Many Liberals, like many Canadians, are of the view that either the Senate should be abolished or it should be elected. This only goes to show that many Liberals have not given the matter much thought. It also shows just how abysmally bad the media coverage of the issue has been and that the media have focused almost entirely on the feasibility of changing the senate.
Canada is already a de facto unicameral state. Yes just like the queen, constitutionally senators have all kinds of power and every once in a blue moon the Senate has stalled major pieces of legislation (e.g., free trade and the GST). However the aforementioned instances of stalling are so rare they are the exceptions that prove just how "ineffective" the senate truly is. Moreover, no senate I can think of has pursued a legislative agenda of its own accord; opposing legislation is one thing; purposing legislation is quite another. The reason the senate is not an "effective" body is that senators are not elected and as such lack legitimacy. Furthermore, senators are members of legitimate federal political parties and the parties that they belong to are loath to have their unelected members exercise real authority least their actions undermine the party. Finally, the fact that it is the ruling federal party and not, say, provincial governments that appoint senators defines a clear pecking order, with the Senate answerable to the House.
To try to argue as the supporters of a Triple E senate do that the current senate is both undemocratic and ineffective makes no sense. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either. The notion that the senate is undemocratic because it is unelected is as absurd as leveling the same criticism against the British monarchy. Both should scrapped yes. However, both are decorative.
The difference between electing senators and abolishing the senate is thus huge. It is the difference between abolishing an expensive debating society and transforming that debating society into a intellectual and democratic abortion.
The problem with an elected senate starts with implementation. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals, with the notable exception of Stephane Dion, remain largely mum on the subject.
Of course the problems with an elected senate go far beyond problems with how to implement it.
First arguments for regional representation rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4,356,617 in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 136, 144 people per riding. There are 5 ridings with over a 190,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (192,020) Brampton West (204,146) Halton (203,437), Oak Ridges - Markham (228,997) and Vaughan (196,068). By contrast there are 4,676,552 people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 75,428 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 10, St John's East (100,559) with over 100,000 people. Given current growth trends, the 2016 census might show there to be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories. Now 15 seats are being added in Ontario, but Harper would have to give Ontario almost 70 seats to make things equal. 15 is just not enough. Of course, the problems do not stop there. Not only are the smaller provinces grossly overrepresented so too are rural areas in most provinces. For example, the riding of has Labrador has 26,728 people as compared to the riding of St John's East which has 100,559, Kenora has 55,977 and suburban riding of Oak Ridges - Markham 228,997, Miramichi has 51,996 and Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe 98,539, Kootenay - Columbia has 88,026 - Port Kells 160,129.
Second, simply by virtue of having provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation people living in Canada’s less populated provinces already have a means of leveraging far more attention and support from the Federal government than their numbers warrant. Danny Williams had the government's attention in ways that the mayors of Surrey, Red Deer, Brant, Fredericton and Churchill did not even though we are talking about equal number of seats in both cases. There is more. There is also the asinine Canadian tradition of handing out cabinet posts based not on talent but region.
The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 140,204 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 228,997 residents of Oak Ridges - Markham (228,997) one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 140,204 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,851,821 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 75,117 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 733,343 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyist's dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Team Garneau Answers Survey
I sent out the following survey to candidates and Stuart from Team Garneau was kind enough to answer.
1) Canada lags behind behind virtually every other Western nation in terms of the number vacation days its citizens are guaranteed. Is it time that Canada bridge the vacation gap?
EU minimum is 4 weeks Switzerland 4 weeks New Zealand 4 weeks Norway 5 weeks
Stuart: Marc believes that it is essential to reconcile a more productive Canada with a better quality of life. However, at this time idont think he would commit to support a higher minimum vacation time, and believes that a larger national discussion with the provinces is required that benefits all parties equally.
Koby: Let me say again. Canada lags far behind the rest of the Western World in this regard. Yet Marc believes that Corporate interests and right wing premiers need to be consulted before bringing Canada in line with everyone else.
2) Should Canada legalize some form of euthanasia?
Stuart: This a difficult and controversial issue, and one that will require much more study. I think he is empathizes for the need for it but isn't totally there yet. As a man of science, Marc believes that all policy should flow first from a solid base of research, analysis and debate.
Koby: Yes policy should flow from a solid base of research, analysis and debate. And if this was Liberation therapy we were taking about and this would be perfectly good answer. However we are talking about euthanasia and there are whole sections of university libraries devoted to the subject. Marc might not have familiarized himself with literature, but it is absurd to claim that there is not enough been said on the subject to have an opinion.
3) Do you support the Legalization of marijuana?
Stuart: Marc supports the legalization of marijuana. Marc understands that rigorous scientific study is required before making any legislative decisions on the decriminalisation and legalization of marijuana but Marc fully supports the idea of regulating the marijuana industry in a manner similar to the alcohol and tobacco industries.
Koby: Good.
4) Would you scarp the F-35 contract?
Stuart: Marc has publicly questioned the government's position on the F-35 contract, and believes that the procurement process must be transparent and detailed. Should the F-35 fighter prove to be the best for Canada's defence purposes, then it should be procured. But there needs be a open tender process first.
5) Would you scrap the temporary foreign worker program?
Stuart: Marc believes we must do a complete review of the temporary foreign workers program. The Conservatives had vastly expanded that program and there are serious questions on how many workers are coming and their treatment when they get here.
Koby: Most important of all is why the government is paying to have hundreds of thousands of unskilled foreigner guest workers brought in for the sole purpose of driving down wages.
6) Every election there are a slew of grassroots efforts to get young people to vote in greater numbers. All have been miserable failures.
Getting young people to the polls is vital for the future health of Canadian democracy. Many Canadians in their 20s will move into their 30s never having voted and it remains to be seen just how many will start voting.
Do you support mandatory voting as the solution to this problem?
Stuart: To be honest, we've never asked him that question! He proposes we reform our democracy to a preferential ballot to make our first past the post system more representative
7) This is two part question. 1) Do you support reinstating the per vote subsidy? 2) If so, will you promise to help pay for such a subsidy by no longer making contributions to political parties tax deductible?
Stuart: Again, don't know if he would bring back the per vote subsidy.
8) Will you end the charitable status for overtly political organizations such as the Fraser institute and Manning Center?
Stuart: I don't think Marc would comment specifically on those two organizations.
Koby: I was not asking him to. They were just given as examples. I was asking if Marc would end the charitable status for overtly political organizations -- organizations,I might add, that do no charitable work whatsoever.
9) How much your vote counts for depends whether you reside near or in a major urban center. For example there are 228,997 people in Oak Ridge Markham and mere 55,977 In Kenora. There are 26, 728 In Labrador and 100, 559 in St. John's East. Would you support a measure calling for there to be equal representation within provinces?
Marc supports making sure our tidings better reflect population changes. That has been at the heart of the ongoing discussions on seat redistribution. It is controversial though!.
Koby: God knows why. If you live in or around Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver you are getting doubly screwed. Compared to ridings in other provinces you grossly underrepresented and you are grossly underrepresented when compared to rural ridings within your province. It is high time this stopped. There is only so much that can be done to address the largest provinces underrepresentation. However, there is no reason why an act can not be passed to insure that each riding within a province has roughly the same number of people.
