Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

[Upper Canada Tory]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

Why is there no money for treatment but plenty of money for handing out so-called 'safe supply'?

I think you're right that involuntary treatment is ill-advised and a violation of civil liberties, but the money being used on so-called safe injection sites could instead be used funding treatment for those who seek it voluntarily. Sure, not every addict will seek treatment or is ready for it, which is fine, but why does the government need to hand out drugs to people? The stated purpose of the supervised injection sites was to reduce overdoses - 'decriminalization' has been in place for a year and that hasn't happened. Overdoses have increased.

One other important point - while treatment is costly, so is substance abuse. It costs the taxpayer $46 billion annually in terms of things like healthcare costs and lost productivity. A part or this cost includes abuse of alcohol and tobacco, but even if you exclude those I imagine that a large part of that cost would be illicit drugs. Yes funding treatment for people would cost money but it would save money in other ways.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

Why is there no money for treatment but plenty of money for handing out so-called 'safe supply'?

I think you're right that involuntary treatment is ill-advised and a violation of civil liberties, but the money being used on so-called safe injection sites could instead be used funding treatment for those who seek it voluntarily. Sure, not every addict will seek treatment or is ready for it, which is fine, but why does the government need to hand out drugs to people? The stated purpose of the supervised injection sites was to reduce overdoses - 'decriminalization' has been in place for a year and that hasn't happened. Overdoses have increased.

One other important point - while treatment is costly, so is substance abuse. It costs the taxpayer $46 billion annually in terms of things like healthcare costs and lost productivity. A part or this cost includes abuse of alcohol and tobacco, but even if you exclude those I imagine that a large part of that cost would be illicit drugs. Yes funding treatment for people would cost money but it would save money in other ways.

1.The actual cost of the drugs themselves is pennies and the supply chain is straightforward. Safe supply is far cheaper than treatment, if the concern is cost.

2.Overdose deaths have increased everywhere. This is what I meant by media narratives promoting falsehoods. The only published study showed that drug decriminalization in Oregon did not lead to increased deaths relative to other areas. This study was never promoted by the media and nor is the increase in deaths in all the places that haven't engaged in decriminalization.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/27/oregon-drug-decriminalization-measure-110-overdose-deaths/

Danielle Smith in Alberta even deliberately lied about the number of death to promote her false claim that Alberta's drug treatment programs work.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2023/06/29/Drug-Deaths-Discredit-Alberta-Model/

3.Some people morally don't like the idea of the government being a 'drug dealer' I don't like the government, in my name, killing people through policies that Defacto promote unsafe illicit drugs and I don't like these same policies Defacto promoting criminal gangs.

It's a fairly obvious point in economics that when something is illegal, only the worst people will engage in the activity on the supply side such as these gangs and, for instance, when it was illegal to compete against the monopoly taxi cartels. Uber was run by some of the worst people alive and they were all let go when their business was legalized (or around the same time.)

Of course, government as the 'drug dealer' is only the case where drugs remain illegal, legalize and regulate drugs and they'd operate as any other market, such as with cannabis, cigarettes....
So, I agree with you, get government out of the way, and there is no need (or a much smaller need) for the government to provide 'safe supply.' As with other regulated industries, the cost of the regulations are paid for through the taxes paid by the industry.

3.Voluntary drug treatment can work and can be promoted as well, but keeping people alive, especially when it's government policy that is causing the illicit unsafe supply, should be the priority.

4.As to the cost of illicit drugs. Wow, we need to make drugs illegal to stop this...oh wait, drugs already are illegal and governments can't prevent people from making them or selling them and other people using them. The alleged savings from drug treatment in terms of cost might be possible but is another example of 'government spending pays for itself' which this federal Liberal government has become so fond of claiming.

On the effectiveness of drug prohibition, another Thomas Sowell quote unironically:
“Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

Milton Friedman explained all the reasons prohibitions can never work, except to increase prices of illicit substances, which is usually a bad thing in itself and is usually welcomed by the illicit gangs.

Of course, Friedman might have been referring only to relatively free societies like the United States, because prohibition is claimed to be effective in authoritarian states like Singapore. However, certainly it's impossible to simply pick and choose what policies Singapore uses to supposedly achieve this. You might not need to do everything Singapore does to claim to be 'drug free' but the citizens certainly need to have the mindset that authoritarian policy is worth the cost.

This is an article written by Friedman that summarizes (some of) his arguments:
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/214093/full

Oddly, left out is probably the most important argument in all this: drug dealing is not a crime like theft because both parties in the deal want the deal. This is where the term 'victimless crime' comes from. Even those who disagree with that term need to recognize that because of this, only authoritarian measures can prevent the sale of drugs, such as widespread use of cameras, searches of bank records and police warrantless 'stop and frisk.'

It certainly seems to be the case that most people who claim to support 'the war on drugs' generally balk at doing the things necessary to actually prosecute it.

[Storr]

Family Receives Wrong Body After Cuban Authorities Send Canadian Man's Body to Russia

"Faraj Allah Jarjour, a Canadian man who died in Cuba in March, was buried in a Russian town north of Moscow after Cuban government workers mistakenly switched two bodies before repatriating them to the wrong countries, according to his family.

The Jarjour family, who are originally from Syria and now live in Laval north of Montreal, were vacationing in Varadero, Cuba, when Faraj Jarjour, 68, died suddenly while swimming in the ocean March 22."

