cybercoma Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) The data is in CANSIM 252-0051. Here's a table of all Marijuana-related incidents since 2006. 23 Total means total adults and youth charged Edited September 9, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I think they state can make more money and justify large police forces to patrol the end users instead of getting to the root of the problem. I'd say the state benefits greatly from pot prohibition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) The data is in CANSIM 252-0051. Here's a table of all Marijuana-related incidents since 2006. 23 Total means total adults and youth charged I think I'm still reading that 49,000 of 57,000 got cleared. That means just 8000 went to court and of that 8k, only 44% (probably less due to minors) were found guilty. That's like 3500 over that year. Still a far cry from the 475,000 since 2006 that Trudeau claims. I'm on my phone, so I can't seethe chart right now, but I'd wager that fewer than 25k got convicted of marijuana since Harper took office. Checked the math quickly - looks like about 29,000 guilty verdicts since 2006. See how easy it is to track down information, I wonder why Justin got it so wrong. Edited September 9, 2015 by Hal 9000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Even if you're cleared, you still have a record for the incident. It still shows up in police reports. It shows up when you try to get clearances for different things. You're still in the police system as being arrested for a drug-related offence under the criminal code. It's still a record. Edited September 9, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Even if you're cleared, you still have a record for the incident. It still shows up in police reports. It shows up when you try to get clearances for different things. You're still in the police system as being arrested for a drug-related offence under the criminal code. It's still a record. I know you really want to find a way of being right, and make it ok for Justin, but it's not right. Being cleared is not a criminal record, you will not be refused at the border and you will not be refused a job. It is not a criminal record as Justin suggests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I know you really want to find a way of being right, and make it ok for Justin, but it's not right. Being cleared is not a criminal record, you will not be refused at the border and you will not be refused a job. It is not a criminal record as Justin suggests. You can in fact be refused at the border for being stopped for a drug offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Even if you're cleared, you still have a record for the incident. It still shows up in police reports. It shows up when you try to get clearances for different things. You're still in the police system as being arrested for a drug-related offence under the criminal code. It's still a record. That's true. Just being charged will stop you crossing the US border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 You can in fact be refused at the border for being stopped for a drug offence. Yes...just as one should be. There is no right to cross the border either way. And it is not clear to me that such charges would be ignored even after "legalization". Cross border travelers know that dope and DUI charges are like herpes...they last forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Yes...just as one should be. There is no right to cross the border either way. And it is not clear to me that such charges would be ignored even after "legalization". Cross border travelers know that dope and DUI charges are like herpes...they last forever. Nope, DUI charges don't. And nowadays no one has to worry about trying to sneak across the border with a joint or two. Just go buy it from Uncle Sam. Although the quality is not so good if you're used to BC bud. But I think it's available down there too. Edited September 9, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Ok, I will concede the point that a person can be inadmissible to enter the U.S. I've never had a problem and I'm one of those people. Hmmm... it's still not a criminal record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Ok, I will concede the point that a person can be inadmissible to enter the U.S. I've never had a problem and I'm one of those people. Hmmm... it's still not a criminal record. Legalize, tax, spare the wreckage and ruin and cost this stupid law causes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Just as a PS - after the 80% or so are cleared by police and the department. The ones that go to court get off about 55% of the time and of that 44% found guilty only about 16% ever see the inside of a jail - at an average of about 14 days, usually served over weekends or when a person can get off work. I don't know about anyone else but I think voting to get the state's capricious fickle hands off even one person's back is better than subscribing to the dreck that encourages people to give a collective meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I think I'm still reading that 49,000 of 57,000 got cleared. That means just 8000 went to court and of that 8k, only 44% (probably less due to minors) were found guilty. That's like 3500 over that year. Still a far cry from the 475,000 since 2006 that Trudeau claims. I'm on my phone, so I can't seethe chart right now, but I'd wager that fewer than 25k got convicted of marijuana since Harper took office. Checked the math quickly - looks like about 29,000 guilty verdicts since 2006. See how easy it is to track down information, I wonder why Justin got it so wrong. You need to rethink your analysis. I don't think that "cleared" in this context means the charges were dropped. It means the crime itself was "cleared". From Wikipedia In criminal justice, clearance rate is calculated by dividing the number of crimes that are "cleared" (a charge being laid) by the total number of crimes recorded. Clearance rates are used by various groups as a measure of crimes solved by the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I don't know about anyone else but I think voting to get the state's capricious fickle hands off even one person's back is better than subscribing to the dreck that encourages people to give a collective meh. It's less than 0.01% of the population that is getting convicted of possession, and listening to the CPA president, they're probably dudes that deserve the record. So yeah, I say meh! Just for perspective, there have been about 7X the amount of gays get married since 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 