I responded to Copps thus;“So what happened? Contrary to the usual post-modern, leader-driven campaign, an idea took centre stage.
An idea that could cost Tory his own seat.
In an ironic twist, he is facing down the education minister in a quasi-referendum on public education versus faith-based funding.
Was Tory on the wrong side of this one!
The last thing the public wants is a fragmentation of a functioning education system into multiple religious schools.
Tory's own base is eroding so fast that he was forced into a Hail Mary pass this week to save a campaign run aground.
What does all this have to do with Dion?
Well, when superficialities are scraped away, it proves the public can be engaged in more than the colour of the candidate's eyes.
When a powerful idea dominates the debate, Canadians demand more than simple leadership politics.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper thinks he can win a majority government because Dion is dead man walking.”
I agree with you and I think if the Liberals would promise to legalize marijuana, they would have their issue. Harper has been trying to create distance between himself and his social conservative base and the Bush administration ever since he become Prime Minster. If the Liberals promised to legalize marijuana, not only would Harper find himself in lock step with Campaign for Life and Real Women, but Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Walters, Fox news, the Washington Times, James Dobson, Pat Robinson and the faculty at Bob Jones University will line up behind him. The Liberals could play the nationalist card and social conservative card all at once. The thought of being able to strike a fatal blow the US ’s war on drugs will make Canadians giddy with excitement. If that was not enough, on the flip side of things, a legion of rock stars, intellectuals, movie stars, and high brow magazines, such as the New Yorker and Harper’s will line up behind the Liberals. Imagine a hundred and fifty thousand people or more at a pro legalization concert in Vancouver in the midst of an election campaign. Seattle ’s Hempfest regularly draws over a 100,000 and in terms of significance such a concert would, how should I put this, smokes it. It would not be possible to organize anything now, but should the Liberals announce such a policy now and stave off an election for say another 6 months it is possible. Dion would certainly not lack for name recognition anymore. Overnight he would become a household name, not just in Canada but abroad as well. Continuing on, such a promise would tear the Right apart. Libertarians and social conservatives would be at each other’s throats and the National, Post and great swaths of the Sun Media chain will side with the Liberals on this one! Last but not least the Conservatives would left defending a bunch of talking points that are so discredited they are considered a form of “madness”, “reefer madness”.
6 comments:
no chance they would ever do it. No chance
I don't think it would work either. They should just go back to trying to decriminalizing small amounts and they should advertise it. I think more Canadians would be on board with that than the legalizing.
Plus, how smart is it to rely on the pot smokers to actually get out to the polls?
Legalization is sexy and headline grabbing which is the whole point. Decriminalization is not sexy. The Liberals have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on the marijuana issue for years. On the one hand the Liberals have long maintained that Canadians should not be saddled with a criminal record for consuming something that is, after all, less harmful than alcohol. It is this light that Chrétien famously joked about having a joint in one hand and the money to pay for the fine of having it in the other. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” On the other hand just as they are downplaying the affects of smoking marijuana they have stressed the importance of stiff penalties for trafficking. In other words, the Liberal policy of decriminalization is inherently incoherent; it is political position; it is an attempt to appeal to both sides of the political divide at the same time. One can not argue for tougher penalties for trafficking, which will inevitably lead one to reference the evils of marijuana, while at the same time arguing for the elimination of possession which will inevitably lead one to reference who harmless marijuana is in the greater scheme of things. Add to mix an acknowledgment that marijuana can serve a medical purpose and you have a conceptual train wreck as a policy. The only good thing to be said about Liberal’s decriminalization policy politically or otherwise is that it could serve as a Trojan horse. Indeed, robbed of the ability to charge traffickers with the lesser charge of possession, police may not be able to keep up with the huge number of growers coming onto the market and the whole rotten prohibition edifice may come crashing down. Marc Emery may get his wish. The producers might over grow the system.
Needless to day, the Liberal approach plays right into the Conservatives hands. The Conservatives will argue, checked that they already have argued, that Liberal mixed messaging has real consequences and will repeatedly reference the recent UN report on marijuana use.
As for pot heads voting not, did you not read the senate report? They debunked the unmotivated stoner myth. In all serious though, calling for legalization of marijuana will alone to define Conservatives and politics is all about defining your opponent. Moreover, the Conservatives will be pillard for months on end by the pundits, by academics, by movie stars, by rock stars, by the other opposition parties, by urbanites, by anyone under the age 30 and by bloggers.
Legalization is a winner
And how can we propose Legalizing Marijuana and then continue with these anti-smoking campaigns? Is that not in itself a contradiction? And what about the logistics of Legalization? How do we stop drivers? How do we provide it? What are the costs involved? etc.
I don't think decriminalization is playing both sides. I think its being rational and balanced. You have to crawl before you walk. And what is wrong with the position that we don't want people with pot but we also don't think people should go to jail or have a criminal record because they are caught with small amounts of it. Why not just a small fine instead of ruining their lives? I don't think this is an incoherent position at all.
Also as I've said, I think more voters would support decriminalization before legalization.
>>>>>And how can we propose Legalizing Marijuana and then continue with these anti-smoking campaigns? Is that not in itself a contradiction?
Come again? The two are not even remotely related. Anyway, in both cases the government’s motivation is the same, viz., the impetus for acting is reduce harm associated with both. In the case of cigarettes, the government aim to get people to stop smoking. In the case of marijuana, as the senate report quick clearly spelled out, the most harmful aspect of marijuana is that it is illegal.
>>>>> And what about the logistics of Legalization? How do we stop drivers? How do we provide it? What are the costs involved? etc.
What about stoned drivers? I can assure you the problem already exists. Moreover, marijuana’s illegal status hinders the development of something resembling a breathalyzer. Marijuana’s continued illegal status, at least with regard to trafficking, makes, would make, testing hugely expensive and time consuming if they went through legal channels and quite risky if they procured it through the black market. For one thing, as Justice Minster Rob, reefer mad, Nicholson noted, marijuana is sometimes laced with some nasty stuff. If its production were monitored and regulated, this would not happen.
>>>>> I don't think decriminalization is playing both sides. I think its being rational and balanced.
It is half baked.
>>>>> And what is wrong with the position that we don't want people with pot but we also don't think people should go to jail or have a criminal record because they are caught with small amounts of it. Why not just a small fine instead of ruining their lives?
For one thing a fine would represent a crack down in many parts of the country. As one VPD spokesperson said back in 2003, “in Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances." That though is the not the major problem. Such fines would lack legitimacy and it goes without saying so would the jail sentences handed out to traffickers. Can you image how ridiculous it would have sounded if this is what Chrétien said? “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand. Having paid my fine I would hope the cops find the person who sold it to me in put him in jail for a very long time.” This is essentially the Liberal’s current position. The problem is that if the act of consumption is not deemed overly ruinous then the whole punitive rationale comes crashing down.
I think Koby is right. I just do not think they will do it.
Post a Comment