014-Transcript

Just Right Episode 014

Air date: July 19, 2007

Transcript created using AI. Errors may be present

Station Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this program are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW.

Clip (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – Elim Garak and Dr. Julian Bashir):
Garak: Happy birthday. I know it’s a few days off, but I wanted to give you your present early. It’s a Cardassian holosuite program, an adaptation of one of Shogoth’s enigma tales.
Bashir: Is it? I see.

Garak: But you sound disappointed. I thought you enjoyed mystery novels.

Bashir: I do. Human mystery novels. The trouble with Cardassian enigma tales is that they all end the same way. All the suspects are always guilty.
Garak: Yes, but the challenge is determining exactly who is guilty of what.

Bob Metz:
Good morning London.

It is Thursday, July the 19th. I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right on CHRW 94.9 FM, where we will be with you from now until noon. No, no, not right wing. Just right.

Welcome to the show. This is the Thursday edition of Feedback, called Just Right. You can call in on the show at 519-661-3600 if you have any comments on our subjects today. Today we’ll be talking again a little bit about global warming, this time using economics instead of politics to deal with the issue. How is that being looked at? A little bit about Michael Moore and the health care system in Sicko and the insurance crisis in the United States. And later on in the show, marijuana, Canadians, and the law. It seems that a lot of people in Canada are toking up these days.

But first, something I don’t often do on the show: dip into a little bit of municipal politics. All suspects are guilty, but who’s guilty of what? Did you see that headline in the Free Press a week ago today? “City Hall Training to Fight Abuse,” London Free Press, July 12th, by Joe Belanger of the Free Press.

This has gotta be one of the weirdest things I’ve ever heard of coming out of City Hall. Who’s guilty of what? It almost assumes that there’s something really bad going on down there. And that’s the only question that’s forced into my consciousness when I read about our municipal leaders and employees having to resort to such outrageous measures to prevent abuse at City Hall.

What’s wrong with this picture? Every London city employee, from garbage collectors to top bosses, will take special training as the city continues to deal with the fallout of a 1999 employee torture case. Torture—an employee torture case—seven or eight years ago, and now they come out with a huge spending program with your money on behalf of all the City Hall staff.

Estimated to cost a half a million dollars over four years—$500,000. The training will be divided into two parts: one about respect at work and the other about responding to woman abuse, family violence, and sexual violence, with additional topics to be added in future years. Each of the city’s 2,300 full-time staff will be taking part in the program called Standing Together: Employees Caring for Employees. And that brings up a great question. Is this stuff that’s going on at work, or is the city now going to get into the personal lives of its employees?

Jeff Fielding, the city’s Chief Administrative Officer, is being praised for this initiative. “The champion we were looking for,” says Megan Walker, Executive Director of the London Abused Women’s Centre—especially since she’s getting her issue pushed into the City Hall agenda. Kate Wiggins, Executive Director of Women’s Community House and Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee, said, “I think we’re all waking up to the fact that woman abuse is not an individual issue, but one where we all have a role to play in offering support and ending abuse and violence against women.”

Now think about this for a minute. Does this sound right to you? Why do we need to spend even one cent on this? Couldn’t the basics of civilized behavior be covered in the normal employee orientation package? Or dealt with when you hire somebody? For example, you could put at the top of the employee package: “Do not torture anyone, not even your fellow employees.” Wouldn’t that be a clear message?

What do we have to spend a half a million dollars on? What kind of people are we hiring if we have to spend a half a million dollars to train them in this way? It’s just an outrageous way of doing it.

I looked at the cost. You’ve got half a million dollars, 2,300 staff—that works out, over the four-year period, to about $50 per year per employee. That might not sound like a lot on an individual basis, but if their behavior is really as bad as suggested by this weird story, why should taxpayers be forced to pay a single dime for it? Why don’t we just fire the offending individuals? Wouldn’t that send a clear signal that such behaviors are not tolerated? You can’t torture your fellow employee. You can’t treat them in an uncivilized way.

Rehabilitation while you’re on taxpayer-funded salaries is pretty much job security run amok, wouldn’t you say? And here they are talking about abuse and training about abuse. Here we are, the taxpayers, being abused routinely with spending like this.

What are they going to introduce into these courses in the future? They haven’t even got the program yet, and they’re already planning to expand it. But then again, what can you expect from City Hall? I look at a headline like that, and it just makes you scratch your head and wonder what is going on down there. Where is all this garbage coming from?

