BubberMiley
-
Posts
11,324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BubberMiley
-
-
Assuming you have a basement. Many people live in appartments or rental properties where growing marijuana would likely be prohibited by either the condo association or the landlord (just like they do with pets today). These people would likely find it easier to use the black market than find more flexible accomodation.
Sure, that's possible, but these people are using the black market now, so there would be no change. Decriminalization would still decrease the black market--maybe eliminate it (perhaps that's idealistic but that's what happened with alcohole, so why not?)
You have to realize that if a few plants for personal use were legal you would see so-op warehouses set up where people could tend their plants in a more ideal growing conditions. It would be difficult to distiniguish between legit warehouses and black market warehouses.
Again, there would be no legit warehouses. We're talking a plant or two--half an ounce. Everything else would be as illegitimate as it is right now. There wouldn't be increased trade across the border, because it wouldn't be worth going across the border with half an ounce (and it would still be as illegal to do so as it is today).
-
I'm not convinced there are no half measures here. I think if the law were enforced and there were severe legal ramifications for taking part in the black market, most regular pot-smokers would be happy to grow their own. Not to mention they'd get to avoid paying $200 an ounce for what is essentially, literally, a weed. It's not that big a deal to grow a plant in your basement. A lot less of a deal than operating a home distillery.
And it would still be possible to make large grow-ops as illegal as they are now, with even harsher penalties as it would be apparent that such an operation is to fuel the black market. And, once again, existing resources that are spent on casual weed-smokers could be focused on these larger operations.
-
You'd have to be mildly retarded or gullible to an unforgivable degree to believe that Martin had no knowledge of Adscam. I am neither.
Can you provide evidence of this?
-
This is my favourite debate topic, so please indulge me once again
Pot cannot and should not be legallized until the US federal gov't stops restricting it.yes, it can (we’re still a sovereign country). Whether it should not be is what we’re debating.
Legalizing pot only in Canada would not solve the crime problem because there would still be a market in the US.There's no logical evidence that allowing people to have less than an ounce of weed would increase cross-border trafficking.
Creating a legitmate business in Canada to sell an distribute pot would simply make it easier for organize crime to avoid prosecution.No, again, we’re talking decriminalization of less than an ounce. The penalties for trafficking and for possession of large quantities could be increased. This would actually target organized crime more effectively than wasting resources on small-time users.
In addition, criminals that supply the US would seek to undermine any regulation that we might want to put on the sale of pot (i.e. if we treated pot like alcohol then we would not allow sales to minors and have taxation levels high enough to discourage use - both polices would be impossible to enforce due to black market competition).The sale to minors is too small a segment to warrant a black market. If a consenting adult were allowed to grow two plants for personal use, the black market would collapse. Again, you could increase the penalties to anyone above that limit. Decriminalization of small amounts would just free up resources to target organized crime, and limit (as much as the law has ever been successful at limiting) cross-border trade.
-
Yes, but decriminalization means less money to law enforcement, and no union ever argued to lose work.
-
BTW, I might as well shut down your other lame argument before you think you can debate or something.
Aboriginals fall under federal responsibility for things like housing, treaties, etc. But in terms of health care, employment, living standards, etc., they're included in provincial statistics. That's not to mention that nearly half the population lives off reserve and are practically ignored by the feds. Nonetheless, this is not to say I'm even negative about the future of Aboriginals in Canada. Though widespread FAS is a great cause for concern, there are a lot of really positive indications that their situation is improving. You could say (because you're a desperate debater) that identifying FAS or poor living conditions as an Aboriginal concern is racist. I say it's just being realistic, and that's the only way to ever identify and solve a problem.
-
Good arguement.....let's decriminalize/legalize Crystal Meth.
Actually, ironically, it is legal and available in any pharmancy. It's called Desyoxn. No controversy there compared to, say, medical marijuana. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
-
Unfortunately all adults are not responsible. Why should I support your habit? Oh and if you think there isn't any drug wars with killings going on, think again. Helloooo!!
First off, you support my habit now by paying for law enforcement and tax amnesty. I'm not sure what you mean by all adults are not responsible--not capable of handling an innocuous product where too much usage gives them a good night's sleep. We're not talking alcohol, where you turn into a raving loogan.
And I never said anything about no drug wars. There are lots of drug wars. That's what decriminalization would stop.
-
Actually, sexual oritentation is clearly written into the charter.
-
Good idea. Play the racism card if you have no brains for a real argument.
I said, reserves are in bad shape. I blame the fact that Aboriginals had all their decent land stolen from them and were sent into the bush to make a new life for themselves. What do you blame for their dire conditions?
-
Not use the notwithstanding clause.
-
You also forgot to mention this, from the features page of this website, "the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police argues that law enforcement spends too much of its time and resources on petty drug possession charges while major producers and traffickers expand their operations. Decriminalization, they argue, will free up vital resources."
-
It does not violate the charter. The charter does not specifically address this issue and existed for many years without gay marriage. Are you saying Canada was in violation all those years?
Yes, I am. And the charter says no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. All the rights of marriage have been denied homosexuals, therefore they are being discriminated against. The charter is only 22 years old, and lots of things have to shake through it before they are implemented. Once the charter was made law, SSM was inevitable.
-
Harper admitted in the debate he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause. That means, Leafless, that no matter how much you hate to mind your own business, homosexuals will be free and equal to participate in this society like you are. No matter what a free vote in the House of cCommons decides. It's a done deal. Unless you want to use SSM as a basis on which to dump the charter, it doesn't make any difference what people think about it or who gets elected.
-
Whether or not 55% believe a free vote is the way to go is irrelevant if that free vote would just be overturned because it clearly violates the charter. The only relevant issue is whether there is a willingness to use the notwithstanding clause. Harper had the balls to say no to that, despite pressure from his party. Therefore he would have a free vote that would accomplish nothing and is totally a non-issue.
-
And you can always take Sparhawk's word for things. Like when Sparhawk said people remain impaired from smoking marijuana for up to a year.
-
It doesn't really matter what they think. It's what the supreme court thinks the charter says and whether they would use the notwithstanding clause to override the charter.
-
That's a bit overly simplistic. That's like saying under capitalism, the corporate elites hoard all the wealth, leaving scraps for the rest. That's only the case if you work at Wal-Mart.
-
Nobody gets rich from their salary as a politician in Canada. They all wind up rich by the time they're done though.
-
I meant litres not gallons
-
No, I just live in MB. We have 4-gallon jugs (for about 3 bucks) and cartons.
-
No way! You have to pay a premium in AB to get health care? I wasn't aware of that. Wow! With all their money. I'm glad you guys are giving us transfer payments in MB so we don't have to do that.
-
Well-screened questions that concern them. If you take an unscreened media source, like say Mapleleafweb, it's a lot more prominent. It's a major feature issue on the home page and a popular topic in the discussion forum (14 pages and nearly 2000 views so far). That's why I'm lobbying for a very smiley face with red eyes to add to the end of all my posts.
-
yes. The really beauty of this little exchange is that at least I've got you off your pot crusade...at least for a while.
CPCers just want to bury this issue because they know their position is irrational. When their arguments are shut down, they shut up, say the issue is"not on people's radar," or desperately try to change the subject.
Decriminalization vs. Criminalization
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I've heard it was the cotton industry as hemp is much superior. Personally, I always thought it was maybe based on fear of jazz-crazed vipers. And that glazed-over look you get in your eyes when you're high can be a little unnerving to some. In any case, as you can see from this thread, the laws as they are were certainly not based on any reasonable argument.