"There's no way cannabis can do these crazy things, but if you smoke enough of it you might release a weird ad on twitter with weird stuff happening to people's heads"?
This thread gets more latitude than the US politics threads because it moves relatively slowly, but meme image reactions are still not appropriate, and it's still not an open mic thread.
I don't think it's a meme - it's a provincially funded ad campaign. It's actually pretty troubling that they'd push something this misleading out there.
Have they made any comment about this? Where are these ads? Online, billboards? I'm genuinely curious as this is completely ass-backwards to what the other provinces have been doing.
+1
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
I don't think it's a meme - it's a provincially funded ad campaign. It's actually pretty troubling that they'd push something this misleading out there.
Have they made any comment about this? Where are these ads? Online, billboards? I'm genuinely curious as this is completely ass-backwards to what the other provinces have been doing.
I think Bogart was talking about the "granny wtf am I looking at" image...
I don't think it's a meme - it's a provincially funded ad campaign. It's actually pretty troubling that they'd push something this misleading out there.
Have they made any comment about this? Where are these ads? Online, billboards? I'm genuinely curious as this is completely ass-backwards to what the other provinces have been doing.
I'm assuming that the ad campaign is trying to get people to research what risks marijuana has, and imply that it still has risks and isn't totally safe.
But considering the amount of scare mongering about drugs, research is as likely to lead to an antivax rabbit hole as it is reliable info.
I don't think it's a meme - it's a provincially funded ad campaign. It's actually pretty troubling that they'd push something this misleading out there.
Have they made any comment about this? Where are these ads? Online, billboards? I'm genuinely curious as this is completely ass-backwards to what the other provinces have been doing.
I guess they are trying to go with the humour route to get information across, the joke being "cannabis won't do this ridiculous thing, but it can do harm nonetheless".
The official statement is "Our government is committed to making every effort to better protect the public, especially teenagers and young adults, from the harmful effects of cannabis.” They also note that "the province’s poison-control centre reported a tripling in the number of marijuana poisonings since the drug was legalized last fall."
This kind of half-assed ridiculous ads is what happens when 50-somethings try to be "hip and cool like them young people today." It's embarrassing.
They also note that "the province’s poison-control centre reported a tripling in the number of marijuana poisonings since the drug was legalized last fall."
Did they provide numbers with the percentage?
Because while any poisonings are bad, if it went from 3 to 9 we probably don’t need to declare a provincial crisis just yet. If it was 1,000 to 3,000, okay yeah, that’s pretty bad.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
They also note that "the province’s poison-control centre reported a tripling in the number of marijuana poisonings since the drug was legalized last fall."
Did they provide numbers with the percentage?
Because while any poisonings are bad, if it went from 3 to 9 we probably don’t need to declare a provincial crisis just yet. If it was 1,000 to 3,000, okay yeah, that’s pretty bad.
They say in this CBC article it went from 25 to 89.
Sooo much closer to the former than to the latter.
They also note that "the province’s poison-control centre reported a tripling in the number of marijuana poisonings since the drug was legalized last fall."
Did they provide numbers with the percentage?
Because while any poisonings are bad, if it went from 3 to 9 we probably don’t need to declare a provincial crisis just yet. If it was 1,000 to 3,000, okay yeah, that’s pretty bad.
I don't really smoke/injest cannabis and I think it's bad that governments are resorting to hysterical ads about the "dangers" of cannabis use while simultaneously selling and receiving funding from alcohol.
It's fine to educate people about the risks for things but it doesn't have to be hyperbolic and hysterical.
I don't really smoke/injest cannabis and I think it's bad that governments are resorting to hysterical ads about the "dangers" of cannabis use while simultaneously selling and receiving funding from alcohol.
It's fine to educate people about the risks for things but it doesn't have to be hyperbolic and hysterical.
Like I said, I think they were going for "humourous", not "hyperbolic hysterical". They failed, but I can see the humour in their ads, not in the LOL sense but in the sense that an academic specializing in humour theory could write a research paper analyzing how humour can be found in those ads and have it pass a rigorous peer-review process to validate their findings of humourous elements in those ads.
I don't really smoke/injest cannabis and I think it's bad that governments are resorting to hysterical ads about the "dangers" of cannabis use while simultaneously selling and receiving funding from alcohol.
It's fine to educate people about the risks for things but it doesn't have to be hyperbolic and hysterical.
Like I said, I think they were going for "humourous", not "hyperbolic hysterical". They failed, but I can see the humour in their ads, not in the LOL sense but in the sense that an academic specializing in humour theory could write a research paper analyzing how humour can be found in those ads and have it pass a rigorous peer-review process to validate their findings of humourous elements in those ads.
Yeah, the more I look at it the more I get the point.
"Look at this ridiculous shit. No, marijuana can't do this no matter what people tell you but there are real risks. Look them up."
It's just badly done.
I actually like the idea of the campaign if the ads themselves were way more clear about the message they seem to be sending and not so bad.
+1
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
They also note that "the province’s poison-control centre reported a tripling in the number of marijuana poisonings since the drug was legalized last fall."
Did they provide numbers with the percentage?
Because while any poisonings are bad, if it went from 3 to 9 we probably don’t need to declare a provincial crisis just yet. If it was 1,000 to 3,000, okay yeah, that’s pretty bad.
I don't really smoke/injest cannabis and I think it's bad that governments are resorting to hysterical ads about the "dangers" of cannabis use while simultaneously selling and receiving funding from alcohol.
It's fine to educate people about the risks for things but it doesn't have to be hyperbolic and hysterical.
Like I said, I think they were going for "humourous", not "hyperbolic hysterical". They failed, but I can see the humour in their ads, not in the LOL sense but in the sense that an academic specializing in humour theory could write a research paper analyzing how humour can be found in those ads and have it pass a rigorous peer-review process to validate their findings of humourous elements in those ads.
Yeah, the more I look at it the more I get the point.
"Look at this ridiculous shit. No, marijuana can't do this no matter what people tell you but there are real risks. Look them up."
It's just badly done.
I actually like the idea of the campaign if the ads themselves were way more clear about the message they seem to be sending and not so bad.
The problem is that any person designing these kinds of ads understands how semiotics work and the kind of interpretation 95% of people would have in looking at something like this. Having the real message be embedded in the subtext here is a really shitty approach when trying to convey a message.
Unless you're like making an art film of something.
+4
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
RCMP Halifax spokeswoman Lisa Croteau told VICE the provincial penalties for failing a roadside test kick in, regardless of if a person is impaired under the criminal code.
“If they’re over it doesn’t matter if it’s for medical use or not, they shouldn’t be driving. If their prescription is at an amount that would make them fail the roadside, then they have to take the precautions not to be driving while they’re under the influence of it.”
RCMP Halifax spokeswoman Lisa Croteau told VICE the provincial penalties for failing a roadside test kick in, regardless of if a person is impaired under the criminal code.
“If they’re over it doesn’t matter if it’s for medical use or not, they shouldn’t be driving. If their prescription is at an amount that would make them fail the roadside, then they have to take the precautions not to be driving while they’re under the influence of it.”
This seems like a reasonable stance?
If someone is too impaired to drive I don't care why they are allowed to have X drug.
That said, it doesn't seem like there is a good understanding of what impaired means with cannabis and we apparently don't care about Jane, the 90 year old who has taken 13 valium driving around.
+11
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
However, there is no definitive link between the amount of THC in a person’s system and impairment. THC is stored in a person’s fat cells and can remain detectable in a person’s body for up to a month. For medical patients or regular users, this means they may often not be legally allowed to drive.
+3
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
However, there is no definitive link between the amount of THC in a person’s system and impairment. THC is stored in a person’s fat cells and can remain detectable in a person’s body for up to a month. For medical patients or regular users, this means they may often not be legally allowed to drive.
What's the roadside test? I am guessing they don't take a piss test or draw blood so is it just a field sobriety test?
Edit: ah, oral fluid test per the article. Seems like something just waiting to be challenged in court, though it will suck for the first people to be the test case.
Daimar on
+2
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
It's a thing called an oral fluid test. It can check the amount of THC in your spit.
However, you can only be convicted based on a blood test.
Yeah, it's not really fair that I, a non-user, can make a stupid driving mistake and get a ticket/have my insurance go up... but a medical user who is equally unimpaired at the time of the stupid driving mistake can face much harsher consequences.
