6 month madaTORY for 1 plant

Wilber · March 7, 2009

If one takes the trouble to find out, they will find the wording of C-15 is identical to C-26 regarding cannabis.

tango · March 7, 2009

(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,

Thanks for clarifying that.

My 'public relations' campaign still makes sense, however, since it is still stupidly illegal.

Stay tuned ... 'grandmas for ganja' is an emergent phenomenon. :lol:

fellowtraveller · March 7, 2009

News flash: Canadians will have the same amount of respect for whatever laws exist on weed as they have always had: none.

Wilber · March 8, 2009

News flash: Canadians will have the same amount of respect for whatever laws exist on weed as they have always had: none.

Some will, some won't but I can't believe it took over six pages of this nonsense before anyone actually read the bill.

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

Some will, some won't but I can't believe it took over six pages of this nonsense before anyone actually read the bill.

To late to curb the chronic and habitual use of pot...our government was so disconnected that they did not realize that the substance was upgraded into a more harmful plant - and was NOT the cute Mexican pot of the 70s-----some one should have sat down a governmental offical and forced him to smoke a joint of wheel chair cloned hydro hybred...then asked him -

SHOULD THIS STUFF BE LEGAL OR ENCOURAGED.....If this was done early enough they would have clamped down on this disruptive industry.

Molly · March 8, 2009

Prohibition (of something so accessible) just makes 'criminal' millionaires, and eliminates quality control--and does little to actually limit production or use.

Alcohol use was not much harmed by prohibition; attempts to limit access to tobacco is just making wealthy black-marketers... same with pot.

What I find a bit hilarious is the thought that prohibition is likely driving any reality to the 'gateway drug' theory.

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

Prohibition (of something so accessible) just makes 'criminal' millionaires, and eliminates quality control--and does little to actually limit production or use.
Alcohol use was not much harmed by prohibition; attempts to limit access to tobacco is just making wealthy black-marketers... same with pot.

What I find a bit hilarious is the thought that prohibition is likely driving any reality to the 'gateway drug' theory.

If a kid does not have a wise parent - and begins to drink then smoke pot - it is a matter of time before the little fool is introduced to cocaine and applying for work at the local strip bar....all dope in any form is a gateway drug...starts off with coffee - nicotine - pot - coke and herione ...not to mention pharma product..It's up to the parents to say "Look at your friend who thinks he is a musician - he will never succeed because if he is given the choice between the natural high of performance and accomplishment - and a bottle of booze or a sniff of coke - he will take the later - It's all about choices...drunkards and dopers make the choice that day to either be sober - or be out of it. The idea that we should not have dope millionares but it's acceptable to have alcohol selling rich folks is absurd...The attitude here seems to be - that WE should be rich on the sins of others but others are not entitled the privldege..All there is here is inconsistancey and hypocracy.

eyeball · March 8, 2009

SHOULD THIS STUFF BE LEGAL OR ENCOURAGED.....

That's the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, should it be legal for anyone to recreationally alter their minds? Isn't that what's really at issue here?

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

That's the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, should it be legal for anyone to recreationally alter their minds? Isn't that what's really at issue here?

YES --- to alter the mind at the appropriate time is physically healing. The question should be - Are we entitled to bring about better health through self medication? If a person is burned out and on the verge of a stroke or other possible health concerns - does that person have the right to self administor opiates and lay in bed for a week till healed...This thread should be called "I am my own doctor" - now - if a person is stupid and does not know the limits of self medication - then they have poor surival skills - let them parish - by their own hand..that is the other question - Should a person of weaker mind be allowed to damage their health with substances - is that a right? Lastly - Spoke to a cop once regarding drinking and driving. He said that some people can injest large amounts of toxins (intoxicants) and are great drivers - better than most sober ones - because of their mental and phyical make up - they are super quick and super aware sober and still above average when drunk...BUT he said we have to set a bench mark for all people so we do not allow anyone to alter their conciousness for the sake of the public good...maybe we should have testing on who can survive drug use and who it will destroy - and grant licence to the strong.. :lol:

fellowtraveller · March 8, 2009

That's the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, should it be legal for anyone to recreationally alter their minds? Isn't that what's really at issue here?

No , the real issue is: will any law regarding personal marijuana use or possession be respected by millions of middle class Canadians?

Answer: no.

So why bother?

tango · March 8, 2009

No , the real issue is: will any law regarding personal marijuana use or possession be respected by millions of middle class Canadians?
Answer: no.

So why bother?

Answer: Yes

I don't see any great groundswell of opposition. I think it's about 50-50 and not likely to be a problem.

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

Answer: Yes
I don't see any great groundswell of opposition. I think it's about 50-50 and not likely to be a problem.

Unless we get super right wing and start operating private prisons for profit - we are going to need "clients" - I say 10 years for a joint....and maybe building car parts while doing time - not domestic ones but car parts for imports...we could export to the importers...I see a buiisness plan forming here.. :lol: There should be a law also if someone is drunk and not listening to a con artist because he is - It must be a real heart ache when the government releases some propoganda and the citizen literally has it go in one ear and out the other - can't have that - The public must listen!

bluegreen · March 9, 2009

Answer: Yes
I don't see any great groundswell of opposition. I think it's about 50-50 and not likely to be a problem.

That's a great threshold for locking people up, 50/50 so we might as well imprison a few tens of thousands of people. As long as there's no upswelling of opposition? How many historical examples of muted protest do we abhor today?

What's at the root of the issue is, at what point does a majority, or in this case a plurality have the right to imprison their neighbours? I was under the impression that our shared values state that when peoples activities bring harm to others, we protect ourselves by imposing sanctions. Failing that, the individuals rights to make their own choices trump the opinions of their neighbours. Prison is the ultimate sanction we impose. Murder, violence, theft, all these things we abhor incurr prison sentences (sometimes). How does smoking, possessing, or growing dope fit into this picture? It doesn't. It is the same old story of imprisoning people because we don't like them.

Wilber · March 9, 2009

The issue of legalization is certainly debatable but don't get melodramatic. When was the last time someone went to prison for smoking dope? Were you even born yet?

noahbody · March 9, 2009

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.

What part of read the bill do you not understand? The mandatory minimum for less than 200 only applies if the purpose if for trafficking.

Molly · March 9, 2009

And giving a couple of grams to a buddy is... trafficking.

It strikes me that the distinction isn't a meaningful defense for a casual user.

DrGreenthumb · March 9, 2009

What part of read the bill do you not understand? The mandatory minimum for less than 200 only applies if the purpose if for trafficking.

Passing a joint is considered trafficking, as is any form of sharing with anyone. Marc Emery was charged with trafficking and sentenced to 9 months in jail for passing a joint. That was only a couple of years ago Wilbur so I think all of us discussing this here were "bon yet"!

Wilber · March 9, 2009

Passing a joint is considered trafficking, as is any form of sharing with anyone. Marc Emery was charged with trafficking and sentenced to 9 months in jail for passing a joint. That was only a couple of years ago Wilbur so I think all of us discussing this here were "bon yet"!

In Marc's case I can understand it. He makes a public performance of flouting the law and gives authorities little choice. His whole intent is to get a reaction, being ignored would be the worst thing that could happen to him.

Oleg Bach · March 9, 2009

This definition of trafficing is bogus - To sell liquor in a public place without licence is trafficing - to sell pot is trafficing - To pass a drink is not - to pass a joint is not..If no money changes hands then the government should step aside - It is about money and the difficulty of laying out a taxing plan that is the crux of the problem here. To pass a law that states that sharing is trafficing is absurd - That would put his whole topic on a moral base - and morality is not what the government is about - to bad they are not about morality - and pretending to be moral is an insult to truely moral and principled people..To live off of liquior sales is immoral..to live off of prostitution is immoral...once the governement stops being dependant on tobacco and alcohol sales - then they can take the moral ground as far as pot is concerned.

eyeball · March 9, 2009

In Marc's case I can understand it. He makes a public performance of flouting the law and gives authorities little choice. His whole intent is to get a reaction, being ignored would be the worst thing that could happen to him.

The problem we have now is that certain people are making a public spectacle of the authorities NOT enforcing the law. Politicians have little choice but to react because ignoring the laws would be the worst thing that could happen to them.

So what we end up with is the authorities enforcing the laws they haven't been enforcing while they create a bunch of new one's they can start enforcing the next time something galvanizes the public. Of course the new laws they create then will be even more draconian than the one's they're creating now and this is how society progressively crab-walks its way towards authouritarianism. With its eye's wide open.

Oleg Bach · March 9, 2009

When a bunch of pot head converge on Queens Park and fire up joints - someone in a chopper should spray them with roach killer. If you want to have a vice - keep it to yourself....public displays of pot smoking remind me of the gay day parade where old losers in leather shorts with the bum cut out prance and pose as if they are rebels for some important cause..Whether it is chemical or sexual impairment of the mind - it does not matter - You want to make yourself less - do it at home...so the kids don't think that being stoned 24 7 is a life style choice and a right...do you want your son or daughter to think getting stupified is the optimal freedom - or being gay is? :rolleyes:

DrGreenthumb · March 9, 2009

When a bunch of pot head converge on Queens Park and fire up joints - someone in a chopper should spray them with roach killer. If you want to have a vice - keep it to yourself....public displays of pot smoking remind me of the gay day parade where old losers in leather shorts with the bum cut out prance and pose as if they are rebels for some important cause..Whether it is chemical or sexual impairment of the mind - it does not matter - You want to make yourself less - do it at home...so the kids don't think that being stoned 24 7 is a life style choice and a right...do you want your son or daughter to think getting stupified is the optimal freedom - or being gay is?

Oleg sometimes you can be so confusing. Half the time you are critical of the government for butting in on people's lives and admitting to your own pot use, and the other half you are advocating chemical warfare against people for smoking pot.

People want to speak out and have the laws changed, but are afraid to be singled out for selective prosecution by the "authorities". There is safety in numbers, and so a couple of times a year we gather to protest the government's treatment of us. Are you really advocating the state's right to prosecute people for peaceful protest?

It should be noted that their has almost never been an act of violence at a pot rally, unless it was the police committing the violence. The organizers and the crowds are also always very good about cleaning up after themselves and leaving the venue as clean as they found it. Last year on march 20 at the manitoba legislature there were THOUSANDS of people that showed up spontaneously, the entire legislature grounds were packed, and people were overflowing down the streets in all directions. There was not one incident the entire day. By 5:30 the grounds were spotless of litter. There were protestors that were walking around with garbage bags and recycle bins the whole time, keeping the area clean. The modern potsmoker comes from all walks of life, and is generally more environmentally concious than the average citizen.

Oleg Bach · March 9, 2009

Oleg sometimes you can be so confusing. Half the time you are critical of the government for butting in on people's lives and admitting to your own pot use, and the other half you are advocating chemical warfare against people for smoking pot.
People want to speak out and have the laws changed, but are afraid to be singled out for selective prosecution by the "authorities". There is safety in numbers, and so a couple of times a year we gather to protest the government's treatment of us. Are you really advocating the state's right to prosecute people for peaceful protest?

It should be noted that their has almost never been an act of violence at a pot rally, unless it was the police committing the violence. The organizers and the crowds are also always very good about cleaning up after themselves and leaving the venue as clean as they found it. Last year on march 20 at the manitoba legislature there were THOUSANDS of people that showed up spontaneously, the entire legislature grounds were packed, and people were overflowing down the streets in all directions. There was not one incident the entire day. By 5:30 the grounds were spotless of litter. There were protestors that were walking around with garbage bags and recycle bins the whole time, keeping the area clean. The modern potsmoker comes from all walks of life, and is generally more environmentally concious than the average citizen.

I can barely read anymore - I AM NOT A POT USER... or a pot head... Those that use it religiously or daily or as a way of life are pot users - the most I can say about "admitting to your own pot use" is this - on it's own I hate the stuff - but if I get drung ------ I mean DRUNK...I will take a draw - because it takes a ton of gin to civilize this nasty paranoid inducing poisionous weed....there... :lol: Do get it? I dispise stupifed chroinic users...As my wife aged she slowly became a habitual smoker - after a while it was like living alone - she became so stupid that I had no one to talk too - I would say it contriubuted to the break down of a 25 year marriage.

The pot is simply to strong and it was neve meant to be a way of life anymore that daily drunkeness or pharma use is to be a way of life...damn - wish I had a cigarette...now that is a nasty drug... :rolleyes:

fellowtraveller · March 10, 2009

The problem we have now is that certain people are making a public spectacle of the authorities NOT enforcing the law. Politicians have little choice but to react because ignoring the laws would be the worst thing that could happen to them.
So what we end up with is the authorities enforcing the laws they haven't been enforcing while they create a bunch of new one's they can start enforcing the next time something galvanizes the public. Of course the new laws they create then will be even more draconian than the one's they're creating now and this is how society progressively crab-walks its way towards authouritarianism. With its eye's wide open.

Nah, none of that will happen.

The cops won't enforce the new law any more than they enforced the old one.

Nopne of the millions of Candians who currently enjoy the odd joint will stop.

It is a dumb law and will be ignored and unenforced, just like the last one.

That's the problem with stupid rules and laws- eventually ordinary people act out civicl disobedience in sufficient numbers make it pointless. The civil disobedience surrounding casual pot usage took decades-from the 60s to now- to get to this point, where millions of Canucks smply ignore it, and thousands of cops are quite happy to igniore it too.

That won't be altered much if at all with any legislation.

DrGreenthumb · March 10, 2009

Nah, none of that will happen.
The cops won't enforce the new law any more than they enforced the old one.

Nopne of the millions of Candians who currently enjoy the odd joint will stop.

It is a dumb law and will be ignored and unenforced, just like the last one.

That's the problem with stupid rules and laws- eventually ordinary people act out civicl disobedience in sufficient numbers make it pointless. The civil disobedience surrounding casual pot usage took decades-from the 60s to now- to get to this point, where millions of Canucks smply ignore it, and thousands of cops are quite happy to igniore it too.

That won't be altered much if at all with any legislation.

wrong. thousands more canadians will get criminal records every year and a good deal more will spend time in prison. The courts will get totally clogged up even more as people will have no incentive to plead guilty in exchange for lighter sentences. I guess the rapists and murderers will be happy to wait in line in remand (at two for one time of course). All this for something most Canadians and probably most cops would just as soon ignore. Real Smart policy Harper.