This is your politics on drugs

The Conservatives see an opportunity to make some money


An email sent out by the Conservative party this afternoon under the subject line, “Leadership.”

While the Harper government is focused on the economy, Justin Trudeau has announced one of his very first policy positions as leader of the Liberal Party – he wants to legalise marijuana in Canada.

The fact that drug legalisation is one of Justin Trudeau’s top policy priorities shows that he does not have the judgement to be Prime Minister.

These drugs are illegal because of the harmful effect they have on users and on society. Our government has no interest in seeing marijuana legalized or made more easily available to youth.

Real leadership focuses on the things that matter to you – lower taxes, a stronger economy, and safer communities.

Thanks to the strong leadership of Stephen Harper, more than one million net new jobs have been created since the recession.

Justin Trudeau’s reckless ideas are not the kind of leadership our country needs.

Support strong leadership – and stand up against Justin Trudeau’s plan to bring more illegal drugs into our communities.

Chip in $5 or more today and tell us you’re with us:


Dan Hilton
Executive Director
Conservative Party of Canada

The suggestion that legalizing marijuana is one of Mr. Trudeau’s top policy priorities is probably debatable—it gets a brief reference at the bottom of this page on what the Liberal party “stands for,” but it doesn’t seem to have merited mention under the the “public statements” section of—but here is probably the gist of what the Conservatives are prepared to say about this. Stephen Harper wants to protect your children. Justin Trudeau wants to “bring more illegal drugs into our communities.”

Here is Colby Cosh explaining why Mr. Trudeau’s approach doesn’t go far enough. And here is Ken MacQueen explaining why it’s time to legalize marijuana.


This is your politics on drugs

  1. I actually think the Conservatives would be better off politically by ignoring this. The funny thing is, that email is basically self-contradictory: it starts out sort of arguing that JT is some frivolous twit for raising the pot legalization issue (as though it’s some silly fringe issue), then the email ends up making a pitch for donations over the issue, which implicitly suggests that it’s not a frivolous issue.
    I think the Conservatives risk alienating just as many potential Conservative voters as they might attract by pushing the anti side of this issue too hard. There are a lot of “soft” economic, free-market libertarian conservatives out there who lean liberal on social issues. Meahwhile, the people who think pot users are fiends who should be locked up are probably already in the tank for the Conservatives.

    • “the people who think pot users are fiends who should be locked up are probably already in the tank for the Conservatives.”

      Those are the folks the Conservatives are looking to get $5 each from. Easy money.

      • I really wonder how many people like that are left in Canada. I agree there are people who look down on pot users, and there are moms and dads who think it’s good to keep it illegal so their kids won’t think it’s okay etc., but I really wonder whether many of those people feel so strongly about the issue that they’d donate money the the CPC to fight it. That’s the thing — I think that by and large, the people who are pro-legalization these days are actually more animated and feel more strongly about this as a ballot issue than the people who are in favour of keeping it illegal (except, of course, for the cops and the organized criminals who benefit monetarily from criminalization). There’s irony for you — The Hell’s Angels becoming the biggest donor to the CPC in order to support the CPC’s law and order agenda.

        • The people who are ‘like that’, as you say, are probably Conservative anyway. They’re on their mailing list. They aren’t swing voters. Rattle their chains, get a few bucks. Like I said, easy money. Even if it’s 5% effective, it’s a nice chunk of change.

          As far as the public at large, I do think the issue causes more discomfort than you might think. I’m a guy who favours legalization, generally, but even I’m not totally ‘comfortable’ with it I have worries. I doubt I’m the only one in that boat.

          I’m not so uncomfortable that I’ll be sending in $5 though.

          • I hear you on the “not totally comfortable” point, but I think the Conservatives are at risk of really painting themselves into a reactionary, hard-line corner here, especially with their rhetoric. They really risk coming across as out of touch, as though the last 50 years (including all of the literature and studies on legalization) haven’t even happened. I guess my point is, if you’re kind of a moderate centrist on the issue, and all the Conservatives have to offer is “hang ’em high”, I don’t know if that’s such a great place for them to be on this.

          • Hey, Maybe Justin should send out an e-mail asking for money from the pot users.
            They will have to get used to doing every-day things, if they are going to remember to wake up in time to vote in the next election.

