123

Trudeau and pot: Won’t somebody please think of the children

The most debated of joints


 

I was away last week, but I am heartened to return and see that, in the wake of Justin Trudeau’s admission that he had “a puff” from a marijuana cigarette some three years ago, political leaders in this country have arrived at a new consensus about the standard by which their collective and individual behaviour should be measured.

The strongest initial reaction came from Justice Minister Peter MacKay. “By smoking marijuana as a Member of Parliament, Justin Trudeau demonstrates a profound lack of judgment,” he said in a statement. “By flouting the laws of Canada while holding elected office, he shows he is a poor example for all Canadians, particularly young ones. Justin Trudeau is simply not the kind of leader our country needs.”

The NDP’s Francoise Boivin concurred with Mr. MacKay.

In an interview, NDP justice critic Françoise Boivin suggested elected officials should uphold the law rather than admit to flouting it. “I’m sure there will be kids saying, ‘Hey if he does it, we can do it.'”

This promises the beginning of a wonderful new era in our politics in which all words and actions will be judged by the example they set for our children. This new era perhaps arrives too late to be applied to, say, the discussion around fighter jet procurement, but it will now no doubt be the ideal that guides all of the discussions about the economy, the environment, health care, public services and taxation that are now necessary if we should hope to leave our children a country that is worthy of our concern for them.

What else to make of this? The Star argues that Mr. Trudeau shouldn’t have broken the law while sitting as an MP. On that note, Greg Fingas points to Stephen Harper’s unlicensed ATV riding, while David Climenhaga points to Mr. Harper’s eagerness to pardon farmers who had violated wheat board law. (Of course, Mr. Trudeau’s puff was not quite an attempt at a political statement—if he’d shown up on the Hill on 4/20 and partaken of the festivities, he might’ve been able to claim the symbolism of civil disobedience. Instead, he says his mind began to change sometime around last November and the NORML Women’s Association of Canada would like you to know that he credits them for that.)

Ah, but he was being open and transparent when he answered the question and this heralds another new era in politics. Except maybe before he was open and transparent he was acting hypocritically in taking a puff around the same time he was voting in favour of C-15, which set out mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana production.

C-15 is a fun story. Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals did indeed support it in the House, angering Liberals in the process. Then Liberals in the Senate amended the bill, angering Conservatives. Then Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament in 2009, killing the bill.

It was revived as a Senate bill, but then went nowhere in the House before Parliament was dissolved in 2011 for an election. It was then included as part of C-10, the Harper government’s omnibus crime bill. The Liberals, including Mr. Trudeau, then voted against C-10. (And two months after C-10 passed the House, the Liberal party endorsed legalizing marijuana.)

C-10 was also opposed by Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, who believes that marijuana should be legalized.

Ultimately, the puff itself is probably more meaningful than both the vote and the admission of the puff, but probably not because the puff will lead our children to all now smoke weed. On that last count, surely the other Justin—pictured here with a congratulatory politician—is a greater threat.


 

Trudeau and pot: Won’t somebody please think of the children

  1. I’m not a Liberal and not much of a Trudeau supporter, but the NDP and the Conservatives are both wrong on this, specifically for the very reason they give, that it sets a bad example.

    They are basically saying that you will be punished if you get caught or if you admit that you have smoked marijuana (as an MP) but, since they aren’t proposing all other MP’s discuss their own marijuana history, it’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repackaged for marijuana and the example they are setting by criticizing Trudeau is official hypocrisy.

    • True enough, the one thing Trudeau is guilty of – being a hypocrite for voting for MMs while himself having indulged and kept quiet- is essentially now turned back on all those mps who have themselves indulged; they’re all hypocrites too, as it’s not likely that all those who indulged stopped immediately on becoming mps; this applies to cons as much as anyone. Does anyone really have the right to throw stones here?The fact that they’re willing to point fingers at Trudeau for setting a bad example is pathetic. But that’s politics I guess.
      It’s made worse as you previously said by the CPC’a silence on the Ford fiasco and the NDPs sudden conversion from Layton’s previous support for legalization.

      • Was it perhaps an omnibus bill? Then it underlines the potential problems with such legislation while underlying the broken CPC promise regarding their overuse.

        • I don’t know if it was the first time up[ when he voted for it] but i believe it was the second time, when he voted against.