10) Consider the following argument for the gun registry:
The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (1.85 million) and with any large population certain very accurate predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a small percentage of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that a small percentage will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership at least for period of time. Now, even though this number is small in percentage terms, in absolute terms the numbers are quite large, in the 10s of thousands. Enter the gun registry. It made it easier for authorities to seize the guns of people who should no longer have them. Why? Because the onus is on the gun owner in question to produce any registered weapons. If the police do not have proof that someone owns any unrestricted guns, how can they demand that he produce them?
Do you find fault with this argument?
Stuart: As to your gun registry question, it is Marc’s stated position that the long-gun registry will not be brought back. Although supported by a majority of police associations across the country and by victims groups, it was strenuously opposed by many Canadians in rural areas across Canada. Marc has publicly stated that it is not his intention to spend more money to bring it back. Marc intends to focus on ensuring the protection of Canadians from gun violence through measures that will result in stricter penalties for those who commit crimes with a gun. As well, Marc proposes stronger interdiction measures at the border to prevent firearms trafficking, along with taking action to prohibit weapons that could be turned into assault rifles.
Koby: That is not what I asked. I asked if he found fault with the above argument. Apparently, Marc's commitment to rigorous debate stops when he feels the need to mirror the opinions of Justin Trudeau. Leaving aside a very weak legitimacy argument, the notion that Canada could reduce gun related violence by imposing tougher penalties on individuals who have committed gun related crimes is ludicrous. It certainly has not worked down south. Such measures also fail to address the issue of gun related suicides. The registry servers two purposes. One, "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets." Two, as explained above, it makes it easier to take guns away from gun owners who should no longer have them.
It should also be pointed out that calling for all hand guns to be registered, but not long guns makes about much sense as saying only pick up trucks should have valid registration but not cars.
11) Given the support for campaign spending limits, will you support a ban or least a limit on pre writ political advertising?
Pre-election, and indeed all government advertising is something that clearly needs to be looked at. The governing party in power shouldn't be allowed to spend taxpayers money on what has clearly become partisan advertisements and we should limit political advertising between elections. No one needs partisan spam!
12) What was the last two books you read?
13) What was the last two movies you saw?
14) What is your favorite non Canadian vacation destination?
Stuart: His favourite non-Canadian vacation destination? Space, of course! ;)
Koby: I do not know that he went there for vacation! But I like this answer.
1) Canada lags behind behind virtually every other Western nation in terms of the number vacation days its citizens are guaranteed. Is it time that Canada bridge the vacation gap?
EU minimum is 4 weeks Switzerland 4 weeks New Zealand 4 weeks Norway 5 weeks
Stuart: Marc believes that it is essential to reconcile a more productive Canada with a better quality of life. However, at this time idont think he would commit to support a higher minimum vacation time, and believes that a larger national discussion with the provinces is required that benefits all parties equally.
Koby: Let me say again. Canada lags far behind the rest of the Western World in this regard. Yet Marc believes that Corporate interests and right wing premiers need to be consulted before bringing Canada in line with everyone else.
2) Should Canada legalize some form of euthanasia?
Stuart: This a difficult and controversial issue, and one that will require much more study. I think he is empathizes for the need for it but isn't totally there yet. As a man of science, Marc believes that all policy should flow first from a solid base of research, analysis and debate.
Koby: Yes policy should flow from a solid base of research, analysis and debate. And if this was Liberation therapy we were taking about and this would be perfectly good answer. However we are talking about euthanasia and there are whole sections of university libraries devoted to the subject. Marc might not have familiarized himself with literature, but it is absurd to claim that there is not enough been said on the subject to have an opinion.
3) Do you support the Legalization of marijuana?
Stuart: Marc supports the legalization of marijuana. Marc understands that rigorous scientific study is required before making any legislative decisions on the decriminalisation and legalization of marijuana but Marc fully supports the idea of regulating the marijuana industry in a manner similar to the alcohol and tobacco industries.
Koby: Good.
4) Would you scarp the F-35 contract?
Stuart: Marc has publicly questioned the government's position on the F-35 contract, and believes that the procurement process must be transparent and detailed. Should the F-35 fighter prove to be the best for Canada's defence purposes, then it should be procured. But there needs be a open tender process first.
5) Would you scrap the temporary foreign worker program?
Stuart: Marc believes we must do a complete review of the temporary foreign workers program. The Conservatives had vastly expanded that program and there are serious questions on how many workers are coming and their treatment when they get here.
Koby: Most important of all is why the government is paying to have hundreds of thousands of unskilled foreigner guest workers brought in for the sole purpose of driving down wages.
6) Every election there are a slew of grassroots efforts to get young people to vote in greater numbers. All have been miserable failures.
Getting young people to the polls is vital for the future health of Canadian democracy. Many Canadians in their 20s will move into their 30s never having voted and it remains to be seen just how many will start voting.
Do you support mandatory voting as the solution to this problem?
Stuart: To be honest, we've never asked him that question! He proposes we reform our democracy to a preferential ballot to make our first past the post system more representative
7) This is two part question. 1) Do you support reinstating the per vote subsidy? 2) If so, will you promise to help pay for such a subsidy by no longer making contributions to political parties tax deductible?
Stuart: Again, don't know if he would bring back the per vote subsidy.
8) Will you end the charitable status for overtly political organizations such as the Fraser institute and Manning Center?
Stuart: I don't think Marc would comment specifically on those two organizations.
Koby: I was not asking him to. They were just given as examples. I was asking if Marc would end the charitable status for overtly political organizations -- organizations,I might add, that do no charitable work whatsoever.
9) How much your vote counts for depends whether you reside near or in a major urban center. For example there are 228,997 people in Oak Ridge Markham and mere 55,977 In Kenora. There are 26, 728 In Labrador and 100, 559 in St. John's East. Would you support a measure calling for there to be equal representation within provinces?
Marc supports making sure our tidings better reflect population changes. That has been at the heart of the ongoing discussions on seat redistribution. It is controversial though!.
Koby: God knows why. If you live in or around Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver you are getting doubly screwed. Compared to ridings in other provinces you grossly underrepresented and you are grossly underrepresented when compared to rural ridings within your province. It is high time this stopped. There is only so much that can be done to address the largest provinces underrepresentation. However, there is no reason why an act can not be passed to insure that each riding within a province has roughly the same number of people.
10) Consider the following argument for the gun registry:
The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (1.85 million) and with any large population certain very accurate predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a small percentage of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that a small percentage will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership at least for period of time. Now, even though this number is small in percentage terms, in absolute terms the numbers are quite large, in the 10s of thousands. Enter the gun registry. It made it easier for authorities to seize the guns of people who should no longer have them. Why? Because the onus is on the gun owner in question to produce any registered weapons. If the police do not have proof that someone owns any unrestricted guns, how can they demand that he produce them?
Do you find fault with this argument?
