Coke-sniffing politician admits error

[Riverwind]

Campbell was re-elected and ultimately, it will be PQ members and then voters which will render verdict on Boisclair's law-breaking.

For what its worth: Campbell was raked over the coals for the incident. He made a public apology and a sincere admission of guilt. He pled guilty the charges in Hawaii and fullfilled the terms of the sentance given to him which included treatment for substance abuse.

Canadians are willing to forgive political leaders for their mistakes provided they admit the seriousiness of their mistake and make amends. Campbell did that but so far Boisclair (at least from what I have heard in the English media) has not come to terms with the breach of the public trust committed when he supported the activities of organized crime while he was a cabinet minister.

Frankly, whether coke is worse than alcohol is irrelevent to this discussion.

[Cartman]

Frankly, whether coke is worse than alcohol is irrelevent to this discussion.

I disagree, I purport that this is the issue though it should not be.

[kimmy]

IMO our dishonesty as a society about drugs has made the problem far worse, when I hear someone tell there child that if they smoke a joint they will get addicted, become a junkie and be unable to function (ala refer madness) it really irritates me. I mean what are the chances that a 15 year old doesn't know some guy who smokes pot recreationally and still does well in school and is in pretty much every way a normal person? What do you think is going through that same kids mind when you tell him crystal meth will make you addicted 75% of the time after 2 uses and will destroy your life? They sure aren't going to be thinking gee they lied to me about pot but I am sure there telling the truth about this crystal meth stuff.

I think this is extremely well said.

In fairness to the cops, I will mention that they are not hyping the dangers of "reefer madness" as they might have once upon a time. The company line is not that marijuana is so bad on its own, but rather that it's a "gateway drug."

"Hey, you wouldn't believe how many junkies I know who started with pot before they got into meth or heroin," Officer Smith will tell you. They probably started with alcohol before they tried pot, too...

...anyway, it looks to me as if this thread is veering into separate issues: standards for public officials, and hypocrisy of our handling of drug and alcohol issues. If the later, I'll just say that I'm terribly addicted to caffeine, make frequent use of alcohol, and have on occasion tried other mood-altering chemicals of various sorts... and I feel that the way our society has arbitrarily drawn the lines of what is and isn't legal is of benefit to nobody... except the Hell's Angels.

On the issue of standards of public officials... I think cocaine is different from alcohol in (as August points out) being illegal, and in (as Sparhawk notes) being vastly more expensive. I think the combination of these two issues makes people wonder whether there's some risk to the public trust. Here's somebody who quite likely had access to public money, was using an expensive drug, and was apparently not averse to illegal activity or keeping secrets. You can see why people might not be very trusting, right?

-k

[Guest eureka]

There goes your nomination chance, Kimmy.

[shoop]

In fairness to the cops, I will mention that they are not hyping the dangers of "reefer madness" as they might have once upon a time. The company line is not that marijuana is so bad on its own, but rather that it's a "gateway drug." 

On the issue of standards of public officials... I think cocaine is different from alcohol in (as August points out) being illegal, and in (as Sparhawk notes) being vastly more expensive.  I think the combination of these two issues makes people wonder whether there's some risk to the public trust. Here's somebody who quite likely had access to public money, was using an expensive drug, and was apparently not averse to illegal activity or keeping secrets.  You can see why people might not be very trusting, right?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always found the "gateway drug" argument to be pretty disingenuous. Realistically, if you asked how many coke users have drank before you would probably get the same number of affirmatives as you would with pot. (100% maybe)

Agree with the differences you note between coke and booze.

People who use coke are much more likely to become addicted than are people who drink. There are lots of people out there who can have a glass of wine with dinner and live a happy, normal, well-adjusted life. I personally haven't met ANYBODY who does a line of coke with dinner everynight....

eta, I can't believe that Boisclair basically told the media to piss off and leave him alone on the issue, and they have....

[tml12]

I am new here on these boards but I will weigh in on this issue first...

The PQ doesn't care whether or not Boisclair did coke. What they did care about is that he is moderate and IS MOST ENTRENCHED IN QUEBEC'S YOUTH COMMUNITY.

Marois is seen as too hardcore and worn out and no one is taking the other candidates seriously.

Quebec is extremely liberal per North American standards on drug use (and Quebec's youth community even more so), thus I think you will find this issue will blow over if, as it seems, Boisclair wins the leadership race (pardon the pun).

[shoop]

Good first post.

Boisclair actually seems to be the most realistic candidate, in term of economics, of the lot.

He actually admits that maybe Quebec won't be as well off financially if it separates and some steps need to be made in proactively dealing with the finances of a sovereign Quebec.

[tml12]

Good first post.

Boisclair actually seems to be the most realistic candidate, in term of economics, of the lot.

He actually admits that maybe Quebec won't be as well off financially if it separates and some steps need to be made in proactively dealing with the finances of a sovereign Quebec.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he is a bit more realistic than other PQ people. One thing I hate is ideologues. And frankly, if you aren't willing to hear both sides of the opinion, you are only hurting yourself.

