Are cannabis laws going in the wrong direction

[WWWTT]

It depends. If the rest of their policies continue to have a wider acceptance than those of other parties, voters could overlook their tough position on pot.

A 2010 poll shows most want pot decriminalized. The problem is that many who answered this poll probably don't vote.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/04/14915646.html

You have misinterpreted my comment.Let me clarify.

When someone is criminally charged in Canada they are innocent until proven guilty.The merit or validity of the law they were charged with can be challenged to be unconstitutional.If a judge sides with the defendant then the law in question must be sent back to the lower house for amemndments and be changed to reflect constitutional reality(lengthy process that also involves the senate).

If these related laws are made more harsh then many more people charged will challenge them,resulting in the above scenario mentioned.

And guess who's stuck with the bill?Taxpayers!

WWWTT

[Molly]

Dunno.... trying to grasp why folks might be virulently prohibitionist, and the best I can come up with is that they don't know much of anything about it and have thought about it even less-- that it's pure puritan knee-jerk.

That seems like too simplistic an explanation, yet there it is, with no evidence to refute it.

('Gateway' concept, Capricorn, is not just false but completely preposterous.)

[Sir Bandelot]

Well in the United States it is now being openly touted as economically impossible to change the law. Never mind valid arguments. From prohibition to criminalization to incarceration, millions of people would lose their jobs. And "in these times of fiscal restraint..."

[Molly]

Yikes.

[Remiel]

What I find odd is that it is legal to buy all those poisinous house hold products some of which will kill you instantly, and yet people want to control if I wanna get high?

Presumably this is not an unrelated question to why some weapons are prohibited while others are not: a not entirely unwarranted assumption about the primary use of those weapons. The best example of this would be a jacknife (and a ballistic knife), which is not particularly sharper or deadlier than a good household knife.

Though it still annoys me, on principle, that chain weapons like nunchaku, three-section staff, and flail are illegal. I mean, yes, they can be somewhat more dangerous than their non-chain counterparts, but the likelihood of their actually being used for those purposes is not substantially greater than their counterparts (and in the case of the three-section staff, probably substantially less).

[eyeball]

You have misinterpreted my comment.Let me clarify.

When someone is criminally charged in Canada they are innocent until proven guilty.The merit or validity of the law they were charged with can be challenged to be unconstitutional.If a judge sides with the defendant then the law in question must be sent back to the lower house for amemndments and be changed to reflect constitutional reality(lengthy process that also involves the senate).

If these related laws are made more harsh then many more people charged will challenge

them,resulting in the above scenario mentioned.

And guess who's stuck with the bill?Taxpayers!

WWWTT

Well in the United States it is now being openly touted as economically impossible to change the law. Never mind valid arguments. From prohibition to criminalization to incarceration, millions of people would lose their jobs. And "in these times of fiscal restraint..."

The Conservatives should increase taxes on the drugs that governments sell to pay for the war on drugs. That would make the most ethical sense.

About the only thing I can think of that's more perverted and grotesque than the vast moral engineering project that is the judicial-industrial complex tasked with the war on drugs, is the pedophile ring the Catholic Church runs.

Edited July 9, 2011 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

The cons are just looking out for their friends in the various organized crime groups across the country.

And guarding their big pharma buisness.

[Tilter]

I want to make it clear to everyone hear that I do not use cannabis,alcohol,caffeine,nicotine,cocaine,etc,etc.For me they are all the same and are all equal in toxicity or health benefits!

Wow WWWTT-- talk about a tightass--- you could use your ass crack to bend iron bars

A lot of news lately about coffee that says it prevents/delays the onset of Prostrate cancer.

The immeasurable difference between say, coffee & cocaine or cannabis & alcohol are too great to even consider them in the same sentence. Coffee---- waker-upper cocaine --- killer

weed--- pleasant hunger (& sex) desire causing buzz -- alcohol--- killer-- one of the worst curses bestowed by nature on mankind.

