Cdn Police Need To Lay off Marijuana

[maplesyrup]

When is this insanity over marijuana ever going to stop?

Yes, it is up to the federal government to modernize the drug laws. In the meantime however the police forces need to back off and stop harrassing people who want to have the occasional joint.

Recently we had a store on Commercial Drive in Vancouver which started selling marijuana. Apparently it operated for several months with no problems until the Vancouver Sun decided to make it their mission to close it down. The police were ignoring it, the City of Vancouver was ignoring it, and everything was just fine. Now the operation is in jeopardy. When will we ever learn?

Marijuana is here to stay. It is much less harmfull than alcohol, and the US are clueless in attempting to deal with it, with their misguided "war on Drugs".

[maplesyrup]

Pot advocate arrested in Da Kine crackdown

What an absolute waste of time for the police to get involved in this nonsense.

[Slavik44]

calla politican stop bashing the police for doing their job.

[Cartman]

calla politican stop bashing the police for doing their job.

Yeah MS call a politician. But, if you call your premier or some of his staff, remember to lay off the alcohol bashing or the hard core drug bashing. It is a sensitive topic amongst BC Liberals for some strange reason.

[Stoker]

Yes, it is up to the federal government to modernize the drug laws. In the meantime however the police forces need to back off and stop harrassing people who want to have the occasional joint.

You make it sound as if it is "alright" to break the law.......once and while.

Recently we had a store on Commercial Drive in Vancouver which started selling marijuana. Apparently it operated for several months with no problems until the Vancouver Sun decided to make it their mission to close it down. The police were ignoring it, the City of Vancouver was ignoring it, and everything was just fine. Now the operation is in jeopardy. When will we ever learn?

And isn't the store across the street from an elementry school? Britannia park?

And wasn't it concerned parents and shopkeepers that "made it their mission" to get the store shut down?

Even though our pot laws are lax, it's still illegal.

Marijuana is here to stay. It is much less harmfull than alcohol, and the US are clueless in attempting to deal with it, with their misguided "war on Drugs".

Misguided? Teenage use of pot in the states has gone down, well it is going up here......

Do you advocate teen drug use?

[Slavik44]

Misguided? Teenage use of pot in the states has gone down, well it is going up here......

Do you advocate teen drug use?

but it isn't a drug man....

oh well atleast the buisness was succesfull, it had a profit of $500,000 a month.

[maplesyrup]

Police have discretionary powers - they need to back off on this one.

No wonder society loses respect for police - they need to focus on the real criminals, like the biker gangs.

[Stoker]

No wonder society loses respect for police - they need to focus on the real criminals, like the biker gangs.

You mean the same biker gangs the help run the drug trade? The same gangs that have grow opps, for pot, in surrey? The same gangs, that's dope could very well be being sold in the before mentioned store?

[Hugo]

You make it sound as if it is "alright" to break the law.......once and while.

It's morally right to break an unjust law. To argue otherwise means that you advocate punishing people such as Oskar Schindler, Benjamin Franklin, Wat Tyler, or Mahatma Gandhi. Is that what you are saying?

I'd take the position that any law that comes from the state is unjust, for the simple reason that they have no right to pass it. The political class don't have the right to expropriate my property or my money, conscript me into their army, trespass on my premises, beat me, rape my wife, burn my house down or any of the other things that all governments do in the name of "law".

Democracy is no justification. Whatever the majority thinks, it has no place violating the rights of the minority, whether that be in taxation, gun ownership, drug use, thought and speech, religion and so forth. Furthermore, democracy is an art of compromise. The only way you can get somebody in Parliament who fully agrees with everything you do is to run for office yourself. I think it was Groucho Marx who said that anyone capable of winning public office is definitely unworthy of the job, and that's true. Running for office is the art of selling oneself to the public and requires ruthlessness, demagoguery and so forth in great quantities - traits that are highly undesireable in political leaders.

What a person buys with his own money and does to his own body is his own business. I own myself and I own my body. To say that the state has the power to tell a person what he may spend his money on and do with his body is to tell him that he does not own his money or his body, that he is a slave.

