Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[zang]

What new territory is that? People continue to use weed like they did before it became quasi-legal.

There is no rational basis for these regulations.

It's really not a big deal to see drugs policy for what it is: a moralising hypocrisy based in ignorance.

I didn't see any of these prohibitionist fools crying "think of the children" when they were ruining their lives with criminal records and imprisonment.

"This is new territory" is a very poor argument for "legalising" something that is less dangerous than alcohol and nicotine whilst imposing regulations on its sale, use, and possession that is stricter.

New territory would be society realising that the whole War on Drugs thing is a very costly and destructive exercise in hypocrisy, duplicity, ignorance, and irrational thinking.

PS: I'm aware of the Uruguayan statist "legalisation". It's a joke and not much of a benchmark.

Yeah, we all know you're an advocate for drug use. You've made that abundantly clear.

Don't just dismiss my point as being a poor argument. We don't know what effects legalizing cannabis will do. Will it increase usage? Will it increase lung cancer cases (hint; despite all your "safety" statements, it shows slightly higher rates of lung cancer over cigarette smoking per joint/pack-year—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/). Note, the latter comparison shows higher rates of cancer per joint vs. per pack of cigarettes. Looks like the filter actually *does* something.

Your "all in" mentality seems to be driven strictly by your love of illicit (and now legal) substances, and isn't taking into consideration actual public health or safety.

And while I agree with you on the war on drugs, it's not "new territory"; progressives have been pushing against it since the 1980s. It's why we have safe injection sites and other things. Don't treat those who don't use as some kind of unenlightened pearl-clutching sheep. I also agree on the hypocrisy of many of our policies, but it's harder to take something away than it is to add it in slowly.

I will say again; we *don't* know the societal effects of low-restriction legal cannabis. Taking things slowly isn't the end of the world, and helps the government and health organizations gather data at a somewhat controlled pace.

So maybe light one up and relax a bit, huh?

 

[SunriseChampion]

Yeah, we all know you're an advocate for drug use. You've made that abundantly clear.

Correction: informed and safe drug use....and more importantly, a rational drugs policy and the primacy of personal choice and responsibility.
Which, by the way, is more than can be said for your regular government drug pusher working for the LCBO.

Don't just dismiss my point as being a poor argument.

Referring to something that is well established (as marijuana use is) as "new territory" is indeed a poor argument for its continued overregulation.

We don't know what effects legalizing cannabis will do.

True. What effects are we looking for though?

Will it increase usage?

I don't think so. Why would it? Does it matter if it does?
Our government just made public plans to increase the sales hours of LCBO shops. Does that mean more people will use a toxic psychotropic that is legal?

Will it increase lung cancer cases (hint; despite all your "safety" statements, it shows slightly higher rates of lung cancer over cigarette smoking per joint/pack-year—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/). Note, the latter comparison shows higher rates of cancer per joint vs. per pack of cigarettes. Looks like the filter actually *does* something.

You don't have to tell me, I smoke Belmont with a charcoal filter for safety.

Why would cancer rates go up?

You're acting as if people haven't been smoking copious amounts of weed in this country for decades.
Nothing has changed in the vast majority of people's usage!

Your "all in" mentality seems to be driven strictly by your love of illicit (and now legal) substances, and isn't taking into consideration actual public health or safety.

This is a ridiculous statement based on a complete misconstrual of my position and character.

First of all, the "illicit substances" I do love are still illegal.
Second of all, and more importantly, my position is one of harm reduction and informed drugs use.

The current state of affairs does absolutely fuckal for public health and safety. Alcohol and nicotine are legal. Psilocybin and MDMA are not.
Now, go do some basic research on the effects, typical doses, toxicity, addiction potential, social harm, and so on of these four psychotropics and then come talk to me about being concerned for public health and safety.

Also, as an advocate for harm reduction in drug use (which includes legal drugs like caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and various amphetamines and opioids) I'm not sure how I can be accused of not taking public health and safety into consideration.

This is a smear based in ignorance on your part.

