One of the problem of corrupt governments is that the people don't trust the state no matter who is speaking, including healthcare workers (who may or may not be affiliated with the state). The continued attacks on Ebola healthcare workers is just a sad manifestation of this confluence of ignorance and mistrust.
Last week I delivered a seminar at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law where I argued that governments accross Canada should enact and implement mandatory immunization for all childhood infectious diseases where there is overwhelming evidence of positive immunization outcomes. This position reflects my thinking on the best option for dealing with recurring outbreaks of measles and other previously eradicated or near-eradicated childhood infectious diseases in Canada.
I offered the following five reasons in support of this position:
1. Mandatory immunization, whether in the form of compulsory infantile vaccination or (as is currently the norm), requiring school pupils to provide proof of immunization prior to school enrollment, has been shown to be the most effective means of achieving widespread coverage of the population.
2. Pre- and post-Charter jurisprudence, and decisions by courts in other jurisdictions such as the U.K. and U.S. indicate that mandatory immunization strategies are a legally valid impairment of individual rights for the sake of protecting public health. Read this, this and this for more on this point.
3. The rate of adverse events arising from immunization for most childhood infectious diseases is very low or non-existent, and most cases involve minor side-effects.
4. Provinces without mandatory policies jeopardize gains in provinces with mandatory policies (presently Ontario and New Brunswick).
5. Enacting mandatory policies creates a positive obligation (on the part of the provincial governments) to address vaccine injuries. Except for Quebec, Canada and Russia are the only two G8 countries without a vaccine injury compensation scheme.
I will expand on these points in a forthcoming paper. Meanwhile, thoughts, comments, criticisms and objections are welcomed.
Let me just start out by stating it plainly: the marijuana prohibition is bad law. Any criminal prohibition requires huge amounts of resources and restricts citizens' civil liberties; if there’s a risk of imprisonment it even engages s 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So criminally prohibiting something that isn’t actually harmful (or otherwise unacceptable to society), is bad law. It’s a waste of resources and it’s a strain on the integrity of the legal system. Marijuana is not even close to harmful or intolerable enough to warrant criminal prohibition.
That’s not to say that marijuana doesn’t have any negative side-effects. Smoking it can cause respiratory problems because the smoke irritates the throat and lungs (although, marijuana can be eaten, vaporized, turned into pills, etc. instead, which would avoid this). While marijuana does not cause mental illnesses like schizophrenia, it can worsen symptoms of some disorders. Chronic use may also have a negative affect on brain development, meaning that marijuana use could negatively affect youth and unborn children. There is no conclusive evidence of any other negative long term effects of the drug. In the short term, marijuana causes impairment, can elevate heart rates and can be mildly hallucinogenic. There may be other long or short term side effects but, due to the obstacles present when researching an illegal substance, the empirical knowledge we have about the substance is relatively sparse. There is also no conclusive evidence supporting a claim that marijuana use is any way related to the use of harder drugs (contrary to the popular “Gateway Drug” argument). It does seem fair to say that marijuana use has harmful effects if used by specific groups, but generally is not particularly harmful for adult use. Just look at long-time marijuana user and comedian, Doug Benson. In the documentary Super High Me, he spent every conscious moment for 30 days high without any significant harm to his health or quality of life (certainly much less harm than was suffered in its inspiration, Super Size Me). He said it was actually pretty fun.
The fact that marijuana has very few negative side effects is a compelling reason to believe that having a criminal prohibition against it is a bad idea. Perhaps even more compelling are the negative side effects marijuana doesn’t have as compared to legal substances. Marijuana has been found to be less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes and may even be less harmful than caffeine and sugar. Most notably, marijuana has killed a whopping zero people ever, as opposed to alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs (including common pain killers and other medicines) that can cause fatal overdoses.
So, a quick recap to illustrate why the marijuana prohibition is bad law, period. Criminalizing something requires a lot of resources, limits citizen’s agency and potentially infringes Charter rights. Such a serious investment of resources and such serious criminal sanctions should be reserved for harmful or intolerable actions. As we’ve outlined marijuana is not particularly harmful and it’s certainly not intolerable. Especially when you take into account that the majority of Canadians support at least decriminalization if not legalization of marijuana.
Until now activism on this subject was seen as firmly outside the mainstream and supporters were assumed to be just a bunch of potheads. However, since then, Justin Trudeau has been outspokenly against the marijuana prohibition and the issue has become an important aspect of the Liberal’s policy platform. Trudeau’s stance has “evolved”, as he puts it, to promote legalization, as opposed to leaving the laws as-is or merely decriminalizing (marijuana would still be illegal but the sanctions associated would be less harsh). This is the first time a major Canadian political party has supported this position. It would mean that the substance could be legally produced, consumed and possessed, subject to regulations imposed by the government (for example, it would still be illegal for minors, sales would be taxed, etc). Trudeau’s position is based around the economic benefits and protection of youth that could be made possible if the substance were legalized (and these benefits would not be realized by decriminalization alone). Trudeau also asserts that valuable lessons will be learned by following the effects of legalization in American states.
