blogcutter | Entries tagged with cannabis

I think I probably had my first taste of alcohol at home when I was around ten, and we were celebrating my sister's 21st birthday with champagne. I thought it was OK but really nothing special.

In those days, the legal age for drinking (at least in a public place) or buying alcohol in Ontario was 21. But even adults over 21 had to go through a bit of a rigamarole to buy booze: filling in a little slip of paper, handing it to the clerk at the liquor store and waiting for it to be brought out and packaged in a plain brown wrapper.

Some time in the early 1970s, the drinking age was lowered to 18 (later to be upped to 19) so during my undergrad years at university, I was mostly able to imbibe quite legally, without crossing a bridge to Hull where the legal age had been 18 for yonks and every dépanneur advertised "biere froide" and never bothered with carding anyone. Meanwhile in Ontario, although the age of majority had been lowered, most of the beer and liquor stores still required the bureaucratic form-filling procedures. The first self-serve LCBO, where you plucked what you wanted from open shelves and brought it to the checkout counter, was considered quite radical!

Some time during my second year at Carleton, a TGIF tradition developed of going downtown after classes on Friday and drinking cheap beer at the Tap Room in the basement of one of the hotels in the area. It was very popular and there was often a line-up to get in.

Wine was part of my university years too. While I couldn't necessarily afford the really good stuff on a student budget, I didn't always have to pay - Carleton's Department of German (and to a lesser extent their French department) held some fabulous receptions where the Liebfraumilch and Schloss Whoever flowed quite freely.

What's prompted this bout of reminiscing is these recently-issued revised guidelines for safe alcohol consumption:

https://ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2023-01/Canada%27s%20Guidance%20on%20Alcohol%20and%20Health%20Final%20Report_l.pdf

What are we to make of these recommendations? They represent a drastic reduction over the 10 to 15 drinks a week that were once deemed acceptable.

Around our place, they probably won't have much impact. We're fond of craft beer and these days we definitely prioritize quality over quantity. We usually have a beer with dinner on weekends, which uses up our 2-drink allotment right there. On special occasions (which don't necessarily fall at the weekend), we tend to drink wine. I don't anticipate foregoing that; at worst, I'll just feel guiltier about it! What about rum in eggnog or Grand Marnier on strawberries? Liqueur chocolates? What about using beer. wine and liquor in cooking and baking? I'm assuming that the cooking process neuters the alcohol while preserving (or even enhancing) the flavour. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

But there's no doubt that if we take these new guidelines seriously, there's a cultural shift in store for us. Whither pub crawls, wine tastings, brewery and vineyard tours, whiskey museums?

I'm obviously not denying the physiological and social harms arising from excessive alcohol consumption: liver disease, impaired driving, fetal alcohol syndrome and so forth. But I'm not sure I regard this latest report as definitive. It seems to offer more questions than answers. Here's a sample of what people are saying:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alcohol-risks-cancer-questions-1.6723092?cmp=rss

Many people have compared all this to the cultural shift we have undergone with respect to smoking (of tobacco, I mean). But I see it as more analogous to the evolution of our stance on cannabis.

There's a definite "forbidden fruit" effect at work here, I think. The puritanical and moralistic and paternalistic arguments and customs and laws that have grown up around alcohol have contributed to making it more attractive to young people than it might otherwise have been. I think the same has happened with cannabis.

Back in the 1970s, cannabis was illegal for everyone, regardless of age. Nevertheless it was quite widely available. Young people giggled through Reefer Madness as they toked up and later visited the snack bar for post-prandial munchies.

Those young people are now seniors. How many of them are visiting all these perfectly legal pot-shops that seem to be springing up like... well, weed, on every street corner and in every strip mall?

Not many, I'd guess, as they don't seem to be doing a roaring trade!

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Location: the den of iniquity
Current Music: Honky Red, One Toke Over the Line

Maybe. Maybe not. The greyer I get, the more I see issues in shades of grey, not black and white. Or, for that matter, red, orange, yellow or green.

I hear that the Quebec government is considering not only extending the lockdown, but also imposing a curfew. Meanwhile, Ottawa's Covid numbers have been trending sharply upwards since Ontario included the city in its (minimum) 4-week lockdown.

Clearly that doesn't prove that the lockdown CAUSED the uptick in numbers, but I do think that in some respects, Lockdown Ottawa may have done more harm than good, particularly when it comes to teens and young adults who would normally be just starting to venture out and make their way in the grown up world. People for whom the peer group, their circle of friends, classmates, work colleagues, acquaintances and contemporaries, tends to be of pretty great importance.

