,----
| VANCOUVER - A top White House drug policy official is threatening
| retaliation from the U.S. if Canada relaxes its laws against marijuana
| possession.
|
| David Murray, right-hand man to U.S. "drug czar" John Walters, says he
| doesn't want to tread on another country's sovereignty, but warned
| there would be consequences if Canada proceeds with a plan to
| decriminalize the possession of marijuana.
`----

Would the shrub administration get off its f*cking highhorse please?

,----
| VANCOUVER - A top White House drug policy official is threatening
| retaliation from the U.S. if Canada relaxes its laws against marijuana
| possession.
|
| David Murray, right-hand man to U.S. "drug czar" John Walters, says he
| doesn't want to tread on another country's sovereignty, but warned
| there would be consequences if Canada proceeds with a plan to
| decriminalize the possession of marijuana.
`----

Oh, really? So now tell me, would that be a 'Shock and Awe' type
retaliation?

,----
| VANCOUVER - A top White House drug policy official is threatening
| retaliation from the U.S. if Canada relaxes its laws against marijuana
| possession.
|
| David Murray, right-hand man to U.S. "drug czar" John Walters, says he
| doesn't want to tread on another country's sovereignty, but warned
| there would be consequences if Canada proceeds with a plan to
| decriminalize the possession of marijuana.
`----

I mentioned this earlier. Changing attitudes in liberal Canada toward pot are going to generate political responses from the US, which will slow the pace of trade. As Canada is our largest trading partner, the drag on the economy could be significant. This may be an important forward looking economic risk. Of course, its going to be a big game of chicken. Are Canada's liberal attitudes more willful then America's interest in controlling pot? Are either of these wills stronger then their respective domestic business interests? If this continues to develop there, at the least, will be a lot to learn about the character of these societies. At the most we could prolong our economic slowdown.

(BTW, the American's arguements are a little silly. Pot creates crime because its illegal. If you are engaged in an illegal economic activity you must also engage in (essentially) violent crime because you have to provide for the security of your own property. It all goes with the territory. Once you have people who are willing to deal drugs and willing to provide the security needed to do so, you are going to generate people who are willing to commit other crimes as well. Gangs are a response to a security vaccum. Government is supposed to have a monopoly the use of force. If we were serious about that in poor communities, where one finds drugs and associated crime, we'd have it. Its not like we can't afford it. We just don't really care.)