What Has Brian Hutchinson of the National Post Been Smoking?

So, here is a letter I sent to the National Post. I don’t know what’s up with my letter kick lately, I wanted to blog about something else (and I am SOOOO behind on shit!), but Brian Hutchinson’s article just boggles my mind.

The only difference between this one and the one I sent: I talk briefly about my own struggle with painkillers. I am open about it (duh, I am posting it on the Internet), but didn’t think it was relevant to the NP argument I raised. Here we go…

Regarding Brian Hutchinson’s article (fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/06/brian-hutchinson-four-mayors-join-the-addled-march-to-legalized-pot/) on the 6^th, obviously I am late to the party in adding my view to those who have already expressed theirs. The pieces you chose to reprint however (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/08/our-readers-hold-strong-views-on-legalized-marijuana/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter) motivated me to add to the fray.

I have no issue with his opinion; rather, I am confused by the logic behind it. While freely agreeing with the four former Vancouver mayors that “prohibition (is) a failed policy, which is fair,” he moves begins his criticizes them for not talking about “physical and mental health, which would seem paramount, in their letter, they gave it barely a mention.”  His further (correct) assertion that “Cannabis products are laden with harmful chemicals; marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and damages respiratory systems” is also mentioned in the same paragraph.

Regarding the first point, perhaps they didn’t discuss it because an increasing number of physicians are understanding that in many (key word) patients, pot helps people suffering with some of these disorders, especially in the area of pain management.  This hardly seems worth defending; it seems that weekly, a new report comes out where a group of physicians defends the use of pot for these purposes. But perhaps Mr. Hutchinson prefers other means of pain management, like for instance oxycodone, which the government licenses to various drug companies to produce, and which generate billions in revenue. Most common amongst these wonderful “sides” are, Constipation, dizziness, headaches, drowsiness, nausea, sleeplessness, vomiting, and weakness. But many users also complain of various allergic reactions (rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, and tightness in the chest, swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue), confusion, difficulty urinating, fast or slow heartbeat, seizures, severe dizziness, light-headedness, or fainting, slowed or difficult breathing, tremor, and vision changes.[1] For the sake of brevity, we won’t get into the fact that oxycodone addiction is one of the fastest growing forms of addiction in North America, or that sales—both legal and especially illegal—are growing exponentially, nor the increasing number of deaths related to its abuse.  There is a reason why it’s called “hillbilly heroin.”

This latter point is hits especially close to home with me. I have had to overcome painkiller addiction three times in my life; the first, when I was still in my late teens, and kept breaking my hands and other body parts (largely through fighting), and was given some by a “friend.” The second lasted much longer and was by far the more dangerous, coming during the period of my divorce when my drug and alcohol consumption were off the charts, and I became (literally) deathly ill because of it. And the last, quite by accident, when the wonderful doctors from a former province I resided in kept forgetting to schedule me for the removal of an abscessed tooth, and instead, just kept re-prescribing more magic pills—for a month. This last one was rather mild in comparison to the others, and not self-inflicted; nonetheless, the usual accompaniment of several days of puking, sweating and other fun body functions going wrong reminded me of how far I need to stay from these powerful opioids.  In contrast, and much to the chagrin of everyone who thinks those who are against drug prohibition, I have never been much of a pot-head at all; I can likely count the number of times I have smoked weed on the fingers of my hand and have a few spare ones left.

The “laden with harmful chemicals; marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and damages respiratory systems” argument is possibly even more head-scratching. As opposed to what, Mr. Hutchinson? Tobacco? Of course, being an over $11.0 billion a year business for the government, (minus of course, the healthcare costs associated with the various disease tobacco brings with it), one would deprive the government of serious revenue by removing these products which also seem to possess those woeful “damaging” toxins—albeit in greater concentration.

