Join 3,517 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Harper: No High Times in the Great White North
March 25, 2010 5:07 PM   Subscribe

Remember when Obama held an Internet 'town hall' meeting last March (previously)? Well Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, decided to participate in a decidedly similar "Internet town hall"-esque interview, with a public system for posting and voting on questions. The response was surprisingly similar both in terms of votes, and in terms of Harper's response (skip to 35:40) to the voters' primary concern.

Harper's response:
“The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad. And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people.”
posted by tybeet (61 comments total)

 
"Drugs are bad ...mmmkay" Such a shame.
posted by Doug Stewart at 5:11 PM on March 25, 2010


"The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad."

But mommy, what about the drugs you buy at the store??
posted by shii at 5:11 PM on March 25, 2010 [9 favorites]


One persons harmless mj flash mob is another persons dangerous crack flash mob, or something.
posted by vectr at 5:13 PM on March 25, 2010


> "And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people."

If pot were fully legalized and taxed, I guar-on-tee you that a perfectly respectable entrepreneur would have a tastefully lit store with hardwood floors up and running in Toronto's Annex neighbourhood in no time flat, and that the lineup wouldn't look much different than Whole Foods'.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:13 PM on March 25, 2010 [7 favorites]


Cut myself off in the previous comment. Such a shame there isn't an open an honest discussion by politicians about widespread legal drug abuse vs simple currently-illegal drug use.

People who don't get their coffee and cigarettes in the morning, who believe in the deepest parts of their hearts that they actually need them when waking up act far less respectably than anyone I've ever seen consume illegal drugs.
posted by Doug Stewart at 5:14 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


I can't watch this video right now. Not because I'm at work, but because it will fucking enrage me.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:15 PM on March 25, 2010 [9 favorites]


Haaarper
posted by edgeways at 5:22 PM on March 25, 2010


I suppose pot is easier to critique than economic policy.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:28 PM on March 25, 2010


Man, the worst thing about pot continues to be pot smokers.

Look, Canada is an export-based economy, and our number one trading partner, with whom we share the longest undefended border in the world, has a very serious hard-on for not just criminalizing but demonizing drugs and arresting anyone who's caught with half a joint in their trunk. Our huge chunk of our economy depends on that border being easy to cross.

If Canada so much as legalizes possession, that all goes away. In a puff of smoke, as it were. Of course he's going to say this, and whether or not he's right on the strict merits of weed as being harmful or not, he's definitely right that legalizing marijuana is a huge big-picture mistake for Canada.
posted by mhoye at 5:32 PM on March 25, 2010 [7 favorites]


The problem with town hall events, is that the people who hear about them and participate in them are generally part of a strong interest group, who hear about such an event and then converge upon it to press their issue.

Although it is against the grain of Metafilter, I also think Harper's point has value, when you consider it comes from a government targeted towards strengthening the economy, and encouraging people to raise healthy families.
The illegal drugs don't really benefit these things - yes they can help with pain, but they don't encourage socialization and bonding (like legal alcohol), or intense productivity and wakefulness (like legal caffeine and sugar). Cigarettes are an exception, but if the cigarette was invented today, I am certain it would be seen as something that should be illegal.

I think the key point that Harper raises here, is that drugs associate strongly with social catastrophe.
posted by niccolo at 5:33 PM on March 25, 2010


Canadians' top concerns, according to a recent online poll:

Monetary policy
Ontario tourism
Online privacy
Tax relief for small business
Age verification for alcohol purchases
Long-term debt service
Sexual health education
Obligatory community service
The economy
Healthcare
Electronic infrastructure
Green energy
Arms reduction
Mass transit
Elder care

posted by Inspector.Gadget at 5:34 PM on March 25, 2010 [14 favorites]


mhoye: "Our huge chunk of our economy depends on that border being easy to cross.

If Canada so much as legalizes possession, that all goes away."

Isn't that already gone, what with the passport requirement and the beating up writers as they try to return to Canada?

