Drugs: Decriminalization vs. Legalization

[theloniusfleabag]

With this poll, I am assuming that those below choice #2 would include alcohol and prescription drugs.

I believe this country should address, in a forthright manner, the issue of drugs and drug usage in this country.

I do not believe in legalization or decriminalization based on the argument that the 'war on drugs is being lost, so why not legalize them all'. I believe that to be a 'cop-out' excuse.

In my opinion, all plants (such as marijuana, the coca leaf, the 'magic mushroom' and the opium poppy) should be legalized and controlled, as are alcohol and prescription drugs, and all 'artificial drugs', or those that have been 'refined', into a much more potent derivative, such as cocaine, heroin and crystal methamphetamine', etc, should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner.

I see decriminalization as only a half-measure, saving on paperwork and public expenditure, without addressing the issue. It will not end 'grow-ops, nor criminal activity associated with the growing and selling of said drug. I also believe it to be a benign drug, often less harmful than alcohol, and therefore I do not see my stance as hypocritical.

[Cartman]

I voted to keep things the same because any change will anger the US and its just not worth it. Besides, apart from raising the price of drugs and creating criminal records for a few, government policy is irrelevant. People will do drugs regardless of what is written on a piece of paper in Ottawa.

[Whosoever]

I voted to keep things the same because any change will anger the US and its just not worth it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DITTO !!!

[Riverwind]

I see decriminalization as only a half-measure, saving on paperwork and public expenditure, without addressing the issue.

I agree with that statement. Marijuana is either completely legal or illegal. No half measures that just provide easy profits for organized crime.

However, I would like to see it legalized completely because I believe prohibition of marijuana makes it impossible to have sensible conversations with kids about the really dangerous drugs (because of the 'i know they are lying about dope so they must be lying about crystal meth' logic). That said, I agree that it is not a practical thing to do at this time because of the US political environment.

I also have a theory about why marijuana may be a 'gateway' drug: have you ever gone to the beer store and been told by the clerk that you should try this coke because it is 'great stuff'? Forcing people to consort with drug dealers in order to get a product that is not particularly dangerous makes it infinitely more likely that they will try other drugs.

[August1991]

I also have a theory about why marijuana may be a 'gateway' drug: have you ever gone to the beer store and been told by the clerk that you should try this coke because it is 'great stuff'? Forcing people to consort with drug dealers in order to get a product that is not particularly dangerous makes it infinitely more likely that they will try other drugs.

I think that is one justification for the Dutch policy of condoning marijuana use - but being strict on harder drugs such as cocaine.

Let's be honest: Societies such as Yemen where every man is stoned on qat is hardly a model to follow. In Canada, we restrict and tax tobacco and alcohol consumption. Bars must close. Controls are urged on video poker games. For many reasons, I disagree with the Libertarian approach to drugs. But at the same time, making drugs illegal is hardly realistic.

I like the Dutch solution because it is basically pragmatic, and is even illogical. (You can buy and consume marijuana in coffee shops but it is illegal to trade or import it. So, how do the shops get the weed?) Canada seems to be moving towards a similar pragmatic approach to marijuana. It is relatively common to smell marijuana smoke on Montreal streets and I just can't imagine anyone getting busted for smoking a joint in her living room.

I have seen in Amsterdam junkies waiting for needles from dispensaries which is another pragmatic approach to drug use. I guess the same is done in Vancouver.

I have never used cocaine or heroin but I have been around people that did.

Heroin is truly evil; cocaine is just ludicrous. I recall once being the sole "normal" person in a bar in Quebec City (indeed) surrounded by about 20 people who, I realized, were all coked up. (That is, 20 sexy, scintillating conversationalists and one person rolling their eyes.)

The American approach to drugs has a Protestant temperance angle. One forgets too easily that the US passed a constutional amendment for prohibition of alcohol. IMV, this leads to more problems than it solves, and that is why I take a pragmatic view of drugs, abortion and many other moral questions.