[Meclazine for Israel]

Arguably Australia's greatest ever Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, gives advice on how a candidate can win the next Canadian election.

Pierre Poilievre

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6NlEgbtpwq/

[CumbrianLefty]

That claim is indeed "arguable".

Very arguable indeed, in fact

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Not even Tony himself would agree with that! The idea that his 2 years of misrule somehow compare to Menzies is hysterical to even the most loyal Abbottite.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Ontario to ban use of cellphones in school classrooms starting in September

The Ontario government does something good? I didn't think it was possible.

[Electric Circus]

Ontario to ban use of cellphones in school classrooms starting in September

The Ontario government does something good? I didn't think it was possible.

Vermont's legislature attempted to pass a law to this effect in this past session, bu t it died in committee after our health commissioner, of all people, went public with his skepticism. (We are pouring state tax dollars into lawsuits against social media companies for exploiting children - interesting that school boards in Ontario are doing this as well - but can't take the most minimal step to protect classrooms, apparently.) There are a few other US states considering similar laws (e.g. Ohio). It's an outrageous symptom of social decay that teachers and principals can't do this of their own accord in so many places.

[mileslunn]

On Budget, I feel government stuck too much in 2015 thus not getting bounce they wanted.  At this point I don't think big spending has popularity it once had.  This tends to go in cycles and many felt Harper was too cautious so were happy to see a looser fiscal policy.  But with inflation above 2% and higher interest rates hurting people, many worry big spending will just make it tougher to reduce interest rates which is key to Liberals recovering.

On Capital gains, I think Trudeau is trying to playing class warfare as in 2015 his promise to tax top 1% more worked well.  However that was in background of Occupy Wall Street when taxing the rich was more popular.  It is still popular today but I don't think it alone is enough to help party recover.  And with low productivity some will question whether it makes that worse.  There are strong arguments for and against raising capital gains, but I think in bigger picture people may notionally want to tax rich more but is only top issue for a subset of progressives who are in NDP or Liberal column anyways.   Most for higher taxes on the rich won't necessarily vote Liberal over this unless they see personal benefits.  People vote on who will help make my life better, not on high level philosophical questions.

I think Liberals were hoping Poilievre would take bait which he hasn't.  But had they followed provincial premiers, most Conservative ones have not reversed top rate hikes done by previous administrations so unlike GOP in US where cutting taxes for rich is still a major policy, not sure that is case in Canada.  Conservatives are for lower taxes, but I suspect emphasis will be on that for lower and middle income earners.  Poilievre probably does believe top rates are too high, but doubt it is a top priority for him.  After all Ford and Smith have both left top rate hikes Notley & Wynne brought in, in place.  Much like in 2015, I feel Trudeau focusing too much on what is happening south of border not here where income inequality is a much bigger issue and where GOP still very much is about cutting taxes for the rich.  Big reason for difference comes to campaign finance as most conservative tax cuts to rich came before corporate donations banned and personal were not limited.  Ever since campaign donation limits brought in and corporate banned, tax cuts for high earners have been a lot less common.  US doesn't have those so have to keep donors happy.

Bigger problem with capital gains hike is more opposition from doctors and also fear may hit some cottage owners.  I get impression this was very much aimed at millennials and Gen Z where few will be impacted, but at end of day not sure how easily they can win back that cohort.  While Liberals trailing amongst all age groups, they are strongest amongst boomers not Gen Z and millennials.  I think latter is less loyal to any party and gets impatient a lot quicker so when they decide they've had enough pretty tough to win them back.  Off course Conservatives could discover to this group will turn on them pretty quickly if things don't improve.

[Agafin]

So based on latest polls, the conservative lead is actually now surging into the 20%+ range. This is downright terrible for liberals. A party polling as well as the conservatives so far away from an election always run the risk of "peaking" too early. But given that the conservatives' lead has only risen since it surged past the liberals, this might actually be a situation similar to the Ontario liberals in 2018: people are just sick of them no matter what happens. Almost as embarassing is the failure of the NDP to capitalize on the drop of the liberals. The ABC vote is dead.

[Oryxslayer]

So based on latest polls, the conservative lead is actually now surging into the 20%+ range. This is downright terrible for liberals. A party polling as well as the conservatives so far away from an election always run the risk of "peaking" too early. But given that the conservatives' lead has only risen since it surged past the liberals, this might actually be a situation similar to the Ontario liberals in 2018: people are just sick of them no matter what happens. Almost as embarassing is the failure of the NDP to capitalize on the drop of the liberals. The ABC vote is dead.

The comparison many people have made is to UK Labout. Both countries governing parties fumbled publicly when people were wary about them, and that pushed everyone over the edge. And in both situations,  time isn't helping the government,  it just looks like they continue to delay the inevitable as new issues come up they lack answers for.

However,  there is one crucial difference.  Starmers isn't exactly popular: he's the most popular major politician in the country,  but still noticeablely underwater. This is part of the reason why every Tory puff peice talks about the shacky nature of his coalition.  The same situation persists in Canada, but PP is actually liked by his voters. In some surveys he's even net positive approval, something even Singh lacks these days. Even in those he is still net negative,  PP gets positive scores from from a similar percentage to those voting Tory, suggesting that coalition is sturdy when the alternatives are vehimently disliked.