NDP leadership #130

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

What I heard is that Mulcair wants a commission, like the LeDain Commission from 1972, to take a look at all "recreational drugs". Get recommendations by experts on how to proceed. Makes sense. While I support legalization, it's not something that can be done overnight and with little thought.

Picture, in your mind, the 2015 debate. The candidates get asked if they support decriminisation. Bob Rae says "Yes. The war on drugs has been a costly failure and has done little but criminalise generation after generation of youth and line the pockets of criminals. It has to end." Tom Mulcair says "No. Marijuana makes you insane. However, I will consider punting the decision to an outside panel of experts."

One of those two positions is well informed, clear, and politically courageous. One of them is incorrect, cowardly, and seeks to avoid responsibility for doing the right thing.

The NDP had been a forceful advocate for gay marriage going way back. It wasn't the top ballot issue for many people, and it was probably risky in that it put some blue-collar support at risk. The Liberals had been cowardly and ultimately decided that they'd punt the issue to the courts. I was proud that the NDP was the party that tackled a tough issue head on, and didn't leave the hard work to governing to unelected and unaccountable officials. I don't want to let the Liberals outflank out on decrimininalisation. 

NorthReport wrote:

NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair answers your questions

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/03/ndp-leadership-candidate-th...

Gee, he even managed to work in that we need to keep on all the staff people from the various campaigns -- which had nothing to do with the question. He's seriously on-message.

regruve wrote:

Chajusong wrote:

I have. Regardless of the hedging he does afterwards, it's simply plain and unambiguously wrong that pot is linked to mental illness. 

Unfortunately, it is not near so unambiguous. There is growing research that does make a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia. Just to be clear, "link" does not necessarily mean causation, but people with schizophrenia use marijuana at a much higher rate than the general populace. Of course, they could be self-medicating. Newer research, however, does suggest that use during adolescence may trigger early onset of the disease. Who knows, really; more research definitely needs to be done. All I'll say is this, if there were a family history of the disease, I would strongly discourage my teenage children from using marijuana.

NorthReport wrote:

I'm sure Layton, Mulcair, and even myself wanted/wants pot legalized as much as anyone else. But the best way to do that is to form government.

"Your bull in the china shop" approach to it would spell political problems particularly for the NDP.

And another thing, you don't have the market cornered on "progressive" and I get tired of the nonsensical labeling.

Erik Redburn wrote:

You Mulcair supporters aint doing your candidate any favours by your dismissive attitudes towards...well pretty much any issue most progressives care about. 

Please.  My approach is hardly 'bull in China shop".  Layton made a video opening calling for such, one he never distanced himself from.  Mulcair OTOH writes that smoking pot can give you *mental illness*, then retreats back behind some standard bureacratic puffery is hardly politically sensitive.

Idea that you can sneak past the corporate media and do somewthing AFTER your elected doesn't work -not for the centre-LEft.  Just look at Obamas dismal record.   Or the Liberals, post-Trudeau.  Or Harcourt, Clark and Dosanjh.  Or Bob Rae.

It also assumes that only Mulcair can win, or even that Mulcaor would win.  Most Quebecois are more liberal in most ways than most Anglo-Canadians and may change their minds again if they start to think he's another Dion or Ignatieff.   Its a matter of relative exposure, like anywhere.

Re progressives, the idea of we have to win (first) is standard centrist boilerplate as is the idea that there are no defining characteristics or issues between right and left.  If you ran fewer editorials from rightwing sources like the Post, Globe or Gazette I might otherwise take your argument more seriously.  

Doesn't mean I'm against incremental reform or political framing and discretion, etc.  I'm hardly a militant ideologue.  You should know that by now.

Thanks for your time tho.

I have to say that the truth on merijuana use and "mental illness" is more grey than people want to admit. I agree 100% that having one or two puffs from a joint at a party is not going to send you into some sort of "reefer madness" style insanity. But I do know people who smoke up on a daily basis...and they are definitely "not all there" - so I think its fair to say that very regular pot-smoking will over the long-term have some neurological side effects. Drinking alcohol a lot on a regular basis almost certainly does as well.

NorthReport wrote:

Eric, it is important to know what the enemy is thinking. 

All I said was the best way to create policy, any policy, is usually to be the government. I never suggested it was the only way.