A good policy is one which leads to the least waste or harm. There is surely a better way to deal with destructive drug addictions than to send about 1% or 2% of the population to prison, and wreck the lives of many families. But legalization would also be harmful.

[err]

However, I would like to see it legalized completely because I believe prohibition of marijuana makes it impossible to have sensible conversations with kids about the really dangerous drugs (because of the 'i know they are lying about dope so they must be lying about crystal meth' logic). That said, I agree that it is not a practical thing to do at this time because of the US political environment.

I completely agree with this argument pertaining to children. The USA... I think what will piss them off the most is the boost in US tourism to Canada that such a move would make....

I also have a theory about why marijuana may be a 'gateway' drug: ...... forcing people to consort with drug dealers in order to get a product that is not particularly dangerous makes it infinitely more likely that they will try other drugs.

makes sense to me...

I once heard the stats on marijuana useage in Canada and was blown away by the numbers... I don't have them on front of me, but it was higher than 10%... Reducing the sales of billions of dollars of drugs to the underground, and putting them in the country's coffers might make sense...

Further, think about how many drunks beat their wives... crash cars, etc... It is my understanding that marijuana causes its user to become more introverted, and highly unlikely to wish to participate in any form of violence, mad driving, etc...

However, there are those who take black and white views, and will condemn marijuana use and in the same breath, approve the social use of alcohol... which I think that evidence shows to be the worse of the two....

I'll leave you with a quote from George Washington's diary:

There's nothing more relaxing at the end of a hard day than sitting by the fire and smoking some hemp.

[FTA Lawyer]

I see decriminalization as only a half-measure, saving on paperwork and public expenditure, without addressing the issue.

I agree with that statement. Marijuana is either completely legal or illegal. No half measures that just provide easy profits for organized crime.

However, I would like to see it legalized completely because I believe prohibition of marijuana makes it impossible to have sensible conversations with kids about the really dangerous drugs (because of the 'i know they are lying about dope so they must be lying about crystal meth' logic). That said, I agree that it is not a practical thing to do at this time because of the US political environment.

I also have a theory about why marijuana may be a 'gateway' drug: have you ever gone to the beer store and been told by the clerk that you should try this coke because it is 'great stuff'? Forcing people to consort with drug dealers in order to get a product that is not particularly dangerous makes it infinitely more likely that they will try other drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could not agree more with Sparhawk on this one...and generally speaking, the Senate Review Committee on Cannibis said the same thing. They recommended full legalization in part because decriminalization meant that you'd still have to be in contact with criminals in order to get your joints...plus, the criminals would still make their boatloads of cash with their illegal grow-ops, and there would continue to be absolutely no quality control aspect to greatly reduce the risks of getting some "bad shit" laced into your bud.

One of the issues raised by the Senate Committee however, was the issued of "impaired driving" when the impairment was due to marijuana. The practical problem is twofold:

1. The impairing effects of marijuana are greatly increased when the individual also is drinking alcohol (i.e. the combination of the two is particularly troublesome and quite common)

2. There is no simple test for marijuana impairment like the roadside screening device and breathalyzer that we all know is used for alcohol.

As I say, practically speaking, as a society, if we want to legalize marijuana we will have to develop something to fill this gap, because there is too much risk in having people stoned on yet one more readily available drug.

FTA Lawyer

[cybercoma]

I do not believe in legalization or decriminalization based on the argument that the 'war on drugs is being lost, so why not legalize them all'. I believe that to be a 'cop-out' excuse.

How about the argument that criminalizing marijuana has pushed it underground into the hands of organized crime, just as prohibition did with alcohol. Instead of mobsters running around with tommy guns, we have kids as the footsoldiers running around with automatic weapons and killing each other. Legalizing marijuana and other harsher drugs would keep them regulated, which would make them safer and it would stop people from having to seek out criminals from whom to buy it.

Also, regulating harsher drugs would make them safer. Buying from random criminals means the product is going to have varying degrees of chemicals in it and various degrees of purity. Putting controls on dosages and what can be in these drugs would make them safer for those who choose to use them.

