Decriminalization vs. Criminalization

[FTA Lawyer]

I can't quite figure out why handguns and pot have been put in the same thread...the issues are completely unrelated.

In any event, the thread appears to have developed more along the marijuana lines, so I put in my two cents on some of the comments:

In Alberta, it has become absolutely commonplace for grow-operators to do jail time...and typically about 12 months worth for relatively "small" operations (my last grower client got 14 months for a 170 plant 3-stage hydroponic operation).

Jail for grow-op

For those who don't want to read the judgment, a quote shows the Alberta Court of Appeal's view on these things:

It is manifestly dangerous to the community to sentence to house arrest a person convicted of operating a home-based commercial marihuana growing operation, who persists in obtaining and using marihuana. Conditions are not effective to

deter those who refuse to obey the law.

As far as minor possession, jail is rare...and I have no reason to suggest that the stats cited are not accurate. It is not uncommon to see a $50 fine for a first offence.

For those cases where jail is given for simple possession, it would not only be the amount that would be a factor, but more important would be the offender's past record, and whether or not he was on probation or bail at the time of the offence.

No matter how small of a joint you have, if you've done time for drugs before, and you're in breach of court order not to possess pot, you may very well hear the cell doors clang behind you.

The question of permanent criminal records is a valid one. Young people who get caught with a joint can have very disastrous long-term consequences and that is really the main reason for the push to decriminalize small possession.

In Canada we have pardons for summary offences...but you must wait 2 years to apply, and it is taking about 2 years to process the request. During that time, most young persons will be travelling around the world, going to university, or starting careers...and until you have a pardon, every application form that asks about a criminal record must be filled in with a "YES".

Also, the U.S. and some other countries do not recognize the Canadian pardon system, so even if you get your pardon, you may still have problems crossing international borders...and believe me, out of all possible convictions to have to disclose to a border guard, drug possession is a very bad one.

The point really is...if you get a $50 dollar fine as punishment, how can we continue to regard simple pot possession as criminal? In Alberta, the lowest possible fine you can get for a traffic offence is $57.00...and most are more like in the $150 to $250 range...and there's no criminal record for traffic tickets...

FTA

[BubberMiley]

Actually, Sharkman, I was the one who said Harper wants the status quo. I think the whole 5%/95% argument is completely irrelevant. Sure maybe the 5% are really really bad guys, but if they're so bad, let's lock them up for the really bad things they do, not for growing plants.

[sharkman]

Actually bubber, Norman has been making comments on this topic all week. I am referring to the weight of his comments, not yours.

[normanchateau]

The question of permanent criminal records is a valid one.  Young people who get caught with a joint can have very disastrous long-term consequences and that is really the main reason for the push to decriminalize small possession.

In Canada we have pardons for summary offences...but you must wait 2 years to apply, and it is taking about 2 years to process the request.  During that time, most young persons will be travelling around the world, going to university, or starting careers...and until you have a pardon, every application form that asks about a criminal record must be filled in with a "YES".

Also, the U.S. and some other countries do not recognize the Canadian pardon system, so even if you get your pardon, you may still have problems crossing international borders...and believe me, out of all possible convictions to have to disclose to a border guard, drug possession is a very bad one.

The point really is...if you get a $50 dollar fine as punishment, how can we continue to regard simple pot possession as criminal?  In Alberta, the lowest possible fine you can get for a traffic offence is $57.00...and most are more like in the $150 to $250 range...and there's no criminal record for traffic tickets...

FTA

I had no idea that the US does not recognize the Canadian pardon. Thanks for this useful piece of information. No wonder all political parties (except one) want to decriminalize.

[kimmy]

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?

My preference would be for decriminalization, or perhaps even legalization if some well-thought-out implimentation were presented. However, in my opinion the current state of affairs is not that big of a deal and I am skeptical that pot-users are being persecuted to the extent that some in this thread seem to be suggested.

In other words, like same-sex marriage, this is not an issue that's going to have much impact on my vote.

-k

[BubberMiley]

My point is that it's not really about the persecution of pot smokers. It's about maintaining the black market economy to facilitate organized crime.

[kimmy]

My point is that it's not really about the persecution of pot smokers.

Weren't you the guy saying that police were busting people with "a few plants" as grow-op operators?

It's about maintaining the black market economy to facilitate organized crime.

