Suppose there's a farmer, producing a product. This product appeals to a segment of the population, and the users of the product, contend there is no harm in its use.
Now, suppose there's a government, and currently that government regulates that product - it could be the product is illegal or heavily regulated. They contend that the product causes harm when used.
The farmer argues that the product is safe for general consumption. The population who obtains the product also argue that it is safe for general consumption. This population can cite studies and reports showing the product is safe.
The government argues the product is not safe for general consumption. The population who do not use the product also argue that it is not safe for general consumption. This population can cite studies and reports showing the product is not safe.
Who is right?
Does it depend on the product? Does it depend on who you trust more?
Does it more or less depend upon which "population" you are a member of?
Is it possible, to support the heavy regulation of one product and not another?
Tags: canada, politics, regulation