Maybe It’s Time

Justin Trudeau sure created a stir this week with his statement that he would support legalizing marijuana.  It sure got the Conservatives in attack mode.  Of course you would expect that from them, wouldn’t you? The NDP got upset as well, but that’s probably because they didn’t think of it first. It also got me thinking.  Maybe it’s time.

Politicians have talked about decriminalization of marijuana for some time.  This was seen as a progressive move because it would spare “recreational” users of a criminal record, but would, somehow, keep marijuana illegal. People would get a ticket, like a parking ticket, if they were caught with the stuff. This never did seem a viable approach to me.  It’s like saying it is a little bit okay but it’s really not. 

It is also obvious that a lot of people use marijuana using drug dealers for their supply, and many of those drug dealers are associated with criminal organizations. So the present situation is not working other than making some unsavoury characters rich.

What Mr. Trudeau is proposing is to legalize and regulate the drug, much as how we deal with alcohol today.  The success of this venture will depend on a number of things.  First, because legal marijuana regulation and distribution will undoubtedly fall under provincial jurisdiction, all provinces must agree to set up fairly similar rules and controls.  Secondly, easy means of determining marijuana intoxication must be found.  Employers, for example, will need to able to detect on-the-job marijuana use and be able to control its use in the workplace.  Do you really want your next car to be assembled by a few spaced out workers?  Third, society must adapt to the fact that marijuana is now a socially acceptable substance to imbibe.  As with alcohol, society will have to determine when it is socially acceptable to use the stuff; whether, for example, hosts would be expected to provide marijuana for interested guests. 

It would take time to adapt to the recognized presence of marijuana in our day to day world.  But if successful, what would be the upside?

The first result should be a significant reduction in the availability of marijuana as a street drug, available to any kid who wants it and can pay for it.  Legal toking age should be one of the laws governing its use.  Second, it will give the governments another source of revenue from the sale of the product.  I am a believer in the various liquor control boards and believe in the same sort of distribution network for marijuana.  Similarly, since the normal use of the drug is to smoke it, I believe that its use in public places should be regulated like all smoking.  Third, it will free up police forces from having to enforce marijuana use in order for them to concentrate on more dangerous substances and offences. 

In some ways the changes that will have to be made to introduce marijuana are the same legal and societal changes that were necessary when prohibition was repealed in the United States in the 1930s, and the easing of restrictions in Canada in the same era.  Most of you probably can’t remember taverns with separate entrances and rooms for men and women, or the liquor outlets where you had to fill out a piece of paper with your order which sent a man into a back room to retrieve the vile substance.  It is doable to introduce marijuana into the legal world as long as governments at different levels, regulatory regimes and society as a whole accept it and strive to make it work.

Not that I intend to ever imbibe in the stuff myself.

More “You Can’t Have it Both Ways”

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

Will Rogers

Summer must be the hardest time to write, particularly when you put pressure on yourself to produce.  After two false starts, let’s see what we can come up with today. 

There have been a few examples of people or organizations trying to have it both ways recently.  Actually, people are trying to do that all the time, but here are a few that stand out.

A few months ago, one of the large media companies was trying to buy a smaller company in the same business.  At the hearings before the Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC), who must approve such a sale, the main rival of the buying company insisted that the sale should only be approved if the buyer was forced to sell one of the entities of the company to be bought.  And oh by the way, the rival said, we would like to buy the entity when it is sold. 

Our dear federal government is refusing to turn over documentation about military procurement projects to the Parliamentary Budget Office, an office that they themselves set up.  Their argument is that it is “beyond the mandate” of this organization.  This at a time when government procurement, particularly for the military, is in the worst shape it has been in for as long as I can remember.  You would think in these circumstances, the government would appreciate any help they could get.  This is the same government that wanted to monitor your e-mail and tap your phone calls without a legal warrant.  Maybe our government should heed the words of John Stuart Mill, “If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.”

It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.

