Today’s comments focus on legal issues surrounding the upcoming legalization of marijuana in Canada and how to best battle wildfires. The comments selected either offered informative advice or asked thoughtful questions.
From, CBSA stays quiet on how travellers should answer questions about cannabis at U.S. border, documents reveal by Mike Hager and James Keller
It’s really simple -
1) Don't carry any cannabis across the border in either direction;
2) If the agent tries to catch you up - "Have you ever tried marijuana?' just answer “no.” Period. In the face of an unjust law and bad consequences, it is morally permissible to lie. Now, that said, it is an offence to lie to a Customs agent - both lying and past cannabis use are grounds for permanent exclusion from the US of A. So, good luck! – divadabz
The CBSA can really put anything in writing that would undermine the boarder process, it's okay to lie about Cannabis use to the US officials, as long as you tell us the truth when you enter Canada. I think Canada does need to educate Canadians. If you consume Cannabis in any form and you tel the truth at the border you may not be going on that Disney vacation with the family, yes you can be turned away from your Mexican vacation.
Americans face this even internally, pot bought legally in Denver is still illegal federally and you can be prosecuted if it is found in your procession.
Yes we are not an island all to our own.
Yes our laws do not follow you out of country.
Yes your actions have consequences. – Ian.Aria
A man smokes a marijuana joint during the annual 4/20 marijuana celebration on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on April 20, 2018. Passage of the government's cannabis legislation - and indeed all work in the House of Commons - has been put off until next week thanks to an all-night voting session that carried over into Friday morning. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin TangJustin Tang/The Canadian Press
From, One in seven cannabis users admits they consumed drug then drove, Statscan says by Mike Hager
I keep asking and no one is answering. Where was all this concern about weed and driving before the legalization became an issue? Are there ANY actual numbers regarding cannabis usage causing accidents? If it’s such a problem, why it has not been tracked, before? – jcpro
One snapshot study released by the government doesn’t prove much. What we need to see here is duic rates over the past 5 years or so so we can compare those rates under the previous government to see if they have changed with all the talk of legalization.
I expect the rates are close to a maximum right now as people know it will become legal, they can’t be prosecuted for using, and there is no reliable way to test for duic that will stand up in court.
This, to me, explains why they released the poll now. After October 17 they can say “look everyone, duic rates didn’t increase with the legalization of cannabis”. “We told you so!” – Steve2014
How many of those were "medical cannabis users" That is people accustomed to significant exposure to the substance. Readers are aware that there are legions of people driving around on anti allergy , depressants, anxiolytics and pain medicines equally capable of having an impact on driving. Especially if the testing done to "prove" the harm was performed on people who are drug naive.
This is an interesting observation but proves very little except that further studies to hone in on the potential for harm is justified. It also begs the question, why are all these other drugs being given a pass. – ROBALTA
The Snowy Mountain wildfire, currently the largest in B.C., is visible from Cawston, B.C., Thursday, Aug. 2, 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Melissa RenwickMelissa Renwick/The Canadian Press
From, Wildfires will only get worse unless we learn how to live with them, a column by Mike Wotton and Mike Flannigan
Our added CO2 increases plant and tree growth by 14% on average. No argument there, as it is peer reviewed, NASA measure change.(CO2 is what plants live on via photosynthesis).
That means that dry grasses will increase in density within many dryer forested areas. The grass grows in the spring, then dies back in the summer, leaving a mat of tinder dry material.
More dry material, means more forest fires.
That is a consequence of our added CO2, whether we like it or not.
That means we must get adjusted to it. Controlled burns, fire breaks, are likely the solution, unless you want to mow or roundup the woods. – EdB1
It may be that allowing fires to burn unsuppressed in the Northwest Territories where there are fewer people makes sense, and for all I know, they are doing that. But I have the sense that fires may not burn themselves out quickly in drought- plagued areas. And, since every forest fire pumps carbon into the air and destroys a carbon sink, drought and heat are likely to get worse. If we are doing research, we need to research fires under current conditions, not under conditions two hundred years ago. Is there any possibility that not suppressing Parry Sound 33 would have allowed it to burn out naturally? I doubt it. And no one is suppressing those huge California fires successfully so how would allowing them to burn naturally help. – rcbeattie
Both scientists have conducted research and published on the effects of climate change on wildfires, Flannigan in particular. However they may have wanted to focus on the other side of the issue (fire suppression, risk management, etc.) for this article, and avoid the usual barrage of nonsense and misinformation from climate change deniers. – Mark Shore
Comment of the week:
From, Saudi Arabia withdrawing students from Canadian schools, suspending flights by Steven Chase
There are approximately 20,000 Saudis here on scholarships, grants or in trainee programs. This number doesn’t include family members accompanying them. What the now-infamous knee-jerk tweet means (if the Saudis actually implement their response) is that in our zeal to defend and promote “our values,” we have lost a great opportunity to teach them to more than twenty thousand Saudis who are living and learning in Canada right now.
Twitter is just too tempting for certain politicians (I am astounded that Ms. Freeland is among them). Without having thought a complex matter through to the end, she has availed herself of Twitter’s instant gratification and now she’s in the soup. - midas1
From the Comments is a new feature designed to highlight interesting and thoughtful contributions from our readers. Some comments have been edited for clarity. Everyone can read the comments but only subscribers will be able to contribute. Thank you to everyone furthering debate across our site.