i think this is a mixed bag in terms of accuracy. and, that her comments should be analyzed by the metric of accuracy. she seems to be representing a large swath of the population that...it's "hippie bullshit". but, this is a fact of life in our political system and something to get used to.

i think she's partly right on the domestic violence front. there have been many reports (including reports by the united nations) that conclude that marijuana lowers domestic violence - *if* it is used as a replacement for alcohol. that's almost certainly what she's getting at: that alcohol is very strongly correlated with domestic violence, whereas marijuana is not. that's not the same thing, though, as suggesting that marijuana lowers violent crime. the un report actually concluded that marijuana legalization is consequently preferable to alcohol legalization - and i hold that position, as well. to me, one of the most profound consequences of marijuana legalization is the hope that it reduces alcohol consumption. alcohol abuse is a serious root cause of a lot of crime.

the cancer thing is more than tenuous, but you need to bring in a lot of caveats. first, the studies that suggest that thc may be useful to reverse tumour growth are with very highly concentrated amounts that you could not access via smoking a joint, or even eating a brownie. suggesting that recreational pot use has anti-carcinogenic properties is simply a bad argument. second, marijuana is usually rolled with tobacco.

i don't know where she's getting the idea that mom smoking pot raises kids' iqs, but it seems beyond dubious - especially if mom is smoking pot rolled with tobacco. that sounds like something from some hippie website like "natural news" or something.

now, i suspect these views are part of a broader anti-science perspective. somebody needs to ask her about vaccines. and gmos. it's a continuum of thought. and it's a real thing.

it is on that basis that i would challenge her candidacy, rather than on a kneejerk anti-pot or "law and order" basis. to me, it sets off red flags that this is somebody that is not scientifically literate enough to sit in the house.

moving forward, i think this is something that needs to be more closely vetted. anybody who has been on facebook knows how widely spread this nonsense is, and how strongly it resonates with "regular people" that lean towards activism.

if i was running a party, the very first question i would ask is "do vaccines cause autism?". i'm not joking. it would be the absolute first level of screening.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/09/joy-davies-marijuana-pot-trudeau-south-surrey_n_8114066.htm