The Conservatives' Unethical Anti-Drug Strategy

[Wild Bill]

False premise. If it is wrthwhile for drugs, then it must be worthwhile for cheese.

Cigarettes are legal, yet there is a growing a dangerous smuggling problem. Legality doesn't affect the criminality. Software is legal yet bootlegging and piracy are rampant. The idea that legalizing drugs, especially the high end drugs will alleviate the criminality and not produce greater problems is simply idiotic and the main reaon why it has no legs politically.

Legality is only half of it. It leads to much lower pricing! And price is the only reason you have smuggling.

Since pot is essentially just a weed that can be grown anywhere if it were legal it would be cheap as borscht! There would be no profit for organized crime so they would have to find something else. It's guaranteed that they would. When Prohibition ended they simply turned to other drugs and prostitution.

Cigarette smuggling is only happening because the taxes have put the price up in the stratosphere! A large number of smokers simply view this as a tax grab and feel no guilt in buying contraband product. In the early 90's when governments recognized the obvious and repealed half or so of their taxes the smuggling all but disappeared. Over the last 10-15 years the taxes have gradually increased until once again they hit a "tipping point" and smuggling bloomed again. If governments are not willing to enforce their laws against organized crime and often First Nations people then they will have to live with the contraband. It's as simple as that. So far neither the feds nor the provinces have had the stomach to take them on.

Surely one could plot some curves of taxation/price against levels of contraband to determine the optimal amount of legal sales and chargeable taxes with a certain price. It would appear that governments have taxed far above that point at the moment.

It's always the money!

[marksman]

Probly the same reason why pissing on the side of a building is illegal. Lawmakers chose to draw a line, I think they are trying to control escalation of what drugs people will do next.

I wouldn't care if the smoking industry was criminalized.

But if the argument's over where to draw the line then saying "lawmakers chose" doesn't cut it. There's got to be a reason. I'm not trying to judge your conclusions but to reach them there're better arguments than "lawmakers chose" or "prohibition doesn't harm you". Some people find a government regulating their choices in life harmful to them and an example of government interference in their lives.

[blueblood]

But if the argument's over where to draw the line then saying "lawmakers chose" doesn't cut it. There's got to be a reason. I'm not trying to judge your conclusions but to reach them there're better arguments than "lawmakers chose" or "prohibition doesn't harm you". Some people find a government regulating their choices in life harmful to them and an example of government interference in their lives.

The gov't isn't regulating their choice to remain in Canada or vote for a party that will change that law. My argument is the gov't would rather not have escalation in the types of drugs that are the most popular. Would you want this same fight with cocaine and crystal meth in 20 yrs.?

[marksman]

The gov't isn't regulating their choice to remain in Canada or vote for a party that will change that law. My argument is the gov't would rather not have escalation in the types of drugs that are the most popular. Would you want this same fight with cocaine and crystal meth in 20 yrs.?

Why not? We live in a democracy don't we? If your argument for making something illegal is that we might have to discuss other issues in 20 years then it's not a good argument. We shouldn't be scared to discuss issues and we shouldn't be making anything illegal because we're scared to discuss issues.

Saying you can leave Canada also isn't reason to make something illegal. We believe in a free society IN Canada. To limit a choice you've got to have a better reason than you can leave the country if you don't like it.

[blueblood]

Why not? We live in a democracy don't we? If your argument for making something illegal is that we might have to discuss other issues in 20 years then it's not a good argument. We shouldn't be scared to discuss issues and we shouldn't be making anything illegal because we're scared to discuss issues.

Saying you can leave Canada also isn't reason to make something illegal. We believe in a free society IN Canada. To limit a choice you've got to have a better reason than you can leave the country if you don't like it.

Why not? those laws were put in place by a democratically elected gov't. Your free to run for office, your free to vote for the MJ party or NDP, your free to leave. How much freer can you get?

Do you want the same percentage of people on cocaine as they are on pot? I sure don't.

[OddSox]

WHY! Why do people continually assume that passing a law banning something is automatically going to make the problem go away? It has never worked, and never will.

Further, passing more laws makes the problems worse. Marijuana is lumped in with hard drugs under the law - kids smoke marijuana and don't die and don't get hooked. What does that do for their opinion of the rest of the laws? Stop signs - same thing. Four-way stops everywhere because it's 'safer'. But nobody stops!@#$. Ban cell phones in cars - yeah right.