Those in favour of drug laws are advocating slavery, pure and simple. If you don't believe that, I invite you to come up with a definition of drug laws that doesn't revolve around the idea that you have the right to tell another what he may do with his own body, or to put it another way, that you are the master and he, the slave.

[Black Dog]

You make it sound as if it is "alright" to break the law.......once and while.

As Hugo states, there's something to be said for breaking an unjust law.

And isn't the store across the street from an elementry school? Britannia park?

And wasn't it concerned parents and shopkeepers that "made it their mission" to get the store shut down?

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!"

I doubt the cafe was selling drugs to minors. I wonder how many liquor stores are in the same vicinity.

Misguided? Teenage use of pot in the states has gone down, well it is going up here......

Gee and these modest gains have only come as a result of some of the harshest drug policies in the world. For example, the number of people imprisoned for drug offences in the U.S. increased 213 per cent between 1980 and 1992. Today, nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. And while cannabis use may be declining, pot and other drugs are as available as ever.

Do you advocate teen drug use?

There's a difference between acknowledging that some teens are going to use pot now and then (just like most teens are going to illegally use alcohol) and therefore supporting sensible drug policies, and "advocating teen drug use."

You mean the same biker gangs the help run the drug trade? The same gangs that have grow opps, for pot, in surrey? The same gangs, that's dope could very well be being sold in the before mentioned store?

Gee, and if pot were legal, what would happen to these biker gangs and grow ops? Apparently, our society has yet to learn any lessons from prohibition eras of the past.

[Cartman]

Hugo, might I ask what theorists/writers have influenced your perspective? As per other threads, I doubt the applicability of anarchy, but I am interested in how you come to the conclusion that it can be accomplished.

[Hugo]

Hugo, might I ask what theorists/writers have influenced your perspective?

The logical starting-point would be John Locke, after which Lysander Spooner, Leo Tolstoy, Henry Thoreau, David and Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. There are probably more, but these are excellent starting-points to an understanding of market anarchy.

There's also a similar vein of thought in authors such as Ayn Rand (although she doesn't follow her train of thought to its logical conclusion), Proudhon, Kropotkin, Jefferson, J. S. Mill, Adam Smith and so forth although none of these writers are/were market anarchists.

[Stoker]

It's morally right to break an unjust law. To argue otherwise means that you advocate punishing people such as Oskar Schindler, Benjamin Franklin, Wat Tyler, or Mahatma Gandhi. Is that what you are saying?

So you are comparing drug dealers with those people? Yes, any person slinging dope is a true patriot and moral crusader

What a person buys with his own money and does to his own body is his own business. I own myself and I own my body. To say that the state has the power to tell a person what he may spend his money on and do with his body is to tell him that he does not own his money or his body, that he is a slave.

I tend to agree with you, in that the state shouldn't be a adults babysitter, with that said, until the law is changed, it is the law.

Those in favour of drug laws are advocating slavery, pure and simple. If you don't believe that, I invite you to come up with a definition of drug laws that doesn't revolve around the idea that you have the right to tell another what he may do with his own body, or to put it another way, that you are the master and he, the slave.

Couldn't that philosophy be used with any law? Am I a slave because I can't drink and drive? Kill somebody that i don't like? Steal a 2005 Corvette?

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!"

I doubt the cafe was selling drugs to minors. I wonder how many liquor stores are in the same vicinity.

What gives you those doubts? When the news showed the news clip of the police raid, and the throngs of people watching/protesting the raid, the majority of the people appeared to be young teenagers, some smoking joints.

WRT liquor stores, there are laws preventing them from selling to people under 19 (as I'm sure you know) and if caught selling to minors, they would be fined and could lose their liquor licsense. Same with tobacco products.

Is there any laws preventing pot dealers from selling pot to minors?

Gee and these modest gains have only come as a result of some of the harshest drug policies in the world. For example, the number of people imprisoned for drug offences in the U.S. increased 213 per cent between 1980 and 1992. Today, nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. And while cannabis use may be declining, pot and other drugs are as available as ever.

But the usage has declined right?