        • Omnibus bills are needed when the opposition is belligerently stupid and opposes everything in idiotic obstinance. I am sure if Mulcair offered Harper to break out good parts of omnibus witht he promise of quick and unfetered passage Harper would take Mulcair up on it.

          But NDP hate and dogmatism prevents Mulcair to be mature and productive leader. He would rather bully, bark and slander than to do something constructive.

          • your first sentence -and only your first -has some truth to it. Too bad the PM didn’t think of that when shootin’ off his mouth for so many years, eh?

    • I really think its more about an individuals choice to choose more than anything else. adults should not have their rights to choose taken from them. with this clamp down government(harper cons), Canadians will continue to live in some sort of oppression as long as we keep electing these dinos(cons).

      • We had the same repression under Liberals. So your point?

        If you believe Justin’s words, I have some cheap property for sale…. As I learned a long time ago to watch not a politicians lips a deceiving you, but watch how they have walked.

        I have no reason to trust Liberals, NDP or Conservatives any more than another. Reality is none of these parties represent the middle class. Only option on the rigged ballot is more government bloat and less spending power in my wallet. That isn’t a choice, its a rigged ruse.

    • If the supreme being was my witness, I would bet the farm on Mulcair and Harper also having had at least a toke or two. Especially Mulcair.

      • And not just them… According to the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-wake-of-trudeaus-admission-politicians-clear-the-air-on-past-pot-use/article13942298/)

        Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Treasury Board President Tony Clement answered the question in 2002, when they were vying for the leadership of the Ontario PC Party.

        “Yeah, in my teenage years … a couple of times,” Mr. Flaherty said. “I have to admit: I didn’t like it.”

        Mr. Clement said drugs are not his thing.“Not even a cigarette,” he said in 2002. “It’s true. I’m not controversial.”

        But Prime Minister Stephen Harper – who usually says he never smoked pot because of his asthma – once gave a far more colourful response at a high school in Listowel, Ont.

        “I like to tell people I was offered a joint once, but I was too drunk to smoke it,” he said in 2004, while leader of the Canadian Alliance.

  2. A picture of MacKay funneling down beer when a student was posted after he made his stupid comment. I wonder if he was of drinking age when he was performing this so-called acceptable act?

    • It is kind of difficult to smoke marijuana without possessing it. Trudeau, I believe, said that he was passed a joint. That means he was holding it. To a reasonable person, holding a joint in your hand is possession.

      Or are we going to start debating the meaning of “is” is, again.

      • He took a pull when it was passed around….he didn’t own it. Sorry, but it’s not illegal.

        In fact every year we have people smoking up on Parliament hill, and the cops ignore them.

        Mackay was trying to imply that Trudeau was breaking the law….he wasn’t.

        • They can’t arrest anyone unless they arrest everyone, otherwise it would be selective enforcement and prosecution.

          • Doesn’t stop them on any other group protest.

          • You are implying that everyone smokes pot… YOU ARE DEAD WRONG… Never touched the shit… never will… makes me sick… dizzy… nauseated…

      • So you claim merely having a joint in your hand [or mouth] meets the legal definition of possession do you? I’ll bet you have a law degree as well, judging by the way you like to split hairs.

        • If I am not mistaken I think it actually DOES constitute possession. If it had not been HIS home and he hadn’t smoked it it might be OK, and the circumstances are as innocuous as they can get and still contravene the criminal code, but it still meets the definition.

          Happy to accept authoritative, cited correction on this issue.

          • I find that difficult to believe, that the legal definition of possession = the common definition…as in i took a puff as it went around, or i even just passed it on – as i’m sure you may have done, i certainly have. Would that constitute possession, merely being there, not taking part?
            I’d like to know too. I’d be surprised if they are one and the same.

          • The prof says smoking pot is not against the law (as Mackay claimed). Neither Mackay nor Attaran specifically addressed the issue of JT being guilty of “possession”.
            Attaran is clearly splitting hairs here; JT says he took a hit from a joint. For the period he was holding the joint, he was in possession. So while he may not have broken the law by inhaling (an “inhaling” law would make pretty much anyone who has ever attended a rock concert an involuntary criminal, unless they brought their own air tanks), the act of taking the joint into his possession was. So Mackay may not have been as precise as Attaran would have liked in terms of his use of language, but he was correct that JT made a hairline fracture of the law.
            And to head you off – yes, I guess I too could be accused of splitting hairs here.
            As to the seriousness of JT’s infraction compared to the many, much more serious infractions of the law by members of the CPC party, well… I think Mackay doth protest too much.

