6 month madaTORY for 1 plant

[Oleg Bach]

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.

But the law will be in place and can be used at anytime to say - jail a non-comliant citizen who has breached an unjust law out of spitful rebellion..These new laws will be abused - this reminds me of the American Patriot Act..that was a ruse to implant laws off oppression - this is not about pot..from what I gather...It is about social control.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Your paranoia is more typical of meth users than pot smokers.

It is riduclous that anybody goes to jail for smoking weed. It is ridiculous that Crown prosecutors or cops will pursue charges. They don't have the time, money and above all the will to bother when there are people being shot routinely on the streets of our cities.

It's that simple. You caqn rant and roar, but there it is.

In a legal sense, the Crown side will get themselves in major trouble if they prosecute selectively, charging only when embarassed. They know that. Enforcement will be feeble at worst, nonexistent the rest of the time. As it is now.

The reason is that far, far too many ordinary taxpaying people already ignore the law and will continue to do so.

[Oleg Bach]

Your paranoia is more typical of meth users than pot smokers.

It is riduclous that anybody goes to jail for smoking weed. It is ridiculous that Crown prosecutors or cops will pursue charges. They don't have the time, money and above all the will to bother when there are people being shot routinely on the streets of our cities.

It's that simple. You caqn rant and roar, but there it is.

In a legal sense, the Crown side will get themselves in major trouble if they prosecute selectively, charging only when embarassed. They know that. Enforcement will be feeble at worst, nonexistent the rest of the time. As it is now.

The reason is that far, far too many ordinary taxpaying people already ignore the law and will continue to do so.

If they don't like you for other reasons other than smoking pot, then the option is open to convict and confine - because of existing pot laws --- most pot smokers are a tad rebelious - and tossing the rebels in jail is a good idea for those who like to be overly dominant - power makes the powers that be go funny in the head - much like dope.

[fellowtraveller]

If they don't like you for other reasons other than smoking pot, then the option is open to convict and confine - because of existing pot laws --- most pot smokers are a tad rebelious - and tossing the rebels in jail is a good idea for those who like to be overly dominant - power makes the powers that be go funny in the head - much like dope.

That is really stretching reality.

Pot smokers are not 'rebellious', the majority are middle class baby boomer working people who just like to get a buzz on once in a while.

The worm turned 30 years ago.

It is and will be utterly unenforceable.

If they did drug testing 1/3 of the cops and 90 % of the Crown prosecutors and judges would not pass

[Oleg Bach]

That is really stretching reality.

Pot smokers are not 'rebellious', the majority are middle class baby boomer working people who just like to get a buzz on once in a while.

The worm turned 30 years ago.

It is and will be utterly unenforceable.

If they did drug testing 1/3 of the cops and 90 % of the Crown prosecutors and judges would not pass

You get the point - older people become wise in time - hopefully and ARE quietly resistant to bull shit - rebellion does not mean running though the street with your mussle loader screaming "no king but Jesus" - If things were to get more authoritarian - you could take an intelligent old rebel and get rid of him because he passed the joint (trafficing) to his son while drinking a beer and fishing out of a boat....with globalization and the current possible collapse of systems as we know it - Draconianism may rise...as for Crowns that smoke and cops that do - well I don't want these impaired jerks dealing with me - I want a straight crown or cop...you biggest worry should be which judge , crown or cop is on pharma product - nothing worse that a judge that falls asleep or a cop that has no remorse or natural guilt or depression from wrong doing because he is all jacked up on Prozac.. Now that is dangerous...prescribed or not - dope makes you stupid....

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CALL IT DOPE?

[neutralguy]

When cops see people smoking pot and don't do anything about it..that basically tells you what most people think about it.

[noahbody]

Now that is dangerous...prescribed or not - dope makes you stupid....

Oh come on. If that were true, Tommy Chong would be a complete idiot.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh come on. If that were true, Tommy Chong would be a complete idiot.

He's not?

[guyser]

If they did drug testing 1/3 of the cops would not pass

Probably higher.

Dont test them for alcohol abuse, likely be upwards of 80%

[GostHacked]

LOL, I live a sheltered life, don't know a soul who uses that crap.

So it's against the law, suck it up, you want to be a doper, pay the price.

Sure , throw down the ban-hammer on all criminal activities. You should be prosecuted to the max for other crimes ... like a speeding ticket.

Me smoking some pot might prevent an idiot like me from going out on a shooting spree ... instead, I just get in some trouble with the guy at the corner store for molesting the potatoe chips.

But sheltered or not, one can see how much money and manpower is wasted on searching/prosecuting/incarceration for pot. There are much worse drugs out there we should be going after. Crack is apparently instanly adictive. I have no problem with going after that, and meth labs, ect. Sure even mass producers of pot.

I am also on the notion that all drugs should be legal, and let the chips fall where they may.

Sometimes Oleg I wonder if it is the pot that makes me actually understand your posts. However,

you biggest worry should be which judge , crown or cop is on pharma product

So much for a Drug Free America .. or Canada.

Noahbuddy

When cops see people smoking pot and don't do anything about it..that basically tells you what most people think about it.

This is pretty true for the most part. I have friends who are cops here in Ottawa, and back hom in Sudbury. They agree it is a waste of time and resources. They want to go after the bigger fish who are the players in the criminal world.

For example. I was having a party at my place, a couple friends of my roomate were yelling out the front window at a cop who had pulled someone else over for speeding. He was getting ticketed right outside my door ... so those two guests were yelling 'HAY PO PO' .... ugh .. knock knock knock ... I answered the door, stepped outside. Apologized to these pretty attractive lady cops, who must know my state of intoxication. Stoned and drunk. But had it under control, and after our chat, they left without taking anyone with them. They were more pissed at the outright disrespect for them with the calling of PO PO. They really did not care about the booze and drugs in my place. These guests were just plain f*cking stupid regardless of them being drunk or stoned. You just don't invite this kind of shit it in ... I had a talking with my roomate about his guests ..... I was not impressed either.

Like booze, treat weed and other substances with respect and you will live a happy productive and safe life.

[Oleg Bach]

POT and booze or other mind altering products should not become a way of life ---- along old Yonge Street in the core of the city years ago there was a drug store - the propietor would remove the rubbing alcohol and shaving lotion from the shelves every Sunday - I asked him why - - - - "Everybody must have a sober day" - I say the way to a longer and more productive and happy life is to at least make an attempt to have as many sober days as possible.

[normanchateau]

The following is a direct quote from the first reading of Bill C-26. Is Argus the only other person here who has actually read it?

( if the subject-matter of the offence is cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of (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,

Your direct quote provides no more information than the link provided on the first page of this thread, i.e.,

http://cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums_chart.html

The point is, whether it's your direct quote or the link above, the social conservative Harper is proposing a mandatory six months in prison, up to a maximum of 14 years in prison, for selling one marijuana plant.

While the world economy crashes and hundreds of thousands of Canadians continue to lose their jobs, so-con loony Harper decides that this is a good time to imprison Canadians for selling one plant. Has this lame brain completely lost sense of priorities? What's next on his social conservative agenda? Mandatory jail terms for viewing pornography or not attending his Evangelical Christian Missionary and Alliance Church?

[Molly]

I have a great objection to MANDATORY SENTENCES period, regardless of the 'crime'. They are a sure-fire guarantee of miscarriages of justice.

[DrGreenthumb]

I have a great objection to MANDATORY SENTENCES period, regardless of the 'crime'. They are a sure-fire guarantee of miscarriages of justice.

So is a conservative government

[Oleg Bach]

I have a great objection to MANDATORY SENTENCES period, regardless of the 'crime'. They are a sure-fire guarantee of miscarriages of justice.

No need for mandatory sentences - the laws and sentencing guide lines have been in place for years...Just like this new "reverse onis" during bail hearings - The onis has always been on the accused to show why he or she should be released..it has always been a reverse onis - so I don't understand what's going on..why are gun carriers released on bail - this was never the case 20 years ago - but why now? I really don't think you are being sincere about the miscarriage of justice - It has been miscarried for years now and YOU simply have not noticed - You sound like an educated man - perhaps even a lawyer or a judge - but you may be in a time warp..these are not the 60s....and Mandatory sentence has a new meaning - It should mean that it is MANDATORY for a convict to jailed...what we have now is that few that deserve it are being locked up. What should be taking place is that there should be MANDATORY judging by judges - not rulings by poll and policy!

[DrGreenthumb]

No need for mandatory sentences - the laws and sentencing guide lines have been in place for years...Just like this new "reverse onis" during bail hearings - The onis has always been on the accused to show why he or she should be released..it has always been a reverse onis - so I don't understand what's going on..why are gun carriers released on bail - this was never the case 20 years ago - but why now? I really don't think you are being sincere about the miscarriage of justice - It has been miscarried for years now and YOU simply have not noticed - You sound like an educated man - perhaps even a lawyer or a judge - but you may be in a time warp..these are not the 60s....and Mandatory sentence has a new meaning - It should mean that it is MANDATORY for a convict to jailed...what we have now is that few that deserve it are being locked up. What should be taking place is that there should be MANDATORY judging by judges - not rulings by poll and policy!

It might surprise you Oleg that even pot users and pot growers mostly would agree that people who use guns to commit crimes, or even kill people should go to jail for a long time.

Even if a guy was carrying two pot plants, smoking a big fat joint of the strongest BC bud, and wearing a

'legalize it" T-shirt made from hemp, decided to shoot someone, I'd still think he should go to jail. Violent people belong in prison where they can't hurt the public. Non violent people who pose no threat to others should be free to live their lives in whatever way makes them happy.

The difference here is that the conservatives are advocating mandaTORY jail time for NON_VIOLENT offences.

[normanchateau]

The difference here is that the conservatives are advocating mandaTORY jail time for NON_VIOLENT offences.

The Conservative government is advocating it but I know plenty of Conservatives who actually favour legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. The problem is that CPC leader Harper is a loony so-con who believes that a mandatory six month sentence for selling one plant is perfectly reasonable.

When SES Research conducted a nationwide poll in 2003 to see who favoured or opposed decriminalization of marijuana, only 38% of Canadian Alliance voters opposed decriminalization:

http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W03-T113.pdf

So-con Harper has positioned himself to the right of even former Canadian Alliance voters on this issue.

I'm sure it's no coincidence that Harper's fire and brimstone Evangelical Missionary and Alliance Church fervently advocates against marijuana use:

http://www.gregfelton.com/canpol/2007_08_2...%20article.html

[questionall]

Last year the American College of Physicians presented a position paper to the American government asking them to re-classify marijuana, Why?

well , after 30 plus respected, government funded, "credible" studies, something quite astounding happened, the THC and other compounds found in marijuana was reducing cancerous tumors by as much as 50% in lung cancer, and stopping metastisis in a number of other cancers, however even this "repected" group of over 125,000 doctors cannot have access to what they have asked for which is research grade marijuana. Political ideology? you decide, since George Bush simply said, NO.

This might not seem important to the legalization issue and the idea that the Prime Minister wants anyone who uses marijuana no matter what the amount, jailed, but it does show, that no amount of science is even considered, when it comes to this plant, that probably has more medicinal properties than we could have ever dreamed.

As far as trafficking, is concerned, why is it that if you get pulled over in your car, or some fanatic neighbor knows you use marijuana and calls in an anonomous "tip" resulting in these warrants that trample your Charter Rights, if they find marijuana, and it can be as little as 5 or 10 grams, the charge always reads possession for the purpose of trafficking?

They never have to see you sell marijuana to anyone. If someone smokes marijuana for their own personal use, it would not be unusual for that person to have more than a few joints, maybe they use it recreationally or maybe the use it as medicine, but it certainly does not prove they are trafficking.

This is how this proposed bill gets dangerous, and the reason you will see many innocent, regular, taxpaying, non-violent citizens, go to jail. 1 plant, will be considered trafficking. The government will insinuate you are producing with the intent to sell. Absolutely not true in many cases.

The real fact remains,, mandatory minimums caused such damage in America, that they have begun to repeal these laws. 100's of billions of dollars spent for nothing. The cartels are never the ones damaged from these types of laws, the American model DID NOT WORK . The propaganda machine doesn't work as well as it used to either, because more and more people are choosing to educate themselves, and as they learn more, the fear they once felt is no longer the deciding factor. The research is all easy to access and how you choose to view it is considered FREE WILL, 2 words I think sum up the reason, people who choose a plant that has never caused a death in it's history, to be avtively involved in stopping the cruel and unusual punishment, bills such as c-15 create. Oh, and as a side note, Harvard was pretty mystified when in 2006 and after studying regular marijuana users, they found that the ones who smoked marijuana, even those that smoked cigarettes as well, had a fraction of the rates of lung cancer as the ones who only smoked cigarettes. Take it up with Harvard if that poses a problem for you, don't shoot the messenger. This actually made the news a few months back, when the report suggested, there was no correlation between marijuana and cancer .

[Wilber]

I have a great objection to MANDATORY SENTENCES period, regardless of the 'crime'. They are a sure-fire guarantee of miscarriages of justice.

The problem is our courts have largely chosen to ignore the intent of the sentences we already have and are bringing on mandatory minimums through their own actions. When was the last time anyone got anywhere the maximum for anything other than murder, which is often plea bargained down to manslaughter then further watered down by court instituted guidelines.

[Wilber]

Non violent people who pose no threat to others should be free to live their lives in whatever way makes them happy.

You don't think Bernie Madoff should go to jail for financially destroying thousands of people?

[Oleg Bach]

You don't think Bernie Madoff should go to jail for financially destroying thousands of people?

He did not "finacially" destroy people - He simply destroyed them period..because most people are not just finacially dependant on their money - emotionally - and socially - He destroyed a large part of society..like a mad cannibal lurking about eating the young as the adults trusted..He altered the lives of a hundred thousand people for generations - He should be put in a small cell - with just a bed - and let him stand and look out the little window for the rest of his time and think.....But for these high class socio-paths ...They will not be changed for the better - this man in another age would have been a legal mass murderer and barbaric plunderer.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....This might not seem important to the legalization issue and the idea that the Prime Minister wants anyone who uses marijuana no matter what the amount, jailed, but it does show, that no amount of science is even considered, when it comes to this plant, that probably has more medicinal properties than we could have ever dreamed.

Agreed....the "American government" does not have a Prime Minister.

[Oleg Bach]

Agreed....the "American government" does not have a Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is just a left over from the Bush Cheney era..not a conservative but a common neo-con...and the way they look at the people they want to control is "There are the convicted and the not yet convicted" - This pot debate is not about the properties of pot - it's legality morally or other wise - It's kind of like the Patriot Act in the states - sound nice but it is meant to crimminalize...These guys sitting under Harpers bat wings know darn well that pot smoking is almost on par with alcohol use - and that is a lot of people to record crimminally......Also in passing - Take a look at the FACE BOOK judical ruling on privacy that just flew by recently - Your public posting and jibber jabber...is now governmental property - and even if you don't break the law - authorities have a "face book record" on you -- and if you are not crimminal - they can find a crimminal infraction to fit....especially how lose and easy people are on computers these days ----Its all about social control - though the breach of privacy.

[bush_cheney2004]

This pot debate is not about the properties of pot - it's legality morally or other wise -

......Its all about social control - though the breach of privacy.

OK....then decrim or legalize....but why worry so much about what the goddamn Americans are doing about it (unless the intent is to distribute acroos the border)?

Hell, the Canadian feds banned pot before the Yankees.

Don't any potheads in Canada have any balls instead of whining about US policy?

[Oleg Bach]

OK....then decrim or legalize....but why worry so much about what the goddamn Americans are doing about it (unless the intent is to distribute acroos the border)?

Hell, the Canadian feds banned pot before the Yankees.

Don't any potheads in Canada have any balls instead of whining about US policy?

Chronics have no balls you know that - pot is a deballer in continued large amounts - the bigger the dube the smaller the stones.