RW Authoritarians Rolling back Cannabis decriminalization in Canada

[blueblood]

Anyone should be able to grow their own personal tobacco. Organic tobacco is way better than the crap loaded with carcinogens that one buys in the store.

Chretien decriminalized cannabis. You could grow up to 6 plants in a household. That was very reasonable. Now the conservatives are trying to slowly make cannabis illegal again. And why? Perhaps they are appealing to the innate authoritarianism amongst their voters?

Oh I don't know, historical precedent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Nobody wants a country full of Intoxicated people

[Canuckistani]

Nobody wants a country full of Intoxicated people

Then we should ban booze. Oh, wait, we tried that, it didn't work.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Canuckistani

[blueblood]

Then we should ban booze. Oh, wait, we tried that, it didn't work.

And neither did china's economy by having scores of people running around high.

What about the ban on schedule I and III substances, shall we reverse that ban as well?

[GostHacked]

Oh I don't know, historical precedent

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Opium_Wars

Nobody wants a country full of Intoxicated people

We already have a country full of intoxicated people. What is funny is when you go to drug rehab you don't get off the drugs, you just trade the illegal one for a prescription one. Do you know how much opium/opiates are used in the pharmaceutical industry??

[eyeball]

Oh I don't know, historical precedent

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Opium_Wars

Nobody wants a country full of Intoxicated people

Only a blueblood would hold up the precedent, in a thread like this, of our very own founding Empire forcing it's drugs on people.

Nobody, or most of us at least, wants our governance filled will a similar self-righteous hypocrisy

[Boges]

We already have a country full of intoxicated people. What is funny is when you go to drug rehab you don't get off the drugs, you just trade the illegal one for a prescription one. Do you know how much opium/opiates are used in the pharmaceutical industry??

The Harper Government may get grief for this (though I'm not sure why) because people think they should have unfettered access to pot.

They also got flak for allowing generic Oxy on the market because of people that can't help themselves and snort it all at once instead of taking it as prescribed.

[GostHacked]

The Harper Government may get grief for this (though I'm not sure why) because people think they should have unfettered access to pot.

I have unfettered access to pot as it is right now.

They also got flak for allowing generic Oxy on the market because of people that can't help themselves and snort it all at once instead of taking it as prescribed.

Oxi*.* in medium to high doses can kill you. You can smoke an ounce of weed and maybe feel a little queasy from an intense headrush. Other than that, you don't see anyone taken to the hospital for a pot overdose.

[eyeball]

What about getting the state off people's backs? Where's the real conservative base when you need it?

[cybercoma]

Nobody wants a country full of Intoxicated people

The ban sure is working well to that end, eh?

[Guest Manny]

<Content deleted by Manny>

Edited April 4, 2013 by Manny

[GostHacked]

Maybe not for much longer.

Regardless of the laws that have been changed/replaced I have had no issues with access to it for over a decade. But instead of part of my money going to the government in a form of a tax from the sale, the money is all going to a criminal. The government even loses there too, because none of this is documented nor claimed on a tax return in the form of income. Criminals don't declare that either.

Legalize it, tax it. You save money on law enforcement (and they will tell you pot is not a problem, alcohol is) and you make money on taxing the stuff. Win win all around.

I find it quite amusing that pot is a 'controlled substance'.

[Boges]

Regardless of the laws that have been changed/replaced I have had no issues with access to it for over a decade. But instead of part of my money going to the government in a form of a tax from the sale, the money is all going to a criminal. The government even loses there too, because none of this is documented nor claimed on a tax return in the form of income. Criminals don't declare that either.

Legalize it, tax it. You save money on law enforcement (and they will tell you pot is not a problem, alcohol is) and you make money on taxing the stuff. Win win all around.

I find it quite amusing that pot is a 'controlled substance'.

How can they tax plants you grow on your own? The only way you can tax it is if the government controls its distribution like it does with Alcohol and Tobacco. With Tobacco the taxation has become so burdensome that many smokers just get them illegally off reserves.

At least they get the money from the increased electricity you pay from having the heat lamp to keep the plant alive.

[Guest Manny]

<Content deleted by Manny>

Edited April 4, 2013 by Manny

[Boges]

Looking at the history of prohibition, and also marijuana prohibition, the concept is a farce. It empowers the criminals. Although I wouldn't like to see it become totally unregulated because there are some people who will hurt themselves with substances like pot or booze. Prohibition won't help them either so it's a complete failure. If I were king I would make it regulated for use by adults, with ongoing education to try and keep young people from doing it until they're at a certain age, and punishment would appropriately fit the "crime". Not incarceration, not criminalization. People should be allowed to grow this herb in their own home. But the risk of abuse is higher now since it's been restricted for so long. In a sense, prohibition makes abuse a bigger problem.

But my pessimistic view is that corruption is the greatest barrier to removing it, because there is too much money in the illegal industry, and in the drug war industry too. I don't doubt for a second that organized crime has some politicians and judges, and police chiefs "in their pocket". They are the ones who don't want the laws to change. In our society, when there's really big money involved, justice becomes secondary.

That maybe the case with Pot. But what about Heroine, Cocaine and Meth? I think it's noble effort to try and keep people away from insidious drugs that are always harmful to the users.

Even if criminals will always supply it, governments should try and keep those drugs away from Canadians.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Boges

[punked]

That maybe the case with Pot. But what about Heroine, Cocaine and Meth? I think it's noble effort to try and keep people away from insidious drugs that are always harmful to the users.

Even if criminals will always supply it, governments should try and keep those drugs away from Canadians.

Look to Portugal to see a drug policy that is working. Instead of criminalizing behavior that hurts no one but the user they treat it. What does sending people to prison where the drugs are still available do for anyone? I guess it gives you piece of mind but does nothing for anyone else.