Regarding the criminal element that would still be involved if weed were legalized, again, Mr. Hutchinson tells just enough truth to sound credible. He hypothesizes that the underground pot market would be comparable to the underground marijuana market that would exist. And so it might. As noted above, the Canadian Government alone—not the tobacco companies themselves—profited some $11.- billion from tobacco sales. Does anyone honestly think that the cigarette smugglers took in this much? If so, we would see greater violence in the black market cigarette trade than we would in the marijuana one we currently have. The irony is that in accusing all the mayors of being ignorant of facts, Mr. Hutchinson is instead ignorant of the most obvious and irrefutable: prohibition has historically been a total failure on every issue it has taken on. 

Unfortunately, human impulse trumps human fear of retribution hands down.

And that’s where his most pressing point comes into focus: community safety. Mr. Hutchinson says that no explanation is given for the mayor’s assertion about increased community health and safety; perhaps because this is shockingly easy to defend. In Portugal, the decriminalization of drugs has led to a precipitous decline in both drug use and drug violence; it is not unreasonable to expect a similar result here. However, if Mr. Hutchinson’s real goal is to make our communities safer, if the health of its members is his underlying purpose, he need only consider the following statistic in order to focus his wrath: estimated annual deaths due to tobacco use in Canada—37 000. For alcohol, the figures are more difficult to pinpoint, but in 2007, MADD Canada estimated over 1200 from vehicle accidents alone.  Conversely, in 2005, the FDA released a report in which it listed the number of deaths caused primarily by marijuana use. The number: 0.

For those keeping score, it makes you wonder what Mr. Hutchinson has been smoking.

---

[1] Taken from http://www.drugs.com/sfx/oxycodone-side-effects.html

My Letter to The Hill Times re: CBC and Sheila Copps' Imagination

So, I am totally behind on my blogging, but here is a letter I wrote that was published in an abbreviated form in the Ottawa's Hill Times Online (http://www.hilltimes.com/). Link to the letter that got published is here, although you have to log in to see it http://www.hilltimes.com/letters-to-the-editor/2011/12/05/kicking-over-some-sacred-cows/28978.

I had originally intended this post to be a Letter to The Editor of The Hill Times Online in response to Shelia Copps’ article of Nov. 21^st, and her stirring defence of the CBC in her weekly Copps’ Corner column (http://www.hilltimes.com/copps-corner/2011/11/21/an-attack-on-cbc-is-an-attack-on-canadian-culture/28848). After being advised by one of Canada’s “top 5 political minds” (www.gerrynicholls.com) who generously takes the time to answer my newbie-type questions to keep such a letter to about 250 words, I gave up on the letter idea. There was just no way to do justice to an article of such heroic fiction in so few words.

When I originally saw the title, I wasn’t sure if Ms. Copps was attempting to expand her post-political media endeavors to now include writing fiction (a title like “An Attack On CBC Is An Attack On Canadian Culture” does make one wonder). After reading her piece, which turns Hubert Lacroix, the embattled CBC President, into some media equivalent of Gandhi, one would think that much like the beloved Bapu, Lacroix stands valiantly rallying his countrymen against a flood of Imperialism wishing to crush the culture he so zealously defends.

If I wasn’t convinced she was serious, I would suggest that the piece be nominated for a Governor General’s Award for best fiction, because Ms. Copps’ heroic portrayal of Lacroix does indeed show an imaginative, creative flair that is worthy of distinction. She is, however, indisputably correct in one thing: while Lacroix may well be zealously defending a culture, it’s not the Canadian one; it’s the culture that has allowed a publicly funded broadcaster to be a parasite on the Canadian taxpayers with what can charitably be described as limited accountability.

