Liberal MP Introduces Bill to Decriminalize Marijuana

[Cuzzin E]

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

Of course. The one major hurdle for legalizing it is how to administer a roadside test to determine intoxication levels. There is no breathalizer that can test thc, the only way is a blood test. So would you be willing to provide a blood sample every time an officer pulls you over to get it legalized? And what is considered an unsafe amount of thc? How is this determined?

As well, if it were legalized, they would make it legal only in private domains and I imagine they would do like Belgium and make it illegal to sell or grow more than 5 plants.

[BubberMiley]

Really? Tobacco producers really need your legal expertise.

Really? There's talk of making possession of tobacco a criminal offence?

Oh wait. No, you're just making stuff up because you have no real argument to go on.

That's okay.

[BubberMiley]

Of course. The one major hurdle for legalizing it is how to administer a roadside test to determine intoxication levels. There is no breathalizer that can test thc, the only way is a blood test. So would you be willing to provide a blood sample every time an officer pulls you over to get it legalized? And what is considered an unsafe amount of thc? How is this determined?

It's already illegal to drive a car under the influence, whether the possession of the plant is legal or not. If you're driving dangerously, you get charged. That wouldn't change.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? There's talk of making possession of tobacco a criminal offence?

Oh wait. No, you're just making stuff up because you have no real argument to go on.

That's okay.

Who cares about your trivial concerns about criminality when the big bucks can be had in civil litigation and large jury awards. They need your legal brilliance for sure....LOL!

[Oleg Bach]

Who cares about your trivial concerns about criminality when the big bucks can be had in civil litigation and large jury awards. They need your legal brilliance for sure....LOL!

Litigation is for the rich - the rich literally pass the buck to EACH OTHER.. the average Joe gets nothing...unless you are part of the club. As for crimminality - those to dull to accept that fact that all authority is crimminal get what they deserve - nothing!

[bush_cheney2004]

Litigation is for the rich - the rich literally pass the buck to EACH OTHER.. the average Joe gets nothing...unless you are part of the club. As for crimminality - those to dull to accept that fact that all authority is crimminal get what they deserve - nothing!

Government is rich, and it wants its cut of the revenue stream. Meanwhile, these small fry dopers worry about getting tagged with so much righteousness.

[Oleg Bach]

Government is rich, and it wants its cut of the revenue stream. Meanwhile, these small fry dopers worry about getting tagged with so much righteousness.

[/quote

There is no elected government - all have buisness concerns that sit in positions of power - all are connected to the alcohol.tobacco, weapons and big pharma - like little Chicago gangsters they simply don't want anyone cutting into their revenue stream by growing some hydro in the attic..and not giving them a cut...sure these old scotch drinkers will scorn dopers - but don't have a problem popping a pill..quietly in the bathroom before they go off to work as Draconian buisnessmen under the guise of elected officals.

[mikedavid00]

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.

And that's just the point.

Wacky, nut job Canadians for some reason think we are part of Europe more than we are North America.

The facts are, we're a car based society. We don't rely and subways and trains and gov't subsidised bicycles (netherlands) to get us around. We can't walk our way around town and live in our low rent apts and go to 'coffee shops' and smoke weed and get home safely without infringing on someone elses rights. This isn't Holland. We have highways and cars over here. This would require driving to the coffee shops and back and the Canadian public just wouldn't go for it.

That's why I feel NY style delivery services could be a nice compromise.

[BubberMiley]

Who cares about your trivial concerns about criminality when the big bucks can be had in civil litigation and large jury awards. They need your legal brilliance for sure....LOL!

Lol indeed. Where did I claim legal brilliance? Was it when I said there is no substance on the planet that is illegal to carry on your person because it is a carcinogen? That doesn't make me brilliant. That's just common knowledge among those of us in countries with first world education systems. Or are you just, once again, trying to divert attention from the fact that you don't have an argument and know very, very little about what you speak, but must, at all costs, get in the last word?

[tango]

It's none of bush_cheney's business anyway. He's just jealous!

All those arguments about the 'dangerous' effects of weed are kind of silly since it's legal for medicinal purposes in Canada anyway.

Musta passed the test!

[Cuzzin E]

It's already illegal to drive a car under the influence, whether the possession of the plant is legal or not. If you're driving dangerously, you get charged. That wouldn't change.

Yes, but right now if they suspect you of driving while high on meth, they can charge you with possession if they find it on you but they can't lay a DUI charge. If it were legal, they would have to have a remedy for testing intoxication since they would no longer have another criminal avenue.

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes, but right now if they suspect you of driving while high on meth, they can charge you with possession if they find it on you but they can't lay a DUI charge. If it were legal, they would have to have a remedy for testing intoxication since they would no longer have another criminal avenue.

Actually you can be charged with impaired driving even if you have nothing on you at all. Just like they can charge you with impaired driving even if there is no alcohol in your car. In Canada you can be charged with impaired driving for driving too tired. You can test for impairment without a blood, or breath test. Performance tests are better indicators of actual impairment anyways. Also there is no evidence that cannabis impairs people's ability to drive. It certainly doesn't have anywhere near the effect that alcohol does.

Why do people have to bring up meth in every thread about cannabis? Cannabis is not scary enough on its own so prohibitionists always try to associate it with something MORE dangerous like alcohol or meth?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's none of bush_cheney's business anyway. He's just jealous!

All those arguments about the 'dangerous' effects of weed are kind of silly since it's legal for medicinal purposes in Canada anyway.

Why would "bush_cheney" be jealous of dopers whining about laws in a foreign country?

[Cuzzin E]

Actually you can be charged with impaired driving even if you have nothing on you at all. Just like they can charge you with impaired driving even if there is no alcohol in your car. In Canada you can be charged with impaired driving for driving too tired. You can test for impairment without a blood, or breath test. Performance tests are better indicators of actual impairment anyways. Also there is no evidence that cannabis impairs people's ability to drive. It certainly doesn't have anywhere near the effect that alcohol does.

This is simply not true. You cannot be charged with impaired driving for being tired, you have to have proven levels of substance in your system or the court will throw it out.

I'm not arguing whether cannabis impairs your driving ability or not, the issue is that police have to have a standard to test that's acceptable to the public. I don't want to be forced a blood test when a cop pulls me over.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Cuzzin E

[DrGreenthumb]

This is simply not true. You cannot be charged with impaired driving for being tired, you have to have proven levels of substance in your system or the court will throw it out.

I'm not arguing whether cannabis impairs your driving ability or not, the issue is that police have to have a standard to test that's acceptable to the public. I don't want to be forced a blood test when a cop pulls me over.

In Canada at least they can charge you for impaired for any reason they determine you to be impaired, even being impaired by lack of sleep.

Oh and they already CAN demand a blood sample.

[Oleg Bach]

In Canada at least they can charge you for impaired for any reason they determine you to be impaired, even being impaired by lack of sleep.

Oh and they already CAN demand a blood sample.

What about the dozy sons of bitches who cruise about over loaded on prescription drugs? Alcohol is bad - pot is bad and most perscribed drugs that effect the brain and central nervous system are bad - but we are stuck with them - It all gets down to social control...the powers that be do not mind highly active and hard working cocaine addicts - but they really have no use for lazy pot heads - it's all about productivity and not the health of the citizen - If they cared about the health of the people tobacco would be fully banned and hospital rooms would be set up as with drawl facilities...but no - the sell the poison because it makes a small segment of society wealthy.

[eyeball]

This is simply not true. You cannot be charged with impaired driving for being tired, you have to have proven levels of substance in your system or the court will throw it out.

I'm not arguing whether cannabis impairs your driving ability or not, the issue is that police have to have a standard to test that's acceptable to the public. I don't want to be forced a blood test when a cop pulls me over.

I would think the police would need a test that's acceptable to the Charter above all else which means the state would have to prove that cannabis actually did impair the person being charged. What would happen if comprehensive tests revealed that some people can operate machinery without any trouble whatsoever? Lots of medications that simply carry a warning to excersize caution when driving or operating machinery can send some people over the deep end and others don't do a thing.

Ever heard of Gravol? I see many people routinely in my job who take Gravol for seasickness and some show no indication of any effects at all and others look like they're drunk. Most just get off the boat and jump in their cars and drive away. I tell everyone who gets off the boat, whether they've taken anything for nausea or not, to take it easy and to be careful even just walking around for a couple of hours. It can take that long for people's inner ear to settle down, especially if its been rough out, and that they may feel dizzy or off balance until it des. Some people look like they almost need to be carried off the boat, the effects of being at sea can be that dramatic whereas others don't look fazed in the least.

[Sir Bandelot]

- These and other substances could be harmful depending on circumstances, but this issue should come down to mitigating harm, and whether or not legal punishment is the best way to deal with it.

- There are many scientific reports about marijuana, both good and bad which amount to propaganda used by either side to promote their political agendas. Thanks to that its hard for the average person to determine what is actually true. But now after about 70 years of prohibition, and with millions in Canada admitting to habitual pot use, we should be able to ask- if it is a toxic substance, habeus corpus? In other words, where are the bodies. A pragmatic question.

