Cognitive dissonance

Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act prohibit possession of non-dried forms of cannabis. This means that medical marijuana users have been allowed to only smoke. Getting the marijuana in pills, oils, tea, or even brownies has been illegal.

I find this curious because smoking is drilled into us as being a very bad thing. Wouldn’t it be better to get the same medical ingredient without smoking? One person I saw interviewed about this has a seven-year-old child who would benefit from medical marijuana, but the parent understandably isn’t comfortable with the child smoking it.

So the court cases started. British Columbia courts ruled that the law went against medical marijuana users’ right to consume it in the form they chose. The Federal Government took it to the Supreme Court of Canada, and lost. According to the CBC, the court ruled unanimously that the current restriction violates the rights of medical marijuana users “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.”

The government is not pleased. Health Minister Rona Ambrose said,

Let’s remember, there’s only one authority in Canada that has the authority and the expertise to make a drug into a medicine and that’s Health Canada. Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which of course, requires a rigorous safety review and clinical trials with scientific evidence.

I’m still laughing. The idea that the Harper government would consider scientific evidence in making decisions is ridiculous. They make up their minds first, and if science backs their decision, they’ll use it. Otherwise, science is ignored.

Shame on Stephen Harper and his government.


Baby, meet bathwater

Sarah and Nick Jensen, residents of Canberra, are upset about the pending same-sex marriage legislation in Australia. They’re so upset that if Australia allows same-sex marriage, they’re going to divorce. Nick said to the Canberra City News,

My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same-sex couples.

Where to start? The first is that I recall something about divorce being a sin. You know…”What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” But it’s their choice.

He also said they’ll continue to live together (in sin), care for their children, and even have more (and they’ll be bastards!). Oh, and they’ll continue to enjoy the various tax benefits of being married, which makes this the emptiest of gestures. Except for the part where they break God’s law, of course. If they’re okay with this, I don’t think anyone else will care.

They’re also equating the religious and the civil. Certainly most churches will not marry same-sex couples so the meaning of a catholic marriage, for example, will not change. If the simple fact that civil marriages are called ‘marriages’ just like the religious ones bothers Sarah and Nick so much that they simply must divorce, then that is also their choice.

And that’s what it boils down to. It’s their choice. They enjoy the ability to make that choice and even though same-sex couples having the same freedom would not affect them, Sarah and Nick want to prevent others from having the same freedoms they enjoy. Do as I say, not as I do.

Evan, we hardly knew you

Evan Solomon really blew it. In addition to his duties on CBC News’ Power & Politics, and CBC Radio’s The House, it seems he’s been directing the people he meets and interviews to a friend who runs an art business. For this service, Solomon received 10% of any sales resulting from his referrals.

CBC News editor in chief Jennifer McGuire said, “he assured us, this could not in any way conflict with his work for CBC News.” Honestly, either she’s not being truthful, or is naive to the point where she must have difficulty functioning in society.

On The National this evening, CBC President Hubert Lacroix said there is a zero tolerance to violating journalistic ethics, so Solomon had to go. I agree that Solomon had to go, but zero tolerance? Why is Amanda Lang still part of the news team?

You can’t refer people you interview to an art dealer for profit, but you can be intimately involved with a bank board member, and try to have the content of stories about that bank changed even though the story isn’t yours? That’s okay?

They had Solomon out the door within 24 hours of this info coming out, and Lacroix really wants to be seen as running a tight ship, but something stinks in CBC-land.