The CBC has come under fire from both it’s paymaster, the Canadian Government, and their competitors, chiefly the private broadcaster Quebecor. The state funded broadcaster has steadfastly refused to open it’s books to even the Information Commissioner, the Official who supposedly is in place to ensure individual and public rights to information. Bad enough that Lacroix proclaims accountability despite going to great lengths to not disclose how the money is spent; how often does an employer have to get a Federal Court Ruling to find out where his employee has been spending $1.1B put annually in his trust? The fact he does so while simultaneously attacking Quebecor on grounds that they too, receive federal funding and unlike the CBC, have no accountability is laughable. The way that Ms. Copps not only glosses this misrepresentation over, but endorses Lacroix and the CBC in doing so, is completely irresponsible.

Lack of accountability has long been the major beef that those of us who call for the privatisation of the CBC hold. In her article, Ms. Copps makes passing reference to another former CBC president who was on hand for the hearings, Tony Manera. You may recall, Mr. Manera quit his two-year stint as President of the state owned broadcaster when the Chretien government of 1995—of which, Ms. Copps served as Deputy PM—realizing it was near a massive financial crisis, announced sweeping reductions in government spending, which of course, effected the CBC, no doubt making Mr. Manera’s job appreciably more challenging. What Ms. Copps fails to mention, is that somehow, despite the Chretien’s Scrooge-like treatment of the Holy Grail of Canadian Culture (you know, the one that under the aforementioned St. Lacroix’s watch hired a former leader of a party who’s sole purpose was to separate Quebec from that Canadian Culture), the CBC has somehow managed to survive and apparently thrive (if that figure of generating $3.70 for every dollar invested is to be believed) some 16 years later. What she also chooses to ignore, is that the cuts in government spending that extended well beyond the CBC have been the biggest factor in partially shielding—for now at least—Canada from much of the current global economic crisis. (I find this particularly odd; rather than taking credit for being a key member of the government that helped avert much of the worst of a global meltdown, one wonders if Ms. Copps regrets the decisions that were made to keep us from default. Perhaps I should find this more “telling” then “odd”).

I am no Quebecor apologist; I am however, an unapologetic lover of fair, free markets and open competition, which benefits not only consumers, but encourages producers of goods to produce the highest quality they can at reasonable prices. Because of a protectionist government policy, the CBC has never had to endure the demands of doing either.

While it is true that like the CBC, Quebecor’s TVA network receives millions from the Canadian Media Fund, the private company’s Videotron arm pays more into it than TVA gets back. In other words, the Canadian Government picks Quebecor’s right pocket, counts out a rather large sum of the company’s earned cash, and then, as an act of sheer benevolence, puts some—but not quite all—of it back in the left pocket, and likely waits for the thank you card from the company it plundered. In contrast to Quebecor, the CBC pays nothing to the CMF, however it does receive the same benefits.

Of course, a far too simple solution would be to stop taking the money in the first place, and then there would be no need for the subsidy later. However, this may do something horrific, like level the playing field and encourage an open market, where any company that wishes to compete must do what all companies do: be accountable to those who invested in them. And it is painfully obvious that this is a result the CBC, it’s steward Mr. Lacroix, and evangelical apologists like Ms. Copps desperately wish to avoid.

To suggest that the citizens who fund the CBC—many of us, against our will—are against Canadian Culture for demanding accountability is insulting. Shamefully for Ms. Copps, it’s the same tactic her hated enemies, the Conservatives, employ as they proclaim that those of us opposed to their Draconian Crime Bill (otherwise known as C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act), are somehow silently cheering for your kids to become crack-addicts. The strands can be found around the world; opposition to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan meant that those who opposed such actions clearly were in favour of the despots and terrorists that ruled the nations we were engaging. No Ms. Copps, we are not anti-Canadian. Just the opposite; we seek to make a country we love a better place, and unless governments and the offices they sponsor become accountable, that will never happen.

If Ms. Copps is truly serious about reviving her almost dead political party as it’s next President, perhaps she should kick over some sacred cows that politicians of every persuasion, not just Liberal, have disguised as “Canadian Institutions” and have the courage and integrity to speak out against the waste they previously birthed and raised, whose consequences we now see.

Now that would be an attack on Canadian Culture, at least as we have come to know it in the political sphere.