I talk about Prince Albert's Cannabis store bylaw, Rebel News and Firearms. This is the edited live-stream from September 9th 2020.
Support the show (https://paypal.me/Coffeebreathconvo)
So I want to welcome everyone back to Coffee Breath Conversations. I'm your host, Russell Barton.Unknown:
There's a couple of things. One of them is actually a little bit close to home here. The city council recently actually capped off the number of cannabis stores allowed in the city kept him off to three. their reasoning for it isn't very sound. They only want three they're saying they're not making any money. And then the mayor also said, not only the stores are struggling, and that they want to control cannabis, and that it's an intoxicant. Explain the province already has a problem with alcohol from pa now. So I find it very ironic. The mayor of Prince Albert, one of the most dangerous cities in Canada, per capita is concerned about the number of marijuana stores, when really it should be up to the free market, as long as there's no federal regulations on the number of stores. If 10 people want to open up 10 stores, and they believe that the business can be viable. It shouldn't be up to the city council to be the morality police. Because that's essentially what they're being is the morality of police. They seem to again, take cannabis and they put it at a different level than alcohol. Anecdotally, I have never seen anyone smoke marijuana or consume marijuana and beat the shit out of their husband or their wife. I've never seen anyone consume marijuana and commit a break and Enter. And I would never advocate for anyone to consume and tox kinson Drive. But it does not seem that the numbers would add up the same way for alcohol when it comes to smoking and driving. Not that I'm advocating for that whatsoever. And yet, Prince Albert has an amazing number of liquor stores. They have a drive thru liquor store, they have Co Op liquor store, they have the downtown liquor store, they have the one up by the mall, all sorts of different stores where you can go and you can buy liquor. Now, interestingly enough, city council, another council member brought forward a motion limit the number of liquor stores, given the city recently passed a similar bylaw for cannabis stores. Prince Albert currently has 10 liquor stores, and by law preventing them from operating within 500 meters of each other. And new drive through liquor stores are also banned. So essentially Giorgis has a hold on that market. He's cornered the market that drive through liquor store, and one of the city councilors mentioned that the province already agreed not to allow more than 10 liquor stores and he felt the bylaw would be redundant. Yeah, that's a good point. The proposal was rejected eight to one against it. Another city councilor said he'd rather see the number regulated by the province. I don't know if I agree with that or not, the less oversight from other government entities, I think the better you should be able to manage your own town, preferably without too much provincial or federal input. But what was very interesting is that there's a new 80 acre development plant, and one of the areas and that city councilor that mentioned he'd rather see regulated by the province. And this is according to EPA now said maybe that we need another one there. I don't know. I'm not promoting it and saying we do. But I don't think we should restrict it to 10. To be honest with you, it's not going to stop the alcohol problem that we know is in the city. prohibition didn't do that. Sounds really good to say that prohibition didn't work. But no one's saying that prohibit alcohol in the city of Prince Albert. I don't see anyone saying that. controlling the flow of liquor in the city could be a potential viable solution. I'm against it personally, I think again, the free market is there for a reason. And as much stores are supported and able to function normally without government bailouts or handouts, the better because it means jobs for people and if people have the money to consume that product, that's going to be up to them. But I find the hypocrisy is very glaring. We have a controlled substance and toxic alcohol that some would say is responsible for vast majority of societal ills. When it comes to crime. Alcohol tends to be a very common factor in the commencement of crime. But we have a ban on cannabis stores, limiting them to three. It doesn't really add up. It's a bit hypocritical. It sounds like a knee jerk reaction. It's going back to the weed craze of the 60s and 70s. You know, weed is the gateway drug. It's an intoxicant. I mean at the end of the day, People can have their personal views. I'm not going to judge anyone on their personal views, it's illegal substance. It was made legal in Canada, it's highly controlled, it's highly regulated. You talk to people who go, the stores will probably say it's overpriced as well, due to those regulations. But to turn around and say, Nope, we're going to limit the sale of cannabis. But then say over in a city that already has a high crime rate, and a high addiction rate, or we're just going to open up another liquor store, though that might be a good option for our city. I'm not buying it, I'll give counselor that brought it up credit because it, it looks makes them look very hypocritical. So that's just some thoughts on kind of local news. Now looking kind of at national news. Prior to 2019. There is a large bailout, sort of a media package that was given to a lot of media, corporations, CBC CTV, from what I understand this bailout package or whatever you want to call it is supposed to help digitalize and kind of bring people into the 21st century a bit more. Prior to election, there's a whole bunch of money flying around to the media. And they even call it out. I mean, I went on YouTube earlier, and I was watching some of the interviews. And it kind of struck me that even there, they're calling themselves out, and everyone's tiptoeing around it. And we live in a free market capitalist society if your news agency sucks, because people don't like it, or people don't believe in it. Or if it slants a certain way that people don't like, then sometimes you just got to face the consequences of the free market. That's just the way it works. CBC is a federal broadcaster. So they're, they're sponsored directly by the federal government. I see the benefits of it. But I also see the glaring problems. There's that video I saw of the, of the Prime Minister, and he's given the routine to the reporter doesn't look good at all, all this money flying around. And the reason why I'm saying this, and I'm alluding to a point here, very specific point, I've watched several videos from a certain news organization. And they're called rebel news. Now, they're very conservative, but they don't hide it. They're unabashedly conservative. And they