I recently had the pleasure of joining Chris Hoff on The Radical Therapist Podcast. You can listen to our lively discussion about the 1960s, long-haired hippies, and mental health services during a period of big-time change. You can download the Pod here or through iTunes. Thanks for listening and sharing! #mentalhealthawareness #healthpolicy
For millions of Canadians, there is no icon in business more collectively beloved than Tim Hortons. “Tim’s” – as the franchise is affectionately called – long ago transcended the humble domain of doughnuts and coffee. Instead, it is now a part of the Canadian national identity – one of those rare brands by which individuals and societies categorize themselves.
Forget beer. Tim Hortons coffee is Canada’s drug of choice.
And it is a fascinating historical and political development that Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party cleverly latched onto this when pitching itself to the masses. The Tories held photo-ops inside Tim Hortons outlets across Canada and made sure to be photographed delivering Tim Hortons goodies around various communities.
In 2009, one researcher felt that the Tim Hortons X factor was essential enough to warrant asking voters which party leader was more likely to buy their coffee at Tim’s. No surprises here, the Conservatives edged the Liberals in this category. Canadians had, in short, developed a culture of conservative coffee.
With the recent election of Justin Trudeau and a new Liberal government (which promised hope and change), the time is right to take a step back and assess the relationship between Tim Hortons and politics.
* * * * *
Tim Hortons opened its first location in 1964 in Hamilton, Ontario. It was co-founded by NHL player, Tim Horton, who played for the Toronto Maple Leafs, among other teams. In succeeding decades, thousands more popped up across the country, making it more successful in Canada than McDonald’s. Sure, the arrival of the coffee chain in a small town sometimes meant the end of local ‘mom-and-pop’ shops, but its presence produced more excitement than resentment. Getting a Tim Hortons was a sign that a community – however small – had made it.
Over the course of 50 years, Tim Hortons caught and surpassed the big-name American burger chains to become the undisputed champion of Canada’s “quick service restaurant” market.
By 2004, the term “double-double” entered the Oxford dictionary of Canadian English, signifying recognition of its importance to everyday speech. Ordering a drink of this kind represented, at least for some commentators and scholars, more than just habit. It was and remains an act of solidarity within the national body politic. According to the Globe and Mail, one estimate suggests Tim’s sells nearly eight in 10 cups of coffee sold in Canada.
Most pharmaceutical companies would kill for that kind of market share.
This road to dominance was chronicled in Ron Joyce’s Always Fresh, an insider’s account of Tim Horton and the business named after him. At times, it is a devastatingly blunt account of the chaotic and complicated personal story behind one of Canada’s most successful businesses.
Ron Joyce, one of the co-founders of the franchise, chronicles the drugs, the infidelity, an epic court battle, and one spectacular, fatal car crash – that of Tim Horton himself, which was booze-fuelled and largely overlooked until recently. Joyce, in short, takes his readers behind the counter, into the kitchen, and demonstrates the inner-workings of the company.
The tone of tenor of the book are inherently and recognizably free-market. It is a Horatio Alger, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, local-boy-makes-good narrative. First, Joyce settled in Hamilton and worked menial jobs in factories, scraping together enough to get by. Later, he joined law enforcement and increased his measly pay by taking on a variety of odd jobs, including: a produce truck driver, construction worker, and then Brinks guard. Finally, he simply fell into the restaurant business in his mid-thirties and then, through sheer hard work and force of will, he went on to become one of the wealthiest businessmen in the country.
We have all been exposed to this upwardly mobile narrative before, and it surely one that resonates with free-market advocates and, more generally, economic conservatives. Yet, Joyce’s story is intriguing because it showcases how success can tear at the fabric of friendship and family. According to Maclean’s, “It’s as much about jealousy, greed and betrayal as it is about cash flow and marketing.”
According to Douglas Hunter, politicians, especially the Conservative Party, saw tremendous value in the legend of Tim Hortons and seized on the idea that the company, as well as the hockey player founder, was representative of the average Canadian.
When Condoleezza Rice visited Canada in 2006, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay was photographed taking her to Tim’s. Newspapers referred to this as “double-double diplomacy,” even though she chose to have her coffee black with one sweetener, rather than two creams and two sugars.
Prime Minister Harper also used the Tim Hortons logo as a political stage, including a 2009 speech that welcomed the company back to Canada after it relocated its corporate headquarters from the U.S. To make this political statement, Harper declined an invitation to speak at the United Nations General Assembly, much to the chagrin of the national press.