Stuart: As to your gun registry question, it is Marc’s stated position that the long-gun registry will not be brought back. Although supported by a majority of police associations across the country and by victims groups, it was strenuously opposed by many Canadians in rural areas across Canada. Marc has publicly stated that it is not his intention to spend more money to bring it back. Marc intends to focus on ensuring the protection of Canadians from gun violence through measures that will result in stricter penalties for those who commit crimes with a gun. As well, Marc proposes stronger interdiction measures at the border to prevent firearms trafficking, along with taking action to prohibit weapons that could be turned into assault rifles.
Koby: That is not what I asked. I asked if he found fault with the above argument. Apparently, Marc's commitment to rigorous debate stops when he feels the need to mirror the opinions of Justin Trudeau. Leaving aside a very weak legitimacy argument, the notion that Canada could reduce gun related violence by imposing tougher penalties on individuals who have committed gun related crimes is ludicrous. It certainly has not worked down south. Such measures also fail to address the issue of gun related suicides. The registry servers two purposes. One, "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets." Two, as explained above, it makes it easier to take guns away from gun owners who should no longer have them.
It should also be pointed out that calling for all hand guns to be registered, but not long guns makes about much sense as saying only pick up trucks should have valid registration but not cars.
11) Given the support for campaign spending limits, will you support a ban or least a limit on pre writ political advertising?
Pre-election, and indeed all government advertising is something that clearly needs to be looked at. The governing party in power shouldn't be allowed to spend taxpayers money on what has clearly become partisan advertisements and we should limit political advertising between elections. No one needs partisan spam!
12) What was the last two books you read?
13) What was the last two movies you saw?
14) What is your favorite non Canadian vacation destination?
Stuart: His favourite non-Canadian vacation destination? Space, of course! ;)
Koby: I do not know that he went there for vacation! But I like this answer.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The Judiciary Needs to be Remade
The moment of truth has arrived. The recent decision to grant status to non status Indians and Metis is just the tip of a very big iceberg. Bigger battles lie ahead. Given current trends the judiciary looks like it will not only grant Native peoples a veto over virtually every resource project in the country, but also ensure billions of royalties that now flow to the provinces will go to the bands instead. Furthermore, should the Supreme Court's pattern of treasonous behavior continue -- we are talking nation to nations after all -- and they cement Phelan's idiocy into law, race relations would be set back several generations and the feds and provinces will be out billions. For once the distinction between non-status and status Indian goes away so too does the ability of the crown to impose any income or excise taxes on native Canadians and Metis. On the one side will be 1.3 million native Canadians and a yet to be determined number Metis. On the other side, a shrinking number of work age Canadians will face a double whammy. Not only will they bare the financial burnt of all those baby boomers retiring, but they will also be picking up the tab for the only demographic group in the country with a fertility rate way above replacement levels. Invariably tax evasion amongst this later group will become endemic as chances for tax evasion increase exponentially and as they inevitably loose all faith in the system.
Extreme measures need to be taken. The government must remake the judiciary. Above all else, the government must remake the Supreme Court to insure that decisions like Phelan's do not become the law of the land. If that means politicizing the courts the way they are down south, so be it. Decades of judicial idiocy must come to an end.
Extreme measures need to be taken. The government must remake the judiciary. Above all else, the government must remake the Supreme Court to insure that decisions like Phelan's do not become the law of the land. If that means politicizing the courts the way they are down south, so be it. Decades of judicial idiocy must come to an end.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Liberal Messaging: a Rethink is Needed
Political parties conduct polling to find out what issues favour them and what do not, develop their talking points accordingly, focus group these talking points and then repeat these tried and tested talking points every chance they get. Whether, such talking points make much sense does not matter a lick. What matters is soccer moms and Nascar dads or what have you like them.
However, such an approach has two main shortcomings, one minor, one major. The minor shortcoming is this. Just because a talking point tests well does not mean that people will never see behind the facade. Some talking points are like fruit. They spoil. Others are like Twinkies and stay fresh forever. It is hard to guess what kind of expiration date a particular talking point will have coming out of the gate. It could go rotten rather quickly. Moreover, the growing prominence of social media is surly going to mean that such talking points have shorter expiration dates in the future. All that being said, all a political party needs to do overcome this problem is to remain vigilant, restock the shelves when needed and throw the rotten talking points in the garbage.
The second shortcoming is not so easily overcome. Specifically, such an approach presupposes that these talking points will reach the public unfiltered and that is just not realistic. Trying to use the media as a vehicle for getting your message out is like trying to pass a message to someone across a large room by having a series of people whisper in the ear of the person next to them. What message is eventually received is seldom the same as the message given. Some people will hear about such talking points though an unsympathetic columnist or pundit, others will discover it buried in a lengthily article and so on and so on. None of these scenarios has been focused grouped for. People in focus groups are exposed to the talking point and only the talking point.
Liberals in particular would be fatally ill advised to ignore the latter problem. Being the third party they will be given less opportunity by the media to speak directly to Canadians and there is now an overwhelming body of evidence that 1) the bulk pundits are conservative and 2) the vast majority of articles about the Liberals are negative. The former goes a long way in explaining why the Conservatives have garnered so many more endorsements than other major political parties. In 2006 22 newspapers endorsed the Conservatives and 1 paper endorsed the Liberals 1 endorsed the Green Party and 1 the Bloc. In 2008 20 papers endorsed the Conservatives 3 the Liberals 1 the Bloc and 1 the NDP. In 2011 28 papers endorsed the Conservatives 2 the NDP, 1 the Bloc. As for the later, the last 4 McGill media election studies are a great place to start. I do not care how well a particular talking point focused grouped if it is buried in a negative piece or hammered by a pundit it is probably not going to be worth much.
That said, since being losing government in 2006 the Liberals have never acknowledged that this second problem even exists. As result, whenever a Liberal MP is invited on show such as Power and Politics along with MPs from other parties the MP does just what his NDP and Conservative counterparts do, viz., trot out a series of paper thin talking points in the hope that some sound bite is picked up and replayed for a larger audience. Needless to say, such a strategy is the anti-thesis of the old adage that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. The parties act as if the people who are not watching are far more important than the people that do watch. After all, no one with half a brain or any manners is impressed by someone repeating the same point ad nauseum and ignoring everything else that is said.
Of course, the Liberals carried such a strategy to absurd lengths during last year's English language debate. After having watched Ignatieff give a new stump speech at every campaign stop, the Liberals picked the debate, of all times, to have Ignatieff endlessly repeat the same talking points. In doing so, Ignatieff endeared himself to no one who actually watched the debate and 3.8 million Canadians watched the debate. The problems with the Liberal debate strategy did not stop there. Having Ignatieff endlessly repeat common Liberal talking points all but eliminated the chances of Ignatieff delivering a knockout blow. It is easy to defend what you know is coming. When attacking, the element of surprise is important.
