NDP leadership #130

Having sex four times a day might indicate youre not all there either.  (certainly not for other non-participants...)  Having sex only four times a year could indicate the same.  Its like saying pot could be addictive.  Well, anything that gives pleasure, eases pain, or offers diversion could be overused the sme way among certain personality types.  Any supporting corrolations however, unless properly factored in (or out) could be used to indicate ANYTHING as a cause for just about ANYTHING.  Fact remains that marijuana is unsual among drugs in that it shows no signs of making users PHYSICALLY addicted or dependent, based partly on biochemistry and partly on my own experience as an ex-user among other ex-users.  

We have to be careful about this, as agents of propganda have always floated these ideas, which are then widely disseminated and hyped, then when they pop against lived experience or other facts another one suddenly takes it place.  There are whole industries now depending on the criminalization of things which people put in their own bodies (and by extnsion those people) and the abuse of vague data via misleadong or senationalistic editorials or films is one of the most effective ways of keeping it that way.  

That said, this should only be seen as one issue among many for New Democrats.

Personally, I actually might not be that far from Mulcair's position on this as a matter of policy.  I'm arguably to the right of the NDP on cannabis issues.

However, from a perspective of getting the NDP to government, it's a dumb thing to say what Mulcair said.  There are a lot of people who care deeply about this issue, and we need them to be engaged in the NDP.  Failing to support decriminalization will lose votes for the NDP—especially among young people.

I should add, when he said pot is "so potent ..." I immediately thought of this from the Nature of Things doc:

"But there's an intriguing twist to the story: in the process of cultivating more potent strains of pot, growers have also been breeding out a little-known ingredient called cannabidiol that seems to buffer the effects of THC. So today's high-octane pot actually contains a double-whammy - more psychosis-producing THC, and less of the protective CBD or cannabidiol."

I wouldn't be suprised if he watched the same piece, which provoked my initial interest in the topic, btw.

Mulcair is talking out of both sides of his mouth.  It seems that sometimes he says he supports the party policy of decriminalization, and other times he says he doesn't.

This is what I would call "not trustable".

Oh, the website also provides the complete responses of the candidates to their questions. Here is Mulcair's full response.

People are going to bail on Mulcair because of this?

Ok, I've glanced at it and skimmed through and already see some problems.   First of all theres no such thing as an 'expert on schozophrenia'. Its a young science still relying on flawed and often contraictory data.  There are no known cures and medcation that works for some dosn't for others, and all medication tends to have limited shelf life.   Earlier pyschiatric theories have all been pretty much ruled out, except that sufferes can still use therapy and help.

Second, the percentages may seem impressive but actually aren't.  Those with pre-existing tendencies towards schizophrenia, (most probably an inherited biochemical imbalance) may only be more likley to use more as teenagers, which is when most coincidently tend to manifest.  Scientists could often use more training in proper statistical surveying to lay out the most likley hypothesis. 

And the 'forty percent higher risk' may seem impressive than it is.   Forty percent of a low percentage may only mean a couple statistical blips.  I would say oughly half the population in my generation used pot more than occasionally, at least at some point.  Many continue to do so.  That there hasn't been a huge incrase in mental illness among us indicates the first alternative factor I listed is more likely.  (if in fact the numbers quoted are indeed genuine, they often haven't been)

Which leads to my third initial objection, the overly broad definition of 'mental illness' used.  I find lifelong tea-sippers and puritans often have the hardest time dealing with changing realties -look at all the loony beiefs held among 'clean living' religious fundies for example.  I would hardly argue that drug free living makes you crazy however.  Which comes to my final point, this newspaper may even be more inclined to misrepreset scientific 'findings' than most.    Modern newsies are often among the most ignorant about societal trends and consequences, if only because so few get out and share others experienes anymore.   But that could also be because most are employed by self serving conservative loons.   One mustnt ever neglect all plausible factors, when trying to make valid statistical corrolations....  (to investigate further for physical causes etc)

At any rate, the present policies of throwing drug users behind bars for years isn't very theropeutic, especially among those with genuine mental health issues.

More reaching. The more potent strains in fact became more prminant after the 'war on drugs' drove out the hippies and more casual growers in favour of biker types.  Second, more potent drugs like alcohol can be deat with in similar ways.   Use lower amounts at the time.  BC Bud only needs two or three tokes per to get a nice high half hr high.  Colombian I grew up with needed a shared joint.   Older Mexican and homegrown users might smoke several at a time for a good laugh.   Intelligent self regulation is important among users of any temporarily mind altering substances, from alcohol to junk food.

