[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

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).

I mean, personally I don't have a strong opinion on what you're prescribing - it may be a great idea to promote that sort of approach or it may not, I don't know. But I think when it comes to the missing and murdered women, we could use a series of policy recommendations that are somewhat more targeted as well.

[Josephus]

This doesn't bug me much. There is no way to "prove" people aren't impared by totally legal medications, either, or a host of other dangerous conditions (like being too tired to drive).

Fact is that, for whatever reason, drinking and driving is a particularly bad combo.

Well it should bug you.  The reason drinking and driving is a particular problem is because alcohol is a legal, widely available drug with little social stigma behind its use.

Once marijuana is legallized, it will be in the same position as alcohol.

Yeah, believe it or not, I am with Beeb on this. As someone who drives over 50km each way to work each day, intoxicated drivers is a real bane of mine. The last thing I want on the roads is stoned teenagers. But I don't know, what have the states like Colorado done about this?

[Josephus]

This doesn't bug me much. There is no way to "prove" people aren't impared by totally legal medications, either, or a host of other dangerous conditions (like being too tired to drive).

Fact is that, for whatever reason, drinking and driving is a particularly bad combo.

Well it should bug you.  The reason drinking and driving is a particular problem is because alcohol is a legal, widely available drug with little social stigma behind its use.

Once marijuana is legallized, it will be in the same position as alcohol.

I don't agree. The reason it is a problem is a physical effect of intoxication by alcohol, which renders that particular drug far more dangerous for driving than pot is.

Pot use is widespread despite its illegal status, and that hasn't lead to a terrible rash of pot-related auto accidents. There is no evidence that legalizing pot will have any such effect.

Drugs are not interchangeable, each has different effects. I'm not of the opinion that pot is 'harmless', but its harms are simply different from those of alcohol. It is less likely, for example, to make its users dangerously violent ... and it is less likely to lead to car accidents. Not that impared driving (pot or otherwise) is wise - but pot is simply a lesser concern in this particular respect.

I don't know...I've smoked a fair bit back in the day, and I remember seeing double, even triple, and getting distracted by the smallest things. I can't see how driving high is in any way safer than driving drunk.

[Barrister]

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).

I mean, personally I don't have a strong opinion on what you're prescribing - it may be a great idea to promote that sort of approach or it may not, I don't know. But I think when it comes to the missing and murdered women, we could use a series of policy recommendations that are somewhat more targeted as well.

Then take a look at the RCAP.  There's 20 volumes of it.  It was very thorough.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1307458586498/1307458751962

[Jacob]

Then take a look at the RCAP.  There's 20 volumes of it.  It was very thorough.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1307458586498/1307458751962

Do you have something particular in mind, or is your point primarily "twenty years ago there was an inquiry, surely I imagine it must have some useful recommendations in it somewhere relevant to the missing and murdered women"?

[Barrister]

Then take a look at the RCAP.  There's 20 volumes of it.  It was very thorough.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1307458586498/1307458751962

Do you have something particular in mind, or is your point primarily "twenty years ago there was an inquiry, surely I imagine it must have some useful recommendations in it somewhere relevant to the missing and murdered women"?

Pretty much the latter.  I did read a large portion of it - 20 years ago.  It did have some recommendations for improving health and wealth on reserves.

[Malthus]

This doesn't bug me much. There is no way to "prove" people aren't impared by totally legal medications, either, or a host of other dangerous conditions (like being too tired to drive).

Fact is that, for whatever reason, drinking and driving is a particularly bad combo.

Well it should bug you.  The reason drinking and driving is a particular problem is because alcohol is a legal, widely available drug with little social stigma behind its use.

Once marijuana is legallized, it will be in the same position as alcohol.

I don't agree. The reason it is a problem is a physical effect of intoxication by alcohol, which renders that particular drug far more dangerous for driving than pot is.

Pot use is widespread despite its illegal status, and that hasn't lead to a terrible rash of pot-related auto accidents. There is no evidence that legalizing pot will have any such effect.

Drugs are not interchangeable, each has different effects. I'm not of the opinion that pot is 'harmless', but its harms are simply different from those of alcohol. It is less likely, for example, to make its users dangerously violent ... and it is less likely to lead to car accidents. Not that impared driving (pot or otherwise) is wise - but pot is simply a lesser concern in this particular respect.