I'm not saying that weed is harmless but having lost many friends to booze it is a blessing. People can use pot continuously every day for a month & stop with no withdrawal symptoms (except a bad attitude). cut your average boozer off of booze & you have a screaming, shaking bedridden imbecile who will search for a way to have a drink every day for the rest of his life.

Try this.

Enclose 100,000 teen/youths in their 20s in a field with music, fun & the wherewithal and opportunity to get high on pot.-- result-- a lot of kids who are peacefully having fun (and a bunch of babies 9 months later .(bull Run Concert) Evansville Indiana-- 73/74

Do the same & give them a couple of sixpacks of beer & the result will be hundreds of fights, rapes and the odd murder or 2 or 3 or 4. (almost any night in any bar in any city in North America)

[WWWTT]

Wow WWWTT-- talk about a tightass--- you could use your ass crack to bend iron bars

A lot of news lately about coffee that says it prevents/delays the onset of Prostrate cancer.

The immeasurable difference between say, coffee & cocaine or cannabis & alcohol are too great to even consider them in the same sentence. Coffee---- waker-upper cocaine --- killer

weed--- pleasant hunger (& sex) desire causing buzz -- alcohol--- killer-- one of the worst curses bestowed by nature on mankind.

I'm not saying that weed is harmless but having lost many friends to booze it is a blessing. People can use pot continuously every day for a month & stop with no withdrawal symptoms (except a bad attitude). cut your average boozer off of booze & you have a screaming, shaking bedridden imbecile who will search for a way to have a drink every day for the rest of his life.

You know what else is bad,junk food!

Ok I admit that once and a while I will have a cup of cofee with a donut or eat a bag of chips.Or maybe eat at a fast food restaraunt(McDonalds)But a short while after eating a big mac with fries and a coke I can feel the effects in my body(and mind) and I usually regret it.

The point I am making is that there are many tempting and delicious toxins readily available,legal or illegal.

I do not think(in my opinion) anyone hear is qualified to say which you can indulge in and which are off limits.So is the government qualified to dictate how we should live our lives in regards to what we may consume?

As far as going through withdrawls,I crawled the freakin walls when I gave up nicotine for the first time.I have heard similar stories about food(over eating),cafine, alcohol,pot,herion,crack,crystal meth and cocaine.

WWWTT

[Saipan]

the pedophile ring the Catholic Church runs.

If you don't report it you can be charged with complicity.

[eyeball]

Ontario judge declares criminalization of pot unconstitutional

If the government does not respond within 90 days with a successful delay or re-regulation of marijuana, the drug will be legal to possess and produce in Ontario, where the decision is binding.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ontario+judge+declares+criminalization+unconstitutional/4604943/story.html#ixzz1RiO80ptf

I believe that's tomorrow. Now what?

[Guest American Woman]

Dont know if I can find it but I recall reading that a 'certain countries' budget for fighting imported drugs could buy the entire world supply of coke.

Spending $10 to save $5 is stupid.

It's not about "saving" money - it's an attempt to rid the country of said drugs - which cause lots of harm to those addicted. Edited to add: and sometimes to those who are the victims of those addicted.

The resources this cuontry donates to fight drugs would easily be freed up and applied elsewhere and we would all save.

Save what? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You'd save a lot of money in the gun registry too by just legalizing guns for everyone, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

To me what is funny is I know and grew up in the same neighbourhood as our esteemed PM, know the school he went to very well. I assure you he was around and knew the merits and harmlessness of pot, and he knew the people and parents who abused alcohol and the detrimental effects of same.

There are detrimental effects to those who "abuse" pot, too.

I believe in the decriminalization of pot, but to insinuate that there is no need to fight the importing of drugs and that pot is nothing but harmless in any and every situation is simply not the way it is.

Edited July 10, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

It's not about "saving" money - it's an attempt to rid the country of said drugs - which cause lots of harm to those addicted. Edited to add: and sometimes to those who are the victims of those addicted.

