Liberal MP Introduces Bill to Decriminalize Marijuana

normanchateau · April 2, 2009

April 1st, 2009

Dr. Keith Martin’s office just sent this media release:

OTTAWA – Tomorrow, Liberal Health Promotion Critic MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Dr. Keith Martin, will stand in the House to introduce a bill to decriminalize marijuana.

“The “war on drugs” approach, characterized by zero tolerance, has been a complete failure. It has not reduced the rate of violent crime or drug use, nor has it saved money or lives. To realize meaningful change on our city streets, we must decriminalize the possession of small amounts of pot. This will cause drug abuse to be addressed in the public health system, rather than through the courts. It will sever the connection between organized crime and drug users. This bill is bad news for criminal gangs because it would collapse the demand for drug products,” said Dr. Martin.

His Private Member’s Bill would introduce fines for the possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana instead of criminal charges.

Dr. Keith Martin is the Member of Parliament for Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca and the Health Promotion Critic for the Liberal Party. He is a physician who worked in detox, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers for 14 years.

http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrinatio...lize-marijuana/

normanchateau · April 2, 2009

April 02, 2009

"Is Liberal Keith Martin the best MP in Canada?

With his proposal to decriminalize the possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana or two marijuana plants, it's time to ask if Keith Martin is Canada's best MP.

Martin, unlike any of the Conservative MPs who talk as though they care about free speech, but in actual political practice prefer to vote for deficit budgets, introduced a private member's bill to repeal section 13 of the Human Rights Act.

Further, Martin, himself an M.D., has consistently supported more private healthcare throughout his career. (Has any sitting Conservative MP?) He also brings to light genocide throughout out the world, showing equal concern for each individual's liberty, not just Canadians' liberty."

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2...-in-canada.html

DrGreenthumb · April 2, 2009

It's better than the conservative position but doesn't go far enough. To address the black market we have to take over the supply side.

It would be a step in the right direction though.

I was going to comment yesterday but was waiting to make sure it wasn't an april fool's joke. I actually read about it on the western standard yesterday too.

jdobbin · April 2, 2009

It's better than the conservative position but doesn't go far enough. To address the black market we have to take over the supply side.
It would be a step in the right direction though.

I think you are not going to get the full shot on this. It will be like alcohol legislation after Prohibition... full of rules.

Decimilinalization at first will likely mean not arresting people for having pot on them or growing it. The numbers will be set so that the police can concentrate on ensuring we don't traffic to countries where there are laws in place.

Not exactly satisfactory but it is a way to re-direct police efforts to more important things.

Further liberalization will probably follow just as it did with alcohol.

Visionseeker · April 3, 2009

I think you are not going to get the full shot on this. It will be like alcohol legislation after Prohibition... full of rules.
Decimilinalization at first will likely mean not arresting people for having pot on them or growing it. The numbers will be set so that the police can concentrate on ensuring we don't traffic to countries where there are laws in place.

Not exactly satisfactory but it is a way to re-direct police efforts to more important things.

Further liberalization will probably follow just as it did with alcohol.

As it should. State controlled supply would eliminate many problems and mitigate many others. Grow-ups would still be a problem for a while (like stills were after prohibition ended), but the risk-return ratio would soon become apparent (risk remains high, return diminished).

eyeball · April 3, 2009

As it should. State controlled supply would eliminate many problems and mitigate many others. Grow-ups would still be a problem for a while (like stills were after prohibition ended), but the risk-return ratio would soon become apparent (risk remains high, return diminished).

In terms of danger it would be more precise to equate an alcohol still to a meth lab. As far as pot goes however people are allowed to make their own beer and wine at home, like my father in-law for example. He also has a tomato and lettuce grow-op and he uses the exact same CSA equipment any other grow-op uses. What's the problem for small-scale growing that's comparable to beer and wine making?

I suspect the enforcement-industrial/soccer-mom complex will be cranking up its fear machine into hyper-drive and between that and the Liberals will manage to drag the process of liberalization out for decades. If people thought the gun-registry was a boondoggle, they haven't seen anything yet.

Edited April 3, 2009 by eyeball

Progressive Tory · April 3, 2009

If people thought the gun-registry was a boondoggle, they haven't seen anything yet.

The biggest Canadian boondoggle was the prohibition of marijuana.

DrGreenthumb · April 3, 2009

The biggest Canadian boondoggle was the prohibition of marijuana.

I can totally agree with THAT statement, everyone remember Emily Murphy the hateful woman who stated it all. Read "the Black Candle" written under her pseudonym Janey Canuck to really understand the depth of her bigotry and hatred.

I will vote Liberal in the next federal election unless the NDP can really do something to lure me back before then.

Decrim is at least a small step in the right direction.

eyeball · April 3, 2009

The biggest Canadian boondoggle was the prohibition of marijuana.

So far up to now perhaps, but mark my words, its prohibition will probably pale beside its liberalization.

Topaz · April 3, 2009

Even though I grew up in the 60's drug era, I never wasted my time with it, had better things to do then fry my brain. AS a driver, we have to watch out for drunk drivers and I just wondering how much a person has to smoke before they can't driver without running into another car and killing someone??? I really don't think the majority of Canadians would go along with this.