And while I agree with you on the war on drugs, it's not "new territory"; progressives have been pushing against it since the 1980s. It's why we have safe injection sites and other things. Don't treat those who don't use as some kind of unenlightened pearl-clutching sheep.

I suppose we should all be grateful for the amazing work done by the self-absorbed "progressives". What does this have to do with my point about societyy not having a clue, other than nothing, of course?

Who are these people "who don't use"? How many people do you know who don't ever or have never used a psychotropic substance to either their benefit or detriment?

How many? Go on....enlighten us.

Let me help you out: caffeine is a psychotropic. Alcohol is a psychotropic. Diphenhydramine is a psychotropic. Dextromethorphan is a psychotropic.
Those are just some legal ones to make it easy for you.

I also agree on the hypocrisy of many of our policies, but it's harder to take something away than it is to add it in slowly.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to nor can ascertain its meaning in this context.

I will say again; we *don't* know the societal effects of low-restriction legal cannabis. Taking things slowly isn't the end of the world, and helps the government and health organizations gather data at a somewhat controlled pace.

We do know the effects on society of weed use. It's been around and so have the studies. This is new only to you, seemingly. Don't worry, I promise, it will all be OK.

So maybe light one up and relax a bit, huh?

Don't be a condescending tit. I don't smoke weed. You invented that idea in your head.

One doesn't need to use any specific psychotropic in order to be an advocate of rational drugs policy.

Maybe I'll relax after people stop being criminalised for getting high. After lives that have been ruined are magically made whole again. After the countless dead of Latin America are brought back to life. And so on.



Honestly, go do some research and then come fear-monger....but keep your misinformed assumptions the hell in your own head, thanks.



There is plenty of evidence in regards to the health and social harms of various legal and illegal drugs. None of this is new.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Try dealing with your own children let alone a bunch of other people’s children! For that alone teacher’s deserve our respect and admiration. But come on they are generously compensated for their work.

In the childcare and education sector alone do you think teachers are going to get any empathy for their gripes from say childcare workers looking after 0-6?

What about in the wider world from the perspective of a guy working trades? Teacher benefits and work complaints might as well be from a different planet! They don’t even exist in the same dimension. Teachers are griping about coaching football from 3:30-5:00 pm. These guys like Ford’s buck a beer because it stands to make blunting the pain cheaper.

 

[steveintoronto]

Gotta love the TorSun:

Does Andrew Scheer need to be more like Doug Ford to win next year's federal election?

Why am I reminded of Planet of the Apes?

 

[zang]

Correction: informed and safe drug use....and more importantly, a rational drugs policy and the primacy of personal choice and responsibility.
Which, by the way, is more than can be said for your regular government drug pusher working for the LCBO.

Which, by the way is a complete misrepresentation of my argument on your part. LCBO workers check ID; they can't serve those noticeably inebriated. Aside from caffeine, every chemical you mentioned in your response has some restriction on its sale. Either available only at pharmacies or sold to people of a verified age of majority.

Referring to something that is well established (as marijuana use is) as "new territory" is indeed a poor argument for its continued overregulation.

I did not refer to "marijuana use" as new territory. I referred to government sanctioned and regulated legal use and sale of marijuana as "new territory", which it is, as we are the first nation to do it at this scale and with this availability.

True. What effects are we looking for though?

Socioeconomic changes? Increases in health problems? I'm pretty sure I made that clear in my previous post.

I don't think so. Why would it? Does it matter if it does?

Because minorities are disproportionately targeted with drug charges; being legal could increase usage amongst groups that no longer have to fear arrests and police violence. How many people will show up to work high? Smoke up on breaks? My wife works in HR; these are already becoming a problem. How many will lose their jobs because employers disagree with its legality? With the racial disproportionality around drug use just shift from the eyes of the law to the workplace?

There are a lot of questions that stand to be answered. The more data the better, but a controlled way of gathering it is always preferred. "I don't think so" is exactly the reason studies are done and all of science isn't just answered based on gut feelings

Our government just made public plans to increase the sales hours of LCBO shops. Does that mean more people will use a toxic psychotropic that is legal?

