She is equating the fact that a substance is being made legal for adults to giving it to her children. If that’s true they must already be drinking and smoking.
That’s not what I got out of it.
It’s an inevitable question about the ad. The woman is concerned that marijuana is legal and so that her kids will use it, but why, then, is she not calling for alcohol and cigarettes to be illegal?
::tiptoes into the thread::
This place is still the Canadian hangout, eh?
I’ve been away for a long time, but I have a couple of good excuses. Work, new house, broken computer (finally got it fixed, hence being able to actually get online with something other than my phone!) and the general exhaustion that comes with expecting a baby…!
I’m actually due at the start of April - I’m on leave in less than 4 weeks, so I would think I might have more time at home to sit and actually read these boards (assuming baby lets me!)
I just wanted to say hi to everyone and let you know I haven’t forgotten about this place!
I hope all is well with everyone!
Welcome back, mnemosyne! Great to have you back with us!
She’s not giving her kids alcohol and cigarettes - she’d like them to be purchased from shady people in shady places and of dubious quality, just like pot is. 
Justin Trudeau is a useless tit. I don’t think his joke was all that egregious either, but damn, son, pick your moments!
Hey, welcome back! Yup, this is still where we hang out and be as Canadian as we want to be. 
mnemosyne!!!
First of all, congratulations of your upcoming addition to the family!
Second, yay! Welcome back! I missed your wise advice and funny comments.
Ah. 7-Eleven.
yay, ** mnemosyne** - thanks for coming back!!
We were worrying about you a few months ago over in this thread.
Congrats on the upcoming addition!
(And from the joy of seeing you back, we’ll refrain from re-hashing last year’s east semi-final… 
)
I heard that ad on the radio last weekend and I thought the logic was odd. Are they suggesting that alcohol and cigarettes are relatively harmless? Or are they suggesting that alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal like pot?
That’s what I got from it–that she doesn’t want marijuana to be as available as tobacco and alcohol.
Never mind that tobacco and alcohol are carded for in all Canadian jurisdictions, and most if not all have a “25 or under” carding policy. I would expect legal marijuana to have the same limits.
Me, I dislike marijuana and its effects. Still, many enjoy it. If it is legalized, I’d like to see stricter enforcement of the CC s. 253(1)(a) laws on impairment. Toke all you like, just don’t drive. Obviously, I’d also support some kind of threshold for usage, enforced by a breathalyzer/whatever tests for this at the roadside; as well as the equivalent of the Intoxilyzer if reasonable grounds are found at the roadside.
In short, I don’t care if marijuana is legalized. I just don’t want anybody impaired driving, no matter what the substance.
Honestly these days we’re more at risk from driving while texting than we are from driving while impaired.
Liseria threat leads to caesar-salad recall from B.C. to Ontario.
It’s a foolish ad, comparing alcohol and cigarettes with pot.
What can the message possibly be? To my mind, the comparison works like this: I would not want my kids smoking and drinking, any more than I would want them smoking pot - so both booze/smokes and pot should be treated the same: either make 'em all illegal, or make 'em all legal, but with the sort of no-selling-to-minors laws that already exist for booze and smokes.
In either way, the ad does not work well for the conservatives. If they think booze and ciggys should be illegal because kids might get them, why aren’t they passing such laws now? If they don’t care about the dangers of booze and smokes in the hands of kids, why mention them in the ad?
Clearly they don’t think pot should be legal. So why are they comparing the two? They need to make the case that pot is fundamentally different from booze and smokes in some manner and so should be legally different, not that it is similar!
Certainly in Saskatchewan: distracted drivers are now the leading cause of fatal accidents, ahead of impaired drivers.
Sask. police set sights on distracted driving; top cause of fatal crashes
I posted in the Pit Monday about how Jim and I were almost taken out by a distracted driver earlier that day - a woman was driving 40 kph in a 70 zone, we were about to go around the road hazard, when a truck merged into the lane we were about to change into from the left. There was slamming on of brakes and we managed not to hit anyone. As we drove past the woman on the phone (glaring as hard as humanly possible), she seemed completely unaware that she was in the process of trying to kill everyone around her.
What are the cell phone laws whist driving in your province, CanaDopers. It’s illegal here in Ontario and they just upped the fine from something like $150 to something like $280. That’s as accurate as I can get for now as my battery is dying, and so am I.
Bon soir.
$172.50 in New Brunswick plus 3 demerits on your license (10 demerits and your license can be suspended).
Here’s the CAA summary of cell phone laws across Canada: CAA Distracted Driving