Look, let's be clear, even if Mulcair wins, and I think he will, and even if the NDP form government which I think it might, hopefully sooner than we think (read: last election results), we will all have to keep the pressure on, our eye on what the party is doing, as the NDP will be subjected to a huge amount of lobbying from the right. 

I think the very best time to put suggestions for party policy forward is leading up to the next election. But once elected the government will need our help to implement the policies. 

If Mulcair wins the job then I will follow your advice to the letter.  Until then though I'm not being fobbed off as a militant footstomper or naive utopian, as the ball is still in play for everyone.

Chajusong wrote:

Mulcair's lucky I already voted. [url=https://twitter.com/#!/journo_dale/status/181399407684628480]This[/url] would probably have been enough to knock him in third on my ballot, behind Cullen.

@journo_dale: Mulcair claims pot is "so potent as to cause mental illness" as his reason for opposing decriminalisation. #WestBlock #cdnpoli

Mulcair just lost me.  I wouldn't have voted him first but was thinking about voting him 2nd and definitely ahead of Nash.

Now that's pretty unlikely, I would probably even vote Nash ahead of him.  I no longer trust him.

Sorry, no lying demagogues for me.

Erik Redburn wrote:

regruve wrote:

Chajusong wrote:

I have. Regardless of the hedging he does afterwards, it's simply plain and unambiguously wrong that pot is linked to mental illness. 

Unfortunately, it is not near so unambiguous. There is growing research that does make a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia. Just to be clear, "link" does not necessarily mean causation, but people with schizophrenia use marijuana at a much higher rate than the general populace. Of course, they could be self-medicating. Newer research, however, does suggest that use during adolescence may trigger early onset of the disease. Who knows, really; more research definitely needs to be done. All I'll say is this, if there were a family history of the disease, I would strongly discourage my teenage children from using marijuana.

I'd like to see the sources for your statements abput a medical link being evidenced. People with schizophrenia using more pot than the average boozy Canuck hardly means anything statistically. They probably eat more junk food too. And of course those already prediagnosed towards this condition being affected by it means very little either. Those at high risk for schizophrenia will probably develop symptoms regardless of anything they consume, including what the doctor orders or plain tap water.

From CAMH (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health):

"There is a possible association between heavy regular cannabis use and
the onset of schizophrenia. It is not clear, however, whether cannabis use releases latent
symptoms of schizophrenia, or whether people use cannabis to help them
cope with the symptoms of an emerging psychosis.
Evidence suggests that continued cannabis use in people with
schizophrenia accentuates psychotic symptoms and worsens the
course of the illness."

http://www.camh.net/about_addiction_mental_health/drug_and_addiction_inf...

The association between cannabis and schizophrenia is very strong. The causal connections are complicated, but you should not be so confident in saying that "those at high risk for schizophrenia will probably develop symptoms regardless of anything they consume..." because many conditions can be latent and never develop unless they are triggered by particular stimulants or behaviours; this is a fundamental concept in our understanding of health and illness.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Because he wants to do it right? :o

I don't understand your question.  Clearly Mulcair doesn't even support the watered down NDP policy.

I am assuming that when words come out of his mouth, it's because he wants them to.

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.

Did anyone see Stephen Lewis on Mansbridge One on One?
One thing about preferential ballot is, if one wants to get technical, whoever wins, we voted for them! Maybe not as first choice or second choice or third choice .. but we did vote for them!

I commend Mulcair for not taking the bait (which is probably annoying the hell out of a few people) - though we all know he has it in him. Sometimes the best way to mess with the minds of one's opponents is with ponies and sunshine. The CBC interviewed him today at the Montreal St Patrick's Day parade.
The official NDP policy is for decriminalization of pot (not sure if the policy on other drugs has been decided) - though it should be noted that Dana Larsen supports Nash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHtu9KM9ucI

North Star wrote:

Everyday this campaign goes on makes me wiish that much more that Peter Julian & Alexandre Boulerice ran...

Megan Leslie is having too much fun going after the "grumpy old men". How is her French?

Unionist wrote:

What if there's a tie?

What colour of tie? I think they keep going with the ballots until someone makes more than 50% so, if there is a tie, they go to another ballot and, if your supporters snooze, you lose.

I predict a third ballot win.

Michelle - if Singh gets enough support not to be dropped off, he will be counted as your vote for the second ballot. Your first choice is your choice for the ballot unless they are knocked off before the ballot is called then it goes to your second choice. If you only put Singh on the ballot and he is knocked off, it goes to your second choice which is no one.