Until lockdown took effect on December 26, Ottawa was in the "orange" zone, verging on yellow. There were still some opportunities for young people to socialize. They could go skiing. They could go shopping. They could go to a restaurant or a bar. All under controlled conditions, of course - and probably pretty safe conditions too, if the numbers were any indication.

Now they are allowed to do none of those things. Technically they're not allowed to host or attend private gatherings either. But "technically" is the operative word here. Many, perhaps most people, are following the rules; others are bending them a little; a few are no doubt flouting them entirely and organizing anti-mask rallies at which they confidently proclaim that the virus is one big hoax.

Here's the thing, though: it's much easier to enforce the law at a commercial establishment than in a private home. Police and by-law types can't be everywhere at once. The scofflaws who do get caught are most likely those who live in the student ghetto, those who have darker skin, those that some neighbour or other holds a grudge against, whether or not it's for a valid reason. Meanwhile, people who live in affluent, neighbourhoods, especially if they are personable and generally well-liked, can get away with even the most serious and blatant flouting of rules. Those five vehicles in the laneway plus any hiding in the 3-car garage? Well, that family does own a lot of cars, you know. I really wouldn't like to get on their bad side - they're salt of the earth sorts, pillars of the community!

Law enforcement is just one tool, and not necessarily a particularly powerful one at that. Far better in most cases, I think, is to make it easy to do the right thing. To be socially conscious and socially considerate, which for now may mean being a bit anti-social when it comes to in-person contact.

Consider how society has evolved in terms of other issues unrelated to the pandemic. We no longer have capital punishment in this country. Or corporal punishment in schools. In most communities, non-judgemental sex education and birth control, including access to abortion, are now reasonably available to most young people who want or need them, including those below the age of majority. These are just some of the changes I've seen in my lifetime.

In a number of other areas, we still have quite a way to go. For example: do we really think that putting gory pictures and dire warnings on cigarette packages will deter young people from smoking? Or using plain packaging, hiding them behind the counter or outlawing cheaper, fruit-flavoured or candy-flavoured varieties?

With alcohol, we no longer have to skulk into the liquor store and fill out a little form to get our beverage of choice; we've lowered the drinking age below 21 in most (all?) provinces while still warning against drunk driving or alcohol abuse during pregnancy. That's some progress, I think.

Still, I think the "forbidden fruit" aspect of tobacco or alcohol or cannabis or any other kind of potentially addictive substance is very often the main driver of serious substance abuse issues in young people. If they had grown up having the occasional civilized glass of wine with mum and dad at dinner, would they still feel compelled to go get hammered when work or classes ended for the weekend? Not so much, I suspect. And our children's generation was if anything subjected to more in the way of "helicopter parenting" than we ever were, which might have further strengthened the Gen X and Millennials' need to rebel.

Anyway, back to the matter of lockdowns. I don't think there's any going back now and I don't see Ottawa, or any of Ontario or Quebec getting out of lockdown any time soon. I hope things turn around sooner rather than later. And I hope we are filing away a few "lessons learned" to apply to the next public health emergency!

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Location: home

The Lung Health Foundation has adopted some creative advertising tricks over the years. People who still use or remember snail mail are probably familiar with Christmas Seals. Many of their slogans are quite memorable too, like "Lungs are for life" and "If you can't breathe, nothing else matters." In the early days, tuberculosis was high on their list of concerns. And now with COVID-19, the approach of flu season and the threat of a "twindemic", their work is more important than ever.

But at the moment, they have two campaigns on the go that seem to me to be working at cross-purposes.

Before the Coronavirus, lung cancer was one of the more serious pre-occupations of the Foundation. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, most workplaces went smoke-free, leaving desperate nicotine addicts to huddle in doorways during their coffee breaks and lunch hours. Every January we had "weedless Wednesdays" and people were urged to enrol in smoking cessation programs. Then restaurants and other public places, both indoors and out, increasingly went smoke-free.

In general, I think this was a good thing. But now, I'm thinking maybe we've gone a bit too far. It seems we're not even allowed to TALK about tobacco dependency any more! If someone is diagnosed with lung cancer, we're not supposed to ask "Did you smoke?"

https://thewrongquestion.ca

I'm well aware that second-hand smoke and other environmental pollutants are a problem. And yes, it does sound like a good idea to change the conversation about lung disease "from blame and shame to care and compassion". But now let's look at their new campaign, directed at young people.

Since pandemic restrictions came into effect, they tell us, Canadians are overindulging in online behaviours "like, say, HOURS of video streaming". Tsk, tsk. They go on to say "Even more alarmingly, many who use cannabis have upped their consumption since the pandemic began." As they say at labour demonstrations, "SHAME!!" I mean, if that's not "blame and shame" I don't know what is!

