Hal 9000

I always liked this quote from Jeff Goldblum - as Ian Malcom: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" ""Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should", but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"

Isn't it funny that when talking about health we always hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We strive for prevention, to catch something early, to work out and keep our blood pressure down/our cholesterol low etc.etc., but the argument for hard drugs is; we'll collect money from you and when you finally OD on smack, we'll be waiting.

I don't have a problem per se', but I can tell you that legalizing marijuana won't appreciatively change anyone's life too much. Looking at how it is now; i've been in campsites, parks, ski hill, concerts, festivals...you name it with groups smoking pot - we weren't obnoxious, cops saw it and did nothing. I've smoked in a car, boat, house and never had a cop see me. I've had police show up at my house where I was growing - nothing. None of these things will change - or will they? Now, we all want to equate smoking weed with alcohol - sell it and tax it. But wait, don't we also have to compare it to cigarettes too? OK, so as alcohol, we have to consume it at a licensed establishment, but...you can't because that would cause second hand smoke (even vape shops are being hassled). So, go outside with the tobacco smokers? Nope! Like alcohol, It weed be allowed outside in public. In fact, some cities want to completely ban outdoor cigarette smoking. So, that leaves home and private functions - just like it is now. Now, getting back to parks, ski hills etc., You can't drink alcohol there either and the police have no issue walking up and handing out a $3-500 fine (I've received one of those)for doing just that, and surely they will be instructed to do the same for marijuana. All those times where a cop walked by because he didn't want the hassle of an arrest and possession charge could be exchanged with a simple public consumption fine - guaranteed. As for kids, Trudeau says they will have less access because of regulations - utter bullshit! The dealers (or bootleggers) will get to the kids and they'll still be smoking just as much. And, as was mentioned above - dealers will still deal and growers will still grow. Legalize or don't legalize - I don't care, but lets not pretend that life will change in any positive way.

Yeah, but he has talked about decriminalizing.

What am I making up?

I'm not arguing against legalization though - never have!

How many are getting criminal records? I mean, that's the issue put forth by Trudeau - right?

It was a simple question that you had no answer for, so you resorted to an infantile response.

So, you want to fight for the rights of drug dealers now too? Go right ahead, I couldn't care less.

Only about a quarter of those are getting records - and so what, they're drug dealers and guys who've plead down from bigger charges. Why not seek out the number of kids who'll go hungry tonight or get beaten by a parent, or the number of men killed every year at work, or the amount of people who went bankrupt last year. Sorry, a bunch of losers getting a record for marijuana possession means nothing....NOTHING to me.

OK, fair enough! 220,000! Subtract the minors who won't end up with a record anyway, subtract the thrown out cases (55%) and what were left with is about 50,000 guilty cases over that 10 years (5,000 per year) and I think about 16% actually see jail time. My numbers are pretty close and certainly closer than Trudeau's claim of 475,000 people with criminal records. And it would appear that the guilty cases had other elements or charges attached to them - meaning it's not just simple possession. Anyway, once again, I have no issue with weed - legalize, don't legalize - who gives a shit. My issue is as has always been - wedge issue,! Not enough people affected to bother worrying about it - Meh! Why don't you hassle Trudeau over his numbers?

Of course it's worse for them. And, I'm pretty sure that if you voiced out loud that it might be worse for you - all hell would break loose. Using WIP's example; If a woman got paralyzed and her husband said it was worse for him, he would be called the biggest, most insensitive asshole in the world.

But didn't he just bring up a mens issue only to have you scoff and call it "attacking women". I mean, the irony of you proving his point just doesn't get any better.

I think it's an honest question that maybe you could enlighten us on.

Really, 0.01% (cut that in half for minors) of people (mainly drug dealers) getting a record and spending a couple weeks in jail is a huge issue, a thorn in our side for decades - wow, there's some hyperbole. As I said before, if someone votes Liberal for economic reason, fair enough, but if ones sole purpose is to vote Liberal based on marijuana laws - they are truly a nitwit.

In what ways is it worse for the woman when her man gets crippled? Do you even realize just how fucked up that idea really is? I love how the discussion is about men being disposable and women are the chosen sex, and (to prove how wrong that theory is) the rebuttal to a man getting maimed, crippled or dead becomes about the woman's suffering.

