Pubdate: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 Source: Record, The (CN QU) Page: 6 Copyright: 2016 The Sherbrooke Record Contact: http://www.sherbrookerecord.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3194 Author: Mike McDevitt THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY Since his election on October 19 last year as Canada's 23rd Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau has ushered in an astounding shift in Canada's political atmosphere. No longer are we enjoined by an angry, suspicious, and hateful government to live in fear and loathing of those who might trigger our xenophobic tendencies because of different beliefs, customs, or even methods of preparing foods. We are no longer asked to spy on our neighbours and rat out 'suspicious behaviour or, God help us, have 'Barbaric Practices. Age-old habits of homophobia and loathing of other gender identities are no longer encouraged by a fundamentalist leadership and scientists are no longer gagged, filtered, and silenced, Natives are no longer ignored or despised by government and generally, the air of oppression that hung over the country during the Harper decade has vanished into thin air. For many, this alone is enough to justify the trust we placed in the dapper, selfie-loving son of Canada's most illustrious and controversial leader, as he clearly, at least, represents forward-looking leadership, as opposed to a heartfelt longing for a past that never was. Indubitably, young Trudeau has also raised Canada's profile on the world stage with his youth, compelling good looks, and intelligence-fuelled charm. He also represents a rare, new 'progressive' victory at a time when much of the world has chosen, or is in the process of choosing, leaders with decidedly fascist inclinations - a fondness for violence, excessive nationalism, a contempt for science and 'experts,' and a glaring mistrust of any who might think differently. In that context, he is a beacon of multi-coloured light. On the other hand, he is Prime Minister based on his leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, an institution not famous for its independence from the corporate elite, many of whom make up its favourite constituency. Given that, the Trudeau government has also encouraged oil sands exploitation, pipelines, fracking, and oceanic drilling, despite the obvious planetary toxicity of our addiction to fossil fuels, to the dismay of many progressives who may have been over-optimistic about his environmental passion. In spite of the dramatic success Trudeau has had scrubbing away residue from the Harperite Contamination, this was only the largely unspoken aspect of the Liberal Party's electoral campaign. In other area, his success has been less spectacular. Bill C-51, the notoriously oppressive security bill, which the Liberals supported but promised to revise, remains unchanged, placing thousands of individuals at risk of virtually unaccountable repression, and the rest of the country at the whim of government. The latter issue seems not quite so urgent under the current regime, however, compared to the terror such power in the hands of Harperites instilled. Nevertheless, rights one enjoys at the whim of the powerful are no rights at all and governments, as well as attitudes, can change dramatically, of which Trudeau himself is a striking example. One of the key promises the Liberals made during the election campaign is that, if elected, they would proceed with the legalization of marijuana, both for recreational purposes. This alone was surely a contribution to the Liberal electoral success as the belief in the medical benefits of the weed is gaining ground rapidly and its recreational use is enjoyed by millions of Canadians of all stripes and is viewed with profound indifference by most of the rest. Nevertheless, what Colorado and Oregon have accomplished with great success and little complication has become mired in the Canadian Parliament's addiction to pondering, hemming and hawing, and fighting over details. Meanwhile, police are still arresting, charging, and in some case imprisoning Canadians for marijuana offences and have no intention of putting a halt to that. The law is the law, after all. The medical use of marijuana was validated by the Supreme Court of Canada back in the Days of Darkness, and the Harperite government reacted in its usual way of dragging its feet and imposing whatever limitations it could to keep the subject moot, causing considerable discomfort to those for whom its use is helpful. Those entitled to its use are forced to purchase their medicine from government-approved sources, in what I hear is a contentious and often unsatisfactory process. Marijuana is a simple plant to grow and has very few demonstrated harmful effects. The restrictions, in fact, are almost purposely designed to counter the Court's explicit desires. Marijuana, used recreationally, is perhaps the most benign substance of its kind on the planet. It is demonstrably less dangerous for the user than alcohol, tobacco, and even sugar, yet the government is handling it like toxic waste. If the government's commitment were honest, it would apply controls that, at the very least are no more restrictive than those opposed on them. Liquor laws, which are determined provincially, allow people to produce at home a limited volume of beer and wine annually for personal consumption. Their sale without a permit is forbidden. Other controls, such as age-limits and driving while impaired are treated separately. The same sort of approach should be applied - and quickly - to cannabis. It should be made available through accessible retail outlets, at reasonable prices, and at potencies determined by the desires of the consumer. As its major health concern stems from the demonstrated correlation between excessive marijuana use in adolescence and schizophrenia, it recommended that it not be available to anyone under 21. This of course, will not go down well with the juvenile stoner crowd, but at least what would be available won't be laced with other less desirable substances. Perhaps the greatest roadblock will be in the relationship between marijuana and driving. Government has determined that a blood alcohol content of 0.08 per cent should be the standard baseline for impairment and has acted, with little controversy, based on that rate. For marijuana, however, the problem isn't so clear-cut. There is an old maxim states that a cocaine user will race gleefully through a stop sign, while a drunken one won't see it. The pothead, in turn, will wait for it to turn green. There is no agreed upon level of impairment in marijuana use and, as we can expect driving under the influence to be heavily sanctioned, significant research could still be done to determine whether a marijuana 'high' automatically equals impairment.. Legalization, if properly carried out, will see its greatest benefit stem from separating criminals from a major source of their income, unless of course taxes, as they have with tobacco, send the consumer right back to them. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom