Liberal MP Introduces Bill to Decriminalize Marijuana

Visionseeker · April 4, 2009

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.

Actually, a meth lab, old-style alcohol still, or hydro-weed set-ups are all dangerous operations; they all substantially increase the risk of fire and produce highly toxic airborne contaminents. The aim of "liberalization" cannot take the form of encouraging self-supply as this would undermine the control of the trade. So called "vices" need not be illegal, but it would be foolish to leave them unregulated and controlled.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Visionseeker

Visionseeker · April 4, 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.

85RZ500,

There are two quotes in this tread (see Greenthumb and jdobbin) addressing one of your postings. Each addresses a different argument, yet they no longer appear in the original post, a post that appears edited some time after the original quotation.

I think everyone here would admit to having at least once having made an ass of themselves in a post, but erasing text that has already been quoted is truly bad form. If you were trying to erase making and ass of yourself, you've only exhibited yourself as a dishonest one.

Take responsibility for what you write or just don't write it.

eyeball · April 4, 2009

Actually, a meth lab, old-style alcohol still, or hydro-weed set-ups are all dangerous operations; they all substantially increase the risk of fire and produce highly toxic airborne contaminents. The aim of "liberalization" cannot take the form of encouraging self-supply as this would undermine the control of the trade. So called "vices" need not be illegal, but it would be foolish to leave them unregulated and controlled.

Presumably you're talking about the threat posed by the same equipment the Canadian Standards Associations have approved for home use. How come we never hear about the threat posed by dangerous hydro-tomato grow-ops?

Visionseeker · April 4, 2009

Presumably you're talking about the threat posed by the same equipment the Canadian Standards Associations have approved for home use. How come we never hear about the threat posed by dangerous hydro-tomato grow-ops?

Because they are being used "as directed" perhaps?

wulf42 · April 4, 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/

Only a Liberal would support drug abuse.......lol! Good God no wondering the Americans laugh at us.

waldo · April 4, 2009

Only a Liberal would support drug abuse.......lol! Good God no wondering the Americans laugh at us.

far be it from you to actually read the article/quotes...

whether one considers <30 grams 'abuse' or not, Dr. Martin's bill does not affect the illegality of drugs and drug trafficking. The bill's significant change/impact would see drug users brought into the public health system, rather than the court system... additionally, as stated in the article, "the monies now allocated to law enforcement for possession of small amounts could be redirected to youth awareness programs and public policies that discourage drug use".

perhaps you could elaborate on how/where you interpret the bill is, as you say, "a support for drug abuse". Apparently, to you, fines versus criminal charges equates to, as you say, "a support for drug abuse".

eyeball · April 4, 2009

Because they are being used "as directed" perhaps?

Perhaps, but there is no justification for assuming pot cannot be grown as safely as tomatos or that a tomato grow-op is inherently safer. As I understand it Martin is proposing that people be allowed to grow their own so they're not forced to purchase from gangs - prohibition causes crime and his bill reflects that fundamental reality. There is a very good reason why liberalization should encourage self-supply, it undermines the economic incentive that enrichs and empowers criminal gangs. Self-supply also allows people to produce their own goods with a smaller carbon footprint (ever hear of the hundred mile challenge?).

Of course there is still the issue of equality vis a vis people who are allowed to produce beer and wine at home.

Edited April 5, 2009 by eyeball

SSD · April 4, 2009

I am all for this private member's bill. Actually, I think that we need to go even further but I know that beggers don't choose. Eventually legalizing and then regulating marijuana will be a boost to Canada since smoking marijuana is not necessarily a bad thing. If all you social conservatives (aka social fascists) want to keep marijuana illegal, then you should criminalize alcohol as well since its way more dangerous.

Can you imagine how it would be if we taxed this stuff and sold it just like we do for alcohol (maybe better put in a pharmacy, behind the desk). It would be a renewed revenue source and really help us fund some of these expensive programs. Hell, if the tax goes to the federal government, we could probably cut the deficit in half instantaneously.

To all you opposers, just think of it this way, it is cheaper for the health care system to take care of the abusers (probably an insignificantly small percentage of all actual users) than for us to police, jail, kill, etc., this money making industry.

Edited April 4, 2009 by SSD

SSD · April 4, 2009

Only a Liberal would support drug abuse.......lol! Good God no wondering the Americans laugh at us.

Only a conservative would want alcoholics run wild while preventing people from relaxing after a long day of work by using marijuana. Most marijuana users are not abusers...just like most alcohol users are not alcoholics. Actually alcohol is more addictive than weed.

85RZ500 · April 4, 2009

85RZ500,
There are two quotes in this tread (see Greenthumb and jdobbin) addressing one of your postings. Each addresses a different argument, yet they no longer appear in the original post, a post that appears edited some time after the original quotation.

I think everyone here would admit to having at least once having made an ass of themselves in a post, but erasing text that has already been quoted is truly bad form. If you were trying to erase making and ass of yourself, you've only exhibited yourself as a dishonest one.

Take responsibility for what you write or just don't write it.

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.

Edited April 4, 2009 by 85RZ500

eyeball · April 5, 2009

Can you imagine how it would be if we taxed this stuff and sold it just like we do for alcohol (maybe better put in a pharmacy, behind the desk). It would be a renewed revenue source and really help us fund some of these expensive programs. Hell, if the tax goes to the federal government, we could probably cut the deficit in half instantaneously.

What happens if everyone just decides to grow their own? They don't call it weed for nothing you know.

This is actually an aspect of liberalization that fiscal conservatives should really be able to get behind. Self-supplying not only undermines the gangs of their inflated profits it also denies the state the money it needs to f^*k something else up.

I can see taxing alcohol and tobacco to help offset the health problems they cause, but pot? Why, what health problems?

wulf42 · April 5, 2009

Only a conservative would want alcoholics run wild while preventing people from relaxing after a long day of work by using marijuana. Most marijuana users are not abusers...just like most alcohol users are not alcoholics. Actually alcohol is more addictive than weed.

Oh yes this is much better....leave it to a Liberal to promote an drug induced unhealthy lifestyle, and to think these people want to run a country give me a freakin break, damn hippies i have news for ya the 60's are over......lol!

In case you didn t know pot isn't good for you, great message to send to Canada's youth " Go ahead and smoke pot the Government say's it's okay" this country is truely screwed!!

And for those who think pot is harmless!

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

Edited April 5, 2009 by wulf42

waldo · April 5, 2009

In case you didn t know pot isn't good for you, great message to send to Canada's youth " Go ahead and smoke pot the Government say's it's okay" this country is truely screwed!!

you could continue to bluster away, or you could quit avoiding the direct challenge put to you…

far be it from you to actually read the article/quotes...

whether one considers <30 grams 'abuse' or not, Dr. Martin's bill does not affect the illegality of drugs and drug trafficking. The bill's significant change/impact would see drug users brought into the public health system, rather than the court system... additionally, as stated in the article, "the monies now allocated to law enforcement for possession of small amounts could be redirected to youth awareness programs and public policies that discourage drug use".

perhaps you could elaborate on how/where you interpret the bill is, as you say, "a support for drug abuse". Apparently, to you, fines versus criminal charges equates to, as you say, "a support for drug abuse".

how does shifting from a court system with possible accompanying criminal charges to a public health system with possible accompanying fines constitute, as you say, a Government promoting drug use?

eyeball · April 5, 2009

Oh yes this is much better....leave it to a Liberal to promote an drug induced unhealthy lifestyle, and to think these people want to run a country give me a freakin break, damn hippies i have news for ya the 60's are over......lol!
In case you didn t know pot isn't good for you, great message to send to Canada's youth " Go ahead and smoke pot the Government say's it's okay" this country is truely screwed!!

And for those who think pot is harmless!

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

Unfortunately your sources are likely biased and completely worthless, beside which alcohol is far worse and entirely legal. Who cares what the Nanny state thinks? You all of a sudden?

If I went and looked do you think I would find any posts from you or your ilk that sneeringly belittles the state's intrusion on people's tobacco habits for the sake of public safety?

Edited April 5, 2009 by eyeball

wulf42 · April 5, 2009

Unfortunately your sources are likely biased and completely worthless, beside which alcohol is far worse and entirely legal. Who cares what the Nanny state thinks? You all of a sudden?
If I went and looked do you think I would find any posts from you or your ilk that sneeringly belittles the state's intrusion on people's tobacco habits for the sake of public safety?

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!

eyeball · April 5, 2009

but for Liberals to send the message smoking drugs is okay to young people.
Oh yes smoking drugs is great for you................good lord...lol!

Who said that?

Its funny you should mention the Liberals though. I recall having more than a few beers at a Progressive Conservative candidate's office when I was an underage teenager. I had a friend who's father ran for office and from time to time we'd be asked to go move some chairs or tables or signs and they'd give us a couple of beers now and then for helping out. We were obviously underage we but with a little nod here and a little wink there, heck, they even give us cigarettes if we asked.

Looking back on it I've come to see this as being like a gateway - an introduction to certain...lackadaisical attitudes about authority and the law. We learned the golden rule, don't get caught, from a lawmaker, and a Conservative no less.

Now there's a message for you.

No doubt they were handing out pot to kids at Liberal candidates offices in those days. Now they probably hand out crack.

Sir Bandelot · April 5, 2009

I heard there has not been a single case of cancer or death due to illness, caused by smoking marijuana. Since probably a few million people smoke it, there should be some data that prove or disprove this?

bush_cheney2004 · April 5, 2009

I heard there has not been a single case of cancer or death due to illness, caused by smoking marijuana. Since probably a few million people smoke it, there should be some data that prove or disprove this?

Who should we believe...you...or medical professionals:

A study by researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, and Arizona Cancer Center has linked smoking marijuana with an increased risk of head and neck cancers.

Their study, published in the December 1999 issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is not the first to link marijuana to such cancers. Earlier research has shown marijuana cigarettes contain more tar and higher levels of certain cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco cigarettes. DNA mutations have been found in respiratory system cells of marijuana users and several case reports have found an unexpectedly high number of marijuana users among patients with cancers of the head and neck region, including the mouth, tongue, throat, and larynx.

eyeball · April 5, 2009

Perhaps cancer should be outlawed.

DrGreenthumb · April 5, 2009

Who should we believe...you...or medical professionals:

A study by researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, and Arizona Cancer Center has linked smoking marijuana with an increased risk of head and neck cancers.

Their study, published in the December 1999 issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is not the first to link marijuana to such cancers. Earlier research has shown marijuana cigarettes contain more tar and higher levels of certain cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco cigarettes. DNA mutations have been found in respiratory system cells of marijuana users and several case reports have found an unexpectedly high number of marijuana users among patients with cancers of the head and neck region, including the mouth, tongue, throat, and larynx.

Try to stay up to date

It seems even heavy, long-term marijuana users do not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.
Senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles says the findings were a surprise as they expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=18122

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2009

Try to stay up to date

Of course....breathing known carcinogens for many years is actually very beneficial, and is to be encouraged for all men, women, and children as part of a healthy lifestyle.

DrGreenthumb · April 6, 2009

Of course....breathing known carcinogens for many years is actually very beneficial, and is to be encouraged for all men, women, and children as part of a healthy lifestyle.

nobody said that, but the medical evidence shows that smoking pot, even heavily does not lead to an increased risk of cancer.

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2009

nobody said that, but the medical evidence shows that smoking pot, even heavily does not lead to an increased risk of cancer.

There are many such studies with conflicting results.....of course you would choose to ignore any findings of linkage to marijuana usage.

BubberMiley · April 6, 2009

Those who change the discussion to the health detriments of cannabis do so because they don't have the tools to debate decriminalization honestly.

There are countless carcinogens in the world, but people don't get a criminal record for having them on their person or stored in their garage. So even if cannabis caused cancer, and there is limited evidence that it does, your argument would still be irrelevant.

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2009

Those who change the discussion to the health detriments of cannabis do so because they don't have the tools to debate decriminalization honestly.

Maybe...but I support the right of member Sir Bandelot to post as he pleases.

There are countless carcinogens in the world, but people don't get a criminal record for having them on their person or stored in their garage. So even if cannabis caused cancer, and there is limited evidence that it does, your argument would still be irrelevant.

Really? Tobacco producers really need your legal expertise.