In a free society, shouldn't every adult citizen be free to decide for him/herself what he/she can put into his/her own body? Stealing, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, murder and every other crime that drugs get blamed for are already on the books and people involved in those activities should be charged with those crimes. Any law abiding citizen that doesn't get him/herself in trouble that way, shouldn't risk being thrown in jail for making the free decision to consume something.

Now, I personally don't do drugs, but if someone chooses to throw their life away on them, I see it as being no different than alcohol or even food. The effects of those when abused are quite severe as well and although food doesn't impair your motorskills, it can be quite damaging to your health when you don't eat properly. As free adults everyone should be able to make their own choices in life.

[cybercoma]

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the United States controls the underground drug trade and that's why they're so damn powerful.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

I also have a theory about why marijuana may be a 'gateway' drug:

It is very true, a sentiment I share. As to 'gateway drugs', truly, marijuana is one only because of the illegality itself. Alcohol is almost always the first 'gateway drug' for mood altering substances.

That said, I agree that it is not a practical thing to do at this time because of the US political environment.

I say 'screw the US political environment'. Smoking pot is huge in the US (my wife's sister and husband just moved here from the US..the wife doesn't smoke it, but claims "It is the national pastime"). Further, they seem to think that it is just fine that 'B.C. bud' is being traded pound for pound for Crack-Cocaine that is entering Canada....the 'evil weed' is terrible, but let Canadians have that Crack!

cybercoma,

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the United States controls the underground drug trade and that's why they're so damn powerful.

There is plenty of evidence that the CIA has been involved in the cocaine trade from South America, and the Heroin trade in Asia.

[Whosoever]

I recall once being the sole "normal" person in a bar in Quebec City (indeed) surrounded by about 20 people who, I realized, were all coked up. (That is, 20 sexy, scintillating conversationalists and one person rolling their eyes.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure they weren't just pleasently boozed up?

My friend, Aristophanes, says:

"When men drink, then they are rich and successful and win lawsuits and are happy and help their friends. ....... Quickly, bring me a beaker of wine, so that I may wet my mind and say somethig clever."

From my experience, pilsner works JUST as good as wine.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

and there would continue to be absolutely no quality control aspect to greatly reduce the risks of getting some "bad shit" laced into your bud.

I cannnot say for certainh that this does not happen anymore, but I haven't heard of this happening since the 70's (perhaps early 80's). It used to be that one could stumble across 'laced weed' that had been sprinkled with PCP, or 'angel dust', but not for some time, as that drug is strictly controlled now.

One of the issues raised by the Senate Committee however, was the issued of "impaired driving" when the impairment was due to marijuana. The practical problem is twofold:

A study done by a Canadian city's law enforcement actually showed that marijuana smokers were, on average, safer drivers than both drunk and 'straight' drivers...not that I am condoning 'driving while impaired'.

1. The impairing effects of marijuana are greatly increased when the individual also is drinking alcohol (i.e. the combination of the two is particularly troublesome and quite common)

This is true, including prescription drugs. Having six+ beers and THEN smoking a joint is usually a good recipe to make the ceiling go 'round and 'round and beer nuts to spew forth.

2. There is no simple test for marijuana impairment like the roadside screening device and breathalyzer that we all know is used for alcohol.

Some have been developed, but the reason is that there has presently been no need. If the police nationwide offer a contract to buy a bunch, you can bet it will be developed by tomorrow.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I like the Dutch solution because it is basically pragmatic, and is even illogical.  (You can buy and consume marijuana in coffee shops but it is illegal to trade or import it.  So, how do the shops get the weed?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm...grow it?

[Shakeyhands]

decriminalization of MJ makes more sense to me than legalization.

[Guest eureka]

What do people understand to be the difference between "legalization" and "decriminalization?

[FTA Lawyer]

What do people understand to be the difference between "legalization" and "decriminalization?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Decriminalization means that possession of marijuana would still be "illegal", but would be punished by way of a small fine...like with a traffic ticket.