I don't know...I've smoked a fair bit back in the day, and I remember seeing double, even triple, and getting distracted by the smallest things. I can't see how driving high is in any way safer than driving drunk.

I also smoked a lot back in the day, and hung with people who did ... and "seeing double or triple" isn't in any way a normal effect of the drug.

Point here isn't that people driving while intoxicated on anything is "good", but rather, that this particular drug isn't neary as bad as alcohol.

Don't have to believe me - our nearly-useless Senate is on the case  :

http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeReports.aspx?parl=37&ses=1&comm_id=85


http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/rep/summary-e.htm

If there is one issue, other than the effects of cannabis use on young people or the effects of substance abuse, that is likely to be of concern to society and governments, then it is certainly the effect of the use of cannabis on the ability to drive a vehicle. We are already familiar with the effects of alcohol on driving and the many accidents involving injuries or deaths to young people. In spite of the decreases in use noted in recent years, one fatal accident caused by the use of a substance is one accident too many.

Next to alcohol, cannabis is the most widely used psychoactive substance, particularly among young people in the 16-25 age group. Casual use occurs most often in a festive setting, at weekend parties, often accompanied by alcohol. People in this age group are also the most likely to have a car accident and are also susceptible to having an accident while impaired.

Cannabis affects psychomotor skills for up to five hours after use. The psychoactive effects of cannabis are also dependent on the amount used, the concentration of THC and the morphology, experience and expectations of users. But what are the specific effects of cannabis on the ability to drive motor vehicles? What are the effects of alcohol and cannabis combined? And what tools are available to detect the presence of a concentration of THC that is likely to significantly affect the psychomotor skills involved in vehicle operation?

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first considers the ways of testing for the presence of cannabinoids in the body. The second analyzes studies on the known prevalence of impaired driving, in both accident and non-accident contexts. The third and last summarizes what is known about the effects of cannabis on driving based on both laboratory and field studies. As in the other chapters, the Committee then draw its own conclusions.

The Committee feels it is quite likely that cannabis makes users more cautious, partly because they are aware of their deficiencies and compensate by reducing speed and taking fewer risks. However, because what we are dealing with is no longer the consequences on the users themselves, but the possible consequences of their behaviour on others, the Committee feels that it is important to opt for the greatest possible caution with respect to the issue of driving under the influence of cannabis.


Given what we have seen, we conclude the following: 

Ø   Between 5% and 12% of drivers may drive under the influence of cannabis; this percentage increases to over 20% for young men under 25 years of age;

Ø   Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving. However it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. This in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk;

Ø   A significant percentage of impaired drivers test positive for cannabis and alcohol together. The effects of cannabis when combined with alcohol are more significant than is the case for alcohol alone;

Ø   Despite recent progress, there does not yet exist a reliable and non intrusive rapid roadside testing method;

Ø   Blood remains the best medium for detecting the presence of cannabinoids;

Ø   Urine cannot screen for recent use;

Ø   Saliva is promising, but rapid commercial tests are not yet reliable enough;

Ø   The visual recognition method used by police officers has yielded satisfactory results; and

Ø   It is essential to conduct studies in order to develop a rapid testing tool and learn more about the driving habits of cannabis users.

Digging into the science:

The study findings show that cannabis alone does not increase the likelihood of responsibility in an accident. However, most of the studies used a measurement of THC-COOH, an inactive metabolite that can remain in urine for several days. When the authors separated out THC alone, the risk ratio was slightly higher, even though it did not reach the required level of significance. In addition, as the concentration of THC increases, the more the ratio increases, once again suggesting a dose-response relationship. Furthermore, the cannabis and alcohol combination significantly increases risk. Without being able to draw any definite conclusions, there are some signs that their effects are in synergy and not merely additive.