It seems like, given that Canada is the one exporting the oil and not the other way around, that Canada would wear the pants in this relationship. I bet China wouldn't give Canada such a hard time about a few spliffs if they could get their hands on that sweet, sweet crude.
posted by mullingitover at 5:35 PM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]


If pot were fully legalized and taxed, I guar-on-tee you that a perfectly respectable entrepreneur would have a tastefully lit store with hardwood floors up and running in Toronto's Annex neighbourhood in no time flat, and that the lineup wouldn't look much different than Whole Foods'.

The clientele would look largely the same, too.
posted by Mikey-San at 5:36 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


Isn't that already gone, what with the passport requirement and the beating up writers as they try to return to Canada?

Having a passport is an extraordinarily minor inconvenience as compared to the U.S. deciding to search every car, truck and shipping container that crosses that border for drugs.

Our economy would effectively stop.
posted by mhoye at 5:39 PM on March 25, 2010


but they don't encourage socialization and bonding (like legal alcohol), or intense productivity and wakefulness (like legal caffeine and sugar)

Right, but that's because the illegal drugs are illegal. If they were legal, or probably even decriminalized, then they could encourage bonding.

I'm confused by Inspector.Gadget's "mootalsothegame" - are we saying that if we think about moots, we lose? Because I think I just lost.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:44 PM on March 25, 2010


Canadians' top concerns, according to a recent online poll:

MOOTALSOTHEGAME?
posted by fatbird at 5:46 PM on March 25, 2010



“The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad. And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people.”


I've been to respectable liquor stores. Point disproven, legalize it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:47 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hey, did anybody know about this Google Moderator app? Looks neat.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 5:48 PM on March 25, 2010


Look, Canada is an export-based economy, and our number one trading partner, with whom we share the longest undefended border in the world, has a very serious hard-on for not just criminalizing but demonizing drugs and arresting anyone who's caught with half a joint in their trunk. Our huge chunk of our economy depends on that border being easy to cross.

Isn't it relatively easy for truckers to cross the Mexico-US border, drop off their wares and head back? I think a lot of the process was streamlined due to NAFTA.

For the same reason, I suspect that any serious restrictions on trade between Canada and the US would get resolved quickly, before it would reach a courtroom. Impeding commerce will catch a politician's interest.

Everyday people, however, are a different story. But they don't have money, so it's probably not as big a deal to set up the same border procedures between Canada and the US as is done for the border with Mexico.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:50 PM on March 25, 2010


Well respectable people run banks, don't they? Fuck them.
posted by philip-random at 5:50 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


I hear oil causes the same kinds of social catastrophe, even, in some cases, leading politicians to be corrupted. 'Tis lucky Harper has managed to stay drug free, though.
posted by Sova at 5:53 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


they don't encourage socialization and bonding (like legal alcohol)

Right, because people just never sit around and smoke pot with their friends!

Having a passport is an extraordinarily minor inconvenience as compared to the U.S. deciding to search every car, truck and shipping container that crosses that border for drugs.

Oh, please. I've been to Holland several times (because I was working with V2 labs there, not to get high, though I did) and not one time did anyone even look in my luggage when I came back to the US - and I'll bet I smelled enough like pot that any halfway decent drug dog would have been howling at me.

Conversely, I absolutely know people who have been caught carrying drugs from Canada to the US (quite a few years ago - they got off with a still warning and a record) so it's not like they don't search you sometimes when you cross this border.

Please don't snow us with made-up hypotheticals that have no basis in fact.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:54 PM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]


I watched it a few days ago.

Is it me, or is there some kind of really annoying cognitive dissonance going on in the chain of logic from the part EVERYONE agrees upon... (Just before the time being suggested to watch, "violent crime/criminals are BAD", at that part I was thinking... wait, am I agreeing with Mr. Harper? Am I a Canadian Conservative?)

to
..."we need to crack down on pot because it is the one thing that these criminals get money from....

to
..."and THAT is why the government doesn't want to take over the role of doing all of the PROFITING from it, and making sure that it only goes to people who are "of age" (like the well regulated age of alcohol...