Anyway, in order to combat such a short coming the Liberal party is going to have to assume the role of a liberal pundit class that simply does not exist in this country and that means the Liberal party will actually have develop some academically respectable arguments. Board based talking points will not do the trick. They are easy fodder for any well informed person and really lets be honest; the only ones listening to the Liberals these days is pundits and political junkies. The party needs to challenge the legions of conservative columnists least various Conservative positions become received wisdom. Factual errors need to be pointed out, non sequiturs need to be mocked and detailed arguments provided. The party needs to be vicious. Ignatieff talked about wanting to the be the party that bases its decisions on sound reasoning and science. A good way of establishing such a reputation is take a conservative pundit out to the wood shed on occasion. It also makes for good TV and good print. When a conservative columnist retires the Liberals should share Trudeau's lament: "I'm sorry I won't have you to kick around any more." Special attention needs to be given to the following papers: The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Winnipeg Free Press, Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette.
Of course for such a strategy to be effective the Liberals actually need take stand on issues. A lot of the success Conservatives have enjoyed stems from the fact that however, stupid their policies, they have been only ones willing to put forward consistent set of policies (e.g., senate reform). When pundits talk about policy more often than not it is Conservative policies they are dealing with. Outside of the policies announced in Chretien's last year in power and Dion's disastrously ill defined Green Shift, the Liberals have not given the media much to talk about. Indeed, since 2006 the Liberals have almost abandoned the field altogether; they do not put forward polices; they do not put forward arguments; they do not refute arguments. They might tut tut and promise to "compromise", but this only hurts them. The former makes them appear to be the effeminate wimps the Conservatives claim them to be and the later makes it appear that the various Conservative polices have some validity when in actuality they have none. At best, the Liberals will sometimes take a stand in defense of the status quo. The gun registry is a case in point. When it existed they were for it; now it is proved too much trouble to defend. However, do not expect them to say much of anything when they do take a stand. They might note that the experts support them or mumble some vagary about public opinion, but they will not repeat the expert's arguments least someone take offense to what the experts are saying and want to shoot the messenger.
However, such an approach has two main shortcomings, one minor, one major. The minor shortcoming is this. Just because a talking point tests well does not mean that people will never see behind the facade. Some talking points are like fruit. They spoil. Others are like Twinkies and stay fresh forever. It is hard to guess what kind of expiration date a particular talking point will have coming out of the gate. It could go rotten rather quickly. Moreover, the growing prominence of social media is surly going to mean that such talking points have shorter expiration dates in the future. All that being said, all a political party needs to do overcome this problem is to remain vigilant, restock the shelves when needed and throw the rotten talking points in the garbage.
The second shortcoming is not so easily overcome. Specifically, such an approach presupposes that these talking points will reach the public unfiltered and that is just not realistic. Trying to use the media as a vehicle for getting your message out is like trying to pass a message to someone across a large room by having a series of people whisper in the ear of the person next to them. What message is eventually received is seldom the same as the message given. Some people will hear about such talking points though an unsympathetic columnist or pundit, others will discover it buried in a lengthily article and so on and so on. None of these scenarios has been focused grouped for. People in focus groups are exposed to the talking point and only the talking point.
Liberals in particular would be fatally ill advised to ignore the latter problem. Being the third party they will be given less opportunity by the media to speak directly to Canadians and there is now an overwhelming body of evidence that 1) the bulk pundits are conservative and 2) the vast majority of articles about the Liberals are negative. The former goes a long way in explaining why the Conservatives have garnered so many more endorsements than other major political parties. In 2006 22 newspapers endorsed the Conservatives and 1 paper endorsed the Liberals 1 endorsed the Green Party and 1 the Bloc. In 2008 20 papers endorsed the Conservatives 3 the Liberals 1 the Bloc and 1 the NDP. In 2011 28 papers endorsed the Conservatives 2 the NDP, 1 the Bloc. As for the later, the last 4 McGill media election studies are a great place to start. I do not care how well a particular talking point focused grouped if it is buried in a negative piece or hammered by a pundit it is probably not going to be worth much.
That said, since being losing government in 2006 the Liberals have never acknowledged that this second problem even exists. As result, whenever a Liberal MP is invited on show such as Power and Politics along with MPs from other parties the MP does just what his NDP and Conservative counterparts do, viz., trot out a series of paper thin talking points in the hope that some sound bite is picked up and replayed for a larger audience. Needless to say, such a strategy is the anti-thesis of the old adage that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. The parties act as if the people who are not watching are far more important than the people that do watch. After all, no one with half a brain or any manners is impressed by someone repeating the same point ad nauseum and ignoring everything else that is said.
Of course, the Liberals carried such a strategy to absurd lengths during last year's English language debate. After having watched Ignatieff give a new stump speech at every campaign stop, the Liberals picked the debate, of all times, to have Ignatieff endlessly repeat the same talking points. In doing so, Ignatieff endeared himself to no one who actually watched the debate and 3.8 million Canadians watched the debate. The problems with the Liberal debate strategy did not stop there. Having Ignatieff endlessly repeat common Liberal talking points all but eliminated the chances of Ignatieff delivering a knockout blow. It is easy to defend what you know is coming. When attacking, the element of surprise is important.
Anyway, in order to combat such a short coming the Liberal party is going to have to assume the role of a liberal pundit class that simply does not exist in this country and that means the Liberal party will actually have develop some academically respectable arguments. Board based talking points will not do the trick. They are easy fodder for any well informed person and really lets be honest; the only ones listening to the Liberals these days is pundits and political junkies. The party needs to challenge the legions of conservative columnists least various Conservative positions become received wisdom. Factual errors need to be pointed out, non sequiturs need to be mocked and detailed arguments provided. The party needs to be vicious. Ignatieff talked about wanting to the be the party that bases its decisions on sound reasoning and science. A good way of establishing such a reputation is take a conservative pundit out to the wood shed on occasion. It also makes for good TV and good print. When a conservative columnist retires the Liberals should share Trudeau's lament: "I'm sorry I won't have you to kick around any more." Special attention needs to be given to the following papers: The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Winnipeg Free Press, Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette.
Of course for such a strategy to be effective the Liberals actually need take stand on issues. A lot of the success Conservatives have enjoyed stems from the fact that however, stupid their policies, they have been only ones willing to put forward consistent set of policies (e.g., senate reform). When pundits talk about policy more often than not it is Conservative policies they are dealing with. Outside of the policies announced in Chretien's last year in power and Dion's disastrously ill defined Green Shift, the Liberals have not given the media much to talk about. Indeed, since 2006 the Liberals have almost abandoned the field altogether; they do not put forward polices; they do not put forward arguments; they do not refute arguments. They might tut tut and promise to "compromise", but this only hurts them. The former makes them appear to be the effeminate wimps the Conservatives claim them to be and the later makes it appear that the various Conservative polices have some validity when in actuality they have none. At best, the Liberals will sometimes take a stand in defense of the status quo. The gun registry is a case in point. When it existed they were for it; now it is proved too much trouble to defend. However, do not expect them to say much of anything when they do take a stand. They might note that the experts support them or mumble some vagary about public opinion, but they will not repeat the expert's arguments least someone take offense to what the experts are saying and want to shoot the messenger.
Labrador and other Riding Absurdities: How people in Canada's largest suburbs and cities are getting Screwed
How much your vote counts for depends not on what province you reside in (Canada's four largest provinces are grossly underrepresented) but also on whether you reside near or in a major urban center. If you live in or especially around Toronto, for example, consider yourself doubly screwed.