And speaking of garbage, there’s been a lot of talk about that at City Hall as well. Again, another environmental myth is being used to promote yet more green agendas. I was reading the Free Press, and a letter to the editor caught my eye—July 11th, by writer Suzanne Bowles. The headline read “Trash Talk Wears on at Least One Resident.”

Well, you can count two, Suzanne, because I’m another one. I don’t even have to deal with most of this stuff because I live in an apartment building, and it’s taken care of by the people who run the building. But I tend to agree with her where she says, quoting from the Free Press article “City Committee Weighs New Trash Limits” from July 9th: “I feel like Londoners are once again being given a slap on the wrist. Rather than looking for alternative ways to reduce and recycle, or adding new recyclables to the current list, the city continues to blame and add new restrictions on its residents. Yes, we need to divert more from our landfill and to take into consideration the strain on city workers, but every time the city implements—” and Londoners are blamed or given further restrictions.

“This is not a way to find a win-win situation for everyone,” she says. And I certainly agree. And once again, to his credit, Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen has spoken with reason on this issue—in complete contrast to the thinking displayed by Councillor Steve Orser and the rest of them. Van Meerbergen notes that we’ve had garbage collection in the city for years and years, and the weight problem did not arise until a four-bag limit was imposed on Londoners.

“Using hard and fast bylaws is not the way to go,” says Van Meerbergen, who favors instead improved services in recycling and in garbage pickup itself. I think the letter writer, Suzanne Bowles, illustrates partially his point. She pointed out that this week our garbage was not picked up for eleven days because of the city’s initiative to save money with a sliding pickup schedule. With cat litter changed once a week, plus non-recyclables and a family barbecue, we had reached our four-container limit. Normally I spread the weight around, but all the bags were heavy. Even though I carefully rinse out anything that contains meat products, the hot weather made it easy for maggots to grow on the outsides of the bags. We were forced to double-bag because I wouldn’t subject city workers to the little white worms.

Now here we have an extremely conscientious citizen finding it difficult to comply with some city restrictions—especially where you have a two-week wait and garbage builds up. So imagine what less responsible citizens are going to do.

But even in her argument, which I mostly agree with, there’s one false assumption. She says we need to divert less waste to the landfills. I think this is largely a myth. Sure, it’s always in everyone’s interest to recycle. I’ve been recycling before the word ever came out. I even recycle post-it notes. Before I throw one out, even though it’s two inches square, it’s been written on hundreds of times. I can’t read the writing anymore, and that’s when it’s gone—or it just simply won’t stick anymore. So I recycle those. I recycle envelopes. It’s a way of saving money, and it’s in everyone’s interest. But if it became more expensive to recycle than not to, that’s when people stop.

Van Meerbergen again correctly observes that garbage collection is a core service—an essential one. That’s one of the services that justify collecting municipal taxes on your property in the first place. It’s paid through municipal taxes, and they keep rising while services keep declining. When government starts imposing these kinds of negative regulations, says Van Meerbergen, you get these negative side effects.

It’s interesting—I heard Jay Stanford, manager of environmental services with the city, on another radio show the other day. He supports the new weight limits and restrictions for a couple of reasons, both bad. One: other cities have already done it. My mother always used to tell me, “If your friends jump off a cliff, should you jump off the cliff too?” Apparently our city administrators think that’s exactly what they should do.

But what’s even more revealing is his statement: “It is all about finding that appropriate balance” with other social priorities to meet the needs of the majority. My goodness—Karl Marx, move on over.

It reminds me of the day when I first started doing accounting for a large corporation here in London. I had to pay a huge business tax bill to the city, and I was feeling guilty and anxious because I’d never seen such a big bill and couldn’t justify what it was for—tens of thousands of dollars. So I called the city and asked, “What’s this business tax for? We’ve already paid realty tax and other taxes.” I was told bluntly, and I remember it to this day: “Business taxes are a penalty for doing business in this city.”

So there you have it. You can keep paying taxes and taxes—they’re not for the services you receive. They’re for city services as they wish to provide them. And if they don’t provide you with what you need, you are on your own.

That’s enough municipal politics for now. When we come back after this break, we will be talking about global warming and using economics instead of politics. See you after this.

Clip (John Stossel – “Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity”/Garbage Crisis Segment):
John Stossel: On to myth number two: we’re drowning in garbage, our own household garbage. You believe that? You worried that we’re running out of places to put it?

You do produce a lot of it. Americans discard more trash than any other country in the world. There’s no place left to put all the garbage. That’s what we’ve been told. Do you worry that we’ll run out of places to put the trash? Yes, yes, yes.

But this too is a myth—one that analysts say was jump-started by this barge. Its cargo nobody wants: these 3,000 tons of compacted trash and garbage on a barge on the Mississippi River.

The barge was filled with New York trash being shipped to a landfill in Louisiana. But on the way, the shipper tried to save money by dumping his trash in North Carolina. Suspicious local officials said no thanks, and that got so much publicity that by the time the barge reached its original destination, the Louisiana dump wouldn’t accept it anymore. That brought more publicity. The garbage is just sitting there while its owners look for a place to dump it.

Tugboat Captain: The greatest country on earth and you can’t solve not a little thing like this. What’s going to happen if we ever get in trouble?

John Stossel: The publicity over the barge ignited 10 years of activism. We are now approaching an emergency situation.

But it wasn’t true. We’re not drowning in garbage. The EPA says while some cities have to ship garbage out, overall landfill capacity is actually increasing. All around America, people are building bigger landfills. Some landfill owners compete for our trash. Some of our members are actually looking for ways to be disposed of. Some put parks and golf courses on top of it. In the United States, there’s plenty of land to properly dispose of our solid waste for thousands of years. We hardly have a garbage crisis.

Clip (Dennis Miller – Stand-up Routine on Global Warming):
Dennis Miller: Well, listen, this sounded legitimate to me, so I thought I’d best do some research. I don’t want to piss away on this one until I know what’s up. I’ve got kids. There’s a lot of differing data, but as far as I can gather, the crux of it is over the last 100 years the temperature of this planet has gone up 1.8 degrees. Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable?

I’m always amazed as per chaos theory. I don’t wake up one morning and it’s 3,000 degrees and I’m just a big Kingsford briquette in a pair of jammies. 1.8? Are you kidding me? I could go back to my hotel room tonight and fuck with the thermostat for the next three or four hours—I could not detect that difference. I’m kind of glad it went up. I’m always a little chilly anyway.

But environmentalists don’t want to hear it. They get really cranky. They’ll give you that guilt card. “Well, what about your kids?” Of course I love my kids. I hope they live to be a hundred. “It’s another 1.8.” And they give you, “What about your kids’ kids?” Three-six. I’ll just tell them we moved to Phoenix or something. Then they get really crazy on you. “Well, what about your kids’ kids’ kids’ kids’ kids’ kids’?” I’m never going to meet ’em. I’d like to tell you they matter, but they don’t. I assume I had relatives thousands of years ago who could care less about me. “Well, should I leave the cave today and use a blunt instrument to kill a mastodon and procure some meat, or should I get ready for Dennis’s arrival in the mid-1900s? Wilma, what time’s this flight getting in, honey?”

Bob Metz:
Welcome back to the show. This is Just Right. I’m Bob Metz, and you’re listening to CHRW Radio 94.9 FM, where you can call in to join the show at 519-661-3600. That was Dennis Miller, of course, talking a little bit about his take on global warming—one of the more politically active comedians out there, and certainly a little bit on the right. A lot of stuff he says I don’t agree with, but he nails a lot of those issues on the head.

For this period I was going through the Free Press last week, and there was a series of three articles all appearing on the same page—July 12th. One was the editorial by Paul Berton, and the other was the point-counterpoint called “Carbon Conundrum.” Amazingly enough, it was a debate between Elizabeth May and Tom Harris.

Tom Harris, you might recall, was a guest on my show back on May 17th. If you saw that debate in the paper last week—a full-page debate—I certainly couldn’t cover everything they said, but I’ve zeroed in on what I thought were the pertinent points each writer made, and I have a couple of comments to illustrate why I get so frustrated when I read the newspapers.

For example, Elizabeth May—here’s her basic argument in the key four or five sentences from her essay: “The Green Party is advocating a tax shift: significant cuts in income taxes, enhanced income supports for low-income Canadians and seniors, and cuts in both employer and employee contributions to CPP and EI—all covered through the application of a $50 per ton carbon tax. Economists and experts agree that a carbon tax is the single most effective way to deliver a consistent signal to the economy,” says May. “The argument for a carbon tax is clear. We need to have consistent, coherent pricing signals.”