          • LOL Trudeau just ruined Con attack ads, and soared in the polls…..yeah, you’re being silly here

        • DUH!

          • I Double Duh yuh!

      • use a roach clip, or a bong. your only touching the bong and roach clip and not the product.

      • Pity Trudeau didn’t claim to have been on the receiving end of a shotgun toke – the question of whether he had possessed the demon weed would be moot.

        • no the intent of inhaling ddetermines the possession

          • So someone who gets a contact high by sitting in a roomful of pot smokers but not actively taking part in their activity is guilty of possession?

          • Hmmm, that doesn’t seem reasonable.

            For one thing, it would mean that I’m breaking the law when I walk down Granville St and I inhale some weed smoke from the guy that just passed me smoking a joint.

            For another, when getting a shotgun, the weed, or its container, *never* touches the person, just the smoke. The law talks about possession of weed, not smoke, no?

      • I’m not sure how the law works on it, but holding something doesn’t mean you own it. For instance, if I’m holding a friend’s CD, that doesn’t mean it’s mine. Same goes for their kid. If someone brings weed to a party and decides to share it, surely it’s their weed the whole time, and the joint doesn’t have a new owner every time a new person takes it. That would make a different standard of ownership for pot than everything else – CDs, cars, children, etc.

        • You hold your buddy’s dope for him and a cop busts you, it’s possession. Saying “I was just holding it for a friend” diesn’t cut it.
          Possession does not equal ownership. You don’t have to own something in order to possess it. In fact, “possession of stolen goods” is a crime in and of itself. You have it and it ain’t yours.
          If a cop walked in as JT was lifting the joint to his lips, he could have busted him for possession. Mind you, the sentence he’d likely get wouldn’t be worth the time the cop spent on paperwork – which is one of the reasons cops often can’t be bothered with simple possession charges.

        • Constructive possession requires the following:[4]

          knowledge of the item

          intent/consent to have possession of the item

          control over the item

          The crown must prove knowledge extending beyond “quiescent knowledge” that discloses some degree of control of the item[5]

          Possession can still be established even if it considered the property of some third party.[6]

          http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Drug_Offences/Print_version#Interpretation_of_Possession

        • Difference… you consume pot while you don’t consume CDs, cars, children, etc… So a different definition of ownership could be in order…

      • In Canada one is only guilty of a criminal offence if one has been convicted in a court of law.

        When and where was Trudeau convicted, and of what?

        Debating the meaning of words in statutes happens every day in court.

        • He may not have a criminal conviction for it, but he did openly confess. So yes, in the common vernacular (as opposed to strict legal definition) he is guilty of breaking the law.

          • I am sorry but when one is speaking about the law and one is the Justice Minister, then the “common vernacular” is not applicable.

            Unless you have been convicted in court then you are innocent.

          • He’s a politician. Consider it “artistic licence” ;-)
            As to the rest of us… I’m certainly not a Justice Minister, judge or lawyer so I’m perfectly free to use the vernacular. He says he did it, so he’s guilty or a liar.
            And very clever at diverting attention from Harper’s northern antics and onto both himself and an issue most Canadians will likely support him on.

  3. Hypocrites, all of them! If federal politicians really wanted to serve as exemplary role models for children, they’d ban the daily broadcast of Question Period.

    • I regret that I have but one ‘thumbs up’ to give.

    • very true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • that is the problem with pandering to the populist view – although it rarely transfers to actual votes – remember when Chretien tried decriminalizing for awhile there everyone though he was a shoe in – then look at what happened

      • It’s a matter of timing and authenticity. Chretien hardly looked authentic on the issue did he.