Ontario
Oak Ridges - Markham (Ont.) 228,997
Kenora (Ont.) 55,977
Quebec
Montcalm (Que.) 144,141
Roberval - Lac-Saint-Jean (Que.) 78,765
NFLD
St. John's East (N.L.) 100,559
Labrador (N.L.) 26,728
BC
Fleetwood - Port Kells (B.C.) 160,129
Kootenay - Columbia (B.C.) 88,026
There is only so much that can be done to address the largest provinces underrepresentation. However, there is no reason why an act can not be passed to insure that each riding within a province has roughly the same number of people.
Ontario
Oak Ridges - Markham (Ont.) 228,997
Kenora (Ont.) 55,977
Quebec
Montcalm (Que.) 144,141
Roberval - Lac-Saint-Jean (Que.) 78,765
NFLD
St. John's East (N.L.) 100,559
Labrador (N.L.) 26,728
BC
Fleetwood - Port Kells (B.C.) 160,129
Kootenay - Columbia (B.C.) 88,026
There is only so much that can be done to address the largest provinces underrepresentation. However, there is no reason why an act can not be passed to insure that each riding within a province has roughly the same number of people.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Native Rights and Reserves: They are the problem
The long and troubled relationship between First Nation peoples and the Crown has blinded many to patent absurdity of the current situation. It has blinded them to the fact that Attawapiskat is a natural consequence of an economic and legal relationship built around Native rights, the reserve system, the Indian Act and Native Self government. In any other context this would be self evident. Indeed, imagine if the government happened to, oh, legally define what it means to be Chinese, created a department of Chinese affairs, created Chinese rights, reserved land for Chinese so defined and exempted Chinese living on reserve land from paying property taxes, sales taxes and in some cases taxes of any kind. No one would doubt that is a recipe for disastrous social relations. So, why would anyone doubt the same about Native Affairs, native rights and native reserves?
Of course the situation is even worse than just described. Not only has Canada set up hundreds of tax havens for Status Indians to take advantage of, it also provides incentives for Status Indians to stay on them or move to them. Specifically, the feds hold out the promise of free housing, a promise to pay for upkeep and the promise of never imposing not only no property tax or sales tax, but also in some cases no income tax. The federal government will pay for any needed infrastructure. Realizing, the patent absurdity of its ironclad guarantee, the government drags its feet, provides the bare minimum level of funding for housing, upkeep and infrastructure and to, add insult to injury, proceeds in less than timely matter. In other words, the government has every reason to create living conditions that repel even as its moronic promises attract.
In practice government foot dragging does not always work so well. Some of these tax havens are so isolated and so utterly economically unviable that the government is dammed no matter what it does. If it builds up these communities too much it runs the risk of attracting more people to them. However if it does too little, the very scarcity of jobs in these places ties people living there to land all the more. The less assets, work experience and education a person has the more attractive the prospect of obtaining free housing, however squalid, becomes. There is a long waiting for housing in Attawapiskat. This dispite the fact that the community has a staggeringly high unemployment rate and by any objective measure is a hell hole. A bird in the hand is better than two in bush as it were; a dilapidated house in the hand is better than the dim prospects of a better house elsewhere.
The only possible way out this mess, viz., abolishing native rights, abolishing the Indian Act and privatizing reserve lands, has been forever blocked by section 35 of the Constitution -- a decision, by the way, that renders Trudeau's time in office an abject failure. The best the government can do is to amend the Indian Act to allow for the creation of fee simple lands, thereby switching the financial burden of maintaining and upgrading housing from the federal government to individual home owners, and empowering bands to impose property taxes. This will give the people living in Attawapiskat and like communities additional economic incentives to leave. Namely, either property taxes and the cost of upkeep will drive people away in the absence of a job, or the prospect of using the capital from the sale of one's house and land will.
That said, introducing fee simple opens a whole host of other problems. For example, as the idiocy of native self government is maintained in all cases, non natives purchasing native lands would have no right to take part in band elections. There would be taxation but no representation. Such a situation would greatly depress real estate values on reserves -- especially on remote reserves. Band councils must be transformed into municipal councils. The notion of a government built around a legally defined race is not only economically problematic, it is ideologically putrid. Moving to a fee simple model also does not eliminate such lands as tax havens.
The reserve system, premised as it is on the notion of native rights, is a bureaucratic, fiscal, jurisdictional, legal, intellectual and sociological abortion that does nothing save waste mountains of money, breed corruption, black marketeering and poverty, encourage tax evasion (e.g., cigarettes), instill in the native community a vile sense of identity based on “blood” and breed racism in the Canadian society at large. If politicians and the media want to accept this as Canada's historical cross to bear, so be it. However, it is high time both acknowledge that the problem is intractable so long as the only possible solution, viz., the abolition of native rights and Indian Act and privatization of reserve lands, remains legally untenable.
Of course the situation is even worse than just described. Not only has Canada set up hundreds of tax havens for Status Indians to take advantage of, it also provides incentives for Status Indians to stay on them or move to them. Specifically, the feds hold out the promise of free housing, a promise to pay for upkeep and the promise of never imposing not only no property tax or sales tax, but also in some cases no income tax. The federal government will pay for any needed infrastructure. Realizing, the patent absurdity of its ironclad guarantee, the government drags its feet, provides the bare minimum level of funding for housing, upkeep and infrastructure and to, add insult to injury, proceeds in less than timely matter. In other words, the government has every reason to create living conditions that repel even as its moronic promises attract.
In practice government foot dragging does not always work so well. Some of these tax havens are so isolated and so utterly economically unviable that the government is dammed no matter what it does. If it builds up these communities too much it runs the risk of attracting more people to them. However if it does too little, the very scarcity of jobs in these places ties people living there to land all the more. The less assets, work experience and education a person has the more attractive the prospect of obtaining free housing, however squalid, becomes. There is a long waiting for housing in Attawapiskat. This dispite the fact that the community has a staggeringly high unemployment rate and by any objective measure is a hell hole. A bird in the hand is better than two in bush as it were; a dilapidated house in the hand is better than the dim prospects of a better house elsewhere.
The only possible way out this mess, viz., abolishing native rights, abolishing the Indian Act and privatizing reserve lands, has been forever blocked by section 35 of the Constitution -- a decision, by the way, that renders Trudeau's time in office an abject failure. The best the government can do is to amend the Indian Act to allow for the creation of fee simple lands, thereby switching the financial burden of maintaining and upgrading housing from the federal government to individual home owners, and empowering bands to impose property taxes. This will give the people living in Attawapiskat and like communities additional economic incentives to leave. Namely, either property taxes and the cost of upkeep will drive people away in the absence of a job, or the prospect of using the capital from the sale of one's house and land will.
That said, introducing fee simple opens a whole host of other problems. For example, as the idiocy of native self government is maintained in all cases, non natives purchasing native lands would have no right to take part in band elections. There would be taxation but no representation. Such a situation would greatly depress real estate values on reserves -- especially on remote reserves. Band councils must be transformed into municipal councils. The notion of a government built around a legally defined race is not only economically problematic, it is ideologically putrid. Moving to a fee simple model also does not eliminate such lands as tax havens.
The reserve system, premised as it is on the notion of native rights, is a bureaucratic, fiscal, jurisdictional, legal, intellectual and sociological abortion that does nothing save waste mountains of money, breed corruption, black marketeering and poverty, encourage tax evasion (e.g., cigarettes), instill in the native community a vile sense of identity based on “blood” and breed racism in the Canadian society at large. If politicians and the media want to accept this as Canada's historical cross to bear, so be it. However, it is high time both acknowledge that the problem is intractable so long as the only possible solution, viz., the abolition of native rights and Indian Act and privatization of reserve lands, remains legally untenable.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Marijuana Legalization: High Time
A call to legalize marijuana will be met with some predictable responses. This is how you can rebut them.
The US will Never Let it happen
Yes Canadians understand some Americans would not be pleased about legalization. As such, Harper's musings about legalizing marijuana causing trouble at the border seem reasonable enough. The problem is this does not make marijuana prohibition any more legitimate in the eyes of the Canadian people. Support for legalization has been above 50% since 2004 and a recent poll in BC put it at 75% there. In BC in the last year 4 attorney generals, a large chunk of the medical establishment, a former police chief, the current mayor of Vancouver and 3 former Vancouver mayors came out in favor of legalization. Support for prohibition has all but collapsed in this province. Whether you think the marijuana issue an important one is somewhat beside the point. We as a society should not pass laws or keep others in place simply to placate foreign governments. We as a society should not be enforcing laws that no one believes in. This goes especially for laws that would result in Canadians languishing in jail. Any perception that Canada is enforcing laws to met with illegitimate demands of a bullying third party, whoever that may be, is simply poisonous to the health of a functioning democracy.
All that being said, it was one thing for opponents of legalization to employ the let us not piss off the Yanks argument in 2004; it is quite another for them to dust this argument off now and act as if nothing has changed Stateside. Colorado and Washington State just voted to legalize marijuana. This changes everything. Indeed, it is hard to fathom Obama going to war with Colorado and Washington State over the marijuana legalization yet alone large portion of the Democratic base. Moreover, this is an issue that is clearly started to tip not only in Canada but also Stateside.
Obama's ability to push back is limited for other reasons as well. He freely admits to having marijuana in the past ("I inhaled frequently. That was the point") and his marijuana use is not a part of some redemption narrative, a la George Bush. It was a path he choice not to continue going down. Drug use was never presented as a demon he had to overcome yet alone one he still struggles with the way an alcoholic does with drink. This would leave him open to the charge of hypocrisy. Far more importantly though, the war and drugs, especially with regard to marijuana, has had a profound impact on the African American community in the States. If Obama was to toe the standard line, he would be in a world of hurt politically. The African American community would not, of course, abandon him, but they would be unhappy and their unhappiness would have the potential to throw his whole second term out of whack politically. His whole message of being a force for change would be called into question.
Finally, least we forget it was Obama that set help set the wheels of legalization in motion in the first place by declaring that he would not crack down on medical marijuana back in 2009. For you see, unlike in Canada, in California, for example, one does not have to be afflicted with a particular aliment to be eligible for medical marijuana. A doctor can proscribe marijuana for whatever they see fit. Needless to say, such a system is ripe for abuse and the Bush administration was right to see medical marijuana program as a potential Trojan horse. But Obama let the wooden horse to be wheeled into California and other States anyway. In so doing, Obama has allowed the medical marijuana industry in California and elsewhere to grow to the point there is no saving prohibition from Odysseus. There are more "medical" marijuana dispensaries in LA than Starbucks. It is not a question of if marijuana will be legalized in the US it is matter of when. Canada had best start preparing.
Talking points:
1) It is not matter of if the US will legalize marijuana, it is matter of when. Furthermore, this is likely going to happen sooner rather than later and Canada had start preparing.
2) We do pass laws or keep others in place in order placate foreign governments. This goes especially for laws that would result in Canadians languishing in jail.
Potent Pot
Potent pot is more myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2002/11/the_myth_of_potent_pot.html
However, even if one assumes that potent pot is a reality it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. Indeed, saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense. The pharmacological affects of consuming 1 "chemically supercharged" joint, as various US attorneys like to say, versus x number of "dad's joints" would be no different if the amount of THC consumed is the same. As for consumption, just as people do not drink the same volume of gin as beer, the higher the THC level in pot the less people consume. Hence, ironically more potent pot may be a welcome development. After all, one of the most prominent health effect related to marijuana, if not the most, is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School concurs, so does Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California and so does UCLA's Mark Kleiman.
That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized. After all, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it.
Finally, the attempt to scare parents that have grown up on marijuana by distinguishing between potent pot and “your dad's marijuana” is too clever by half. It begs the following question. If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be okay to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?
Talking Points
1) Saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense.
2) If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be okay to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?
Gateway Drug
Researchers have rightly noted that people who have try marijuana are statistically more likely try other illicit drugs. This gave raise to the theory that there was something about marijuana that encouraged drug experimentation. Marijuana, it was alleged, is a gateway drug. This, in turn, was given as one more reason to keep the drug illegal. However, the gateway drug theory has until recently fallen on hard times for lack of an intelligible mechanism. The problem was that there was no coherent explanation for why marijuana would lead people to experiment with other drugs. Without this explanation doubt was cast relationship being more than mere correlation. That said, in recent years researchers have breathed new life into the theory, albeit with a sociological twist. According to the new version, it is not marijuana's pharmacological properties that serve as a gateway, but rather marijuana's illegal status. Specifically in the process of illegally procuring marijuana, users are introduced to the criminal elements with access to other illicit drugs and hence it is the forged black market relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway.
In this context it should be noted that when the Dutch partially legalized the sale of marijuana, heroin and cocaine use went down despite an initial increase in marijuana use. Dutch use of hard drugs remains well below the European average.
Talking Point
Every time someone goes to buy marijuana they come into contact with criminal elements with access to other hard drugs. This is your gateway. When Holland decriminalized consumption and made it available in coffee shops, heroin and cocaine use went down.
Schizophrenia and Marijuana
Epidemiological studies have consistently failed to show any kind of positive correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia. Despite a massive increase in the number of Australians consuming the drug since the 1960s, Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland found no increase in the number of cases of schizophrenia in Australia. Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population and Oxford's Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. According to Columbia's Alan Brown, "If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the ‘ 50,"
Talking Point
There has been an astronomical increase in the number of pot smokers since the 1950s and no increase in the rate of schizophrenia whatsoever.
The gangs will simply move on to other drugs
The market for marijuana positively dwarfs the market for all other drugs combined and marijuana is far and away gangs' biggest money maker. The notion that the gangs would simply shift focus and thereby maintain the same levels of profitability is absurd. Comparable demand for other kinds of drugs is simply not there. Moreover, such an argument rests upon a mistaken assumption. Namely, it assumes that the sure size and scope of the marijuana industry is limiting the distribution of other kinds of drugs. The reverse is true. Marijuana profits and sometimes even marijuana itself are providing the seed capital the gangs need to diversify operations (e.g., cocaine, heroin, human trafficking and guns) and to expand those other operations. This is one of the main reasons why we need to nip this in the bud.