IANYSH (I am not your Stephen Harper)... but um, wouldn't you cut the legs out from under these "vast shadowy networks of people you are scared of" (he really seriously sounded scared of the "international groups" who provide drugs.) but wouldn't they be forced to find other places/things to do if the Nation undercut, and out-competed the criminal drug dealing joints... from his interview it very much sounded like it isn't the "society will fall apart if we change things", but rather the "they are so powerful that we just can't do anything". This seems like a weak willed ideology for someone who is "tough on crime".
(is there research on putting these networks of drug dealers out of business by making access be through a government agency... maybe increasing the "interest factor" in the short term, but it seems it would work to motivate people to generally wait until oneself is matured and developed enough to make personal choices outside of the peer pressure that comes with it being made into a "street drug", rather than a totally regulated private choice, like drinking alcohol is? I mean, it's not like nothing is available to young people today... and when they go to a Biker every week... it's just more likely that eventually they will get sucked into the Up-sell.

To my eye, the lead in to the more heavy drugs so often comes from the gateway... the young person going to the "dealer"... who just so happens to always want to "up-sell"... which is why Coke and E use are booming in the 'Da... they have a steady stream of converts from pot, because it's just easier to get those other things, easier to "hide", and the dealers will always want to up-sell... because the stronger ones are much more addictive, stronger. More of a draw.

Seems an awful lot like this "status quo, while shouting from the rooftops that we are tough on crime" line is going to hurt the country by just leaving those multinational drug cartels (who really aren't any kind of joke, and are serious, powerful, and have influence) all alone to make all the profit from pot, which then gets used to buy GUNS... so yeah, I think there is definitely a Logic Train Pileup on the Canadian Tubes there...


Lastly... ALL of the questions that were "controversial" (detainee abuse, drugs)... were picked as "written ones", with no video of smiling nice Canadians, and the write in questions they selected to read (despite apparently being the "most popular", thus having Many options on "spell-checked" versions of the same question) was all bad grammar, and all poor spelling, clearly intimating the suggestion that 'like duh, tehy are tuh stoopids who do blieve theees things.'
posted by infinite intimation at 5:54 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


a stiff warning...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:55 PM on March 25, 2010


The illegal drugs don't really benefit these things - yes they can help with pain, but they don't encourage socialization and bonding (like legal alcohol)

Here is where you lost me.

You say "illegal drugs" now is that just marijuana, or does that include things like heroin and cocaine? Because the top four questions that were asked of Harper were about marijuana not the wide group of "illegal drugs".

Then you imply alcohol is acceptable because it encourages socialization and bonding, as if marijuana doesn't do the same thing at least as well as alcohol.

Cigarettes are an exception, but if the cigarette was invented today, I am certain it would be seen as something that should be illegal.

Also, marijuana was not invented today. It's been around since before the New World was a sparking neuron in Christopher Columbus' brain.

I think the key point that Harper raises here, is that drugs associate strongly with social catastrophe.

lol, wat? There hasn't been a social catastrophe due to alcohol, and marijuana won't do anything to people incomparable to booze. In fact, it's less harmful than alcohol. When's the last time you heard of someone getting high then beating their wife?

On second thought, you probably just trolled the hell out of me. At least that would be better than people believing the types of things you write.
posted by DoublePlus at 5:56 PM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]


If Canada was Nirvana (aside from the climate):

Gerard Kennedy could be the Prime Minister. Olivia Chow could be Minister of Foreign Affairs. Elizabeth May could the Minister of the Environment. Stephen Harper could be Minister of Finance (aside from my personal sentiments, he is not unintelligent, and not the worst economist I have ever seen).
posted by ovvl at 6:04 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


MOOTALSOTHEGAME.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 6:14 PM on March 25, 2010


but they don't encourage socialization and bonding (like legal alcohol)

Your argument against pot is rooted in the idea that alcohol is beneficial to society? What the fuck?

In the first place, as others have said, if alcohol promotes socialization and bonding, then so does marijuana. They're both party drugs, they both serve as social lubricants. I really don't see what you think is so different about them.

But besides that: do you really believe that alcohol's value as a social drug makes it beneficial to society? It's addictive! It's deadly! Tons of people die of alcohol poisoning each year, and it causes chronic ailments, too. And then there are deaths from drunk driving. And this tremendous toll of human life is justifiable to you because ... because alcohol is fun at parties?

I mean, that's good enough for me. I don't want to criminalize alcohol. But if you seriously believe what you're saying, then your opinion on marijuana is tremendously hypocritical.
posted by magnificent frigatebird at 6:18 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


BC research finds the Federal drug crime crackdown to be a net harm.
posted by mek at 6:27 PM on March 25, 2010


he's definitely right that legalizing marijuana is a huge big-picture mistake for Canada.

This seems overstated. Hand guns are legal in the US, the Canadians treat them like cannabis and still the border is relatively open.

Crossing the border from the US into Canada:

"Do you have any firearms?"

Crossing the border from Canada to the US:

"Any fruits, vegetables, meats, or controlled substances?"

Says more or less everything you need to know about the two countries.
posted by three blind mice at 6:29 PM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]


The link to the video seems to be wrong: I watched only the first thirty seconds, but it appeared to be Jonathan Pryce playing a scene with a slightly husky wax sculpture.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:33 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


mhoye:
Isn't that already gone, what with the passport requirement and the beating up writers as they try to return to Canada?


Yeah, that last event has certainly toppled the Canadian economy. Tooneys are three for a quarter now.

Having a passport is an extraordinarily minor inconvenience as compared to the U.S. deciding to search every car, truck and shipping container that crosses that border for drugs.

Or, not, as with people flying in from Amsterdam (as lupus_yonderboy noted).

Our economy would effectively stop.

You're funny! Can you be hired for company picnics and bar mitzvahs?
posted by IAmBroom at 6:34 PM on March 25, 2010


Having a passport is an extraordinarily minor inconvenience as compared to the U.S. deciding to search every car, truck and shipping container that crosses that border for drugs.

Our economy would effectively stop.


That's just silly. The reverse isn't true with respect to handguns entering Canada from the US, why should this be any different? We're different countries, it's to be expected we'll have different laws. On top of which, there's already literally tons of marijuana crossing that border into the US, and they are aware of it. It hasn't caused every single vehicle to be searched.

Legalizing marijuana might actually reduce the influence of criminal smuggling and production and distribution operations if it creates an open, visible supply chain from legitimate marijuana producers to legitimate marijuana sellers.
posted by Kirk Grim at 6:37 PM on March 25, 2010


My reaction in one word: PANDERING.
posted by GuyZero at 6:42 PM on March 25, 2010


Crossing the border from Canada to the US:

"Any fruits, vegetables, meats, or controlled substances?"

Says more or less everything you need to know about the two countries.


I disagree. Americans are not particularly hung up on fruits, vegetables, and meats. That's more of a border-only thing.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:54 PM on March 25, 2010


Yeah, that last event has certainly toppled the Canadian economy. Tooneys are three for a quarter now.

Are you conversant with reality? Sorry, just teasing?
posted by ovvl at 6:55 PM on March 25, 2010


Americans are not particularly hung up on fruits, vegetables, and meats. That's more of a border-only thing.

That's fill, mostly slices, wraps and leaf(ve)s. K?
posted by Mblue at 7:08 PM on March 25, 2010


In the first place, as others have said, if alcohol promotes socialization and bonding, then so does marijuana. They're both party drugs, they both serve as social lubricants. I really don't see what you think is so different about them.

