Jump to content

Should Marijuana Be Legal?


Recommended Posts

If there are proven links between pot use at certain levels and health effects resulting in treatment requirements people should pay for those costs, much like people who drink in excess or smoke cigarettes or eat a high fat diet, or high sugar diet etc..

If it can be proven this is actually how our health system works then go for it.

Could we also have full cost accountability and responsibility for things like the economy vs the environment and energy security vs global insecurity while we're at it?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hooray!!

It is now legal for Canadians to grow their own pot for medical marijuana users:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/medical-marijuana-federal-court-ruling-1.3461694

Now lets look at legalizing, regulating and taxing prostitution.

I wouldn't count your chickens quite so fast. The previous injunction will remain in effect, but the new declaration is withheld for 6 months to allow the government to draft any new laws it wants. We shall have to wait to see how that turns out. But yes, you can continue to grow for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't count your chickens quite so fast. The previous injunction will remain in effect, but the new declaration is withheld for 6 months to allow the government to draft any new laws it wants. We shall have to wait to see how that turns out. But yes, you can continue to grow for now.

Only if you are one of the 24000 that was covered under the original injunction, maybe, and that is lower considering licensing requirements etc.. that are also in place.

Well this will hopefully set a timeline for legalization by Fall 2017. Either it needs to get done before the summer recess or immediately when parliament resumes. This has been talked about and discussed in government for years. There has been tons of info out there for years. The gov needs to pick a strategy and go with it. It would make sense for a couple months of committee then putting this thing through second reading prior to summer recess, it would set drafting and doing first reading, imo they should get the first reading prior to victoria day.

Essentially it means they need to get it done prior to parliament recessing unless they resume parliament in late August, and we all know they won't do that so it means the bill has to be passed prior to summer recess.

In all fairness they should give Universities time to adopt new policies for legal aged users regarding their prior drug policy as well as determine if public use, will mean that there will need to be by-laws drafted to prevent smoking on campus, or pot smoking on campus, if the 10m rule will apply ect. The federal level is just one level.

It only makes sense to get this passed before summer recess.

If they decide to delay it even longer then that is their call but the longer they wait the more damages will result, if this idea is good. You know championing the idea on one side but then delaying and delaying a good idea doesn't' make any sense.

You know we can probably list the specific items that need to be addressed.

1. remove marijuana from Schedule 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

2. establish who may legally sell marijuana (and how much of a royalty/tax will exist on its sale

3. establish who may legally grow marijunana (at minimum regulated suppliers, and medicinal users) Also the manner in which the plant may be grown.

4. establish where and in what form the plant may be used

5. establish boundaries on definition of the plant regarding potency

6. establish penalties for sales to minors

7. Establish public intoxication limits, hopefully based on body size.

8. Establish operational limits.

9. set prohibited acts such as operation of a firearm, piloting, or other activities which pot intoxication may be an impairment.

10. establish transport safety rules, and trafficking rules, i.e. how must it be packaged to be transported and what modes of transport will be legal for it to be transported, will it be classed a dangerous good? etc..

11. establish where smoking pot will be allowed, eg. is smoking in public going to be lawful. Personally I am thinking it should only be doable in areas that are designated smoking areas, not in general public, due to potential exposure to regulated professions. ex equivolent to administering a noxious substance. I wouldn't say it is the same but the intent aspect may not be there but the blanket realization that (( B) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.) may be there, it is a minor crime to get someone else high contrary to thier wishes by exposing them to pot smoke, either intentionally, or accidentally imo. There should be public safeguards on that. I would phase this in by only allowing smoking indoors in private dwellings without minors present, or in licensed areas, either outdoors such as desingated green areas, or indoor coffee houses where people know pot will be smoked.

12. Also establish rules or non smoking use such as consumables, will they be legal to use anywhere? Will restaurants be able to sell a finished consumable product? What about "coffee shops" etc.

13. How must consumables be transported in a vehicle? Will it require a sealed container in the trunk?

Also will someone violating grow rules be criminalized, fined, or simply have plants confiscated or destroyed? You know if there are grow limits set. Likewise will growing in certain areas be illegal, such as outdoors where minors have access to the plant etc.. You know will it be legal to grow in an unlocked room, where minors can access it etc..

You now it may be faiir to place culpability on someone exposing someone else to marijuana smoke contrary to their wishes, leaving it to law suits, and fines. This could vary based on the level of negligence involved. We are going to need to set how many PPM is ok to expose the public to, such as from smoke exiting a private dwelling or in a public area.