DrGreenthumb · April 3, 2009

Even though I grew up in the 60's drug era, I never wasted my time with it, had better things to do then fry my brain. AS a driver, we have to watch out for drunk drivers and I just wondering how much a person has to smoke before they can't driver without running into another car and killing someone??? I really don't think the majority of Canadians would go along with this.

The impairment from cannabis is really negligable in comparison with alcohol. If you are high enough that it would effect your driving negatively, or cause your driving to be dangerous, you would likely choose not to drive. The high from pot wears off pretty fast too compared with alcohol impairment. No matter how much you smoke, you will be straight in no more than 2- 3 hours, and you will be able to self -judge when are safe to drive. Alcohol impair's one's ability to judge their own impairment because it falsly increases confidence, and tends to encourage people to act impulsively, rather than reasonably.

eyeball · April 3, 2009

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the impairment due to pot is comparable to drugs like cough syryp or that are used to treat back pain/spasms, drugs for which warning lables say you should merely excersize caution when driving or operating machinery.

Has anyone actually done any comprhensive tests on the effects of driving under the influence of pot? Myself, I suspect the reasons for laws surrounding driving on pot are probably as suspect and groundless as any that prohibit it.

85RZ500 · April 3, 2009

Yeah, maybe they'll reverse their take on tobacco in general. I'm joking of course tobacco, is a nasty killer according to the politicians, addictive too, I suppose the wacky tabacky isn't. Yep, decriminalize, then legalize, then wow, look at them tax dollars roillin' in.

Edited April 3, 2009 by 85RZ500

DrGreenthumb · April 3, 2009

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the impairment due to pot is comparable to drugs like cough syryp or that are used to treat back pain/spasms, drugs for which warning lables say you should merely excersize caution when driving or operating machinery.
Has anyone actually done any comprhensive tests on the effects of driving under the influence of pot? Myself, I suspect the reasons for laws surrounding driving on pot are probably as suspect and groundless as any that prohibit it.

I think their is a speedvision show called toking and driving, that shows actual closed course tests of driving abilities under the influence of pot and alcohol and driving straight. I'm not going to bother digging for the link, but most times that testing has been done the findings have indicated that cannabis would not be much of a contributing factor in car accidents. Nothing even remotely close to the threat that alcohol poses.

DrGreenthumb · April 3, 2009

I saw a 14 yr old with a bag of weed yeasteday. shoiuld be fun.

You mean a 14 year old kid managed to get a hold of a bag of weed? Isn't that against the law? How could this happen? We should really throw him in jail, then make him accept Jesus as his saviour so that he can be saved from those dangerous, evil plants that want to destroy his ability to think for himself. If we can just force him to sit still long enough for us to convince him that we are right, his mind will be free again?

He should know that God put certain plants here by mistake.

http://medpot.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76894

Edited April 3, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

jdobbin · April 3, 2009

Yep, decriminalize, then legalize, then wow, look at them tax dollars roillin' in.

Might keep us out of deficit and able to to reassign police to other activities.

eyeball · April 4, 2009

Might keep us out of deficit and able to to reassign police to other activities.

Why? We should be looking forward to laying a whole bunch off shouldn't we or did you have some other moral engineering make work project in mind?

punked · April 4, 2009

Why? We should be looking forward to laying a whole bunch off shouldn't we or did you have some other moral engineering make work project in mind?

You can't make marijuana illegal becuase you want to employ police. That is just crazy.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

You can't make marijuana illegal becuase you want to employ police. That is just crazy.

Wait a minute...you said in another thread that maryjane is not illegal because the courts might strike down drug laws in the future.

punked · April 4, 2009

Wait a minute...you said in another thread that maryjane is not illegal because the courts might strike down drug laws in the future.

If courts rule that under currents laws it isn't illegal then everyone in prison right now would be wrongfully convicted yes. However I don't see this happening until the laws are changed by the people not the courts. How do you not get this?

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

If courts rule that under currents laws it isn't illegal then everyone in prison right now would be wrongfully convicted yes. However I don't see this happening until the laws are changed by the people not the courts. How do you not get this?

Because you said that any laws ruled to violate Charter of Rights or the Constitution voids all illegal activity and convictions for all of time. I don't agree, but was just parroting back your pretzel logic.

punked · April 4, 2009

Because you said that any laws ruled to violate Charter of Rights or the Constitution voids all illegal activity and convictions for all of time. I don't agree, but was just parroting back your pretzel logic.

Well this a Canadian discussion, so the law is different up here and so is the legal system. That might shock you. So if you want to talk about the American legal system where the Constitution is the "supreme law" becuase you live in a Federal constitutional republic we can in the other forum. I love talking about grade 8 civics.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

Well this a Canadian discussion, so the law is different up here and so is the legal system. That might shock you. So if you want to talk about the American legal system where the Constitution is the "supreme law" becuase you live in a Federal constitutional republic we can in the other forum. I love talking about grade 8 civics.

No Charter of Rights in the USA. Try again.....