One does not choose to desire anything; thinking otherwise is what Ryle called a category mistake. I do not choose to desire a glass of water; I just desire one. The same goes for belief. I can no more choose to believe in God than I can choose to believe that there is a computer screen in front of me. That being the case, it matters not a lick whether one’s sexuality is biologically based or otherwise.
What really seems to be at the heart of dispute is whether one’s sexual orientation can change. Available evidence, especially with regard to males, is it can not be changed. Orientation seems to be far less varied than behavior. (Women who identify as bisexual respond to erotica of all sorts; their bisexual male counterparts on the other hand only respond to one or the other.) This has led those opposed to fundamentalists to claim victory. Both sides are guilty of confused thinking though. Just because sexual orientation can not be changed does not mean that this settles the issue. Pedophilia also seems to be immutable, but that does not make diddling kids morally permissible. Homosexual behavior is morally permissible because there is no harm in two consenting adults of the same sex engaging in sexual behavior and with regard to morality no harm no foul.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Poilievre
Poilievre: “My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work, independence, and self-reliance. That's the solution in the long run, more money will not solve it.”
This is typical small minded conservative self-reliance crap. A lack of “self-reliance” is consequence not a cause. Also Poilievere’s timing is awful. He could not have picked a worse time to spout off. The good news for those concerned with the quality of public discourse is that Poilievre is likely in Harper’s doghouse, he already had to make a clarification, and will not be answering too many questions in the House or making any public appearances.
All that being said, Poilievre is right about one thing. The reserve system, premised as it is on the notion of native rights, is a bureaucratic, fiscal, legal, intellectual and sociological abortion that does nothing save waste mountains of money, breed corruption and poverty, instill in the native community a vile sense of identity based on “blood” and breed racism in the Canadian society at large. Hell, if Harper promised to abolish native rights and privatize communal land holdings, I would vote for him. Well maybe.
This is typical small minded conservative self-reliance crap. A lack of “self-reliance” is consequence not a cause. Also Poilievere’s timing is awful. He could not have picked a worse time to spout off. The good news for those concerned with the quality of public discourse is that Poilievre is likely in Harper’s doghouse, he already had to make a clarification, and will not be answering too many questions in the House or making any public appearances.
All that being said, Poilievre is right about one thing. The reserve system, premised as it is on the notion of native rights, is a bureaucratic, fiscal, legal, intellectual and sociological abortion that does nothing save waste mountains of money, breed corruption and poverty, instill in the native community a vile sense of identity based on “blood” and breed racism in the Canadian society at large. Hell, if Harper promised to abolish native rights and privatize communal land holdings, I would vote for him. Well maybe.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Starve the Beast: Cut Military Spending
Outside of implementing a newer version of the White Paper and alas this just not going to happen, the one area of government that fat can be cut is the military. Sure the military’s operational capability was badly compromised by cuts during the 1990s, but this not all bad. Indeed, far from it. It has greatly limited our ability to engage in foreign adventurism and this is important for reasons that extend beyond wasting money. The biggest threat facing Canada by far is Islamic terrorism and this relates largely to our presence in Afghanistan. In the case of the Toronto 18 the Afghan mission was what motivated the accused to target Canada. As for Al Qaeda, the only time Bin Laden and company have mentioned Canada is in reference to the Afghan mission. Starve the beast. Government can not be trusted. Unless military spending is kept low, future governments, particularly Conservative ones, might commit Canada to foreign missions that are doomed to failure and greatly increase the likelihood that Canada will be attacked by terrorists home grown or otherwise.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Liberals should not Force an Election Now
Yes the Conservatives are flat right now. Yes the Conservative will come back reenergized after the break. This will be especially so if they bring parliament back only after the Conservative convention. However, no the Liberals should not go right now. If you go province by province riding by riding there is very little evidence that the Liberals would win an election right now. Whatever gains they might make in the 905 are more than offset by Conservative gains in Quebec. Liberal support has not budged outside of the Maritimes, the 416 and parts of the 905. Indeed, there is pretty good evidence that it has gone down in “the West” and Quebec.
The consequences of an election loss are just too high for the party. The Liberals have enough held in reserve so they will not be outspent by the Conservatives during the next campaign. The Liberals will spend the max. However, after that Liberal party would be flat broke and would be in midst of another leadership campaign. The Liberal party would be faced with either doing battle with the Conservatives in election with huge monetary disadvantage or allowing the Conservatives to stick to them even worse then they are now. Forget a death by thousand cuts; the Conservatives would look to disgorge great gobs of flesh.
Another problem with going now is that Liberal platform, to be blunt, sucks. There is not single issue or combination of issues that I can see that would put the Liberals over the top and that especially includes a carbon tax. Indeed, whenever I here a carbon tax – sorry tax shift – mentioned I can not think help but think of Warren Kinsella’s errant but humourous quip “Think gas is expensive now. Want to be pay more? Vote Liberal.”
On the flipside though it is pretty clear that Canadians are not enamored with the Harper government, the Conservative caucus is very weak and most of the cabinet intellectual minnows, the economy in central Canada is going south and good god if the Liberal got down to work on the policy front, stopped focusing only the environment, they might actually convince the Canadian people to give them a minority government. Rae, Ignatieff and Dion must understand that Canadians want an end to the incremental approach the Liberal party has taken over the last number of years. The status quo will not do. Canadians want change.
The consequences of an election loss are just too high for the party. The Liberals have enough held in reserve so they will not be outspent by the Conservatives during the next campaign. The Liberals will spend the max. However, after that Liberal party would be flat broke and would be in midst of another leadership campaign. The Liberal party would be faced with either doing battle with the Conservatives in election with huge monetary disadvantage or allowing the Conservatives to stick to them even worse then they are now. Forget a death by thousand cuts; the Conservatives would look to disgorge great gobs of flesh.
Another problem with going now is that Liberal platform, to be blunt, sucks. There is not single issue or combination of issues that I can see that would put the Liberals over the top and that especially includes a carbon tax. Indeed, whenever I here a carbon tax – sorry tax shift – mentioned I can not think help but think of Warren Kinsella’s errant but humourous quip “Think gas is expensive now. Want to be pay more? Vote Liberal.”
On the flipside though it is pretty clear that Canadians are not enamored with the Harper government, the Conservative caucus is very weak and most of the cabinet intellectual minnows, the economy in central Canada is going south and good god if the Liberal got down to work on the policy front, stopped focusing only the environment, they might actually convince the Canadian people to give them a minority government. Rae, Ignatieff and Dion must understand that Canadians want an end to the incremental approach the Liberal party has taken over the last number of years. The status quo will not do. Canadians want change.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Safe Injection Site: Different Standard for BC and Quebec?
Tony Clement is apparently open to idea of Quebec setting up a safe injection site.
I love it. It is as if Harper and company have forgotten what launched the Reform Party in BC. Insite is Vancouver’s pet project and so as it the Conservative’s risk shutting it down at their own peril, but shutting down Insite well allowing a safe injection site to be set up in Montreal would create a huge political storm in BC. I can see the headlines now and tempers starting to boil. I can guarantee you if Conservative treat the two cases differently, Conservative support in the Lowermainland will drop 5% to 10% overnight. There is nothing that goes over worse in BC than saying that Quebec deserves to be differently than BC.
Hat tip To David Eaves .
Health Minister Tony Clement says his government will not necessarily oppose safe-injection sites for illegal drugs in Quebec even though it will appeal a court decision allowing a similar facility in British Columbia……”I am obligated to consider each situation as a unique situation. That’s my obligation as the Minister of Health.”
I love it. It is as if Harper and company have forgotten what launched the Reform Party in BC. Insite is Vancouver’s pet project and so as it the Conservative’s risk shutting it down at their own peril, but shutting down Insite well allowing a safe injection site to be set up in Montreal would create a huge political storm in BC. I can see the headlines now and tempers starting to boil. I can guarantee you if Conservative treat the two cases differently, Conservative support in the Lowermainland will drop 5% to 10% overnight. There is nothing that goes over worse in BC than saying that Quebec deserves to be differently than BC.
Hat tip To David Eaves .
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Language Test for Immigrants
Despite the alarmist headline,“Language test spells trouble for newcomers” in the Star, Canada's decision to force all would be immigrants to take the IELTS (the Cambridge language exam) is good news. The Cambridge exam may not perfectly reflect spoken English in Canada, but it is the gold standard of English tests taken aboard and in ESL schools in Canada and it is required for foreigners wanting to go to university in Canada. One can sign up for a Cambridge study coarse in Rio de Janeiro, Beijing, Seoul, New Delhi, etc. By adopting the Cambridge test as the standard, it becomes easier for Canada to attract would be immigrants. People know just what to study for, and more importantly they can easily access programs that will help them pass the test.
Whether it be allowing ESL students to work in Canada and now this, the Harper government, to its credit, is making it easier and more likely that ESL students, for one, will immigrant to Canada.
Update: The government got cold feet and dropped the idea. Shame. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/436519
Whether it be allowing ESL students to work in Canada and now this, the Harper government, to its credit, is making it easier and more likely that ESL students, for one, will immigrant to Canada.
Update: The government got cold feet and dropped the idea. Shame. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/436519
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Seats Projections if Election was held Today
Reading the polls, both provincial and national, this is how I see things breaking down if a federal election was held today.
I see the Conservatives gaining at the expense of the Liberals in BC, making solid gains in Quebec at the expense of the Bloc, loosing some ground to the Liberals in the 905 as a result of some NDP voters migrating to the Liberals and loosing ground to the Liberals in Newfoundland.
As for the Liberals, I think they will pick up seats from both the NDP and Conservatives in the 905 and 416, pick up 2 seats from the Conservatives in Newfoundland , and pick up 3 seats from the Bloc as result of decrease in the Bloc vote in Quebec. On the flip side, the Liberals should loose ground to the NDP in Northern Ontario and as mentioned ground to the Conservatives in BC.
The NDP will loose seats to the Liberals in the 416 and 905 and loose two seats to the Conservatives in BC. However, these looses should be offset by gains in Northern Ontario at the expense of the Liberals and picking up a seat an extra seat in Quebec.
The Bloc will by far the worst of any of the major parties. I see their body of support slipping just enough to allow a stagnet Liberal party to regain three seats and they will loose voters on the left to the NDP and voters on the right to the Conservatives. The NDP should be to pick up Jeanne Le Bar and the Conservative will make major gains outside of Montreal at the Bloc's expense.
Conservatives 143
Liberals 100
Bloc 34
NDP 29
Independents 2
BC
Conservatives 23 (+6)
NDP 8 (-2)
Liberals 5 (-4)
Alberta
Conservatives 28
Saskatchewan
Conservatives 13 (+1)
Liberals 1 (-1)
Manitoba
Conservatives 9 (+1)
NDP 4 (+1)
Liberals 1 (-2)
Ontario
Liberals 56 (+2)
Conservatives 39 (-1)
NDP 11 (-1)
Quebec
Bloc 34 (-17)
Conservatives 23 (+13)
Liberals 15 (+2)
NDP 2 (+2)
Independents 1
New Brunswick
Liberals 5 (-1)
Conservatives 4 (+1)
NDP 1
Novo Scotia
Liberals 6
Conservatives 2 (-1)
NDP 2
Independents 1 (+1)
PEI
Liberals 4
Newfoundland
Liberals 6 (+2)
Conservatives 1 (-2)
NWT
NDP
Yukon
Liberals
Nunavut
Conservatives (+1) Liberals -1
Conservatives
1) Conservatives pick up Richmond from Liberals
2) Conservatives pick up Newton North Delta from Liberals
3) Conservatives pick up Saint-Boniface from Liberals
4) Conservatives pick up North Vancouver from Liberals
5) Conservatives pick up Nunavut from Liberals
6) Conservatives pick up Fredericton from Liberals
7) Conservatives pick up Brant from Liberals
8) Conservatives pick up Huron-Bruce from Liberals
1) Conservatives pick up West Vancouver from Independent (Blair Wilson)
1) Conservatives pick up Vancouver Island North from NDP
2) Conservatives pick up British Columbia Southern Interior from NDP
1) Conservatives pick up Berthier Masinonge from Bloc
2) Conservatives pick up Saint Maurice from Bloc
3) Conservatives pick up Trois-Rivières from Bloc
4) Conservatives pick up Chicoutimi-Le Fjord from Bloc
5) Conservatives pick up Vaudreuil-Soulanges from Bloc
6) Conservatives pick up Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
7) Conservatives pick up Compton-Stanstead from Bloc
8) Conservatives pick up Richmond-Arthabuska from Bloc
9) Conservatives pick up Shefferd from Bloc
10) Conservatives pick up Quebec from Bloc
11) Conservatives pick up Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine from Bloc
12) Conservatives pick up Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia from Bloc
13) Conservatives pick up Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord from Bloc
Liberals
1) Liberals pick up St John’s East from Conservatives
2) Liberals pick up Avalon from Conservatives
3) Liberals pick up Mississauga Streetsville from Conservatives
4) Liberals pick up Vancouver Kingsway from Conservatives
5) Liberals pick up Ancaster-Dundas from Conservatives
6) Liberals pick up St. Catharines from Conservatives
1) Liberals pick up Trinity-Spadina from NDP
2) Liberals pick up Parkdale-High Park from NDP
3) Liberals pick up Hamilton Mountain from NDP
4) Liberals pick up Ottawa Center from NDP
5) Liberals pick up London-Fanshawe from NDP
1) Liberals pick up Ahuntsic from the Bloc
2) Liberals pick up Papineau from the Bloc
3) Liberals pick up Brosserd La Praire from Bloc
NDP
1) NDP pick up Churchill from Liberals
2) NDP pick up Nickel Belt from Liberals
3) NDP pick up Algoma-Manitoulin Kapuskasing from Liberals
1) NDP pick up Oshawa from Conservatives
2) NDP pick up Thunder Bay Superior North from Conservatives
1) NDP pick up Jeanne Le Bar from the Bloc
I see the Conservatives gaining at the expense of the Liberals in BC, making solid gains in Quebec at the expense of the Bloc, loosing some ground to the Liberals in the 905 as a result of some NDP voters migrating to the Liberals and loosing ground to the Liberals in Newfoundland.
As for the Liberals, I think they will pick up seats from both the NDP and Conservatives in the 905 and 416, pick up 2 seats from the Conservatives in Newfoundland , and pick up 3 seats from the Bloc as result of decrease in the Bloc vote in Quebec. On the flip side, the Liberals should loose ground to the NDP in Northern Ontario and as mentioned ground to the Conservatives in BC.
The NDP will loose seats to the Liberals in the 416 and 905 and loose two seats to the Conservatives in BC. However, these looses should be offset by gains in Northern Ontario at the expense of the Liberals and picking up a seat an extra seat in Quebec.
The Bloc will by far the worst of any of the major parties. I see their body of support slipping just enough to allow a stagnet Liberal party to regain three seats and they will loose voters on the left to the NDP and voters on the right to the Conservatives. The NDP should be to pick up Jeanne Le Bar and the Conservative will make major gains outside of Montreal at the Bloc's expense.