At the same time, law enforcement needs some kind of tool to take people who do drive while high off the road. It's a tough legal spot right now. It would be nice if we could have more trust in law enforcement not to enforce the current rules in an inconsistent/racist manner.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
+1
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Oof; gotta wonder what he had in mind, especially with the explosives and the fact that he was aiming a firearm at police. Though half the article being photos of a different weapons bust is kinda weird.
Speaking of domestic terrorists, Bissonnette was sentenced today - 40 years before the possibility of parole in his late sixties.
I thought it was odd when Wilson-Raybould was shuffled to Veteran's Affairs. I wish it weren't true, but I can totally see the Liberals doing this. Ugh.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
Oof; gotta wonder what he had in mind, especially with the explosives and the fact that he was aiming a firearm at police. Though half the article being photos of a different weapons bust is kinda weird.
Speaking of domestic terrorists, Bissonnette was sentenced today - 40 years before the possibility of parole in his late sixties.
Technically pointed the gun at an off duty officer (most likely out of uniform), so essentially being a bullying loudmouth to a rando is going to land him in prison.
I thought it was odd when Wilson-Raybould was shuffled to Veteran's Affairs. I wish it weren't true, but I can totally see the Liberals doing this. Ugh.
Really? She took some heat when she (sort of) commented on the Gerald Stanley-Colten Boushie verdict last year, and I had expected her to be quietly shuffled out of the job at some point before the election. I didn't personally see anything wrong with what she said, but it's the kind of stuff that makes for some good anti-Indigenous dog-whistle campaign ads. The PM said some things too, of course, but it's not like he could shuffle himself.
I thought it was odd when Wilson-Raybould was shuffled to Veteran's Affairs. I wish it weren't true, but I can totally see a political party doing this. Ugh.
I thought it was odd when Wilson-Raybould was shuffled to Veteran's Affairs. I wish it weren't true, but I can totally see a political party doing this. Ugh.
Fixed that for ya.
It's the fact that I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals did it that makes me ugh, though. Because I don't want them to be like that and make us vulnerable to a Scheer government. But they kinda are like that. So ugh.
SwashbucklerXX on
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
Several Liberals approached Friday said they were confident the story came from Wilson-Raybould herself. “She’s always sort of been in it for herself,” said one insider who didn’t want to be identified. “It’s never been about the government or the cabinet. Everything is very Jody-centric.” The fear of reprisal for speaking about anything to do with the situation was running so high Friday most Liberals approached flatly refused. Treasury Board President Jane Philpott, said to be one of Wilson-Raybould’s closest friends and allies in cabinet, was not available. One former senior staffer said it was too uncomfortable to talk about.""
I guess the Star ran a bit on how Scheer had met with SNC Lavalin as well, after the govt. passed legislature about the deferral bit.
Posts
I'm not sure. My cousin once injected a marijuana and wound up so badly photoshopped he had to go to the hospital.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Never forget Becky.
"LSD can totally do this..."
"LSD can totally do this..."
"paid for by the campaign to legalize LSD"
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Have they made any comment about this? Where are these ads? Online, billboards? I'm genuinely curious as this is completely ass-backwards to what the other provinces have been doing.
I think Bogart was talking about the "granny wtf am I looking at" image...
I'm assuming that the ad campaign is trying to get people to research what risks marijuana has, and imply that it still has risks and isn't totally safe.
But considering the amount of scare mongering about drugs, research is as likely to lead to an antivax rabbit hole as it is reliable info.
MWO: Adamski
They are online: https://encadrementcannabis.gouv.qc.ca/. There's also what looks like a TV spot on there, but I don't know if it actually aired on TV.
I guess they are trying to go with the humour route to get information across, the joke being "cannabis won't do this ridiculous thing, but it can do harm nonetheless".
The official statement is "Our government is committed to making every effort to better protect the public, especially teenagers and young adults, from the harmful effects of cannabis.” They also note that "the province’s poison-control centre reported a tripling in the number of marijuana poisonings since the drug was legalized last fall."
This kind of half-assed ridiculous ads is what happens when 50-somethings try to be "hip and cool like them young people today." It's embarrassing.