Having worked in a cancer centre for more than 20 years I can personally testify to it, I have never heard of it being a concern in regards to head and neck, or any other disease. In fact its more the opposiite... there are things done quietly for the benefit of patients, which are not talked about publicly. Marijuana is given to some who are permitted to smoke it right on the premises. Its used in pain management and weight gain following treatment. Even as far back as the 80's I knew that pot was given to some in our centre. I never heard of anyone being administered tobacco or alcohol.

I know the studies are on-going ad theres a lot more interest in it today, with medical marijuana. Products like Marinol taken sub-lingually. But they are not as good as the real thing, its faster uptake to inhale the smoke and to use a variety of species. So I do not think its even as harmful as tobacco. You don't have to believe me but this is my experience, not drawn from statistics.

[normanchateau]

I really don't think the majority of Canadians would go along with this.

You're wrong. A majority of Canadians favour outright legalization:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

The percentage favouring decriminalization is even higher.

Keith Martin's bill likely won't pass while social conservative and anti-libertarian Harper remains PM but I predict it will pass after the next election.

[tango]

You're wrong. A majority of Canadians favour outright legalization:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

The percentage favouring decriminalization is even higher.

Keith Martin's bill likely won't pass while social conservative and anti-libertarian Harper remains PM but I predict it will pass after the next election.

Harper does not have a majority, so the tories can't stop it if the other 3 parties agree.

We could use a new source of public income, instead of this drain on public funds:

Ottawa spends about $450 million a year enforcing Canada's drug laws. Half of all offences are for cannabis possession.

Tens of thousands of Canadians are charged annually with possession, and 1.5 million citizens are carrying criminal records for this offence.

Ridiculous.

It's medicinal, recreational, a personal choice.

Let people who want to use pot do so, and pay taxes like the good citizens they are.

Nobody gets into fights just smoking pot.

It's why we Canadians are known as 'laid back'.

Chill mon!

Interesting ... 55% of (adult) Canadians agree with legalizing marijuana, and as I recall, about 45% have used in their lifetime.

And look at this ... you can hop all over the US and be legal!

United States cannabis laws.

States with medical cannabis laws.....blue

States with decriminalization laws.....red

States with both.............................purple

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...is-laws.svg.png

Edited April 9, 2009 by tango

[normanchateau]

I'm not arguing whether cannabis impairs your driving ability or not, the issue is that police have to have a standard to test that's acceptable to the public. I don't want to be forced a blood test when a cop pulls me over.

You don't need a blood test. South Australia uses a simple saliva test:

http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/safety/road...riving/faqs.asp

[normanchateau]

Harper does not have a majority, so the tories can't stop it if the other 3 parties agree.

Harper can delay the bill which effectively is the equivalent of stopping it.

[Who's Doing What?]

LOL, I think only one of them responded to the edited comment, but what's your prooblem?

Yeah, I saw a 14yr old with a bag of weed, showing it to a group of young kids, potential customers?

Also came out of a corner store and there was a 4dr Jetta, 4 or 5 yougsters in the car all the windows down.

The smoke was rolling out of the windows and the stench was unmiistakable. I went to write down the plate # but my cell was in my other jacket. In retrospect, I could have called from home and reported them.

That is disgusting!!!

Not that they are smoking dope but that you are so anal to actually want to bust a bunch of kids for smoking some weed.

Live and let live!

Get a life buddy!

[Who's Doing What?]

You can t be that stupid........! taking in smoke holding it your lungs is ten times more harmful than a cigarette not to mention what it does to your brain cells....lol! I don t give a rats ass about stupid people killing themselves smoking pot, good riddance! but for Liberals to send the message smoking drugs is okay to young people.???? give your head a shake man! i guess these sites all all have hidden agenda's too huh??

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/...-more-than.html

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/18/marijuana.cancer/

Oh yes smoking drugs is great for you................good lord...lol!

You poor uninformed ignoramace.

Go and drink your scotch on the rocks and beat your kids. Why not, alcohol is legal right?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Who's Doing What?

[tango]

You poor uninformed ignoramace.

Go and drink your scotch on the rocks and beat your kids. Why not, alcohol is legal right?

Well! That's blunt! Could be considered a personal attack, though.

Point being, people smoking pot (sans alcohol) are not aggressive, violent.

And there's no damn good reason for it not to be as legal as alcohol.

But not for kids.

I would have reported the guy selling it to minors.

So there!

That's why we have to get it off the street.