Of course, the drug laws will never be dropped - there is too much money involved, from the DEA to the HA. Same with stop signs and silly speed limits.

[Wild Bill]

Why not? those laws were put in place by a democratically elected gov't. Your free to run for office, your free to vote for the MJ party or NDP, your free to leave. How much freer can you get?

Do you want the same percentage of people on cocaine as they are on pot? I sure don't.

Well, running as an Independent means you'll achieve your goal as soon as Hell freezes over! Meanwhile, we get to vote only on party platforms in their entirety. We don't get to "cherry pick". If a party doesn't offer it, we don't have the choice.

Meanwhile, I totally fail to see the logic in your claim that cocaine will enjoy the same percentage of users as pot. Why? I'd be very surprised if the numbers changed in any way at all!

You see, first you have to understand that police enforcement has little or no effect on drug habits. Drugs of all kinds are just too easy to get. Government attempts at education often fail because they tend to lump soft drugs in with the same effects as hard drugs. This ruins credibility. Canadians are naturally disposed to disbelieve their governments anyway, sadly with good reason.

Most people know which drugs are truly dangerous and which aren't. They know that the vast majority of cocaine users can take it or leave it.

What confuses the issue is that there is always a certain percentage of users that will find SOMETHING to get hooked on! These addictive personalities will become coke heads as long as there's coke available. Take it away and they might choose heroin. Take all illegal drugs away and they will likely turn to booze.

This is a sad thing and of course these people are deserving of our help. Still, it's wrong to deny choices to ALL just because SOMEONE ELSE has a problem!

This argument seems very prevalent these days. Lobbyists try to block a casino because of gambling addiction. In other words, because a handful of people have a problem NO ONE should have the enjoyment!

This belief is also often championed by those who just because they themselves feel no need for such enjoyment they can't believe that anyone else might be offended by taking the choice away from them.

Adults should be allowed to make their own choices, even if they are mistaken. To do otherwise is simply promoting a socially conservative nanny state.

An entire society run by Ned Flanders! The horror, the horror!

[eyeball]

(M.Dancer @ Sep 24 2008, 08:50 PM)

False premise. If it is wrthwhile for drugs, then it must be worthwhile for cheese.

Legality is only half of it. It leads to much lower pricing! And price is the only reason you have smuggling.

Bill, you have to cut Morris a little slack. He's only recently shed his old liberal skin and he's still getting used to the idea. It may take him awhile to realize that some conservatives actually do have principles and believe in what they say about getting the state off people's backs.

[M.Dancer]

Legality is only half of it. It leads to much lower pricing! And price is the only reason you have smuggling.

Since pot is essentially just a weed that can be grown anywhere if it were legal it would be cheap as borscht! There would be no profit for organized crime so they would have to find something else. It's guaranteed that they would. When Prohibition ended they simply turned to other drugs and prostitution.

Cigarette smuggling is only happening because the taxes have put the price up in the stratosphere! It's always the money!

Cigarettes are cheap, tobacco is a weed...if weed was legalized and sold for $50.00 a pack there would be smugglers selling contraband weed for $30.00

Edited September 25, 2008 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

Would you want this same fight with cocaine and crystal meth in 20 yrs.?

I'm afraid this slippery slope was greased way back when prohibitions against alcohol were scrapped.

[eyeball]

Cigarettes are cheap, tobacco is a weed...if weed was legalized and sold for $50.00 a pack there would be smugglers selling contraband weed for $30.00

Oh, so now your against innovation and competition. What a lame-assed right-winger you turned out to be.

[M.Dancer]

Oh, so now your against innovation and competition. What a lame-assed right-winger you turned out to be.

As opposed to supporting criminal activity? What a fine representive of what ever it is you are.

[blueblood]

I'm afraid this slippery slope was greased way back when prohibitions against alcohol were scrapped.

I agree, that's why I have/had no problem with alcohol being prohibited.

[DrGreenthumb]

Cigarettes are cheap, tobacco is a weed...if weed was legalized and sold for $50.00 a pack there would be smugglers selling contraband weed for $30.00

I guess they would have to sell it at a more reasonable price then when they legalize it. It isn't rocket science dancer. The smuggling of contraband cigarettes only becomes a problem when the government taxes tobacco too much. When cigarettes are priced reasonably there is no profit to be made by smuggling.