Their idea of a constructive solution? A hero! A classic graphic novel role model! Meet.... The Toker!!

https://thetokeronline.ca

Sounds like reefer madness to me!

And just a couple of postscripts here: (1) If memory serves me correctly, the Joker of Batman comic fame was a villain, not a hero; and (2) My doctor did ask me that taboo question back in 2018, when I caught a bad lung infection; no, I'm not a smoker - or a toker. Nor was I offended by the question.

Current Mood: cynical
Current Location: the smoke-free environment
Current Music: Batman theme tune

Today with our daily newspaper, there was a special supplement entitled The Cannabis Post. Fifty - or even forty years ago, I never thought I'd see the day!

Back in the sixties and seventies, the media were abuzz with How to Tell if your Teen is on Drugs. These much-parodied photos of young people had arrows pointing to the glassy eyes with dilated pupils, the O Cannabis T-shirts and frayed-hem flared jeans and made dire warnings about stashes of aluminum foil and razor blades and matches and incense and snacks for the "munchies" in their bedroom closets and their knapsacks... and so on. Marijuana and other forms of cannabis were deemed to be gateway drugs - "It leads to harder stuff", a line which I think may have been in the film Easy Rider, with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. Of course, if your teen was interested in music festivals or love-ins or be-ins, or decorated his or her room with psychedelic black-light posters - in short, if there was any evidence of typical teen behaviour of the day - then that in itself was suspect! The teens in question were generally well aware of who the "narcs" were in the classroom. They were the ones who really looked a little old to be still in high school and didn't seem altogether comfortable in the role, the army brats whose cover story was that they had just transferred mid-year from Chilliwak or Woodstock or Petawawa. Is it any wonder that our current prime minister - who was barely a twinkle in his parents' eye in those days - is keen to get the cannabis out of the closet and into the living rooms of the nation?

And is it any wonder that the supplement with today's paper seemed to be targeted to the seniors of today?

I think there's definitely a strong potential market for both medical and recreational cannabis in this country. But as far as Ontario is concerned, the path to that market has been paved with stumbling blocks and conflicting intentions. For myself, I've often wondered if cannabis could lessen my reliance on the various medications I take to tame my arthritis. But I'd mainly be interested in cannabis edibles which unfortunately are not yet available in the legal market. I could of course buy some cannabis oil and explore the recipes in my Alice B. Toklas cookbook, as well as the proliferation of new cookbooks and online recipes. But I'd love to see restaurants distribute a cannabis menu along with the wine list, and perhaps even allow Bring Your Own Dope as well! Dare we hope that the Next Canada Food Guide will include Cannabis as a major food group?

By fall 2019, cannabis edibles are slated to be legally available in Canada. Maybe we should start planning now for Weedy Wednesday 2020?

Current Location: home

Saturday, April 20 (4/20 in US-style notation) at 4:20 PM, a rally was held on Parliament Hill in favour of legalizing cannabis for non-medicinal purposes. I actually find it almost unfathomable that, more than forty years since we first addressed the matter, this is still an issue at all.

My awareness of the issue began with the LeDain Commission. I remember going up to the Hill with my friends to actually demonstrate in FAVOUR of something - the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. LeDain was considered to be a rather conservative judge in most respects, but with regard to his views on marijuana, he definitely had the youth of the day on his side. Here is a quote from the majority report of that Commission:

The costs to a significant number of individuals, the majority of whom are young people, and to society generally, of a policy of prohibition of simple posssession are not justified by the potential for harm of cannabis and the additional influence which such a policy is likely to have upon perception of harm, demand and availability. We therefore recommend the repeal of the prohibition against the simple possession of cannabis.

If the sale of cannabis were to be all legal and above board, its quality and consistency would be easier to test and guarantee. Studies would be commissioned to test the safety (or not) of cannabis for pregnant and nursing women and the extent to which driving or performing other tasks under the influence should be allowed. And a note to Stephen Harper who seems so gung-ho on his "tough on crime" agenda: this would free up police resources to chase down all those murderers and terrorists out there! Isn't that a win-win situation for folks of all political stripes?

If cannabis does get legalized, it will be interesting to see what the marketing model looks like. Will there be Cannabis Control Board retail outlets? Will we initially have to fill in little forms to get our fix, just as was the case at LCBO stores in the olden days? Or will we go the route of tobacco retailing and marketing, insisting that fortresses be built around cannabis displays and gory pictures be put on the packets so that folks under 18 or 19 don't get exposed to and led into temptation but are delivered from evil?

We shall see!

Current Mood: drunk
Current Location: the den of iniquity
Current Music: One Toke over the Line