Hard disagree. In short, No. I don’t think so. And it is, in fact, not so.
The question was asked if Canada should implement a law. I answered the question with my preference and stated my bias.
Ethical veganism (also started from puratin Quakers) would like people to stop eating meat.
There is a western bias against using cats/dogs for testing and for eating. Ford recently passed a law banning it.
Before legalization, weed was banned.
And currently children are not able to consume tobacco nor alcohol products.
In Canada, raw (unpasturized) milk is banned but RFK is legalizing it in the US, saying people should be able to choose what’s best for their health.
So we already have laws that prevent people from consuming substances for different reasons. And they are different in different places. You have different preferences than mine, that’s OK. You also can vote like me. But to say that your stance is to allow everyone to make their own choice is not correct nor honest. You have a different preference for food restriction laws but you don’t argue against all food restrictions.
What is legal is also what is legal to have a profit motive in. I don’t think having a profit motive (and thus marketers) for substances that can be abused or dependent is a policy we should pursue.
The only argument I respect is combating the black market. But most people still are only OK until “hard drugs”. I consider an arbitrary line but again people vote based on those preference in favour of weed legalisation but against safe injection sites.
Just because you’re a puritan doesn’t mean everyone else should have to be the same as you. Let people decide for themselves.
Hard disagree. In short, No. I don’t think so. And it is, in fact, not so.
The question was asked if Canada should implement a law. I answered the question with my preference and stated my bias.
Ethical veganism (also started from puratin Quakers) would like people to stop eating meat.
There is a western bias against using cats/dogs for testing and for eating. Ford recently passed a law banning it.
Before legalization, weed was banned.
And currently children are not able to consume tobacco nor alcohol products.
In Canada, raw (unpasturized) milk is banned but RFK is legalizing it in the US, saying people should be able to choose what’s best for their health.
So we already have laws that prevent people from consuming substances for different reasons. And they are different in different places. You have different preferences than mine, that’s OK. You also can vote like me. But to say that your stance is to allow everyone to make their own choice is not correct nor honest. You have a different preference for food restriction laws but you don’t argue against all food restrictions.
What is legal is also what is legal to have a profit motive in. I don’t think having a profit motive (and thus marketers) for substances that can be abused or dependent is a policy we should pursue.
The only argument I respect is combating the black market. But most people still are only OK until “hard drugs”. I consider an arbitrary line but again people vote based on those preference in favour of weed legalisation but against safe injection sites.