US dictates Canada's pot policy

chernobyl

U.S. warns Canada against easing pot laws

monkeys

Pepe LeFrits

I'm shocked. No, really.

Éomer of Rohan

Now THAT is what I call economic Imperialism!

Biffa Bacon

How exactly is the US dictating Canada's pot policy? There is nothing in the article to support the title of this thread.

The Corinthian

I would tend to agree with our Bushaphile friend. To be suspicious or even cynical about US motives in the present political climate is one thing, but in this case, people are just being paranoid.

Cork

Originally posted by chernobyl
[US dictates Canada's pot policy[/url]

Was Charlie McCrevey not dictated to by Eurocrats a few years ago?

I think that it is a case of those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

We live in a country that has no independant monetary policy!

Eurocrats who love to contol our fiscal and foreign policy.


The US and Canada are neighbours - the US are entltled to have an openion.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
Eurocrats who love to contol our fiscal and foreign policy.

The EU does not control Ireland’s foreign policy. And Ireland signed up to a common monetary policy. Not to mention that some of those Eurocrats are Irish too.

And if the undemocratic nature of Eurocrats is a problem, then perhaps we should argue for the European Parliament to be empowered to take over from them? Or would that cause the same Eurosceptics to argue that to do so would erode national sovereignty?

With respects, your position sounds suspiciously like the rantings of a Europhobe who wishes he had been born in the USA.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Was Charlie McCrevey not dictated to by Eurocrats a few years ago?

No - he was asked to keep to his (i.e. the Irish) end of an agreement that he didnt want to keep. There is a significant difference, unless Canada and the US have some mutual anti-drugs treaties.

We live in a country that has no independant monetary policy!

Not only has that nothing to do with the topic at hand, its not even relevant as a comparison. Again, I point you to the fact that this is because we voluntarily signed a treaty which made this so....not because Europe decided arbitrarily that we shouldnt have independence on this issue.

The US and Canada are neighbours - the US are entltled to have an openion.

Opinion....certainly. Making threats about "consequences" is not offering an opinion on someone else's internal policy...its a direct attempt to influence it....if thats what the US is doing.......

Imagine if - for example - Northern Ireland legalised or decriminalised canabis. The Republic of Ireland, on the other hand, doesnt.

Very soon, there would be a burgeoning cross-border trafficing. Even if it was just "personal use" traffic, we would still end up seeing the Irish government with three options:

1) Turn a blind eye....unlikely.
2) Decriminalise itself...unlikely.
3) Re-instate rigorous (but targetted) border checkpoints, etc. etc.....far more likely.

Now, option 3 sounds almost exactly like one half of the "consequences" mentioned in the quoted article. Bureaucracy - the other - is also inevitable, as the two nations will end up trying to come to some agreement over the increased border checks and other impacts which will result.

The problem is that media, and the public, are often far too willing to put ominous meaning behind the word "consequences".

I'm not convinced this is a threat. The US will have to react to any such a legal change in Canada, and that is all that has been stated.

The Canadians (as people and as a government) need to be aware that there will be a cost involved in this proposed change (at least in terms of border security on the US side), and that this cost may have knock-on effects in terms of trade and/or tourism (longer border queues would make crossing the border less attractive and more expensive). That is in neither nation's interest, but may be a resultant of the proposed legal change being implemented.

To me, this reads more like brinksmanship than "threats" or attempts to tell the Canadians what to do.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Was Charlie McCrevey not dictated to by Eurocrats a few years ago?

I think that it is a case of those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

We live in a country that has no independant monetary policy!

Eurocrats who love to contol our fiscal and foreign policy.


The US and Canada are neighbours - the US are entltled to have an openion.

... and when Canada throws in the towel and joins the USA the above post will become relevant.

Cork

Oh - I knew I should not have brought the EU into it.

I know a few Canadains and they pride themselfs as such.

The biggest insult that you can actually give to somebody from Canada is to mistake them as an American.

I have no doubt that Canada will indeed remain as Canada.

It will resist any attempts of undue influence by the US.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Oh - I knew I should not have brought the EU into it.

Indeed not. Canada is a sovereign state. Ireland is a sovereign state that has handed over part of its sovereignty to a supra-national organisation (the EU) by Treaties explicitly agreed to by a majority of Irish citizens through a series of referendums. There's no relevant comparison in this case. Bringing the EU into the argument is at best irrelevant, at worst a troll.

bonkey

Lets all agree on "ill chosen" instead, shall we?

I think Cork's point is clear...and he would appear to agree that his comparison was poorly chosen, so lets drop it at that.

jc

Sparks

I'll point out that canadians have been politely reminding the US that hard drugs from mexico are passing through two international borders and the entire US and winding up in Canada - so if they legalise cannabis, the US can be as inconvienenced as it wants to be, since it's a right royal pain in the butt to the Canadians on many issues.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
I'll point out that canadians have been politely reminding the US that hard drugs from mexico are passing through two international borders and the entire US and winding up in Canada - so if they legalise cannabis, the US can be as inconvienenced as it wants to be, since it's a right royal pain in the butt to the Canadians on many issues.

Thats really interesting.

It raises the possibility that the Canadians are decriminalising majijuana in order to try and do something about their hard-drugs situation.

If true....that is brilliant brinksmanship.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Thats really interesting.

It raises the possibility that the Canadians are decriminalising majijuana in order to try and do something about their hard-drugs situation.

If true....that is brilliant brinksmanship.

I can see what you mean Bonkey but somehow I doubt that the Canadians would try to play silly buggers with their largest trading partner - I think rather what Sparks means is that since most Canadian drugs come from the US, it is the fault of weak border controls (on the part of the Canadians and the US) that they cross this border but rather than institute heavy border controls to prevent some drugs getting across, they would rather legalise and therefore regulate the most popular drug - ie marijuana.