I don't know about hundreds of thousands, but anyway...Looking at the stats and the amount of warnings or thrown out cases etc, it would seem that the primary function of this law is simply to charge a drug dealer with something/anything when trafficking charges just won't stick.

OK, lets go over it a little slower. I've seen cyber's site about calculating "clearance", but what you're missing is the reasons why an incident is cleared. Below, i've given the official term of "clearance" and what reasons there could be for clearance. The important thing to read (in both sections) is the term "departmental discretion", what it entails and how often it's used. Do the math from there. Text box 1 What is a clearance rate? The clearance rate represents the proportion of criminal incidents solved by the police. Police can clear an incident by charge or by means other than the laying of a charge. The most common reasons for clearing an incident by other means include: departmental discretion, the complainant declines to press charges, referral to a diversion program or departmental policy. For example, several of the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) encourage police to consider alternatives to charging youth, such as issuing warnings, cautions or referrals to community programs or extrajudicial sanctions programs. Less common reasons for clearing an incident by other means include: death of the accused, complainant or witness, committal of the accused to a mental hospital, the accused has diplomatic immunity or is in a foreign country and cannot be returned, the accused is less than 12 years of age, the accused is involved in other incidents or was already sentenced for another offence, the incident was cleared by a lesser statute or by another municipal, provincial or federal agency. Most drug-related offences solved by police; departmental discretion more common for cannabis possession Of all police-reported drug-related offences in 2013, more than three-quarters (78%) were cleared, or solved, by police. In contrast, 41% of Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic) reported to police in 2013 were solved. The comparatively high clearance rate was driven by possession offences, as 85% of such offences were solved by police. Possession offences typically involve the presence of drugs on a person and as such are more likely to be cleared than other types of offences. In contrast, 67% of trafficking offences, 50% of offences involving import or export, and 36% of production offences were solved by police. When looking at the type of drug, offences involving methamphetamines (83%) or heroin (83%) were most likely to be solved by police, while those involving other controlled drugs and substances (70%) or cocaine (73%) had the lowest clearance rates. The Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting Survey also allows for more detailed information on the clearance status of police-reported offences. In general, drug-related offences are more likely than crime in general to be cleared through departmental discretion (26% compared to 8%). More than four in ten (41%) of all cleared cannabis offences were cleared through departmental discretion, while 17% of all other cleared drug offences were cleared by discretion. When looking at possession offences, 45% of cannabis and 24% of other drug types were cleared through departmental discretion. British Columbia, which reported the highest rate of drug-related offences in 2013, also reported the highest proportion of offences cleared by departmental discretion (i.e., by giving a warning, caution, or referral to a community-based program rather than laying a charge). Almost half (47%) of drug-relatedincidents in British Columbia were cleared through these means, of which the large majority (94%) were related to possession.

Here is another case - the same, but different. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/?ref=yfp

The numbers are from Stats Canada (thanks to OGFT for that) and CANSIM (thanks Cyber). They're not my numbers, they're the numbers.

Sorry, I know what "cleared means". "....also reported the highest proportion of offences cleared by departmental discretion (i.e., by giving a warning, caution, or referral to a community-based program rather than laying a charge)". Read that again...."rather than laying a charge".

OK, 30,000 is a multi-year stat dating back 9 years. If you can show that 475,000 people got criminal records for marijuana possession in the last 9 years, I'll recant everything Ive said. And, I guarantee you there will be the 420 crowd voting for Trudeau based on no other reason than marijuana legalization.

About 30K lives...and I wouldn't say wrecked. And I'd bet they were doing a lot more than just sharing a joint around a campfire. As that CPA dude said, it's usually a plea bargain from a more serious charge. Anyway, it's still a far cry from the half million that Trudeau claims. The point is still the same, It's a wedge issue and to elect an entire government based on this issue is pure stupidity. P.S - I didn't collect the data, the numbers are the numbers.

It's less than 0.01% of the population that is getting convicted of possession, and listening to the CPA president, they're probably dudes that deserve the record. So yeah, I say meh! Just for perspective, there have been about 7X the amount of gays get married since 2005.

Ok, I will concede the point that a person can be inadmissible to enter the U.S. I've never had a problem and I'm one of those people. Hmmm... it's still not a criminal record.