Pot Propagana

[noahbody]

1 to 2 year mandatory prisons sentences for the production, possession for the purposes of trafficking, trafficking, and importing/exporting; Length of sentences depend on "aggravating factors" such as a prior drug offence, if trafficking takes place in areas where there are young people or children, if health and safety of children, property, residential property or property of a third party is threatened; Sentences relating to possession, trafficking, importing/exporting, mostly depend on quantities however, mandatory sentences for production of even 1 marijuana plant calls for a minimum sentence of 6 months; And the maximum penalty for cannabis production would increase from 7 to 14 years imprisonment.

For more detailed information and a chart with the proposed mandatory minimum sentences, please visit www.CannabisFacts.ca/MadatoryMinimums.html. Thanks to "FrankDiscussion" for creating the CannabisFacts.ca website and covering Bill C-26.

Thought this was a good example on not relying on propaganda sites for facts. Poor Dr. Greenthumb has been under the impression that he's going to jail for growing one pot plant, which is false.

Bill C-26 states:

(i) imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and the production is for the purpose of trafficking,

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...1&File=27#1

So, unless you traffic pot, you have nothing to worry about. Happy smoking.

P.S. Meant "We're not making this up." Must have been the pot.

Edited April 18, 2008 by noahbody

[DrGreenthumb]

Thought this was a good example on not relying on propaganda sites for facts. Poor Dr. Greenthumb has been under the impression that he's going to jail for growing one pot plant, which is false.

Bill C-26 states:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...1&File=27#1

So, unless you traffic pot, you have nothing to worry about. Happy smoking.

P.S. Meant "We're not making this up." Must have been the pot.

Everybody charged with cultivation is automatically charged with for the purposes of trafficking. Trafficking is defines as any passing along of said substance, including passing a joint. Marc emery was sentenced to 9 months in jail in saskatoon for passing a joint. Charged with trafficking for passing a joint at a rally. I think he got out for good behavior after 3 or 6 months or something though.

Also the list of aggravating factors listed that increase the mandarory minimum are so vague as to apply to the maximum ammount of cases. If you grow one plant in your yard and you have a child living with you , your penalties increase. This is totally sick and discriminatory! If we choose natural herbs over pharmaceuticals we are punished more for having children in our care? Place any racist slur you want in place of "pothead" and these policies sound like past genocidal attempts to wipe out a race or culture.

Everyone who passes a joint to their husband, wife, brother, sister or friend is guilty of trafficking

[eyeball]

Everyone who passes a joint to their husband, wife, brother, sister or friend is guilty of trafficking

Traffickers are also terrorists. The RCMP tell kids where I live they're supporting terrorism whenever they buy pot. By rights even using pot is the same as terrorism.

[sharkman]

Traffickers are also terrorists. The RCMP tell kids where I live they're supporting terrorism whenever they buy pot. By rights even using pot is the same as terrorism.

Could it be that the RCMP might know a thing or two about the subject?

[HisSelf]

"Where not making this up".

I'm not making this up....

Edited April 18, 2008 by HisSelf

[noahbody]

Everybody charged with cultivation is automatically charged with for the purposes of trafficking.

Thanks for that bit of misleading propaganda. Implying that if you cultivate you will be charged is false.

[guyser]

Could it be that the RCMP might know a thing or two about the subject?

Not if that is what they are telling kids. RCMP, among other police forces resort to "mis-remembering" things.

[Qwerty]

Everybody charged with cultivation is automatically charged with for the purposes of trafficking. Trafficking is defines as any passing along of said substance, including passing a joint. Marc emery was sentenced to 9 months in jail in saskatoon for passing a joint. Charged with trafficking for passing a joint at a rally. I think he got out for good behavior after 3 or 6 months or something though.

Also the list of aggravating factors listed that increase the mandarory minimum are so vague as to apply to the maximum ammount of cases. If you grow one plant in your yard and you have a child living with you , your penalties increase. This is totally sick and discriminatory! If we choose natural herbs over pharmaceuticals we are punished more for having children in our care? Place any racist slur you want in place of "pothead" and these policies sound like past genocidal attempts to wipe out a race or culture.

Everyone who passes a joint to their husband, wife, brother, sister or friend is guilty of trafficking

Anything 2 years plus a day is Federal time in the pen. 2 years less a day is Provincial time in a Provincial Jail which is what he had. When doing Provincial time one has a first parole hearing after 1/3 of their sentence and mandatory release after 2/3 of the time for good behavior. Federal time gets first parole hearing after 1/6 of time is complete...just a little fyi.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Qwerty

[eyeball]

I suppose C-26 would make some sort of logical consistent sense if it was also applied to the manufacturers and traffickers of alcohol and tobacco. Its just not fair or equal otherwise.