There's a difference between acknowledging that some teens are going to use pot now and then (just like most teens are going to illegally use alcohol) and therefore supporting sensible drug policies, and "advocating teen drug use."

What is the difference?

Gee, and if pot were legal, what would happen to these biker gangs and grow ops? Apparently, our society has yet to learn any lessons from prohibition eras of the past.

Probably the same thing that happaned with the Mafia

[Hugo]

So you are comparing drug dealers with those people? Yes, any person slinging dope is a true patriot and moral crusader

No more or less so than Gandhi was when he illegally made salt. For the purposes of our argument, Gandhi was a man committing a so-called crime of illegal industry and trade. Drug dealers, too, are committing a so-called crime of illegal industry and trade.

The fact is that drug dealing is purely consensual, and the only element of coersion comes, ironically, from state involvement. You don't see a black market for codeine that's tied up in prostitution, gun-running, extortion and so forth.

I tend to agree with you, in that the state shouldn't be a adults babysitter, with that said, until the law is changed, it is the law.

Obviously, but that does not affect anything I have said at all. The same could be said about the rendering of Nazi Germany Judenrein, the denial of voting rights to blacks and women, and so forth. Would we be any further ahead if the activists in those fields had said, well, the law is the law, we have to go along with it? We have our social advances precisely because some individuals railed against and fought unjust laws. Drug laws are unjust. As a lover of freedom and justice it is my duty to oppose them.

Couldn't that philosophy be used with any law? Am I a slave because I can't drink and drive?

Yes, until your actions infringe upon somebody else's rights. If you get into your car blind drunk and drive all the way home without incident, no actual crime has been committed because you did not impinge upon the rights of any of your fellow citizens. If you run someone over, of course, then there may be a crime, with a victim and a perpetrator. A court would have to prove that your negligence caused the accident, and that you had full knowledge that your earlier actions (getting drunk) would cause such negligence.

But drunk driving laws don't so much hold to "innocent until proven guilty" as "guilty before having committed a crime."

Kill somebody that i don't like? Steal a 2005 Corvette?

No, because that would impinge upon somebody else's natural rights, which would mean that, if you were allowed to get away with it, they would be your slave.

What is the difference?

To advocate freedom to use drugs is not to advocate their use. I think you should be free to use drugs. I don't think you ought to use them, though. I also don't think you should buy a domestic car, because imports are much better. I'm not going to interfere if you want to buy a domestic, though. That's the difference.

Probably the same thing that happaned with the Mafia

You mean, after prohibition ended they declined in power and influence, and both crime rates and alcoholism both dropped sharply? Of course, we wouldn't want to reduce crime or the incidence of drug abuse. Better keep drugs illegal so that that doesn't happen. Oh, and so the state can have a nice, righteous crusade to waste your tax money on and draw your attention away from their creeping encroachment upon your freedoms and rights.

[Stoker]

Drug laws are unjust. As a lover of freedom and justice it is my duty to oppose them.

How are they unjust? Do you think that no drug users affect the lives of others?

Yes, until your actions infringe upon somebody else's rights. If you get into your car blind drunk and drive all the way home without incident, no actual crime has been committed because you did not impinge upon the rights of any of your fellow citizens. If you run someone over, of course, then there may be a crime, with a victim and a perpetrator. A court would have to prove that your negligence caused the accident, and that you had full knowledge that your earlier actions (getting drunk) would cause such negligence.

So what if I get blind drunk, don't hurt anybody, but get stopped in a roadblock? Has a crime been commited? Am I to understand that if you don't get caught, it's not a crime?

[theloniusfleabag]

There are drugs and then there are drugs. Alcohol is a drug, and an evil one. (Though I do enjoy my beer)Worse than pot, I'll say, yet legal. It is also the real 'gateway' drug, the first one the vast majority use to 'alter perception'.

Speaking of abiding by laws, anyone hear of Rosa Parks? Should she have 'shut up and obeyed the law'?

[Hugo]

How are they unjust? Do you think that no drug users affect the lives of others?