It's less than 0.01% of the population that is getting convicted of possession, and listening to the CPA president, they're probably dudes that deserve the record. So yeah, I say meh! Just for perspective, there have been about 7X the amount of gays get married since 2005. So even if we use your low ball #'s, that still means about 40k lives get wrecked doing something that is no worse than stopping at the local for a pint. What gives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 It's less than 0.01% of the population that is getting convicted of possession, and listening to the CPA president, they're probably dudes that deserve the record. So yeah, I say meh! Yes...and since a lot more people do dope, it must be the same dummies dopers who never figured out how to use/possess without running afoul of the law. Meh indeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) So even if we use your low ball #'s, that still means about 40k lives get wrecked doing something that is no worse than stopping at the local for a pint. What gives? About 30K lives...and I wouldn't say wrecked. And I'd bet they were doing a lot more than just sharing a joint around a campfire. As that CPA dude said, it's usually a plea bargain from a more serious charge. Anyway, it's still a far cry from the half million that Trudeau claims. The point is still the same, It's a wedge issue and to elect an entire government based on this issue is pure stupidity. P.S - I didn't collect the data, the numbers are the numbers. Edited September 9, 2015 by Hal 9000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 About 30K lives...and I wouldn't say wrecked. And I'd bet they were doing a lot more than just sharing a joint around a campfire. As that CPA dude said, it's usually a plea bargain from a more serious charge. Anyway, it's still a far cry from the half million that Trudeau claims. The point is still the same, It's a wedge issue and to elect an entire government based on this issue is pure stupidity. P.S - I didn't collect the data, the numbers are the numbers. What makes you think a government is going to be elected based on this one issue? And JT's #'s were based on a multi year stat. You know, the multiplication thing.Turns out he's about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 What makes you think a government is going to be elected based on this one issue? And JT's #'s were based on a multi year stat. You know, the multiplication thing.Turns out he's about right. OK, 30,000 is a multi-year stat dating back 9 years. If you can show that 475,000 people got criminal records for marijuana possession in the last 9 years, I'll recant everything Ive said. And, I guarantee you there will be the 420 crowd voting for Trudeau based on no other reason than marijuana legalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 About 30K lives...and I wouldn't say wrecked. And I'd bet they were doing a lot more than just sharing a joint around a campfire. As that CPA dude said, it's usually a plea bargain from a more serious charge. Anyway, it's still a far cry from the half million that Trudeau claims. The point is still the same, It's a wedge issue and to elect an entire government based on this issue is pure stupidity. P.S - I didn't collect the data, the numbers are the numbers. Trudeau was wrong but so were you I see you still haven't bothered to look at the definition of cleared. Trudeau used the number of incidents and took it as the number of convictions. You made your numbers up based on your own assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Trudeau was wrong but so were you I see you still haven't bothered to look at the definition of cleared. Trudeau used the number of incidents and took it as the number of convictions. You made your numbers up based on your own assumptions. Sorry, I know what "cleared means". "....also reported the highest proportion of offences cleared by departmental discretion (i.e., by giving a warning, caution, or referral to a community-based program rather than laying a charge)". Read that again...."rather than laying a charge". Edited September 9, 2015 by Hal 9000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Sorry, I know what "cleared means". "....also reported the highest proportion of offences cleared by departmental discretion (i.e., by giving a warning, caution, or referral to a community-based program rather than laying a charge)". Won't it be nice when Harper leaves office, the possession laws are expunged and we can end this waste of time, money, careers, court time, police time, etc', etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Trudeau was wrong but so were you I see you still haven't bothered to look at the definition of cleared. Trudeau used the number of incidents and took it as the number of convictions. You made your numbers up based on your own assumptions. The numbers are from Stats Canada (thanks to OGFT for that) and CANSIM (thanks Cyber). They're not my numbers, they're the numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Sorry, I know what "cleared means". "....also reported the highest proportion of offences cleared by departmental discretion (i.e., by giving a warning, caution, or referral to a community-based program rather than laying a charge)". Read that again...."rather than laying a charge". Are you playing dumb? Well, now you're wrong twice. Maybe since you can't understand the numbers you're trying to interpret, you'll be a bit more understanding towards trudeau. Although you didn't bother to post the link, I see where you got the verbiage from. Maybe you didn't bother to read the part that says this: Of all police-reported drug-related offences in 2013, more than three-quarters (78%) were cleared, or solved, by police. Cleared means solved, not that someone was let off. So the police can clear an incident by laying a charge or by exercising discretion. In fact, if you sum up the number of people charged with marijuana offences, the total is over 310,000. Of those over 220,000 were for simple possession. Trudeau was off but you are even further off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Sorry, I know what "cleared means". "....also reported the highest proportion of offences cleared by departmental discretion ([/size]i.e., by giving a warning, caution, or referral to a [/size]community-based[/size] program rather than laying a charge)".[/size] Read that again...."rather than laying a charge".[/size] Read that again. It's defining "departmental discretion," not "cleared." So no, you don't know what "cleared" means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.