If prohibitionists justify alcohol and nicotine control due to a “think of the children” factor, then, by the same logic, caffeine should fall under the same category.

Caffeine is far more dangerous than cannabis, and when prohibitionist Pamela McColl was put on the spot over this issue, she was unable to convey a rational answer.

About 65 per cent of Canadians drink coffee on a daily basis. Coffee and caffeine consumption is widely promoted, the iconic Tim Hortons has become part of Canadiana.

Caffeinated energy drinks are available at local convenience stores. Minors are allowed to consume energy drinks and coffee.

This, in spite of how caffeine withdrawal invokes headaches, insomnia and anxiety.

Too much of caffeine raises your blood pressure and enough of it will kill you. It can’t be very good for a developing person.

But, other than your typical commercial regulations, the federal government does not aim to “restrict” and regulate caffeine.

The Ontario government already uses taxpayer resources to distribute liquor, and it has failed to eradicate underage drinking. Adding caffeine to a pile of duties is counterproductive and wasteful.

Any Canadian prohibitionist concerned with cannabis but not coffee is being inconsistent.

If cannabis legalization is inevitable and to be conducted by rational adults, that is, not prone to emotional outbursts that undermine peaceful conflict resolution, then it’d best to reject this “think of the children” argument lock, stock and barrel.

Every child has a parent or guardian. These are the people whose job it is to educate “the children” about drug use, just like how we trust them to educate about safe sex or driving a car.

Prohibitionists act like children exist in a vacuum, that there no other factors in place to protect kid safety other than the heavy hand of the regulating state.

If prohibition has taught us anything, it’s that passing legislation creates unintended consequences. All Trudeau’s legalization will do is ensure the black market for teenagers still exists.

Restricting and regulating cannabis because of the children is a fallacy. Caffeine is far more dangerous than cannabis has ever been. Where’s the outrage about coffee?

Unless it’s not about the substance.

The defenders of Trudeau legalization use children as a means to an end. Those who are often the biggest proponents of something are also the worst practitioners.

Ignoring the Kantian precept that all men and women should be viewed as ends in themselves, not means to an end, the prohibitionists have wrongfully assumed a moral high ground.

Unless they’re willing to throw out the last few centuries of Western philosophy and its contributions to a freer society, it would be wise for the prohibitionists to calm down.

They are using “children” as a means to an end, undermining parental authority, and spewing logical fallacies in order to ensure legal cannabis is dominated by a few large licensed profiteers.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

  • Réal Guy

    And there’s more…

    While the bigot anti-cannabic prohibitionists can’t face any other scenario than some hypothetical imposed state of abstinence for ALL children, euh… …the fact remains nobody feels bold enough to even suggest the consumption method must to be corrected if it’s going to stay, at the very least.

    Too bad here in Québec ou bigot sinister of sickness, Lucie Charlebois, want’s to eradicate tobacco/nicotine habits, e-Cigs/e-Liquids and even vaporizers just the same, as if these were equivalent: it’s all dirty kids, says her new TV propaganda, more or less… But yet we’ll help finance nicotive patches no problem!!

    Ka ching! Ka ching! Now just wait for Trudeau’s “Legaleezation”!

    A long time ago i was shown the film titled “Moi, Christiane F., 13 ans, droguée, prostituée…”, this was supposed to “educate” me, i guess. M’well, i’ve made some discoveries on my own since then. 1st, beware of “toxic” personalities in position of authority, any person: they manipulate, abuse and betray. Which is bad enough for a minor in crisis, now imagine when he’s alone against 2 parents turned socio-toxic by politician propaganda!

    Thank you Canada.

    As i recall prohibition also announced failure back in the seventies and eighties, as a matter of fact it went so wrong i decided to acquire a “tokeu”, to keep as much smoke as possible inside, to reduce losses – while governments didn’t care if that was mixed with toxic combustion compounds, etc.

    Decades later i’ve finally managed to get a vaporizer i can use and tolerate on a frequent basis, on top of it i realize it changed my consumption profile significantly, because the pipe cools off as soon as i put it down, while a simple cigarette/”joint” became my center of attention over lasting minutes. Maybe it’s no aspect proving decisive all the time but i feel if i had got such an alternative when it was most needed this could have greatly limited the negative side-effects: actually i found out past 50 that this is called HARM REDUCTION and both levels of governements can’t care less unless it’s about heroin…

    Yet, lets be clear. A kid in possession of cannabis will want to optimize it, so perhaps he’ll be satisfied with burning paper into smoke after all, or worst: he’ll get himself a “tokeu” too, or something similar that still results in toxic smoking. Now, how should a loving normal parent proceed with his child? If one gives his pipe away ain’t that going to represent serious risk in terms of law, to the point of haveing to fear being declared unfit before the state kidnaps the child.

    In any case the traditional consensus to expect will be even more prejudice trying to avoid poison intake by a teenager. What can i say more about such twisted prohibitionist paradox!?

    Needles for “junkies” are OKay because we wan’t to protect ourselves from them but a healthier pipe reducing toxic exposure is not if that’s going to end in the hands of a minor who’s determined to consume cannabis no matter what. Because in the end those who support abstinence do so for themselves 1st, since it’s the eazy way out facing public criticism… So who’s courageous enough to evoke similar topics in a national discussion dedicated to saving the children, for real?…

    Instead i witness a socio-toxic paradox while prohibitionists insist to hammer that nail like there’s no tomorrow. Short of refering to Cultural genocide the present situation is bound to generate waves of colateral victims, some of them under age and left behind with zero gain for society, except all of those bigot adults making a dime out of it, including “rehab” centers à la Narconon/Straight Inc, the “Fix-my-Kid” style, etc., etc. In the name of children.

    It’s not an easy riddle to solve but i’m ready to argue paper + fire doesn’t save children efficiently, quite on the contrary judging from simple observation and experience. So what’s next? An anti-cannabic vaccines in all schools i guess: the officials would just need to align young students in front of the infirmary door and get every single of them shot every few months or so, to make sure the “high” can’t be achieved physically.

    Thank goodness, rest assured that’s no viable scenario – yet. But who knows these days!

    Personnaly i’m so disgusted at the moment it hurts my serenity badly, thinking more guys will follow the same toxic path again. Like nothing was learned! If at least there were some hope to expect from UNGASS 2016, but no, i’m not this gullible anymore – not to mention traditional media puts so much weight on one side already this is starting to be like hell on earth, the difference between criminals and institutions becoming blurred somehow.

    Ah, and Lucie Charlebois can’t even offer medical patients non-psychoactive CBD alternatives while she plans to install smoker rooms in hospitals for terminally ill patients! To finish them off faster i figure.

    Oh well! What’s more to say!?…

    Good day, have fun!!