Talking Point
It is not like the gangs have access to capital markets. Marijuana profits and sometimes even marijuana itself are providing the seed capital the gangs need to diversify operations (e.g., cocaine, heroin, human trafficking and guns) and to expand those other operations. This is one of the main reasons why we need to nip this, pardon the pun, in the bud.
The Black Market will live on
It is one thing to illegally sell a legally produced product and make a profit, e.g., black market cigarettes. It is quite another thing to illegally produce and sell a product (e.g., moonshine) in market where there is legal competitors. The reason is simple. The illegality of the product means that your production and distribution costs are significantly higher. Also demand for your product is always going to be less. People want to know what they buying and consuming. So when given the choice of buying an illegally produced product versus a legally produced product they are going to go with the later. (There is one notable exception and that is when an illegally produced product is successfully passed off as a legal one, e.g., fake brand name goods). That is why no matter how much Canadians drank during the time of American prohibition, I am sure that it never crossed the RCMP’s mind that American moonshine might become a competitor of Molson’s.
Talking point
Molson executives do not worry about moonshine eating into market share. Demand for illegal products is not what it is for legal ones.
The US will Never Let it happen
Yes Canadians understand some Americans would not be pleased about legalization. As such, Harper's musings about legalizing marijuana causing trouble at the border seem reasonable enough. The problem is this does not make marijuana prohibition any more legitimate in the eyes of the Canadian people. Support for legalization has been above 50% since 2004 and a recent poll in BC put it at 75% there. In BC in the last year 4 attorney generals, a large chunk of the medical establishment, a former police chief, the current mayor of Vancouver and 3 former Vancouver mayors came out in favor of legalization. Support for prohibition has all but collapsed in this province. Whether you think the marijuana issue an important one is somewhat beside the point. We as a society should not pass laws or keep others in place simply to placate foreign governments. We as a society should not be enforcing laws that no one believes in. This goes especially for laws that would result in Canadians languishing in jail. Any perception that Canada is enforcing laws to met with illegitimate demands of a bullying third party, whoever that may be, is simply poisonous to the health of a functioning democracy.
All that being said, it was one thing for opponents of legalization to employ the let us not piss off the Yanks argument in 2004; it is quite another for them to dust this argument off now and act as if nothing has changed Stateside. Colorado and Washington State just voted to legalize marijuana. This changes everything. Indeed, it is hard to fathom Obama going to war with Colorado and Washington State over the marijuana legalization yet alone large portion of the Democratic base. Moreover, this is an issue that is clearly started to tip not only in Canada but also Stateside.
Obama's ability to push back is limited for other reasons as well. He freely admits to having marijuana in the past ("I inhaled frequently. That was the point") and his marijuana use is not a part of some redemption narrative, a la George Bush. It was a path he choice not to continue going down. Drug use was never presented as a demon he had to overcome yet alone one he still struggles with the way an alcoholic does with drink. This would leave him open to the charge of hypocrisy. Far more importantly though, the war and drugs, especially with regard to marijuana, has had a profound impact on the African American community in the States. If Obama was to toe the standard line, he would be in a world of hurt politically. The African American community would not, of course, abandon him, but they would be unhappy and their unhappiness would have the potential to throw his whole second term out of whack politically. His whole message of being a force for change would be called into question.
Finally, least we forget it was Obama that set help set the wheels of legalization in motion in the first place by declaring that he would not crack down on medical marijuana back in 2009. For you see, unlike in Canada, in California, for example, one does not have to be afflicted with a particular aliment to be eligible for medical marijuana. A doctor can proscribe marijuana for whatever they see fit. Needless to say, such a system is ripe for abuse and the Bush administration was right to see medical marijuana program as a potential Trojan horse. But Obama let the wooden horse to be wheeled into California and other States anyway. In so doing, Obama has allowed the medical marijuana industry in California and elsewhere to grow to the point there is no saving prohibition from Odysseus. There are more "medical" marijuana dispensaries in LA than Starbucks. It is not a question of if marijuana will be legalized in the US it is matter of when. Canada had best start preparing.
Talking points:
1) It is not matter of if the US will legalize marijuana, it is matter of when. Furthermore, this is likely going to happen sooner rather than later and Canada had start preparing.
2) We do pass laws or keep others in place in order placate foreign governments. This goes especially for laws that would result in Canadians languishing in jail.
Potent Pot
Potent pot is more myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2002/11/the_myth_of_potent_pot.html
However, even if one assumes that potent pot is a reality it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. Indeed, saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense. The pharmacological affects of consuming 1 "chemically supercharged" joint, as various US attorneys like to say, versus x number of "dad's joints" would be no different if the amount of THC consumed is the same. As for consumption, just as people do not drink the same volume of gin as beer, the higher the THC level in pot the less people consume. Hence, ironically more potent pot may be a welcome development. After all, one of the most prominent health effect related to marijuana, if not the most, is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School concurs, so does Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California and so does UCLA's Mark Kleiman.
That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized. After all, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it.
Finally, the attempt to scare parents that have grown up on marijuana by distinguishing between potent pot and “your dad's marijuana” is too clever by half. It begs the following question. If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be okay to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?
Talking Points
1) Saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense.
2) If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be okay to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?
Gateway Drug
Researchers have rightly noted that people who have try marijuana are statistically more likely try other illicit drugs. This gave raise to the theory that there was something about marijuana that encouraged drug experimentation. Marijuana, it was alleged, is a gateway drug. This, in turn, was given as one more reason to keep the drug illegal. However, the gateway drug theory has until recently fallen on hard times for lack of an intelligible mechanism. The problem was that there was no coherent explanation for why marijuana would lead people to experiment with other drugs. Without this explanation doubt was cast relationship being more than mere correlation. That said, in recent years researchers have breathed new life into the theory, albeit with a sociological twist. According to the new version, it is not marijuana's pharmacological properties that serve as a gateway, but rather marijuana's illegal status. Specifically in the process of illegally procuring marijuana, users are introduced to the criminal elements with access to other illicit drugs and hence it is the forged black market relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway.
In this context it should be noted that when the Dutch partially legalized the sale of marijuana, heroin and cocaine use went down despite an initial increase in marijuana use. Dutch use of hard drugs remains well below the European average.
Talking Point
Every time someone goes to buy marijuana they come into contact with criminal elements with access to other hard drugs. This is your gateway. When Holland decriminalized consumption and made it available in coffee shops, heroin and cocaine use went down.
Schizophrenia and Marijuana
Epidemiological studies have consistently failed to show any kind of positive correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia. Despite a massive increase in the number of Australians consuming the drug since the 1960s, Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland found no increase in the number of cases of schizophrenia in Australia. Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population and Oxford's Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. According to Columbia's Alan Brown, "If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the ‘ 50,"
Talking Point
There has been an astronomical increase in the number of pot smokers since the 1950s and no increase in the rate of schizophrenia whatsoever.