Harper explicitly referenced how the company was an “essential Canadian story,” which included “success and tragedy,” as well as “big dreams in small towns,” “old fashioned values and tough-fisted business,” “hard work and hockey.” To use David Farber’s phrase, this muscular nationalism, an unshakable patriotism that was popularized by Harper.
Similarly, as Canada prepared to go to war in Afghanistan, the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, contended that troops should have a Tim Hortons at Kandahar Airfield. It would cost the public at least $4 million, but access to Canada’s drug of choice was a boon to morale. “There’s nothing more Canadian than sipping a double-double in Kandahar airfield while you’re watching a hockey game,” noted Gen. Hillier.
According to Hillier’s Afghanistan commander, Brigadier-General David Fraser, when asked what he thought about the idea: “Tim Hortons better get its ass over here, as far as I’m concerned.”
* * * *
The identity crisis Canadians have suffered since Confederation in 1867 has helped Tim Hortons achieve its emblematic status. It doesn’t help that Canadians are so close to the United States and struggle with what makes us distinct.
Essentially, this means we have been desperate to clasp on to everything that helps delineate and comfort us, particularly in a post-1980s globalized world in which national culture has become so tangled with acts of consumption.
Tim Hortons has seized on that and the Conservative Party seized on that, too. “The worst thing a company can do is tell you straight up ‘We are important to your identity,’” says Douglas Hunter. Instead, the politicians made that point. Tim’s was used as a prop and a backdrop. And the coffee formed part of a political strategy, which has helped reinforce the iron grip of a gentle brand.
And while Justin Trudeau, Canada’s new prime minister, promised hope and change on the campaign trail he made sure to stop in to Tim’s for a cup of coffee. Some drugs, it seems, are hard to kick.
Saskatoon is one of the cities in Canada that cracks down hardest on possession of minor marijuana and this is incredible, especially in light of the provincial government’s newly unveiled policies on liquor regulation.
As seen here and here, the Wall government has ushered in a series of new rules that liberalizes alcohol policy in Saskatchewan. We are privatizing liquor in the province. And we are also – to supporters, at least – rationalizing widely unfair policies.
It’s strange, then, that the rate of enforcement for possession of marijuana is so variable. In Saskatchewan, for example, Regina is much more lenient than Saskatoon. And we must question what this ultimately means? Just as consistent liquor policies drove debates in government and within the electorate, the lack of rationalization and parity in enforcement rates deserves more consideration.
The CBC decided to interview me recently about Saskatoon’s enforcement of marijuana.
This is the beginning of the story:Saskatchewan is the place you’re most likely to get busted for simple possession of marijuana and Saskatoon tops the list of major Canadian cities. According to 2014 data from Statistics Canada, 77 per cent of the time Saskatoon police stop someone suspected of having pot, they lay a charge.That compares with 48 per cent in Regina . The Canadian average was 39 per cent.
Meanwhile, if you look at the per capita rates of pot charges, Saskatoon ranks fourth behind Kelowna, Gatineau and Sherbrooke.
Lucas Richert, a history instructor at the U of S who has an academic interest in pop culture and drugs in North America, said we have to look at many factors when it comes to any conclusions we derive from enforcement rates. “Saskatchewan is a microcosm of wildly inconsistent enforcement rates across Canada.” Saskatoon has chosen a specific course of action on pot, Richert said.
“Saskatoon has traditionally adopted the so-called broken windows approach to enforcement of marijuana,” he said. “The broken windows approach is the idea that a visible police presence and severe crackdown on smaller infractions will deter larger crimes.” He added that resources are a large factor to consider when looking at these rates, as well as “the philosophy of a given chief.”
Now, the full article can be seen here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatoon-top-place-in-canada-to-be-charged-for-marijuana-possession-1.3249579
On a final note, I wanted to underline a CRUCIAL part of this tale, a part of the interview that didn’t make it to the news – Police Chief Clive Weighill has been very progressive in certain areas, but his policy vis-a-vis marijuana is perplexing. Part of the story has something to do with the fact that he is President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), although this deserves much more exploration in the months and years ahead.
I just penned a short piece on Dallas Buyers Club and the current debates about medical marijuana in Saskatoon, SK for the Star Phoenix.
With the federal election fast approaching, the Harper government’s move to enlarge Canada’s marijuana industry, and the RCMP’s potential actions against dispensaries here in Saskatoon, a lot is happening!
The piece begins this way:
In the award-winning 2013 movie, Dallas Buyers Club, we are exposed to heroic patient activism during the AIDS crisis in the U.S. Based on the true story of AIDS-stricken Ron Woodroof, a hard-partying Texas tradesman, the film shows a strikingly thin Matthew McConaughey battle his sickness and the legal authorities in Texas.