Don't dither, yet don't be impulsive. I think Boisclair, regardless of his inexperience, gets this.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

If the later, I'll just say that I'm terribly addicted to caffeine, make frequent use of alcohol, and have on occasion tried other mood-altering chemicals of various sorts..

Bravo. You (and me) and almost every politician is in this category. I used to smoke a lot of weed, but I just don't have the time anymore, and have tried coke, LSD, mushrooms(wheee!)....(never will do LSD or coke again...too 'artificial', and that is where I think the 'legalization line' should be drawn)

anyway, it looks to me as if this thread is veering into separate issues: standards for public officials, and hypocrisy of our handling of drug and alcohol issues

You are right, I'll start another thread about 'Legalization Of Mary Jane'...but, as to standards for public officials, there needs to be a line drawn as to whether or not they have, or are presently, breaking any laws of the land. Whether those are 'just laws' or not shouldn't matter too much, for if one has conviction in a matter, they shouldn't be afraid to stand up and say so.

[kimmy]

There goes your nomination chance, Kimmy.

uh-oh. What am I being nominated for this time?

-k

[shoop]

Pardon the huge transgression...

Bravo. You (and me) and almost every politician is in this category. I used to smoke a lot of weed, but I just don't have the time anymore, and have tried coke, LSD, mushrooms(wheee!)....(never will do LSD or coke again...too 'artificial', and that is where I think the 'legalization line' should be drawn)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thelonius, that is pretty crazy. Your experienc with illicit narcotics matches mine almost exactly. (Assuming that the wheee about mushrooms means it is AWESOME!)

I have always thought that certain highs attract certain people. Maybe there is a connection between pot/hash/mushrooms and people who post on message boards.

Back to the point of the thread.

From everything I can see here in the heart of the Bloc (i.e. Saguenay) it looks like Boisclair is going to run away with this thing. I`m not sure how they are actually selecting the leader (i.e. delegates or universal vote) but he is looking like an easy first ballot winner at this point.

[tml12]

Pardon the huge transgression...

Bravo. You (and me) and almost every politician is in this category. I used to smoke a lot of weed, but I just don't have the time anymore, and have tried coke, LSD, mushrooms(wheee!)....(never will do LSD or coke again...too 'artificial', and that is where I think the 'legalization line' should be drawn)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thelonius, that is pretty crazy. Your experienc with illicit narcotics matches mine almost exactly. (Assuming that the wheee about mushrooms means it is AWESOME!)

I have always thought that certain highs attract certain people. Maybe there is a connection between pot/hash/mushrooms and people who post on message boards.

Back to the point of the thread.

From everything I can see here in the heart of the Bloc (i.e. Saguenay) it looks like Boisclair is going to run away with this thing. I`m not sure how they are actually selecting the leader (i.e. delegates or universal vote) but he is looking like an easy first ballot winner at this point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am pretty sure it is a universal vote that will take place via telephone from November 15 to 17. Today's Montreal Gazette puts Boisclair at 39% (compared to Marois at 19%) and 60% of dedicated PQ voters will vote for Boisclair in a provincial election.

For the record, only did pot and shrooms (I second that wheeee!!!)

[mcqueen625]

Good morning, FLEABAG:

Interesting quesiton you pose, but I think it comes down to legal semantics.

He's not abetting a criminal until there is "legally" a criminal to have abetted.

IOW, a person is s "suspect" until convicted, at which point he becomes a "criminal".

When you consider that there is not even a suspect, then I don't think the legal definition of "abetting" can come into play.

This may all be a pile of pooh for a couple reasons;

First, I'm not a lawyer.

Second, I just got up and I'm still wiping the sleep from my eyes,

but it sounds nonsensicle enough to be a legality.

Besides, why should he give a name???

There are no charges being pressed against him for either possession or use, so there is no legal pressure to release a name.

Furthermore, he may need to engage the services of said dealer again in the future.

Difficult to do if the dealer is behind bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jail, what jail? In Canada drug dealers don't go to jail, they get house arrest, unless of course one is naive enough to believe that house arrest is really being actually incarcerated. Our justice system is the laughing stock of the world. No wonder criminals and terrorits want to come here.

We have a sex-offender registry and people like Karla Holmolka (Teale), and Karl Toft are not on it, because that would conflict with the flawed document our Court's, and government refer to a our Charter. What a joke, a real sick joke!

[Canuck E Stan]

PQ leadership hopeful Boisclair denies having links with organized crime

When the question came up again during a news conference, Boiclair refused to address the issue.

A lot of denial here about the cocaine and from whom he got it while a cabinet minister.

No one seems to care.

[Bakunin]

PQ leadership hopeful Boisclair denies having links with organized crime

When the question came up again during a news conference, Boiclair refused to address the issue.

A lot of denial here about the cocaine and from whom he got it while a cabinet minister.