Well, let’s look at that argument for a second. First of all, “economists and experts agree.” Economists and experts never agree on policy. They may agree on some fundamental economic principles, but never when it comes to government policy. And the belief that you can interfere with the economy politically and then call it non-political is what’s driving most of this kind of thinking.

But consider the implications of the Green Plan. We get rid of all our other taxes and put on a $50 per ton carbon tax, and with that they’re going to pay for everything. So what does that mean? Your healthcare is dependent upon carbon coming out of those smokestacks, because the minute they cut back, the $50 per ton money will not be there to cover the expenses they’re expecting to pay with that money. It’s not even a measure to cut back per se—it’s a measure to say, “If you don’t cut back, you pay us a penalty and we take the money and do what we want with it.” But you can carry on polluting all you want, even by our standards. I don’t even think CO2 is pollution in that sense. And they don’t even think of the unintended consequences. “We need to have consistent, coherent pricing signals.” That’s not even wrong—you’re not even on the right page.

Of course, Tom Harris takes the other point of view and argues more on the science end of things: “Carbon taxation is simply a method of artificially increasing the price of fossil fuels. Although water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas, it is CO2 reductions that are focused on under the Kyoto Protocol and the government’s Turning the Corner action plan. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of all combustion, no matter how clean. CO2 is an essential ingredient in plant photosynthesis, without which there would be no life on Earth. The bottom line is that if we as a society are forced to pay artificially higher costs of energy and cut energy use enough to meet Kyoto-style targets, we’d have a smaller economy and lower incomes—period. There is no free lunch. Debating the best ways to enable CO2 reduction is moot. Bad policy, even if carried out efficiently, is still bad policy.”

I think Tom’s being a little too kind to some of his opponents, because we use certain words without implying what’s really going on. For example, when you say you are “artificially increasing the price of fossil fuels,” that word “artificial” is a substitute for “forced.” We are going to use the force of law to create a situation where you aren’t going to pay the price that the seller actually wants—you are going to pay a higher price. “Artificial” in this context means government intervention in the economy.

Which brings me to Paul Berton’s editorial on the same page—not related directly to the debate, but certainly indirectly. Paul writes: “It’s simply too easy to own and operate a vehicle. Most Canadians, for example, commute alone to work in a private car or truck. That’s far too many,” though he doesn’t give us a number, “given that the transportation sector makes up roughly 24% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 54% of these emissions are due to passenger transportation.” So if 24% of Canada’s greenhouse emissions are caused by the transportation sector, and 54% of those are due to passenger transportation, that means we’re really talking about 12 to 13% of actual emissions. And I don’t know why he would say it’s simply too easy to own and operate a vehicle. I know a lot of people for whom it’s out of reach—even just the insurance costs alone.

But here’s what Paul Berton argues: “The solution is presenting itself without government intervention. It’s called prices and traffic, both of which are doing more to influence motorists than concern for the planet.” Well, our gas prices are high because the government hasn’t allowed new production for years and years—so it’s not without government intervention. You see, all of this stuff is government intervention. When someone says that using economics to influence human behavior may not be good politics but it’s usually good policy—it is politics. Don’t fool yourself. Economics in a free economy means free from government intervention—government determining your prices and the terms of your relationships. It doesn’t mean free from law, order, fraud, and things like that.

One of the reasons I often get so frustrated reading the papers is because I see two sides arguing sometimes a moot point. We’ll be back after this, and we’ll be talking about Michael Moore and Sicko—a little bit about the healthcare debate.

Clip (Walter E. Williams – Property Rights and Conservation):
Walter E. Williams: I was listening to NPR some years ago, late in my office, and the people were in a tizzy—a little story about people in a tizzy. They were worried about the extinction of the elephant. They were worried about the extinction of the whale. They were worried about the extinction of bald eagles. Matter of fact, I was 35 years old before I saw my first bald eagle, and I was looking at the critter in a cage. And I was asking myself, could I have gone another 35 years without seeing them? And I said yeah—but different people have different values, so I don’t have any problem with that.

And people were forming Ducks Unlimited clubs and Save the Whale clubs. And so I wrote down another list of animals that are very, very valuable to us, and I’m saying, how come people are not in a tizzy over the chicken? How come they’re not forming cow clubs? How come they’re not going to Congress saying save the pig?

