DrGreenthumb Posted March 2, 2009 Author Report Posted March 2, 2009 Growing one plant for personal use won't get you 6 months. It's less than 200, with the production purpose being trafficking. Therefore, passing around a joint, though it may be considered trafficking, would not qualify, unless you were dumb enough to say you didn't grow pot for personal use, you did if for your friends. Focusing on one plant is therefore a little ridiculous. How may grow-ops in Canada do you think have a single plant? What part of mandatory minimum is difficult for you to understand? The law says the manatory minimum for gowing 1-200 cannabis plants is punishable by a MANDATORY MINIMUM of 6 months. The sentence becomes MANDATORILY higher if there is trafficking or other factors involved. Trafficking cannabis (including passing a joint) carries a mandatory minimum of 1 YEAR in prison. Don't lie and tell people they can't be charged with trafficking for passing a joint. Marc Emery was sentenced to 9 months in jail for doing just that. Why do you feel the need to deflect attention away fro the fact that the Conservatives want to imprison people for growing as little as one plant or passing joints around with their friends? Could it be that you agree that these are draconian punishments that do not reflect the reality of the relative harmlessness of cannabis and its users?? Quote
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Finally the government is going to crackdown on the pot growing hippy granolas. Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
Keepitsimple Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) So I think the appropriate part of the six month minimum which people are ignoring is this: Offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking. In other words, if you grow your own weed in small amounts for your own consumption, the six month mandatory minimum does not apply. It seems that the pot-heads just don't know how to read.....or simply WON'T read it. http://cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums_chart.html Edited March 2, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 No the mandaTory minimum goes up higher if there are "aggravating factors" such as for the purpose of trafficking. According to the chart the minimum ONLY applies for the purposes of trafficking. How is 1 plant going to be used for the purposes of trafficking anyway? Dunno. I could speculate that it keeps the cops' options open if they only have to prove that someone was growing pot - any pot - for trafficking purposes. Oh yeah, trafficking is defined as selling, giving away, or even sharing. Passing a joint is trafficking, so by the government's definition pretty much all pot is grown for the purpose of trafficking. Don't try to lie to people and say nobody would ever get charged for trafficking for passing a joint because Marc Emery was sentenced to 9 months in a saskatoon jail for doing just that. Mark Emery - the Prince of Pot Mark Emory? He was exporting an awful lot of weed. I guess they just slapped at him for whatever they could get him on. Is your son a cop too? Or is someone in your family sucking on the prohibition tit in some other way? Addictions councillor? Prison guard? lawyer? which is it Argus? You can tell us, we already don't respect you anyway. No, I just think the only good druggie is a dead druggie. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 My guess is, that since your' defense of the policy is based upon a mistaken assumption, that you will realize that no matter what you think about the wisdom of people smoking pot, you will agree that this is a draconian punishment, that is utterly unwarranted. All kinds of good people will spend time in jail, and YOU and I will foot the bill, while destroying their lives. I didnt't actually defend the policy so much as point out that my reading of the chart Capricorn posted shows that the minimum only applies for the purpose of trafficking. Personally, I think the idea of putting potheads in prison for long periods of time is idiotic. On the other hand, those who grow it in large quantities to sell it are a nasty sort I'd just as soon hang. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DrGreenthumb Posted March 2, 2009 Author Report Posted March 2, 2009 I didnt't actually defend the policy so much as point out that my reading of the chart Capricorn posted shows that the minimum only applies for the purpose of trafficking.Personally, I think the idea of putting potheads in prison for long periods of time is idiotic. On the other hand, those who grow it in large quantities to sell it are a nasty sort I'd just as soon hang. Well I'd just as soon hang those that lobby for policies that ensure that the supply side of the cannabis industry is controlled entirely by the black market. You are to blame for the violence associated with the drug trade, because it is prohibition that makes a weed worth its weight in gold. People kill each other over money, not vegetation. Quote
Argus Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Well I'd just as soon hang those that lobby for policies that ensure that the supply side of the cannabis industry is controlled entirely by the black market. You are to blame for the violence associated with the drug trade, because it is prohibition that makes a weed worth its weight in gold. People kill each other over money, not vegetation. No, people kill each other over money because they have no morals or ethics. And if anyone is responsible it's the potheads who pay drug dealers so they can buy the guns. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DrGreenthumb Posted March 2, 2009 Author Report Posted March 2, 2009 No, I just think the only good druggie is a dead druggie. The only good conservative is a dead conservative. I don't even like the sound of THAT when I read it. I really just can't wish death or harm on my fellow man the way you can I guess. I wonder if its the pot that makes me have compassion even for my enemies who wish to see me and my friends dead or caged like animals for using our bodies how WE choose? You are a sad case. I think you may have a mental illness, maybe you should seek treatment. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted March 2, 2009 Author Report Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) No, people kill each other over money because they have no morals or ethics.And if anyone is responsible it's the potheads who pay drug dealers so they can buy the guns. Nobody had to pay drug dealers for Cannabis before it was prohibited. It is your policies that put the cannabis market in the hands of criminals. It is your policies that that force dealers to protect themselves with guns rather than with the courts and justice system. The blood is on your hands. Murderer. "potheads" would gladly grow their own cannabis if they were not afraid of being imprisoned for it. Potheads would glady buy their pot from a government run bud store just like the boozeheads do. You prevent that from happening, so you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. So how exactly do you suck the prohibition tit Argus? I'd be willing to bet that you or someone close to you profits from the drug war farce. Edited March 2, 2009 by DrGreenthumb Quote
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Nobody should be imprisoned for growing a plant, in fact anyone who uses cannabis should be ENCOURAGED to grow their own so that they are not forced to support the criminal black market whom the gooferment has handed 100% of the cannabis business. Look at the mess that Mexico is in because of marijuana. Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
DrGreenthumb Posted March 2, 2009 Author Report Posted March 2, 2009 Look at the mess that Mexico is in because of marijuana. What the hell are you talking about? Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps it is the 1000 who have been killed in the first 6 weeks of the year in Mexico by the drug gangs... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 What the hell are you talking about? The pot dealers are slaughtering everyone in Mexico. They are taking over towns along the US-Mexico border. Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
punked Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Perhaps it is the 1000 who have been killed in the first 6 weeks of the year in Mexico by the drug gangs... The AG of Arozonia just said the legalization of Marijuana would stop that. So your arguement is for the gangs not against them. Quote
OddSox Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 The pot dealers are slaughtering everyone in Mexico. They are taking over towns along the US-Mexico border. Actually, those are cocaine dealers. The pot dealers are in California, where marijuana is the state's largest cash crop - http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Ammia...udget-Mess.html Actually, it looks like marijuana is America's largest cash crop - http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/cashcrops.html Quote
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 No, I just think the only good druggie is a dead druggie. How about people who drink? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Actually, those are cocaine dealers. Marijuana too. In any case: drugs = bad gangs = bad Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Personally, I think the idea of putting potheads in prison for long periods of time is idiotic.On the other hand, those who grow it in large quantities to sell it are a nasty sort I'd just as soon hang. What about people who grow it for their own use? And what about people who make their own wine? The reason I'm ask is that a community group is being formed in my area to counter the group I've been mentioning in these threads that wax eloquently about Stalin and doing away with the Charter and such. I would like to assemble as many opinions from similar-minded people in here. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 What about people who grow it for their own use? And what about people who make their own wine? Both of these substances have destroyed many a man. The difference is that one is socially acceptable and the other isn't. Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) Both of these substances have destroyed many a man. The difference is that one is socially acceptable and the other isn't. So the act of "destroying" yourself isn't the issue but how you "destroy" yourself is? Edited March 2, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 So the act of "destroying" yourself isn't the issue but how you "destroy" yourself is? Why legalize a harmful substance? If we legalize marijuana then why not amphetamines as well? Maybe once legalized we can start a public drug program so that the druggies can have access to free oxycontin 24/7. Sounds good doesn't it? Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 If you answer my question I'll answer yours. So the act of "destroying" yourself isn't the issue but how you "destroy" yourself is? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DrGreenthumb Posted March 2, 2009 Author Report Posted March 2, 2009 Mark Emery - the Prince of Pot Mark Emory? He was exporting an awful lot of weed. I guess they just slapped at him for whatever they could get him on.No, I just think the only good druggie is a dead druggie. Marc Emery never sold ANY marijuana for export or otherwise. Marc Emery sold seeds that could potentially produce marajuana. I'm guessing you only want the "druggie's" who use the drugs that are "currently" illigal dead, right? Not the druggies that use paxil, prozack, alcohol, caffiene, lipitor, lasix, ritalin, lorazepam, seraquel etc etc etc???? Practically everyone in modern society is a druggie of some sort. If we are going to deem some drugs legal and others illegal then the line that should be drawn should be relative to scientific evidence of harm vs benefit, not on antiquated unscientific ideas from the 30's about what plants are "evil" and which are not. By every measure alcohol is more harmful than cannabis, so if Cannabis is worth jailing people over maybe we should bring in capital punishment for alcohol consumption immediately. Well not immediately, I want to finish off the 6 pack of molson Canadian in my fridge first Quote
robert_viera Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 Who once argued "If Parliament declared oranges a narcotic one could find oneself in prison for seven years for possession of an orange"? *Hint: He was a prominent member of an organization that advocated for marijuana decriminalization and is the father of a Conservative MP. Quote THE BROWN RETORT | Photos of householders and ten-percenters
Oleg Bach Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 Should give that odd drunken politican 5 years for the self administrated noxious and toxic substance ---- and at least give a couple of months for any judge who falls asleep while sitting at a trial ....because he gobbled one two many tranquilzers....I've seen them doze right off...and everyone keeps on talking as the judge sleeps....- then in his ruling the court of appeal will say ----"It is clear that the Judge "mis-spoke" - damn....I would assume logically if he "mis-spoke then he certainly mis-thought prior to the mis-speak.. we have problems greater than the use of recreational substances...heaven forbid that our judicary start smoking pot in the chambers.....well - maybe they would just get sleepy and go home.... 6 MONTHS FOR GROWING A POT PLANT - ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS? The authorities let crack sales and consumption of cocaine to go on with out reprof....leave the silly pot smokers alone ---- or give them free Scotch every second day - and convert them to useful tax payers. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.