  - Malcolm Forbes

The Ottawa Mayor and council have got themselves in trouble because they wouldn’t listen to the people about whether or not they wanted a casino, or two, or three, but who’s counting.  They are charging ahead with decisions that aren’t even required yet and getting themselves boxed into a corner of their own making.  They have committed to one location and operator for something that cries out for a competitive process.  By doing so, they run a real risk of being sued by other potential bidders.  Now their only hope is that the next level of government will bail them out by allowing them to have two casinos, something that the provincial government has indicated they are not willing to do.  Even Toronto only gets one.  This is all being decided when they don’t even know if the majority of city voters want even one casino.  As one eminent personage from the past has said, “When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.”

In the United States, the “stand your ground” laws of several states are coming under attack.  The problem is not with those laws; it is with the whole concept of the “right” of gun ownership as it is practiced there.  Once you have allowed unfettered access to the sale and ownership of guns, the “stand your ground” laws are inevitable in order to justify the possession and use of the weapons.  After all, what is the use of buying these weapons if you cannot put them to good use in defending yourself?  And if the usual definition of self-defence limits your ability to do that, then you have to have laws that condone the action.  It’s just common sense, or complete nonsense, depending on your point of view.

Odd Thoughts

There have been a number of things going on recently that need comment, so here goes.

The situation in Egypt has many people concerned these days, in particular, the US government.  Egypt has become another source of argument between the parties and factions.  They argue over what to do (ignore, cut funds, take sides, invade), who in Egypt to support, and even who (between Democrats and Republicans) is to blame.  The thought that the Egyptian uprising has nothing to do American politics is never considered.  Neither has the thought that maybe everyone outside Egypt should just leave the Egyptians alone and let them determine their own fate.

It’s amazing, as some recent Ottawa news stories have shown, how much effort rich people will undertake to protect their money. They will move money off-shore, move themselves to any country that will not charge them income tax, hide money and even risk jail to accomplish it all.  I knew a couple who had built a successful business in Canada who, when they sold out, moved from one country to another to “tax havens”.  They left their grown children in Canada, but they protected their fortune.  When I asked them why, they replied that they didn’t owe anything to Canada. Huh! They were allowed to immigrate from troubled countries when they were young; they were given a good Canadian education both free and later subsidized; they were allowed to set up business in a country that protected their rights to ownership and legal protection; and they were given free protection, health care and education for their children; and they don’t owe anything to Canada?

There was great consternation in Ottawa this week when “Alfie” the captain of the Ottawa Senators chose to play for another team next year.  Great wailing and gnashing of teeth by all Senator fans could be heard everywhere. “How could he do that?” Some talked about his required loyalty to the Ottawa fans and what he “owed” them.  Never mind that when he first came here, many of those fans questioned the Senator’s sanity for opting for this undersized kid from Sweden, of all places.  Boy did he show them!  The one thing that he has missed out on in his hall of fame career was a Stanley Cup ring.  Not unnaturally, he felt that he wanted that to cap his career, so he made the decision to go where he considered it a distinct possibility.  So he has betrayed the Ottawa fans.  You wonder, if he had a bad year, how quickly Ottawa fans would turn on him.  The supreme irony of this situation would be if Ottawa and Detroit met in the Stanley Cup final.

A clear example of trying to have it both ways came up a few weeks ago.  One large communications company was trying to buy a smaller company.  At the Canadian Radio and Television Committee (CRTC) hearing into the impact of the purchase, the chief rival of the buyer was adamant that, if the purchase went through, the buying company must be made to sell off a particularly valuable asset of the smaller company.  The rival then stated that when that asset went on the market, they would be very interested in buying it.

Our Dear Lead . . . uh, Prime Minister has stated that he did not know anything about the pay-off by his chief of staff to a certain Senator.  This may or may not be true.  If it is not true, that is that he really did know, he has lied to the House of Commons and the people.  If it is true that he did not know, then he has failed as a leader by not insisting on knowing what is going on in his own office so that he can deal with any surprises that arise.  If his own staff did not tell him what was going on, they are guilty of misleading him in order, no doubt, to allow him “deniability”.  Either way, they and he are wrong.

I just retired for the third time.  I retired once from the Navy, once from full time work and now from part time work.  People ask me how long this retirement will last.  I must admit, I don’t have the foggiest idea.  I want to do other things, but whether they would constitute work is a good question.  Who knows what it may take to entice me to try for a fourth retirement.