Decriminalization vs. Criminalization

[BubberMiley]

I never understood the vandalism mentality until I got drunk.

[err]

POT?

Oh my god that stuff is evil. I saw a guy smoke it once and he started to laugh. Then he couldn't stop smiling. Before I knew it he had made himself a sandwich and went to sleep. It just as bad as that crack that people die for $10 over. I would much rather my child get drunk and become violent then have them smoke a joint and pass out.

Excellent reply....

[normanchateau]

In retrospect, perhaps it's good that Harper said what he said about not decriminalizing marijuana. There's no need to accuse him of a hidden agenda. His agenda on this topic isn't hidden. It's merely irrational and a reminder that he's a politician of the 1920's. That's when alcohol was legalized and a far less harmful substance like marijuana was criminalized. Despite all the evidence that's been collected since, Harper's position remains irrational and anachronistic.

[normanchateau]

The really beauty of this little exchange is that at least I've got you off your pot crusade...at least for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The other beauty of this exchange is that it provided me with an opportunity to point out that Harper had absolutely nothing novel to contribute to the softwood lumber dispute. He merely parroted Layton/Martin.

On the other hand, I'll give him full credit for saddling CPC with the novel but irrational campaign platform of supporting permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for simple possession of trivial quantities of marijuana.

Even Stockwell Day had the common sense to advocate decriminalization:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1722.html

But Stockwell Day was booted out because the Alliance Party decided that Stephen Harper would be more electable!

[BubberMiley]

Has anyone ever asked Stephen Harper if he ever smoked pot?

[BubberMiley]

yes. The really beauty of this little exchange is that at least I've got you off your pot crusade...at least for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

CPCers just want to bury this issue because they know their position is irrational. When their arguments are shut down, they shut up, say the issue is"not on people's radar," or desperately try to change the subject.

[wellandboy]

yes. The really beauty of this little exchange is that at least I've got you off your pot crusade...at least for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

CPCers just want to bury this issue because they know their position is irrational. When their arguments are shut down, they shut up, say the issue is"not on people's radar," or desperately try to change the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two debates with questions from Canadians about what really concerns them and I don't recall this issue being raised. Off Canadians radar, you bet.

[BubberMiley]

Well-screened questions that concern them. If you take an unscreened media source, like say Mapleleafweb, it's a lot more prominent. It's a major feature issue on the home page and a popular topic in the discussion forum (14 pages and nearly 2000 views so far). That's why I'm lobbying for a very smiley face with red eyes to add to the end of all my posts.

[normanchateau]

CPCers just want to bury this issue because they know their position is irrational. When their arguments are shut down, they shut up, say the issue is"not on people's radar," or desperately try to change the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't say that I blame them given that the alternative is for them to explain why their leader supports permanent criminal records and potential jail terms for possession of even small amounts of the substance.

In 2001, the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association recommended decriminalization pointing out that the harm done by permanent criminal records and jail terms for simple possession far outweigh the minimal health risks of consumption. Source:

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/18...anmedical.shtml

But I suppose medical journals base their recommendations primarily on evidence whereas Harper's position is apparently based on something else.

[normanchateau]

Besides Joe Clark, Stockwell Day, the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, the Liberals, NDP, BQ and 69% of the Canadian population, there's another unlikely supporter of decriminalization...the former leader of the Alliance Party of Canada. Incredible but true.

As Alliance leader, Stephen Harper said he was prepared to go along with decriminalization under certain conditions. To quote Harper, "Our caucus is prepared to support decriminalization of small amounts, but only if the government does a whole lot of things to make that practical." Source:

http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14939.shtml

It is bizarre that Harper, as CPC leader, would take a position even more socially intolerant than the position he took as Alliance leader. Can any CPC supporter explain this or are Harper's actions simply inexplicable?

[BubberMiley]

You also forgot to mention this, from the features page of this website, "the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police argues that law enforcement spends too much of its time and resources on petty drug possession charges while major producers and traffickers expand their operations. Decriminalization, they argue, will free up vital resources."

[BubberMiley]

Unfortunately all adults are not responsible. Why should I support your habit? Oh and if you think there isn't any drug wars with killings going on, think again. Helloooo!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off, you support my habit now by paying for law enforcement and tax amnesty. I'm not sure what you mean by all adults are not responsible--not capable of handling an innocuous product where too much usage gives them a good night's sleep. We're not talking alcohol, where you turn into a raving loogan.

And I never said anything about no drug wars. There are lots of drug wars. That's what decriminalization would stop.

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[BubberMiley]

Good arguement.....let's decriminalize/legalize Crystal Meth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, ironically, it is legal and available in any pharmancy. It's called Desyoxn. No controversy there compared to, say, medical marijuana. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[normanchateau]

You  forgot to mention this, from the features page of this website, "the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police argues that law enforcement spends too much of its time and resources on petty drug possession charges while major producers and traffickers expand their operations. Decriminalization, they argue, will free up vital resources."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I left it out intentionally. Although the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police favours decriminalization and views enforcement of simple possession as an utter waste of police resources, the Canadian Police Association which represents police officer unions opposes decriminalization. I'm trying to look at this objectively (believe it or not) and concluded that the position of the second group would be viewed by some as cancelling out the position of the first group.

The pro-criminalization hysteria of Harper and cohorts is best countered by scientific evidence, medical evidence and a relatively unbiased presentation of the facts. Mentioning the police chiefs requires acknowledgement of the police unions.

Speaking of pro-criminalization hysteria, you might find it interesting to read excerpts from a book on the origins of Canada's cannabis laws in the following link:

http://www.cfdp.ca/giffen.htm

It remains a mystery to legal scholars why marijuana was criminalized in 1923 since this substance, unlike other drugs, was not viewed as a social problem at the time.

[BubberMiley]

Yes, but decriminalization means less money to law enforcement, and no union ever argued to lose work.

[err]

Yes, but decriminalization means less money to law enforcement, and no union ever argued to lose work.

I understood that it was the forestry industry that was one of the big pushers to have pot criminalized.... to prevent the production of commercial hemp for paper.... even though the variation of the hemp plant used for paper production is low in THC, it looks looks just like the "good plant"....

[BubberMiley]

I've heard it was the cotton industry as hemp is much superior. Personally, I always thought it was maybe based on fear of jazz-crazed vipers. And that glazed-over look you get in your eyes when you're high can be a little unnerving to some. In any case, as you can see from this thread, the laws as they are were certainly not based on any reasonable argument.

[normanchateau]

In any case, as you can see from this thread, the laws as they are were certainly not based on any reasonable argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's why CPC apologists have abandoned this thread. Even they can't explain why (1) Harper would support the continued criminalization of small amounts of marijuana as part of his election platform when he could have just clammed up on this issue and (2) why marijuana was criminalized in the first place.

I'm off to South Asia and free of my keyboard for the next three weeks. A lot can happen in the polls in that time.