At the very least, simple possession of personal use amounts should be lawul, and transport of larger quantities that are meeting transport safety rules should also not result in criminal charges.

Are there any other considerations that should be in the bill?

It is safe to say at minimum any rules related to alcohol and cigarettes should be mirrored for pot so that the rules are easy to know and follow.

You know there is some dispute over how much time must have passed before driving, this is major issue for workers, as it could limit smoking only to their first day off, for example. Friday and Saturday night

take for instance austrailia

The case is one of several that have come to light questioning the accuracy of a current NSW government guideline that it is "typically" safe to drive 12 hours after using marijuana without being picked up by mobile testing.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mystery-laws-drugdriving-push-picks-up-medical-marijuana-user-20160211-gmrjob.html#ixzz418JzaZHB

Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

However another guideline is within the past 4 days, which means use could only occur during their vacation time.

For people who don't drive this is a lesser issue, example urban people in places such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal who use public transit instead of driving their own vehicle would be lesser impacted by driving time limits.

While I have never been in a car accident with drivers who were also smoking pot, there has been concern about the safety of driving while smoking pot, or within a certain time of smoking pot. This will be a major issue for people against drunk driving most likely. Drunk drivers are hated by some, so I am not sure why this also wouldn't be true of high drivers. In fact I think campaigns about this for raising public awareness will likely be a beneficial influence to make a culture where people would not drink and drive, but think nothing of smoking and driving. These changes may help the public consciousness to reduce somewhat risky behaviours, and serve to stigmatize the behaviour.

This type of system would create a weekend use culture for non-transport centers, while in transport centers it may create a casual use system.

Really it is the commuters who are most effected in areas such as the GTA, however my guess is there people are family types who really don't use often anyway.

In act this is impossible to make the situation worse, it can only make it better by giving people a legal option.

Edited by nerve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering what everyone thinks of pot being legal. I think it should be, its less harmful than alcohol. Why should the government be able to tell me what I can and cannot do.

Well, government's job IS to tell you what you can and can not do - without consequence. For instance, you can't rob a bank or kill someone in this country - or you CAN, but expect to pay that price. The very reason we HAVE government (or what SHOULD be the reason) is to provide a set of reasonable rules to allow society and business to function.

When it comes to marijuana, while it may be relatively harmless to adults, and even beneficial for pain relief, it can be devastating to brain development when used by adolescents. That is what medical science is telling us today, but every kid from the '60s knew a pothead from the dramatic deterioration in their mental aptitude. With today's THC levels, I expect that damage is far worse now.

I believe MJ should be treated exactly as is alcohol. Possession should be limited to adults and not available or consumed in a motor vehicle. Dealing should be done by licensed and regulated agencies, growing needs some kind of oversight, but I have no idea what that would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said it should be treated exactly like alcohol. Why would growing pot be any different from making booze?

Should be no different at all. You can make booze at home, but you can't offer that for sale. Should be same-same

As soon as you start offering ANYTHING for sale to the public, you enter a world of regulation for health, safety, etc. that is, as it should be, in place for public protection (and, let's face it, tax collection).

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there is the other way. Just removing it from the controlled drugs and substances act, and seeing if the provinces regulate it as a good.

If there are health risk, what about the courts regulating it through lawsuits, or the food and drug safety type act.

In all honesty it would just make total sense to let the provinces handle making regulations on it as it is more of a civil matter than criminal, if that is the premise.

Either it is going to go ahead or it ain't.

Personally if this was up to me I'd just strike it and call it a day at the federal level.

Afterall what does pot fall under if not criminal law?

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada, 1. Repealed. 1A. The Public Debt and Property. (45) 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce. 2A. Unemployment insurance. (46) 3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation. 4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit. 5. Postal Service. 6. The Census and Statistics. 7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence. 8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada. 9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island. 10. Navigation and Shipping. 11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals. 12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries. 13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces. 14. Currency and Coinage. 15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money. 16. Savings Banks. 17. Weights and Measures. 18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. 19. Interest. 20. Legal Tender. 21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 22. Patents of Invention and Discovery. 23. Copyrights. 24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians. 25. Naturalization and Aliens. 26. Marriage and Divorce 27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters. 28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries. 29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces

It just looks like it is a provincial issue constitutionally if it ain't criminal.