  4. The issue is clearly the hypocrisy and political pandering by Justin : had he been in a protest for legalization and then smoked the joint I would be considerably more forgiving or even at a party of adults and he had kept it to himslef – but – such is not the case – He clearly had some pot at a party and that by definition is illegal especially as it wAs in his possesion and when he handed it to anyone after which according to Marc Emery he did that folks is trafficking! As an MP – he knows better and knows that his actions in public send messages and he is now on record saying that he will pick and choose what he laws he will abide by! This is the problem with hypocrites they want it both ways. Well what if he lights up a crack pipe next and says this should be legal too? – there is no difference were it carck would anyone be defnding his actions here? – now the hypocrites will line up to thumb me down or leave an insulting comment or try to ignore their own denial but it is can’t be as it is self evident – in his haste to get media coverage, pander for a few votes and appear to be clever he has shot himself in the foot and both Harper and Mulcair know this (esepcailly Mulcair – his response was a indicator of the tack of the attack he willl take to Trudeau)

    • All well and good, but since Harper leads a party that plead guilty to breaking a law, shouldn’t you be outraged by that too? In fact, isn’t the greater hypocrisy criticizing a man for breaking the law when your entire party is guilty of breaking the law?

      • no

        • …because only Cons can unilaterally decide which laws to flout.

          There…I just finished your sentence for you. You’re welcome.

        • I get it. It is not OK for Trudeau “pick and choose what he laws he will abide by”, but perfectly OK for the conservative party to do that.

          So speaking of hypocrisy, I thought I would help you out by posting a definition, in case you thought the position you are taking here is somehow not hypocritical:

          “the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one’s real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety”

          • again changing the focus of the point – the issue is Trudeau’s choice

          • What you mean is that I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservative party, and anyone who also shares their position that it is bad when Trudeau breaks the law, and not when the conservatives break the law.

            And you don’t like having your own hypocrisy exposed when you are running around trying to pin that on Trudeau.

    • Think Mulcair took the middle ground pointing out the dangers of today’s pot as opposed to the pot of the 1970s and 1980s. Despite his stance being unpopular Harper has stood firm as opposed to the flip-flopping Trudeau.

      • The pot today is as strong as the hash was in the 70’s so there has really been no change at all in the available strengths.

        • Mulcair’s reference was to marijuana

          • It’s the same drug so people were smoking as strong a THC delivery system then as they do now. I used as much hash in a joint then as I do pot now and the effect is the same. There was some quite potent hash available then such as Nepalese Temple Balls and Afghan Finger Hash plus lighter highs like Blond Lebanese plus Thai Stick pot was available then too and it was fairly potent as well. In short, nothing has changed but the names.

    • The prime minister himself submits that the only reason he has never smoked is because he has asthma. Not because it was illegal or he was concerned about setting a bad example.

      The real hypocrites are the people who want to keep possession of marijuana in place because the current status provides a lot of latitude for deciding when or who to prosecute. Someone with influence, like say a former Conservative MP from Edmonton, skates even on a cocaine possession charge, but a squeegee kid ends up with a criminal record for smoking dope on a bus bench.

      Maybe the squeegee kid figures, “Hey, I don’t have asthma, so good to light up.” How about that example our prime minister is setting Wayne? Does it speak for itself?

      I say it’s bad law when we have inconsistent enforcement and the law is unsupported by even the lawmakers themselves.

      • again – so you are saying because he disagrees with the law he is allowed to break it – what if he disagreed witht he crack is that okay?

          • go check the source out again then come back

          • OK, I checked the source again and I’m back. It’s still a University of Ottawa law professor. Not good enough for you? What are your own credentials on the subject of criminal law?

          • As I pointed out to Emily (above) the guy is splitting hairs – and so can anyone else wanting to take the other side. By holding the joint to take his puff, he was – briefly – in possession, which is against the law. A hairline fracture, perhaps, but still…

          • When was he convicted in a court of law?

            You’ve broken the law.

          • Huh? How has Wayne broken the law?

          • Everyone has. Ever pushed someone? Grabbed an ass? Cheated on your taxes? Told someone to fuck off? Downloaded copyrighted materials? The list goes on and on.

            It’s possible that he hasn’t, but it’s extremely unlikely.

        • I’m saying he’s a hypocrite because he isn’t actually opposed to smoking marijuana — he didn’t smoke it because he has asthma — but he won’t do anything to stop the state surveillance system from making criminals out of young people.

      • again you completely avoid the issue – who gets to choose – pot crack alcohol all are substacnes that impair your judgement all have a variety of restrictions ranging from driving a vehicle to going to jail for selling : if Justin disagrees with a law he should protest and then stand up for it not admit to doing it in the past and then claiming to justify it – this is the message he is sending to children – don’t agree with the law – don’t worry be happy

        • If the speed limit is 50mph, and you ever do 51….you are technically breaking the law.

