Someone might argue that smoke is dangerous, whereas a blood-sugar test is merely an uncomfortable sight for those unaccustomed to the realities of diabetes.
But where is the danger in second-hand cannabis smoke? In fact, where is the danger in “first-hand” cannabis smoke? Despite claims that cannabis has “20 times more carcinogens than tobacco” the main ingredient in cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) inhibits carcinogens and reduces tumour growth.
Furthermore, even an obviously dangerous substance like tobacco doesn’t justify anti-smoking laws based on the alleged harms of second-hand smoke.
Second-hand smoke impacts other parties, but it is not comparable to blowing smoke in someone’s face or punching them on the nose. Some people hang out with smokers all their lives and never succumb to smoking-related diseases, while others, like TV-personality Mister Rogers, stay clean, eat right, exercise, but still die of cancer.
Not all smokers develop cancer, and non-smokers are susceptible to it, including lung cancer. This is because heredity, your genetic susceptibility to cancer, plays a large role in addition to air pollution, smoking, or asbestos which was once used as insulation material and still exists in many Ontario buildings.
So this grandstanding by the Ontario government aiming to eliminate medical cannabis (even vaping) from public sight is nothing but politically correct busy-bodies forcing their worldview through the barrel of a gun.
If the rights of an individual were threatened by a smoker, then we already have laws in place to deal with the infraction.
Assault and battery are already illegal. Walking by a smoker and smelling tobacco or cannabis isn’t a violation of your liberty.
It’s a sad irony that Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government is considered “progressive” despite throwing out the last few centuries of common law and customary traditions based on a false notion that they can protect people from themselves.
The Making Healthier Choices Act isn’t “progressive” legislation. It is another form of social control, restricting the freedom of some to advance the interest of others.
Common law produces rules that facilitate peace and cooperation. Government legislation permits the exploitative actions of a politically-dominant class.
Fortunately, medical cannabis users have a constitutional right to access. It’s possible that a lawsuit may arise out of this.
If that happens, once again, like we’ve seen throughout Canadian history, it would be the legal system and the rule of law that protects cannabis users — not democracy.