Did they provide numbers with the percentage?
Because while any poisonings are bad, if it went from 3 to 9 we probably don’t need to declare a provincial crisis just yet. If it was 1,000 to 3,000, okay yeah, that’s pretty bad.
They say in this CBC article it went from 25 to 89.
Sooo much closer to the former than to the latter.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cannabis-quebec-poison-control-1.5004183
Also that ridiculous ad cost $1.5mil, though it does have us talking about it :P
MWO: Adamski
It's fine to educate people about the risks for things but it doesn't have to be hyperbolic and hysterical.
Like I said, I think they were going for "humourous", not "hyperbolic hysterical". They failed, but I can see the humour in their ads, not in the LOL sense but in the sense that an academic specializing in humour theory could write a research paper analyzing how humour can be found in those ads and have it pass a rigorous peer-review process to validate their findings of humourous elements in those ads.
Yeah, the more I look at it the more I get the point.
"Look at this ridiculous shit. No, marijuana can't do this no matter what people tell you but there are real risks. Look them up."
It's just badly done.
I actually like the idea of the campaign if the ads themselves were way more clear about the message they seem to be sending and not so bad.
From a CBC article I found:
"The centre says that from October through December, it recorded 89 cases. For the same period last year, the centre only recorded 25 cases."
Considering the amount of new users coming on the scene all at once, I think these are still staggeringly good numbers, and will likely drop again.
The problem is that any person designing these kinds of ads understands how semiotics work and the kind of interpretation 95% of people would have in looking at something like this. Having the real message be embedded in the subtext here is a really shitty approach when trying to convey a message.
Unless you're like making an art film of something.
I replied asking how this squares with some of the reporting about the "2 hour window" stuff but no official response.
This seems like a reasonable stance?
If someone is too impaired to drive I don't care why they are allowed to have X drug.
That said, it doesn't seem like there is a good understanding of what impaired means with cannabis and we apparently don't care about Jane, the 90 year old who has taken 13 valium driving around.
That was my point.
What's the roadside test? I am guessing they don't take a piss test or draw blood so is it just a field sobriety test?
Edit: ah, oral fluid test per the article. Seems like something just waiting to be challenged in court, though it will suck for the first people to be the test case.
However, you can only be convicted based on a blood test.
At the same time, law enforcement needs some kind of tool to take people who do drive while high off the road. It's a tough legal spot right now. It would be nice if we could have more trust in law enforcement not to enforce the current rules in an inconsistent/racist manner.
I’d say they look like the work of someone who has never been on drugs.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/paul-dewar-dead-brain-cancer-1.4822073
Speaking of domestic terrorists, Bissonnette was sentenced today - 40 years before the possibility of parole in his late sixties.
I thought it was odd when Wilson-Raybould was shuffled to Veteran's Affairs. I wish it weren't true, but I can totally see the Liberals doing this. Ugh.
Technically pointed the gun at an off duty officer (most likely out of uniform), so essentially being a bullying loudmouth to a rando is going to land him in prison.
MWO: Adamski
Really? She took some heat when she (sort of) commented on the Gerald Stanley-Colten Boushie verdict last year, and I had expected her to be quietly shuffled out of the job at some point before the election. I didn't personally see anything wrong with what she said, but it's the kind of stuff that makes for some good anti-Indigenous dog-whistle campaign ads. The PM said some things too, of course, but it's not like he could shuffle himself.
Fixed that for ya.
It's the fact that I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals did it that makes me ugh, though. Because I don't want them to be like that and make us vulnerable to a Scheer government. But they kinda are like that. So ugh.
Several Liberals approached Friday said they were confident the story came from Wilson-Raybould herself. “She’s always sort of been in it for herself,” said one insider who didn’t want to be identified. “It’s never been about the government or the cabinet. Everything is very Jody-centric.” The fear of reprisal for speaking about anything to do with the situation was running so high Friday most Liberals approached flatly refused. Treasury Board President Jane Philpott, said to be one of Wilson-Raybould’s closest friends and allies in cabinet, was not available. One former senior staffer said it was too uncomfortable to talk about.""
I guess the Star ran a bit on how Scheer had met with SNC Lavalin as well, after the govt. passed legislature about the deferral bit.