Its apparently beyond the ability of anyone to argue to the Supreme Court that prohibition of some recreational drugs but not all violate Charter rights to equal treatment. I realize that no one has a specific right to drink or smoke but surely people who do are in legal possession of something beyond equality. OTOH perhaps its smokers and drinkers who are being treated unequally.

Presumably, marijuana is prohibited because its a dangerous substance. Shouldn't all Canadians enjoy equality before and under law, and equal protection and benefit of law? Shouldn't all Canadians benefit equally from prohibition? Why is the law protecting marijuana users but not people who do tobacco or alcohol?

Its just not fair.

Edited April 18, 2008 by eyeball

[BubberMiley]

Traffickers are also terrorists. The RCMP tell kids where I live they're supporting terrorism whenever they buy pot. By rights even using pot is the same as terrorism.

Gee, if that weren’t ridiculous, unsourcable, lying propaganda that insults your intelligence when said with a straight face, one would wonder why anyone would want to maintain the black market economy that gives terrorists their income.

[M.Dancer]

Traffickers are also terrorists. The RCMP tell kids where I live they're supporting terrorism whenever they buy pot. By rights even using pot is the same as terrorism.

No doubt you misheard that firsthand.

[eyeball]

My kid told me he heard that firsthand. You might recall that our cops also made the national news when they reported rape gangs were terrorizing Tofino a few years ago.

These days local police are galvanizing concerned citizens with tales of the Crips taking over the high school in Port Alberni.

I shit you not.

[eyeball]

I should mention something else about the case of the rape gang story. The story first surfaced in our local paper in a weekly "On the Beat" column written by local constabulary. National media picked it up and when local tourist operators concerned about the bad publicity stemming from this story asked for proof the police said they'd busted someone with a few hits of GHB the so-called date rape drug, without identifying if it was a local or an out-of-towner, and decided to embellish the facts to arouse the public's attention.

I suppose in some circles this would be construed as being free speech.

[Shakeyhands]

04:20[/b] PM' post='305904']

Could it be that the RCMP might know a thing or two about the subject?

Dude... you totally just missed 4:20!!!!!!!! Here, I'll fix it for you here.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Shakeyhands

[Who's Doing What?]

Dude... you totally just missed 4:20!!!!!!!! Here, I'll fix it for you here.

LOL

[DrGreenthumb]

I have no respect at all for police, prohibition has turned them into nothing more than lying opportunists. Pigs wallowing in their own shit feeding at the prohibition trough.

[eyeball]

Its not completely hopeless Doc, there is LEAP after all.

There is also the possibility that the confluence of a crafty lawyer with an open-minded judge will crack open the shell of inconsistency surrounding legal alcohol in the face of the prohibition of other far less dangerous substances. I'm convinced that our Charter's guarantee of equal treatment before the law is the key that will unlock prohibition.

I also think a class action case could be mounted on behalf of FAS victims on the grounds that their Section 15 Charter rights have also been violated. The law has not protected them from the damages of alcohol, if the prohibition of marijuana is to benefit Canadians by protecting them FAS victims have not received equal benefit of the law. I don't think a finding on behalf of FAS victims would trigger the prohibition of alcohol but it might open up a debate around legalizing safer recreational substances as an alternative to alcohol.

On the subject of the unlikelyhood of the development of fetal marijuana syndrome, a growing number of people are suggesting that marijuana should be prescribed for morning sickness. Go figure.

Queen Victoria was prescribed cannabis for this reason by her physician J.R. Reynolds.

Link

[Zachary Young]

"So, unless you traffic pot, you have nothing to worry about."

I've never understood how people can imagine it should be legal (or quasi-legal) to smoke something, but illegal to sell it. Perhaps they should read up on the old 'Hippocrates' of biblical lore.

Of course all drugs - and I do mean ALL drugs - should be legalized immediately. The harm done by drugs is dwarfed by the harm done by the war on drugs, and I do not take fondly to the implicit assumption of the government telling me what I may or may not put in my body (the implicit assumption, for those who need things spelled out, is that the government owns my body).

[Fain]

Could it be that the RCMP might know a thing or two about the subject?

You focusing on the one arguing and not the argument. TRY THE REVERSE