Edited January 29, 2013 by punked

[Boges]

Look to Portugal to see a drug policy that is working. Instead of criminalizing behavior that hurts no one but the user they treat it. What does sending people to prison where the drugs are still available do for anyone? I guess it gives you piece of mind but does nothing for anyone else.

What about Dealing it to people?

[punked]

What about Dealing it to people?

What about it?

[Boges]

What about it?

Should that be illegal and treated harshly by police? Or are you advocating government dispensed hard drugs to keep the supply out of the hands of criminals?

[punked]

Should that be illegal and treated harshly by police? Or are you advocating government dispensed hard drugs to keep the supply out of the hands of criminals?

Case by case basis. Someone selling drugs to adults who are asking for them and maybe using them responsibly should be treated differently then say someone selling drugs to kids. How is that for an answer? A gray area answer to a gray area question.

[Boges]

Case by case basis. Someone selling drugs to adults who are asking for them and maybe using them responsibly should be treated differently then say someone selling drugs to kids. How is that for an answer? A gray area answer to a gray area question.

But how does that work with the criminal code?

There is already discretion regarding enforcement. No one feels like they'll be charged for simple possession of pot. You don't get charged when you go for treatment for a Heroine addiction do you?

I just think you cross a dangerous line when you say there shouldn't be a "prohibition" on dangerous drugs.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Boges

[punked]

But how does that work with the criminal code?

There is already discretion regarding enforcement. No one feels like they'll be charged for simple possession of pot. You don't get charged when you go for treatment for a Heroine addiction do you?

I just think you cross a dangerous line when you say there shouldn't be a "prohibition" on certain drugs.

That is right you think however lucky for us this country doesn't run on your ideas. Lets look at real work example. Portugal. Please go read up on it educate yourself and change your opinion on what happens in the real world when policy is put in place that stops criminalizing individual behavior that hurts no one but yourself.

[Boges]

Perhaps I will, just not tonight.

I'm just curious why other countries haven't followed suit of Portugal is the Gold Standard? Clearly they've figured it out.

I do disagree that addiction only hurts the user. It hurts families and communities. Even with legal drugs like Oxycotin, it's ruined places in rural Ontario.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Boges

[guyser]

I'm just curious why other countries haven't followed suit of Portugal is the Gold Standard? Clearly they've figured it out.

I do disagree that addiction only hurts the user. It hurts families and communities. Even with legal drugs like Oxycotin, it's ruined places in rural Ontario.

Follow the money.

By keeping some drugs illegal , such as pot, pharma makes more money. No one (Pharma) wants a Doc prescribing two bongfuls for an upset stomach when for $27.99 + $10 dispensing fee they can have 4 pills that will do the same in twice the time.

There is a world out there where criminalizing people is big business. Look at the weapons police now have, the trucks , armored vehicles, tactical gear

. It is one large circuitous clusterfuck.

Do I have proof, no , none that I can source right now. However it shouldnt take much to see that for all that money spent criminalizing, weaponizing and so on, if we took that money and applied it to health, mental , physical addictions and treatment centres, we would save as crapload of money.

I have heard it said and refrenced that the US alone spends enough on fighting the war on drugs that if they took that same money, they could buy the entire worlds supply of cocaine and still have a ton left over.

Its not just the US either. Many countries do the same, some for nefarious reasons too. In 3rd world areas where drugs originate, everyone (read Govt officials and LEO's) is on the dole, and that means everyone makes cash. But those same people sit in on meetings with the worlds govt officials begging for tougher laws so that further criminalizes and makes more money for the bribes they take.

As for the 'ruins other' angle. Yes you are right. However if we continually criminalize drugs and include alcohol what difference would that make? People will drink, people will smoke the ganja, people will drop acid/meth/coke/peyote and so on and so on.

The thing about drugs is this. We all have access to every possible drug there is out there. And if you arent, ask your kids, they'll be able to source it in 5 minutes.

But if so prevelant and accessible.....who here has decided to do some smack , pop a little heroin tonight after dinner?

No one.

And why? Probably because none of us want that in our systems. I am not talkking about pot of course, some regularly have a toke after the chores are done and the night is winding down...cough cough....not sure who here does....cough cough...

So if one looks at it from the accessibility angle and worries of the increased usage that they think will occur....they are deluding themselves since it is there for the taking.

Most say no thanks.

Do read about Portugal. And if time permits read about prohibition. From the top of my head things such as....

-crime went thru the roof

-bribes became the norm

-abuse of women went nuts

-families fell apart

-alcoholism went way up.

And all the above went back down when it was repealed.

Mexico is the latest, and I believe the other latin states (VZL excluded) are loudly braying to the US to change their ways and legalize drugs as the answer to the crime problem in those countries.

50,000 murders in Mexico related to drugs. No one wants to kill over the drugs, but the money....the money is what people kill for. Take the incentive away and what have you got left? Some pretty good weed worth 1/100 of its prior illegal value.

Kill over that? Nah...just take it. We Mobsters have moved on to something else.

Running Guns !

[blueblood]

The ban sure is working well to that end, eh?

Worked better than when China was a free for all with the british flooding it with opium.

Worked better than the late 1800's wild west when everything was legal.

[blueblood]

That is right you think however lucky for us this country doesn't run on your ideas. Lets look at real work example. Portugal. Please go read up on it educate yourself and change your opinion on what happens in the real world when policy is put in place that stops criminalizing individual behavior that hurts no one but yourself.

And Portugal is in the poor house, Outstanding!!

Here's a better idea, you have a narcotic in your blood system, your health card goes in the shredder.