Marijuana is not served at stadiums, the vast majority of states do not have stores that sell it, and certainly there are no public places where it is legal for people to convene and smoke that I know of. As far as "social lubricants" go, marijuana is not as commonly accepted or as widely used as alcohol. I would go so far as to add that "being high" is not exactly the epitome of socialization. Although that's kind of a pot shot, since being massively drunk and behind the wheel isn't either.

I sit conservatively on this issue, and without getting into a "but alcohol is legal! that's unfair!" argument, I most definitely don't buy into the "legalizing marijuana will improve the economy and clean up our streets!" fantasy. Maybe I'm wrong.

I certainly think it's interesting that the drug laws in this country are not totally consistent with reality and yet they resist political reform. Interested in seeing how this California initiative turns out.
posted by phaedon at 7:16 PM on March 25, 2010


...in terms of Harper's response (skip to 35:40) to the voters' primary concern.

I honestly thought that the primary concern would have been the proroguing of parliament twice in two years. Or has everyone forgotten about that already? Dope does that to your memory, or so I've heard.

/ not a toker
// also not anti-toking

posted by spoobnooble at 7:20 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


Marijuana is not served at stadiums, the vast majority of states do not have stores that sell it, and certainly there are no public places where it is legal for people to convene and smoke that I know of. As far as "social lubricants" go, marijuana is not as commonly accepted or as widely used as alcohol.

That couldn't possibly be because it is illegal, could it?
posted by DoublePlus at 7:22 PM on March 25, 2010 [7 favorites]


Well, if Obama could prorogue parliament twice in two years, that would be... pretty interesting.
posted by ovvl at 7:27 PM on March 25, 2010


it seems it would work to motivate people to generally wait until oneself is matured and developed enough to make personal choices outside of the peer pressure that comes with it being made into a "street drug", rather than a totally regulated private choice, like drinking alcohol is?

You're not implying that kids (or even adults) make choices about drinking in a personal way outside of peer pressure, are you?
posted by jacalata at 7:32 PM on March 25, 2010


I most definitely don't buy into the "legalizing marijuana will improve the economy and clean up our streets!" fantasy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe you're wrong, I can't tell without you first explaining that statement. If the money generated by pot were on the books and taxed, I can't see how that doesn't have an effect on the economy. And if it's a legal enterprise rather than a massive criminal one, I can't see how it wouldn't affect crime rates. But then, I smoke a lot of pot...
posted by Kirk Grim at 7:39 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


Infinite Intimation: Am I a Canadian Conservative?

Apparently.


And to add injury to insult, I just received a pamphlet from our MP, the ever lovely Jim Prentice, describing all the wonderful things YOUR CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT is doing with all the money I've saved from tax cuts. Buying votes, mainly. Bastards.
posted by sneebler at 7:41 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


Maybe I'd be happier if I smoked more dope?
posted by sneebler at 7:42 PM on March 25, 2010


Stephen Harper could be Minister of Finance (aside from my personal sentiments, he is not unintelligent, and not the worst economist I have ever seen).

Give me a fucking break. The Conservatives under Harper took Canada from yearly surpluses to structural deficits, which is worse than making the tough choices Paul Martin carried out.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:47 PM on March 25, 2010 [5 favorites]


>not the worst economist I have ever seen

No economist would cut the GST.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:50 PM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]


Nope, definitely not meaning to imply that, what I am meaning to be saying is that the "pressure" put on someone by the "LCBO worker" (or rather, the government licensed "dealer" rather than the "prohibition" model)... the level of pressure from the mature, responsible government employee is MIGHTY different from the "pressure" put on by the local dealer who is not a licensed government civil servant, and in fact doesn't care one bit if the person they are selling to goes to harder things...(my "Up-sell" comment.)

My point being that with licensing, young people, and other people who DO use it, would no longer be forced to go to a person who is LOOKING to sell the harder things and "up-sell"... as those harder things would seem to be the moneymakers, and they also bring more desperate repeat customers.