          Trudeau, however, did not.

          • your point is a tautology and a weak one at that were I a MP and I was caught doing a 150 MPH through a school zone – you would want me to go to jail wouldn’t you? – answer honestly put the kool aid down and try ? He broke the law 2 counts

          • Millions of people break the law every day….that’s what laws are for.

            However, Trudeau didn’t break any laws…..so give it a rest and move on.

          • Moral equivalency my friend. 150 MPH is the pusher of hard drugs. A puff on a joint is 10 over… probably not even a fine.

        • We get to choose. If you don’t like that policy enough don’t vote for him. It’s not just a fanciful whim that he just picked up. The debate has been around a while now. It’s still contentious, but there’s supporting evidence that legalization won’t be any more problematic then alcohol. Of course there will still be some legal prohibitions that will remain in place, as regards age and driving for instance. I’m sure it won’t be a cure all either. But it’s a step in the right direction.
          You think that he’s the only one in that House to smoke dope while an mp? at least he’s standing up finally and saying this no longer makes sense, it isn’t working. The fact it’s to his political advantage is something that’s just part of the system…all politicians are opportunists. But It’s still a gamble – he could lose, the public might say no way. Politics is not a priesthood you know.
          Spare me the sanctimony anyway. Harper has backed folks who’ve broken laws they considered unjust before this.

          • wrong – we as a society determine acceptable behaviour if we as citizens can determine our own then by definition we become anarchists

          • Sorry. That simply makes no sense; not to me anyway.

        • If Harper disagreed with spending limits he should have protested, not actually break them, for the benefit of his party, and to the detriment of all the others.

          And yet he allowed his party to flout those laws, and even appointed some of the culprits to the Senate.

          My goodness, not only is he telling children it is OK to break laws you don’t agree with, he is also telling them it is OK to do so if it gives you an advantage no one else has. Kind of like cheating! That’s it, Harper is telling children it is OK to cheat! Won’t the teachers be happy with him now…

          • Not just “OK”; if you know the right guy, you’ll be amply rewarded.

          • why change the subject – the issue is Trudeau – the moment you say well soemone else did something you are doing what CPC does by blaming things on the Liberals which you complain about – hypocrite

          • That. Is. Hilarious.

            Sometimes I am still shocked by how much some conservatives will stretch to try to defend their non-existent point.

          • Call him Mister Salty

    • “forgiving” of what? My god, get some perspective man.

  5. Trudeau has tapped into the real problem issues with marijuana. The problem is not the long term effects of marijuana use. The problem is the procurement, the cost. the fear of being caught with the illegal substance. I cannot understand the difficulty Conservatives have in realizing that the young person out there is not concerned about driving on the highway while high, or the fact that his life is centered on his desire for the next toke. He wants a politician who will make his life easier by reducing the cost and risk involved with marijuana. Trudeau hopes to be in 24 Sussex when his children are teenagers. He would hope that marijuana laws would be more lax for them than they were for his mother and brothers when they were there.

  6. He smoked pot big deal, like if u think kids are looking up to our priministers and such you guys are delusional. I dont care if u smoke pot or have a beer as long as u do whatnis best for our younger generations, pots the least of our worries people like come on.

    • Pot’s the least of our worries… True, but some grammar would be nice. :)

  7. Judging from the number of pot shots directed at the Liberal leader on this issue I’d say that Junior is considered fair game. And when parliament is called back in the fall he’ll be an easy target for the opposition. A sitting duck.

    • I voted CPC and see no issue about legalizing weed. This is just another example Trudeau ” changing horses in the middle of a stream” and varying his opinions from week to week. Easy fodder for Mulcair and Harper.

      • And Harper has never flip-flopped? Really?
        How long a list of examples would you like?

        • On the marijuana issue Harper has always be opposed to legalization

          • That’s one for your side.
            Harper used to oppose omnibus bills while in opposition.
            Your turn…

          • Political expediency has always been predicated on issue based provocation.
            Harper was once a real Conservative. Now its politics by stealth. Politics by deception. Politics by obstruction. Politics by any means. Am I making myself perfectly clear?