Conservatives 143
Liberals 100
Bloc 34
NDP 29
Independents 2
BC
Conservatives 23 (+6)
NDP 8 (-2)
Liberals 5 (-4)
Alberta
Conservatives 28
Saskatchewan
Conservatives 13 (+1)
Liberals 1 (-1)
Manitoba
Conservatives 9 (+1)
NDP 4 (+1)
Liberals 1 (-2)
Ontario
Liberals 56 (+2)
Conservatives 39 (-1)
NDP 11 (-1)
Quebec
Bloc 34 (-17)
Conservatives 23 (+13)
Liberals 15 (+2)
NDP 2 (+2)
Independents 1
New Brunswick
Liberals 5 (-1)
Conservatives 4 (+1)
NDP 1
Novo Scotia
Liberals 6
Conservatives 2 (-1)
NDP 2
Independents 1 (+1)
PEI
Liberals 4
Newfoundland
Liberals 6 (+2)
Conservatives 1 (-2)
NWT
NDP
Yukon
Liberals
Nunavut
Conservatives (+1) Liberals -1
Conservatives
1) Conservatives pick up Richmond from Liberals
2) Conservatives pick up Newton North Delta from Liberals
3) Conservatives pick up Saint-Boniface from Liberals
4) Conservatives pick up North Vancouver from Liberals
5) Conservatives pick up Nunavut from Liberals
6) Conservatives pick up Fredericton from Liberals
7) Conservatives pick up Brant from Liberals
8) Conservatives pick up Huron-Bruce from Liberals
1) Conservatives pick up West Vancouver from Independent (Blair Wilson)
1) Conservatives pick up Vancouver Island North from NDP
2) Conservatives pick up British Columbia Southern Interior from NDP
1) Conservatives pick up Berthier Masinonge from Bloc
2) Conservatives pick up Saint Maurice from Bloc
3) Conservatives pick up Trois-Rivières from Bloc
4) Conservatives pick up Chicoutimi-Le Fjord from Bloc
5) Conservatives pick up Vaudreuil-Soulanges from Bloc
6) Conservatives pick up Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
7) Conservatives pick up Compton-Stanstead from Bloc
8) Conservatives pick up Richmond-Arthabuska from Bloc
9) Conservatives pick up Shefferd from Bloc
10) Conservatives pick up Quebec from Bloc
11) Conservatives pick up Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine from Bloc
12) Conservatives pick up Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia from Bloc
13) Conservatives pick up Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord from Bloc
Liberals
1) Liberals pick up St John’s East from Conservatives
2) Liberals pick up Avalon from Conservatives
3) Liberals pick up Mississauga Streetsville from Conservatives
4) Liberals pick up Vancouver Kingsway from Conservatives
5) Liberals pick up Ancaster-Dundas from Conservatives
6) Liberals pick up St. Catharines from Conservatives
1) Liberals pick up Trinity-Spadina from NDP
2) Liberals pick up Parkdale-High Park from NDP
3) Liberals pick up Hamilton Mountain from NDP
4) Liberals pick up Ottawa Center from NDP
5) Liberals pick up London-Fanshawe from NDP
1) Liberals pick up Ahuntsic from the Bloc
2) Liberals pick up Papineau from the Bloc
3) Liberals pick up Brosserd La Praire from Bloc
NDP
1) NDP pick up Churchill from Liberals
2) NDP pick up Nickel Belt from Liberals
3) NDP pick up Algoma-Manitoulin Kapuskasing from Liberals
1) NDP pick up Oshawa from Conservatives
2) NDP pick up Thunder Bay Superior North from Conservatives
1) NDP pick up Jeanne Le Bar from the Bloc
Monday, May 26, 2008
Major changes to the Immigration System Desperately Needed
Major changes to the immigration system are desperately needed. Seven come immediately to mind. Canada needs to
1) limit family unification to spouses and dependents under 18
2) cap the number of refugees at no more than 5000 a year including dependents
3) allow people to apply for refugee status only in Canada and not abroad
4) stop allowing people in on humanitarian grounds and compassionate grounds
5) rework of the points system so that more emphasis is placed on youth, education and language skills and that bonus points are assigned if the applicant has his or her professional skills pre-recognized by the appropriate regulatory body and or the applicant has a university degree from Canadian university
6) grant citizenship to foreigners earning a graduate degree in Canada
7) lift the cap on the number of immigrants allowed in each year.
Why the changes. First off and most importantly, Canada has to get younger. The average Canadian in 2004 was 39.7; in other words Canada is one of the oldest nations on earth. However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. If the situation was ever allowed to get this bad, the economy would be at best stagnet and likely in sharp decline, the federal government would surely be in deficit, and virtually ever public entitlement program would have collapsed or would be close to. Public health care system would surely have collapsed under the demands placed on it.
Part of the problem is that average immigrant to Canada (37.1) is not much younger than the average Canadian (39.7). The situation is akin to baling out a boat by moving water from one part of the boat to another. The average immigrant to Canada needs to be under 30 and Canada should aim to let in 500,000 economic class immigrants a year.
It is imperative that Canada undertake such a project now. After all, Canada is not alone in having to deal with aging population. Some Europe have an even worse problem.
As professor Charles Kupchan notes,
Another area of concern is that the ratio of principle skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. This is a huge concern for a whole host of reasons not the least of which is that it is only skilled principle applicants that earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.
For similar reasons Canada must resist the siren song of business demanding that the government allow in guest workers to meet labour shortages. Never mind the fact that in many cases such demands amount to little more than a request from business that government assist them in quashing growing labour unrest, e.g., in the oil sands, such thinking is short sighted. There is ample evidence that armies of disenfranchised workers, whether they be illegal or guest, are a recipe of disaster. It is great way to, create an underclass, suppress wages, encourage black marketing, increase xenophobia and racism. Currently Alberta is hopping to fill the following positions through immigration: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in. Great swaths of guest workers turn out to be anything but and as soon as the economy experiences a downturn they are trampled under foot and to add insult to injury are generally resented for being so unfortunate.
1) limit family unification to spouses and dependents under 18
2) cap the number of refugees at no more than 5000 a year including dependents
3) allow people to apply for refugee status only in Canada and not abroad
4) stop allowing people in on humanitarian grounds and compassionate grounds
5) rework of the points system so that more emphasis is placed on youth, education and language skills and that bonus points are assigned if the applicant has his or her professional skills pre-recognized by the appropriate regulatory body and or the applicant has a university degree from Canadian university
6) grant citizenship to foreigners earning a graduate degree in Canada
7) lift the cap on the number of immigrants allowed in each year.
Why the changes. First off and most importantly, Canada has to get younger. The average Canadian in 2004 was 39.7; in other words Canada is one of the oldest nations on earth. However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. If the situation was ever allowed to get this bad, the economy would be at best stagnet and likely in sharp decline, the federal government would surely be in deficit, and virtually ever public entitlement program would have collapsed or would be close to. Public health care system would surely have collapsed under the demands placed on it.
Part of the problem is that average immigrant to Canada (37.1) is not much younger than the average Canadian (39.7). The situation is akin to baling out a boat by moving water from one part of the boat to another. The average immigrant to Canada needs to be under 30 and Canada should aim to let in 500,000 economic class immigrants a year.
It is imperative that Canada undertake such a project now. After all, Canada is not alone in having to deal with aging population. Some Europe have an even worse problem.
"World Bank projections show that the working-age population of the present EU will drop from 230m now to 167m by 2050, a fall of 63m. Most of this is concentrated in the 12 current euroland countries, where working-age population is projected to drop from 186m to 131m. The worst-hit individual countries are Italy , with a 15m, or 42% fall, from 36m to 21m, followed by Spain and Germany. Britain is not immune but fares relatively well. The World Bank projects a 5m fall in working-age population, from 35.2m to 29.9m In general, though, Europe's position is dire. As Lombard Street Research writes: "The last demographic shock on a similar scale was the Black Death of the late 14th century. Even two world wars did not stop Europe 's population rising by nearly a fifth in the first half of the 20th century."If Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050!
As professor Charles Kupchan notes,
"today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1."
Another area of concern is that the ratio of principle skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. This is a huge concern for a whole host of reasons not the least of which is that it is only skilled principle applicants that earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.
"At 26 weeks after their arrival, 50% of all immigrants aged 25 to 44 were employed. This was 30 percentage points below the employment rate of about 80% among all individuals aged 25 to 44 in the Canadian population. ... At 52 weeks after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 58%. This narrowed the gap to 23 percentage points. At 104 weeks, or two years after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 63%, 18 percentage points below the national rate of 81%. ... Immigrants admitted as principal applicants in the skilled worker category had an even better record for employment. At 26 weeks after arrival, the gap in the employment rate between them and the Canadian population was 20 percentage points. By 52 weeks, this had narrowed to 12 points, and by two years, it was down to 8 points."http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051013/d051013b.htm If you tease out the numbers, 55% of non principal skilled applicants in the 25 to 44 age group are working after 2 years! Canada needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed and the natural to place to start is eliminate those categories of immigrants that are not likely to succeed economically. The earning power of immigrants is such now that the possibility of large urban immigrant underclass, a la Europe, exists. Canada needs to nip this situation in the bud. The low earning power of immigrants will eventually affect our ability to attract immigrants to Canada as well as the affect the general population’s willingness to accept them.
For similar reasons Canada must resist the siren song of business demanding that the government allow in guest workers to meet labour shortages. Never mind the fact that in many cases such demands amount to little more than a request from business that government assist them in quashing growing labour unrest, e.g., in the oil sands, such thinking is short sighted. There is ample evidence that armies of disenfranchised workers, whether they be illegal or guest, are a recipe of disaster. It is great way to, create an underclass, suppress wages, encourage black marketing, increase xenophobia and racism. Currently Alberta is hopping to fill the following positions through immigration: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in. Great swaths of guest workers turn out to be anything but and as soon as the economy experiences a downturn they are trampled under foot and to add insult to injury are generally resented for being so unfortunate.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Carbon Tax: Target the Oil Companies
Canada gets less out of its oil resources then pretty much any other oil producing nation. A carbon tax can help change that. “A Bank of Kuwait report released in mid-2006 said that the break-even point for a Canadian oilsands producer on a barrel of crude oil is US$33. " http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080523/oil_profits_080523/20080524?hub=TopStories Oil is now $132 a barrel. The oil sands are responsible for much of the increase in green house gases over the last 15 years and the oil sands are environmental embarrassment. I, for one, am content to let production continue, but it is time the companies pay the Federal piper and in a big way.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Barbara Kay: "Not your mother's reefer"
No sooner had posted about reefer madness myths than Barbra Kay published this piece of crap. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=530488&p=1 So I cannibalized much of the post, added a few other comments and I fired off the following letter to Kay.
Potent pot is more Drug Czar myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/id/2074151
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. As Martha Hall Findlay has noted, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it. Moreover, so long as the drug is illegal, producers will seek to increase potency. The higher the potency the smaller the package the smaller the package the less likely they will get caught. Your son made the same argument. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/06/26/jonathan-kay-on-marijuana-policy-and-a-rare-miss-for-the-globe-and-mail-s-peggy-wente.aspx
Finally, the distinction between potent pot and your dad’s marijuana is too clever by half. After all, it begs the following question. If today’s marijuana is truly different in kind from “dads marijuana”, would it be ok to legalize “dad’s marijuana”, i.e., low potency pot?
>>>>> Kay: Psychiatry professor Robin Murray of London's Institute of Psychiatry estimates that cannabis usage is causally linked to a full 10% of the U. K.'s 250,000 bipolar patients: "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful we may see more people getting ill as a consequence."
Murray was talking about Schizophrenia and the Lancet Study and not Bipolar patients. This quote appeared in many of the UK papers. For example:
This past summer a meta analysis of all articles dealing with marijuana and schizophrenia was published in the Lancet. That same day a score of sensationalist headlines appeared. Maia Szalavitz of States at George Mason University put those headlines following into context.
Speaking of correlation that is precisely what epidemiological studies have consisted failed to show and there is no causation without correlation. Specifically, should there be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, there should be a positive correlation between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia, but such a correlation is conspicuous by its absence. 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. http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html and Oxford’s Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm According to Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University,
As Szalavitz notes, this is marked contrast to what happened with cigarette consumption and lung cancer.
>>>>>> Kay: British politicians have "drunk large" of the evidence, and reversed their position of moral indulgence. Two weeks ago, the Home Office in the U. K. announced: "Cannabis will be reclassified as a Class B drug, sending a strong message that the drug is harmful."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2136479,00.html
>>>> Thus, Smyth and others well-informed on the subject claim it is misleading to identify this super-strength cannabis as a "soft" drug. "Pot or weed essentially no longer exists," Smyth says, grimly concluding, "I am absolutely haunted by the irreparable harms this so-called innocuous drug has brought to the lives of [young users]."
Listen to the much better informed Lester Grinspoon, a psychiatrist and Professor Emeritus at the Harvard Medical School debate the hapless Barry MacKnight, chair of the Drug Abuse Committee for the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs on the issue of potency.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200707/20070712.html
Potent pot is more Drug Czar myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/id/2074151
(Money quote as for as you are concerned: “As to Walters' claim that all those '70s hippies were getting goofy on the 1-percent stuff—the basis for his 30-fold increase claim—the number lacks credibility. No one smokes 1-percent dope, at least not more than once. You make rope with it. The industrial hemp initiative approved by state election officials in South Dakota this year defined psychoactively worthless hemp as a plant with a "THC content of 1 percent or less.")Only the Independent bought in and the Guardian took care of them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,2041749,00.htmlThe Guardian rebutted such nonsense in its Bad Science column.
There is exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The UN Drug Control Programme has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, the highest 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized resin, six from Morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%.To get their scare figure, the Independent compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books the same way 30 years ago: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest was 12%. Oh my god: in just three years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger.”
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.
Comparing marijuana strength through the years is "absurd," according to Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor at Harvard Medical School , who consults patients, many of them elderly, on using marijuana to relieve pain and nausea. "The whole issue on potency is a red herring," he said. "The more potent the pot, the less you use."Grinspoon said that studies have shown -- and his patients' experiences confirm -- that marijuana users smoke until they feel high -- or, as he prefers to say, "achieve symptom relief," -- and then stop, whether it took two hits or an entire joint. In this regard, today's higher-potency pot is no more "dangerous" than the bunk weed of yesteryear, he said.http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/printthread.php?Board=wwwpottv&main=374623&type=post
unlike the speculative claims of increased danger, peer-reviewed scientific data show that higher potency marijuana reduces health risks. Just as with alcohol, people who smoke marijuana generally consume until they reach the desired effect, then stop. So people who smoke more potent marijuana smoke less – the same way most drinkers consume a smaller amount of vodka than they would of beer – and incur less chance of smoking-related damage to their lungs.http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/19416/
The original ONDCP "Facts" correspond with estimates from UCLA professor Mark Kleiman that marijuana has roughly tripled in potency. Kleiman also notes that there is no evidence at all that marijuana is getting kids more stoned than it used to. Writing on his own blog, Kleiman cites the respected annual University of Michigan study that asks respondents about levels of intoxication. Writes Kleiman: "The line for marijuana is flat as a pancake. Kids who get stoned today aren't getting any more stoned than their parents were. That ought to be the end of the argument." Kleiman points out that the average joint is now half its former size, so even if kids are smoking more powerful pot, they are smoking less of it. " 'Not your father's pot' is a great way to convince [boomer parents] to ignore their own experience, personal orvicarious, and believe what they are told to believe."http://www.slate.com/?id=2074151
That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized. As Martha Hall Findlay has noted, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it. Moreover, so long as the drug is illegal, producers will seek to increase potency. The higher the potency the smaller the package the smaller the package the less likely they will get caught. Your son made the same argument. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/06/26/jonathan-kay-on-marijuana-policy-and-a-rare-miss-for-the-globe-and-mail-s-peggy-wente.aspx
Finally, the distinction between potent pot and your dad’s marijuana is too clever by half. After all, it begs the following question. If today’s marijuana is truly different in kind from “dads marijuana”, would it be ok to legalize “dad’s marijuana”, i.e., low potency pot?
>>>>> Kay: Psychiatry professor Robin Murray of London's Institute of Psychiatry estimates that cannabis usage is causally linked to a full 10% of the U. K.'s 250,000 bipolar patients: "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful we may see more people getting ill as a consequence."
Murray was talking about Schizophrenia and the Lancet Study and not Bipolar patients. This quote appeared in many of the UK papers. For example:
“Many medical specialists agree that the debate has changed. Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis. "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting ill as a consequence of that."http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/cannabis-an-apology-440730.html
This past summer a meta analysis of all articles dealing with marijuana and schizophrenia was published in the Lancet. That same day a score of sensationalist headlines appeared. Maia Szalavitz of States at George Mason University put those headlines following into context.
“A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don’t find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won’t publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that’s hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women.http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm
Speaking of correlation that is precisely what epidemiological studies have consisted failed to show and there is no causation without correlation. Specifically, should there be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, there should be a positive correlation between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia, but such a correlation is conspicuous by its absence. 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. http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html and Oxford’s Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm According to Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University,
"If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the '50s,"http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/19/reefer_madness/index.html
As Szalavitz notes, this is marked contrast to what happened with cigarette consumption and lung cancer.
“ When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.html
>>>>>> Kay: British politicians have "drunk large" of the evidence, and reversed their position of moral indulgence. Two weeks ago, the Home Office in the U. K. announced: "Cannabis will be reclassified as a Class B drug, sending a strong message that the drug is harmful."
Dr Iddon, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse [Britain], said the study did not convince him it was time to return cannabis to class B. "I don't think the causal link has been proved. I think cannabis might - possibly for genetic reasons - trigger psychosis at an earlier age." The MP, who is also a member of the science and technology select committee, said there was a danger of criminalising "hundreds of thousands of young people" if the status of the drug was changed. "If Gordon Brown changes the class of the drug, it won't be evidence-based but for political reasons," he said.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2136479,00.html
>>>> Thus, Smyth and others well-informed on the subject claim it is misleading to identify this super-strength cannabis as a "soft" drug. "Pot or weed essentially no longer exists," Smyth says, grimly concluding, "I am absolutely haunted by the irreparable harms this so-called innocuous drug has brought to the lives of [young users]."
Listen to the much better informed Lester Grinspoon, a psychiatrist and Professor Emeritus at the Harvard Medical School debate the hapless Barry MacKnight, chair of the Drug Abuse Committee for the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs on the issue of potency.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200707/20070712.html
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Marijuana: A guide to debunking Drug Warrior Talking Points
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 blackmarket relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway. Ironically the gateway drug theory has been turned on its head and used as reason for legalizing the drug. The Canadian Senate employed the new and improved version of the gateway argument as a reason for legalizing the drug.
A recent adjunct is the argument that marijuana illegality can lead serve as a gateway to criminality in so far has proven to be a tempting to teenagers what to make an easy buck serving as low level dealers.
Potent Pot
Potent pot is more is more Drug Czar myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/id/2074151 Only the Independent bought in and the Guardian took care of them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,2041749,00.html
The Guardian rebutted such nonsense in its Bad Science column.
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. As Martha Hall Findlay has noted, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it. Moreover, so long as the drug is illegal, producers will seek to increase potency. The higher the potency the smaller the package the smaller the package the less likely they will get caught.
Finally, the distinction between potent pot and your dad’s marijuana is too clever by half. After all, it begs the following question. If today’s marijuana is truly different in kind from “dads marijuana”, would it be ok to legalize “dad’s marijuana”, i.e., low potency pot?
Schizophrenia Marijuana
This past summer a meta analysis of all articles dealing with marijuana and schizophrenia was published in the Lancet. That same day a score of sensationalist headlines appeared. Maia Szalavitz of States at George Mason University put those headlines following into context.
Speaking of correlation that is precisely what epidemiological studies have consisted failed to show and there is no causation without correlation. Specifically, should there be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, there should be a positive correlation between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia, but such a correlation is conspicuous by its absence. 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. http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html and Oxford’s Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm According to Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University,
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/19/reefer_madness/index.htmlAs Szalavitz notes, this is marked contrast to what happened with cigarette consumption and lung cancer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.htmlMuch of the evidence linking marijuana to schizophrenia suggests not that it causes schizophrenia per say but rather that it causes the earlier onset of symptoms in people who would sooner or later develop schizophrenia. Much to Gordan Brown’s dismay, this is opinion of Dr Iddon.
Psychological Dependency
The term can be applied to just about anything and so is completely useless. Anything where routine and repetition are involved could lead to “psychological dependency”. There are people with obsessive compulsive disorder who are psychologically dependent on hand soap, but that is hardly a reason to ban hand soap. Many scholars have argued that the term is politically motivated and was designed to obscure the fact that marijuana is not physically addictive the way, say alcohol and heroin can be. Whatever the term’s origins, it is certainly employed by the drug warriors to serve political ends. It has virtually no explanatory power.
Treatment Numbers
Most people in drug treatment in Ontario are there because they abuse hard drugs. Only a small percentage, 13% in 2005, are there because of marijuana. Furthermore, those that are there for marijuana differ from other people in treatment, in so far as they are much more likely to be there because of outside pressure. Not surprisingly the typical person in “treatment” for marijuana use in Ontario is a single teenage male who is still in high school.
Ontario is not unique. Despite the fact that number of marijuana users in Western world positively dwarfs of the number of people using hard drugs, in most Western countries the vast majority of people in drug treatment are there because they abuse hard drugs. The notable exception is the US. The vast majority of people in drug treatment in the US are there because they purportedly abuse marijuana. Why the difference? Well if you dig a little deeper you see that the majority (70%) of people arrested for marijuana possession, including many casual users and even some first to users, are there because they have been given a choice, “treatment” or jail. In fact, the rise in the number of admissions for treatment correlates perfectly with a rise in the number of arrests for possession. In true Orwellian fashion, the Drug Czar cites these figures as evidence that other countries need to get tough on drugs.
Canada a major supplier of Marijuana to the US
The ideological threat Canada’s legalization movement poses to the US drug warriors is the reason why the US pays so much attention to what is a bit producer in the greater scheme of things. Only 2% of marijuana seized at US borders is from Canada and the rest from Mexico and US domestic marijuana production dwarfs that of Canada. California produces more marijuana than does all of Canada. Yet Canadian “potent pot” receives a ridiculous amount of press coverage south of the border and to Waters is more of a threat than Mexican "ditchweed".
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 blackmarket relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway. Ironically the gateway drug theory has been turned on its head and used as reason for legalizing the drug. The Canadian Senate employed the new and improved version of the gateway argument as a reason for legalizing the drug.
A recent adjunct is the argument that marijuana illegality can lead serve as a gateway to criminality in so far has proven to be a tempting to teenagers what to make an easy buck serving as low level dealers.
Potent Pot
Potent pot is more is more Drug Czar myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/id/2074151 Only the Independent bought in and the Guardian took care of them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,2041749,00.html
The Guardian rebutted such nonsense in its Bad Science column.
There is exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The UN Drug Control Programme has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, the highest 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized resin, six from Morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%.To get their scare figure, the Independent compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books the same way 30 years ago: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest was 12%. Oh my god: in just three years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger.”
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.
Comparing marijuana strength through the years is "absurd," according to Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor at Harvard Medical School , who consults patients, many of them elderly, on using marijuana to relieve pain and nausea. "The whole issue on potency is a red herring," he said. "The more potent the pot, the less you use."Grinspoon said that studies have shown -- and his patients' experiences confirm -- that marijuana users smoke until they feel high -- or, as he prefers to say, "achieve symptom relief," -- and then stop, whether it took two hits or an entire joint. In this regard, today's higher-potency pot is no more "dangerous" than the bunk weed of yesteryear, he said.http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/printthread.php?Board=wwwpottv&main=374623&type=post
unlike the speculative claims of increased danger, peer-reviewed scientific data show that higher potency marijuana reduces health risks. Just as with alcohol, people who smoke marijuana generally consume until they reach the desired effect, then stop. So people who smoke more potent marijuana smoke less – the same way most drinkers consume a smaller amount of vodka than they would of beer – and incur less chance of smoking-related damage to their lungs.http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/19416/
The original ONDCP "Facts" correspond with estimates from UCLA professor Mark Kleiman that marijuana has roughly tripled in potency. Kleiman also notes that there is no evidence at all that marijuana is getting kids more stoned than it used to. Writing on his own blog, Kleiman cites the respected annual University of Michigan study that asks respondents about levels of intoxication. Writes Kleiman: "The line for marijuana is flat as a pancake. Kids who get stoned today aren't getting any more stoned than their parents were. That ought to be the end of the argument." Kleiman points out that the average joint is now half its former size, so even if kids are smoking more powerful pot, they are smoking less of it. " 'Not your father's pot' is a great way to convince [boomer parents] to ignore their own experience, personal orvicarious, and believe what they are told to believe."http://www.slate.com/?id=2074151
That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized. As Martha Hall Findlay has noted, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it. Moreover, so long as the drug is illegal, producers will seek to increase potency. The higher the potency the smaller the package the smaller the package the less likely they will get caught.
Finally, the distinction between potent pot and your dad’s marijuana is too clever by half. After all, it begs the following question. If today’s marijuana is truly different in kind from “dads marijuana”, would it be ok to legalize “dad’s marijuana”, i.e., low potency pot?
Schizophrenia Marijuana
This past summer a meta analysis of all articles dealing with marijuana and schizophrenia was published in the Lancet. That same day a score of sensationalist headlines appeared. Maia Szalavitz of States at George Mason University put those headlines following into context.
“A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don’t find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won’t publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that’s hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women.http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm
Speaking of correlation that is precisely what epidemiological studies have consisted failed to show and there is no causation without correlation. Specifically, should there be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, there should be a positive correlation between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia, but such a correlation is conspicuous by its absence. 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. http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html and Oxford’s Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm According to Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University,
"If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the '50s,"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/19/reefer_madness/index.htmlAs Szalavitz notes, this is marked contrast to what happened with cigarette consumption and lung cancer.
“ When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.htmlMuch of the evidence linking marijuana to schizophrenia suggests not that it causes schizophrenia per say but rather that it causes the earlier onset of symptoms in people who would sooner or later develop schizophrenia. Much to Gordan Brown’s dismay, this is opinion of Dr Iddon.
Dr Iddon, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse [Britain], said the study did not convince him it was time to return cannabis to class B. "I don't think the causal link has been proved. I think cannabis might - possibly for genetic reasons - trigger psychosis at an earlier age." The MP, who is also a member of the science and technology select committee, said there was a danger of criminalising "hundreds of thousands of young people" if the status of the drug was changed. "If Gordon Brown changes the class of the drug, it won't be evidence-based but for political reasons," he said.http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2136479,00.html
Psychological Dependency
The term can be applied to just about anything and so is completely useless. Anything where routine and repetition are involved could lead to “psychological dependency”. There are people with obsessive compulsive disorder who are psychologically dependent on hand soap, but that is hardly a reason to ban hand soap. Many scholars have argued that the term is politically motivated and was designed to obscure the fact that marijuana is not physically addictive the way, say alcohol and heroin can be. Whatever the term’s origins, it is certainly employed by the drug warriors to serve political ends. It has virtually no explanatory power.
Treatment Numbers
Most people in drug treatment in Ontario are there because they abuse hard drugs. Only a small percentage, 13% in 2005, are there because of marijuana. Furthermore, those that are there for marijuana differ from other people in treatment, in so far as they are much more likely to be there because of outside pressure. Not surprisingly the typical person in “treatment” for marijuana use in Ontario is a single teenage male who is still in high school.
Ontario is not unique. Despite the fact that number of marijuana users in Western world positively dwarfs of the number of people using hard drugs, in most Western countries the vast majority of people in drug treatment are there because they abuse hard drugs. The notable exception is the US. The vast majority of people in drug treatment in the US are there because they purportedly abuse marijuana. Why the difference? Well if you dig a little deeper you see that the majority (70%) of people arrested for marijuana possession, including many casual users and even some first to users, are there because they have been given a choice, “treatment” or jail. In fact, the rise in the number of admissions for treatment correlates perfectly with a rise in the number of arrests for possession. In true Orwellian fashion, the Drug Czar cites these figures as evidence that other countries need to get tough on drugs.
Canada a major supplier of Marijuana to the US
The ideological threat Canada’s legalization movement poses to the US drug warriors is the reason why the US pays so much attention to what is a bit producer in the greater scheme of things. Only 2% of marijuana seized at US borders is from Canada and the rest from Mexico and US domestic marijuana production dwarfs that of Canada. California produces more marijuana than does all of Canada. Yet Canadian “potent pot” receives a ridiculous amount of press coverage south of the border and to Waters is more of a threat than Mexican "ditchweed".
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Margret Kopala's Drug Warrior Clap Trap
Drug warrior Margret Kopala is at it again. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0a9856bb-4389-4c15-8491-68798147f68e&p=1
Given that Insite reduces costs, you have things backwards. The taxpayer will be left holding the bag if the Conservatives succeed in closing Insite down.
There is nothing mysterious about the body of research looking into the effectiveness of Insite or for that matter heroin based maintenance programs in Europe. The studies are straight forward and the results telling. Conversely, listening to Tony Clement repeatedly claim that there is academic disagreement about the effectiveness of Insite gives one the feeling that one is down the rabbit hole.
Most people in drug treatment in Ontario are there because they abuse hard drugs. Only a small percentage, 13% in 2005, are there because of marijuana. Furthermore, those that are there for marijuana differ from other people in treatment, in so far as they are much more likely to be there because of outside pressure. Not surprisingly the typical person in “treatment” for marijuana use in Ontario is a single teenage male who is still in high school.
Ontario is not unique. Despite the fact that number of marijuana users in Western world positively dwarfs of the number of people using hard drugs, in most Western countries the vast majority of people in drug treatment are there because they abuse hard drugs. The notable exception is the US. The vast majority of people in drug treatment in the US are there because they purportedly abuse marijuana. Why the difference? Well if you dig a little deeper you see that the majority (70%) of people arrested for marijuana possession, including many casual users and even some first to users, are there because they have been given a choice, “treatment” or jail. In fact, the rise in the number of admissions for treatment correlates perfectly with a rise in the number of arrests for possession. In true Orwellian fashion, the Drug Czar cites these figures as evidence that other countries need to get tough on drugs. Now that is what I call twisted logic, moral gymnastics.
I see. When it comes to Insite you feel it is alright to ignore all available research, but one it comes to medical marijuana your tract is to say that more research needs to be conducted well all the while demanding that such research not go ahead. Rich. Too bad enough evidence has already leaked out about some of marijuana’s medicinal uses and too bad the "scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol … ” http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/09/04/pot_senate020904.html
I would not call characterizing drug addiction as a disease normalizing such behavior, but let us leave such rantings, premised as they are on the infantile belief that drug abuse can be eliminated in a free and democratic society, aside. There is nothing fatalistic about harm reduction. Those who favor it really do believe that they can effect change, i.e., get this reduce harm, and unlike the drug warriors they have actually had some success.
Experienced advocates and demonstrators all, the purposes of these convoluted
funding arrangements aren't clear but it wouldn't be the first time the courts were used to advance an agenda with camouflaged taxpayer dollars footing the bill.
Given that Insite reduces costs, you have things backwards. The taxpayer will be left holding the bag if the Conservatives succeed in closing Insite down.
It is all part and parcel of the twisted logic, moral gymnastics and legal quagmire that has engulfed Insite since its inception in 2003.
There is nothing mysterious about the body of research looking into the effectiveness of Insite or for that matter heroin based maintenance programs in Europe. The studies are straight forward and the results telling. Conversely, listening to Tony Clement repeatedly claim that there is academic disagreement about the effectiveness of Insite gives one the feeling that one is down the rabbit hole.
In Alberta, the Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act allows parents to commit their adolescents for compulsory treatment while outreach programs and drug courts offer compassion but demand accountability.
Most people in drug treatment in Ontario are there because they abuse hard drugs. Only a small percentage, 13% in 2005, are there because of marijuana. Furthermore, those that are there for marijuana differ from other people in treatment, in so far as they are much more likely to be there because of outside pressure. Not surprisingly the typical person in “treatment” for marijuana use in Ontario is a single teenage male who is still in high school.
Ontario is not unique. Despite the fact that number of marijuana users in Western world positively dwarfs of the number of people using hard drugs, in most Western countries the vast majority of people in drug treatment are there because they abuse hard drugs. The notable exception is the US. The vast majority of people in drug treatment in the US are there because they purportedly abuse marijuana. Why the difference? Well if you dig a little deeper you see that the majority (70%) of people arrested for marijuana possession, including many casual users and even some first to users, are there because they have been given a choice, “treatment” or jail. In fact, the rise in the number of admissions for treatment correlates perfectly with a rise in the number of arrests for possession. In true Orwellian fashion, the Drug Czar cites these figures as evidence that other countries need to get tough on drugs. Now that is what I call twisted logic, moral gymnastics.
As for addictive drugs with purported medicinal properties, they should undergo accepted legal and scientific protocols before being marketed or prescribed, protocols circumvented by medicinal marijuana that now need correction.
I see. When it comes to Insite you feel it is alright to ignore all available research, but one it comes to medical marijuana your tract is to say that more research needs to be conducted well all the while demanding that such research not go ahead. Rich. Too bad enough evidence has already leaked out about some of marijuana’s medicinal uses and too bad the "scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol … ” http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/09/04/pot_senate020904.html
we must remove the harm in harm reduction -- a fatalistic, patronizing, no-hope approach that sanitizes, normalizes and facilitates continued use of drugs.
I would not call characterizing drug addiction as a disease normalizing such behavior, but let us leave such rantings, premised as they are on the infantile belief that drug abuse can be eliminated in a free and democratic society, aside. There is nothing fatalistic about harm reduction. Those who favor it really do believe that they can effect change, i.e., get this reduce harm, and unlike the drug warriors they have actually had some success.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Liberals need to Show Some Backbone
Look past the Liberals’ support of the intellectual abortion known as native self government and their impending pledge to shift more of the tax burden onto the backs of the poor in the name of fighting climate change, and there is not much “progressive” about the Federal Liberal party. They are not much better than a de facto extension of BC Liberal Party and little wonder one might say. Look no further than the fact BC Liberal strategist Mark Marissen is Liberal co chair. However, Marissen is symptom rather than the cause. Marissen was a loyal Martin supporter long before he was Dion’s main squeeze. Without getting into a long drawn out argument about what cuts where necessary in the 1990s what were not, a pretty good argument can be made for saying that Canada’s poorest are significantly worse off since 1994. Cuts were made to EI, to CPP, and to Health care. Tuition fees skyrocketed, daycare costs have skyrocketed and all the while real wages have shrank. The only thing that is working in the poor’s favor is that the unemployment rate is down.
Now, Ignatieff made a lot about a core of set of Federal programs making up the backbone of this country during his leadership campaign. He was right to; asked to define what it means to be Canadian the public invariably trots out a series of national programs introduced under Trudeau and Pearson. This is monumental political achievement and one you would think the Liberals would want to build on, but these days Liberals do not even toy with the idea of imposing a federal program on the provinces. They are unwilling to show any backbone as it where. There is no national minimum age, no national daycare program, no national pharmacare program, and no public dental care. Even the number of mandated holidays varies from province to province and the federal minimum lags far behind the rest of the Western world, with the notable exception of the US of course. In short, outside of a failed attempt to provide "universal" childcare for 10% of the Canadian kids under the age of 6, the Liberals have not attempted to strengthen the federalist backbone since Trudeau. If the Liberal party is again going to become the de facto “governing party”, it has to be willing to again embrace universality and develop a vision for all of Canada.
Now, Ignatieff made a lot about a core of set of Federal programs making up the backbone of this country during his leadership campaign. He was right to; asked to define what it means to be Canadian the public invariably trots out a series of national programs introduced under Trudeau and Pearson. This is monumental political achievement and one you would think the Liberals would want to build on, but these days Liberals do not even toy with the idea of imposing a federal program on the provinces. They are unwilling to show any backbone as it where. There is no national minimum age, no national daycare program, no national pharmacare program, and no public dental care. Even the number of mandated holidays varies from province to province and the federal minimum lags far behind the rest of the Western world, with the notable exception of the US of course. In short, outside of a failed attempt to provide "universal" childcare for 10% of the Canadian kids under the age of 6, the Liberals have not attempted to strengthen the federalist backbone since Trudeau. If the Liberal party is again going to become the de facto “governing party”, it has to be willing to again embrace universality and develop a vision for all of Canada.
Carbon tax on Gasoline is Redundant Part 2
The main argument for carbon tax is that it will have change people’s behavior. The thing is though that the raising cost of gasoline is already doing that. A carbon tax is redundant. Fuel prices are only going to go up and up and that provides people with all the incentive they need to change their behavior. Adding a carbon tax makes such shock therapy all the more painful.
The Liberals have countered that they not increase the amount of taxes Canada’s pay on gasoline. They will simply replace the excise tax with a carbon tax. That being the case, why bother talking about applying a carbon tax to gasoline. Apply a carbon tax to everything but gasoline.
The Liberals have countered that they not increase the amount of taxes Canada’s pay on gasoline. They will simply replace the excise tax with a carbon tax. That being the case, why bother talking about applying a carbon tax to gasoline. Apply a carbon tax to everything but gasoline.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Liberals and NDP: Symbiosis?
Last election the NDP took 7.5% of the popular vote in Quebec. Now polls consistently show the NDP at around 12% in Quebec. In other words, the NDP is up 4 to 5% in province with about a quarter of Canada’s voters. However, recent polls put the NDP below what they were in 2006 nationally and hardly any poll since 2006 has showed the NDP rising above what the obtained in 2006. Ergo the NDP is bleeding voters elsewhere. This is certainly the case in greater Toronto. The NDP is loosing support both to the Liberals and the Greens there.
Toronto Center and Willowdale were not flukes; they are the future. The NDP is going to take it on the chin in the 905 and 416. If there was an election this spring chances are Layton might keep his seat, albeit barely, but Chow, Marston, Charlton and Nash will loose their seats.
Now, the political spectrum has never been a particularly fool proof way of understanding politics in Canada and this is especially so with regard to the western provinces. The NDP and Liberals are not fighting for the same voters there; the NDP and Conservatives are. That is what makes the following NDP “game plan” all the more baffling. “Damaging Harper and the Conservatives on ethical issues like the Cadman mess mainly helps the Grits, and that’s not in our gameplan.” Before the arrival of the Reform Party, the NDP was where protest voters parked their votes. Damaging the conservative parties on ethical issues has historically been a very good game plan for the NDP and did someone forget remind Layton that the seat Dona Cadman is running for is held up the NDP’s Penny Priddy. The Liberals stand no chance of winning Surrey North.
The NDP seems to have seen the writing on the wall and have realized that while they are bleeding support to the Greens in urban centers and also loosing support to Liberals inside in greater Toronto they are holding their own in rural and small town Canada. To this end, rather than minimizing Conservative scandal or using it as a means of broaching other subjects (e.g., NAFTA in case of the Obama leak), they have started to play them up. They have also not followed the Liberals in backing carbon tax that is bound to be unpopular with rural and small town voters.
So long as NDP continue on this track, there is reason to believe to uneasy truce between the Liberals and NDP could develop that could prepare the groundwork for a Liberal NDP minority government by doing two things. The first is by forging ties between the two parties and the second by developing a strategy to pull the Conservatives into different directions.
The key is get NDP supporters at this junction in time to recognize that there are other measures of success other than just the number of seats one wins and to realize that even though the NDP won 29 seats in the 2006, the 39th parliament has not been a successful one for the party. This involves looking back and realizing that at its best, the NDP has provided an invaluable service to all Canadians; it widened the Canadian political debate and did so by historically being the most ideological of the major political parities. Parties concerned with the “art of the possible” are not infusing the political debate with new ideas with little chance of furthering their party at the polls. They are reactive. However, the catch 22 of such pragmatism is that such parties concede some of the field to those who are not so cautious. To use an evolutionary metaphor, the politically brave and ideologically pure help determine the policy areas to be discussed; the powerful and pragmatic determine what policies get accepted. Historically, the NDP were able to get “results” for Canadians in two ways. One, they played king maker in several Liberal minority governments. Two, they were able to achieve successes at a distance by continually infusing the political arena with new policy ideas. Either way the Liberal party benefited. By infusing the political arena with ideas from a leftist perspective, the NDP shifted the political debate in Canada leftward, leaving Liberals and not the Progressive Conservatives as the “natural governing party of Canada”.
Toronto Center and Willowdale were not flukes; they are the future. The NDP is going to take it on the chin in the 905 and 416. If there was an election this spring chances are Layton might keep his seat, albeit barely, but Chow, Marston, Charlton and Nash will loose their seats.
Now, the political spectrum has never been a particularly fool proof way of understanding politics in Canada and this is especially so with regard to the western provinces. The NDP and Liberals are not fighting for the same voters there; the NDP and Conservatives are. That is what makes the following NDP “game plan” all the more baffling. “Damaging Harper and the Conservatives on ethical issues like the Cadman mess mainly helps the Grits, and that’s not in our gameplan.” Before the arrival of the Reform Party, the NDP was where protest voters parked their votes. Damaging the conservative parties on ethical issues has historically been a very good game plan for the NDP and did someone forget remind Layton that the seat Dona Cadman is running for is held up the NDP’s Penny Priddy. The Liberals stand no chance of winning Surrey North.
The NDP seems to have seen the writing on the wall and have realized that while they are bleeding support to the Greens in urban centers and also loosing support to Liberals inside in greater Toronto they are holding their own in rural and small town Canada. To this end, rather than minimizing Conservative scandal or using it as a means of broaching other subjects (e.g., NAFTA in case of the Obama leak), they have started to play them up. They have also not followed the Liberals in backing carbon tax that is bound to be unpopular with rural and small town voters.
So long as NDP continue on this track, there is reason to believe to uneasy truce between the Liberals and NDP could develop that could prepare the groundwork for a Liberal NDP minority government by doing two things. The first is by forging ties between the two parties and the second by developing a strategy to pull the Conservatives into different directions.
The key is get NDP supporters at this junction in time to recognize that there are other measures of success other than just the number of seats one wins and to realize that even though the NDP won 29 seats in the 2006, the 39th parliament has not been a successful one for the party. This involves looking back and realizing that at its best, the NDP has provided an invaluable service to all Canadians; it widened the Canadian political debate and did so by historically being the most ideological of the major political parities. Parties concerned with the “art of the possible” are not infusing the political debate with new ideas with little chance of furthering their party at the polls. They are reactive. However, the catch 22 of such pragmatism is that such parties concede some of the field to those who are not so cautious. To use an evolutionary metaphor, the politically brave and ideologically pure help determine the policy areas to be discussed; the powerful and pragmatic determine what policies get accepted. Historically, the NDP were able to get “results” for Canadians in two ways. One, they played king maker in several Liberal minority governments. Two, they were able to achieve successes at a distance by continually infusing the political arena with new policy ideas. Either way the Liberal party benefited. By infusing the political arena with ideas from a leftist perspective, the NDP shifted the political debate in Canada leftward, leaving Liberals and not the Progressive Conservatives as the “natural governing party of Canada”.
