Liberal MP Introduces Bill to Decriminalize Marijuana

[bush_cheney2004]

Chretien had the balls, Martin didn't.

Well, given that sorry bit of history, why the hell would anyone expect "Flower Power" to prevail under the present Conservative minority ruling party? It's only dope.

[benny]

Well, given that sorry bit of history, why the hell would anyone expect "Flower Power" to prevail under the present Conservative minority ruling party? It's only dope.

Neo-Cons don't need drugs, it seems, to lose all memory of past wars.

[normanchateau]

Hmmm....as I suspected....really has nothing to do with PM Harper at all.

The decriminalization bill remained viable until Harper killed it:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

And after the bill was killed, the number of Canadians arrested for mere possession increased:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

[bush_cheney2004]

Neo-Cons don't need drugs, it seems, to lose all memory of past wars.

Wars are not illegal like dope!

Flower Power sold out a long time ago......

[bush_cheney2004]

The decriminalization bill remained viable until Harper killed it:

...yes...just like a previous PM.

And after the bill was killed, the number of Canadians arrested for mere possession increased:

Mere possession is illegal, no?

[benny]

Wars are not illegal like dope!

Flower Power sold out a long time ago......

Opium is also the name of two memorable wars.

[normanchateau]

"Although it seems to be the world's best-kept secret, Portugal formally decriminalized possession of all illicit drugs in 2001. And its experiment has provided us with a wealth of empirical evidence about the positive effects of decriminalization.

Decriminalization has led to a reduction in drug-related pathologies -- precisely what advocates predicted -- and a reduction in drug use -- precisely the opposite of what opponents feared.

While experiencing severe drug problems in the 1990s, Portugal formed the Commission for a National Drug Strategy, which issued in 1998 a report stressing that criminalization drove resources away from treatment and deterred people from seeking help for addiction. Consequently, the commission recommended decriminalization to reduce both the use and abuse of illicit drugs.

In 2000, the federal government's council of ministers issued a policy consistent with the report, and on July 1, 2001, a new law came into effect decriminalizing personal possession of all narcotic and psychotropic drugs, including heroin and cocaine. Trafficking remains a criminal offence.

Possession is now considered an "administrative" offence, meaning that police can issue citations to, but not arrest, those caught with drugs. Individuals issued a citation appear before three-person commissions that can order a variety of sanctions, including fines or treatments orders, though in the vast majority of cases -- 83 per cent -- the commissions have suspended proceedings.

In almost every category of drug, and for drug usage overall, the lifetime prevalence rates in the pre-decriminalization era of the 1990s were higher than the post-decriminalization rates.

Fears that decriminalization leads to increased drug use therefore appear to be unfounded, at least in Portugal.

Between 2001 and 2005, Portugal enjoyed the lowest lifetime prevalence rate for marijuana, the most popular illicit drug in the EU, with many states' rates double or triple that of Portugal. Similarly, for cocaine, the second most popular drug: Portugal's lifetime prevalence rate was lower than all but five EU states, and many states' rates were again double, triple, or quadruple that of Portugal's.

Drug use rates in Portugal are now also far lower than those of most non-EU states, including Canada and especially the U.S., whose cocaine and cannabis rates are so high -- the highest in the world, despite its raging drug war -- that it is considered a statistical outlier.

So much for the primary argument against decriminalization -- that it will lead to increased use.

Similarly, now that the bogeyman of decriminalization has been slain, Portuguese politicians of all political persuasions are almost unanimous in their support of it. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for politicians of other countries, particularly those countries that most need to listen to Lisbon.

The same can't be said for Canada, which is about the only remaining western country in favour of increasing criminalization.

Now that the evidence in favour of decriminalization is in, politicians should no longer be permitted to corral support for criminalization by stirring up public fear of a bogeyman that doesn't exist."

Source:

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Portug...9175/story.html

[benny]

Growing anything that is not burning as easily as eucalyptus is an improvement, in this country much too prone to devastating forests fires.

[eyeball]

In Portugal...Trafficking remains a criminal offence.

So much for the argument that decriminalization will mean an end to criminals.

In the meantime...

Possession is now considered an "administrative" offence, meaning that police can issue citations to, but not arrest, those caught with drugs. Individuals issued a citation appear before three-person commissions that can order a variety of sanctions, including fines or treatments orders, though in the vast majority of cases -- 83 per cent -- the commissions have suspended proceedings.

So much for the notion an end to prohibition will get the state - a monkey of a different sort - off people's backs. So what about people that are caught with beer? They just get an automatic grandfathered stamp of approval, a clean bill of health in other words, that excuses them from the state's commissions inquiries? WTF is that all about? Where do beer drinkers get off getting off like that? I know a few beer drinkers and these people can be a real threat to society.

...belch...

[benny]

So much for the notion an end to prohibition will get the state - a monkey of a different sort - off people's backs. So what about people that are caught with beer? They just get an automatic grandfathered stamp of approval, a clean bill of health in other words, that excuses them from the state's commissions inquiries? WTF is that all about? Where do beer drinkers get off getting off like that? I know a few beer drinkers and these people can be a real threat to society.

...belch...

Here what seems to be your reasoning: pot is similar to beer and beer can be dangerous thus decriminalizing pot is a good action.

[cybercoma]

I get it. Benny is the forum's Confucius.

[benny]

I get it. Benny is the forum's Confucius.

Wake up now! Don’t be afraid of consciousness.

[Sir Bandelot]

So much for the argument that decriminalization will mean an end to criminals.

But people can presumably grow their own, and not sell/give to others. The same thing goes for beer and wine here, you can make your own, for your own personal consumption but cannot sell it, without a licence. And it is still illegal to make strong liquor in any case.

As to whether beer is dangerous, or marijuana there is a saying "In the hands of a wise man, its medicine. In the hands of a fool, poison."

[BubberMiley]

Mere possession is illegal, no?

You actually believe an effective argument against decriminalization is that weed is illegal? Wow. Nothing gets past you.

[benny]

At some point, after having compared cigarette, beer and marijuana, it is the accumulation of that sort of products that should be considered.

[normanchateau]

You actually believe an effective argument against decriminalization is that weed is illegal?

It was less than 50 years ago that the same argument was used by some southern US politicians when they opposed school desegregation. Like Harper, Bush/Cheney seems to follow in that tradition.

[benny]

Making something illegal is ipso facto making it an object of temptation.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was less than 50 years ago that the same argument was used by some southern US politicians when they opposed school desegregation. Like Harper, Bush/Cheney seems to follow in that tradition.

Not really...the issue was states rights...there is still plenty of legal segregation in the USA and Canada. Dopers have been trying to legalize marijuana since it was banned.....I wonder why it has proven to be a such a tough nut to crack. Time has passed them by.....

[benny]

Dopers have been trying to legalize marijuana since it was banned.....I wonder why it has proven to be a such a tough nut to crack. Time has passed them by.....

Because of the powerful and enduring cigarette industry lobbying perhaps.

[eyeball]

Here what seems to be your reasoning: pot is similar to beer and beer can be dangerous thus decriminalizing pot is a good action.

To be more succinct then I'm talking about more fundamental similarties such as what it is that people are doing with comparable substances such as pot, alcohol, tobacco, exctasy, crack etc, which is altering their minds. There still seems to be this lingering notion that the state has some right to interfere with what a person does to their bodies and minds. It appears to interfere in a presumptuous arbitrary manner that is not based on any fundamental principle of justice that pertains to individual liberty. The approach is based almost entirely on public/official presumptions about danger to individuals and society with little if any empirically derived medical evidence or science used as a guide or standard. As for the state's responsibility to protect society it likewise has little if any fundamental legal standards that describe what an individual is at liberty to do with a substance. Is it legal to be drunk? I bet you'd get a 1000 different opinions on that question.

I'm convinced the decriminalization of pot will unfold rather stupidly as a result of being dealt with it as an isolated substance that's in its own little vacuum. The entire issue of using substances to alter human minds recreationally needs to be addressed and it should be all done together so there is no medical, legal ethical or moral ambiguities around which polarization, idelogy or discrimination can hinge on. To me the most dangerous thing about people altering their minds recreationally is how other people who are opposed to the idea react to it. If unchecked, this reaction can easily turn a free society into a police state. Above all else I think that is the more pressing issue here.

Edited April 24, 2009 by eyeball

[benny]

To be more succinct then I'm talking about more fundamental similarties such as what it is that people are doing with comparable substances such as pot, alcohol, tobacco, exctasy, crack etc, which is altering their minds. There still seems to be this lingering notion that the state has some right to interfere with what a person does to their bodies and minds. It appears to interfere in a presumptuous arbitrary manner that is not based on any fundamental principle of justice that pertains to individual liberty. The approach is based almost entirely on public/official presumptions about danger to individuals and society with little if any empirically derived medical evidence or science used as a guide or standard. As for the state's responsibility to protect society it likewise has little if any fundamental legal standards that describe what an individual is at liberty to do with a substance. Is it legal to be drunk? I bet you'd get a 1000 different opinions on that question.

I'm convinced the decriminalization of pot will unfold rather stupidly as a result of being dealt with it as an isolated substance that's in its own little vacuum. The entire issue of using substances to alter human minds recreationally needs to be addressed and it should be all done together so there is no medical, legal ethical or moral ambiguities around which polarization, idelogy or discrimination can hinge on. To me the most dangerous thing about people altering their minds recreationally is how other people who are opposed to the idea react to it. If unchecked, this reaction can easily turn a free society into a police state. Above all else I think that is the more pressing issue here.

As much as negative liberty, you have also to consider positive liberty. Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

[eyeball]

Whatever.

Either just jump on everyone's back or off everyone's back equally if they're doing the same thing for the same reason. Its not rocket science.

[benny]

Whatever.

If pot was not a means to escape heated debates, I would not mind as much to see it legalize.

[normanchateau]

Canada's justice minister says people who sell or grow marijuana belong in jail because marijuana is used as a "currency" to bring harder drugs into the country.

"This lubricates the business and that makes me nervous," Rob Nicholson told the Commons justice committee yesterday as he faced tough questions about a controversial bill to impose automatic prison sentences for drug crimes, including growing as little as one pot plant.

"Marijuana is the currency that is used to bring other more serious drugs into the country," the minister said.

Well, of course, marijuana is the purview of organized crime precisely because of this mentality - if the government suddenly banned coffee, then coffee, too could be a "currency" for harder drugs. Nowhere in Mr. Nicholson's comments does he justify a harder stance on marijuana itself or why Canadians need to be protected from marijuana any more than they need to be protected from alcohol or tobacco.

http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/TheWorldTon...ntryID=10029747

Is Nicholson a complete fool or is he simply following Harper's rationale?

[maple_leafs182]

happy belated 420,