Well, what’s the difference between this list of animals that are very valuable to us and nobody’s in a tizzy over, and this list where people have gone crazy? Well, it’s very simple. In this list of animals—cows, pigs, and sheep—they belong to somebody. Somebody’s personal wealth is at stake. The other list of animals, they belong to the people. Nobody’s personal wealth is at stake. So if you care about various animals, you ought to try to privatize them.

Clip (The Daily Show with Jon Stewart – Michael Moore Interview on Sicko):
Jon Stewart: You know what it strikes me as? The movie brought something interesting, which is I think this country sort of takes care of the indigent and the rich. The real problem are the people that are doing well enough that they don’t qualify for government programs that really help them, but not so well that they can afford $60,000 for a ring finger.
Michael Moore: Right. The film is really about the middle class who actually has insurance and thinks that they’re covered. And they like to brag to their friends, “Yeah, I got a job with benefits.” And then when they finally have something tragic happen to them, they find out that the insurance won’t cover them, and they end up stuck with a big bill. And it’s now the number one cause of bankruptcy in the country—medical bills.

Bob Metz:
Welcome back to Just Right here on CHRW 94.9 FM, where you can call 519-661-3600 if you want to join in the discussion. I’m Bob Metz, and the person you just heard was Michael Moore speaking to Jon Stewart. That was a very interesting question that Mr. Stewart raised about the private health insurance issue in the States—which I think is a little bit different from advocating socialized medicine. And believe it or not, in raising that issue, I think Michael Moore has actually done a good thing, because that’s an issue—private health insurance—although you’ve heard me advocate it as an option. I don’t mean to advocate it as the only option or as an option that can solve every ill, because that’s simply not the way insurance works.

But of course, Michael Moore was here in town in London debuting Sicko, and the week after he debuted here, I quoted something he said on a radio interview—and sure enough, he said the same thing in the National Post: “If anyone thinks that his movie Sicko is about health care, they are sorely mistaken. Health care is just the vehicle I’m using to talk about these larger issues.”

I don’t know if you saw the National Post coverage of Michael Moore’s movie. It was in the entertainment section, and they had a full-page front page of a prescription bottle—just that, sitting by itself on a page. And on the prescription label it read: Patient: Movie Goers. Directions: Take 123 minutes with a grain of salt. Indications: Will invigorate health care debate. Possible side effects: Doubt.

Interestingly enough, even the right has not criticized Michael Moore’s movie Sicko as much as some of his previous movies—because he’s touched on issues that connect with everyone. The National Post had another article by David Gratzer on July 6th, 2007, in which he talks about lawyer Averill Allen, who says she’s too busy to watch Michael Moore’s Sicko because she’s preparing to file a suit against Ontario’s provincial government about its health care system next month. She’s representing a patient with a malignant brain tumor who would have had to wait four months just to get an MRI and then months more to see a neurologist here in Canada. Her client has already received the necessary treatment in Buffalo.

Of course, in 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that access to wait lists does not mean access to health care, striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance in that province. In the United States, Democrats are calling for single-payer health care—which of course is what Michael Moore is campaigning for among his other issues. I think that’s a little bit like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The article illustrates that almost every other country that has gone the whole socialist experiment is now heading in the exact opposite direction—at a time when Michael Moore is advocating we go upstream.

But I think the crux of the problem is advocating a single-payer health care system—that’s jumping from the frying pan into the fire. A large part of his movie talks about people trying to get a private insurance claim processed properly. Now, I think the government should be the referee in a situation like that—looking at the contract, looking at what the insurance company has offered as a service and what has happened to the patient. When you ask the government to also be the insurance company, don’t expect impartiality in court. When that insurance company called “government” does the very same thing that private insurance companies do—they decide who gets what treatment, what things are covered, what things are not—how anybody thinks that is any different from private insurance on that side of the equation, there is no difference. What is different is how it’s paid for—and that’s through the taxpayer, and only the taxpayer. And I think that’s a tremendous injustice for a number of reasons.

Again, I think the proper thing is to allow all options—to allow private health insurance properly administered by government regulation that makes it impossible for them to deny proper claims. Insurance is supposed to be a last resort for really serious things that happen in your life—like cancer or heart disease that could cost a lot in a short period of time. That’s the kind of thing people envisage insurance is really all about. But what we do with our health care system is we want to have a free system—no paying at all, not even for that $20 doctor’s visit or checkup or the simple cold. We’re one of the few places in the world—North Korea and Cuba are the only other two places on the face of the planet, other than Canada, that ban private provision of health care. And private provision means you can pay directly or through insurance. The doctors are already private—don’t fool yourself about that. They’re free to go where they want, although there are people already talking about limiting that as well.