It is clearly a provincial issue

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province. 16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province. 95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
Edited by nerve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best you read that again. That is OPTIONAL, not mandatory. If that WAS true of ag being provincial, the Canadian Wheat Board would not have lasted as long as it did.

Also, you are quoting from a document that IIRC has never been ratified by the requisite number of provinces.

Of course there is the other way. Just removing it from the controlled drugs and substances act, and seeing if the provinces regulate it as a good.

If there are health risk, what about the courts regulating it through lawsuits, or the food and drug safety type act.

In all honesty it would just make total sense to let the provinces handle making regulations on it as it is more of a civil matter than criminal, if that is the premise.

It is clearly a provincial issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best you read that again. That is OPTIONAL, not mandatory. If that WAS true of ag being provincial, the Canadian Wheat Board would not have lasted as long as it did.

Also, you are quoting from a document that IIRC has never been ratified by the requisite number of provinces.

To be honest I don't have a lot of spirit to reply but to address your comment "the Canadian Wheat Board would not have lasted as long as it did.

" the wheat board is all about federal regulation of trade, it was about getting a better price for grain, and insuring that the economy was protected by insuring farmers were given access to market.

Canada would only be in a position to traffic pot to countries where pot was legal.There would of course be secondary market potentials as hemp is usable for a lot of stuff also, and I would think hemp fibre from grow ops would find a place in textile and other industries as a non drug based byproduct. (bear in mind there is currently not a large market in north america for hemp production but there are potentials, and pot is really easy to grow, in fact it would provide a textile base for Canada where cotton is not viable)

I think laws like administering a noxious substance, etc.. should already cover abusive / criminal applications of the plant. Are there applications that are not covered under other criminal law? You know if it is child abuse or endangerment to provide pot then lets treat it as that rather than it being pot that is the problem, lets deal with the abuse issue. We could alter providing alchohol to minors to be providing chemicals to minors that negatively effect health or welbeing of the minor. or treat it as a summary offense for administering a noxious substance because that is what pot and alcohol are in sufficient quantities.

You know prove it

245. Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or ( B) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 229.

The drugs and substances act is all about making drugs illegal to possess and traffic, in general that would no longer apply for pot. So with a piece meal approach removing it from the schedule and letting provinces pass their own local controls allows the local will to be fulfilled. These could be similar measures to anti-smoking and licensed sales provisions that already exist.

You know if someone causes someones death call it manslaughter. We don't need to attack objects when we can attack actions and mindsets.

The Canadian public has from at least places that voted liberal opted for legalization. It is about time that provinces that had liberal votes to call for referendums on the issue, or to consult with their constituents on how to proceed with regulating marijuana.

The key point I need to make is that the libs should just remove it from the schedule on a prior agreed date and tell the provinces, deal with it. Pass your laws you need to, to regulate it provincially, it will no longer be criminal on X date, it will be up to you to regulate it, bear in mind medical access has already been upheld, as has medicinal growing.

You can fine, you can sell it but you can't send people to jail for having it.

In the end this is exactly what is going to happen if it is being decriminalized. It is just a question if the rules should be the same everywhere. That didn't happen to alcohol or tobacco, so why should it happen with pot.

You know I think the federal govt should ship this stuff by Canada Post, so that medical marijuana people have a catalogue and access to delivery, via a safe and secure transport medium. It makes sense if provinces choose to pass prohibition laws on it.

There is really no reason why this needs to be a federal decision on how it is going to be accessible. It is really in fact, I have very strong compelling ideas that in fact it is a provincial matter once decriminalized, except as the inter-provincial transport is involved, as well as supreme court rulings on access for medical purposes, but this would be a regulation of the food and drug canada act on how it is to be treated. You know if this stuff has health issues deal with it as it is. You can tell people if you eat oak tree leaves in sufficient quantity you will die but they opt to smoke them, at no point is it illegal, so why not with pot too? If people want to package oak tree leaves and sell them, it becomes a food and drug commercial issue if unsafe then a recall can be ordered.

Ultimately provinces need to craft rules that make it accessible.

In fact it may just be a end of term treat to get people to vote liberal again, but in fact the longer the liberals sit on this, the more people get screwed over by enforcement of pot laws.

Jail and criminal records greatly damages peoples lives this isn't child play, it is a serious matter.

Why not scrap all drug laws and do the noxious substance thing. Lets stop blaming the material and start blaming the intentions and criminal minds.

