We need to cut spending drastically NOW!

[Machjo]

Weed should be legal, period. Booze and smokes are, so why not weed?

You do have a point there.

Sell it in government stores and tax the hell out of it just like smokes and booze. Big revenue stream and reduced legal expenditures. While you are at it, legalize the hookers but not the pimps. Make it legal and tax the hell out of that as well. I have said all along it is a revenue issue, not a spending issue.

As for weaker drugs like nicotine, alcohol and marijuana, though the government ought to try to eliminate their use, I do agree that it's hypocritical to treat one differently from the other without good cause.

As for prostitution, as if prostitutes aren't being exploited enough, the government should jump in and get its piece of the pie too? Again, if we tax them in the hopes of discouraging prostitution, I suppose it's a valid argument, with the revenue from this going towards helping prostitutes et out of the business, or Johns get their lives back in order.

Same with drugs by the way. Sure the government could tax alcohol, cigarettes,etc. but always with the motive of discouraging its use and not as a handy revenue stream on the backs of addicts. Increased revenue ought to be seen as but a spin-off bonus in this case, but not as the primary objective. We should also consider that that revenue all goes towards lung cancer treatment, liver disease, etc. etc. etc. Same would apply with cannabis.

Whether it's revenue from drugs or prostitution, the costs involved, whether health or social, will certainly outweigh the revenue steam generated, so that's a false revenue stream in that while it appears to benefit the budget, the costs that go with it bring it to naught anyway. Same with gambling revenue too.

We ought to be looking at real benefits and not simply superficial ones. Revenue increases hand in hand with added costs are of no real value.

[Riverwind]

Weed should be legal, period. Booze and smokes are, so why not weed?

Canada has signed various international agreements that require it to keep it illegal. The most that Canada can do is decriminalize it which does not allow the government to collect any tax revenues.

This issue is a good illustration of why Canada should not sign any international agreement on GHGs. It may seem like a good idea to some today but such agreements will prevent Canada from making its own policy decisions in the future if we find out the policies were a dumb idea.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You do have a point there.

As for weaker drugs like nicotine, alcohol and marijuana, though the government ought to try to eliminate their use, I do agree that it's hypocritical to treat one differently from the other without good cause.

As for prostitution, as if prostitutes aren't being exploited enough, the government should jump in and get its piece of the pie too? Again, if we tax them in the hopes of discouraging prostitution, I suppose it's a valid argument, with the revenue from this going towards helping prostitutes et out of the business, or Johns get their lives back in order.

Same with drugs by the way. Sure the government could tax alcohol, cigarettes,etc. but always with the motive of discouraging its use and not as a handy revenue stream on the backs of addicts. Increased revenue ought to be seen as but a spin-off bonus in this case, but not as the primary objective. We should also consider that that revenue all goes towards lung cancer treatment, liver disease, etc. etc. etc. Same would apply with cannabis.

Targeting tax revenues is an interesting idea. You can see how it has worked so far though. Income taxes were supposed to cover a war debt then be eliminated.

Whether it's revenue from drugs or prostitution, the costs involved, whether health or social, will certainly outweigh the revenue steam generated, so that's a false revenue stream in that while it appears to benefit the budget, the costs that go with it bring it to naught anyway. Same with gambling revenue too.

I do not see it that way at all. Those business's make money now and it is not taxed. Those business's actually have a legal expediture attached to them right now on the part of the government. So you would be reducing expenses and increasing revenues.

We ought to be looking at real benefits and not simply superficial ones. Revenue increases hand in hand with added costs are of no real value.

With all due respect, the sex trade has been around since the beginning of time. Get the drugs, the pimps, the under-aged girls out of the equation and you have solved the moral dilema for the most part. These women need no further direction from the government to earn a living. It also makes sex offenses so much easier to successfully prosecute. Make the profession safer and healthier for all involved. Legislating morality is an exercise in expense without revenue. Something the governments of the day need to think very carefully about.

[maple_leafs182]

If they're in jail, they can't sell it and hurt others by it anymore. Considering that they may be responsible for destroying lives, the death penalty may be appropriate in more extreme cases, especially with harder drugs.

