i really don't think that "selling the plan to the public" is much of a serious issue. check some polls. you don't see those numbers on any other issue, really. it might be the closest thing to a consensus position in the country, perhaps excluding universal health care.
i think the "clear up resources" part is probably closer to the truth. it's just delegating a time consuming process. the fact that blair was once the police chief was likely not a particularly decisive factor.
that said, i dunno. i think this is something you need to throw a lawyer at - particularly one with a background in international law. they have some.
i'm sure he'll get it done. but, i suspect he'll be delegating a lot of the work, himself. it's not really a law enforcement issue. it's more of a constitutional issue.
i think we should just pull out of these conventions altogether, and maybe convince others to, too. they're basically useless in stopping trafficking. the bigger issue is how pulling out of the treaties affects prescription medication. and, really, these things - illegal trafficking and legal trade in prescription medication - should not be under the same conventions.
if we could find a way to denounce the trafficking portion while maintaining the medicine portion, that would be ideal. the support might be there, although it may require ignoring the united states. but, listen - this is a failure. american hegemony is rooted in the success of american-built institutions, not the continued adherence to failed initiatives in global policing. i don't feel any particular reason why the world should hold to failed policies, just because they say so.
something that's not often brought up in this discussion of marijuana legalization is the situation in india. you hear about colorado and uruguay and portugal and the netherlands. but, marijuana has *always* been entirely legal in india. they've signed the conventions, but they got an exemption on it due to religious reasons. marijuana is a "sacred plant" in certain indian religious contexts. something similar happened in bolivia, with the coca plants - they pulled out, got an exemption and rejoined.
i'm not suggesting that's the answer. i'm just pointing out that there are certain levels of flexibility.
but, working all that out and how the provinces react to the feds is....it's a constitutional issue. really.
one approach is this: one could argue that the law is unconstitutional on the ground that it does restrict that religious freedom. and, then the treaties become unenforceable.
see, here's the thing, though: why hasn't that happened yet? it seems like a pretty slam-dunk approach. the supreme court would no doubt rule that a law that forbids people from taking part in a ritual is, in fact, unconstitutional. why haven't they, then?
the point is that we need something like this. we don't have to send an essay to the united nations. but, we shouldn't give them the finger, either. there has to be a way forward that takes advantage of something in our internal governance that contradicts the treaties, or otherwise renders them unenforceable.
or, we need to make the choice to withdraw.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-blair-to-lead-liberal-task-force-on-marijuana-legalization-source/article28075636/
Bud tugley
There is no need to regulate tomatoes, or tomato growing, or tomato trafficking. If this is legal, those who want it will grow it, or buy it from mom and pop growers.
And that is perhaps a bigger issue - getting grow ops out of houses. They are a fire and electrical hazard and a big enough grow-op, run for a few years will completely ruin a house; turn it to bulldozer bait.
deathtokoalas
you're missing the point about international legal treaties.
the reality is that it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a unilateral declaration of legalization in canada could lead to us being excluded from certain pharmaceutical trading norms, and possibly even be the target of sanctions.
this needs to be done carefully. it's not worth people losing access to their pills over. and, that's not alarmist, either.
my point was that i don't think that bill blair has the background necessary to do this. it should be in the hands of a constitutional and international law scholar, not a glorified thug with a baton.
--
Saysomething2
If there is a ‘formidable challenge’ on a federal level then hand it off to the Provinces and support them in their own legalization of it.
deathtokoalas
canada has the opposite system of the united states. the federal government has 100% control of the criminal justice system. that's in the division of powers in the constitution, and was designed specifically to prevent the provinces from having "states' rights", as our founders saw the system of states rights as the cause of the american civil war.
so, the provinces cannot move forward until the federal law changes. there is no provincial law to modify; there is no provincial criminal code for a law to modify to exist within.
the western provinces don't even have their own police forces; it's all under the jurisdiction of the rcmp.
--
this is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQXvWq1upUc