Neil
National Hazard
Posts: 556
Registered: 19-3-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Canada post May2
Don't care who ya voted for but if you live in Canada, you better stock up on those lovely reagents such as methanol, hydroxides and so on.
I have a funny feeling that in two-three years they will have vanished from our shelves.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
What's your reasoning? Because the conservatives swept the elections or a particular person??
|
|
|
Neil
National Hazard
Posts: 556
Registered: 19-3-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
More the former and less the later.
In 2008 the Conservative Government updated the explosions act to control a number of chemicals which they deemed to be of interest to terrorists.
"Following extensive public consultation, the Government of Canada has developed new regulations for specific chemicals that reflect our
commitment to public safety and security while minimizing impact on Canadian industry and end-users," -Gary Lunn then Minister of Natural
Resources
The list of chemicals was pulled off a US document of hazardous/dangerous chemicals. The willingness to follow the USA in banning and controlling
possible reagents seems to be rather strong.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/natural-resources-ca...
There is considerable media coming from the Conservative party with regards to "Tough on Crime" legislation and "tough on drugs legislation"
I am not for or against Drugs nor do I use drugs nor am I arguing that the laws should be one way or another (I'm still going to get flamed over
something aren't I?).
Considering we already have laws which control almost all of the substances which fall under the category of "drugs" The idea that they are going to
become "tough on drugs" carries with it the chill of the US 'War on Drugs' and the over reaction/control of basic chemicals and elements.
While it was in 2004 that the essential ban on obtaining or selling precursors came into effect, it does not appear to have been enforced very often
during the first few years. In recent years it seems to be a more and more common charge.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/substancontrol/chem-chim/domest...
Harper has vowed to close down the methadone/safe injection sites as part of his attack on drugs.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04...
The relevance is the phobic treatment of drugs. this phobic treatment creates a backlash against harmless chemists who just want to make a pretty blue
crystal, or in the case of one member, soak his underpants in oxidizers to celebrate a holiday.
In the current Conservitive platform the paragraph:
"Unfortunately, long and burdensome approval processes imposed by
the federal government are preventing Canadian farmers from obtaining
the best fertilizers, pesticides, and veterinary drugs available
on the market.
We will revise current approval processes to allow for international
equivalencies in such products. We will eliminate needless duplication,
while protecting our national"
Seems to suggest that they will be making it easier to gain access to chemical groups which contains chemicals considered as explosive and drug
precursors but the lines: "Unfortunately, long and burdensome approval processes imposed by the federal government are preventing Canadian farmers
from obtaining the best fertilizers, pesticides, and veterinary drugs available on the market." could also be read as they would reduce the
restrictions on new substances allowing faster industry access.
Further the constant use of terms such as "dangerous chemicals" and "toxicic chemicals" and even just the use of the word "chemicals" makes a lot of
their literature very chemophbic. Chemophobia is arguably the greatest antithesis of home chemistry.
Recently, from the following page: http://www.leerichardson.ca/newsletters/staying-the-course-f...
"It is understood that serious drug crimes have serious consequences. Drugs bring violence and the use of weapons to our streets, endangering
innocent bystanders.
Drugs fund organized crime, and are often produced in hazardous drug labs in our communities. That’s why our Government has
introduced tough, but fair, legislation to crack down on these crimes and make our communities safer." bold added for emphasis
And from 2006 from this page: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/spe-disc/2006/doc_318...
They promise to "make precursor chemicals of crystal meth, such as pseudoephedrine, harder to get"
To be trite, once a government starts banning chemicals used to make drugs - they end up running out of chemicals to ban.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Up until this time, has Canada been decidedly less strict in it's precursor guidelines? {Notably items such as pseudoephedrine, etc}
In the USA once a Bill has become Law it is very difficult to repeal or even alter unless it has some "sunset" or period-ending time frame written
into it. Is this also the case with Canada?
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
