Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) 1. It may not be as easy as you claim and they may not want to waste time on an interim step. Huh? They simply table an amendment to the current laws removing Pot........They're not rewriting the Magna Carta 2. They may be concerned that decriminalization may give legalization opponents to convince the public that's good enough and there is no reason to legalize Huh? The Liberals made their intention quite clear, an interim decriminalization of Pot until full legalization will halt any future (or pending before the courts) Pot related convictions........ Do you want to be the last guy charged with having some dope on them in Canada? 3. If they decriminalized, it would be interpreted by many as a sign that they never intended to legalize and they would feel betrayed. Look at Huxley's reaction to a random media story which had nothing to do with the Liberals. Who cares if they intend to legalize it.........inversely, if they take years legalizing it and people are still getting criminal records over Pot I'd imagine the Huxley's would be as equally pissed. Edited January 9, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 It seems that, in order to win the support of the international bodies that we need the support of, the government is framing this from a least harm point of view. Decriminalization comes with no laws and no safety standards. Oh, like it is now? The difference with interim decriminalization is that the day it receives Royal Assent nobody can be charged with having dope on them......... Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Huh? They simply table an amendment to the current laws removing Pot........They're not rewriting the Magna Carta Huh? The Liberals made their intention quite clear, an interim decriminalization of Pot until full legalization will halt any future (or pending before the courts) Pot related convictions........ Do you want to be the last guy charged with having some dope on them in Canada? Who cares if they intend to legalize it.........inversely, if they take years legalizing it and people are still getting criminal records over Pot I'd imagine the Huxley's would be as equally pissed. k... I said there COULD be reasons but I don't speak for the Liberals. Go and ask them. However, I will say that I'm not in favor of anything that could potentially sidetrack full legalization. If you think you have a great idea, fine but nobody here can help you with that. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
On Guard for Thee Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 It's a smart move because Blair will be best positioned to face down the law-and-order freaks who will oppose this. He will carry credibility when he says that prohibition is counter-productive. I have to wonder if this is a big part of the reason Trudeau recruited him.I think Trudeau has made some smart moves with various appointments. Ralph Goodale to try and fix C 51 comes to mind. The Bill Blair thing surprised me the first I heard of it, but then it all seemed to make very good sense. A man of law to get rid of a bad law. Got it. Quote
Smallc Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Oh, like it is now? The difference with interim decriminalization is that the day it receives Royal Assent nobody can be charged with having dope on them......... There is a law now, last I checked. If they're framing it as a safety, security, and social issue, they need to do it right. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 k... I said there COULD be reasons but I don't speak for the Liberals. Go and ask them. Why would I do that? I have no dog in this fight, but I could understand the displeasure from any pot users that get charged in the interim. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 There is a law now, last I checked. If they're framing it as a safety, security, and social issue, they need to do it right. How does removing the possibility of criminal charges, in the interim, effect any of that? Quote
Smallc Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 How does removing the possibility of criminal charges, in the interim, effect any of that? It removes all restrictions around it. It does nothing to encourage treatment. It does nothing to keep it away from kids and teenagers. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 It removes all restrictions around it. That's the point. It does nothing to encourage treatment. It does nothing to keep it away from kids and teenagers. Like it does presently? Quote
Smallc Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Like it does presently? Currently, it's illegal. That is the (ineffective safe guard) if the point is to reduce the harm from the drug, you need legalization with safe guards. Decriminalization does not fit the narrative that the government has chosen to use. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Currently, it's illegal. That is the (ineffective safe guard) if the point is to reduce the harm from the drug, you need legalization with safe guards. Decriminalization does not fit the narrative that the government has chosen to use. Decriminalization wouldn't equate to making pot more dangerous then it already is illegal, but would halt criminal convictions until it became legal. Quote
eyeball Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) I see this turning out to be like the beer industry which wouldn't be such a bad thing. Most of the product will be mass produced by big business which can squeeze costs. Some 'craft pot' will be produced by smaller companies (just like the craft brew industry today). . I agree I just doubt it will be any time soon. And you will be able to grow a couple plants in your backyard. One last thing. The greatest health risk I see in all of this is the potency and the attendant potential for health risks. Today's pot is much more potent than it used to be and there is some evidence that the increased potency translates into increased health risk. It would only take a few bad outcomes to allow all the law-and-order freaks out there to turn public opinion. The government needs to gather some scientific evidence and set rules on potency - and those rules need to apply across the board. Out in your backyard where kids can find it you mean? Talk about freaking out the usual suspects. I also think growing your own will run afoul of potency fears, in fact I'd argue it will be the central argument against allowing it. Oh well, I guess if you're that determined to hurt yourself the state will still happily sell you all the booze you need to kill yourself with. What about the health risks from users smoking more bunk to get the same effect they could from smoking a smaller amount of higher quality produce? They're going to over-regulate and over-priced it, they just won't be able to help themselves. The cost will make the gun registry look like a shrewd investment and leave plenty of opportunity for the black market to remain profitable. Edited January 9, 2016 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
ReeferMadness Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 They're going to over-regulate and over-priced it, they just won't be able to help themselves. The cost will make the gun registry look like a shrewd investment and leave plenty of opportunity for the black market to remain profitable. Maybe. But the good news is that they couldn't possibly make it any worse than prohibition. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Smallc Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Decriminalization wouldn't equate to making pot more dangerous then it already is illegal,That's debatable. Right now, no one is supposed to have it. You can't protect children if its no longer illegal for someone to sell it to them or for them to posses it. Quote
overthere Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 I think Trudeau has made some smart moves with various appointments. Ralph Goodale to try and fix C 51 comes to mind. The Bill Blair thing surprised me the first I heard of it, but then it all seemed to make very good sense. A man of law to get rid of a bad law. Got it. Nah, it has been sent to the wilderness and Blairs instructions won't be in writing, but they will be summarized as 'don't come back soon Bill". It is a minefield for Trudeau, and even when he wins he loses. Ordinary citizens don't really give a rats ass about this, and the 'wake n bake' crowd have already forgotten. Trudeau won't and cannot afford to invest much political capital in this 'promise'. Luckily for him, the complexitiy of it all means it could take years. His best bet is to try to scratcvh it from the Criminal Code, dump it all on the provinces to administer, tax, do what they want as long as he doesn;t have to speak about it. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Nah, it has been sent to the wilderness and Blairs instructions won't be in writing, but they will be summarized as 'don't come back soon Bill". Ludicrous. It was one of the Liberal's signature promises. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Nah, it has been sent to the wilderness and Blairs instructions won't be in writing, but they will be summarized as 'don't come back soon Bill". It is a minefield for Trudeau, and even when he wins he loses. Ordinary citizens don't really give a rats ass about this, and the 'wake n bake' crowd have already forgotten. Trudeau won't and cannot afford to invest much political capital in this 'promise'. Luckily for him, the complexitiy of it all means it could take years. His best bet is to try to scratcvh it from the Criminal Code, dump it all on the provinces to administer, tax, do what they want as long as he doesn;t have to speak about it. It's actually not Blair's bailiwick, it has been handed to Goodale and Justice Miister Wilson Raybould. Goodale has had a umber of interviews on it, one just yesterday on PnP. Canadians may have put all politics to the back burner now the election is over, but I suspect they will want this flawed bill fixed before they start getting busted by CSIS, because they happened to chat on the internet about ISIS. Quote
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.