Smoke is smoke, says the Canadian Cancer Society, so we might as well lump cannabis and tobacco together.

But who are “we” and what evidence is there that any smoking should be banned?

Plants are plants and tobacco is more dangerous when it comes to long-term health effects like lung cancer.

Unfortunately, the regulations that punish the tobacco industry are also the same means used to cartelize the industry, preventing small businesses from competing on a level playing field, where entrepreneurs could make cigarettes a little healthier than they are now.

Gamma-irradiated cancer-sticks regulated by control boards will be the end-result of cannabis legalization, if, as the Canadian Cancer Society recommends, the federal government restricts cannabis production and marketing for “public health” reasons.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for the Cancer Society.

But an election doesn’t validate the “we” or “us” pronouns.

If you speak in the name of all Canadians, then I can only assume you have the consent of every Canadian.

It may be called the “Canadian Cancer Society,” but my endorsement shouldn’t be tacitly implied because I am Canadian.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation doesn’t speak for all Canadians, nor does the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Yet, by using the term “Canada” or “Canadian,” these organizations hide behind collective camouflage.

As does the government of Canada, where an implicit “social contract” overrules the need for actual contracts, validating the opinions of these special interest groups into legal force.

But what adult living in Canada today contractually agreed to a monopoly organization that has the power to authenticate these beliefs?

It’s not a matter of not having faith in government planners, without mutual exchange, without relying on supply and demand, acting in a realm where capital accumulation is rewarded, where production and savings come before consumption — without contracts, how could planners know they’re working in the interests of all Canadians?

A “mixed economy” brings corruption to the means to wealth.

Even Canadian lobbyists admit that, when it comes to cannabis legalization, “there’s certainly a lot of money involved.”

In this economy, profit isn’t found in enriching lives in a free and fair market, but in how best to influence political decision-makers on what the market should look like.

Despite a robust BC Bud economy, there will be no “drug tourism,” the government says, they are taking a “public health” approach.

Healthcare busybodies and law enforcement, who still view cannabis through the lens of the drug war and who still, falsely, believe they have a moral high-ground, will act as if they have your consent.

And if you make it clear they don’t? Tough luck. This is how things work in modern democracies. There’s always lobbying, voting, suing, moving to another state, or civil disobedience.

But you can’t stop paying for it, oddly enough. Consensual relations in a free society cease when the government pulls the collective camouflage of “Canada” over our eyes and compromises important distinctions between state and society.