Laws, wars, protests and ANGRY OLD UNCLES

[Guest Derek L]

I'm sure if you studied the comings and goings of the late 1800s you can understand why there was pressure put on govts to do something about mind altering substances.

What concern is it of you, if the people at a private party down the street are using pot?

[WWWTT]

And BTW the same thing is going to happen with most of Harpers crime bill. The courts will just refuse to enforce it. Know what the police, lawyers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all have in common? They all think its mind numbingly retarded to throw people in jail for using soft drugs.

Mandatory minimums are going to backfire. The system will just stop bringing these cases to trial completely, and these people wont even get the slaps on the risk they got before. Or the judges will simply throw the cases out. MMSing only comes into play if theres a charge, a trial and a guilty verdict.

Your wasting your time dre.

I predicted this when I first came on to this forum and nobody here seems to have any understanding how our justice system works and how judges interprit the constitution and previous court trials and findings etc etc.

The courts(judges) in Canada pretty much dictate the direction the justice system takes.

The only way of changing that would be for the government to make a constitutional change.And thats not going to happen guarenteed!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

You don’t feel someone high on pot, driving a vehicle could be dangerous to the public? What about alcohol?

What about pills?Or best of all fatigue?

Fatigue is the number one reason for driver error!

Actually its the fatigue caused from alcohol consumption in some cases that is the demon!

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that any testing should be dismissed,just saying that this issue is much more involved and has a wide scope.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

I'm sure if you studied the comings and goings of the late 1800s you can understand why there was pressure put on govts to do something about mind altering substances.

If altering your mind is the real crime that is being committed then that is what governments should charge people with.

[Guest Derek L]

What about pills?Or best of all fatigue?

Fatigue is the number one reason for driver error!

Actually its the fatigue caused from alcohol consumption in some cases that is the demon!

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that any testing should be dismissed,just saying that this issue is much more involved and has a wide scope.

WWWTT

Defiantly……if someone is operating a vehicle, in any state, physical or emotional, that causes harm to another, they should be held fully accountable……..

[blueblood]

What concern is it of you, if the people at a private party down the street are using pot?

The concern is not of specific people down the street, it's a lot of people on a lot of streets that are messed up on drugs that are costing society. The drug laws are a method of deterrence, although it doesn't deter enough.

What business is it of yours if someone down the street gets their stereo stolen?

[eyeball]

You don’t feel someone high on pot, driving a vehicle could be dangerous to the public? What about alcohol?

Yes, and the government should educate drivers to exercise caution in both cases the same way and for the same reasons.

[Guest Derek L]

The concern is not of specific people down the street, it's a lot of people on a lot of streets that are messed up on drugs that are costing society. The drug laws are a method of deterrence, although it doesn't deter enough.

It’s apples and oranges……….My personal principle is this:

1. I’m not paying for it.

2. Said activity is done buy an adult.

3. And well doing said activity, it doesn’t affect others

What business is it of yours if someone down the street gets their stereo stolen?

Apples and Oranges again………That’s like saying that myself, a private gun owner, is reasonable for a gun related crime committed by gang members……….The gangsters and the crackhead that stole your stereo, are responsible, not the gun or the rock cocaine.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, and the government should educate drivers to exercise caution in both cases the same way and for the same reasons.

I fully agree……..If roadside tests for any drug use are devised, like alcohol, I say legalize it.

[blueblood]

It’s apples and oranges……….My personal principle is this:

1. I’m not paying for it.

2. Said activity is done buy an adult.

3. And well doing said activity, it doesn’t affect others

Apples and Oranges again………That’s like saying that myself, a private gun owner, is reasonable for a gun related crime committed by gang members……….The gangsters and the crackhead that stole your stereo, are responsible, not the gun or the rock cocaine.

Except in the long run society pays for drug users even if they don't get caught. Your from bc, taken a drive down to vancouver's east side? Your idea is running away when a problem arises. If you think That people should be free to do drugs, then society should be free from bailing the drug users out when they OD, get hurt, end up homeless, etc.

And I didn't say a crackhead stole the stereo in my situation...

As a gun owner you know all the laws and restrictions that go with owning a firearm, and if you screw up they seize and melt that firearm. Your use of a firearm has a far less chance of harming society than if you were to start using drugs, especially some of the ones that get a person addicted after the first use. Not only that drug use can affect one's ability/decision making when in possession of a firearm.

[Smallc]

Since society has to pay drug users....should drug users have to give bak to society? Have the tobacco companies grow it, and then sell it with taxes similar to tobacco.

[Guest Derek L]

Except in the long run society pays for drug users even if they don't get caught. Your from bc, taken a drive down to vancouver's east side? Your idea is running away when a problem arises. If you think That people should be free to do drugs, then society should be free from bailing the drug users out when they OD, get hurt, end up homeless, etc.

What about overweight people? Society pays for the increased cost of heart disease and diabetes. Should we monitor the public’s consumption of unhealthy food?

As a gun owner you know all the laws and restrictions that go with owning a firearm, and if you screw up they seize and melt that firearm. Your use of a firearm has a far less chance of harming society than if you were to start using drugs, especially some of the ones that get a person addicted after the first use. Not only that drug use can affect one's ability/decision making when in possession of a firearm.

Sure I understand the laws..........But do you have evidence that suggests that drug users are any more a plight on society than unhealthy eaters?

What about the usage of personal vehicles? How many injuries, deaths and personal property loss are attributed to bad drivers?

Where does the “nanny state” start and stop? Perhaps we should give society the benefit of the doubt prior to condemning personal choices and recognise, that you’re bound to have people screw-up and that they are best dealt with on a case, by case basis.

[dre]

Your wasting your time dre.

I predicted this when I first came on to this forum and nobody here seems to have any understanding how our justice system works and how judges interprit the constitution and previous court trials and findings etc etc.

The courts(judges) in Canada pretty much dictate the direction the justice system takes.

The only way of changing that would be for the government to make a constitutional change.And thats not going to happen guarenteed!

WWWTT

And the real problem with mandatory minimum sentencing is that it assumes the only time the system can excersize discretion is during sentencing but its not. The police can refuse to arrest, the prosecutor can refuse to charge of plead the case out, and the judget can summarily dismiss the case.

The problem with expecting the system enforce this is that most of the people who work in the system are CIVILIZED AND REASONABLE.

[WWWTT]

And the real problem with mandatory minimum sentencing is that it assumes the only time the system can excersize discretion is during sentencing but its not. The police can refuse to arrest, the prosecutor can refuse to charge of plead the case out, and the judget can summarily dismiss the case.

The problem with expecting the system enforce this is that most of the people who work in the system are CIVILIZED AND REASONABLE.

Yep pretty much.

Aswell the courts have real issues that are of a higher priority such as violent crimes,sex crimes,family/spouce abuse,fraud and white collar crimes,etc etc.

There is only so much money to pay for so much and the justice system will prioritize the cases.

I remember in Ontario back in the early 90 literally thousands of cases were thrown out because people were denied their constitutional rights to a speady trial!

The conservatives will cause this to happen again but for some reason most of the people here can not phathom this reality?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I don't understand why some people feel that rights can somehow be dismissed with a poll or election.

What if there was a poll about gay marriage?

Would this poll somehow have any relevance?

WWWTT

Would a poll showing the opinions of Canadians have any relevance when discussing the majority opinion of Canadians? Is that what you're asking?

[cybercoma]

Since society has to pay drug users....should drug users have to give bak to society? Have the tobacco companies grow it, and then sell it with taxes similar to tobacco.

Oh great. Empower the tobacco companies.

I don't think it would work that way anyway. It's so easy to grow at home that I highly doubt it would even be profitable for drug companies.

They need to simply decriminalize it and let the chips fall where they may.

[WWWTT]

Would a poll showing the opinions of Canadians have any relevance when discussing the majority opinion of Canadians? Is that what you're asking?

Not at all

What I am stating is that human and constitutional rights are not dependant on elections or opinion polls.

Therefore an opinion poll about decriminalization or gay rights would have no impact on the definition or interpretation of the constitution or what human rights should be!

In other words my rights can't be voted away!

WWWTT

[Evening Star]

Except in the long run society pays for drug users even if they don't get caught. Your from bc, taken a drive down to vancouver's east side? Your idea is running away when a problem arises. If you think That people should be free to do drugs, then society should be free from bailing the drug users out when they OD, get hurt, end up homeless, etc.

You know that no one's talking about decriminalizing cocaine or heroin, right? Do you have some figures on how many people OD on marijuana or end up homeless as a result of pot smoking? Or even on what their health care costs are like?

Besides, taxing or even nationalizing it would seem to be the easiest way to recoup those costs, even if there are real costs.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Evening Star

[cybercoma]

Not at all

What I am stating is that human and constitutional rights are not dependant on elections or opinion polls.

Therefore an opinion poll about decriminalization or gay rights would have no impact on the definition or interpretation of the constitution or what human rights should be!

In other words my rights can't be voted away!

WWWTT

If only that were true in practice.

See: Buck v Bell

[WWWTT]

If only that were true in practice.

See: Buck v Bell

In most cases what I have stated is true.

With a little research I can provide examples(no time now sorry).

An example off the top of my head would be the California election result banning gay marriage and then later bein overturned by a Cal. judge!

The same is happening right here right now with marihuana laws!

But the courts move like freekin turtles,soon enough Harper will be backtracking on his various pieces of legislation,patience my friend patience.

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

The concern is not of specific people down the street, it's a lot of people on a lot of streets that are messed up on drugs that are costing society. The drug laws are a method of deterrence, although it doesn't deter enough.

What business is it of yours if someone down the street gets their stereo stolen?

Bad example, BB. If your stereo gets stolen the cops today do absolutely nothing! Except to give you a report number for your insurance claim.

[blueblood]

What about overweight people? Society pays for the increased cost of heart disease and diabetes. Should we monitor the public’s consumption of unhealthy food?

Sure I understand the laws..........But do you have evidence that suggests that drug users are any more a plight on society than unhealthy eaters?

What about the usage of personal vehicles? How many injuries, deaths and personal property loss are attributed to bad drivers?

Where does the “nanny state” start and stop? Perhaps we should give society the benefit of the doubt prior to condemning personal choices and recognise, that you’re bound to have people screw-up and that they are best dealt with on a case, by case basis.

Fat people at least are somewhat productive in society. A heroin addict on the downtown east side not so much. If we're to have a public health system then a fat tax of some sort would make some sense as to help cover their medical costs, but that's about all the problems fat people do. An addict is a far bigger problem.

Driving bad is also illegal. You drive bad enough and jail time is a possibility.

One only needs to look at the late 1800s for evidence at what a free for all concerning drug use can do.

I think drug users aren't condemned enough for their stupidity. The legal side is the only area that they receive consequences. They are given a free pass in the media and in society as misunderstood. If they were treated the same way we treat smokers, there wouldn't be a drug problem to begin with.

[blueblood]

Bad example, BB. If your stereo gets stolen the cops today do absolutely nothing! Except to give you a report number for your insurance claim.

And if I report to the cops and say some kids are smoking weed by the movie theatre, tell me are the cops going to haul ass to the movie theatre?

[Wild Bill]

I dont see any reason to make roadside testing a precondition.

I agree, my good Dr. ! What are the parameters going to be?

Some people in this thread seem to assume that pot intoxication is the same as that of alcohol. Sez who?

Comedians have made jokes for years about potheads driving down the highway at 30 mph! They recognize that pot tends to make someone excessively cautious, not rash.

I'm not at all suggesting that intoxication from pot doesn't impair a driver. The question is, HOW?

That leads to the next and necessary question, how MUCH is a dangerous level of intoxication? We have the ability to make tests on human hair that can show someone took a hit or two of marijuana six months ago. If the same person or people who drafted the present CPC Bill got to set the standards for marijuana intoxication what level would they set as impaired? I suspect if the tests showed usage anytime in the last 6 months they would declare that sufficient to jail the perpetrator!

Proper scientific tests would have to be done, as was done years ago with alcohol. Since politicians tend to care more about winning votes than scientific realities I'm not sure they could be trusted with this...

[blueblood]

You know that no one's talking about decriminalizing cocaine or heroin, right? Do you have some figures on how many people OD on marijuana or end up homeless as a result of pot smoking? Or even on what their health care costs are like?

Besides, taxing or even nationalizing it would seem to be the easiest way to recoup those costs, even if there are real costs.

If you decriminalize one, you have to do it for all the rest. Pot is the line, like alcohol used to be. Decriminalizing pot would lead to people doing harder drugs. Far better for the cops to be chasing around something that doesn't have near as bad effects as cocaine or heroin. I've seen what effects pot has on people, laziness, paranoia, lung problems, and memory issues. One of my neighbors is an old hippy who is probably high all the time. His work doesn't get done, his cows are barely fed, and he lives basically off of crop insurance, which screws everybody over because of high premiums to cover people like him.

If you tax pot like you say you want to, your still going to get a black market with tax free pot just like the cigarettes, and we have more high lazy people to deal with.