Well, I agree to a large extent, although I would suggest that the political support from police-chiefs and financial support from liquor and tobacco companies probably factors into the politics of the situation more than organized crime.

-k

[BubberMiley]

You just have to look at who's getting paid under the current system.

Liquor and tobacco companies would probably be happy to have a new vice to exploit, so I'm not too suspicious of them. Police chiefs, as I understand, have been in favour of decriminalization. The unions, however, have not because no union has ever been in favour of something that might jeopardize their bread and butter--and pot laws give cops work.

[normanchateau]

My preference would be for decriminalization, or perhaps even legalization if some well-thought-out implimentation were presented.  However, in my opinion the current state of affairs is not that big of a deal and I am skeptical that pot-users are being persecuted to the extent that some in this thread seem to be suggested.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if none were being persecuted, let alone prosecuted, why would we want to encourage disrespect for the law by having laws which are not enforced?

What's especially bad about the status quo is that the laws are differentially enforced.

And they are also sometimes enforced to make a political statement. For example, Marc Emery, leader of the BC Marijuana Party, was charged and served jail time for possession of a single joint. You and I would not have been. This makes the law appear unfair and even persecutory in the minds of fair-minded individuals.

[normanchateau]

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.

I did ask what evidence you had that the 5% who got jail time were "worse" offenders than those who did not. You did not provide that evidence yet remain obviously convinced that there is no other possible explanation. There are multiple possible other explanations. Jurisdictions differ in their rates of jail sentences. Jurisdictions differ in how much attention they pay to extenuating cirtcumstances. Jurisdictions respond to political pressure from provincial and municipal politicians. I could go on but my point is simply that you had a hypothesis which you treated as a fact and expected me too as well. Sorry but I put more stock in evidence than I do in hypotheses.

And if you choose not to engage me in further debate, excellent...as that is my preference as well.

[BubberMiley]

I'll debate you Sharkman. I'm not campaigning for anybody (even the maryjane party). Bet I'd have you swayed to decriminalization by the end too.

[normanchateau]

I'll debate you Sharkman. I'm not campaigning for anybody (even the maryjane party). Bet I'd have you swayed to decriminalization by the end too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BubberMiley:

I'll let you in on a secret (I won't divulge my source ). Many of those on these discussion boards who are now defending the continued criminalization of marijuana

are not being entirely sincere. However, they feel that they have no choice because the leader of the party they support, opposes decriminalization. So their choices are (1) defending Harper or (2) defending a rational position on the issue. Quite the dilemma and no doubt stressful and possibly emotional. For a CPC supporter to defend Harper's opposition to decriminalization is in some ways the equivalent of a Liberal supporter trying to defend the sponsorship scandal.

[sharkman]

...As far as minor possession, jail is rare...and I have no reason to suggest that the stats cited are not accurate.  It is not uncommon to see a $50 fine for a first offence.

For those cases where jail is given for simple possession, it would not only be the amount that would be a factor, but more important would be the offender's past record, and whether or not he was on probation or bail at the time of the offence.

No matter how small of a joint you have, if you've done time for drugs before, and you're in breach of court order not to possess pot, you may very well hear the cell doors clang behind you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally, this seems pretty even handed, a fine for minor possession first offence as things stand today, and jail time based on past record and if the offender is currently on probation. The Liberals are just trying to get votes, like the new gun policy they introduced. Whether these new policies would help or not doesn't really matter, it's all about the votes.

[BubberMiley]

What's even-handed about potential jail time for possessing a habit-forming but relatively innocuous plant?

[Argus]

What's even-handed about potential jail time for possessing a habit-forming but relatively innocuous plant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, you know what, it's not that innocuous. And it's not that safe. It's a helluva lot stronger than it was when the flower children were puffing away. And I don't trust anyone who feels the need to use hallucinagens. I don't think people who need to get drunk are all that worthy of respect either.

[BubberMiley]

I have enough personal experience with it and (and experience counts for a lot in this world). I'm not saying it's all that great, but I've spent most of the last 20 years smoking it everyday. It's terribly habit forming, but there are no side effects when I decide to stop for a few weeks--just a lot of cravings and some vivid dreams. Smoking is never good for you, but there's no evidence it causes cancer (that doesn't mean it doesn't though).

In terms of its strength, when it's a drug that is impossible to OD on, strength doesn't really make a difference. It just means you don't need to smoke as much to get high, which can only be good for your lungs.