But at the same time legal and far more harmful drugs are ok? Does the hypocrisy not bother you?

Every law enforcement person will admit they lose every day. Yet more money is thrown at the loss already incurred.

Cannibis is harmless in most doses. Abuse can be a problem but to prohibit what is a plant is silly.

Save what? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You'd save a lot of money in the gun registry too by just legalizing guns for everyone, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

They have in your country. Not so much here but yeah, that too would work.

There are detrimental effects to those who "abuse" pot, too.

I believe in the decriminalization of pot, but to insinuate that there is no need to fight the importing of drugs and that pot is nothing but harmless in any and every situation is simply not the way it is.

Any abuse of anything will incur detrimental effects.

But costs on abuse vs costs of prohibition are not equal. The latter costs far more than the former.

We need only look at prohibition way back in our grandma's time for proof.

And look at Portugal today for furtherance.

Edited July 11, 2011 by guyser

[eyeball]

It's not about "saving" money - it's an attempt to rid the country of said drugs - which cause lots of harm to those addicted. Edited to add: and sometimes to those who are the victims of those addicted.

But at the same time legal and far more harmful drugs are ok? Does the hypocrisy not bother you?

There's little that tops the unmitigated gall of governments attempting to rid the country of drugs on the one hand while selling alcohol with the other. I mean, if the state isn't like the Mother of all Gangs I don't know what else would qualify.

It's quite the scam really, stoke the fear of crime, position yourselves as the solution to that fear while also incentivizing criminal enterprises and sell drugs that turn the unborn babies of their own addicted victims into even more criminals on the side.

Throw in the judicial-industrial complex of cop's lawyers and prisons and...Holio fuck...all this waste and human tragedy for the sake of placating a few moral entrepreneurs, engineers and other assorted oddball right-wingers?

What a freakin' insane world. No wonder so many people want to get stoned out of their minds.

Edited July 16, 2011 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

Wrong direction? Yes

[Guest American Woman]

But at the same time legal and far more harmful drugs are ok? Does the hypocrisy not bother you?

They're not "ok" in the sense that they are not available over-the-counter - only with a prescription. By the same token, a prescription for pot can be obtained for everything from menstrual cramps to depression. So frankly, I see no hypocrisy. I recognize that abuse exists in prescription drugs too, and I in no way think it's any more "ok" than abuse of any other drug.

Every law enforcement person will admit they lose every day. Yet more money is thrown at the loss already incurred.

Lose what every day? Certainly they take a certain amount of drugs off the street and a certain number of dealers off the streets.

Cannibis is harmless in most doses. Abuse can be a problem but to prohibit what is a plant is silly.

The key word there is "most" doses. However, even if it is "harmless," it can have ill effects. I wouldn't want my airline pilot smoking pot any more than I'd want him drinking. Have there been tests on the effects of pot regarding reaction times etc.?

They have in your country. Not so much here but yeah, that too would work.

So you believe the right to bear arms should exist in Canada?

Any abuse of anything will incur detrimental effects.

Exactly. But so often pot is portrayed as harmless while the evils of alcohol are expounded upon. I've already said that I believe in the decriminalization of pot, but at the same time, I think there should be guidelines regarding driving and smoking in the work force etc. I think the same standards that apply to alcohol should apply to pot.

But costs on abuse vs costs of prohibition are not equal. The latter costs far more than the former.

And perhaps it could cost even more if it weren't for the laws that we have. Again, I'm speaking of drugs in general, not pot specifically, since that's the way I read some of the posts.

We need only look at prohibition way back in our grandma's time for proof.

We've come a long way since prohibition, though - laws are getting stricter all the time regarding alcohol. There is also much more public awareness regarding DD's, etc.

And look at Portugal today for furtherance.

Could you elaborate on that?

[eyeball]

I see no hypocrisy.

None whatsoever?

So are all alcohol sales in the US handled strictly through privately owned outlets or do the governments that prosecute for drugs also operate liquor stores like they do in Canada?

I recall my old man lecturing me on the evils of dope with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Poor old guy, it was a race between emphysema and a blown out liver in the end.

[Wild Bill]

Lose what every day? Certainly they take a certain amount of drugs off the street and a certain number of dealers off the streets.

We've come a long way since prohibition, though - laws are getting stricter all the time regarding alcohol. There is also much more public awareness regarding DD's, etc.

AW, I don't think you are looking at things mathematically. The amount of drugs and dealers taken of the street is truly "mice nuts" and always has been. It always will be, as well!

This is because it it literally impossible to have a cop at every corner and looking over everyone's shoulder. What's more, since so many people have a problem with the State making "lifestyle" laws to tell individuals what to do with their own lives the State can't even count on every cop being motivated sufficiently to enforce such laws!

There are moral questions about the State having the right to tell an individual what drugs he may take. One of the obvious problems is that the State rarely seems qualified to make such decisions. The parameters are usually political - how many voters want to tell their neighbours what to do so how many votes will we get with more oppressive laws?

That's what it's really all about! Telling your neighbour what to do has always been extremely popular. Saving him from himself not only brings its own rewards, if he still hates you for it you can ignore his feelings, since after all the drugs kept him from thinking clearly!

We should never forget that a very large number of people LOVED Prohibition!

Edited July 16, 2011 by Wild Bill

[AngusThermopyle]

In answer to the original question. Yes, I do believe Cannabis laws are headed in the wrong direction.The way we are headed now will see an extremely large proportion of our population criminalized by these laws simply because of their decision to enjoy a plant that has always been around, at least for as long as can be considered significant.

In another thread I mentioned to jbg that I had been looking into the whole Cannabis issue as I had seen so many opinions expressed in various forums that appeared to be based upon nothing more than the old "Reefer Madness" concept. What I discovered certainly provided me with an eye opener. Key to what I realised was the idea that there is a huge amount of disinformation floating around regarding this plant. For instance, Oleg repeatedly talks about it being genetically modified, complete nonsense. What has happened is that people have collected strains from around the world. They have cross bred them to create hybrids, plants with traits inherited from each parent, male and female. This is hybridization, not genetic modification. If one were to consider hybridization to be the same as genetic modification then one would have to believe that every human on this planet is genetically modified, as would be every succeeding human to be born. There are only two types of Cannabis plants, Sativa and Indica, anything else merely results from a combination of the variants that exist within these two distinct types. So there is no genetic modification involved, simply the natural process of cross breeding that all living organisms engage in on one level or another. In fact, now seed breaders are seeking out strains that are lower in THC content and instead focusing on CBD and CBN content. Both of these compounds are non psychotropic and in fact CBN has been found to act as a natural THC blocker. In effect if you smoke (or eat) a strain such as Cannatonic you will feel very little, if any at all effects from the THC and will still benefit from the effects of the CBN to your system.

Next would be the harm factor. There is not one single recorded or reputable case of death by Cannabis. There are many attributable to Alcohol, Tobacco, Prescription Drugs, Fast Food, etc etc. However not one for Cannabis. On the contrary, many new studies actually show this plant to have a great many beneficial properties. There are many reports by users that this plant acts in a far more beneficial manner than the prescription medicines they have used. When I say users you must realise that I'm not talking about your 17 year old airhead who claims to have a sore back here, I'm talking about people with serious documented aillments, quite often mortal. Further to that research shows us that this plant is non addictive as opposed to some others such as the oppiates, these actually do alter the bodies natural electro-chemical processing functions. Marijuana is no more addictive than alcohol, tobacco, prescriptions, coffee or fast food. In fact far more less than many of the aforementioned. There will also be those who will become addicted to something, thats a given.