It made me curious how Topp responded to the same question: straight, upfront and not wishy-washy, just like Jack. No blurring with liberals with this response!

BRIAN TOPP

1) Brian supports the decriminalization of both medicinal and social marijuana use.

2) Brian strongly supports harm reduction programs like InSite and would work with communities that want to introduce this and other forms of harm reduction.

3) Brian supports NDP policy and would act to to decriminalize cannabis. Support for harm reduction would be a high priority.

"Regruve:

I'm not sure who or what you are referring to--the research or me? I mentioned up thread that I don't support prohibition. My only interest in the matter is the possible linkage to schizophrenia."

And I just gave several alternative theories on why that purported link is suspect.  I've heard these kind of 'scientific' scare stories for decades now, often from the most neutral sounding establishments.   Pot making you dumb, forgetful and lazy, became the estalishment fave after the earlier 'reefer madness' ones nolonger worked. 

Arrest for a couple joints can still put anyone behind bars however, so please be cautious about repeating the 'latest research'.  

Mulcair is calling for a new Royal Commission on illegal drugs. The last one, Le Dain, 1972, called for the legalization and regulation of cannabis, not just decriminalization. Since then a lot of evidence has emerged in terms of harm reduction - see the ruling on InSite, etc - that can be considered by a new Commission with an expanded remit to look at all currently illegal drugs.

What Mulcair said today goes beyond current NDP policy. Decriminalization was always a half-way position: brushing the seeds under a legal rug. Calling for a comprehensive review of the war on drugs is a significant move that everyone should welcome: we need a national policy based on science and research.

My feelings are that such a Commission, created by a Mulcair-led NDP government, would recommend a harm-reduction approach. But my feelngs aren't enough to support a change in law. Legislation based on emotion is what led to the Tories' crime bill and other mistakes. I want to end the war on drugs as much as most of the people writing here but I don't want an equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles, where the way one war is ended leads to the start of a new one. Let's do this right, include the research, and make a firm decision.

I read the End Prohibition answers months ago and commented about them on Babble.  I even stated that Mulcair and Topp were pretty close, and that both were signalling that they would not be advancing cannabis law reform forward.

I also mentioned that Niki Ashton had IMO the best take on this issue.  I was happy about this as Ashton was already my first choice, based on a number of other issues.

I did notice when I first read it that Mulcair mentioned "more potent versions" of cannabis which I viewed as a marning sign.

But, I had no expectation of deciding my ballot on this issue.  Really, not at all.

Mulcair's comments in the Global interview are a huge deal for me.  I have been following cannabis law reform for over a decade, and while I've been paying less attention lately, I do consider myself very well informed on the issue, as well as various initiatives currently taking place in the USA.

I am surprised to find this issue affecting my ballot.  With what he has said, I don't see how I can feel ok voting for Mulcair.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen a politician wearing gloves before. = P

Not trustable because he has different answers depedning on who's asking the question.  Does he support decriminalization or not?  It depends who is asking.  When I see someone talking out of both sides of their mouth, I view them as less trustable.

This is absolutely not my number one voting issue, just as the death penalty would not be my number one voting issue.  But if any candidate came out supporting the death penalty, they would lose my vote.

Thomas Mulcair does not support cannabis decriminalization.  He just said so on Global.

There are many things that I would rate higher than particular takes on cannabis reform.  Stuff like holding Quebec and beating Harper, things which make Thomas Mulcair a very appealing candidate.

But I'm not going to vote for someone who thinks I belong in jail.  Sorry.

Good points. I regret the last sentence of my post, it wasn't fair. Sorry. And I watched the CTV interview and I can see that Mulcair is contradicting what he told End Prohibition. So, that contradiction is a concern, and I'd like to hear him explain it.

I am too Michelle.  I'd like to see more scrappy leadership too, especially with a cold blooded mechanic like Harper in charge.   Unfortunaely I have to keep questioning whether his careful 'positioning' will do more to alienate the party's still sizeable left-of base than mollify the average Post reader.  More to the point I'm worried that his tough side will mostly be applied to fellow New Democrats who disagree with his so-far centrist tract than political opponents on the right.    He won't be getting much help in the media if he's elected leader, as Carole James quickly found out.