Woodroof, who’s unhappy with his illegally purchased AIDS medicine, and on the edge of death, seeks out alternative and experimental drugs from a doctor in Mexico. Then Ron, being the savvy entrepreneur that he is, quickly establishes a club (a dispensary) to sell his unregulated, sometimes dangerous, imported medicines. In doing so, he operates outside the law and is forced to confront the existing power structure of drug regulation. At one point in the film, Ron storms a town hall meeting of citizens, drug company leaders, and regulators and starts finger-pointing. “People are dying. And y’all up there are afraid that we’re gonna find an alternative without you.”
Saskatoon’s current struggle with illegal marijuana dispensaries has many parallels.
Mark Hauk, who operates Saskatoon’s first medical marijuana dispensary, is one of 13 pot club owners across Canada who has recently received a notice from Health Canada warning of possible RCMP raids.
These stores and clubs are illegal because they procure and sell their products outside the federal medical marijuana system, which was overhauled and expanded last year to allow industrial-scale production of pot products that are mailed directly to licensed patients.
While this system was certainly upgraded through the Harper government’s Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulation, there are still areas for improvement.
According to Neil Boyd at Simon Fraser, “…it is really quite bizarre that they’re using a mail-order system for marijuana as medicine; that’s not the way medicine is usually dispensed. Medicine is usually dispensed through a visit to a physician and through a pharmacy.”
The entire opinion-editorial, which is called “Pot problems have a familiar ring,” can be found here.
The federal election is going to have a profound impact on Saskatchewan’s marijuana industry. So writes D.C. Fraser in a new article for the Regina Leader-Post.
I told Fraser during an interview for the story that “Depending on what the winner suggests about medical marijuana legislation, (it will have) a direct impact on the economy, and on this sector of the economy…”
In many ways, SK has the potential for tremendous growth in the realm of medical marijuana and I’m genuinely intrigued to see what happens in the next few years.
A link to the full Leader-Post article is here.
Happy Halloween, everybody!
The best part of the day is not the cute kids in their adorable costumes. Or the wild parties. Or seeing Michael Jackson’s Thriller over and over and over again. No. The best part has to be the treats.
As I was casually munching chocolate bars with my coffee this morning (Wunderbar is my favourite, hands down!), I thought about the implications. For many Canadians and Americans, cleanses are the answer. Some hit the gym, while others get more drastic and take all sorts of diet pills. Often, it is buying the hot new diet pill, like Time magazine shouts below.
Fen-Phen was one of the hottest diet drugs of the 1990s; unfortunately, it proved dreadfully unsafe. In the Encyclopedia of Pharmacology of Society, I offer a short overview of this weight loss therapy. I recount some of the more ghoulish aspects of the drug. I provide insight into the macabre nature of diet pills, much as I did with another frightening article called Trimming Down.
This textbook, which is about 2000 pages, will be a fantastic resource for all those people wondering about the role of drugs – including diet drugs – in everyday life. Honestly, the price of the book is blood-curdling, but it’s certainly worth the chills. It answers some crucial questions: How powerful is the drug modern industry? What’s it’s role in society, and how are we influenced by it? Who are the major players? And what does the future of drugs hold?
So, have a great Happy Halloween. Enjoy the candy and costumes. Me, I’m going to probably dole out some treats and watch the Princess Bride, as per household tradition. Remember, a book of Pharmacology and Society’s girth would be a great tool to take out all manner of goblins, ghouls, or rodents of unusual size (ROUS)!
Cheers! Enjoy your treats.
The return of LSD? Call it a comeback? Maybe, maybe not.
Has LSD Matured?
The Return of Psychedelic R&D
By Lucas Richert and Erika Dyck
In February 2014, Scientific American surprised readers with an editorial that called for an end to the ban on psychedelic drug research and criticized drug regulators for limiting access to such psychedelic drugs as LSD (Lysergic acid-diethylamide), ecstasy (MDMA), and psilocybin.
A few months later, Science further described how scientists are rediscovering these drugs as legitimate treatments as well as tools of investigation. “More and more researchers are turning back to psychedelics” to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, various addictions, and other categories of mental illness wrote Kai Kupferschmidt.
Historians of medicine and drugs have long held a view that psychoactive substances conform to cyclical patterns involving intense periods of enthusiasm, therapeutic optimism, critical appraisals, and finally limited use. The duration of this cycle has varied, but this historical model suggests psychedelics are due for a comeback tour. It was just a matter of time…
See the full article at Alternet.org