Harper won't siften marijuana possession laws

[tml12]

I've a question for anyone who argues against legalizing/decriminalizing pot due to concerns with impaired driving: are you also demanding booze be made illegal?

It seem the only reason Canada is being dragged down morally concerning SSM, marijuana, attack on Christian beliefs and other liberal amenities is because of Liberal immature policies.

How is marijuana a moral issue?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It isn't, but I'm with Harper on this one, I've seen first hand what pot can lead to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you seen what a needless criminal record WILL do to a person?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I was a teen, I went through my "phase" and most certainly I have seen what pot can do, but I have also seen otherwise law-abiding honour students get in trouble for just wanting to smoke here and there.

Pot IS a gateway drug for some, others no. I think decriminalization is not the worst thing...and certainly we give pot to people with cancer and neurological disorders like MS.

I think decriminalization makes sense.

[Montgomery Burns]

If the one poster is correct about 47% of Canadians supporting the legalization of marijuana, that does not speak well for Canadians. I do not want this country to turn into another Netherlands where dope is sold and smoked in coffee houses. But I am suspicious of that 47% figure and would like to see some proof.

However I do think that people should not be subjected to a criminal record for possessing a small amount of pot. However, I believe that the amount allowed is not small; I believe it is 14 grams--which is a lot of weed.

I have heard that pot is a gateway to harder drugs, but I am not sure that I agree with that.

I think that once you legalize pot, what drug would be next to be legalized? That said, I think decriminalization for small amounts is reasonable and fair. Why get a criminal record if you are caught with a couple of joints?

Besides, the pot that the govt has grown for people for medicinal purposes has been crappy pot.

The govt can't even do that right.

[Biblio Bibuli]

However I do think that people should not be subjected to a criminal record for possessing a small amount of pot.  However, I believe that the amount allowed is not small; I believe it is 14 grams--which is a lot of weed.

I have heard that pot is a gateway to harder drugs, but I am not sure that I agree with that. 

I think that once you legalize pot, what drug would be next to be legalized?  That said, I think decriminalization for small amounts is reasonable and fair.  Why get a criminal record if you are caught with a couple of joints?     

Besides, the pot that the govt has grown for people for medicinal purposes has been crappy pot.

The govt can't even do that right. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OLOLOLOLOLOL!

[normanchateau]

So why is Harper willing to make a bad drug strategy even worse?

Because his policies are not evidence-based. They often appear driven solely by what he feels might appeal to the emotions and shaking jowls of CPC supporters.

[normanchateau]

If the one poster is correct about 47% of Canadians supporting the legalization of marijuana, that does not speak well for Canadians.    But I am suspicious of that 47% figure and would like to see some proof.

Here's one source for that 47% figure:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/publicop...canadalegal.cfm

And here's that figure again along with some additional information:

http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html

I encourage those who go to the second link to click on ARREST STATS.

Stephen Harper said this weekend in British Columbia of all places, ,that he opposes the government bill (which the Liberals, BQ and NDP support) to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. But he's not said why he opposes it. Can any CPC supporters explain his rationale?

At this point, 1.5 million Canadians have criminal records for simple possession. Is this not enough for Harper? How many does he hope will be arrested eventually for simple possession? Are his reasons economic? Certainly the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year arresting, prosecuting and jailing young people for possession of marijuana does keep a large number of people employed.

[shoop]

Playing to his base, a la Paul Martin.

I personally don't agree with the policy, but that is part of being a grown up. Not *everything* Stephen Harper does is right and not *everything* Paul Martin does is wrong. On the balance of issues I prefer Harper.

We get the point you hate Harper. Why come here, where people are trying to debate issues and hammer your point over and over and over again. Does it make you feel good? Do you feel like you are helping Canada that much by your rude behaviour and ignoring the rules of the board with your constant put downs of Stephen Harper?

Can any CPC supporters explain his rationale? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Do you feel like you are helping Canada that much by your rude behaviour and ignoring the rules of the board with your constant put downs of Stephen Harper?

What rules of the board am I ignoring? The point of this thread is that Harper said he does not support the decriminalization of marijuana. The other major parties do.

Is it ignoring a rule of the board to ask what rationale Harper has in opposing the decriminalization? Is Harper helping Canada by wanting to send young people to jail for possession of small amounts of marijuana?

[southerncomfort]

If the one poster is correct about 47% of Canadians supporting the legalization of marijuana, that does not speak well for Canadians.  I do not want this country to turn into another Netherlands where dope is sold and smoked in coffee houses.  But I am suspicious of that 47% figure and would like to see some proof.

However I do think that people should not be subjected to a criminal record for possessing a small amount of pot.  However, I believe that the amount allowed is not small; I believe it is 14 grams--which is a lot of weed.

I have heard that pot is a gateway to harder drugs, but I am not sure that I agree with that. 

I think that once you legalize pot, what drug would be next to be legalized?  That said, I think decriminalization for small amounts is reasonable and fair.  Why get a criminal record if you are caught with a couple of joints?     

Besides, the pot that the govt has grown for people for medicinal purposes has been crappy pot.

The govt can't even do that right. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right on!!! The liberals want to legalize prostitution too, its a slippery slope, just look at the Netherlands for that example.

I don't agree with all of the CPC policies, I disagree with the embrionic research statement totally, and would prefer they didn't revisit SSM, but thats how it goes. legalizing pot is a minor issue today. And yup, I do believe its a gateway drug, but no time to debatge this these days, have a campaign office opening to get to.

[normanchateau]

It isn't, but I'm with Harper on this one, I've seen first hand what pot can lead to

What have you seen? It's the old gateway drug myth.

I believe that weed is the least harmfull of any recreational drug, alcohol included.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marijuana is not only less harmful than alcohol but also less harmful than nicotine.

So why does Harper think that marijuana possession should result in young people going to jail while possession of a substance far more harmful to society and the individual, alcohol, is perfectly acceptable? Here's my theory and it's just that, a theory.

Conservatives are not huge proponents of social change. Here's one dictionary definition of conservative, "...tending or disposed to maintain existing views, habits, conditions, i.e., traditional." Canada criminalized marijuana in the 1920's and while criminalization was not based on any scientific or medical evidence, it's become a tradition. Previously various provinces prohibited the sale of alcohol but the alcohol prohibition laws were repealed in the 1920's. The US did not repeal prohibition laws until 1933 which meant that Canada supplied illegal US alcohol in the interim.

So in Canada, alcohol was legalized and coincidentally, marijuana was criminalized in the 1920's. What if it had been the other way around? Marijuana would today be legal but alcohol possession could result in jail sentences. What would conservatives and traditionalists be saying today? That alcohol is a far more harmful substance than marijuana , that it's a gateway drug, that it's linked to organized crime etc., etc. My point is that Stephen Harper's position today is based on conservative traditionalism and has nothing to do with reason or scientific evidence. If his position is even remotely rational, can a CPC supporter explain it? It's an irrational position based not on reason, not on evidence but merely on random and arbitary tradition.

Even on opposition to same sex marriage, I can see rational reasons why some might have this view. I may not agree with those reasons but at least they're explicable. But who, other than Harper, can possibly explain why he wants to throw people in jail for possession of a substance less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes?

[tml12]

It isn't, but I'm with Harper on this one, I've seen first hand what pot can lead to

What have you seen? It's the old gateway drug myth.

I believe that weed is the least harmfull of any recreational drug, alcohol included.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marijuana is not only less harmful than alcohol but also less harmful than nicotine.

So why does Harper think that marijuana possession should result in young people going to jail while possession of a substance far more harmful to society and the individual, alcohol, is perfectly acceptable? Here's my theory and it's just that, a theory.

Conservatives are not huge proponents of social change. Here's one dictionary definition of conservative, "...tending or disposed to maintain existing views, habits, conditions, i.e., traditional." Canada criminalized marijuana in the 1920's and while criminalization was not based on any scientific or medical evidence, it's become a tradition. Previously various provinces prohibited the sale of alcohol but the alcohol prohibition laws were repealed in the 1920's. The US did not repeal prohibition laws until 1933 which meant that Canada supplied illegal US alcohol in the interim.

So in Canada, alcohol was legalized and coincidentally, marijuana was criminalized in the 1920's. What if it had been the other way around? Marijuana would today be legal but alcohol possession could result in jail sentences. What would conservatives and traditionalists be saying today? That alcohol is a far more harmful substance than marijuana , that it's a gateway drug, that it's linked to organized crime etc., etc. My point is that Stephen Harper's position today is based on conservative traditionalism and has nothing to do with reason or scientific evidence. If his position is even remotely rational, can a CPC supporter explain it? It's an irrational position based not on reason, not on evidence but merely on random and arbitary tradition.

Even on opposition to same sex marriage, I can see rational reasons why some might have this view. I may not agree with those reasons but at least they're explicable. But who, other than Harper, can possibly explain why he wants to throw people in jail for possession of a substance less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably because they see weed as a gateway drug.

[normanchateau]

Probably because they see weed as a gateway drug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If so, Harper hasn't said so. I prefer the theory that they merely oppose any move away from what's traditional.

[Black Dog]

Right on!!! The liberals want to legalize prostitution too, its a slippery slope, just look at the Netherlands for that example.

Yeah, the Netherlands, with their lower rates of drug use and incareration are such a bad example....

Probably because they see weed as a gateway drug.

Which is why I see them as ass-backwards reactionaries.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Right on!!! The liberals want to legalize prostitution too, its a slippery slope, just look at the Netherlands for that example.