The gangs will simply move on to other drugs
The market for marijuana positively dwarfs the market for all other drugs combined and marijuana is far and away gangs' biggest money maker. The notion that the gangs would simply shift focus and thereby maintain the same levels of profitability is absurd. Comparable demand for other kinds of drugs is simply not there. Moreover, such an argument rests upon a mistaken assumption. Namely, it assumes that the sure size and scope of the marijuana industry is limiting the distribution of other kinds of drugs. The reverse is true. Marijuana profits and sometimes even marijuana itself are providing the seed capital the gangs need to diversify operations (e.g., cocaine, heroin, human trafficking and guns) and to expand those other operations. This is one of the main reasons why we need to nip this in the bud.
Talking Point
It is not like the gangs have access to capital markets. Marijuana profits and sometimes even marijuana itself are providing the seed capital the gangs need to diversify operations (e.g., cocaine, heroin, human trafficking and guns) and to expand those other operations. This is one of the main reasons why we need to nip this, pardon the pun, in the bud.
The Black Market will live on
It is one thing to illegally sell a legally produced product and make a profit, e.g., black market cigarettes. It is quite another thing to illegally produce and sell a product (e.g., moonshine) in market where there is legal competitors. The reason is simple. The illegality of the product means that your production and distribution costs are significantly higher. Also demand for your product is always going to be less. People want to know what they buying and consuming. So when given the choice of buying an illegally produced product versus a legally produced product they are going to go with the later. (There is one notable exception and that is when an illegally produced product is successfully passed off as a legal one, e.g., fake brand name goods). That is why no matter how much Canadians drank during the time of American prohibition, I am sure that it never crossed the RCMP’s mind that American moonshine might become a competitor of Molson’s.
Talking point
Molson executives do not worry about moonshine eating into market share. Demand for illegal products is not what it is for legal ones.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Joe Kernen is a Moron.
Joe Kernen has got his shorts in a bunch. He claims that Krugman owes him an apology for dismissing his and Becky Quick's preposterous assertions about the economy as Zombie ideas -- i.e., Krugman speak for ideas that have long since been debunked but are nonetheless continually championed by the right. Krugman owes him nothing of the sort. Joe Kernen is a self righteous prick and an ignoramus to boot. He got what he deserved. Indeed, it was Kernen that fired the opening salvo. Right off the bat Kernen implied that Krugman is so far out there intellectually that he is "almost like a unicorn" and that if Krugman were not there in person before him he would have a hard believing that an actual living person and economist to boot would hold such bizarre views. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/paul-krugman-cnbc_n_1664771.html With an opening remark like that Kernen had no right to expect Krugman to be civil. Not only was Kernen confrontational what he said was absurd. Krugman is not on the intellectual fringe and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics understands this. In fact, that he is not on the fringe of the economics profession may be surmised by taking note of three basic facts. Krugman recently won a Nobel prize. He is a professor at Princeton and he is the co author of a leading first year economics textbook.
Kernen kept on pestering Krugman to name a point at which US government spending as percentage of GDP would be too high. A line of questioning that was continually undermined by Kernen's assertion that "Government spending as percentage of GDP is 25 and we will be at 40 to 50 with entitlements eventually." There is no advanced economy in the world with a level of government spending that is anywhere near 25%and the US is at 40% already. Furthermore, Kernen's implication that any country with a level of government spending over 50 is an economic basket case is absurd. Krugman pointed out that Sweden, for one, is no basket case.
As for Quick, she was even worse. She trotted out one absurdity after another. Most notably, Quick claimed incredibly that "If you are poor you are likely to die before you get your first medicare check. Life expectancy is 65." There is not a single county in the US with a life expectancy that low. http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/tools/data-visualization/life-expectancy-county-and-sex-us-1989-2009#/news-events/news A 2008 study found by 2000, the life expectancy for poor Americans was 74.7 years. Of course, in order to fully appreciate the absurdity of such a claim it worth noting that life expectancy is an average and that if one was to look at the medium life span of poor Americans it would be higher. Very few people live more than 30 years longer than the average but there are plenty that die at 44 and younger. Furthermore, someone dying at 6 months of age is going to affect the average a lot more than someone dying at 100.
To say that Krugman can be prickly is an understatement. The Guardian's Decca Aitkenhead observations were spot on. "Krugman is not the most clubbable of fellows. In person he's quite offhand, an odd mixture of shy and intensely self-assured, and with his stocky build and salt-and-pepper beard he conveys the impression of a very clever badger, burrowing away in the undergrowth of economic detail, ready to give quite a sharp bite if you get in his way." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/03/paul-krugman-cassandra-economist-crisis?intcmp=239 However, Paul Krugman's account of the whole affair is spot on.
"Wow. I just did Squawk Box — allegedly about my book, but we never got there. Instead it was one zombie idea after another — Europe is collapsing because of big government, health care is terribly rationed in France, we can save lots of money by denying Medicare to billionaires, on and on.
Among other things, people getting their news from sources like that are probably getting terrible advice about any kind of investment that depends on macroeconomics." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/zombies-on-cnbc/
Kernen kept on pestering Krugman to name a point at which US government spending as percentage of GDP would be too high. A line of questioning that was continually undermined by Kernen's assertion that "Government spending as percentage of GDP is 25 and we will be at 40 to 50 with entitlements eventually." There is no advanced economy in the world with a level of government spending that is anywhere near 25%and the US is at 40% already. Furthermore, Kernen's implication that any country with a level of government spending over 50 is an economic basket case is absurd. Krugman pointed out that Sweden, for one, is no basket case.
As for Quick, she was even worse. She trotted out one absurdity after another. Most notably, Quick claimed incredibly that "If you are poor you are likely to die before you get your first medicare check. Life expectancy is 65." There is not a single county in the US with a life expectancy that low. http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/tools/data-visualization/life-expectancy-county-and-sex-us-1989-2009#/news-events/news A 2008 study found by 2000, the life expectancy for poor Americans was 74.7 years. Of course, in order to fully appreciate the absurdity of such a claim it worth noting that life expectancy is an average and that if one was to look at the medium life span of poor Americans it would be higher. Very few people live more than 30 years longer than the average but there are plenty that die at 44 and younger. Furthermore, someone dying at 6 months of age is going to affect the average a lot more than someone dying at 100.
To say that Krugman can be prickly is an understatement. The Guardian's Decca Aitkenhead observations were spot on. "Krugman is not the most clubbable of fellows. In person he's quite offhand, an odd mixture of shy and intensely self-assured, and with his stocky build and salt-and-pepper beard he conveys the impression of a very clever badger, burrowing away in the undergrowth of economic detail, ready to give quite a sharp bite if you get in his way." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/03/paul-krugman-cassandra-economist-crisis?intcmp=239 However, Paul Krugman's account of the whole affair is spot on.
"Wow. I just did Squawk Box — allegedly about my book, but we never got there. Instead it was one zombie idea after another — Europe is collapsing because of big government, health care is terribly rationed in France, we can save lots of money by denying Medicare to billionaires, on and on.
Among other things, people getting their news from sources like that are probably getting terrible advice about any kind of investment that depends on macroeconomics." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/zombies-on-cnbc/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