But certainly there is a problem with private insurance. I know that myself. I’ve made claims through private insurance companies up here in Canada, and you’re going to get a hassle. It’s their job in a way to protect the money of the people who pay the premiums—because you want to know that the insurance company you are paying premiums to will have the money there if you are indeed in a very serious situation. And you don’t want to see that money going out for bad reasons or for reasons that people could afford for themselves. And think of the fraud situations that insurance companies have to deal with on an ongoing basis—people will try to claim anything. The idea that everything should be free without any upfront money for the user is just something that’s got to go.

This brings me to my next point. I see another disaster coming on the horizon here in Ontario. Should Howard Hampton get his way—he wants to introduce a socialized dental plan for the province. This has been done in other countries. England went through the experience once, and people with toothaches often had to fly to France to find a dentist.

I’ve got bad teeth since I was a kid, and I’ve always paid my dentist direct. I don’t even use private insurance. If I get a root canal—thousand bucks—I know exactly what it costs, and I pay right over the counter. I can walk into my dentist’s office, and if I have to wait more than five or ten minutes, that’s unbelievable. Usually I just walk in the door, sit right down, and I’m in and out with almost any dental issue within 20 minutes to half an hour.

Now I can just see what would happen if Howard Hampton gets his ideal—all of a sudden everybody can get free dental care. I’ll show up at my dentist one morning with a real bad toothache, and the place is packed with people who aren’t paying their own way but have gotten me to pay for them even though I am paying my own way. And I will have to wait in line. And that’s exactly what happens. You just can’t give people something for nothing—it’s never for nothing. And just because a taxpayer pays for it doesn’t mean you’ve justified claiming that service for yourself.

Howard Hampton says it’s going to pay for itself—this free dental care system will pay for itself through those imaginary future savings. If you put money into it today, you’ll save millions tomorrow. That’s what they tell us in every field where the government runs it. It’s the same in energy—if you save all this energy now and cut back on your electricity consumption, you will save all kinds of money in the future. Nonsense. Look at your London Hydro bill sometime. You could get it down to zero consumption and you’ll still have to pay the debt on Ontario Hydro, you’ll still have to pay your administrative fee. The bill we get at the office has a $45 a month fee just for administration. I could turn off the power for the whole month and still have to pay them that $45. Our regular usage is about $19 to $25 worth of electricity a month, but the bill is close to a hundred bucks. You’re looking at $80 to $100. That’s how anything the government funds ends up—there’s no avoiding it. If there’s no resistance in the system, no competition, you’re not going to get the results you want. Show me an example where it works the other way, and I will certainly publicize it—but I haven’t seen one yet.

On the other side of this break we will be talking about marijuana, Canadians, and the law. Some interesting stats—stay with us. We’ll see you soon.

Clip (Comedy Routine – Canadian Comedian in Montreal):
Speaker 1: Nice to be back in Montreal. Home sweet home. Yeah, every time I come back though I forget that I don’t speak French. You think I’d remember. I know enough to get by—like “oui,” “non.” Well, because I vote. How about a joint?
Speaker 2: Uh, no thanks.
Speaker 1: You sure? You know what they say—cops have the best dope.
Speaker 2: Uh, no, I don’t do that anymore. I don’t think it’s necessary.
Speaker 1: Right. Just testing. Never touching the stuff myself. Not me. No.

Bob Metz:
Welcome back to Just Right. I’m Bob Metz, and this is CHRW 94.9 FM, where you can join in the conversation at 519-661-3600. Marijuana and the law in Canada has been an issue for decades now. Interesting article in the National Post and a number of other papers talking about Canada’s pot use is four times the global rate—very alarming statistic. Maybe we can blame that alone on Marc Emery, the prince of pot, who happens to live in this country.

According to the July 10th National Post: “Marijuana use in Canada is highest in the industrialized world and more than four times the global rate,” according to a United Nations report. The study even suggests Canadians use marijuana at a rate double that of the Netherlands, where it is legal to buy and sell the drug for personal use.

About 160 million people use marijuana worldwide—3.8% of the world’s population aged 15 to 64. In that clip we just heard—“No, I never touch this stuff, not me”—because it’s not the kind of thing you want to admit in a culture where it may be considered negative or illegal. That’s why so many statistics on marijuana and drug use are not really accurate—nor could they be. You can only get information based on sources that aren’t clear and objective.