Probably not, but I also don't agree with increasing hours. It puts LCBO employees at more risk.

Why would cancer rates go up?

Because usage goes up? Prohibition is a great example of the failure of illegalization, but is also a great example of what happens when it's made legal. Hint: Alcohol usage now is higher than the majority of years prior to alcohol prohibition, and hit a massive high in the 1980s; during which it was quite legal. Illegality will always stop *some* people from using.

Illegality has also made it hard to conduct accurate scientific study. Subjects have to self-identify at risk of potential legal problems. As such, studies are often done by those known to the medical and legal system.

You're acting as if people haven't been smoking copious amounts of weed in this country for decades.

No, I'm acting like selling a product that's been illegal for more than half a century should maybe be done with some forethought and not as some firehose of libertarian "personal freedom" without thought to potential consequences.

Nothing has changed in the vast majority of people's usage!

No, but where and when they can do it, and where they can obtain it have.

Second of all, and more importantly, my position is one of harm reduction and informed drugs use.

I like wine. I don't feel I need to mention it in every third unrelated post or so (see: how I knew about your love of substances). It feels like your position is a bit biased on the side of your declared love of such things, less than advocacy for harm reduction.

The current state of affairs does absolutely fuckal for public health and safety. Alcohol and nicotine are legal. Psilocybin and MDMA are not.
Now, go do some basic research on the effects, typical doses, toxicity, addiction potential, social harm, and so on of these four psychotropics and then come talk to me about being concerned for public health and safety.

Alcohol and Nicotine are restricted substances. One can't just sell alcohol for drinking purposes with an alcohol level higher than 40% in this province, or (until recently) from a grocery store or corner store. Cigarettes are sold hidden in special cabinets, with warnings, ID requirements, etc. They can't be sold in pharmacies, vending machines or other things. The freedoms one once had around alcohol and nicotine have fluctuated, but they have done so based on public safety. Please don't act like buying alcohol or cigarettes is a completely unencumbered freedom. It's not.

While we can't stop people from using, there are certainly restrictions on how they obtain them.

Do you have anyone in your life with schizophrenia? I know quite well that psychotropics don't cause schizophrenia (unlike many in the general public), but I do know the effect that they have on schizophrenics.

Also, as an advocate for harm reduction in drug use (which includes legal drugs like caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and various amphetamines and opioids) I'm not sure how I can be accused of not taking public health and safety into consideration.

The fact that you don't seem to feel taking a measured approach to start is perhaps a wise decision?

Who are these people "who don't use"? How many people do you know who don't ever or have never used a psychotropic substance to either their benefit or detriment?

How many? Go on....enlighten us.

Aside from alcohol? Me? My wife. Several of my best friends. I've an addict brother and a schizophrenic addict ex-girlfriend. I've chosen to avoid such things, legal or not.

Lumping all substances together as if they have the same potency, effects, addictive properties and socioeconomic effect is disingenuous at best. Downright false equivalency at worst.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to nor can ascertain its meaning in this context.

Laws are like that. People object to freedoms being taken away. They rarely object to freedoms being given.

A slow and measured rollout is better than a free-for-all that may lead to problems that require enacting laws of restriction.

We do know the effects on society of weed use. It's been around and so have the studies. This is new only to you, seemingly. Don't worry, I promise, it will all be OK.

Don't minimize this. All is not known as to how its legality affects society.

One doesn't need to use any specific psychotropic in order to be an advocate of rational drugs policy.

I am an advocate of rational drugs policy. But libertarian angles aren't always rational; they're often downright selfish.

 

[Northern Light]

@MTown and @zang

May I just say I think both of you are quality contributors on the forum.

I don't think either of you as far apart as your posts make it seem.

Please don't let disagreements become personal.

FWIW, I'm with @MTown in so far as I understand that prohbitionist and nanny-state policies have been largely ineffective and unhelpful at best; while causing much real harm (drug wars, cartels, black markets, lack of quality assured consumer information, lack of quality assurance of product etc. etc.)

I understand @zang 's point completely in that their should be research and study, and that a total free-for-all is not a desirable outcome either.

