With 33.4 per cent of Canadians saying possession of small amounts of cannabis should be decriminalized (resulting in a fine rather than a criminal record), and 37.3 percent in favour of full-on legalization, you would think if the Conservatives had to play to their anti-pot base, they'd do it quietly. And with the Ministry of Justice coming out with numbers clearly supporting a change in the status quo (in addition to a 13-year old Senate report that concluded how ineffective and costly cannabis prohibition was), you'd think that the Conservatives would want to stay away from the legalization debate. But not Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Earlier this week, he proudly proclaimed: “Most Canadians, if you actually ask them, do not want the full legalization of marijuana.”
Harper does realize this is 2015, right? I mean, even in 2005 we could go online and check to see if these statements were backed up by anything but his hot air. Maybe that's his strategy. He knows that we know politicians lie, so now he's just blatantly lying left, right, and centre hoping that one or two of them will stick.
Here's another one:
With
legalization, “Marijuana becomes more readily available to children,
more people become addicted to it and the health outcomes become worse,”
said Harper, despite no evidence.
Even from a
logical standpoint, illegal drug dealers don't ask for IDs where
legitimate business owners do. As well, the drinking age is 19 in most
parts of the country, but underage drinking is still an issue. Even at
the Prime Minister's house, where an underage girl was rushed to the hospital for alcohol poisoning.
There
are no cannabis poisonings. The hospitalizations at the 4/20 farmers'
market in Vancouver were because health professionals are still learning
about cannabis after decades of suppressed information. So when someone
“greens out,” the professionals err on the side of caution.
Furthermore, the wait times and bureaucracy of Canada's healthcare
system puts us dead last in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development’s (OECD) annual comparison. I'm sure that had something
to do with the amount of “pot overdoses” and ambulance trips to the
hospital on 4/20. With no costs represented by free market pricing,
Canada's health authorities can spend millions on “pot overdoses” and
make it sound like cannabis is the problem, when clearly, the issue has
been and will continue to be the “public ownership” of the healthcare
industry; a failed socialist idea Canadians simply can’t let die.
Nevertheless,
Stephen Harper, far from being a conservative who respects private
property rights and free markets (do they even exist?), is implementing
his idea of top-down state control. As John Robson of the National Post put it,
"If taken seriously as political philosophy, it’s die-hard socialism.
And as I’ve said before, if you’re going to get socialism, at least get
it from honest socialists."
Stephen Harper, the dishonest socialist, would like to use your money to:
1. Increase funding for RCMP clandestine teams targeting cannabis farms and meth labs.
More
attacks on honest farmers and the BC Bud supply-chain. Harper sounds
like he's after meth labs, but it's clearly the “oil sands” of BC that
he wants to nip in the bud.[i]
Cannabis is British Columbia's “oil sands” because it can literally be
refined and used as oil. Interestingly, Harper's actions are a lot like
when Pierre Elliot Trudeau nationalized Alberta's oil sands. With the
National Energy Program, the federal government stepped in with its tax
and regulatory power to kick-out the original homesteaders of Alberta's
oil and implement a crony-capitalist structure. It was this move, among
others, that “alienated” the Western provinces, which eventually led to
the rise of Stephen Harper and the downfall of the Liberal Party. The
people of Alberta rejected Trudeau and his nationalized PetroCanada and
some years later Stephen Harper has become the embodiment of that
notion. So why is the so-called “Western Canadian” Prime Minister doing
to BC Bud what Trudeau once did to Alberta's oil? Is this not the Prime
Minister who said there are no good taxes and called Canada a “northern
European welfare state”? What happened?
Absolute
power corrupts absolutely, and we can thank previous governments for
increasing the size and scope of the PMO. Harper's done his part
maintaining and expanding that power, but it's ridiculous to think all
of Canada's problems begin and end with Stephen Harper's leadership.
2. Harper
will be asking the Mental Health Commission of Canada to prioritize
research on the links between substance abuse and mental health.
This is the problem with government funding of science: Harper (and this could be any leader) said look for X and find me any evidence that supports X. Never mind if there is counter-evidence, the government may cut your funding if you present it. As philosopher and economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe put it,
without government funding of science, “Instead of researching the
syntax of Ebonics, the love life of mosquitoes, or the relationship
between poverty and crime for $100 grand a year, they [scientists] would
research the science of potato growing or the technology of gas pump
operation for $20 grand.”
Government funding of
science distorts its objective. This was common in communist countries
where scientists feared venturing off the orthodox materialism of the
Marxist regimes. To argue that private enterprise research and
development may actually be preferable to the monopoly state is to go
outside the traditional norms of decency. In the private sector, there
are competitors to worry about, and bad science doesn't produce any
value for anyone. Compare the necessity of using fossil fuels until
another source becomes profitable to the billions wasted in “renewable”
energy sources like wind and solar, which require massive subsidies.
Clearly, the government will only spend money researching for the
conclusions it wants. As taxpayers, we're forced to accept this. The
Liberals and NDP may have different objectives but the principle is the
same.
3. Introduce a national hotline for parents looking for advice and guidance in preventing substance abuse for their children.
The
federal government is now in the business of competing with information
from Google. (Minus the Internet connection, a phone number will do.)
And by the way, this won't be funded through AdSense or something
voluntary. Harper will be forcing you to pay for this via taxation. And
what gives him the right to coerce against innocent persons and property
in the name of law and order? Well, an outdated system from 1867 that
never put limits on the federal government's power, which didn’t
envision a peaceful polycentric legal order,
an order that would actually work better given Canada's founding as an
“inclusive” nation and our varying definitions of multiculturalism. Not
to mention, it will help alleviate this silly process we go through
every few years where half the country hates one side and votes against
them. Because, really, who votes for someone?
And
while I'm at it, you're not voting against Harper or Mulcair. You vote
for a Member of Parliament. This isn't a presidential system, it's a
parliamentary democracy, and it works just as well as Harper's anti-pot
propaganda.
[i]
If meth was the problem, then he'd be campaigning on legalizing cocaine
and opium since meth is a consequence of prohibition on those
substances and further prohibition on cocaine-substitutes like meth will
only incentive dealers and chemists to come up with crazier drugs like
bath salts. If your loved one has eaten the face of another because of
bath salts, blame Harper's prohibitionist policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment