The Athenaeum

Tag: Trudeau

  • An Economist’s Look at Marijuana Legalization

    An Economist’s Look at Marijuana Legalization

    • Photo  Photo by Jess Abtu found through Vecteezy.com

     

    As I write this, Canada is 12 days away from Bill C-45 (also known as the Cannabis Act) coming into force, nearly 3 years to the day after the Trudeau Liberals came to power. This promise is very likely what got the Liberals elected, especially when you consider the astounding election-to-election increase in voter turnout among those aged 18-24 and 25-34 (obviously the data cannot provide perfect insight as to how much of this increase was caused by the prospect of legal pot – it’ll be interesting to see if these increases are sustained in 2019). It’s generally accepted that legalization will provide at least some economic benefit; Health Canada predicts that the government will be able to recover up to 100% of the cost of regulation, and there will likely be a lot of money saved in criminal justice administration. However, the nature of the benefit depends heavily on how the sale of marijuana is implemented. This decision, along with most of the specifics of legalization, has been left to the provinces’ discretion. I’ll outline the two main business models the provinces have available to them, and what I believe to be the benefits and drawbacks of each.

    The first option is a regulated free market. This means that the private sector would be solely responsible for the sale of marijuana, with government intervention likely limited to taxation and issuing growth and sale licenses. The obvious benefits of this model are lower costs to consumers – with prices likely on par with current black market prices – and the job creation that comes with a booming industry. Drawbacks would likely include lower government revenue, and potential infiltration from the black market (though private-sector stores will be required to have licenses, it would be naive to assume that this will deter someone from setting up their own less-than-legal operation should they really want to). This could lead to questions about the quality of the pot available in the private sector, though this is clearly a risk that Canadians are comfortable taking since even without legalization marijuana is regularly used. So far, only Saskatchewan and Manitoba have gone this route; however, Alberta, British Columbia, and Newfoundland will allow both private and public sales.*

    The second option is a government-run monopoly. Most of us are familiar with this model, as it is the current setup for the sale of alcohol in most provinces. The major benefit of this model is the guarantee of the safety of the product; the government definitely isn’t going to lace your pot with anything sketchy. The biggest drawback is the tradeoff the government will face in terms of pricing since legal and illegal pot are likely strong substitutes (i.e. people will easily switch between them based on whichever is cheaper). They can price it high, which will guarantee revenue, but also the continued existence of the black market. Setting the price low will incentivize more people to purchase their pot through legal means, but it will also cut into the revenue stream, meaning the costs of regulation will need to be paid for through general tax revenue. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Newfoundland have all chosen this method.*

    *Ontario is a special case. The Ontario Liberals intended the sale of marijuana to be taken care of entirely by the Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS), a subsidiary of the LCBO; however, they are no longer in power. The currently-governing Conservatives plan to let OCS control online sales, and private companies control physical retail sales.

    In conclusion, there you have it: a lesson in market structure disguised as a piece about weed. In reality, it is unlikely that provinces will commit firmly to one of these models forever, given the many complications not addressed by them (such as how Canada’s First Nations fit into the framework of legalization). Some may bow to public pressure and move towards a more private-sector-based model; others may claim they need the higher prices that come with a monopoly to cover the social costs of marijuana use, as New Brunswick has claimed of its alcohol industry. I think we can all agree that it’s exciting to see the Liberals follow through on a major campaign promise, and that it will be interesting to see where this process goes.

    Mallory Kroll is a fifth-year Economics student and the Managing Editor of The Athenaeum.

  • This Bud’s for You

    This Bud’s for You

    The Liberals are finally talking about delivering on one of their key campaign promises, legalizing marijuana. I don’t think I’ve ever seen stoners so excited in my life. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of legal pot is alright by me. I’m not an advocate of using illegal drugs, but then again, weed doesn’t quite have that “illegal” connotation to it anymore. People were starting to get impatient, especially millennials, with the activity surrounding a campaign promise that in some cases likely changed the way some millennials voted. With impatience growing, and an election in 2019 the Liberal party announced that they would introduce legislation that would see marijuana legalized by July 1st, 2018. To summarize, this legislation would be difficult to pass but the short version is that marijuana will be legal for recreational use and you’ll be able to grow up to four plants in your house. Ottawa will license bulk producers and will set the legal age to purchase at 18.

     

    However, the government has left many decisions up to the discretion of provincial governments, for example, although Ottawa may say the legal age to purchase marijuana at 18 the government of Alberta may set the age at 20. In an interesting move, the Liberal government will also leave it up to the provinces to set the price which will likely result in prices that vary province to province. The curious thing is the logic behind legalization. The Liberal party website says: “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.” The intention here is clear, create tax revenue, keep weed out of the hands of children, and make the voters happy. It all seems benign enough but my curiosity says that there’s more to it than the government would have us believe.

     

    First lets examine the claim that the regulation of something can keep it out of the hands of children. In 2013 the World Health Organization published data that said that Canadian teens led the developing world in marijuana use. 29% of 15 year olds admitted to using marijuana in the last year in that study although experts consulted said that number could vary slightly by age group and region. Compared to alcohol, these numbers are low. In 2012 the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse showed that people between the ages of 15 and 18 had used alcohol at a rate of 56%, now although these studies reviewed different age groups it is somewhat clear that legalization and regulation don’t necessarily result in sober youth. Upon further examination of some sources, Statistics Canada corroborates that the use of alcohol amongst youth was far higher than that of marijuana in 2011. So, if the claim that legalization is going to keep pot out of the hands of youth has been examined correctly, it seems to be false. After all, alcohol has a long history of both being legal and being consumed by those not of age. If we administer alcohol and marijuana in the same way, one can likely assume that access will be no different if the demand is there, and the demand very clearly exists.

     

    The next argument that is made in the case for legalization is that the sale of marijuana will create a great deal of tax revenue. CIBC estimates that this revenue will be in the neighborhood of five billion dollars, but only if all the underground sources are “curtailed”. If we take into account that the illegal marketplace is going to have prices far below that of the legal market it seems that the criminal market will likely not be slowing down any time soon. Given the international obligations Canada has to prevent the illegal export of marijuana, we likely won’t see the government saving money on law enforcement budgets. There are some figures from the consulting firm Delloite that would suggest the supporting industries “growers, infused product makers, testing labs, and security” would be “worth between $12.7 billion to $22.6 billion”.

     

    The financial argument for legalization seems to be a strong one. Although there are other factors that deserve consideration, road safety, health, and criminal justice for instance. Justin Trudeau has said that all of the revenue from the newly created marijuana industry will be invested in addiction treatment and public health, effectively meaning that we have nothing to worry about from a public health standpoint (although we will still have to worry about that soaring deficit). Even better for the legalization argument is that following legalization in Colorado road accident fatalities are actually at an all time low, an astounding 13 year low to be precise. It is important to recognize that this could be from a number of factors and the data actually doesn’t indicate marijuana has had anything to do with it. The real saving grace of the legalization argument (other than that most people I know love weed) is that we’ll be saving major cash in criminal justice administration. 67% of drug offences in Canada involved marijuana, removing those offenders from the system will undoubtedly save the government some money.

     

    To conclude, the logical answer is to very carefully legalize and regulate marijuana. I am of the opinion that we’re headed that way as it is. So yes, legalization is a great idea, but not for any of the major reasons cited by the Liberal government. As someone who has never been a huge fan of the Liberals, I can honestly say that this is a move I can wholeheartedly support. Smooth move Trudeau, this bud’s for you.

  • “Because It’s 2015” – A Canadian Moment

    “Because It’s 2015” – A Canadian Moment

    For my Post-Confederation Canadian History class (HIST 2783 x2), it was a requirement that students form small groups and complete a term project that helps promote the notion that Canadian History is absolutely NOT boring. For this assignment, we were expected to select an event from Canadian history and find a way to publicly circulate and promote awareness of the particular event, to again provide evidence that Canadian history is not boring!

    My group has selected 4 different events to highlight in the format of a timeline, but selected this particular event, “Because it’s 2015,” for publishing as it is not only one of the most recent, but the most relative to us today. While looking at this event, we also went into detail to research the different perspectives this event can be interpreted.

    Our now current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, delivered this well-known phrase as a response to the question around the importance of gender-balance within the cabinet. Trudeau spoke to his campaign promise of a “fair and open government,” and put this into action by ensuring the “cabinet reflects Canada.” On November 4, 2015, Trudeau selected 15 men and 15 women as members of the caucus. The Canadian Press states that this is “the first gender-balanced ministerial team in [Canada’s] history.”

    Though there was much support for this action taken by the federal government, there was also pushback and protest against it. The implementation of a 50:50 government can be interpreted as a positive step forward for women, as well as society, but can also be critiqued and argued that selection of candidates should be based on the consideration of skills alone, rather than incorporating gender and race into the process.