So why do the Conservatives so steadfastly defend the marijuana prohibition? They claim it is illegal because of its harmful effects, but this claim is pretty clearly erroneous. They seem relatively concerned with marijuana use by youth, which is valid. However, it certainly seems that getting marijuana regulated and off the streets would limit children’s access compared to the status quo. Do they agree with Pope Francis that marijuana is literally evil? Are they looking to appeal to a paternalistic moral majority (who, by the way, isn’t the majority)? Are they simply ignorant? It’s hard to see how any of these would be reason enough to support a criminal prohibition. Some other things to consider though: there is little to no information available as to why the substance was prohibited in the first place, although it was likely heavily influenced by early 20th century racism. Harry Aslinger, the era's 1st commissioner of the United State’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics famously campaigned for the marijuana prohibition on the merits of quotes like “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men” and “this marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.” Perhaps more influential on Canadian law was Emily Murphy’s white supremacist work “The Black Candle”. The book was published only a year before Canada’s marijuana prohibition and painted marijuana as a “new menace”. However, there is no proof beyond coincidence that this work influence the government’s decision regarding the prohibition. We may never know why the government chose to prohibit the substance but we do know that at the time it was motivated by white supremacy, and marketed with fear-mongering and sexist undertones - "It'll make women have sex!" I mean, look, a picture is worth a thousand words:
Click on the picture for more examples of marijuana propaganda.
Today, marijuana remains by far the most commonly prosecuted drug offence. It has been shown that minorities are much more likely to be prosecuted, despite roughly equal use across races. With all of the mystery around why the prohibition began and the lack of clarity as to why the Conservatives don’t want it to end, a seriously disturbing picture starts to form. I don’t mean to say that all conservative people (or anyone else who supports the prohibition) defend the status quo to further a white supremacist agenda. Maybe, by and large, their reluctance to decriminalize or legalize the substance is motivated by your everyday, no-name brand, ignorant, right wing, self-righteousness. But when the status quo is a bad law that promotes racial inequality, defending it out of ignorance is simply not good enough for Canadians. The Conservatives are quite simply going to have to do better than that and hopefully the Liberal party will see to that.
My colleague has been speaking about vaccinations and debunking the anti-vaccine crowd's attacks on vaccines. While I have no issue with his narrow focus on vaccines, I am troubled by the sometimes blind adherence many give to doctors when making the case for vaccinations or any other medically related issues.
It seems the doctors must have noticed a growing sense of skepticism, in general, and towards doctors. I say 'it seems' because now the psychiatrists have decided to label free thinking and non-conformity as a mental disease. Indeed, in many authoritatrian regimes, dissidents were usually labelled as mentally ill. It seems that such tactics are now catching up with us.
Here are a couple more videos from Global Edmonton exploring the legal and practical dimensions of requiring mandatory vaccinations to stem the measles outbreak in Alberta. It appears the Alberta government is not considering any mandatory measures, but would rather go the education route (Liberal Education Critic Kent Hehr disagrees). There are also some interesting comments from the Vaccine Risk Awareness Network that are worth checking out. I certainly think mandatory measures with no exemptions are defensible on Charter grounds, but would be interested in hearing more on the issue from constitutional law experts.
There is a lot of emphasis on preventative medicine in current public policy discussions. One of the problems with that approach is that it is hard to get people to take preventative measure. But if this latest pill is developed, I think there will be no problem getting people to buy in. After all, who can argue with a chocolate pill?
When will you ever hear the words "Knocked Up" in the hallowed chambers of the United States Senate? When Seth Rogan testifies, of course! On the question of funding for Alzheimer's research, he actually gives a compelling testimony:
It seems that virgin births happen all the time, according to this story. Yup, 1/200 women claim to have given birth without having sex. The story goes on to explain why (obviously) this just cannot be true. The short answer: people aren't being truthful when they respond to surveys (ya think!)
But what this story really points out is that any survey data for that matter, including all the claims in the rest of the story's survey, are probably also made up. Hence, what can we really do with any of these surveys? Especially, when the health law field tries to make policy recommendations based, many times, on survey data.
In a strange "darn if you do - darn if you don't" twist on family law meets health law, this story about a father who was deemed an unfit parent by a court-appointed psychiatrist, because he refused to treat his kid to McDonalds. This is rich especially since it is coming in the New York where the mayor has made a career of fighting fast food.
A Manitoba mother was surprised last year when her kids came home from daycare with note informing her she’d be fined because the lunch she’d packed for them—complete with homemade roast beef, potatoes, carrots, an orange and milk—was unbalanced.
And the kicker for Kristen Bartkiw came when she read how the daycare had balanced the lunches: her five-year-old son and three-year-old daughter were each given Ritz crackers to make up for the missing grain required under the province’s school lunch policy.
With no zeros for missed homework, everyone is a winner attitude, no honor rolls, etc., and now this - teachers are doing their best to join the ranks of lawyers in terms of societal respect.
Greenpeace is committing “crimes against humanity” by attempting to block the distribution of genetically-modified Golden Rice which could prevent the deaths of millions of children, said a founder of the environmental organization.
“I left Greenpeace in 1986 when they abandoned logical science,” Moore said at a downtown Toronto protest outside Greenpeace’s headquarters. “Greenpeace is back in the dark ages (opposing modified food). They are targeting Golden Rice even though it targets a human need.”
Britain's highest court has ruled in favor of a hospital that gained court approval to withhold treatment from a terminally ill man despite the family's opposition.
In a unanimous judgment handed down on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool to withhold treatment from David James, 68, who suffered colon cancer, organ failure and a stroke, among other problems.
Our dormant, these days, co-blogger Ubaka Ogbogu recently presented a paper in a poster session on stem cell research. The poster has been described as the coolest poster, and I suggest that you click here to download the poster and see for yourself the very innovative method of presenting complex legal ideas.
No - never - Oreos are an amazing food item that give me great happiness. It turns out they are as addictive as cocaine. How long before the Bloombergs of the world or the health nanny state types decide to ban Oreos? Oh wait - never mind.