Of course. Every decision we make and every action we take affects the lives of others every day. Should we spend our time working through the myriad threads of thirty million lives to determine who did what and punish them for consequences they could never have known would result from their actions? How would you do this, given that no sociologist, psychologist, economist or supercomputer has anything close to a working model of human social interaction?

Or should we restrict criminal punishment to those actions that directly infringe upon the rights of another?

Am I to understand that if you don't get caught, it's not a crime?

No, you misunderstand. If there's no victim, it's not a crime.

[Cartman]

If there's no victim, it's not a crime.

I apologize for taking only a small section of your argument.

If DD laws were eliminated, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that there would be an increase in this behaviour accompanied by an increase in accidents. By driving drunk or stoned, a person is knowingly increasing everyone elses' exposure to unwanted risk which is a form of victimization. What exactly are natural rights?

If I leave my 1 year old child in my locked car for an hour and leave to go drinking, but the child is not hurt, have I not committed a crime and require state punishment? Alternatively, if another person engages in the same act but the child is hurt, should they receive an onerous punishment while I do not?

If my mechanic forgets to adequately tighten the lug nuts on the wheel of my car and I nearly get into an accident but no actual harm comes my way, is s/he not responsible for increasing my exposure to risk? If the same mechanic does the exact same thing again but the customer is killed, should a heavy punishment be levied this time?

[Hugo]

If DD laws were eliminated, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that there would be an increase in this behaviour accompanied by an increase in accidents.

Probably. But that's the public goods problem at work. You see, the roads are public, which means they are supposed to be owned by all of us. However, the fact is that a percentage of us - state officials - get to tell us what we can and cannot do with this property. Therefore, it follows that roads cannot be public property, but instead private property which is completely monopolised by the state (and which the state is forcing everyone to pay for), because only the owner of something can decide how that thing should be disposed of and utilised.

If the roads were truly public, the government would have no right to tell me I couldn't drink and drive, because it's my road too. However, I can't tell everyone else that they can drink and drive, because it's their road too. Hence, the public goods paradox.

However, if roads were private, the owners could set whatever conditions they wished for their use. If you live on a street with your kids, you and your neighbours who also have young kids could pool your resources, buy your road and stipulate that anybody driving on it must not drive at more than 25km/h and cannot have any alcohol in their bloodstream. Anybody who breaks these rules is guilty of a breach of contract or trespass and can be charged and punished accordingly. If they don't like the rules, they can find another route.

If I leave my 1 year old child in my locked car for an hour and leave to go drinking, but the child is not hurt, have I not committed a crime and require state punishment?

Well, you've made a poor analogy. I said that with no victim, there's no crime, but in your example there is a victim: your 1-year-old child, whom you have confined against his will in a situation that endangers his health.

If my mechanic forgets to adequately tighten the lug nuts on the wheel of my car and I nearly get into an accident but no actual harm comes my way, is s/he not responsible for increasing my exposure to risk?

Once again, this is a very poor analogy. This would be a case of the mechanic failing to perform the tasks you paid him to perform to your required standards, thus, the mechanic is guilty of breach of contract even if nothing had happened to you. Once again, there is a victim - you - and the crime is fraud. The mechanic promised a given service and didn't perform it.

What exactly are natural rights?

The right not to be aggressed against, to be left alone.

[Michael Hardner]

Hugo:

I could buy into your philosophy if you were truly independent of the government that makes you its slave, but in at least two cases, you rely on the collective to assist you with your way of life:

In policing:

No, because that would impinge upon somebody else's natural rights, which would mean that, if you were allowed to get away with it, they would be your slave.

And in the use of a central bank, unless the money you're referring to is barter.

So, given that you agree with the concept of a collective authority, you have to agree to the concept of compromise, and you're already on the slippery slope towards taxes and what have you.

[Hugo]

in at least two cases, you rely on the collective to assist you with your way of life... So, given that you agree with the concept of a collective authority, you have to agree to the concept of compromise

No, you assume that I rely on the collective. The simple fact is that you haven't thought about the matter enough. There are viable alternatives to the state in every conceivable field.

In policing

There are already private security guards and private detectives. There's no good reason why the state should monopolise police forces. Private police forces predate state police forces by millenia. Consider London's pre-Peel thief takers for one example.