          • What I find interesting is that, in most arenas, being willing to reevaluate one’s position in light of presented evidence and deciding to take a different stance or direction as a result is considered a sign or mature thinking and leadership. In politics, it’s a “flip flop” and considered a sign of weakness.

            That’s the point I was indirectly making in my comments to Doreen.

            Though I have to confess that I too jump on political “flip-flops” by those I dislike with partisan glee, even though I would consider such directional changes as desirable and even astute in business or research settings.

          • This is not about weed but rather the consistency of a leader. Harper, due to a medical condition has never smoked weed and has always been opposed to its legalization, Mulcair pointed out that weed sold today is 40 times more potent as what he smoked as a teenager and wants a study done and as usual Trudeau says something one day and something else another day. Think its Harper and Mulcair who are the “mature ones”.

          • Harper has always been opposed to its legalization because of a medical condition? (Just teasing; I know what you meant.)
            Re consistency of a leader: Harper is notoriously inconsistent; see my omnibus bill reference for one. Then there’s income trusts. Then the banks – he was going to deregulate them and make them more like the US, until the bottom fell out – and suddenly he’s touting our regulations as the example the world should follow.
            Shall i continue? I have quite a long list…
            When it comes to flipfloppery, Harper is a master.

  8. No offence to Aaron, but when I clicked on this story I was hoping it was a Feschuk column.

    • The photo Wherry using of drama teacher Trudeau trying to appear as a math teacher is pretty funny. I doubt stoner Trudeau can even do 9 x 7, never mind the equation he’s posing in front of.

      • I’d bet your wrong. It’s likely true JT is no genius he’s shown he does have one attribute that’s probably even more important in both the teaching profession and politics – he knows the value of hard work.

        • I doubt he knows the value of hard work either. How hard did he have to work to become Leader? This guy is so immature he belongs in a sandbox.

          • He’s 41, married with children, and has worked all his life.

            Let’s not go the ‘if-you’re-not-a-ditchdigger-it doesn’t-count’ route.

          • He had to work hard to get nominated in Papineau, and then to win the riding. He then traveled extensively through the country during the leadership race.

            Just because he was the overwhelming favourite it does not mean he did not work for it. In fact I think he had to work even harder to get credibility, because I do not think he started his political career with much of that.

          • Actually if you’d bothered to follow the leadership race closely you’d have seen he did work at it. He could easily have taken winning as a given. He didn’t.

      • According to wikipedia (for what that’s worth), “he studied engineering at the Université de Montréal. He also started a Master of Arts degree in Environmental Geography at McGill University before suspending his program to seek public office”.

        I’d be willing to bet he knows all his multiplication tables.

      • Carl Sagan smoked pot.

        • So did David Suzuki. Research on fruit fly’s? Helps if your stoned.

          • So did a lot of people….but work on fruit flies was vital to genetic research.

  9. Has Trudeau said whether he smoked bc weed – which is world renown – while he was a teacher in BC? I bet Trudeau has not said, i think a proper shit storm would occur if Trudeau said he smoked ganja as a teacher. MPs breaking the law is dog bites man story but teacher smoking weed would be something else entirely, i reckon.

    People are hypocrites especially when children are involved. Lots of parents do things they would not exactly hope for similar behaviour from their children.

    I think pot should be legalized but Canadians are not going to vote for it. Pols are going to have to legalized weed after they are elected. I learned at early age it is better to do things and then apologize than it is to ask permission and be told ‘no, not allowed’. Same principle with ganja, parliament has to legalize without making it an election issue, and the masses will be joyous.

    • I agree except that I think the people would vote for it.

      Me, I am tired of the farce, as all criminalization of pot does is drive up costs and funds organized crime and police/court/judicial/jail bloat. Nether are good for the people be they users of weed or not.

      And I am not a user, not likely to even if legal. But I get the tax bills for the farce.

      • For once we actually agree on something :-)

  10. Funny, kids are already getting pot in the current system. Ever been on the LRT about 30-60 minutes after school is closed and a 14 year old is high and been groped on the LRT? I have. Pretty frequently when I worked.

    The ruse is that police state justification and organized crime rely on it being illegal. Heck, if you are serious about eliminating organized crime from pot, legalize it as to make it so cheap and easy for people to grow their own and the profit and bribes from pot go away. But hey, lawyers, police, judges would not have as much to do to bilk the taxpayer.

    Fact is its about police state bloat justification. More dysfunctional it gets, the more they can tax us and the more organized crime profits.

    You do know organized crime wants to keep it illegal right? Sort of like Ottawa keeping the costs of pot high means more profit and we taxpayers pay for it.

  11. Kids are already smoking weed. Who is kidding who?

  12. I do think it would be hypocritical for Trudeau to smoke weed while persecuting weed smokers. The reality is that his vote on C-9 was the result of the party whip, and not really reflective of his personal conscience. As long as he has had the leverage to influence Liberal policy, he has used that leverage to support light penalties on marijuana smokers.

    There is a stronger case for hypocrisy against Obama. Despite using cocaine and marijuana, he presides over a government that ruins the lives of [usually poor] people for the same activities. Breaking an unjust law isn’t so bad. Failing to challenge an unjust law when you have the ability to do so is a failure of leadership.

    • I did not know the vote on bill C9 was a whipped one for the libs. I can’t say I find it a complete get out of jail card… why not abstain and take the disciplinary consequences? We could do with more of that sort of principled behaviour from all the individual mps. That said, at least he’s doing the right thing now as party leader.

      • Sure, but if he had done that how does he lead his caucus? Is it more influential that he is able to say he voted with the party when whipped or that he did not? What prevents his caucus from refusing to vote the way the party tells them if he has a history of refusing?

        If you accept the party system, you live by the rules of that system. You state your position in caucus and then you do what your leader directs.

        • Hmmmm, maybe? I get where you’re going, but surely an individual can make an exception on a point of principle. I have to say i don’t much like the whipped vote system.

  13. This single statement by Trudeau not only messed up Harp’s trip, it probably ruined a ton of ready-to-go attack ads, so Cons are whining.

    Very few Canadians haven’t used pot….27% I understand….and this just makes Cons look like old fuddy-duddies. Like the parents of boomers did in fact.

    • They might be wise to shut up. Every time they talk about JT’s “illegal activities”, all it does is serve to remind us of all the illegal acts various CPC members – indeed, the party itself – has committed. And makes them look like silly hypocrites in the bargain.

      • Ahh but they can’t shut up apparently. It’s time to switch tracks….but Cons have trouble with brakes.

        Considering the senate mess, nobody is going to worry about Justin taking a puff and passing it one.

  14. This has got to be the stupidest issue to be concerned about.

    I’ve said it before, but will repeat, if weed was society’s drug of choice instead of alcohol, the 2 Vancouver Stanley Cup riots would have been known as the 2 Vancouver Stanley Cup Pizza Shortages. That says it all.

  15. People will vote for Trudeau because they like him. His legal marijuana views will matter most to the under 30 crowd, who don’t vote in large numbers. I don’t mean to suggest that other groups would not support his views, but the under 30 crowd is the group he needs most to win. Middle aged mothers will vote for him because they like his smile and charismatic charm. Few people will think about the issues. Legal marijuana may, or may not, be good social policy, but it will attract key voters.

    Politicians say whatever wins votes during a campaign. The real question is this; what would he really do, if elected? I think he would decriminalise pot, but hold back on legalisation. He is shrewd and he knows that legalisation isn’t as simple as many people imagine.

    I think he should be really bold; advocate legalisation of prostitution and euthanasia too. But it depends on votes. He won’t advocate anything that polls have shown would fall flat in a campaign. Trudeau is a politician and politics is the art of the possible, forged in compromise and a backroom deal. Don’t expect too much from him.

    • At the risk of nitpicking, prostitution has been legal for years. What’s not legal, as I understand it, is public solicitation and brothels..

    • You have left out the largest group to support him, the BABYBOOMERS, of which I am one. Go Justin…you have a large following in support of legalizing/decriminalizing…

  16. Won’t somebody please think of the children…we won’t have to throw in jail.

  17. Don’t bring children into this conversation . Children are subjected to all kinds of drug use , murder , robbery and all kinds of nasty things every day on TV. I don’t think they’ll go out to buy a nickel bag of pot because Justin had a pull

  18. Justin Trudeau will win the next election mark my words!

  19. Pot. Stop smoking it and deal with reality.

Sign in to comment.