Decriminalization vs. Criminalization

[normanchateau]

It seems to me that many who are outraged that the government would dare to ban handguns are not outraged at the notion of permanent criminal records and even jail time for simple possession of tiny amounts of marijuana. Statistics on deaths by hand guns are plentiful but deaths due to marijuana consumption are not.

There is something completely irrational about laws, first introduced in the 1920's, to decriminalize a harmful substance like alcohol and concurrently criminalize a less harmful substance like marijuana.

Should hand guns be criminalized? I'm not sure but hand guns certainly kill more people than marijuana consumption does. Why do people think it's perfectly acceptable for the government to arrest their citizens for possession of a relatively harmless plant but it's not acceptable to ban lethal weapons like hand guns? Both involve government intrusion into citizens' affairs.

[PocketRocket]

Personally, I think they're wrong in both cases.

Pot, legalize it, and license its sale.

Handguns, legalize them, but they must be registered, and maintain, and enforce, our current ban on carrying.

[sharkman]

Normie, you ol' pot crusader! You keep harping, but you have your facts wrong. With our present justice system, people do not get jail time for pot possession, let alone GROW-OPS.

ONLY 40% of those convicted of having grow-ops get any jail time. These are the people that the CPC want to go after, not someone with a couple joints on his person. Here's the link:

http://www.hempology.com/archives/001616.html

Why don't you show me some numbers on people who get jail time for tiny amounts of marijuana possession, or can you?

Well, gee, autos kill many more people than handguns so maybe the Liberals should go after those murderering car owners next. Banning handguns will have as much success as the gun registry and cost a kazillion times more than stated as well. People that predicted the gun registry was just part of a long term plan for confiscation are looking not so wild eyed any more.

[BubberMiley]

Why no mention of his main point, permanent criminal records, sharkman?

[sharkman]

Why no mention of his main point, permanent criminal records, sharkman?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because I don't have any independant info on that, and I've learned that Norman is not exactly a shining example of objectivity on the pot issue, his facts can't be trusted until he starts providing links.

I notice, however, you didn't bother to disagree with my numbers Bubber.

[Black Dog]

Normie, you ol' pot crusader! You keep harping, but you have your facts wrong. With our present justice system, people do not get jail time for pot possession, let alone GROW-OPS.

About 5 per cent of those charged with simple possession go to jail. Last year, there were 67,832 cananbis-related arrests. 48,052 were for possession. -StatsCan

[BubberMiley]

What numbers? The 40% grow-op convictions? Yeah, that sounds high to me too, considering a lot of them are just people minding their own business growing an inoccuous plant in their basement.

[sharkman]

Normie says people are getting convictions for possessing tiny amounts of pot. You concur with the 40% number of grow-op owners who get convictions, saying it's too high. At what point do you think a grow-op owner should do time? 50 plants or 500? At any rate, I'd like to see what's in your basement!

Maybe the big bad police should just mind their own business and let the Asian gangs knock off these 'small time' grow-ops that dig into their business here in B.C. You ever wonder why there's so many grow-ops that get outed to the police or firemen. "We received a call about an incident on this property and when we investigated, we found this grow-op."

Still waiting for Norman to provide some links for jail time on 'tiny' amounts of pot.

[BubberMiley]

Nothing in my basement but a lot of crap for a garage sale next spring, Sharkman.

Nonetheless, I've always felt strongly that the only reason those plants are illegal is to maintain the black market that feeds all those powers-what-be. If Mr. averagejoe were allowed a plant or two in his basement for personal use, those asian gangs would lose a major revenue source. If everything was legal and above board, we could also prevent the fire hazards etc. that exist out there now.

Of course, the CPC would never agree to that. Makes you wonder who's in bed with organized crime.

[normanchateau]

About 5 per cent of those charged with simple possession go to jail. Last year, there were 67,832 cananbis-related arrests. 48,052 were for possession. -StatsCan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Black Dog and here's another link to the 5%:

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

That link also points out that 65% of all Canadians arrested for marijuana-related

crimes are actually arrested for simple possession, i.e., less than 30 grams.