          • You forgot to mention the ‘pushers’ lol

      • The people who smoke pot regularly are probably already in the tank with Trudeau.
        Why is Trudeau trying to gain their support when he may already have it ?

        • If you think that only left-leaning people smoke pot, you are totally out to lunch.

          • Those of us on the right who do smoke pot just realize that this policy is complete and utter vote-pandering garbage.

            If it’s as completely harmless as proponents suggest, then there’s no reason to tax or regulate it. Treat it like we’d treat a blueberry bush.

            If it is dangerous enough that we need to regulate it and put a “sin tax” on it, then we should really be asking ourselves why we’d be promoting something that’s bad for us.

            And make no mistake about it, Trudeau’s policy would promote more marijuana use, simply by making it cheaper than it currently is.

          • Then answer my question about the Netherlands, Rick. How come marijuana use among youth in the Netherlands is measurably LOWER than in Canada? That blows your lame, scare-mongering theory out of the water where it belongs.

          • It’s because hard drugs are more popular in Europe than marijuana. They use far more hard drugs than our kids here do. It’s not rocket science.

          • God, that’s lame.

          • No, it’s true. And clearly you can’t even attempt to rebut it. But thanks for coming out.

    • Good point – the blurb above is self-contradictory in several ways:

      – if economics are important, then the $20 Billion in anual pot sales and 1000s of [legal] jobs that legalisation would create makes legalisation a good idea;
      – marijuana “matters to Canadians” because 50% of adults use it
      – the greater “harm to society” is clearly from prohibition; not pot smoking;
      – the “leadership of Stephan Harper” existed BEFORE the recession, so if he can take credit for the recovery he should be “leader enough” to bear some responsibility for the recession;
      – “Justin Trudeau’s idea” is to LEGALISE pot, so how could it “bring more ILLEGAL DRUGS into our communities”??

      Someone in the Con’s staff really blew a mind-fart with that last one – “more illegal drugs” only happens under prohibition. Hilariously bone headed. Stupidly blind beyond total drunken idiocy…. and typically blunt conservatism.

      • Marijuana is a gateway drug. More marijuana users = more hard drug users. Of course you’ll deny it, despite all the “evidence and science” that backs me up.

        It really boggles the mind that Trust Fund Trudeau’s focus is entirely on making more Canadians pot smokers.

        • So explain the situation in the Netherlands, Rick. Significantly fewer young people in the Netherlands smoke pot compared to Canada. How do you explain that, Einstein?

          • Because it’s the Netherlands and not Canada. Hard drugs are far more popular among kids in Europe.

            You’d also note that the Netherlands has, in recent years, been cranking up the criminality of marijuana use. But that doesn’t fit your narrative, does it? Large-scale dealing, production, import and export are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in the Netherlands as well.

            You might want to look up what their actual laws are before using it as an argument in your favor.

          • Rick, I lived in the Netherlands, I’m very familiar with the situation there. And it hasn’t been “cranking up the criminality”, what it did was cut back on coffeeshops in border towns, where drug tourists were coming in from Germany and Belgium and so on.
            You are correct that marijuana is not technically “legal” in the Netherlands — but it never has been, what goes on with the coffeeshops and their possession laws is really akin to decriminalization.

          • No, it’s akin to turning a blind eye, as 99% of RCMP officers in Canada currently do. Nobodies getting thrown in jail in Canada for having a few grams of weed on them.

            Funny that the Netherlands wouldn’t want drug tourists…. why do you think that would be? Because of all the money they bring into the economy?

          • Jesus Rick, you can be obtuse. Is it some deliberate rhetorical strategy of yours, or congenital? First of all, it was reported yesterday in the press that convictions for marijuana possession have increased over 40% under Harper, so your first statement is false.
            Secondly, the objections in the Netherlands were largely confined to the border towns, as I stated in my first post — for some reason, you seem to have reading comprehension issues.
            Where the Netherlands emphatically wanted to keep drug tourists was in Amsterdam. The mayor of Amsterdam in particular was very concerned about LOSING “drug tourists”. So although the situation in the Netherlands today is less than ideal IMO (because it’s not full legalization by any means), I actually think that in terms of where it ended up, it’s not a bad compromise. Amsterdam’s cachet as a tourist mecca (including for sampling life under a liberal recreational drug regime) has been preserved, while the local resident concerns in the border towns were addressed. Bear in mind, many of these border towns are small towns; they’re just not designed to handle a red-light district mass tourism situation the way Amsterdam is.

          • I’m of the opinion that Rick is a performance artist who doesn’t believe a thing he writes. We already know that he assumed an entire fake background when joining these boards. Originally, I thought the fake background was meant to add an air of respectability to his comments. Now, I think he was building a background for his “role”.

            It’s not actually possible to hold all of Rick opinions in one container without causing a massive explosion.

      • if your not with us your with Justin and the dealers. if vic teows wasn’t to busy he would have said it for the Tory’s

  2. Attention Cons: Harper needs an intervention.

    Trade talks with the EU are falling apart, Keystone is falling apart, the economy is falling apart, the military is falling apart….and Harper’s only interest is in Justin………. about an election that’s 2 years away

  3. Pierre was a bull head and Justin is just a pothead, you have to look no further than his mother another pothead as well as an air head, there is a lot of head there to deal with !

    • says a random person online with no reputation.
      Talking about a highly praised young politician following in his fathers footsteps.

      I hope he beats Harper just to get the conservatives out of office. Im tired of destroying the economy, tightening the belts of Canadians while companies make record profits…its time we had a prime minister interested in Canadians.

      • Hahaha, Justin Trudeau is “highly praised”?! For what, exactly? Taking $20,000 from charities? The only people who give him “high praise” are card carrying Liberals. The rest of us only know that he wants more Canadians smoking more dope.

        • …lmao. please go find me another billion dollar industry that we haven’t exploited.

          If slaughtering animals in single file at a slaughterhouse is fine or digging a HUGE open pit mine just to extract oil the world doesn’t want is fine.
          Why is smoking a plant on my own time a problem.

          We cut funding to music education in our schools, but we wont raise corporate taxes .5% to pay for increased budgets in our schools.

          Harper makes money, its his job. He is a true conservative.
          But look at the great old USA they focused on money money money and now they get to say hello to their new daddy China cause you hit a point where all the rich people say **** you to the poor people and siphon the money out of the economy.

          If you support that go ahead and vote Blue, I’m not saying Red would fix the world but i give them more respect than Harper

    • OK – I’m putting you down as undecided. I notice the 1 after your name – are there more of you?

      • Conbots….turned out in a factory, and programmed with slogans.

  4. Just say ‘no’ to the failed war on drugs.

    (This message is brought to you by Canada’s Economic Action Plan: good leadership means defrauding taxpayers out of $125M in self-promoting advertising.)

  5. Is it ironic that regulation and taxation of marijuana would greatly help our economy?

  6. “… bring more illegal drugs into our communities.”
    Of course if they’re not illegal anymore, then the statement is erroneous.


    Harper Cons doing what they do best—spreading FUD. (fear, uncertainly and doubt).

  7. Legalization is the way to go but implementation is the key. We don’t need to see it distributed in a retail environment, Licensing people to grow it should be the model , ensuring ease of acquisition for medical users and less financial hardship for already addicted users. Harper has nothing hanging in his pants, As in No Balls! ! Instead he skirts this issue constantly. Speaking of skirts he would be cute in one I think. It would make for Easier Access for what JT is going to do to his arse in two years.

    • That is the most amazing mess of ignorance, sexism and homophobia I’ve seen in some time.

      • For some time? Don’t you ever read your own comments?

        • scf….another born loser.

          • Loser? Don’t you ever read your own comments?

          • LOL if you are happy with being a loser in life, it’s your problem, not mine

          • I’m wondering why you spew garbage all over this site without reading any of it yourself. That’s a feature of your deranged and diseased mind, which is no problem of mine.

          • Like I said….your mess of a life, not mine.


          • Still waiting for an answer of any kind. Perhaps the disease might subside for a moment? Heal thyself.

          • That exchange really moved the Con position forward.