To me, it seems like That ^ is the problem with the "prohibition" way of proceeding with this debate. It makes it something that's sort of taboo to talk about, or like if you raise it, you are obviously one of those 'bad spelling people'. It stifles different ideas, and stops potentially better ways of keeping kids away from thing that can harm them.
posted by infinite intimation at 7:52 PM on March 25, 2010


illegal because they are bad. And even if these things were legalized
At this juncture, correct rhetoric requires an explanation of the badness; not derail into an alternative that contradicts your original assertion.

never be respectable businesses run by respectable people
Such as pornography vendors.
posted by polymodus at 7:58 PM on March 25, 2010


"LCBO worker" means: employee of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The LCBO is by value the largest purchaser of alcohol in the world, unless I am incorrect.

also:

The worst economist I have ever seen.
posted by ovvl at 8:17 PM on March 25, 2010


infinite intimation, that really isn't how the marijuana trade works. The guy who sells you a quarter of bud is perfectly happy to sell weed and nothing else; well, maybe mushrooms when they're in season, if you ask for them. For one thing, dealing in coke or ecstasy or whatever else means he has to deal with a whole new level of organized crime and he's doing just fine selling the weed he buys from a few local growers, so why bother? He just wants to keep things cool and low-key. The image you conjure up, the school-yard pusher, is just a fiction - it's the clientele who drive the sales, not the dealer.
posted by Flashman at 8:29 PM on March 25, 2010


To be fair, Flashman, organized crime is very involved with marijuana too. Hippies grow the stuff, but not everyone who grows the stuff is a hippy. Some of the bigger operations have automatic weapons, helicopters, and (inter?)national distribution networks.

But what you're saying about everyone's pot dealer "buddy" and the marijuana trade at the end user level is pretty much true. There's no up-sell.
posted by Kirk Grim at 8:44 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


Stephen Harper could be Minister of Finance

Actually, he's very effective at being a prime minister, if the sole job of a prime minister is to maintain a grip on power. Skates circles around Iggy.

It would be interesting to see how Harper would perform in majority situation with a Quebec referendum (like Chretien or Trudeau) or to see if he could do some sort of Meech Lake deal (Mulroney was so close!)

However, Harper really kind of hates Canada, or at least the Federal government. It should be a no-brainer for Quebecers to vote for him
posted by KokuRyu at 9:08 PM on March 25, 2010


Because they are bad

What kind of arrogant, condescending ass makes a statement like this in response to a specific policy related question? Hey Steve: you're elected by and representing a nation of adults, this isn't Sunday school. "It's bad" is the answer Phil Hartman's Frankenstein gives when someone asks about fire, not a valid argument in a public policy debate. Outlawing marijuana hasn't done much to discourage "international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world," it may even encourage it like outlawing alcohol did. It's cliche to say it, but all drugs aren't equal and I can buy more dangerous stuff at the pharmacy sans prescription without ever risking a criminal record. I'm not sure why these points need to be repeated again and again...is it the tie-dye? the bandanas? the ultimate frisbee?
posted by Kirk Grim at 9:57 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't see the point in debating marijuana policy any longer. There is nothing left to discuss, as the facts speak for themselves: marijuana is harmless, prohibition is harmful, and the political will exists to legalize pot now.

We're clearly in the denial phase right now, as Harper's response is identical to the school counselor on South Park. Mmmkay.
posted by mek at 10:19 PM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]


There was actually a point during Chretien's run where the courts were looking at marijuana legislation and use of same effectively became legal for a few months, I believe. You will please note the sky did not fall during this time and the border did not close.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:26 PM on March 25, 2010


"Why bother"? Easier to deal with, increase in money gained, more customers, more money per volume? Other reasons. Can't be sure for certain, but people do sell things other than what you described; those people who sell things other than what you describe are also allowed to illegally sell Marijuana.
Would you also say that there is no pressure provided by the situation to "up-sell" Ones'ownself? (or would you agree that at least agree there is more pressure than in a Liquor Store?. No denying that this is in large part because it is so illegal, and vilified. Self fulfilling prophecy this "law and order" business is, isn't it.)