I've still not heard an explanation as to why Harper favours the continued criminalization

of marijuana. Given that criminalization is irrational, surely he'd have some reason for

explaining why the 69% of Canadians who favour decriminalization are obviously wrong.

[sharkman]

Ah, I didn't notice blackdog's find. So only 5% of those charged with possession do jail time. It follows that these would be the worst offenders not those with tiny amounts, I doubt the Police even bother to charge someone for a single joint, knowing they have a 5% chance of getting convicted.

So it seems you've been sounding off on every thread about the pot possession=jail time theme all week for nothing, Norman. And how many links have you supplied to back up your claims? I think this is the first one, and only after you were directly challenged. Which issue will you wildly misrepresent next? No doubt another one that slanders the CPC, you are rather predictable.

Edited December 9, 2005 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

The only reason any party would defend the status quo is they have a stake in the economy that feeds off it. Think about it. A system where kids get unfettered access to the drug (ask any junior high student what's easier to for them to buy: pot or alcohol? The answer has been pot for the past 30 years) and where the black market economy is likely in the billions, why would anyone who really has the best interests of kids at heart be opposed to regulation and decriminalization? Why would they be opposed to cutting the organized crime monopoly and allowing citizens to have a few plants for personal use? Because they're making money.

[kimmy]

I doubt whether the police will kick in your door and cart you off to jail for having a hemp plant or two in your basement. Police obtain search warrants based on evidence that's by nature related to growing large quantities, such as ridiculously high electricity consumption, infrared photography indicating unusual heat, purchasing of large quantities of hydroponics gear, regular visits with known trafficers, and so on. I doubt very many busts are for "a plant or two".

And I know that the police tend to use a lot of discretion when dealing with possession. Friends of mine who were caught by a policeman smoking weed near Whyte Ave were suggested to move to a more private location, as "the smoke is bothering people." The officer made no mention of the fact that it was marijuana smoke and was content just to have them smoke someplace privately. I believe that in most instances the officer doesn't *want* to make that arrest, but he will if you make a big show of disobeying the law.

I attended Canada Day on Parliament Hill one year and got completely lit just from the second hand smoke. With that many smokers and that many RCMP all concentrated in one place, you know that there'd be mass arrests if they were serious about enforcing the law.

48,000 arrests for possession is a tiny number considering the number of Canadians who are believed to use marijuana. If the police were remotely interested in enforcing marijuana laws, the number would be far higher. And I suspect that possession charges are used by police as a convenience: for instance, somebody is being a jackass in a public place, bullying or harrassing people or something, and the police would like to cool his heels for a while, then if he's got a joint in his pocket then that's a good excuse to take him away. I'd suspect that possession charges were also often laid in connection with other charges, someone gets pulled over for careless driving and has marijuana in the car.

Personally I do agree with the theory that legalization of marijuana would just be too expensive to too many people. Police chiefs would lose a great excuse for higher budgets, tobacco and liquor companies would face unwanted competition. The Hells Angels would simply not stand for it. Historically people often blame William Randolph Hurst for inciting public fear of marijuana because he thought hemp was a threat to his pulp and paper business. I also think that if people had access to clothes made of hemp fibre, they'd be hucking their cotton stuff in the trash. One time I was shopping and found this pair of italian-made jeans made out of a cotton-hemp blend and OMG! it was like wearing heaven. They would have cost me a month's salary

I digress. Hemp also has interesting possibilities in biodiesel because it is a very rich oil producing plant, so perhaps the Big Oil conspiracy theorists will get on the hemp bandwagon too.

As for the "ban on handguns", I personally am not outraged at the idea of banning handguns... I'm just appalled at the stupidity of the concept. Instead of banning handguns, I've got a better idea: Paul Martin could Ban Murder! That way, there would be no more murders! It's such a great idea I'm surprised nobody's ever thought of it before.

-k

[normanchateau]

Ah, I didn't notice blackdog's find.  So only 5% of those charged with possession do jail time.  It follows that these would be the worst offenders not those with tiny amounts, I doubt the Police even bother to charge someone for a single joint, knowing they have a 5% chance of getting convicted.

Ya gotta love CPC supporters.

First, challenge the 5% figure repeatedly and suggest that it's not true.

Second, when evidence is presented that 5% of Canadians do go to jail for simple possession of less than 30 grams, dismiss it as applying only to the "worst offenders",

even though simple possession means less than 30 grams.

Third, disparage those who provide the evidence.

Fourth, ignore the central issue that it's utterly irrational to criminalize a substance less harmful than a legalized but far more harmful substances like alcohol.

No wonder Martin now has a commanding lead. All he needs to do is wait for Harper and his supporters to step in yet another cowpie.

[sharkman]

The only reason any party would defend the status quo is they have a stake in the economy that feeds off it. Think about it. A system where kids get unfettered access to the drug (ask any junior high student what's easier to for them to buy: pot or alcohol? The answer has been pot for the past 30 years) and where the black market economy is likely in the billions, why would anyone who really has the best interests of kids at heart be opposed to regulation and decriminalization? Why would they be opposed to cutting the organized crime monopoly and allowing citizens to have a few plants for personal use? Because they're making money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good grief Bubber, look at your comments. How exactly are 'they' making money? If the government legalizes it then they would of course tax it and make a truck load of cash on it. At present they don't make anything on the industry. You seem to be claiming that a party that defends the status quo on this is because they have a stake in the economy that feeds on it. or areyou saying big wigs in the CPC are making a ton of money on the black market?

Either way, you haven't even bothered to show how, or provide links for proof. Tell me another one.

[BubberMiley]

Someboday's making money. Lots of it. And tax-free too. It's all under the table of course, so who's to say where it's going. My point is that anyone who fights to maintain that system must have an interest in that system.

[sharkman]

Ya gotta love CPC supporters. 

First, challenge the 5% figure repeatedly and suggest that it's not true.

Second, when evidence is presented that 5% of Canadians do go to jail for simple possession of less than 30 grams, dismiss it as applying only to the "worst offenders",

even though simple possession means less than 30 grams.

Third, disparage those who provide the evidence.

Fourth, ignore the central issue that it's utterly irrational to criminalize a substance less harmful than a legalized but far more harmful substances like alcohol.

No wonder Martin now has a commanding lead.  All he needs to do is wait for Harper and his supporters to step in yet another cowpie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't challenge the 5% percent figure. Reread my remarks. It fits perfectly with what I've been saying. I believe it, it's from Stats Can. Obviously you can't think clearly in this matter. If 95% are not going to jail and only 5% are, do you believe that it's the ones with the smallest amounts that do time, and bigger offenders get off? I think you only say these silly things to get a reaction, I refuse to believe you are stupid.

Your third point: When you haven't provided any evidence until now and your evidence doesn't back you up while mine supports me, I will point it out. You do the same you hypocrite.

Fourth: Obviously we disagree about whether pot should be decriminalized and we both know it. No point in repeating it again.

[normanchateau]

And I know that the police tend to use a lot of discretion when dealing with possession.  Friends of mine who were caught by a policeman smoking weed near Whyte Ave were suggested to move to a more private location, as "the smoke is bothering people."  The officer made no mention of the fact that it was marijuana smoke and was content just to have them smoke someplace privately.  I believe that in most instances the officer doesn't *want* to make that arrest, but he will if you make a big show of disobeying the law.

I attended Canada Day on Parliament Hill one year and got completely lit just from the second hand smoke. With that many smokers and that many RCMP all concentrated in one place, you know that there'd be mass arrests if they were serious about enforcing the law.

Kimmy, listen to what you just said. You know that one can safely smoke marijuana in Edmonton or Ottawa because they don't enforce the law. Same is true throughout British Columbia. However, a friend of a friend of mine was arrested and served time in Saskatoon for possession of less than 10 grams.

Do we actually want a law that's so dysfunctional that it's applied in one part of Canada but not another? Where's the logic in this?

And if we want the law merely so we can go after people who've also committed some other crime, why don't we criminalize alcohol but not enforce it?

