That's a slippery slope fallacy right here. This refugee-status argument does not work, either. Both from common sense and legal points of view. To begin, it stems from the negative stereotype of drug users and addicts. Most recreational drug users aren't addicted, and most addicts are law-abiding (e.g. alcoholics). If they have a passport and the means to travel to Canada, they are not destitute, either. So, if it boosts tourism (even if it's to buy and use some drugs) in Canada, what's to complain about? From the legal point of view, drug possession isn't a capital offence in US (and drug use isn't criminalized if it's not linked to possession), so it's not a valid ground for claiming a refugee status. And even if a "drug tourist" fails to become a permanent resident in Canada or, say, runs into trouble with the law, they will be dealt with accordingly. But again, most recreational drug users aren't addicts, and most addicts stay within the law when fueling their addiction.