    Trudeau announces “the more diverse your organization, your board, or in this case, cabinet, the more it reflects the realities of the population we are serving.” With this kind of thinking, Trudeau was able to enact gender parity within the cabinet caucus, and was able to experience the “incredible pleasure to present to Canada a cabinet that looks like Canada.”

    Many who are resistant to the implementation of a gender-balanced cabinet express concerns that –as Althia Raj shares in a Huffington Post article– “women were favored over male counterparts … no doubt as a direct result of Trudeau’s promised gender parity.” Though there is a variety of responses and emotions toward the reality of gender parity within the cabinet caucus, there is no denying that this is indeed a significant event in Canadian history. The irony of that statement is that although we consider this event historic to Canadian heritage, it has just begun; we are currently living in the era where gender equality is in fact a public issue, on the political agenda opposed to earlier times when this was not so. Someday in the future, we will look back at this historical event and wonder how gender equality was even an issue that needed to be resolved.

    Photo Link: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTCt431UcAEVCxB.jpg

  • Equality: One Size Fits All

    Equality: One Size Fits All

    “I’m not an object for the viewing pleasure of men.” This is a phrase that has been uttered repeatedly by women everywhere, and it is a true statement – a statement said out of aggravation with the objectification of the female body. However, there exists a double standard! This is the societal norm that shames the objectification of women but allows the objectification of men. People get all in a huff when men address the body of women as if it were a product for purchase. While objectification of women has been occurring for centuries, men are being displayed as merchandise and objects in the modern world as well. Why is it okay to sexually objectify the bodies of men but not okay to do the same to women? If we wish to have gender equality, then there truly needs to be equality – meaning no objectifying anyone for any reason.

    I recently asked a male friend of mine how he felt about the objectification of men, to which he replied, “When men objectify women it is sexist, but when women objectify men it’s liberating.” This statement threw me for a loop. Is treating men in the same negative way women have been treated for years really liberating? Women have been thrown into media campaigns using their bodies as the selling tools for as long as media has been running. While this is wrong and should be monitored closely, are men afforded the same thing? For example, Kraft recently put out a series of ads for salad dressing in which they used scantily clad men laying in blatantly sexual positions holding salad dressing bottles. How is this any different than companies using women or their sexuality as a way to make a profit? The answer is that there is no difference. The media is not the only bad guy in this situation, women are causing this issue as well. I have personally heard many conversations among women of all ages where men are spoken about as if they are pieces of meat and only good for one thing. However, these same women would later become enraged when men speak about women in the exact same way. Men are sexualized just as much as women, and no one has taken the time to think about the way this effects the everyday man. Women are constantly being told that they do not need to look like the women in the magazines because the women in the magazines don’t even look like that. But who’s telling guys that they don’t need to look like the super model in the sports wear ad, or the basically naked man in the Kraft commercial? No one. The sexualisation of men is just as sexist and demeaning as the sexualisation of women. It is not liberating and should stop just as much as sexualizing women should stop.

    Let’s take an example that hits more close to home. Canadians have just elected a new prime minister; a man who I will admit is very attractive. However, media has begun to use this fact in a sexual, and in my opinion, inappropriate way. While Trudeau has not made a statement saying that these memes, tweets, and posts are affecting him in any way, I would argue that it is highly inappropriate. If we had elected a female prime minster and similar posts were being made about her the country would be in an uproar; women would be rioting in the streets. Men would be blamed for slanderous statements and human rights called to question. Yet, few have taken a negative stand on the sexualisation of our current prime minister. This points blatantly to the fact that our society is completely accepting of the sexualisation of men, or so they seem to be. No one is an object for the viewing pleasure of anyone, not a single person on this earth is here to be seen as an object. Gender equality means equality, which means that all of us are seen as equal. Equal people, not objects.

  • On Parity In Parliament

    On Parity In Parliament

    In the past few weeks, several pundits, politicians, and Facebook activists have taken it upon themselves to stress the importance of having either a gender-balanced cabinet, or from the opposite argument, a cabinet based solely on meritocracy. This type of debate bothers me psychologically. I think it’s absolutely wonderful that a gender-equal cabinet exists, but truthfully, I’m not sure that the issue warrants the level of attention it is getting. I will explain this at the end, but first, let me explain where I think both sides of this whole argument collapse.