I'm just saying, Not every dealer is that dude.
Here's my though experiment... what if Mr. Harper had gone down a divergent path, and here in 2010, rather than the Family Man so many seem to know and love, he was today 'your' dealer; tell.me.he.wouldn't.up-sell?"
(btw, I was not at all meaning to suggest every drug dealer ever is a 'predatory person', I would fully acknowledge that I am talking about choices made by people... no pushers in what I was talking about.

It would be those very people you describe leaving what is currently the black market, and becoming legitimate businesspeople, with the ability to lobby for rights, and be counted, recognized with the ability to self-express in public, not as criminals, but as businesspeople in a system like what I was describing. (I am kind of curious, would 'Canadians' in general prefer a "private market" solution, where someone could get certified and then make their "own" business, with the provinces regulating the how; or something like the "corporatist" model, owned, run, and staffed by provinces?

It's all about the big Mo. You need momentum, to keep change going, like water splashing up the sides in a bucket. The first few times you shake it up, side to side, it just goes up the sides and slides down again... you think, uh-oh, getting close there, and get a few splashes; then suddenly you are standing there wondering why you are soaking wet- looking at metafilter thinking... ah-ha, I get it! The blue coloured tint makes people in Canada think it is like "conservativefilter"... like the blue colored shade means the blue party in the USA.
Metafilter:everything to everyone.
posted by infinite intimation at 10:50 PM on March 25, 2010


Honestly, "predatory dealing" rarely goes beyond that guy on the street saying "POT" while faking a cough while you walk by. This is the smallest-time, most desperate type of vendor, barely getting by selling dimebags to kids and tourists. A successful dealer does not go out of their way to attract attention to themselves, for obvious reasons. Most of them will not sell to anyone they don't know without a referral. This is, of course, all common fucking sense. These rules get broken sometimes but then people get arrested. So it goes.
posted by mek at 11:01 PM on March 25, 2010


However, Harper really kind of hates Canada,

I keep thinking I went to high school with Harper (we're roughly the same age) but it was just a guy that sorta looked like him. Call him John.

John and I didn't really like each other (different tribes) but there was a measure of respect. We were both smart. He was one of those dead straight geeks that hung out at the Resource Center and cultivated the power inherent in having sign-out control on all the school's audio-visual gear (projectors, tape decks, screens etc). I was one of those increasingly weird ex-jock-dope-smoking-media-art-types that always needed a projector or a tape deck or a screen or a PA. He helped me out on occasion. I started to think of him as a friend. And then one day he fucked me around in some trivial, uptight, Machiavellian way and ...

Anyway, that was John. I haven't seen him in more than thirty years. I imagine Stephen was much the same in high school, only worse.
posted by philip-random at 11:35 PM on March 25, 2010


Man, the worst thing about pot continues to be pot smokers.

Man, get the fuck over yourself. The worst thing about pot continues to be stupid ass stereotyping of pot smokers, as if we're all long-haired dudes that don't wash themselves and stay stoned in front of the TV all day eating doritos.

Here's a hint: there are perfectly respectable professionals who happen to enjoy relaxing with a nice toke at the end of a long day. There are doctors, lawyers, government workers, cops even, that smoke. The reason you don't hear so much about them? Stupid fucking laws and stupid fucking stereotypes, that's why.
posted by splice at 4:52 AM on March 26, 2010 [7 favorites]


> Here's a hint: there are perfectly respectable professionals who happen to enjoy relaxing with a nice toke at the end of a long day.

I know more teachers who smoke up than not. And I know a lot of teachers.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:41 AM on March 26, 2010


« Older Dutch coffee shop fined 10m euros for breaking dru...  |  Warwick Cadwell's 100 panels i... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments