Salutation everybody,
About judging actions in the Orwellian world of planet Itnoc:
In The Name Of Children…
Now may be just the right time to highlight the most basic reference below:
We will legalize, regulate, and RESTRICT ACCESS to marijuana.
Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.
Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses. At the same time, the proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crime and greater threats to public safety, like human trafficking and hard drugs.
To ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, we will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.
We will remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code, and create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework.
We will create a federal/provincial/territorial task force, and with input from experts in public health, substance abuse, and law enforcement, will design a new system of strict marijuana sales and distribution, with appropriate federal and provincial excise taxes applied.
Remember: « RESTRICT ACCESS ».
Personally i believe this text is a formal pre-electoral engagement defining the bare minimum acceptable (depending heavily on what part!), unfortunately we’ll progressively have to regret these most ambivalent manners as 2019 gets closer…
So it’s no wonder Dana Larsen repeated his plead asking for apologies from this present Canadian government - and i happen to share such opinion myself: there can NOT be an end to this war (“on Drugs”…) until those who failed their duty, to Canuck youth and our nation, finally agree to repair an error of the past which legally belongs to federal Liberals anyway, starting with Henri-Sévérin Béland in 1923, actually. But the thing is they’d need to recognize their own political heritage 1st and i noticed Justin much prefers rejecting the blame and put it on USA’s Nixon era instead!
Screen of smoke, ZERO courage where it counts…
In any case, This is the Canuck PinBoard indeed and there was supposed to be content also addressed to a French-speaking audience, or at least members who don’t mind about that language barrier.
…
Maybe it would also help ease the climate by refocussing our attention away from Ottawa, if that’s possible… For example the quality of mass-media press degraded seriously in my province over the years and i’ve found a nearly-perfect illustration of that, with a pair of international “expert$”/“speçiali$ts” providing some “scientific” background (low-profile style, in the generic)…
It’s a TV “vulgarization” show seen on Québec’s collective TV recently that appears to seek some “intellectual” audience, as one might comment:
The title announces that teenagers at risk of experiencing psychosis got a different brain and it shows up using magnetic resonance - no mention of cannabis so far, but it will come! Euh…
It turns out Tomas Paus and Marie-Hélène GrosBras (who both registered on ResearchGate) have a negative bias against “marijuana”. Juge by yourselves:
[ How cannabis use affects brains of male teenagers with high genetic risk for schizophrenia ]
How cannabis use affects brains of male teenagers with high genetic risk for schizophrenia (2015-Aug-27)
« Given the solid epidemiologic evidence supporting a link between cannabis exposure during adolescence and schizophrenia, we investigated… » (Tomas Paus)
[ https://www.frcneurodon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/DossierPresse2016.pdf ]
Animation scolaire sur le thème “LES SAVANTURIERS DU CERVEAU” (Marie-Hélène GrosBras)
E.G. speaking of cannabis triggering “addictions” and even schizophrenia, no mentions of the consumption tool nor of any multi-intoxication context… Samo VILIFICATION.
…
So, lets consider how it deviates, initially asking « Comment savoir si un adolescent est à risque de psychose? », or how do we know when a teenager is at risk of psychosis?..
Which i gathered to simply mean the “scientifics” still don’t really know, yet. But that detail won’t matter after all!..
« La psychose: c’est une perte de contact temporaire avec la réalité, ça survient généralement au début d’l’âge adulte et il y AURAIT des signes précurseurs dès l’adolescence. » (Pierre Chastenay @ 7:58)
Hummm… My dreams can feel exactly like his description at times, does it render people mental-sick to dream as i do? Now how about dreaming like this while never consuming cannabis?? Etc… Perhaps mister Chastenay got a bit too vague, which i find understandable - but still sloppy.
Fine, the error is human. Too bad it’s kind of contagious as we’ll observe next.
…
The editorial presents us a psychiatry “doctorate” who works at the Sainte-Justine (CHU) Mother & Child University Hospital Center. This is a statement from the journalist who interviewed her:
« Les premiers épisodes apparaissent généralement entre 18 et 25 ans, mais il EXISTERAIT des signes avant-coureur qui peuvent apparaître dès l’adolescence. » (Marianne Desautels-Marissal @ 8:30)
It translates as a declaration about preliminary episodes occuring between 18 ~ 25 years old, completed with a mitigating conditional provision…
The interviewed doctorate later comments:
« La psychose, ou la forme chronique d’la psychose qui est la schyzophrénie, c’est une maladie très invalidante, y’a beaucoup d’symptômes, euh…
C’est tellement invalidant que la pluspart des gens ont d’la misère à s’trouver un emploi. Y’a beaucoup d’décrochage scolaire… » (Josiane Bourque @ 8:40)
« Notre objectif c’est d’itentifier le plus tôt possible si y’a des marqueurs, si y’a des indicateurs chez les adolescents qui peuvent nous aider à prédire ou à indiquer qu’y a un… …ces gens-là vont être vulnérables, ou y’a un risque de psychose. »(Josiane Bourque @ 9:07)
In other words:
Psychosis, or schizophrenia if it’s chronic, is a desease which handicaps greatly, with multiple symptoms… So badly most guys can hardly find a job. There are many school drops… … Our goal is to determine if there are bio-markers, if there are hints in teenagers that would help to foresee/predict vulnerabilities, if/when at risk of psychosis.