The direction that should be taken? Well I'm not sure if legalization is a realistic goal at this time. Decriminalization on the other hand would appear to be a good temporary solution. It just doesn't make any sense at all to harshly penalize a large part of the population for essentially doing the same thing as many others do who partake in other arguably more harmfull legal substances. Of course there should be controls, first of all I would say that an efficient road side method should be developed in order to determine whether one is driving under the influence in a dangerously intoxicated state. About equivalent to what we already have for alcohol. Ideally no one would never drive after indulging in anything intoxicating but given human nature thats a little unrealistic.

The kids. Well even with laws such as prohibition and legal drinking age/smoking age already in place the kids don't have any problem getting their hands on this stuff, much as it was when I was a kid. Certainly draft a law to prohibit it from use by minors, effective or not, that only makes sense. What doesn't make sense is throwing citizens, many of whom are actually pretty good stand up productive people, in prison for simply enjoying something they like. Obviously prohibition does not and never has worked. In fact all evidence strongly suggests the opposite, that in fact prohibition actively encourages criminal activity. Research has shown that marijuanna has some negative impacts upon the developing brain. Research has also shown that those effects are no more significant than those of Caffiene, Tobacco, Alcohol and sugar (sugar is actually a very big problem) amongst quite a few others and far less severe in most cases. So sure, we should controll it to the best of our abilities, I just don't think we should villianize and demonize it at the expense of rationality.

[dre]

It's not about "saving" money - it's an attempt to rid the country of said drugs - which cause lots of harm to those addicted. Edited to add: and sometimes to those who are the victims of those addicted.

Problem is theres absolutely no evidence that the billions spent on enforcement results in less drug use, and we know that criminalization of drugs results in a massive ammount of other crimes.

[dre]

Lose what every day? Certainly they take a certain amount of drugs off the street and a certain number of dealers off the streets.

Its questionable to say they take any drugs or dealers off the streets at all. The problem of course is you keep bumping into the economics of supply and demand. Enforcement drives up the prices, and the increase in prices attracts new dealers and new suppliers.

The war on drugs has actually been a massive BOON for dealers. Without criminalization they would have had to go and get real jobs!

[Oleg Bach]

Laws governing dope - street and legal along with booze are the least of our worries..Only in the afluent west do we concern our selves with such matters.. Go to a placed where people are starving and you will not see some debate regarding getting high - but you might see one on the issue of FOOD. Some say that I have a green thumb and should grow pot - I say - you can't eat it and it is not an attractive plant that would inhance the beauty in the world...I don't care if all the dope in the world disappears - other than good opiates that I might need on my death bed....scripture "leave strong drink (dope included) for the dying that need it"

[TwoDucks]

If you poison yourself other drivers will be safe.

Not if you do it while you're driving.

[AngusThermopyle]

Laws governing dope - street and legal along with booze are the least of our worries..Only in the afluent west do we concern our selves with such matters.. Go to a placed where people are starving and you will not see some debate regarding getting high - but you might see one on the issue of FOOD. Some say that I have a green thumb and should grow pot - I say - you can't eat it and it is not an attractive plant that would inhance the beauty in the world...I don't care if all the dope in the world disappears - other than good opiates that I might need on my death bed....scripture "leave strong drink (dope included) for the dying that need it"

Once again you manage to pretty much miss the boat. You most certainly can eat it, many many people do just that. As for it not being attractive, thats your opinion, once again many would disagree with you. How about this, you don't think it looks nice?

Bonsai

You mention good opiates. Are you kidding? Opiates are horrible. Highly addictive and in many cases quite deadly, where do you think Heroin comes from? You really have some very very strange and actually very false opinions regarding this subject.

[cybercoma]

History has an important lesson for us on prohibition. FDR lifted prohibition in 1933 and we have all become alcoholics. The importance of prohibition then is evident.

We were alcoholics long before FDR lifted prohibition in the United States. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. And given the historiography, alcohol consumption was much greater in the 19th century and prior than it is today.