Should Marijuana Be Legal?

[On Guard for Thee]

I see that Barak Obama has finally gotten round to attempting to rid the country of these ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offences. That will save wrecking a bunch more lives, not to mention a huge pile of money, by clearing out prisons of people who represent no more harm to society than the folks who stop off for a beer after work.

Unfortunately here in Canada we have Stephen Harper who is heading down the same dubious path. I wonder how much it's costing us all for him to get a few extra right wing votes.

[dre]

If they can roadside test for THC levels as reliable as breathalyzers then legalize it. Until then, decriminalize small amount possession until they can reliably test it roadside. Right now I think the best they have are saliva tests for the "presence" of it.. Unless that has changed, that is not a fair enough test.

THC levels stay elevated for up to 6 months or a year. Its not possible to test for them the same way they do with alcohol.

What they need is to allow the officer to use discretion, and do some basic road side sobriety tests etc.

In any case... THC does not cause the same motor skill impairment as alcohol, and its nowhere near the issue in terms of driving.

[Social Justice]

Pot represents the biggest revenue windfall the government has seen since the creation of income tax.

[Boges]

Pot represents the biggest revenue windfall the government has seen since the creation of income tax.

Do you think that when/if MJ ever becomes legals, will people consume it at similar regularity as they currently consume alcohol and tobacco?

If it's true that pot has no addictive qualities like, say, nicotine the reliable revenue won't be the same. People will consume pot like they consume alcohol.

I think it'll take awhile before consuming pot like they consume alcohol.

If governments treat pot like tobacco, I'd imagine many will still choose the contraband route like they do with tobacco. Reverses, i'd imagine, would be happy to grow cannabis along with their tobacco opperation.

[Social Justice]

The reason that weed will get legalized is that government needs to reduce expenses and raise revenues, that is the long and short of it. It is mentally not physically addictive, and has attracted many citizens to its effects. The public no longer views consumption as as much of a problem as it was and it has become more socially acceptable,

[Boges]

The reason that weed will get legalized is that government needs to reduce expenses and raise revenues, that is the long and short of it. It is mentally not physically addictive, and has attracted many citizens to its effects. The public no longer views consumption as as much of a problem as it was and it has become more socially acceptable,

More than Tobacco smoke? I like to smoke the odd cigar and I don't feel social acceptance walking into a park puffing a cigar. Should they legalize pot tomorrow, I don't think many would suddenly start smoking weed on restaurant patios.

It's nice of you to admit that there addictive qualities in pot though. It's like anything that feels good, if you do it every day, you'll want to continue doing it every day.

[Social Justice]

The real question id one of personal rights, but the public wont go there........not with smokes and booze being the current problems that they are. They wont go the route of prohibition again because it didn't work the first time. The public will buy into a debt reduction scheme based on use of sin taxes. It comes down to reducing judicial expense while increasing government revenues.

[GostHacked]

Much research has been done on MJ, and now even medical dolts like Sanjay Gupta is reversing his stance on weed and saying we've been mislead for over 70 years about the effects of pot.<br /><br />In high concentrations THC has been seen reducing tumour sizes, reducing seziers, and proving to be quite beneficial to cancer patients after chemo.<br /><br />The human brain is the only brain that we know of that has specific receptors for THC. We are the only animal on the planet that will feel the effects of it.<br /><br />The other side of this argument is the legality of hemp. Hemp is a very versitle material and a claim which I need to verify is that it can detoxify the soil. Grow hemp in an area for a couple years and the claim is that it can reduce toxicity of the land by 80%.<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070806160109.htm<br /><br />There is a reason both are illegal and it has to do with control and money.

I did not put any of the breaks in. That's how messed up the coding is for this site.

Edited August 14, 2013 by GostHacked

[roy baty]

Much research has been done on MJ, and now even medical dolts like Sanjay Gupta is reversing his stance on weed and saying we've been mislead for over 70 years about the effects of pot.<br /><br />In high concentrations THC has been seen reducing tumour sizes, reducing seziers, and proving to be quite beneficial to cancer patients after chemo.<br /><br />The human brain is the only brain that we know of that has specific receptors for THC. We are the only animal on the planet that will feel the effects of it.<br /><br />The other side of this argument is the legality of hemp. Hemp is a very versitle material and a claim which I need to verify is that it can detoxify the soil. Grow hemp in an area for a couple years and the claim is that it can reduce toxicity of the land by 80%.<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070806160109.htm<br /><br />There is a reason both are illegal and it has to do with control and money.

I did not put any of the breaks in. That's how messed up the coding is for this site.

I just saw Gupta's special. It was an excellent and balanced report. Amazing what it did for that little girl w/her seizures.

[roy baty]

THC does not cause the same motor skill impairment as alcohol, and its nowhere near the issue in terms of driving.

I am not sure I agree 100%. It may not be the same but is still nevertheless physically and mentally impairing and just like alcohol it impairs a driver relative to the driver's tolerance for it. For this very reason, they need to perfect a roadside test before they legalize it. Proposing that we just "trust" police officer judgement, as in the past w/alcohol is just not enough to hold up in court anymore.

[DogOnPorch]

Should marijuana be legal? Let's let Nucky Thompson answer that one...

"To those beautiful, ignorant , bas***ds!"

[guyser]

Proposing that we just "trust" police officer judgement, as in the past w/alcohol is just not enough to hold up in court anymore.

Hmm...a policeman can charge you for Impaired if you take Neo Citran (the drowsy kind)or other meds, charge you with impaired driving if you have been not sleeping for a while .

What tests are they administering for those?

[roy baty]

Hmm...a policeman can charge you for Impaired if you take Neo Citran (the drowsy kind)or other meds, charge you with impaired driving if you have been not sleeping for a while .

What tests are they administering for those?

So why then are breathalyzers very critical to convict a drunk driver? Just reasonable suspicion can give an officer a reason to charge you with impaired, it's the convicting of it that can prove difficult if it heads to court w/o real medical evidence.

Edited August 14, 2013 by roy baty

[guyser]

So why then are breathalyzers very critical to convict a drunk driver? Just reasonable suspicion can give an officer a reason to charge you with impaired, it's the convicting of it that can prove difficult if it heads to court w/o real medical evidence.

First they aren't.

They could use blood samples if the Evaluation Officer sees enough when he conducts the FST on the roadside.

If he suspects drug impairment he can order a drug evaluation too.

Impaired means impaired, not just by booze and pot, could be lots of things

[Boges]

To those that don't think pot possession is pretty much already decriminalized there's this.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-police-chiefs-suggest-tickets-not-charges-for-pot-possession-1.1419047

WINNIPEG -- Canada's top cops say handing out tickets for illegal possession of small amounts of marijuana could be more efficient than laying criminal charges.

Delegates at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police annual meeting have passed a resolution that says officers need more enforcement options to deal with people caught with pot.

Association president Jim Chu, who is chief constable of the Vancouver Police Service, said having the option of writing tickets to penalize pot users caught with less than 30 grams of the drug would reduce policing and court costs.

30g is about an ounce right? I'd imagine if you're walking around with more than that much you're not just a simple user.

Cops want to be able to give tickets because criminals charges just aren't worth their time that it's more pragmatic to just ignore it. I think most would rather they just ignore it right?

I'd argue giving tickets is a round-a-bout way of taxing use, which is what legalization advocates want.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Boges

[PIK]

I agree harper needs to back off just a little anbd give tickets. I do partake with it but I would not be buting it in a store or just be walking down main street smoking one. I hate to have people having to smell the stuff on the street or a busy park with kids.

[roy baty]

First they aren't.

So you're saying that breathalyzers are not important for convictions? Based on what study or evidence? Perhaps you're still hung up on "charging" and not "convicting". Ask any cop that without that specific evidence it is harder to convict on DUI than it would be with it. Here's one of many arguments found about the importance of the Breathalyzer:

http://www.divinecaroline.com/life-etc/culture-causes/how-important-are-breathalyzers-dui-court-cases

Again, I am not arguing that an officer can charge you with anything they want, it's the conviction that is the challenge. In fact, I don't know why this is even being debated.. Hard scientific evidence is, was, and always will be better than an "officer's judgement" and this is why if they legalize cannabis there should be an equivocal method roadside to the breathalyzer and currently there is not.

The tests available now can show if THC is in your system but not pinpoint the level of toxicity you are under the influence of at the time of being pulled over and that is dangerous for not only the public, but for the guy being charged unjustly because he smoked a joint 8 hours ago. You could potentially see many false convictions and many guilty people walk.

Edited August 21, 2013 by roy baty

[PIK]

Must remember trudeau said he was in favour, he did not say the liberal party is.

[Black Dog]

I am not sure I agree 100%. It may not be the same but is still nevertheless physically and mentally impairing and just like alcohol it impairs a driver relative to the driver's tolerance for it. For this very reason, they need to perfect a roadside test before they legalize it. Proposing that we just "trust" police officer judgement, as in the past w/alcohol is just not enough to hold up in court anymore.

What do they do now if you're driving while high?

[GostHacked]

What do they do now if you're driving while high?

As a self proclaimed pot head, driving while high is just as dumb as drinking and driving. But not sure how they would test for this. As they cannot test for it now, this problem exists right now and will exist after it's legalized. Drinking and driving has not gone away.

[PIK]

In a interveiw with huffington trudeau said he smoked dope and did it 3 years ago during a celabration of becoming a MP. Harper said he has asthma as a kid and could not smake anything and angry tom sounds like he got angry when asked the question. lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/22/justin-trudeau-marijuana-mp_n_3792208.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

All the party leaders were asked by HuffPost when they last smoked marijuana. The Prime Minister’s Office said Stephen Harper has never tried cannabis because he suffers from asthma, “precluding him from smoking anything.” The NDP leader’s office confirmed that Thomas Mulcair has smoked pot but sent strongly worded emails refusing to say when he last used the drug or where he procured it.

[cybercoma]

I like how Harper is also pandering for votes from the centre and left in his own way. It's not because it's a crime to do drugs or it's wrong that he hasn't smoked pot....it's because he has asthma. I wonder what the social conservatives in his base think of that.

Edited August 22, 2013 by cybercoma

[Mighty AC]

As a self proclaimed pot head, driving while high is just as dumb as drinking and driving. But not sure how they would test for this. As they cannot test for it now, this problem exists right now and will exist after it's legalized. Drinking and driving has not gone away.

Driving while tired is like driving drunk. Reaction times after the age of 60 are equivalent to those of a twenty something after several beers. There are a variety of less than desirable driver states that are currently acceptable or not testable. Driving while high is certainly dumb. I have no problem with laws being changed to allow for blood tests...and eventually road side blood tests.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Mighty AC

[roy baty]

What do they do now if you're driving while high?

Right now, it's officer judgement w/visual indicators and potentially an ordered blood test Some countries use saliva testing but no roadside device like a breathalyzer. If it heads to court, if the suspect has a good lawyer the charge is easier to beat than a DUI charge. The thing about weed, it is far easier to get through a random roadblock with a stick of gum than if you had a pint of rum. Much harder to enforce for sure..

[Boges]

The thing about weed, it is far easier to get through a random roadblock with a stick of gum than if you had a pint of rum.

If you're drinking a pint of rum, I'd be surprised if you could find he ignition switch of a car.