Is it time to de-criminalize Pot posession?

[benny]

A pot habit can be maintained for the same price as a nicotine addiction..unless you are chronic...then you don't eat as well and become sickly. Government spending should be done in the same manner as a wise old uncle handing out cash to his nephews..Judgement - knowledge of the histroy of the reciever must be taken into account - and you must look forward - YOU don't hand out money to get votes - What good is it giving money or spending it to ensure that it brings about re-election - what about actually doing the job you were elected to do - If political were sincere, they would have a more "damn the torpedos" attitude and do what is good and right even if it costs them their careers. Service! When you serve someone it is to make their lives better - not worse...If government invests in certain programs that are a dis-service..that means they are no really in good stead as far as being pubic servants... POT --- booze - pills - etc...are the poor mans vacation and entertainment...we should find something better for the people - but that would actually mean spending money on the people and not for the people.

We don't need paternalism from governments, we need to deliberate together to get a Social Contract running. People who are already doing this deliberation seem to agree that a society should have in mind, first and foremost, the weakest when it wants to evaluate the goodness of any change in law.

Edited May 22, 2009 by benny

[Sir Bandelot]

No one gets it - It's all this bull about "natrual" plant - and booze is a violence inducing substance - and pot heads are peaceful peace makers - I look at my youngest son - a brilliant composer and musician - with a fine and exotic young woman at his side - since pot has become part of his life - I see him loosing his career yet to be - I see him loosing her - I see him loosing time and see his dreams drifting into oblivion - and see him take the company of liars and dopers - and people that are not out for his best interest - dope makes you f"""ing stupid. It clouds judgement and impairs the senses - we don't need the shit sold like we do booze - It is just another toxin to intoxicate and poison....I actually hate the stuff - some will surive it and others will be led astray and amount to nothing. Political that insist on the legalization of it are those who's kids are not smokers - the smokers will become the lower cast - and the straight ones will rule..that's a fact and that is your chioce.

That may all be true but the question I ask you now is, does your son deserve to go to jail for what he is now, I mean for smoking pot. Is he enough of a threat to others that he should be incarcerated? Will jail help him? Or will another, better approach help him?

Think about whats best for your son, what he really needs and what he deserves, before you answer the question.

[BubberMiley]

Political that insist on the legalization of it are those who's kids are not smokers - the smokers will become the lower cast - and the straight ones will rule..that's a fact and that is your chioce.

Did prohibition have any effect whatsoever on your son's or your wife's ability to buy weed? If not, how do you think legalization would have any effect on consumption?

[eyeball]

About you?

No, that laws should be applied equally as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms require. Perhaps if we were basing seating arrangements on buses according to skin colour you'd get it.

The active ingredient in beer can kill you, the active ingredient in pot cannot. Beer is legal pot is not, you figure it out.

The only meaningful distinction I can see between the two substances is that one is a liquid and the other isn't. Apparently if you don't use the liquid substance to alter your mind you're a criminal. That seems pretty weird to me but pretty normal to you. I'd say to each his own but apparently you wouldn't, for some mysterious reason.

[Sir Bandelot]

Hecklers provoke, just to fan the flames. When you read the bulk of their posts you'll find, they really have no position at all.

[eyeball]

Hecklers provoke, just to fan the flames. When you read the bulk of their posts you'll find, they really have no position at all.

I know. Like a state that's in the business of prohibiting and pushing drugs at the same time I guess. Decriminalization likewise seems to exist for no reason other than to provide the state with the means to heckle society with.

I just can't believe the courts have put up with it for so long myself. I'm astounded that its approaching 2010 and people charged with possession of pot still have to justify their existence to the same government that will gladly sell you all the booze you need to kill yourself with at the end of the day. In my town the government liquor store is two doors down from the government courtroom they use to punish people for wanting to do the same thing they sell booze for, so people can alter their minds.

I'm left wondering how this discussion would be unfolding if we were talking about criminalizing all forms of suicide except for two state approved methods?

[benny]

No, that laws should be applied equally as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms require. Perhaps if we were basing seating arrangements on buses according to skin colour you'd get it.

The active ingredient in beer can kill you, the active ingredient in pot cannot. Beer is legal pot is not, you figure it out.

The only meaningful distinction I can see between the two substances is that one is a liquid and the other isn't. Apparently if you don't use the liquid substance to alter your mind you're a criminal. That seems pretty weird to me but pretty normal to you. I'd say to each his own but apparently you wouldn't, for some mysterious reason.

Unlike discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, personal tastes for altering your mind is not a "protected category".

Edited May 23, 2009 by benny

[BubberMiley]

Unlike discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, personal tastes for altering your mind is not a "protected category".

It's amazing how one can make so many posts and say so little. I'm glad I'm not paying for the bandwidth.

[benny]

It's amazing how one can make so many posts and say so little. I'm glad I'm not paying for the bandwidth.

Thanks for reading them!

[eyeball]

Unlike discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, personal tastes for altering your mind is not a "protected category".