Yeah, the Netherlands, with their lower rates of drug use and incareration are such a bad example....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The funny thing is that in the Netherlands they never did legilize marijuana. They just closed their eyes to it.

And the only reason we all think it's legal there is because they keep their eyes fully shut to it.

And that's the route we should take, IMHO.

[normanchateau]

The funny thing is that in the Netherlands they never did legilize marijuana. They just closed their eyes to it.

And the only reason we all think it's legal there is because they keep their eyes fully shut to it.

And that's the route we should take, IMHO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, I disagree that we should do that even though that's the Dutch approach. That's the approach that's already in place in BC and it leads to disrespect and contempt for the law.

The Netherlands has a problem in that cafes can sell marijuana and police look the other way. But the Dutch can't cultivate marijuana or they're charged with breaking the law. So the cafes import marijuana from foreign countries. If the Dutch could cultivate it, this would be a source of government revenue rather than sending the revenue to foreign countries.

The Fraser Institute advocates legalization and taxation of cultivation in Canada and performed a cost/benefit analysis showing that Canada would generate billions which otherwise goes to organized crime. Hundreds of millions would also be saved in law enforcement costs. The VVD, a right-of-centre, fiercely pro-business political party in the Netherlands advocates exactly the same thing as the Fraser Institute approach. The VVD is fiscally conservative but is not socially conservative.

[shoop]

Ahhh, that explains your incoherent posts and violent temper. You are high most of the time. Good on ya!

Nope, I disagree that we should do that even though that's the Dutch approach.  That's the approach that's already in place in BC and it leads to disrespect and contempt for the law.

The Netherlands has a problem in that cafes can sell marijuana and police look the other way.  But the Dutch can't cultivate marijuana or they're charged with breaking the law.  So the cafes import marijuana from foreign countries.  If the Dutch could cultivate it, this would be a source of government revenue rather than sending the revenue to foreign countries. 

The Fraser Institute advocates legalization and taxation of cultivation in Canada and performed a cost/benefit analysis showing that Canada would generate billions which otherwise goes to organized crime. Hundreds of millions would also be saved in law enforcement costs.  The VVD, a right-of-centre, fiercely pro-business political party in the Netherlands advocates exactly the same thing as the Fraser Institute approach. The VVD is fiscally conservative but is not socially conservative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Ahhh, that explains your incoherent posts and violent temper. You are high most of the time. Good on ya!

Please try not to engage in personal attacks.

[shoop]

How is any of what I said a personal attack?

I can provide multiple examples of both your violent temper and your incoherent posts....

Please try not to engage in personal attacks. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

How is any of what I said a personal attack?

I can provide multiple examples of both your violent temper and your incoherent posts....

Please try not to engage in personal attacks. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please try not to engage in personal attacks.

[shoop]

See, I can play the same game where I just paste my previous statement into a new thread. How original I am! At least this little game is keeping you from your continual attacks.

How is any of what I said a personal attack?

I can provide multiple examples of both your violent temper and your incoherent posts....

How is any of what I said a personal attack?

I can provide multiple examples of both your violent temper and your incoherent posts....

Please try not to engage in personal attacks. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please try not to engage in personal attacks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[tml12]

Probably because they see weed as a gateway drug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If so, Harper hasn't said so. I prefer the theory that they merely oppose any move away from what's traditional.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That too but they have also got to believe the gateway drug stuff (most Conservatives do...)

[normanchateau]

That too but they have also got to believe the gateway drug stuff (most Conservatives do...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably but if so they haven't read the Canada Senate Special Committee Report on Illegal Drugs. That committee was chaired by a Conservative Senator and concluded that marijuana was not a gateway drug and that marijuana should be legalized. See:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5285

[tml12]

That too but they have also got to believe the gateway drug stuff (most Conservatives do...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably but if so they haven't read the Canada Senate Special Committee Report on Illegal Drugs. That committee was chaired by a Conservative Senator and concluded that marijuana was not a gateway drug and that marijuana should be legalized. See:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5285

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I support marijuana decriminalization, although it will not be the defining issue when I officially endorse a candidate in January...

[normanchateau]

I support marijuana decriminalization, although it will not be the defining issue when I officially endorse a candidate in January...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It won't be the defining issue for me either. Nonetheless, Harper's position is certainly not evidence-based and therefore his irrational opposition to decriminalization does not enhance his credibility with the undecided voters that he needs to capture. His position suggests that he never read the Nolin Senate Special Committee Report.

[Canuck E Stan]

And I doubt anybody else has either.Smokers and non.

[normanchateau]

And I doubt anybody else has either.Smokers and non.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read it two years ago. If Harper believes that young people should be thrown in jail for possession of small amounts, he should read it. His position is irrational and inconsistent with the evidence.