    Firstly, I am in no way opposed to any sort of equality in government, whether it’s of gender, of culture, or of religion. In a representative democracy, the elected cabinet should be just that: representative. Therefore, an equal number of women and men serving makes complete sense. Some writers, like Andrew Coyne of the National Post, say it steals away the positions from more qualified people; that the people given the job should be the best people for the job. But in this particular case, the people appointed are the best people for the job. They won their seat in a fair federal election. They come from a diverse set of backgrounds; they are scientists, CEOs, and doctors. There is no need to question the merit of those elected, and to assume that meritocracy and parity cannot be reconciled as one is absurd.

    That being said, if one MP were to slip-up and say, incur thousands of dollars in limousine expenses and over-priced orange juice and then bill it to taxpayers (here’s looking at you, Bev Oda), then will the fact that they are under-represented in Parliament protect them? Voices like Tasha Kheiriddin of the National Post, speak out against the “fawning” of parity, and claim that Trudeau’s appointment should not make him immune to criticism as a leader and politician. Agreed. On the other hand, prejudice is a very real thing. If one member makes a mistake, then the public vilifies the entire subculture to which that MP belongs, using them as a scapegoat for their own problems (though anyone willing to make such generalisations is perhaps an idiot). If you don’t believe me, just take look at any history book. What protects these individuals from unjust attacks on their character if the public is intolerant of their culture, gender, orientation, and race? If these biases do exist, then the bigger question becomes: should equality be forced? Should we impose quotas on gender and race in our cabinet?

    Yes and no. Meritocracy in its purest form does not exist. Favouritism exists. Pierre Trudeau’s first cabinet was composed entirely of old, white men. It’s difficult to believe all were appointed on merit alone. Meritocracy only works when the playing field is level. Currently, it is not. Typically, certain groups have more privilege and resources granted to them in their lifetimes that allow them to gain the title “merited” in the eyes of the public. A part of that comes from race and gender, and another from economic background. So cheating a little bit can help rectify that imbalance, creating role models for future would-be cabinet ministers. However, the pressure to create wholly equal cabinets every term might put undue stress on the leader: what if this quota forces them to place an MP in a position they feel would be better suited by another? What if one term we have 16 females and 14 males, and the next, 16 males and 14 females? At some point, we must consider it sufficient to be governed by a cabinet that represents the best of both worlds: diverse representation coupled with merit and experience. But consider other forms of disproportion in our cabinet: Afro-Canadians are not at all present. Is this a big problem? I guess it depends on whether you value diversity of opinion and experience over pure ability and talent, if you had to choose between one or the other.

    While Trudeau’s “It’s 2015” quote was a fantastic one-liner (almost on par with Pierre’s “just watch me”), I don’t believe it does justice to the issue. Instead of just saying “I have appointed the best people for the job, regardless of gender of religion,” calling attention to the fact that his cabinet is gender-equal has for some, already tainted those individuals coming from a non-privileged background. People are fickle – they will look for any reason to cast doubt on others’ competence. It is this editor’s opinion that one of the greatest aspects of Canada is its diversity (even though we don’t always treat each group the same). It’s important that our nation is one that has equal parts male and female in important roles deciding the fate of our nation. We still have a long way to go though, and I think that moving forward, we should strive to be a state such that the notion of gender parity in Parliament is, in fact, a complete non-issue. We shouldn’t have to celebrate the fact that we have gender equality in our country, because in many ways, it should just be. I know, I know – easier said than done.

Betzillo positions itself as a versatile gaming hub where structured bonuses and adaptive gameplay mechanics support both short sessions and extended play.

Built with a focus on innovation, Spinbit integrates modern casino architecture with rapid transactions, appealing to players who value speed and digital efficiency.

Ripper Casino emphasizes bold entertainment through high-impact slot titles and competitive promotions crafted for risk-oriented players.

A friendly interface and stable performance define Ricky Casino, offering a casual yet reliable environment for a wide spectrum of gaming preferences.

King Billy Casino channels classic casino spirit into a modern platform, delivering recognizable themes supported by contemporary reward systems.

Immersive visuals and layered slot mechanics are at the core of Dragonslots, creating a narrative-driven casino experience.

Lukki Casino appeals to players seeking direct access and minimal friction, focusing on fast loading times and intuitive controls.

Casinonic provides a structured and dependable gaming framework, blending modern slots with transparent operational standards.