What do you mean. Nicotine is thought to be more addictive then heroin.

I believe in personal liberties, it is that persons choice if they want to do a certain drug or not. I would feel a lot safer knowing people are doing heroin at a clinic then on the streets. This would also cut funding from gangs, it would then lead to less crime, and free up police resources.

Not at all. To destroy a person's life by selling him Opium and such is paramount to murder.

It is erosional choice. If they want to do the drug, they should be allowed.

If drugs weren't so frowned upon by society, then people would be more likely to come out and ask for help if they have addictions. Now they are to afraid to get the law involved and they don't want society to look down on them.

I have another way we can solve the money problem.

We could just do away with money all together.

We wouldn't need funding to find cure for diseases. We would just try and find cures

We wouldn't need money to stop poverty, we would just end poverty and give food and shelter to all.

We wouldn't have to worry about pointless things like the economy.

We could start working together and build technology to benefit all of mankind, not build for greed and profit.

We wouldn't be slaves to the dollar and truly live in a FREE society.

Money isn't a good enough reason for us to not solve major problems.

Right now it is set up like this...Profit>People

[segnosaur]

Weed should be legal, period. Booze and smokes are, so why not weed?

For the record, I would have no problem opening up discussion on legalizing (or at least decriminalizing) pot.

However, I can see some differences between marijuana and alcohol/tobacco.

Pot does have the ability to affect brain function in a way that's a lot more pronounced than tobacco. Now, this may not affect your average stoner sitting at home on their couch, it might be an issue should such people decide to use pot and drive.

Now, like alcohol likewise has the ability to affect brain functionality. However, unlike pot, we have an easy way for the police to detect if someone is driving drunk (i.e. a breathilizer), not to mention the fact that you can often tell (just by smelling) when someone has been drinking.

Sell it in government stores and tax the hell out of it just like smokes and booze.

Here's the problem with that concept....

Marijuana is relatively easy to cultivate (at least easier than alcohol), and the quantities that people would use would be less than tobacoo. This means that even if you decided to legalize and then tax it, you would still have a large number of people producing it illegally.

Remember what happened a few years ago with all the cigarette smugling at the boarder... it took a drastic cut in tobacco taxes to stop that activity. I can't see the taxation and regulation of pot being any easier.

(Of course, it would reduce the expenses associated with enforcement of drug laws; it just might not be a big "money maker")

[Machjo]

Targeting tax revenues is an interesting idea. You can see how it has worked so far though. Income taxes were supposed to cover a war debt then be eliminated.

My idea was along the lines of a user-pays system. Seeing that the smoker, for example, is more likely to benefit from lung-cancer treatment than a non-smoker, it's only fair that he should contribute more to it.

The same could apply with having fines for adultery for example, with the proceeds going towards services to deal with court costs for divorces, therapy for those who suffer mental breakdowns from marital breakups, to help children from broken marriages, etc.

Same concept, user pays. The same extends to gas taxes for road use, etc. If we reform the tax system to more accurately reflect actual government costs, then people are given the choice to consiously modify their behaviour so as to not put an additional unnecessary burden on government services, such as road use, drug use, etc. If taxes do not accurately reflect real costs (e.g. income tax is quite arbitrary and has little effect on how people decide to behave since they'll pay the same tax anyway, whereas a more user-pay system influences their decisions by giving them the option to pay taxes or not based on their behaviour).

With all due respect, the sex trade has been around since the beginning of time.

So has murder. So should we through our hands up in the air in defeat and legalize that too?

Get the drugs, the pimps, the under-aged girls out of the equation and you have solved the moral dilema for the most part. These women need no further direction from the government to earn a living. It also makes sex offenses so much easier to successfully prosecute. Make the profession safer and healthier for all involved. Legislating morality is an exercise in expense without revenue. Something the governments of the day need to think very carefully about.

And on the principle of user pay, who should pick up the tab for research into STD's, the social costs of broken marriages and their effect on children, etc.?