          • Good point, genius. I’m sure the conversation is a step up for you, I can imagine you have taken notes. I’m always in awe of your formidable contribution to the discourse, on par with such luminaries as Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

            But for now, you and your girlfriend Emily should go off together and have some fun.

          • It takes so little effort to prompt you to make an ass of yourself.

          • Spoken by the truest ass of them all. Do you offer anything redeeming to the human race?
            By the way, how was your romp in the hay with Emily? You two make a great couple, both so warm, sweet and loving.

  8. I’m not surprised the Conservatives are so out of touch on this issue. It’s time to legalize marijuana.

    • It completely blows their ‘generational change’ right out of the water. It’s like Vic Toews is still in cabinet and doing the talking points.

  9. They took the bait…

  10. The country needs to find ways for the cities to increase income, without raising taxes and “breaking” the economy.
    fully legalize pot, roll it regulate it and sell it.
    You create a multi billion dollar business, especially Toronto we need to relieve some stress on the medical industry and increase income to pay for infrastructure.

    Its better than saying its illegal, not fully enforcing it and letting the money go to criminals and gangs.

    • Yes, having more potheads walking around the country will some how relieve stress on the medical industry. “Evidence and science”!!! Because I said so!

      • What aboot those dreaded pot pushers Rick? please entertain us with your words.

      • you find me another 10+ billion dollar industry in Canada.
        Please, go ahead. We have smokes,food,oil, and electricity.
        Weed would fit in instantly, you wouldn’t have more potheads.
        most of the country smokes dope anyways.

        Its odd when you think about it, most teenagers try it, many young adults are smoking and even in older age it can be beneficial, sure its not a vitamin its still a drug but with moderation and government control it could relieve some of the stress on tax payers,well depending on what we do with the money. Usually the dumb uneducated voters in our country vote for something then let the politicians handle it with no say from us.

        It cant be used to fund the oil sands, it cant fund media,sports,etc
        it needs to represent science,the arts,progress.

  11. GritRock is right. I’m a free-market libertarian who’s a serial swing voter. I vote Conservative when I think the economy is in trouble. But socially I couldn’t be further left. I think drug prohibition is one of the biggest drains on our economy and would absolutely support any part willing to legalize and tax any drug.

    • I am with you on that. If we could run the business of mood altering drugs like we do with alcohol I am all in. What it all comes down to is the fact that people want to get HIGH or be able to relax, or chill or whatever they want to call it that is fine by me. We sell alcohol by offering different taste at different levels of % alcohol. Let’s do the same for drugs. We allow distilleries to produce the liquor. Let big pharma produce the drugs. That way they are regulated. Not only that but with the stipulation that they lower their prescription drugs.

  12. Well I hope you taxpayers enjoy paying for all those people your keeping in jail because of a stupid plant that people choose to involve themselves with instead of stimulating the market with this “drug money” without legalization your just letting organized crime make more money and continue to grow, and spending your own money on useless policing and incarceration have fun with this continuous cycle of stupidity! Maybe smoking marijuana is stupid but the way its being handled is even stupider ahhaha

  13. Justin Trudeau doesn’t want to “bring more illegal drugs into our communities.” He wants drugs, harmless ones, legal in our communities. He wants to reduce harm, not increase it. He wants to keep kids OUT of prison, not throw them in it.

    The cons stand on MJ is moronic and failed. Sucks to be that stupid.

  14. Now that the NDP have been shown to steal the position of official opposition in the 2011 election using illegal robocalls, I look forward to Aaron Wherry, crack reporter, to bring us the story! This is your beat Aaron! Bring it!

    “Strategic Communications Inc. was issued a notice of violation
    for a robocall campaign it carried out on behalf of the NDP between 11
    January and 20 January 2012 in the electoral district of
    St-Maurice-Champlain, Québec.”

    Can’t wait!

    • You can’t think either.

    • Paul Dewar admitted his wrongdoing and paid the fine. He has promised not to send out unidentified robocalls in the future.

      Meanwhile, we are still hunting for Pierre Poutine, who was a Conservative campaigner masquerading as Elections Canada, trying to prevent non-conservative voters from reaching their polling stations. Exactly the same thing, obviously, because the word “robocall” is used in both instances.

      You must be highly supportive of Mr. Trudeau’s position if you think this particular story has any relation to positions on marijuana legalization mentioned in the original story.

