Majeres' Musings

rough draft, maybe add to it later

How many people out there are aware of the fallacy involved with the below Conservative Press Release?
How many have even heard or read the Conservative Press Release?
How many will use this Press Release for the fallacy involved as gospel?
How many will use this Press Release to point out the fallacy?

I am going to think out on a limb and muse that the Comunications Director who vetted this Release is using it two-fold.

One; that it re-affirms to the ignorant of cannabis that the Conservative Party still believes in you and your fallacies.  This maintains Party support of that sub-class of electorate.

Two;  that to those who are aware of the fallacy - who needs you, as we don't want you anyway.

Now to those that are cannabis  indifferent where one does not get involved in anothers herbal garden, it speaks of a "half truth", then a lie clearly associated to the Conservative Party.  So much for trying to instill trust in a Leader and Party - except to the ignorant.

My comments embedded in bold italics.

snipped>

The Bait (the title)

OTTAWA – In the House of Commons today, Official Opposition Health Critic Steven Fletcher, M.P. for Charleswood – St. James – Assiniboia, blasted the Liberals for their failed medicinal marijuana grow-op in Manitoba.

“The government-run marijuana grow-op in Flin Flon, Manitoba has been a bust.  The crop has little medicinal value true in that it is not strain specific and may be corrupted by mine contaminants,” said Fletcher, “Will the Minister shut down the operation or will taxpayers continue to be shafted?” if it was as legal as turnips just think of the money saved by policing services alone

In December 2000, Health Canada, then headed by Allan Rock, decided to produce 400 kilograms of marijuana each year for four years.  The marijuana was grown in an old mine in Flin Flon, about 650 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg. The crop was intended for research into the therapeutic value of medicinal marijuana, and Health Canada ultimately set up a system for distributing it to medical users. Street cannibis is of better quality, can get the strain required, and at the same price.

Now the Switch.

“Just like tobacco, marijuana has serious health effects.  Now the lie of comparing cannabis and tobacco, see court case below.   Ironically, the government fights tobacco smoking yet encourages marijuana smoking,” (encourages, -  another lie) said Fletcher. “There’s a new safe alternative for medical marijuana users, a cannabis spray called Sativex. With the introduction of Sativex, will the government reconsider its marijuana policy?”  Sativex is a whole cannabis spray which is hash but in vapourized form.  Many people vapourize (volcano vapourizer) and bake with cannabis (cannabis butter) versus smoking.

-30-

For further information, please contact the office of Steven Fletcher at (613) 943-8131

So Canada has the Senate Report, Court Case(s), Le Dain, 70 yrs of prohibition where no deaths have been caused by cannabis, no cancer or ailment specific to cannabis unless the use of the word/term "may" very lightly attached to it.  Irritations to the bronchial passageway is immediately reversed upon stopping of smoking (i will cite med study later when i dig it up, but its a moot point anyway to those who vapourize and bake).  No irritations from vapourizing and baking.

You have a contradiction in the above Press Release, they use a common fallacy of linking tobacco to cannabis then turn around and lie about the harms, then  ask the government to consider Sativex which is just hash set up in a vapourizor.

Now from a Court Case with a "Learned Judge" who heard from all sides all medical information and the agreed upon facts in law are outlined below.  I wonder why Le Dain (who heard experts from both sides), The Senate Report (which heard experts from both sides), the Dutch (who live with it as experts),  and this Judge (who heard experts on both sides) all came to the same conclusions?  Is it because its true perhaps?

¶ 32      It was found by McCart J. in R. v. Clay that in some foreign jurisdictions marijuana offences have been characterized as being "de-criminalized".  That is, although they remain against the law, penalties for these offences have been eased.  He adds, however, that this is not the case in any western country.  [See Note 8 below]  Judge Sheppard in R. v. Parker found that the only established negative effect of smoking marijuana was the same as that of smoking tobacco: bronchial pulmonary damage.  The greater the usage, the greater this risk becomes.  [See Note 9 below]   Other court findings include:

1.
Consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to so called hard drugs and including tobacco and alcohol;
2.
There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible organic or mental damage from the consumption of marijuana;
3.
Cannabis does cause alteration of mental functions and as such, it would not be prudent to drive a car while intoxicated;
4.
There is no hard evidence that cannabis consumption induces psychoses;
5.
Cannabis is not an addictive substance;
6.
Marijuana is not criminogenic in that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between cannabis use and criminality;
7.
The consumption of marijuana probably does not lead to "hard drug" use for the vast majority of consumers, although there appears to be a statistical relationship between the use of marijuana and a variety of other psychoactive drugs;
8.
Marijuana does not make people more aggressive or violent;
9.
There have been no recorded deaths from the consumption of marijuana;
10.
There is no evidence that marijuana causes amotivational syndrome;
11.
Less than 1% of marijuana users are daily users;
12.
Consumption in so-called "de-criminalized" states does not increase out of proportion to states where there is no de-criminalization; and
13.
Health related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol consumption.  [See Note 10 below]

---

Note 8: Supra, note 3 at 360.

Note 9: (1997), 12 C.R. (5th) 251 at 262.

   Note 10:  Supra, note 3, R. v. Clay at 360-1 and note 9 at 261.
unsnipped<

With all the talk about Harpers Image, the Parties image, and yet they blow trust all to heck.

the libs as the status quo get the default vote, but, can still be swayed with the tax cut promised from the Conservatives depending on the dollar amount monthly it means - still waiting for a reply from the Conservative Party as to how much it would mean to me

cheers, and happy vapourizing and baking with god given herbal flowers. :) majere.