even say they're there to bring you a different the different side of the story, the other side of the story. So I was watching and it's interesting that they've been basically they've been banned from a lot of the debates they've been, they're escorted out of buildings, hey, the commentary that they say, is pretty out there. And they, they do not hold back any punches. Sometimes I think they they they straddle that border of media and harassment pretty well. That's just my opinion. But at the end of the day, they're a news organization. And they are allowed to report on the news. Simple as that. And we're seeing what I call an erosion of the media, the other media, the government, oh, Rebel news. They're rabble rousers. They're far right, whatever else. And it's an effort to discredit them as a media source. And one of the videos I watched is, you know, where's your Where's your journal like journalists license? Well, in Canada, we don't have to have a license to practice journalism. He should probably have insurance, if you're a business. But anyone with a camera, and a story, and a platform, YouTube or whatever else, they can freely report on whatever story they like. And it's up to people if they want to watch or listen to those stories and the value that they get from it. So it's disturbing to me. Where we have on one hand, the government, they seem to be doing these bailouts. On the other hand, this news organization for better or for worse, they're going around, they're trying to report on the news. They're getting escorted out of buildings, they're getting arrested, they're running to all all sorts of different problems. So they caught a mayor Patrick Brown, imposing these bylaws. Basically these expensive tickets if you're out on the playground, stuff like that due to Coronavirus COVID-19. There's one rule for people not supposed to go outside. They're supposed to socially distance, wear a mask, all sorts of different stuff. And yet, the mayor is caught with his pants down figuratively at a hockey rink with his buddies getting ready to play hockey. And sure the rebel had their reporter there. And you know, it's embarrassing situation for the mayor obviously. Perhaps the way that he handled it might not have been the best way to handle it. He instantly he did what we see a lot of these people do when they're caught, they run. They go they get their script in They start reading from their script, their PR person or whatever. And they start making the same canned statements we hear over and over again, turned around. And again, it was rebel news is far right organization there. And so of course, the rebel news did what they've done with other people when they're caught and they don't apologize or fess up, they go back again. And they caught him again and again. And it really goes to show there's one rule for us, the world class. And there's one rule for everyone else, the people that are connected the society's elite, whatever they want to consider themselves, they were actually banned from the property. Now, it's been quite a number of years since I worked as a security guard, I would say that I know the trespass to property act pretty well, I've had to use it several times. And I worked as a security guard in Ontario, the threshold for public property and the threshold for private property, when it comes to the comes to the trespass act are very different. Now I've worked on municipal contracts, and I've worked on private contracts in the past. So private contract, as long as there's clear signage, clear barriers, it's very simple. If you're on the property, you're not supposed to be there, you need to leave the property, call the police, if you really have to, if they won't leave and, and follow up from there, pretty cut and dry. It's a private land ownership, the people that own that land can set whatever rules they want, within reason. But it gets murky when it comes to public property. Now, when I worked at a municipal site in Ontario, it was a high traffic area, social services type of contract. So you get people there that are upset, they're they're amped up, they're not very happy. And so you would have to if someone's yelling and screaming and making threats, and now you'd have to tell them to leave the property. It's not, they're not banned from the property, simple as this or they're causing a disturbance. There threatening people's not not permitted, they're not banned from the property didn't come back the next day, they can come back later on. For now, they have to leave, if they are going to move ahead with banning them from the property, then that requires an actual legal intervention, usually legal team from the municipality will get together, they'll draft a legal ease letter. That's very, very clearly indicating what is happened and why the actions are being taken. And usually they have to offer an alternative, if people are there to receive a public service that they're entitled to, then you have to be able to provide them with an alternative. So in the case, if people wanted to receive those services, they had to go to the police station, and they had to basically book a room at the police station, and then their case management officer would come and meet with them. And they'd be able to receive those services as required. When I watched the video, and I saw that the security guards wrote out a paper that said note you're banned from the property. You can't come onto the property, you're done. And it wasn't just that property was all the municipal properties. I'm not a lawyer, I don't think that that's going to hold up in court. I really don't, it's going to be interesting to see how it goes. Because when it comes to that news agency, things tend to they tend to report at a high level. So I'm sure there'll be reporting on everything that happens. And again, looking back at it, clearly private property a lot easier under the trespass property act to to have someone removed from the property when it's public land or when it's public, private land, where there's a public access area, into a private property. That's where things really start to get murky. And the threshold is that much higher. And what I don't get with these politicians, and not just politicians, celebrities, and just people when they get caught, they just need to get ahead of it. They just need to come out there and need to say, Yeah, I did whatever. And get ahead of it. It's when they go back to the script. And when they go back to all these different sort of avenues that they hope will just make it go away. That's when they start to really run into trouble. During the last election cycle was interesting watching the media, they would go to the event for one of the parties. And then they had video and basically they were just shuttled onto a bus and they were brought to the next location. And if you didn't follow