But I think there's an understandable impatience by those who know how much harm has been caused by backwards thinking, and who want to see more progress, more quickly.

I don't think we need to study certain things. Broad de-criminization of small-scale possession (of most substances), as an example, has been tried in Portugal, and by all accounts has been quite the success.

What other substances besides cannibis might be suited to broader legalization likely does merit more study, but perhaps we could get on with that as we moved towards evidence-based policy.

 

[Jasmine18]

I think the reason Ford gets a lot of attention over changing liqour laws and such is that its more libertarian-minded then conservative.

People want less government on things such as 'what time I can buy booze lol'

 

[TransitBart]

I think the reason Ford gets a lot of attention over changing liqour laws and such is that its more libertarian-minded then conservative.

People want less government on things such as 'what time I can buy booze lol'

This is quite insightful and probably very true. Nanny State had run amok. People are frustrated that the previous government was doing too many things and seemingly very few well - or at least that was the perception at the end. Better to do less and do it brilliantly.

 

[adma]

Gotta love the TorSun:

Does Andrew Scheer need to be more like Doug Ford to win next year's federal election?

View attachment 164092

Why am I reminded of Planet of the Apes?

Substitute "Faith Goldy" for "Doug Ford", and see what happens.

 

[steveintoronto]

Substitute "Faith Goldy" for "Doug Ford", and see what happens.

LOL! They'd "Max" out. (Max, as in 'Bernier') I actually have more respect for Mad Max being honest about his positions and ideology while many reactionary Cons make excuses for the Scheer Absurdity. Ford represents the most reactionary of them all, in having no scruples what-so-ever. "Ideology...what did you call me? I'll come over there and knock some sense into you...if I can find any..."

 

[Jasmine18]

This is quite insightful and probably very true. Nanny State had run amok. People are frustrated that the previous government was doing too many things and seemingly very few well - or at least that was the perception at the end. Better to do less and do it brilliantly.

Yeah I think many people forget people use to call Dalton and Wynne as Premier Mom and Dad.

I find somepeople will ignore the cuts and other things oddly and still back or not mind Ford much because of his more libertarian mindset compared to the previous provincial liberals.

I do think people in Ontario think govt is good but its rather clear people thought the liberals went too far. I think that is why Wynne became so unpopular because she really felt what she was doing was right and people will accept it as being right and support her.

 

[Videodrome]

Douglas Judson
@dwjudson

More disturbing news from #PCPO18: @OntarioPCParty allowed Campaign Life Coalition to hand out flyers that liken #LGBT-inclusive #SexEd to a “pedophile manifesto” and urges @fordnation to trammel Charter rights and the rule of law. #onpoli

This just keeps on getting worse for the PC's.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yeah I think many people forget people use to call Dalton and Wynne as Premier Mom and Dad.

Huh? Do you have a reference for that? I forget, because I've never heard it. And my ear is pretty close to the ground peppers.

"Libertarian" means shit when people can't get to work and get paid peanuts when they get there. You mistake "Libertarian" for "slack".

 

[steveintoronto]

This just keeps on getting worse for the PC's.

Followed your links, this just astounds me, albeit it's so TorSun, and what the whole OntCon thing is all about right now. Best viewed with your IQ in 'off' position:

Note I didn't toggle the sound on. There are limits to what I expose myself to...

 

[Northern Light]

Yeah I think many people forget people use to call Dalton and Wynne as Premier Mom and Dad.

I find somepeople will ignore the cuts and other things oddly and still back or not mind Ford much because of his more libertarian mindset compared to the previous provincial liberals.

I do think people in Ontario think govt is good but its rather clear people thought the liberals went too far. I think that is why Wynne became so unpopular because she really felt what she was doing was right and people will accept it as being right and support her.

I can agree w/the first line.

The second, is offensive (not you, but the notion), but...perhaps.

Where you wander too far for me is the third stanza.

I think the privatization of Hydro One might be her leading fail. The shrinking of government.

The reason being people found her insincere on that, and therefore questioned everything else.