[Machjo]

Remember what happened a few years ago with all the cigarette smugling at the boarder... it took a drastic cut in tobacco taxes to stop that activity. I can't see the taxation and regulation of pot being any easier.

Meaning we non-smokers must now foot more of the tab for lung cancer treatment, etc.

[maple_leafs182]

man, why do we let money control us so much. I don't get it.

When will people realize that the system is broken.

It is just a form of control. Wake up already.

What happened to freedom and liberty.

Why do you guys think i should not smoke pot or at least have the freedom to choose to smoke?

I don't punch people in the face to get some more pot.

Yes prostitution should be legal. If someone wants to be a prostitute, let them be one. Who cares if you find it immoral. You aren't the one being a prostitute, worry about your own life.

If we wan't to stop crime we need to go to the root of the problems.

Lisa Simpson: "Mom, I know your intentions are good but aren't the police the protective force that maintains the status quo for the wealthy elite? Don't you think we ought to attack the roots of social problems instead of jamming people into overcrowded prisons?".

Most of societies problems are a symptom of society. We have fix society first if we want the symptoms to go away.

Why do so many people not see this.

Keeping drugs illegal is doing more harm then good, need i remind you of alcohol prohibition in the states.

And as for money. Why are we bowing down to central bankers. Why?

Money should not be preventing us from accomplishing anything.

Thomas Jefferson

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Woodrow Wilson

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.", after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

When will people wake up to what is really going on

need to take a step back and look at the big picture.

[Guest TrueMetis]

For the record, I would have no problem opening up discussion on legalizing (or at least decriminalizing) pot.

However, I can see some differences between marijuana and alcohol/tobacco.

Pot does have the ability to affect brain function in a way that's a lot more pronounced than tobacco. Now, this may not affect your average stoner sitting at home on their couch, it might be an issue should such people decide to use pot and drive.

Now, like alcohol likewise has the ability to affect brain functionality. However, unlike pot, we have an easy way for the police to detect if someone is driving drunk (i.e. a breathilizer), not to mention the fact that you can often tell (just by smelling) when someone has been drinking.

Apparently their is a way to test for that.

Roadside drug tests modeled after breathalyzers are nearly ready for use in the United States, helping police identify drivers impaired by illegal substances, officials said on Tuesday.

My link

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Knowing the spending is an issue, while maintaining my position that it is really a revenue problem, I suggest massive reforms to the CRA and the nations revenue stream generation and collection. I will suggest that the CRA is a large bureaucracy where many cuts can be made with a change in the method of taxation. Switch to a "Consumption Tax", and farm out collection to vendors of products and services. The entire CRA can be gotten rid of with this change.

[segnosaur]

On the ability to test for driving while under the influence of pot...

Apparently their is a way to test for that.

Roadside drug tests modeled after breathalyzers are nearly ready for use in the United States, helping police identify drivers impaired by illegal substances, officials said on Tuesday.

My link

Yes I had heard of various products that can test for pot in the system.

Keep in mind though that the reference you pointed to says that they are nearly ready. (Your reference is a couple of years old though, so perhaps its gotten out of the prototype stage.)

There are a couple of additional issues though... from what I understand, there is a lot more variation in how particular levels of pot affect people. In addition, traces can stay in your body long after you've last used. I'd want to know if that brethilizer won't give false positives based on something you did last week.

[Topaz]

Yes I had heard of various products that can test for pot in the system.

Keep in mind though that the reference you pointed to says that they are nearly ready. (Your reference is a couple of years old though, so perhaps its gotten out of the prototype stage.)

There are a couple of additional issues though... from what I understand, there is a lot more variation in how particular levels of pot affect people. In addition, traces can stay in your body long after you've last used. I'd want to know if that brethilizer won't give false positives based on something you did last week.

The senate committee hearing on drugs, a doctor told the senators don't make the same mistakes on pot or other drugs like the government did on legalizing tobacco and alcohol, it doesn't work. People are still damaging their health and the cost will just a high for healthcare.

[Mr.Canada]

The senate committee hearing on drugs, a doctor told the senators don't make the same mistakes on pot or other drugs like the government did on legalizing tobacco and alcohol, it doesn't work. People are still damaging their health and the cost will just a high for healthcare.

The people who push for pot legalization don't care about what impact it will have on our society or health care system at all. They're a very selfish bunch who only care how it will affect them and their daily lives and not on the impact it may have elsewhere.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Machjo]

The people who push for pot legalization don't care about what impact it will have on our society or health care system at all. They're a very selfish bunch who only care how it will affect them and their daily lives and not on the impact it may have elsewhere.

I think that's a harsh analysis. Though your comment is true, to be fair to them, we can't deny that North American society has become extremely individualistic over the last few decades, with support for extreme freedoms and liberties without restrictions becoming a popular ideology. This ideology proposes that one's actions are his business alone, regardless of how it may impact others, and that no one is responsible for the welfare of anyone but himself. This combination of extreme individualism and extreme liberties has formed the basis of the elevation of extreme self-centredness into an ideology to be actively defended and even aggressively promoted. Within that context, as selfish as they may be, it's not entirely their fault when this same selfishness has been raised to the status of a noble ideology and a worthy cause in their minds. Neither the right nor the left have proven immune from this ideology, though granted it manifests itself differently in both camps.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that's a harsh analysis. Though your comment is true, to be fair to them, we can't deny that North American society has become extremely individualistic over the last few decades, with support for extreme freedoms and liberties without restrictions becoming a popular ideology. This ideology proposes that one's actions are his business alone, regardless of how it may impact others, and that no one is responsible for the welfare of anyone but himself. This combination of extreme individualism and extreme liberties has formed the basis of the elevation of extreme self-centredness into an ideology to be actively defended and even aggressively promoted. Within that context, as selfish as they may be, it's not entirely their fault when this same selfishness has been raised to the status of a noble ideology and a worthy cause in their minds. Neither the right nor the left have proven immune from this ideology, though granted it manifests itself differently in both camps.

The impact to the health system? Then make booze and smokes illegal! Or just wake up and smell the coffee, legislation doesn't prevent the citizen from doing the things they want to do anyway. It still gets done.

[maple_leafs182]

The impact to the health system? Then make booze and smokes illegal! Or just wake up and smell the coffee, legislation doesn't prevent the citizen from doing the things they want to do anyway. It still gets done.

Agreed.

And it is a choice between love and fear.

[Machjo]

The impact to the health system? Then make booze and smokes illegal! Or just wake up and smell the coffee, legislation doesn't prevent the citizen from doing the things they want to do anyway. It still gets done.

The argument goes both ways. A principled libertarian would say that, on the one hand, the smoker, drinker, etc. has no obligation towards us and how he might affect us in terms of health care costs, etc. on the other hand, he'd also say we have no obligation towards him either. So as long as cigarettes, alcohol, etc. are legal, then any sufferer of lung cancer, liver disease, etc. should not have treatment for these illnesses covered by medicare. In other words, he has no obligation towards, us, and neither we towards them.

The same applies in reverse of course. A principled social democrat would also say that, if we have an obligation towards them, then they have an obligation towards us. in other words, we have an obligation towards covering their health care, etc. but then they also have an obligation to take care of their health to reduce the burden on us.

This is not an ideological issue. I don't care if you're right or left leaning. All I'm saying is, whatever ideology you follow, at least be consistent in it. I can respect libertarians, conservatives, socialists, etc. no problem. My issue is when they contradict themselves or expect responsibility to go one-way, etc.

I'm not pointing fingers at any particular group here. Both the left and the right can be guilty of this double standard. But if you are principled in your ideology, you'll be consistent about it. Either we all have obligations towards each other or we don't But it can't just go one way. A decision needs to be made either way.

[maple_leafs182]

There is NO evidence that legalizing will increase use.

There will not be an increase in health care problems.

Drugs being illegal creates more crime. It funds organized crime.

It costs too much money to enforce, and it shouldn't be enforced anyways because it is the persons choice if he/she wants to do the drug.

[Machjo]

There is NO evidence that legalizing will increase use.

There will not be an increase in health care problems.

Drugs being illegal creates more crime. It funds organized crime.

It costs too much money to enforce, and it shouldn't be enforced anyways because it is the persons choice if he/she wants to do the drug.

If all of this is true, then maybe legalization might be a good idea. However, I'd want to see the research oon it from other countries first. And i'd want to see the whole picture, so a comprehensive study. It would have to look at not only how much we save on police, but how it affects health and health care, car accidents rates and associated costs, both economic and human (though granted that one is a tough one to put a number to, but that alone does not mean researchers should ignore that and it should still be mentioned in the research with regards to increases in teh rate of addiction, marital breakups caused by it, children affected emotionally or economically by it, etc.)

I'm not saying I'm against legalization per se. I'm just saying that legalization, if introduced, ought to be introduced as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the consumption of drugs and not as a surrender. To use a military analogy, it ought to be part of a strategic retreat and not paramount to surrender.

[Topaz]

What the doctors were trying to do, is to make a point that people who are addicted to drugs are more a HEALTH issue than a legal issue. He said a person who wants help from the family doctor can't get it because he fears the police, and he can being arrested if found out. They say people in prison aren't getting the help they need to get off the drugs before getting out because the government not coughing up the money for the treatments.They said putting addicts in prison for being caught with drugs is not the answer and only overflow the prisons which they are now. One example was a 18 year, who went and bought one pill from one guy and gave to an undercover cop and was arrested and is going to jail for life! I think the justice department needs to go into schools more and tell them the law and what can happen to them if they deal in drugs!

[bush_cheney2004]

.... One example was a 18 year, who went and bought one pill from one guy and gave to an undercover cop and was arrested and is going to jail for life!....

Ha! That's rich....ROTFLMAO!!!!!

[Mr.Canada]

Fairly soon cigerettes will be almost illegal. As it is it's illegal to smoke almost anywhere in public, (I'm a non smoker and therefore don't really care but just using it as an example). And now you think that any government, Federal or Provincial, will legalize street drugs like cocaine or heroin? LOL. Not even daddy Dalton would vote for that. I'd love to hear Jack Layton on record saying he would legalize cocaine and heroin. His political career would be all but over.

[Machjo]

What the doctors were trying to do, is to make a point that people who are addicted to drugs are more a HEALTH issue than a legal issue. He said a person who wants help from the family doctor can't get it because he fears the police, and he can being arrested if found out. They say people in prison aren't getting the help they need to get off the drugs before getting out because the government not coughing up the money for the treatments.They said putting addicts in prison for being caught with drugs is not the answer and only overflow the prisons which they are now. One example was a 18 year, who went and bought one pill from one guy and gave to an undercover cop and was arrested and is going to jail for life! I think the justice department needs to go into schools more and tell them the law and what can happen to them if they deal in drugs!

I can certainly agree with the principle behind this. As for the addicts, it ought to be treated as a health and not a criminal issue. The object ought to be not to punish them, but to rehabilitate them.

As for the dealers, that's a different matter. They are exploiting the addictions of others, which is outright criminal. For hard drugs like opium, I'd all be for the death penalty for such dealers if necessary. As for the addicts, the police ought not arrest them, but rather remove their freedoms for their own good, take them to hospital even if against their will, and put them into forced treatement if necessary. That is not the same as arresting them. On the surface it is similar, but they get no criminal record and are released once th eaddiciton appears to be under control.

[Machjo]

Fairly soon cigerettes will be almost illegal. As it is it's illegal to smoke almost anywhere in public, (I'm a non smoker and therefore don't really care but just using it as an example). And now you think that any government, Federal or Provincial, will legalize street drugs like cocaine or heroin? LOL. Not even daddy Dalton would vote for that. I'd love to hear Jack Layton on record saying he would legalize cocaine and heroin. His political career would be all but over.

Forget his political career. My guess is even if supporting the legalization of hard drugs could win him votes, he'd likely oppose it on principle... if he has so much as half a brain and is aware of just how dangerous those drugs are, of course.