i didn't hear anything particularly confusing in this. non-enforcement and mandatory minimums are not mutually exclusive; it is possible to argue that you won't actively police it, but will enforce mandatory minimums when it is policed. like, if you've got a warrant for weapons and you find a gram. what that does, rather, is expose the legislation as toothless. and, in fact a lot of harper's legislation of this sort is toothless, redundant or unenforceable. it's designed to appeal to the base. it often looks scary on first glance, and may waste some people's time if they're unlucky enough to be the ones stuck fighting it to the supreme court, but it's got holes in it on purpose.

in that sense, what's eyebrow raising is that it's moving out of that base-revving space. but, she does still want them to donate money. of course.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/04/laureen-harper-marijuana_n_8090204.html