Studies on injured drivers (Terhune (1982) and Hunter (1998)) have ratios somewhat higher than in the other studies on fatal accidents. According to Bates and Blakely (1999), the apparent reduction in the risk of a fatal accident stems from the fact that drivers under the influence of cannabis drive less dangerously, for example by reducing their speed.[23]

To conclude, we are rather in agreement with INSERM concerning these studies:

 

[translation] The findings definitely confirm the significant risk of alcohol, but generally fail to demonstrate that there is an effect of cannabis alone on the risk of being responsible for a fatal accident or an accident involving serious injury. The methodological difficulties that make such a demonstration difficult contribute considerably to the absence of statistically indisputable results. Analyses of responsibility nevertheless suggest that the association between alcohol and cannabis increases the risk of being responsible for an accident, compared to drinking alone; however, this finding needs to be consolidated. Lastly, the most recent data tend to show that there is a risk of becoming responsible at heavy concentrations of D9THC. This involves using cannabis immediately before driving, and perhaps applies also to chronic users. [24]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/rep/repfinalvol1part4-e.htm#Chapter 8

In short, when actual science is used to study the question ... 

[crazy canuck]

Then take a look at the RCAP.  There's 20 volumes of it.  It was very thorough.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1307458586498/1307458751962

Do you have something particular in mind, or is your point primarily "twenty years ago there was an inquiry, surely I imagine it must have some useful recommendations in it somewhere relevant to the missing and murdered women"?

Pretty much the latter.  I did read a large portion of it - 20 years ago.  It did have some recommendations for improving health and wealth on reserves.

BB, I am not sure why you are being so flippant about this. Since you read at least a good portion of the report back in the day you will recall that it was entirely devoted to how Canada should relate to aboriginal communities and in particular it addressed the case for self government and a form of nation to nation relationship.  It had exactly zero to do with the problems of missing and murdered aboriginal women.  The main reason many groups want the inquiry is to address the kind of dismissal that is displayed here. 

[Josephus]

I don't know, Malthus.

Last time I smoked up, I was barely able to walk,let alone drive. Maybe it's just me.

And who smokes pot without drinking anyway?

[viper37]

Yeah, the restoring funding and removing political control of federal science is pretty important.

That is very naive.
You can't remove political control and at the same time add funding.
If you have federal funding, there will always be a form of control, research will always be directed somewhere science may not really want to go.  It may be lesser control or stronger control, but it will be there.  See Quebec.  After crying out loud against the evil cowboys from Alberta, the provincial government, under the PQ, cut funding to science and directed them toward applied research that could be easily resold instead of fundamental science.  Social democratic government in need of balancing the budget do stupid things.  That's why I vote for rightwing parties, the shock is lessened.

I think the CBC has more of a fighting chance as well now, which is pretty significant.

Again, pretty naive, considering the cuts and the multiple complaints of the Liberal Party towards french CBC in the past.

In other news - on style - here's a video of Trudeau going to a metro station in his riding to thank his constituents: http://globalnews.ca/news/2288380/trudeau-shakes-hands-with-montrealers-at-subway-station-hours-after-winning-election/

The electoral campaing of 2019 just started

[viper37]

The media here made that very clear.  Which is probably one of the reasons the electorate turned on the Conservatives.  This had nothing to do with ensuring the identity of the person taking the oath.  But we have been over that, so I will let it rest. 

you still can vote without proper identification.  some people have voted twice in this election.  That explains the high Liberal score, likely.   

[viper37]

No young woman growing up in the west is going to be all excited to wear that dorky thing.

they don't have to be excited about it.  They just have to wear it when told.

[viper37]

It is impossible to look cool in a Niqab. And Islam does not require wearing it.

there. Problem solved.  Not a religious requirement = no fucking business in court, oath ceremony, voting polls.  See, I would rule the day as Prime Minister Supreme Leader of Canada.

[viper37]

I doubt it.  In the Chretien era the science was not yet conclusive.  Now only a moron would deny the effects we are having on the environment and not acknowledge the need to take action.  If you are correct then that would open a big opportunity for the NDP.  For their own political survival the Liberals will have to do something meaningful.

It was a 90% confidence instead of 95%.  The Libs had already signed Kyoto.  If they did not believe in the science, they should not have signed it.

And there are still a lot of morons arguing climate change is not real.  Their latest poster boy is a French meteorologist fired for publishing a book about the "big lie" that is climate change.

That is essentially the problem with the Conservative view.  They only viewed it as a question of money.  There is so much more to it than that.

True.  But there's no political will to change anything about it.  There need to be serious talks with the indian communities, the reservation system will need to go, and they will need to pay taxes.  Of course, we will have to give them royalties on resources we extact, job quotas for big projects and more than anything, the respect they deserve.

But a public inquiry about many women's death will solve nothing, like most public inquiries before.

[Monoriu]

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.