And in the use of a central bank, unless the money you're referring to is barter.

Actually, money also predates central banking by millenia. During the 19th Century, many American communities had privately minted and issued money. They found that their currency and, as a result, their economy, was much more stable before the federal government shut down the private mints and forced everybody to use greenbacks. You can read on this concept further in Murray Rothbard's essay, What has government done to our money?

[I miss Reagan]

I say decriminalize MJ and increase the penalties for impaired driving to be equal to those of Europe ie. loss of driving privilages for life.

[Michael Hardner]

No, you assume that I rely on the collective. The simple fact is that you haven't thought about the matter enough. There are viable alternatives to the state in every conceivable field.

In policing, then, who decides what constitutes imposition of slavery ? In a private system, its the person(s) who pay the police directly, not the citizens.

There are already private security guards and private detectives. There's no good reason why the state should monopolise police forces. Private police forces predate state police forces by millenia. Consider London's pre-Peel thief takers for one example.

The difference between a private force paid directly by a group of citizens and a local police force paid from the municipal tax pool is ... ?

Actually, money also predates central banking by millenia. During the 19th Century, many American communities had privately minted and issued money. They found that their currency and, as a result, their economy, was much more stable before the federal government shut down the private mints and forced everybody to use greenbacks. You can read on this concept further in Murray Rothbard's essay, What has government done to our money?

I disagree. Money began in Sumeria around 3000 BC, and was administered by civic priests.

[maplesyrup]

There are drugs and then there are drugs. Alcohol is a drug, and an evil one. (Though I do enjoy my beer)Worse than pot, I'll say, yet legal. It is also the real 'gateway' drug, the first one the vast majority use to 'alter perception'.

Speaking of abiding by laws, anyone hear of Rosa Parks?  Should she have 'shut up and obeyed the law'?

tfb......yes, of course we have heard about Rosa Parks, and no, of course not, Rosa should not have obeyed those racist laws, and given up her seat to a white man on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama (recently saw a movie about her and the civil right protests)

The Key Difference

This is an interesting article by the right on left wing approaches to solving problems.

[Hugo]

In policing, then, who decides what constitutes imposition of slavery ? In a private system, its the person(s) who pay the police directly, not the citizens.

I should direct this question back at you, and ask what is to prevent slavery in a state-policed system? Evidently nothing, since practically all nation-states, even the democratic ones, have practiced state-sanctioned slavery at some point.

A police force that backed slavery would not get much business. It would certainly run into trouble when it conflicted with the police forces employed by those who didn't advocate slavery, and would have to compromise with them or risk economically destructive violent conflict.

Since the anti-slavery forces would be far larger and stronger (slaves and freemen outnumbered slaveholders in all slaver societies), the almost certain outcome is that the slaver police forces would have to agree not to enslave or allow the enslavement of anybody who was not a client of theirs. Therefore, anybody contracting with a pro-slave police force would be advocating their own slavery, and the pro-slave police force would disappear pretty quickly.

You ought to also consider that, when slavery is not backed by arbitrary state power, runaway slaves and abolitionists would be able to form their own police force to prevent their recapture and also to liberate other slaves.

Slavery would quickly collapse on economic grounds alone since the rising costs of slaveholding (increased security necessitated by the liberating efforts of abolitionist police, the desire of slaves to flee and join the others in freedom, etc.) would make it less profitable than hiring freemen to do the same jobs.

The difference between a private force paid directly by a group of citizens and a local police force paid from the municipal tax pool is ... ?

The private police force is open to the market forces of competition and pricing which ensure that the public demands for justice, law and value for money will be better met than with a monopolistic state police force.

I disagree. Money began in Sumeria around 3000 BC, and was administered by civic priests.

Any commodity which is used for exchange and not consumed by the recipient but held for further exchange is "money". The word "pecuniary" derives from the Latin word for "cattle", pecus. If the medieval blacksmith pays the baker in horseshoes, but the baker has no horse and trades the horseshoes to the miller for flour, horseshoes are money. Therefore, it is safe to say that the concept of money predates even ancient Sumerian shekels.