Chris Selley: Listening to Senators Debate Marijuana Bill Convinced Me We Need to Abolish the Senate

Article by Chris Selley, National Post

Chris Selley: Listening to senators debate marijuana bill convinced me we need to abolish the Senate No body capable of producing such idiocy has any business meddling with any legislation passed by democratically elected politicians. Sen. Larry Smith, leader of the opposition in the Senate, centre right, speaks with Sen. Peter Harder, government representative in the Senate before a vote on Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act on Thursday.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

Here’s something I bet you didn’t know: Bill C-45, the Liberals’ marijuana legalization legislation, allows children between 12 and 17 to possess up to five grams of cannabis. It sounds crazy, right? The whole stated goal of the project was to keep marijuana out of children’s hands! Yet no lesser authorities than Conservative senators Thanh Hai Ngo and Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, along with their leader in the upper chamber, Senator Larry Smith, and Justin Trudeau-appointed “independent” Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie — a physician and former professor — insisted in a debate Thursday that it is so.

If a minor consumed all five grams in a given day, Ngo (correctly) opined, that could mess him up good and proper.

“Imagine looking out across a classroom of 12-to-13-year-old children, all permitted to have five grams of pot on their desks,” Smith demanded.

No, seriously, do it. Do it for Canada’s children.

In an otherwise blithering address to the Red Chamber, Senator David Wells at least gave away what on earth his colleagues were talking about: “youth ages 12 to 17 will be able to possess up to five grams of dried cannabis before facing criminal charges,” he said. He contended this was “hidden away” in the bill — “hidden away in Division 1, Section 8(1)(c)” — and he called it “shocking.”

Trudeau-appointed “independent” Senator Frances Lankin suggested to Wells that it wasn’t “hidden” at all, inasmuch as he cited its location, and asked whether he would prefer children aged 12 to 17 be subject to criminal sanctions for small-scale possession.

“I did find it hidden there,” Wells protested. “There are lots of things hidden in there” — in the bill, he means, which is on the internet and everything.

Wells denied wanting to send 12-to-17-year-olds into the criminal system, but he also argued the bill as written “give(s) tacit approval” to the practice. By not making it criminal. Which he wouldn’t support.

Furthermore, Wells demanded to know, “Why doesn’t it say from age 1 to 17?”

Read the full article here.

About Dankr NewsBot

Beep Boop. I'm just a bot who brings you the dankest news in the biz

Leave a Reply

Powered by Dragonballsuper Youtube Download animeshow