Alcohol was decriminalized in Canada in 1925. Most Canadians have no problem with that. Why should marijuana be treated as though it were far more dangerous? And if it is dangerous, why aren't police in edmonton, Ottawa and Vancouver enforcing the law?

[sharkman]

Kimmy, listen to what you just said. You know that one can safely smoke marijuana in Edmonton or Ottawa because they don't enforce the law. Same is true throughout British Columbia. However, a friend of a friend of mine was arrested and served time in Saskatoon for possession of less than 10 grams.

Do we actually want a law that's so dysfunctional that it's applied in one part of Canada but not another? Where's the logic in this?

I'm sure there are bad cops and good cops just as there are bad friends and good friends. Laws get applied differently because people are different and there can be extenuating circumstances. Norman, do you have any response for my above reply?

[BubberMiley]

Sharkman wonders what's in my basement; I wonder why he supports the status quo.

[normanchateau]

I didn't challenge the 5% percent figure.  Reread my remarks.  It fits perfectly with what I've been saying.  I believe it, it's from Stats Can.  Obviously you can't think clearly in this matter.  If 95% are not going to jail and only 5% are, do you believe that it's the one's with the smallest amounts that do time, and bigger offenders get off? 

Either you missed my point completely or you're simply wrong once again. Could even be both I suppose.

Those in the 95% group had less than 30 grams and those in the 5% group had less than 30 grams. That's the nature of the "crime". If you have evidence that those in the 5% group had greater amounts than those in the 95% group, let's see the evidence.

Of course you have no such evidence but even if you did, why would it be relevant?

Less than 30 grams is a small amount and no one should be going to jail for that even if you and social conservative Stephen Harper disagree.

[normanchateau]

I'm sure there are bad cops and good cops just as there are bad friends and good friends.  Laws get applied differently because people are different and there can be extenuating circumstances.  Norman, do you have any response for my above reply?

What do you have against logic and critical thinking? Why would we want laws whose enforcement depends on whether the cops are good or bad? And who are the good cops...those who enforce the law or those who don't? And if you think that it's good to have laws which should not be enforced, why don't we criminalize alcohol?

Stephen Harper might benefit from your interesting ideas.

[CoachCartman]

So it seems you've been sounding off on every thread about the pot possession=jail time theme all week for nothing, Norman. And how many links have you supplied to back up your claims? I think this is the first one, and only after you were directly challenged. Which issue will you wildly misrepresent next? No doubt another one that slanders the CPC, you are rather predictable.

THANK YOU Sharkman!

I'm sick of reading his rants on this and SSM om every thread

[sharkman]

I didn't challenge the 5% percent figure.  Reread my remarks.  It fits perfectly with what I've been saying.  I believe it, it's from Stats Can.  Obviously you can't think clearly in this matter.  If 95% are not going to jail and only 5% are, do you believe that it's the one's with the smallest amounts that do time, and bigger offenders get off? 

Either you missed my point completely or you're simply wrong once again. Could even be both I suppose.

Those in the 95% group had less than 30 grams and those in the 5% group had less than 30 grams. That's the nature of the "crime". If you have evidence that those in the 5% group had greater amounts than those in the 95% group, let's see the evidence.

Of course you have no such evidence but even if you did, why would it be relevant?

Less than 30 grams is a small amount and no one should be going to jail for that even if you and social conservative Stephen Harper disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, I enjoy debating the issues with people. I find it stimulating to discuss the various issues that face Canadians and have someone who can point out things from a different perspective.

But Norm, when you can't or won't allow a simple point that if 5% do jail time, it must be because they are offending worse than the 95%, then there is no point talking with you anymore. Then you ask 'why is it relevant' when you have been repeating that Harper wants the status quo which is jail time for tiny amounts of pot, and this point about 5% refutes your argument.

It's obvious you are here to campaign against the Conservatives, and for the Liberals. You know all their talking points and use terms like strategized voting. I will leave you to your efforts and hope things go well for you.

[normanchateau]

I'm sick of reading his rants on this and SSM om every thread

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? What's your clever suggestion as to which topic one should discuss on a thread about decriminalization of marijuana?