker smokes an order of magnitude more than a pot user.

Increase chances of mental illness - with very heavy use, yes. Again, not unlike substances that are legal. Alchohol is far, far worse in this respect. 

You can't "prevent" anyone from driving while impaired, but you can certainly punish them for it - it is just more difficult for pot smokers, as it requires a blood test.

Then there is no problem, so let's leave it that way.

No, because "leaving it that way" means that the stuff is unregulated, sold by criminals, and untaxed. Why do you want to benefit criminals and tax-evaders? Never mind the users, who get a product that could be adulterated.

Tobacco.  It is a nocive product (like all forms of smoke) and we're having a really tough time controlling its use.  We are moving slowly while the provinces assume the health costs.
By legalizing marijuana, the Feds are essentially shifting the health costs to the provinces.  Now that it's legal, its consumption will increase, just like it did in Colorado.  And it will not only be viewed as "cool" as it is now, but also totally safe because it's legal.  You are sending a very wrong message.

No, because the example of smoking demonstrates how one can (and should) decouple the "it is cool" message from making something illegal. The fact that pot is illegal (while not stringently enforced) just makes it *more* "cool" for new users.

Then let's legalize everything.  No more forbidding anything.  No such things as controlled substance anymore.   Want that new drug that destroys your skin?  Look at your local Wal-Mart, it'll be there!

The idea would be to move to a system based on harm reduction and a medical approach to addiction for some drugs, while treating others as commodities - based on scientific evidence, rather than cultural preferences.

If there is one thing that is really "cool", it is being treated by the healthcare system. That's an excellent way to get that rebel outlaw cred! 

[viper37]

ok, I see now, thanks

[viper37]

Apparently, it is considerably less harmful, which makes sense - a pot smoker smokes a joint and gets high in the same way as a drinker drinks a beer - that is, they don't do it all day. A smoker smokes all day, every couple of hours. A smoker smokes an order of magnitude more than a pot user.

I have yet to meet a pot user that doesn't smoke tobacco to compensate when he's not smoking pot.
Maybe the very occasional users, those that smoke a joint once per decade, like they smoke a cigarette once in a while, but that is very doubtful.

Increase chances of mental illness - with very heavy use, yes. Again, not unlike substances that are legal. Alchohol is far, far worse in this respect. 

Alcohol will prevent cancer and heart diseases.  So, drinking wine allows me to eat bacon
Besides:

Though the use of substances (along with their associated disorders) varies from region to region, tobacco and alcohol are the substances that are used most widely in the world as a whole and that have the most serious public health consequences.

Source: WHO, The World health report, chapter 2.
alcohol is more dangerous because it is more widespread, i.e., a lot more people drink alochol than smoke pot, so when there are adverse health effects by a product, you see them more often when the product is used more often than another.  Not because it is more dangerous.  That's like CO2 and methane.  Methane increases global warming more than CO2, but there's less of it, so we mostly concentrate on CO2 rather than methane.

You can't "prevent" anyone from driving while impaired, but you can certainly punish them for it - it is just more difficult for pot smokers, as it requires a blood test.

No, you can not prevent anyone from driving while impaired.  But you can dissuade them, as we did with alcohol, not only by increasing the penalties, but also by increasing the odds they will be caught and sentenced.

I could promote death penalty for drug users driving while impaired, but if there are zero controls on it, it would have close to zero effects.

No, because "leaving it that way" means that the stuff is unregulated, sold by criminals, and untaxed. Why do you want to benefit criminals and tax-evaders? Never mind the users, who get a product that could be adulterated.

Smoking pot is a choice, like all drug use.  It has zero health benefit, unlike alcohol, and is harmful to your health.  You make the conscious choice of doing it, so it is your responsibility if you do it, it has nothing to do with society.  It's not like it's an medication you need, and even then, when it is somewhat required (and only for regular smokers on the stuff, doctors do not prescribe it to non smokers), you can legally purchase it.

Criminals and tax-evaders will always benefit from something, unless we legalize everything.  Child prostitution is illegal, so only criminals and tax-evaders benefit from it.  Let's legalize child prostitution?
I'm sorry, I don't buy in this argument.  As I've stated before, I am not a libertarian, I believe we need some rules to function as a society.  It's not an absolute.

No, because the example of smoking demonstrates how one can (and should) decouple the "it is cool" message from making something illegal. The fact that pot is illegal (while not stringently enforced) just makes it *more* "cool" for new users.

Smoking tobacco was and is still seen as cool by many.  In fact, according to the WHO, young tobacco smokers are more likely to use other drugs than non smokers.

The idea would be to move to a system based on harm reduction and a medical approach to addiction for some drugs, while treating others as commodities - based on scientific evidence, rather than cultural preferences.

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/63691/1/WHO_MSA_PSA_97.4.pdf
Section 5.  5.3 is about the long term effects of cannabis use.

Epidemiological research has produced clear evidence from case-control, cross-sectional and prospective studies of an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia.  The prospective study of Andreasson et al. (1987), has shown a dose-response relationship between the frequency with which cannabis had been used by age 18 and the risks over the subsequent 15 years of being diagnosed as schizophrenic

If there is one thing that is really "cool", it is being treated by the healthcare system. That's an excellent way to get that rebel outlaw cred! 