[DrGreenthumb]

I agree, that's why I have/had no problem with alcohol being prohibited.

according to your values then what penalty should the conservatives enact for masturbating? Let me guess, you don't care cuz u don't masturbate, right? How about penalties for pre-marital sex? kinky sex? What would be your Flanderonian punishments for these crimes?

We shouldn't allow anyone to act outside your personal moral values should we blueblood?

[eyeball]

I agree, that's why I have/had no problem with alcohol being prohibited.

Talks cheap, how much effort do you put into prohibiting it? Zilch.

[M.Dancer]

according to your values then what penalty should the conservatives enact for masturbating? Let me guess, you don't care cuz u don't masturbate, right? How about penalties for pre-marital sex? kinky sex? What would be your Flanderonian punishments for these crimes?

We shouldn't allow anyone to act outside your personal moral values should we blueblood?

WARNING:

TOASTER COMMENTS ABOVE

[blueblood]

according to your values then what penalty should the conservatives enact for masturbating? Let me guess, you don't care cuz u don't masturbate, right? How about penalties for pre-marital sex? kinky sex? What would be your Flanderonian punishments for these crimes?

We shouldn't allow anyone to act outside your personal moral values should we blueblood?

Your really grasping at straws here. The old gov't drew the line at mind altering substances for what they thought was a good reason, and one I agree with. We all know you don't agree with that reason. Last time I checked sexual acts are not mind altering substances.

Toasters are now on sale at Walmart. I know your bitter your not a law abiding citizen, your free to run for office, emmigrate, or vote for a public official who will fix your problem. Too bad the vast majority of Canadians have better things to deal with. Democracy can be a real bitch sometimes.

[blueblood]

Talks cheap, how much effort do you put into prohibiting it? Zilch.

And how much effort do I put into prohibiting pot? Zilch. Your right talk is cheap.

[M.Dancer]

I guess they would have to sell it at a more reasonable price then when they legalize it. It isn't rocket science dancer. The smuggling of contraband cigarettes only becomes a problem when the government taxes tobacco too much. When cigarettes are priced reasonably there is no profit to be made by smuggling.

If Tobacco sells for around $10 and there is smuggling....

And weed sells now for $200 and ounce and there is smuggling....

Do you think...

1) That weed would sell for $10 and there would be no smuggling?

2) That suppliers would not try to get the best price that the market will bear?

[DrGreenthumb]

If Tobacco sells for around $10 and there is smuggling....

And weed sells now for $200 and ounce and there is smuggling....

Do you think...

1) That weed would sell for $10 and there would be no smuggling?

2) That suppliers would not try to get the best price that the market will bear?

there is weed smuggling BECAUSE it sells for 200 dollars an ounce. If you could buy it at market price from a liscend vendor like the liquor store there would be no profit in smuggling and it would certainly decrease vastly. I have not gone to a bootlegger or bought any kind of black market alcohol, at least not since the province opened up liquor sales on sundays. If the government tries to unfairly gouge customers with high taxes then there would be smuggling, but even at the high rate that alcohol is taxed there is very little in the way of a black market for alcohol. Not too many people getting shot or assaulted over alcohol turf or bad alcohol debts either, now that alcohol is in the legal market there are legal avenues for settling these kind of disputes.

[M.Dancer]

there is weed smuggling BECAUSE it sells for 200 dollars an ounce.

So there was no smuggling when it sold at $150?

When I was in high school it sold for $10.00 an ounce.....i believe it was smuggled back then too..

psst....look up supply and demand.

[DrGreenthumb]

So there was no smuggling when it sold at $150?

When I was in high school it sold for $10.00 an ounce.....i believe it was smuggled back then too..

psst....look up supply and demand.

YOU go look up supply and demand because you are the one who obviously can't grasp the concept.

So when you were in high school in the 30's where exactly was the legal depot to buy UNSMUGGLED cannabis?

Its so easy defeating your strawman arguments its getting boring, can't you raise the level of your arguments to keep it interesting?

This is like playing a videogame with only one setting, preschool.

[cybercoma]

Oh, so now your against innovation and competition. What a lame-assed right-winger you turned out to be.

Considering all the crime and social ills that are associated with the black market, how can you imply that it is a legitimate enterprise that should be supported?

[capricorn]

I can just imagine the outcry if the same rate of taxation on tobacco was not applied to mj, if it was ever made available via the government. I expect even non-smokers would be upset at the double standard.