Bear in mind there is a federal minimum smoking age in addition to a provincial one. You know places like reserves and territories will need to be managed by the federal government or local government in those areas. Other than this its not really a federal issue beyond regulation like any other plant. This is a popular plant, there are way worse plants for people. You know people have been using cannabis for thousands of years, and it has bloomed into a cultural idea that lots of people don't fear, they embrace and seek out, even with sanctions by society. You know places in south america eat the coca plant, they don't all snort cocaine. It is all about managing culture when it comes to substance issues. Lets face it the strategy over the past century hasn't worked, in terms of crime fighting, it is not going to work, so we should confront the culture of use, and take it from one associated with crime and turn it into something about positive social interactions, to create harm reduction strategies and education programs that don't turn people against the law. Prohibitions don't stop people, they create mission creep to engineer criminals who commit crimes beyond what is being prohibited.

Edited by nerve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It's well to approach this topic wth humility. We don't know for sure what would happen with legalization. As usual, there will be unexpected problems. Some of the ones we know of are:

1. Lung disease.

2. Psychological and neurological effects on teenagers.

3. Problems operating machinery and cars.

4. Assessing the blood level of the drug in drivers. Apparently, handheld devices are coming out.

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Trudeau's only chance at coming close to balancing the budget is by taxing weed.

I don't know why we wouldn't go that route as a nation. Everyone who wants to smoke it is already doing it anyways.

Right now all the profits from weed go to the wrong people. We need to change it so that those profits go to the other wrong people and some of it goes to taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so torn on this issue, I can't decide where I fall.

On one hand, I don't think governments should tell grown adults what they can or can't put in their bodies. That goes for food, drugs, or nutritional supplements. On the other, I think we should do far more than we already do to keep harmful things from kids. I don't know what the middle ground is... you can do whatever you want to yourself, but it's still a serious crime to sell it to someone else (especially a minor)?

The other sticky part is our public health system. If we are going allow people to do whatever they want with their bodies, should we still expect everyone else to pick up the tab? For instance, part of me still thinks that perhaps tobacco should be outlawed because of the health consequences. If smoking were illegal, smoking ANYTHING would likely be covered by that, bring us back to where we are with pot, just for a different reason. Maybe the answer is to treat health care the way other insurance is done -- deliberate acts of "bad health" make your coverage get cancelled. For instance, we have socialized insurance for cars in manitoba, and people can and DO get their coverage pulled for bad driving.

The health costs to handle a person dying of cancer is less than the cost of maintaining them in an old folk home or other palliative care for twenty living in diapers.

I question this already with respect to our tobacco laws and the 666% taxes of actual cost (And yet people blame the tobacco companies for poorer behavior?) I find this criminal of society just as it would be to command we sign up for some cult. My body, my health. Our system ALREADY discriminates against smokers even within the Health care providers. It is indirect and relatively 'hidden'. A smoker would get placed at the back of a cue for backed up services. The extortion of such taxes limits the cash an addict must use to put towards other 'healthier' lifestyles or things that tease the more wealthier ones to eventually find a good reason to quit motivationally, voluntarily, and naturally.

It would be unwise to legalize other drugs HERE IN CANADA for this reason. The U.S. is different though as they actually alter their prices better with respect to supply and demand. Legalizing pot is only intended to act as an extorted tax grab (mainly against the poor) and acts as a means to reduce the taxes of the wealthy. Decriminalization is all I think we can hope for with fairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how many more decades are you hoping this can be dragged out?

Your list of reasons seems rather short or were you saving a few up up 40 or 50 years down the road?

Who is that question for?

I support legalization. Marijuana is safer than alcohol on nearly all fronts which doesn't mean it's completely safe. No drug is.

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
1 hour ago, square said:

I don't think it's even a question if marijuana should be legal. The question should be what should the legal age be to purchase marijuana?

 

Good question. I would say 24, but we all know that won't make a difference. I am simply basing the age on the effects the drug has on the developing brain. Not to say the drug is completely harmless in older individuals, but there is medical evidence that in adolescents there is more harm caused.

 

b.t.w. the States that have allowed recreational use of marijuana have set the age at 21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

 Surely marijuana must be just as bad for the degenerating brains of the elderly as it is for the developing brains of the young.

 

There hasn't been as many studies for it's effects on older users. Certainly the body will metabolize it more slowly, so the effects will last longer. Marijuana at any age will impair cognitive abilities, so in older users they will take longer to recover. One of the many therapeutic uses of marijuana is in those suffering from Alzheimers, THC slows the production of beta-amyloid proteins which are key contributors to the progression of Alzheimers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...