But of what they do have from the United Nations, Canadians are at 16.8% of the population saying they’ve smoked marijuana in the past year. England and Wales: 8.7%. United States: 12.6%—interesting, since they have some of the toughest marijuana laws on the planet, even though many individual states have decriminalized it. Israel: 8.5%. Jamaica: only 10.7%. Netherlands, where the drug is legal: 6.1%.

Interestingly, the more totalitarian a country, cannabis use is almost negligible in East and Southeast Asia, Korea, Singapore, and in the Middle East—no surprise there. Cannabis is the largest illicit drug on the planet—nothing new about that. Whenever we looked at illicit trafficking in the past, cannabis always showed up at number one or two in gross economic activity if it could be included legally.

And that’s what some people want to do. Here’s where I part ways a little with some suggestions. For example, BC Liberal Senator Larry Campbell: “Decriminalize pot and tax the hell out of it,” with the revenue going to public services such as health care. “This is not a drug that causes criminality,” he said. Well, it does cause criminality if its use itself is considered criminal—that’s where it causes criminality.

It’s so fascinating when I see shows on television—even cartoons—warning kids against smoking pot and the dangers of pot. You know what the biggest danger is? You could get caught by a police officer.

Now, I don’t think you’re improving the situation by going from illegal to taxing the hell out of it—because you’re still keeping it on an illegal market, and people don’t want to pay it. I think the reason pot hasn’t been legalized till now is because it’s almost uncontrollable. It’s not called a weed for nothing. You can drop a plant in your front garden—it’ll grow. You can put it in a pot in your window—it will grow. And you can get the same grade stuff that they might want to sell in government-run stores.

Interestingly, the government-grown marijuana for medical purposes—they get their supplies from Marc Emery, the guy they’re planning to deport.

And south of the border, the issue has blown up a bit because while Al Gore was doing his concert for the green thing, his son Al Gore III was busted for pot and assorted prescription pills. Kathleen Parker in the National Post: “Drug prohibition’s latest victim—you know, pot smokers might revolt if they weren’t so mellow.”

Twelve states have decriminalized marijuana. In all the states that decriminalized it, the stats for arrests and convictions went up dramatically—because police were less reluctant to lay a charge knowing it would only be a fine instead of draconian jail sentences.

I’m reminded of the case of that poor fellow in California who got 20 years in jail for growing marijuana—a federal case. He was actually working for the California government, but the jurors in the federal case were denied that knowledge.

Drug laws are possibly the most anti-American thing going on in America today—they’re filling their jails with people on drug charges. There are so many more practical ways to handle the drug issue. Criminals love drug laws and prohibition—they’re probably the biggest supporters. They don’t have to pay taxes. You can take a weed that is virtually worthless if it weren’t prohibited—because it grew everywhere. It grew all over southern Ontario before prohibition in the 30s. It was a staple of every farm—they called it hemp back then. Once you prohibit it, the value goes up dramatically if there’s demand.

It would be easier to decriminalize and legalize hard drugs than marijuana because they’re easier to control within legal parameters. The people dealing with things like heroin are dealing with addictions. Addict means dependent—just like you’re dependent on food. If somebody cut off your food supply, you might get violent. But as long as you get the supply, you’re a perfectly normal person. Britain ran an experiment—60 Minutes covered it—where heroin addicts got their supply legally, and they functioned normally. They weren’t taking the drug to get high anymore—they were taking it to stay normal. This does not apply to marijuana—marijuana is off that scale entirely.

The most rational approach is something promoted by Milton Friedman: treat it like alcohol and tobacco—not overly tax it, but tax it at the normal rate you would tax everything else. When you deal with people who are in trouble because of drugs, then you have a good reason to do something about that person’s drug habit. Otherwise, you really can’t do much about it—and that applies to alcohol too.

Our show is just about out of time. There was so much more to tell you about the history of drugs and drug prohibition—and certainly we will do that in the near future. But for now we are out of time this week. I just want to make sure you’ll be joining us again next week on the show. So until then, we’ll continue our journey in the right direction. See you next week. Until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, and think right. Take care.

Clip Comedian: We on there yet? Oh, hello, y’all. Good morning—or whatever day. Today was out of sight, out of sight. Temperatures today range from about 56 to where you are to 450. That’s where I am.