I have the distinct feeling that this movie could have been produced in the US, which, let’s be fair, they would not really understand how a succession crisis would work in Canada (Also, we have another Trudeau in office, so it’s not entirely unrealistic for a son to take over). Or if it is a Canadian producer, they likely over-simplified the process by which a son could suddenly be elevated to the position of PM, which… yeah, a movie isn’t really gonna cover how difficult that would be.

More than anything else, my biggest concern is real simple:

Drunk driving is going to go up WAY MORE.

Based on all the drivers I have seen on the road, too many of them lack the restraints to actually follow the rules and not do dumb shit, such as texting while driving, following the rules of the road and giving proper space / signaling, road rage, etc. And we know that there already is a bad enough problem as it is with drunk driving, and how so much of our infrastructure is designed around the necessity of having a car, rather than alternatives for getting around (public transit, primarily).

But now you can drive down to whatever 7/11, gas station, Mac store in your area, grab a six-pack anytime between 7am to 11pm, even on Friday nights? Good luck having all those corner stores trying to enforce the same “no-serve” policy that LCBO and Beer Store employees are expected to follow. You’ll have a lot more bad sales being made where people who shouldn’t be mixing booze with driving (as bad as their latter skills may be, alone) will absolutely be able to do that easier and being far more of a danger on the roads. That is where the biggest costs of drinking is going to come from. And Canada, much like other North Americans, do not have a responsible relationship with booze and drinking.

It is going to be a shit-show for whichever government has to follow in the steps of Ford. Hope you like taxes going up to deal with the consequences of more drunk drivers on the road!

So Indexes are supposed to be a little more rigid than just having companies being “removed on a whim” - you would more likely find that on a mutual fund, which are individually managed, versus an index. That being said, I did look into the difference between Dow and S&P 500, and… well, yeah, the former is selected by a committee who generally pick for the top 30 performing companies, while the latter is just a list of the 500 largest publicly traded companies. I think it is generally not used as a good indicator of economic health, as opposed to the S&P (based on a quick Wikipedia read).

I think a few people might consider it only because it’s been running since 1896, and there haven’t really been a lot of changes as to who gets on / off the Dow (58 since inception). So honestly, more than anything else, it’s just really bad PR for investors who might care that Intel is doing so poorly that it’s being kicked off one of the longest-running indexes, which is never good news. Might rattle them enough to where they start demanding big changes, which is likely what Intel needs.

Confiscating their drugs, forcible confinement… you serious? They’ll just get more when they get the chance; they’re addicts, and there are markets for them to find drugs, there’s no easy way of stopping addicts from getting what they need. Confiscating or 24 hour confinement just ends the immediate risk of use, there’s no saying that won’t stop them from getting another hit by the next day (or even guarantee that they haven’t already used it by the time they’re confiscated / confined).

You’re advocating for punishing people effectively for being poor and addicted to drugs. That’s kind of a fucked up opinion, and opening SCSs does not mean you aren’t thinking of the children - it’s also keeping addicts off the streets and away from exposing that lifestyle to children, but on a more humane and practical level.