Interesting read in light of C-46 going into effect.

M

MedicatedHiker

Well-Known Member
I keep seeing MADD being mentioned in the news this week and this came up as I was trying to figure the group out. Interesting read.

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/17-mothers-against-drunk-driving/

Disclaimer: The website at the above link is run by a nonprofit funded by the wonderful people of the fastfood and tobacco industries.

But still...They make the same arguments about THC, which is probably why our federal and provincial governments picked them over dozens of patient activist groups to be one of the few "stakeholders" they consulted about the legalization of cannabis. MADD was selling the narrative our politicians needed to justify the exclusive system they wanted for themselves and their cronies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education

PS. Australia and New Zealand have roadside checks, so maybe one should check if there was indeed a significant decrease in traffic accident death there directly linked to these since that's what they claim C-46 will do.
 
Last edited:
bearded.beaver

bearded.beaver

Well-Known Member
Yep. All morning the news has been talking about how police can ask for a breath test at any (lawful) stop. And the fines and penalties have been increased.
If you refuse you will get a criminal charge as well as a $2000 fine. And if you do fail the test when they get you back to the station those fines are also increased. And mandatory minimums have been increased
 
M

MedicatedHiker

Well-Known Member
bearded.beaver said:
Yep. All morning the news has been talking about how police can ask for a breath test at any (lawful) stop. And the fines and penalties have been increased.
If you refuse you will get a criminal charge as well as a $2000 fine. And if you do fail the test when they get you back to the station those fines are also increased. And mandatory minimums have been increased
Click to expand...


It's all unnecessary. Alcohol sales have dropped and will continue to do so now that cannabis is legal.

Sure, they can claim having levels of 5ng of THC per mL in one's blood makes one dangerous on the road, but the Olympic Committee allows its athletes to have 150ng of THC per mL in their urine. So, Canadians can't drive at 5ng, but the world authority on doping sees THC as harmless up until 150ng, at which point it's banned because it becomes performance enhancing? Yeah, the law will be headed to the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Jefferson1977

Jefferson1977

Well-Known Member
MedicatedHiker said:
I keep seeing MADD being mentioned in the news this week and this came up as I was trying to figure the group out. Interesting read.

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/17-mothers-against-drunk-driving/

Disclaimer: The website at the above link is run by a nonprofit funded by the wonderful people of the fastfood and tobacco industries.

But still...They make the same arguments about THC, which is probably why our federal and provincial governments picked them over dozens of patient activist groups to be one of the few "stakeholders" they consulted about the legalization of cannabis. MADD was selling the narrative our politicians needed to justify the exclusive system they wanted for themselves and their cronies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education

PS. Australia and New Zealand have roadside checks, so maybe one should check if there was indeed a significant decrease in traffic accident death there directly linked to these since that's what they claim C-46 will do.
Click to expand...
Oh I read some news article where MADD CEO is supper happy that in about 6 months (his words) they will be busting tons of innocent people. That guys deserves a bus to the face.
 
M

MedicatedHiker

Well-Known Member
Jefferson1977 said:
Oh I read some news article where MADD CEO is supper happy that in about 6 months (his words) they will be busting tons of innocent people.
Click to expand...
When all is said and done, one should file formal complaints with whichever government agency oversees this organisation on the grounds that their anti-marijuana propaganda should be considered hate speech against cannabis consumers and patients.
 
The Hippy

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
MedicatedHiker said:
When all is said and done, one should file formal complaints with whichever government agency oversees this organisation on the grounds that their anti-marijuana propaganda should be considered hate speech against cannabis consumers and patients.
Click to expand...
That's the very problem...nobody that I know of oversee these run-a-muck liars. Who's going to challenge them?
You'd look like a real life devil.
They got this all sewn up and not much is going to stop them. They're invited to anything that someone wants to look good at. Get some of the madd folks to your event and you'll look like Moses leading the poor sheeps to the promised land.
Then they go into their speal about all the dead folks booze..and ..NOW CANNABIS has caused.
And ..blah..blah...blah
There no fighting these prohibitionists. It would be like being in favor of cancer. Or throwing puppies and kittens in a grinder. Or forcing people to "actually learn to drive"
Nope forget it..these have carte blanche to do whatever and say whatever they can think up to keep the money rolling in. They disgust me!
 
Jefferson1977

Jefferson1977

Well-Known Member
MedicatedHiker said:
When all is said and done, one should file formal complaints with whichever government agency oversees this organisation on the grounds that their anti-marijuana propaganda should be considered hate speech against cannabis consumers and patients.
Click to expand...
Hate speech only works if you are gay, trans, French or Muslim. Otherwise fuckin forget it buddy lol.

**I forgot female, hate speech against men is just fine and dandy though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top