I don't feel like a rebel

[PRC]

I hope it's legal and attainable before the new Star Wars movie comes out.

[Malthus]

I have yet to meet a pot user that doesn't smoke tobacco to compensate when he's not smoking pot.
Maybe the very occasional users, those that smoke a joint once per decade, like they smoke a cigarette once in a while, but that is very doubtful.

Huh? Tons of hippie types think pot is wonderful and tobacco is the devil's weed.

Pot anr tobacco are totally different. Aside from being smoked, that is. They do not have the same effect at all.

Alcohol will prevent cancer and heart diseases.  So, drinking wine allows me to eat bacon
Besides:

Though the use of substances (along with their associated disorders) varies from region to region, tobacco and alcohol are the substances that are used most widely in the world as a whole and that have the most serious public health consequences.

Source: WHO, The World health report, chapter 2.

alcohol is more dangerous because it is more widespread, i.e., a lot more people drink alochol than smoke pot, so when there are adverse health effects by a product, you see them more often when the product is used more often than another.  Not because it is more dangerous.  That's like CO2 and methane.  Methane increases global warming more than CO2, but there's less of it, so we mostly concentrate on CO2 rather than methane.

You are pulling that out of nowhere. Alcohol and tobacco are worse, period - far more dangerous for your health than pot. Not that pot is safe, mind, but that tobacco and booze are worse (on average, assuming the same level of use, etc.).

No, you can not prevent anyone from driving while impaired.  But you can dissuade them, as we did with alcohol, not only by increasing the penalties, but also by increasing the odds they will be caught and sentenced.

I could promote death penalty for drug users driving while impaired, but if there are zero controls on it, it would have close to zero effects.

There are not "zero controls" on impaired while driving with pot. It is more difficult to enforce, but not impossible. Evidence: the fact, mentioned upthread, that it is being enforced in states where it is legal.

Smoking pot is a choice, like all drug use.  It has zero health benefit, unlike alcohol, and is harmful to your health.  You make the conscious choice of doing it, so it is your responsibility if you do it, it has nothing to do with society.  It's not like it's an medication you need, and even then, when it is somewhat required (and only for regular smokers on the stuff, doctors do not prescribe it to non smokers), you can legally purchase it.

So what? We don't outlaw things because they are "your choice". We shouldn't outlaw things because they are not "socially useful", or because one cannot prove they are "good for your health". We should only outlaw things because they are unreasonably dangerous to the public good. By that measure, pot simply doesn't qualify.

Criminals and tax-evaders will always benefit from something, unless we legalize everything.  Child prostitution is illegal, so only criminals and tax-evaders benefit from it.  Let's legalize child prostitution?
I'm sorry, I don't buy in this argument.  As I've stated before, I am not a libertarian, I believe we need some rules to function as a society.  It's not an absolute.

You, a "libertarian"? You were just making an argument that we should outlaw stuff because it isn't good for your health!

I don't buy the slippery slope fantasy. The issue is whether *this* stuff (or act, or whatever) is so bad, so unreasonably dangerous, it ought to be made illegal. There is just no proof for that.

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/63691/1/WHO_MSA_PSA_97.4.pdf
Section 5.  5.3 is about the long term effects of cannabis use.

Epidemiological research has produced clear evidence from case-control, cross-sectional and prospective studies of an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia.  The prospective study of Andreasson et al. (1987), has shown a dose-response relationship between the frequency with which cannabis had been used by age 18 and the risks over the subsequent 15 years of being diagnosed as schizophrenic

Interesting that you don't bother to quote the next sentence:

The association is not in doubt but its significance remains controversial because it is unclear whether it reflects the precipitation of schizophrenia by
cannabis use or the increased use of cannabis and other drugs as a consequence of schizophrenia (Williams et al., 1996).

In short, you have made the classic mistake: correlation does not necessarily equal causation! Naturally, there is no mention of how *significant* the effect is, even assuming it is "causative" (which, as your own source points out, is unpoven).

That's a pretty piss poor excuse for making something illegal. The "Bacon=cancer" thing has better support. 

[Barrister]

Huh? Tons of hippie types think pot is wonderful and tobacco is the devil's weed.

Pot and tobacco are totally different. Aside from being smoked, that is. They do not have the same effect at all.

But that's the thing - both are smoked.  It's not the nicotine that makes smoking give you cancer - it's the fact it is burned and inhaled.  So in that sense they do have the same effect.

It also seems odd to see you try to disconnect tobacco and pot.  Didn't you tell us the story that smoking pot was actually your "gateway drug" into getting hooked on cigarettes?

There are not "zero controls" on impaired while driving with pot. It is more difficult to enforce, but not impossible. Evidence: the fact, mentioned upthread, that it is being enforced in states where it is legal.

Please just take it from me - impaired driving by marijuana is incredibly difficult to prosecute.  Not impossible, no, but probably an order of magnitude harder than proving alcohol.