NorthReport - I am sure that they are going to count the preferential ballots ahead of time so that they only have to count the real time ballots and then add those to the preferential ballots for the totals for the first round.

For the second ballot, they will only take the preferential ballots of those who were first choice and dropped off and add those numbers to the other preferential ballots. To use Michelle's example, they will only take the ballots where Singh was marked first and look at the second choice and add those to the totals for the other candidates - they won't recount all the preferential ballots. Then they will add these new totals to the totals that the candidates got in real time voting.

Let's say that Ashton got 5,000 preferential and 5,000 real time for the first ballot and then Singh is knocked off. If 500 of those who marked Singh first marked Ashton second, then Ashton would be seen as now having 5,500 preferential and that will be added to whatever number of votes that she got real time.

Here is what endprohibition.ca had to say about Thomas Mulcair:

http://endprohibition.ca/2012leadershipsurveyresponses

Quote:

THOMAS MULCAIR: Mulcair said he strongly supported access to medical marijuana, and pointed out that the Quebec Section of the NDP had passed a resolution in 2011 calling for the feds to implement more flexible regulations and allow more provincial control over the medical marijuana program. Mulcair also said he proudly supported InSite, and had endorsed an initiative to open safe injection sites in Montreal.

Mulcair indicated his support for “decriminalising the possession of marijuana” but didn’t give any specifics as to what this meant in terms of potential punishments or means of legal production and distribution, if any. More worringly to the cannabis legalization movement, Mulcair added that since it’s been 40 years since the landmark LeDain Commission, “the more potent versions of drugs such as marijuana have to be the object of new study.”

It is worth checking the website's reviews of the other candidates as well. Personally I don't see the problem with having a scientific commission to review drug policies.

wage zombie wrote:

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".

Not at all. He wants to get it right (and not just pot btw if you actually listened to the interview).

regruve wrote:

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.

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.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Getting all wimpy on marijuana is one way in which the NDP gets blurred with the Liberals. We don't want to be outflanked by Bob Rae.

Jack earned a reputation for being courageous and honest. It wasn't just because he smiled a lot and carried a cane. He was willing to stick his neck out, again and again, and had the intelligence to know where Canadian opinion was ready to move to him. Marijuana is one issue -- important for some voters, completely trivial to otehrs. But in aggregate, a bunch of stances (end the war in Afghanistan, LGBTQ rights now, etc.) do add up to give you a portrait of who Layton was. Even for people who didn't care about marijuana, they heard Jack Layton cut right through the BS politicla speak and just say "yes", and peoples' trust and admiration for him skyrocketed.

I like Mulcair, and I think he'd be a solid leader, and a great PM. But in aggregate, what do you get when you add up "we shouldn't talk about taxes right now", "i'm against decriminalization until we have another study"...

There are some people who appreciate that kind of old politics of "we'll sit a whole bunch of very smart people down in an office somewhere you can't visit, and I promise that in four years I'll be able to answer your question".

But it's really uninspiring for a lot of other people, especially young people like myself.

"Regruve:

Erik Redburn wrote:
More reaching.

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.

NorthReport wrote:

Superb interview FFK - but why are, is it 43 NDP MPs, more support than all the other candidates combined, supporting Mulcair, if he is that difficult to work with? 

I'd like to see him in a Green Hat though at next year's St Patrick Day's parade.  ;)

flight from kamakura wrote:

this is a really good interview, and not just because of the AMAZING irish get-up mulcair is wearing!  http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/03/ndp-leadership-candidate-th...

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

not trustable?  more like no bullshit.  if marijuana is your number one voting issue, wow.

flight from kamakura wrote:

not trustable?  more like no bullshit.  if marijuana is your number one voting issue, wow.

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.

wage zombie wrote:

iancosh wrote:

How is that substantially different from Mulcair's response? How is Mulcair's response any more or less "wishy washy" than Topp's? I think people are just finding what they are looking for. One can argue that Topp was short and to the point. Or, one can argue that Mulcair put more thought into his answers.

Really, if this issue was so important, then you'd think that people would not be noticing only today what has been published on the NDP End Prohibition website since January 25.

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.

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.

Cardy wrote:

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.

That's ridiculous.  If the Royal Commission approach is such an effective way to go about changing drug laws, how come that approach has been so ineffective when it comes to changing drug laws?

Why would you hold up a process that never got us anywhere?