It's not a hallucinogen (because you don't hallucinate), and you can trust me. I won't hurt you.

My main reasoning for decriminalization is that I would agree with anyone that no adolescent should have ready access (see terribly habit forming above). Criminalization opens the black market up right into our schools. That is bad. Talking about respect, I have a hard time respecting someone who supports the status quo knowing that it only makes it easier for dirtbags to sell it to kids.

Besides, just because you don't respect us, doesn't mean you have the right to criminalize us.

We ain't hurting you dude.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I have enough personal experience with it and (and experience counts for a lot in this world). I'm not saying it's all that great, but I've spent most of the last 20 years smoking it everyday. It's terribly habit forming, but there are no side effects when I decide to stop for a few weeks--just a lot of cravings and some vivid dreams. Smoking is never good for you, but there's no evidence it causes cancer (that doesn't mean it doesn't though).

In terms of its strength, when it's a drug that is impossible to OD on, strength doesn't really make a difference. It just means you don't need to smoke as much to get high, which can only be good for your lungs.

It's not a hallucinogen (because you don't hallucinate), and you can trust me. I won't hurt you.

My main reasoning for decriminalization is that I would agree with anyone that no adolescent should have ready access (see terribly habit forming above). Criminalization opens the black market up right into our schools. That is bad. Talking about respect, I have a hard time respecting someone who supports the status quo knowing that it only makes it easier for dirtbags to sell it to kids.

Besides, just because you don't respect us, doesn't mean you have the right to criminalize us.

We ain't hurting you dude.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dude, you chronic!

[BubberMiley]

Some call it being chronic. I call it having an expensive, bad habit. But that's my problem, not society's.

[normanchateau]

What's even-handed about potential jail time for possessing a habit-forming but relatively innocuous plant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, you know what, it's not that innocuous. And it's not that safe. It's a helluva lot stronger than it was when the flower children were puffing away. And I don't trust anyone who feels the need to use hallucinagens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where on earth did you get the idea that marijuana is a hallucinogen? LSD is a hallucinogen. Peyote is a hallucinogen. Psilocybin is a hallucinogen. Marijuana is not.

Why is it that people who make comments like it's not that safe appear to lack depth of knowledge on the topic? Sure, it's not that safe relative to water, milk or gatorade. But it's safer than alcohol and cigarettes both of which are deemed worthy of outright legalization, never mind decriminalization. Is it rational to legalize substances like alcohol and cigarettes while criminalizing less harmful substances like marijuana?

Why would Stephen Harper be telling Canadians in a middle of an election that he wants to keep marijuana criminalized when such a position is irrational? Does he actually think marijuana is more harmful thann hand guns, the topic of this thread which, unfortunately, most people have ignored.

[BubberMiley]

I think that topic was ignored, for the most part, because banning handguns is so impossible it's a concept barely worth responding to. Sure, if handguns could be banned, most sane people (which excludes most CPC supporters) would be jumping all over it. But the gun control legislation (and drug control legislation) has shown that laws don't work at banning things; they just change the method of their distribution. So CPCers who wail about the expense and ineffectiveness of gun laws hypocritically are silent when it comes to the expense and ineffectiveness of drug laws.

[normanchateau]

So CPCers who wail about the expense and ineffectiveness of gun laws hypocritically are silent when it comes to the expense and ineffectiveness of drug laws.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Precisely the point I was hoping to make when I started this thread.

[Argus]

What's even-handed about potential jail time for possessing a habit-forming but relatively innocuous plant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, you know what, it's not that innocuous. And it's not that safe. It's a helluva lot stronger than it was when the flower children were puffing away. And I don't trust anyone who feels the need to use hallucinagens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where on earth did you get the idea that marijuana is a hallucinogen?

Fine, strike hallucinogenic, substitute "f*cks your mind up".

gatorade.  But it's safer than alcohol and cigarettes both of which are deemed worthy of outright legalization, never mind decriminalization. Is it rational to legalize substances like alcohol and cigarettes while criminalizing less harmful substances like marijuana?