Then the journalist takes over:
« On peut parler d’expérience psychotique atténuée, c’est-à-dire qu’elles sont de faible intensité, de courte durée, et qu’elles pourraient indiquer des psychoses à venir - mais j’ai bien dit “POURRAIENT”, parce que des expériences de c’type-là y’a 15 % des adolescents qui en vivent et ça veut pas nécessairement dire qu’y vont développer des psychoses… » (Marianne Desautels-Marissal @ 9:28)
We can discuss attenuated psychotic experiences, e.g. light ones of short duration that might announce more to come, though take note it’s only a conditional formulation because 15 % of teenagers go through such experiences and this still doesn’t necessarily imply they’ll develop psychosis.
Followed by:
« …le groupe qui rapportait plus d’expériences psychotiques présentait une sur-activité d’une région de notre système limbique, dans notre cerveau: l’amygdale. » (Josiane Bourque @ 11:30)
Apparently the good doctorate found that the study group reporting the most numerous psychotic experiences showed over-activity in a location of the brain’s limbic system: the amygdale.
And boom:
« Quand on étudie la psychose y’a un facteur qui r’vient souvent: c’est la consommation d’cannabis.
On sait par exemple que l’cannabis peut déclencher une première psychose chez les adultes qui souffrent de schyzophrénie… » (Marianne Desautels-Marissal @ 11:31)
When we study psychosis there’s a factor which keeps popping up often: that’s cannabis consumption, she said. Etc., etc.
Refering to more “science” for support:
« Les jeunes, près d’ 7 ~ 8 % des jeunes qui rapportaient de plus en plus d’expériences psychotiques atténuées au secondaire, à l’adolescence, on voit que leur consommation est vraiment parallèle à ces expériences-là. Fait qu’les 2 phénomènes vont évoluer pis, vont, euh… croître, finallement, de façon parallèle. » (Josiane Bourque @ 13:43)
That’s the crunchy part because an average viewer might easily fall for it and never criticize such dishonest juxtapositions. For example, one of the questions supposed to detect psychosis signs read like this:
« As-tu déjà pensé que tu étais suivi(e) ou épié(e)? »
Meaning: ever felt followed or observed?..
Which sounds particularily vague IMO (once more)!
Eventually auditors who were suitably prepared will be ready to receive the “pièce de résistance”:
« Pour l’instant c’est presqu’impossible de savoir si ces jeunes-là consomment parce qu’y ont des symptômes, ou si y ont des symptômes parce qu’y ont consommé d’la drogue.
C’est vraiment un cas d’loeuf ou la poule… » (Marianne Desautels-Marissal @ 14:02)
Reading it i had to retry again and again but the simple truth is that the young journalist just defused a wet bomb, pre-emptively… Either they consume as a result of their symptoms, either the symptoms result from intoxication she comments - go figure!
Clever self-serving bigot anti-cannabic prohibitionist making a dime on it:
Meanwhile doctorate Josiane Bourque can’t/won’t garanty her “biomarker” will “save” 100 % of those alledged 8 % vulnerable teenager populations (2000 and 4000 samples respectively, as i recall) she considers “at risk” of experiencing psychosis and/or even schizophrenia. Alternately, i garanty such obvious propaganda does/will fuel additional stigma, right now and everytime it’s broadcasted again.
So who’s speaking on OUR behalf, hey??
No problemo, the host feels compelled to conclude in these terms:
« Ça va dev’nir un problème de plus en plus important parce que si l’cannabis devient légal, comme c’est prévu bientôt, bin… …ça va être plus facilement accessible, y risque d’y avoir plus de problèmes associés à ça, donc faut étudier la question! » (Pierre Chastenay @ 14:50)
That means he thinks it will become an ever-growing problem because if cannabis is made legal as planned then it shall be easier to access soon and hence there will be more associated problems, so this must be studied further, he says…
Which brings me back to my referal about the Liberal’s 2015 political platform:
We will legalize, regulate, and RESTRICT ACCESS to marijuana.
In other words the TV gurus pretending to “inform” the populace should be more careful abusing such mass-media visibility. The “légaleezation” of Trudeau is NOT planned to ease access for vulnerable kids and i trust him on that. So what’s the fear mongering for? If not make an easy dime on it, In The Name Of Children…
This, my friends, is the nightmarish reality of Québec’s typical “educative” approach these days. Distortions multiply without ever raising true significant challenge: bigots rule much the same as under Harper before…
Sorry but i bet the only way out of this is a REFERENDUM, euh… M’well, on the decriminalization AND legalization of cannabis this time, but not before we get a fair commission with room for ALL Canuck opinions.
Good day, have fun!! 