      • Maybe Paul Dewar can tell you who is Pierre Poutine.

        Yeah, Dewar admitted wrongdoing AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT. How noble. Maybe Poutine is a french-fry loving 15 year old. Maybe you’re Pierre Poutine, I wouldn’t put it past you.

        As usual, the typical hypocrisy from people like you.

        • Not to defend Dewar, but here’s the Ottawa Citizen describing the issue that led to the fine:

          “The CRTC said Dewar’s campaign for the NDP leadership failed to identity itself as the originator of automated calls polling party members on their choice of leader, over two days in February 2012.

          “The calls did not specify at the outset that they were being made on behalf of Mr. Dewar’s campaign, nor did they include the call originator’s mailing address or a call-back number,” the CRTC said in a press release.”

          Maybe – and I realize this is asking a lot of you – you see the difference between that and:

          “This is Elections Canada. Your polling location has changed. On election day, please come to the abandoned church 30 minutes north of town and cast your vote at the top of the steeple. Thank you.”

          How bout it? Do you see a difference? That would be a false equivalency, now wouldn’t it?

          • Please point to the Conservative MP who was caught doing that.
            Yeah, as usual, you’ve got fake scandals based on lies, and you try to say that a lie is equivalent to the truth. Whatever.

          • But that’s all beside the point. Wherry has written 10,000 posts about the possibility that Conservatives may have in some imaginary land been guilty of robo-calling. He’s written 0 posts about Dewar actually in reality being truly and really caught doing illegal robo-calling. And here you are, claiming that’s perfectly fine. Conservatives 1000, NDP 0! And here you are, you perfect hypocrite, claiming that is somehow even-handed, because of the imaginary world you live in where all Conservatives are serial killers. Whatever.
            If there is a Conservative MP guilty of robo-calling, then give me his name! We’ve got one imaginary fellow named Poutine, and we have a staffer named Sona who’s been convicted of nothing, and no Conservative MP has been guilty of anything! Dewar has been fined, so let’s talk about Dewar! Dewar is guilty, so let’s hear about it!
            On a similar note he had 10,000 posts about Duffy. Now it’s been shown that Harb went way beyond the wrongdoings of any other senator! He was claiming living expenses for a house that was uninhabitable! He was pretending to be living in a house that was uninhabitable and he was never, ever, seen anywhere near the house. A house he bought that is exactly the minimum distance from Ottawa to be claiming living expenses, a house he sold right away (but he kept ownership of 1% of the house) and then never went anywhere near it. So let’s hear about Harb!
            You’re such a hypocrite.

        • You and Rick should get a room together.

          Oh wait, you’re already both typing out of the Con bunker. My bad.

          • Who the heck is Rick? I don’t know a Rick. You’ve got issues. Are you senile?

          • Our dear friend Mr. Omen – one of your fellow travellers – you’re kidding right? He’s probably in the next cubicle – go say hi.

          • You must be happy that you have a friend named Rick. In fact, I’m surprised you have any friends at all. But the fact is, I don’t care.

          • To be fair, nobody really knows who Rick is. You could be sitting beside him right now.

      • Yes, Pierre Poutine must be a Conservative, because both the Liberals and NDP have already been busted for making illegal robocalls. So it MUST follow that Pierre Poutine is a Conservative, right? “Evidence and Science” is whatever I feel like it is!

        • Are you really denying that the Pierre Poutine calls made via Racknine originated from a Conservative campaign operator of some sort? Hilarious. Bravo. Your act just reached a crescendo.

  15. JT know what he is talking about, he is in touch with society on a big and small picture and isn’t walking about with blinders on. He is adding a fresh new outlook on Canada, something Canada needs and today’s youth and openminded people of Canada will embrace. Anyone who doesn’t see what JT is suggesting is walking about with blinder on heading their head in the sand. What JT is putting forward will make society safer [those who enjoy pot (you know what you are getting (not laced with other toxics or hard drugs! ) and those who do not (as the cost of pot by users will go towards decreasing the countries debut, may even decrease the GST )and for those who are sick (having open access may increase on quality of life) for all Canadians, (crime rates will fall, the percent of youth involved in crime may decrease, and the amount of provincial and federal money spent on trails for pot will be focused towards more pressing and harmful criminal situations)]. This is a win win

    • Wow. “Crime rates will fall”. Ya, it’s funny how that happens when you just go and legalize stuff. I bet Trudeau will solve Canada’s murder problem by simply making it legal. Absolutely brilliant stuff from Liberal-la-la-land.