I'd be in favour of banning cigarettes, frankly. They serve no useful purpose and cause considerable health damage. The problem I have with banning alcohol is that used in moderation it's harmless. It doesn't screw your mind over like grass and there are no health effects. Unfortunately, a lot of people find themselves incapable of drinking safely or intelligently (Could someone possibly explain the attraction of binge drinking to me?). However, marijuana isn't something which can be "sipped", as, for example, a nice wine. You smoke it only to get stoned. I'm not in favour of people getting stoned, frankly. People are prone to acting like morons even without getting drunk or stoned. And that only worsens when they get drugs and too much alcohol into their system.

[August1991]

I can't quite figure out why handguns and pot have been put in the same thread...the issues are completely unrelated.

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see every reason for them to be in the same thread, and I am surprise no one has raised this point previously (or did I miss a post)?

The attraction of gang membership is money from the sale of illegal drugs ("pot" in its generic sense). Urban drug dealers use handguns to fight over this money.

In the 1920s, prohibition gave birth to the mafia. Same story today.

If you want, we can get into a sociological discussion about why suburban white kids go into town to buy illegal drugs and why black kids sell them the drugs.

[BubberMiley]

I'd be in favour of banning cigarettes, frankly. They serve no useful purpose and cause considerable health damage. The problem I have with banning alcohol is that used in moderation it's harmless. It doesn't screw your mind over like grass and there are no health effects. Unfortunately, a lot of people find themselves incapable of drinking safely or intelligently (Could someone possibly explain the attraction of binge drinking to me?). However, marijuana isn't something which can be "sipped", as, for example, a nice wine. You smoke it only to get stoned. I'm not in favour of people getting stoned, frankly. People are prone to acting like morons even without getting drunk or stoned. And that only worsens when they get drugs and too much alcohol into their system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For starters, haven't you figured it out yet (gun control, drugs, whatever) that enacting laws to ban something don't actually ban it? They just create a black market and deregulate access.

Second, weed is more harmless than alcohol. Alcohol kills brain cells; weed activates receptors in the brain designed to receive THC--the active drug. It's true. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know.

Further proving you haven't a clue what you're talking about, you say it can't be "sipped." How do you know?

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[newbie]

Fine, strike hallucinogenic, substitute "f*cks your mind up"...

...The problem I have with banning alcohol is that used in moderation it's harmless. It doesn't screw your mind over like grass and there are no health effects...

... You smoke it only to get stoned. I'm not in favour of people getting stoned, frankly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess you've never heard of medicinal marijuana. Here are some benefits from http://www.mpp.org/medicine.html

Medicinal Value

Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. No one has ever died from an overdose, and it has a wide variety of therapeutic applications, including:

• Relief from nausea and appetite loss;

• Reduction of intraocular (within the eye) pressure;

• Reduction of muscle spasms; and

• Relief from chronic pain.

Marijuana is frequently beneficial in the treatment of the following conditions:

AIDS. Marijuana can reduce the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by the ailment itself and by various AIDS medications.

Glaucoma. Marijuana can reduce intraocular pressure, alleviating the pain and slowing—and sometimes stopping—damage to the eyes. (Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness in the United States. It damages vision by increasing eye pressure over time.)

Cancer. Marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment.

Multiple Sclerosis. Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults in the United States.)

Epilepsy. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients.

Chronic Pain. Marijuana can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by myriad disorders and injuries.

And you said alcohol is harmless in moderation? Is that why pregnant mothers are strongly encouraged not to drink at all during pregnancy? Check this out from http://www.d12.com/Resources/alcohol.htm:

Effects Of Alcohol On Your Body

Alcohol is a drug. It affects the way you feel and it affects all parts of your body.

* BRAIN: Alcohol is a "downer," It directly affects the brain cells. Unclear thinking, staggering and slurred speech may result. Large amounts of alcohol may cause unconsciousness or death.

* EYES: Alcohol causes blurred vision.

* HEART: Alcohol can increase the workload of the heart. Irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure can result.

* LIVER: Alcohol can poison the liver. Prolonged use causes extensive damage and failure.

* STOMACH/PANCREAS: Alcohol irritates the digestive system. Vomiting and ulcers may result.

* KIDNEYS: Alcohol can stop the kidneys from maintaining a proper balance of body fluids and minerals.

* VEINS/ARTERIES: Alcohol widens blood vessels causing headaches and loss of body heat.

* BLOOD: Alcohol reduces your body's ability to produce blood cells resulting in anemia and/or infections.

* MUSCLES: Alcohol can cause muscle weakness, including the heart muscle