No one seems to care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, we don't care, we want the best candidate availlable. Sure doing coke aint helping but i think ppl focus on the overall.

The united states have an ex-cocain president and the republican, a very conservative party in a conservative country voted for him.

I guess it explain a bit what is going on, we want the best overall candidate and we see alot of ppl taking on him like if it was the end of the world, his leadership adversary, the other party and alot of media to the point where it look like a crucification. I think this drive ppl crasy and help him.

At equal competence, ppl would vote for a candidate that didn't take drugs but thats not the case.

[Riverwind]

Exactly, we don't care, we want the best candidate availlable. Sure doing coke aint helping but i think ppl focus on the overall.

So a candidate that is might be paying hush money to the local hell angel's chapter is acceptable to Quebequers? He is trying to keep his drug using past secret which means he is vulnerable to blackmail by anyone who knows the truth about it. Is this really the kind of person that should be premier?

[Canuck E Stan]

Bakunin,

I think the people in Quebec know more than the media is trying to teach them.The Media is trying so hard to get Boisclair. They are trying to have people question his credibility.First it was the cocaine, then it was the connection to organized crime, and the latest is his education credentials.

newspaper columnist accused him of misrepresenting his education.

The best line I've heard was from Richelieu MNA Sylvain Simard who said:

"It's (the article) a job, a real dirty job," said Richelieu MNA Sylvain Simard, after accusing reporters of falling prey to Liberal spinners. "I find this unhealthy. I think people need to start being careful - the proof being the loss of control this morning.

In other reports I read, Simard said the media should research their stories before accepting the word of a fellow journalist.

This I believe is the fault of Canadian media,once one of them carries a story the rest accept it as gospel and promote it like it was, without any verification.

Simard also said:

"We have here a person who is in direct contact with the population, who is stirring up major interest and I think the federalist forces are bewildered. There have been orders given in certain newsrooms to investigate beyond the usual.

Although there may not be orders given in certain newsrooms,in many stories the media does appear to be over zealous in their reporting without personally looking at the facts of the story.

I wish the public in English Canada would do the same and stop believing the media for everything that it rushes to reports without verification.

This incident with Boisclair looks good on the media.

[Bakunin]

Exactly, we don't care, we want the best candidate availlable. Sure doing coke aint helping but i think ppl focus on the overall.

So a candidate that is might be paying hush money to the local hell angel's chapter is acceptable to Quebequers? He is trying to keep his drug using past secret which means he is vulnerable to blackmail by anyone who knows the truth about it. Is this really the kind of person that should be premier?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well why not ask this about Bush ? if the american conservative accepted it, i can't see why quebeckers shouldnt.

But again, i think the question is about getting the best candidate availlable and as i can see, rough attacks on Boisclair is comming from other candidates that arent popular and the liberals wich aren't popular too. Ppl don't want Marois or Legendre.

[Riverwind]

Well why not ask this about Bush ? if the american conservative accepted it, i can't see why quebeckers shouldnt.

The is no comparison between Bush and Bosclair:

1) Bush has never admitted to using cocaine. Most Bush voters believe the allegations against Bush to be false. I am sure Bush would have lost the election if he admitted that he had used cocaine.

2) All alleged cocaine use predates Bush' political career. If Bush had been using cocaine while he was governer of Texas then the allegations would have been taken much more seriously.

The real issue here is Bosclair used cocaine while he was cabinet minister: that is the fact that means he has very poor judgement and there is not 'the best person for the job'.

[Bakunin]

Well why not ask this about Bush ? if the american conservative accepted it, i can't see why quebeckers shouldnt.

The is no comparison between Bush and Bosclair:

1) Bush has never admitted to using cocaine. Most Bush voters believe the allegations against Bush to be false. I am sure Bush would have lost the election if he admitted that he had used cocaine.

2) All alleged cocaine use predates Bush' political career. If Bush had been using cocaine while he was governer of Texas then the allegations would have been taken much more seriously.

The real issue here is Bosclair used cocaine while he was cabinet minister: that is the fact that means he has very poor judgement and there is not 'the best person for the job'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just think that many adversary are nervous to see him as PM and use this to attack him because they can't find anything else to attack him.

Sure using cocaine is something very wrong, but he didn't use it on the job an he admitted it and said it was an error. Levesque had problem with alchool and was a heavy smoker, however, he was the best leader we had in 400 years.

The question is simple, we want the best leader available and he his that.

[mcqueen625]

If you ask me, a good many of our politicians are using something illegal, just look at many of the asinine programs that have been started by our politicians. One of the newly minted Senator's, the former Mayor of Vancouver, wanted to pass out clean mouthpieces for crack pipes and I read somewhere he wanted these people to be able to smoke this illegal substance at the government sanction Methadone Clinic so they would be safe. And this is the tye of nutcase we are elevating to the Senate. Little wonder the cry is growing louder and louder to abolish this institution for Party hacks, who also happen to be morons.