the exact rules, well, you couldn't report the degradation of our media as an investigator. Have source to find out wrongdoing and to expose what's wrong with society, in my opinion has been severely neglected and limited. What we're seeing now is we're seeing independent news sources, stepping in citizen journalists, small news agencies, they're stepping in. They're looking at the whole story, for better or for worse. And they're reporting on it. And seeing in the States, where the media is saying one thing, but you can clearly watch a video and the video is telling you it's something completely different. Scott Adams, he's the guy made Dilbert. I follow him on social media, calls in mass hypnosis, to people are watching the same show, but they're watching it might as well be watching two completely different movies or shows, because their perceptions are so different. that I find is kind of where we're going as a society, these news agencies, they're there to report the news. They shouldn't be taking a stance on it, they should be asking the questions. But instead, we're getting what I call opinionated news. It's not just the news, it's what you need to hear, it's what you need to do. It's a call to action on what should just be a simple news story. I don't know what the future is going to be. But from what I see, it looks like it's going to be going back to independent media. People out there, they got a camera, they got a body camera on. They got their cell phone, and they record the video. Even sometimes we were told the video isn't true. We're watching a video, we can clearly see what's going on in the video. But we're told Nope, that's not actually what's happening. So I think it's a very scary time for the news agencies out there. I really do. And for our kind of perception publicly of what's going on with the news. Again, the news should not be presenting any narrative beyond reporting the news in an unbiased manner. And their poor ratings and their poor public perception reflect that. talk a bit about the gun grab and the gun ban. And that's something I'd like to expand on a little bit more in the future, as the list of firearms continues to grow and grow. And it was originally supposed to be those scary and mean assault rifles has turned into all sorts of firearms, including shotguns, including all sorts of different ones. It looks like they're hiring out, or they're contracting for their bidding on tender for the agency that's going to be enforcing this. So won't even be the RCMP. I'm not sure exactly what the RCMP is involved in is going to be. But it's it looks like it's going to be a private company. They're going to be taking away people's firearms for what amounts to nothing. And it was all done through an ordering Council. So when the government's not sitting unable to do full debates, because of the scary Coronavirus. They use an ordering council normally that's done just for small things to kind of just keep things smooth and parliament. But they used it to basically pass legislation. I don't think they've ever done something like that before. To that extent. All these firearms owners their firearms were legal. Just a few months ago, suddenly they're their firearms are illegal. Wow. Just like that just by a stroke of a pen, no real rhyme or reason. You know, they say the error, the AR 15 platform, they say well, that's salt weapon it's used in killings. The research that I've seen is only shown that an AR 15 was used once in Canada, but it's one of those scary assault rifles. Fully automatic weapons are prohibited in Canada for anyone who's listening from the United States. So they're prohibited. Some of them were grandfathered in, but you're not supposed to use them. And if you do, and you get caught, I mean, they're taken away and you and they go wherever they go. There's been the stigmatization on firearm owners in this country where the firearm owners are treated, basically like quasi criminals. Why would you want to own a firearm? I've had people say that to me, why not? They're fun. Nothing beats an afternoon going out to the range. All right, with your family with your friends, firing off a few rounds from a rifle, a shotgun and a pistol. It is a sport. It takes discipline. It's not easy. It's very challenging. When we see this, the sort of thing where they they want banon they say, Well, why would you even want to have one? What is your reasoning? Well, number one, you can legally get one by obtaining a license by taking a course by getting a background check done and having bactrim background checks done on you constantly. Having a license renewal every five years, anytime your spouse, if they're mad at you, or for legitimate reasons to they can call in and say, You know what, not I don't feel safe with my spouse with firearm and the RCMP swoops in and they take them anyways. So all firearm owners are already under a large amount of scrutiny to try to turn around and say, well, we got to ban this for the protection of society and the protection of people. Generally in Canada, people aren't using firearms and self defense. That's not generally what people are using firearms for in this country. There's not an epidemic of shootings, from legal firearm owners, but don't kid yourself. There's shootings, gang members, criminals, in general thing get a fire, I'm thinking a burner firearm, it's not that difficult. And with the burner ones, they can even get rented ones. They basically they get a firearm, they buy the ammunition, illegally as well. They use it and then they return it. And it's used so many times that trying to trace it back to a specific incident can be very difficult. That's not illegal firearm. It's not someone with their firearms, you know, in their safe, locked up properly giving them away. No, it's illegal firearms, stolen firearms. And a lot of them are smuggled in from the United States. Instead of dealing with those issues. We're going to go after the people that have spent money and time and are trying to follow the rules in a rule book that's constantly being rewritten and changed on a whim. Personally, I don't think that the RCMP should be overseen the firearms program. If you're a police officer, you don't want anyone to have firearms, except you. A lot of cops do have firearms to that they enjoy taking to the range and that they enjoy using on their own time. So be interesting to see how that how that plays out. I don't think it's going to play out well for firearm owners in Canada. It's only a matter of time before they do a complete ban on firearms in Canada and how they choose to collect them. I mean, they say they're going to do a buyback program. I don't think that they're gonna just Oh, we'll give you the market value for your firearm. And we're talking about government that's just sunk themselves millions and millions and millions of dollars into debt.