Legalization would of course put it in the same status as alcohol...still some rules and regs, but otherwise fully legal to possess.

Of course, the current position being put forth by the feds would be to decriminalize possession of only small amounts (under 30 g).

Growing and trafficking would still be criminal offences.

FTA Lawyer

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

What do people understand to be the difference between "legalization" and "decriminalization?

Further to FTA Lawyers' excellent response, the purpose of decriminalization is to end the 'felony' charges for possession of small amounts of weed, and have it a 'misdemeanor', with incredibly less work for the courts. Not only would they have to press and convict on charges, almost all of the 'convicted' apply for pardons, entailing more paperwork, and those caught with a joint are, for now, still in the same 'criminal class' as thieves, murderers and rapists...

Shakeyhands,

decriminalization of MJ makes more sense to me than legalization.

I used to think so too, but then I realized that it doesn't touch the issues of getting grow-ops out of neighborhoods, establishing regulations on age of use, etc. Besides, there is one organization more powerful than the police, and the courts, that would then be in charge of everyone following any rules set down...the most heinous of them all...Revenue Canada.

[Guest eureka]

My question comes from the understanding of "people"; the "man in the Street." I suspect that most think that decriminalization means legalizarion and that we are going to get an awful lot of new criminals who don't know that they are criminals.

[Shakeyhands]

What do people understand to be the difference between "legalization" and "decriminalization?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Decriminalization means that possession of marijuana would still be "illegal", but would be punished by way of a small fine...like with a traffic ticket.

Legalization would of course put it in the same status as alcohol...still some rules and regs, but otherwise fully legal to possess.

Of course, the current position being put forth by the feds would be to decriminalize possession of only small amounts (under 30 g).

Growing and trafficking would still be criminal offences.

FTA Lawyer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There fore taxable like cigarettes or alcohol.... interesting.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

My question comes from the understanding of "people"; the "man in the Street."

'John Q. Public' would find out quite easily from the media about what the specifics would be. The Liberals have said they were going to table it twice now, but then shelved it both times. (First time was due to an election, the second I believe is due to only having a minority gov't. ) I think just about every media pundit, journalist and 'blogger' will have a say about this one, from those extolling it to those abhoring it. There will be no dearth of info or opinion on this one, should it come to pass.

[shoop]

FTA clearly doesn't smoke or keep up to date.

The original amount proposed was up to 30 grams. For those of you who do smoke that is a little over an ounce - which is a ton of weed. (excuse the pun)

The most recent version of the bill has reduced the amount for possession to 7 grams, a quarter.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The original amount proposed was up to 30 grams. For those of you who do smoke that is a little over an ounce -  which is a ton of weed. (excuse the pun)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't say an ounce is a ton of weed. I'd say its the rough equivalent of 2 flats of beer.

[apollo19]

I'd like to see all drugs legalized, just so that people have more personal freedom with these things -- however, it should be banned from being displayed in public areas. I don't care if people want to shootup in their apartment, but taking it to a shared common is just wrong. This approach would also make it easier for police to ticket people in plain sight, and stop some revenues of organized crime.

[err]

The original amount proposed was up to 30 grams. For those of you who do smoke that is a little over an ounce -  which is a ton of weed. (excuse the pun)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't say an ounce is a ton of weed. I'd say its the rough equivalent of 2 flats of beer.

That would be about if you can get high off just one beer.....

[err]

Further to FTA Lawyers' excellent response, the purpose of decriminalization is to end the 'felony' charges for possession of small amounts of weed, and have it a 'misdemeanor', with incredibly less work for the courts. Not only would they have to press and convict on charges, almost all of the 'convicted' apply for pardons, entailing more paperwork, and those caught with a joint are, for now, still in the same 'criminal class' as thieves, murderers and rapists...

However, if you have as much as posession of a single joint on your record, you can forget being admitted into the "land of the free", just south of us.... Which, given the magnitude of the crime, in many circumstances is an unreasonable punishment... It could result in loss of employment with an international firm.... Inability to attend family funerals, etc....