Tim Hudak inserts himself in to the war on drugs—yes, he’s smoked the reefer, but drug use is still wrong
Really, provincial politicians, for the most part, have no reason for offering their opinion on drug legalization—it’s a federal issue. Yet undaunted Tim Hudak (in an apparent desire to start pressing “Tough on Drugs” campaign buttons) introduced a new piece of his campaign platform today: if the Conservatives win the October election, they promise to create a registry for buildings that have been used as grow-ops and meth labs. And actually, it sounds like a pretty good idea. But when asked whether he’s ever smoked marijuana Hudak answered: “Yes…I lived a pretty normal life growing up as a kid.” So does that mean he supports decriminalizing pot, something he himself just called “pretty normal” for a kid? “No…I think we still need to set a very clear direction that drug use is wrong.” Uh, right. This is coming from the same guy who in February lamented the halcyon days when beer cost a buck a pop, and who criticized Dalton McGuinty for ruining the “$24 two-four on the May 24 weekend.” Because think of the children, people. Read the entire story [Star] »
The reverse onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and therefore cannot be recognized by any court anywhere. In other words, it is UNIVERSALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Besides, the economics of the drug trade imply that criminal sanctions are self-defeating unless concentrated on RETAIL SALES. See http://is.gd/oenwod for details.
How do we sort things out when views are so polarized and consequences so dramatic? One Canadian way to protest the Harper Crime Bill may be to bring sleeping bags and tents to Parliament Hill and simply not leave until the Bill is amended. That might be a decent way to turn over a new leaf.
We need to protect people from Parliament. People like Tim Hudak, who admit to committing a series of indictable offenses as part of their moral/ethical history. If Hudak and his dealer (or did he grow it?) had been arrested for marijuana use back then, we might be at a loss for his leadership today. And how would that benefit anyone? I think, an adult Tim Hudak and his marijuana dealer (s) behaviour was innocent then and his modern day counterpart’s behaviour innocent now. Of course if he was passing a joint around, we would have to add trafficking to his charges. But I say, Mr. Hudak’s behaviour was as innocent as drinking a cool beer on Saturday night.
I guess Marc Emery would be the first to defend Tim’s adult choice to both use and decide not to use marijuana. It’s a shame he should have to give up his political career for admitting to serious and grave indictable crimes. Good luck in your future, sir.