  16. I dunno, legalising toothpaste had no real effect on, say, Peter Van Loan.

  17. What about people who use it for medical purposes! The conservatives just want more and more control over the way we live our lives.

    • Um, it’s already available for medicinal use. Welcome to this century. But sure, let’s argue in favor of medical marijuana. Great!

  18. Conservative approach to pot is to lock up more Canadians, including our kids.

    Yeah … that’s a winning strategy! (sarcasm)

  19. I’m all for getting the hard core stoners off their collective duffs and out to the polls in the next election. I mean it’s not that difficult putting an X besides someones name. Even this group of mental midgets can manage that. Right?

    • Hey, if the gun nuts can figure it out…

      • Not to mention all those people who ask their invisible friend for favours every Sunday. If they can be briefly rational enough to pick up a pencil, anyone can.

        • Oh yeah, the people who believe in a talking snake (with kudos to Bill Maher for that one) . . .

  20. When I read this email I don’t think the Conservatives primary argument against Justin Trudeau’s position on marijuana is that he is in favor of legalization. I see the main criticism being that this is essentially Trudeau’s FIRST public policy announcement. Throughout the entire leadership campaign and thus far as Liberal leader he hasn’t really refined his general themes into specific policy positions.

    Although it’s true that recent polls indicate most Canadians are in favor of legalization it’s unlikely that this is going to be a big election issue. Given the range of other issues on the table I’m surprised that Trudeau would make this his first official public policy stance.

    • I think the Conservatives’ primary argument in the email is that they want whoever reads it to give them five bucks.
      I take your point about this sort of being the most prominent and noticeable policy pronouncement JT has made since becoming leader, but the attention being paid to it has a lot to do with the fact that it’s bold, gutsy and it’s getting lots of media play (just look how heavy the comments are in a lot of comment boards, in the middle of the summer vacation season).
      And in any event, come the 2015 election season, it’s not like your average Canadian voter is going to remember, or care, that this was among the first major policy issues that JT took a stand on. They’re going to care about the merits of his position, one way or the other, and whether or not they agree with it. It’s not like people cast a vote based on the order in which you rolled out various policy pronouncements.

      • When will we actually have a debate about the merits of this policy? Because once that happens, I have a pretty good feeling Junior’ll be backtracking.

        Even from the perspective of a pothead, Trust Fund Trudeau’s policy doesn’t make any sense. Why would I want some watered-down government weed when my guy down the street can still produce the same awesome stuff? Simply because it’s cheaper? I’d rather pay a premium for a premium product than be held hostage to what I can smoke by the government. And even though weed was “legalized”, the guy growing down the street will still be breaking the law if he’s not growing Government Regulated weed.

        Once people actually start to think about the repercussions of this policy, I firmly believe it will disappear down the rabbit hole again, and he’ll flip-flop like he always does.

        • So your objection to Justin Trudeau’s proposals is that you’re worried that we won’t get high enough quality weed under the new legal regime. Fascinating. Perhaps you should suggest some amendments to his proposed legal regime which will ensure that Rick Omen will continue to get the dynamite potent ganja that he has come to know and love.
          I note that this line of attack doesn’t seem to be entirely consistent with your other posts. Short-term memory loss, perhaps?

          • It’s another reason, among many, that this policy will not resonate with the public once people actually have time to think about the consequences of said policy.

            It’s bad policy, the reasons are myriad. Accept that.

          • It’s bad policy because more people will (allegedly, according to Rick) get high. And it’s bad policy because Rick won’t be able to get high enough. Got it.

          • Whatever he’s on – I don’t want it. :-)

    • Actually, Justin Trudeau said the government should allow the CNOOC/Nexen deal to go through while Harper was still waffling on it and has come out in support of the Keystone XL pipeline. Take that for what it’s worth.

  21. He’s got my vote.