Perhaps not, but altering your mind recreationally is a liberty interest and a benefit that can be enjoyed legally by some adults but not others.

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

Sec. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

If the basis for this discrimination is founded on a principle of fundamental justice such as those mentioned in Sec 7 of the Charter I'd like to know what it is.

Life, liberty and security of person

Sec 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 15 makes it pretty clear that every individual, not just those in proteced catagories, have the right to equal protection and benefit before the law. The law clearly benefits adult drinkers by allowing them a liberty interest, that of altering their minds recreationally if they so choose. OTOH the laws that allow drinking do not protect people from addiction the way the Substance Control Act protects people so it could be argued that drinkers do not enjoy equal protection before the law. It seems that either way you slice it, in the absence of any clear legislation that specifically deals with the activity of recreational mind alteration there is no fundamental principle underlying either the prohibition or legalization of any substance that accomplishes this. The basis for discrimination either way is clearly indiscriminate.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Edited May 23, 2009 by eyeball

[benny]

The fundamental principle behind anti-discrimination protections in the Charter is protecting what is necessary to maintain one's self-respect. For instance, a lot of sections in the Charter are about French language because protecting French is necessary for maintaining Quebecers' self-respect.

[eyeball]

The fundamental principle behind anti-discrimination protections in the Charter is protecting what is necessary to maintain one's self-respect.

Where does it say that and what does it have to do with adults altering their minds recreationally? You're saying drinking is more respectable and therefore drinkers are more deserving of a special right or liberty interest?

[benny]

Where does it say that and what does it have to do with adults altering their minds recreationally? You're saying drinking is more respectable and therefore drinkers are more deserving of a special right or liberty interest?

Mind altering habits are outside the scope of the Charter because their protection is not important.

[Oleg Bach]

Mind altering habits are outside the scope of the Charter because their protection is not important.

The charter had a bench mark - called reality. It was never meant to be applied to people outside of the realm.

[benny]

The charter had a bench mark - called reality. It was never meant to be applied to people outside of the realm.

It is the contrary: Society doesn't allow easily its members to go back in the Real fusion state of Wholeness because it wants to construct a fantasy world where civility and politeness seem so easy to come by that they don't require such a fundamental regression.

Edited May 24, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

It is the contrary: Society doesn't allow easily its members to go back in the Real fusion state of Wholeness because it wants to construct a fantasy world where civility and politeness seem so easy to come by that they don't require such a fundamental regression.

yAH - I know - they expect you to take part in their illusion and not be creating your own... That fantacy world you talk about- do you really believe that a bunch of pot heads drinking beer and chatting is more real than say - a polite chat in parliment? I suppose the state of mind is important to the state..can't have us wondering off on our own and maybe being happy in self enduced illusion---- take Iraq and the illusion of instilling democracy - well - people get killed in their illusion.

[benny]

yAH - I know - they expect you to take part in their illusion and not be creating your own... That fantacy world you talk about- do you really believe that a bunch of pot heads drinking beer and chatting is more real than say - a polite chat in parliment?

The lesser a chat involves (exchanging) symbols, the more real it is.

Edited May 24, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

The lesser a chat involves (exchanging) symbols, the more real it is.

Parliment may have to many symbols. Very astute benny...it's a bit like a couple of people handing rocks back and forth expecting the rocks to talk on their behalf - nothing better than an eye to eye communication without symbols - mutual survival should be the goal of all those that communicate.

[Sir Bandelot]

Well Oleg, you did not answer my question... because you know that your son does not deserve jail just because he commits the "crime" of smoking marijuana. It may be a stupid thing to do, it may even lead him to become a lazy good for nothing bum (although there's many who smoke and yet do not become losers). But you must agree, jail is for the bad boys, not someone who likes to smoke a joint. Imagine if someone like him gets a criminal record, for the rest of their life treated like an ex-con, unable to get the good jobs, treated in the same way as rapists and thieves... that is not justice.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[benny]

it's a bit like a couple of people handing rocks back and forth expecting the rocks to talk on their behalf

If you give a gift in good spirit to one person and this person, a moment later, gives you back your gift, your spirit will turn sour. Drugs have been thought by primitive cultures to be means of communication with these kinds of spirits to prevent their reversal.

[Timetrvlr]

Is it time to de-criminalize Pot possession?

Yes it is! The whole concept is silly and harmful to society. Pot needs to be legalized and taxed and sold to those over 18. No, pot doesn't lead to hard drug use. Those who use hard drugs have tried pot but not all pot users try hard drugs.

Lots of people assume that the only use for money is to spend. Others assume the only use for pot is to get high. Both groups are often amazed to find that money can be put to work to earn more money and pot can be used as a pain reliever without necessarily getting high. I'm old and sometimes I use pot in the middle of the night when everything hurts and I can't sleep. It works and I don't have to use enough to get high.

[benny]

Those who use hard drugs have tried pot but not all pot users try hard drugs.

We have to think to ways to protect the most vulnerable first.