Canadians want Marijuana Legalized: Yet another Poll
Yet another poll shows that Canadians want to see Marijuana legalized. This time 53% of Canadians told Angus Reid they want to see marijuana legalized. The poll found little regional variation and nor any difference among men and women. 53% of men support legalization and 53% of women do.
http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/2008.05.12_Drugs.pdf
http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/2008.05.12_Drugs.pdf
Friday, May 09, 2008
New Liberal Slogan: “Heating bills from hell are on the way”
In week in which it is reported that the poorest Canadians are doing significantly worse then 25 years ago, the Liberal party all but announces its plan to introduce another regressive tax and compensate Canadians by cutting income taxes. Never mind the fact that the poorest Canadians do not pay much in way of income tax as it is, they are in worst position to actually take action to lesser their carbon footprint. Renters, apartment owners and condo owners are not free to undertake home renovations just like that or at all. And those low income earners that do own house are not well positioned finically to undertake major home renovations. Needless to say, low income earners are the most likely to live in the oldest least efficiently heated and cooled dwellings.
Leaving aside the fairness of such a tax shift, why on earth does the brain trust believe a carbon tax with the occupying slogan “Heating bills from hell are on the way” will propel Dion to victory? Sure this is going to boast the Liberals chances in Vancouver. Vancouverites do not use air conditioners and it is just not that cold in winters. Tax cut for me yippie. In other areas of the country it will not be popular and in many it will be greeted with a shrug. The Liberals need to offer Canadians a lot more than a complicated tax shifting plan. Its very complexity will highlight Dion’s major weakness, viz., his inability to effectively communicate. How about some meat and potatoes guys such that the following lament to not take hold? The Liberal party of Canada screwing the poor since 1994.
Leaving aside the fairness of such a tax shift, why on earth does the brain trust believe a carbon tax with the occupying slogan “Heating bills from hell are on the way” will propel Dion to victory? Sure this is going to boast the Liberals chances in Vancouver. Vancouverites do not use air conditioners and it is just not that cold in winters. Tax cut for me yippie. In other areas of the country it will not be popular and in many it will be greeted with a shrug. The Liberals need to offer Canadians a lot more than a complicated tax shifting plan. Its very complexity will highlight Dion’s major weakness, viz., his inability to effectively communicate. How about some meat and potatoes guys such that the following lament to not take hold? The Liberal party of Canada screwing the poor since 1994.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Severed Networks: Older Skilled Immigrants
Successive governments have failed to arrest the fall in the earning power of immigrants. Part of the problem is that the point system encourages the very kind of skilled worker most likely to fail, viz., older workers. The fact that their credentials are not always recognized is a well worn theme, but what has gotten less attention is just how hard it is establish oneself in a particular field without any contacts in that field and work contacts are what many new immigrants lack. It should come no surprise that new immigrants, who having failed to establish - reestablish really - themselves in chosen field, fall into jobs where they have community contacts (e.g., driving a taxi being a classic example). (People generally think that driving a cab as some kind of holding basin for all kinds of underemployed PhDs, but, in some cities anyway, it is actually a very hard field to get into if one does not have an in. ) For this reason alone, Canada needs to redo its point system such that it looks to attract younger skilled workers who are not as such a disadvantage contact wise as their peers.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Canwest:The poor win by having to take a Paycut
Listening to Canwest's corporate toadies tell it, Canada’s poorest should be overjoyed. So what if their incomes are fallen sharply over the last 25 years. Both spouses have to work now to make ends meat and so the family incomes of Canada’s poorest Canadians have actually gone up 11%. The Star’s Linda McQuaig summed things up quite nicely. “The Post thinks Canadian families should be content with earning a little more than they did 25 years ago – by working twice as much.” Of course, the Post never did mention mentioned anything about added day care costs.
Aging population more pressing concern than Climate Change
Climate change is not the most pressing issue facing Canada. Hell, Canada is one of the few countries that may actually benefit from climate change. (The tree line is moving north etc). Immigration, for example, is a more pressing concern for Canada than is climate change . Canada is one of the oldest countries (39.7). However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. The ability of Canada to sustain its social programs will be greatly comprised.
Part of the problem is that average immigrant to Canada (37.1) is not much younger than the average Canadian (39.7). The situation is akin to baling out a boat by moving water from one part of the boat to another.
Major changes to the immigration system are needed. Two come immediately to mind. Canada needs to limit family unification to spouses and dependents under 18 and it needs to rework of the points system so that more emphasis is placed on youth. The average immigrant to Canada has to get younger. Canada also needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed. The earning power of immigrants continues to fall and this will eventually affect our ability to attract immigrants to Canada as well as the affect the general population’s willingness to accept them. To that end, Canada needs to do a better job ensuring that foreign credentials are recognized, but it also needs to place a greater emphasis on the ability to speak English or French and it needs to limit is exposure to immigrants who are the least likely to speak English or French and are the most likely to drift into illegality (viz., refugees) .
In addition to changing the type of immigrant Canada goes after, Canada also needs admit a lot more immigrants -- upwards of 500,000 a year. This will mean, among other things, greatly increasing the number of visa officers in second world countries with large pools of young educated English speakers. India is an example that comes readily to mind, but others abound. Currently interviews in Brazil are only held in Brasilia and Sao Paulo, but not in Rio . As a source of immigrants, South America remains largely untapped and this especially so with regard to Brazil.
An obvious place to start the search is at home. Foreigners who complete graduate degrees in Canada should be granted citizenship and those who complete an undergraduate degree should be given more credit than they currently receive. Currently they can receive no more than 5 points for studying in Canada. As for ESL students, Immigration officials should be going from one ESL school to another and making clear to students that if they pass the Cambridge exam, say, have a degree and are in their twenties, we want them.
It is imperative that Canada undertake such a project now. After all, Canada is not alone in having to deal with aging population. Some Europe have an even worse problem. Indeed, professor Charles Kupchan notes, "today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1."
"World Bank projections show that the working-age population of the present EU will drop from 230m now to 167m by 2050, a fall of 63m. Most of this is concentrated in the 12 current euroland countries, where working-age population is projected to drop from 186m to 131m. The worst-hit individual countries are Italy , with a 15m, or 42% fall, from 36m to 21m, followed by Spain and Germany . Britain is not immune but fares relatively well. The World Bank projects a 5m fall in working-age population, from 35.2m to 29.9m In general, though, Europe 's position is dire. As Lombard Street Research writes: "The last demographic shock on a similar scale was the Black Death of the late 14th century. Even two world wars did not stop Europe 's population rising by nearly a fifth in the first half of the 20th century."
If Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050!
Part of the problem is that average immigrant to Canada (37.1) is not much younger than the average Canadian (39.7). The situation is akin to baling out a boat by moving water from one part of the boat to another.
Major changes to the immigration system are needed. Two come immediately to mind. Canada needs to limit family unification to spouses and dependents under 18 and it needs to rework of the points system so that more emphasis is placed on youth. The average immigrant to Canada has to get younger. Canada also needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed. The earning power of immigrants continues to fall and this will eventually affect our ability to attract immigrants to Canada as well as the affect the general population’s willingness to accept them. To that end, Canada needs to do a better job ensuring that foreign credentials are recognized, but it also needs to place a greater emphasis on the ability to speak English or French and it needs to limit is exposure to immigrants who are the least likely to speak English or French and are the most likely to drift into illegality (viz., refugees) .
In addition to changing the type of immigrant Canada goes after, Canada also needs admit a lot more immigrants -- upwards of 500,000 a year. This will mean, among other things, greatly increasing the number of visa officers in second world countries with large pools of young educated English speakers. India is an example that comes readily to mind, but others abound. Currently interviews in Brazil are only held in Brasilia and Sao Paulo, but not in Rio . As a source of immigrants, South America remains largely untapped and this especially so with regard to Brazil.
An obvious place to start the search is at home. Foreigners who complete graduate degrees in Canada should be granted citizenship and those who complete an undergraduate degree should be given more credit than they currently receive. Currently they can receive no more than 5 points for studying in Canada. As for ESL students, Immigration officials should be going from one ESL school to another and making clear to students that if they pass the Cambridge exam, say, have a degree and are in their twenties, we want them.
It is imperative that Canada undertake such a project now. After all, Canada is not alone in having to deal with aging population. Some Europe have an even worse problem. Indeed, professor Charles Kupchan notes, "today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1."
"World Bank projections show that the working-age population of the present EU will drop from 230m now to 167m by 2050, a fall of 63m. Most of this is concentrated in the 12 current euroland countries, where working-age population is projected to drop from 186m to 131m. The worst-hit individual countries are Italy , with a 15m, or 42% fall, from 36m to 21m, followed by Spain and Germany . Britain is not immune but fares relatively well. The World Bank projects a 5m fall in working-age population, from 35.2m to 29.9m In general, though, Europe 's position is dire. As Lombard Street Research writes: "The last demographic shock on a similar scale was the Black Death of the late 14th century. Even two world wars did not stop Europe 's population rising by nearly a fifth in the first half of the 20th century."
If Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
