Liberal Candidates are now debating the decriminalization of marijuana

[Higgly]

This has been discussed before, but it is currently a topic of the Liberal leadership race...

[jdobbin]

This has been discussed before, but it is currently a topic of the Liberal leadership race...

I think it is should be treated with a fine rather than a criminal record.

[geoffrey]

This has been discussed before, but it is currently a topic of the Liberal leadership race...

I think it is should be treated with a fine rather than a criminal record.

I tend to agree, with trafficking a criminal record. The big contention of the left on this one is that crime will disappear when the dealers are out of business. I disagree. Their profit margins are huge, they could compete with legit outlets. And if they couldn't compete... they'd move on to selling other things.

The only way to get rid of criminals is to jail them, or rehabiliate them. Making their profession legal just moves them elsewhere, it's a mindset, not an occupation.

[BubberMiley]

Capital punishment for possession.

[Canuck E Stan]

The only way to get rid of criminals is to jail them, or rehabiliate them. Making their profession legal just moves them elsewhere, it's a mindset, not an occupation.

We tried putting Liberals in jail, it doesn't work.

Maybe rehab would work.....decriminalizing the Liberal party would help the potential leaders maybe......if they began talking about something relevant.

Like the Liberal party demise and how to regain the trust of Canadians instead of marijuana.

Then maybe they might get our attention.

[Remiel]

Fine possession, keep trafficking a crime. Oh my God. I am in agreement with someone? Something must be wrong.

Or tax it like hell. I don't smoke, wouldn't bother me a bit.

[Leafless]

This has been discussed before, but it is currently a topic of the Liberal leadership race...

It seems these guys really want to get into power....NOT!

We have a hard time keeping the alcoholic impaired off the road.

Why would we want to further endanger the lives of the public even further concerning this single example with a drug that currently there is no way of testing the level of impairment.

There are many other potential social problems concerning legalizing marijuana.

[BubberMiley]

There are many other potential social problems concerning legalizing marijuana.

People might wind up spelling and punctuating properly.

[gc1765]

Legalize it, and tax it just like alcohol.

The big contention of the left on this one is that crime will disappear when the dealers are out of business. I disagree. Their profit margins are huge, they could compete with legit outlets. And if they couldn't compete... they'd move on to selling other things.

I disagree. How many people are bootlegging booze these days now that it's legal? Not many. Sure they could turn to dealing other drugs, but there is only so much room for drug dealing. If we assume that demand for hard drugs does not increase, there would be increased competition among drug dealers. You can only have so many people dealing hard drugs before profits start to diminish.

[Hicksey]

I don't see how it does any good.

The best I can figure is that the left figures that allowing more people to make themselves dependent junkies will get them a bigger base.

Who does it hurt you ask? The rest of us. We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes.

[newbie]

Legalize it, and tax it just like alcohol.

You got my vote.

[BubberMiley]

The best I can figure is that the left figures that allowing more people to make themselves dependent junkies will get them a bigger base.

The best I can figure is that the right figures that not allowing people to be free makes themselves feel morally superior somehow, and others on the right/left feel that fueling the black market will get them a bigger bank account.

[BubberMiley]

The best I can figure is that the left figures that allowing more people to make themselves dependent junkies will get them a bigger base.

The best I can figure is that the right figures that not allowing people to be free makes themselves feel morally superior somehow, and others on the right/left feel that fueling the black market will get them a bigger bank account.

We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes.

[Hicksey]

The best I can figure is that the left figures that allowing more people to make themselves dependent junkies will get them a bigger base.

The best I can figure is that the right figures that not allowing people to be free makes themselves feel morally superior somehow, and others on the right/left feel that fueling the black market will get them a bigger bank account.

We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes.

I'm with the people that say to deciminalize marijauna as far as reducing simple possession to a fine, and to go after the dealers with a vengence because that usually leads to other larger enterpises that deal in harder drugs.

But beyond that, I fail to see how making more drugs legal solves anything. We are short of rehab centers now and there are waiting lines as long as a year to get in. If we legalize it and allow more people access to more drugs it will just exasterbate the problem will it not? I see it as creating more problems for society as a whole than it solves.

[M.Dancer]

This has been discussed before, but it is currently a topic of the Liberal leadership race...

Orange!

[Charles Anthony]

Legalize it, and tax it just like alcohol.

I agree.

The big contention of the left on this one is that crime will disappear when the dealers are out of business.

Come on, now. Who cares what disappears or what stays the same? It is only a "crime" because we label it as a crime. I prefer freedom.

By the way, people who wear walkmans blasting in their ears everywhere they go bother me. We should make walkmans illegal. Eventually, those people go deaf and become a burden on society.

I don't see how it does any good.

That sounds enlightening. In the same light, I do not see how legalizing alcohol does any good either.

Who does it hurt you ask? The rest of us. We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes.

Stop whining.

If that really is a concern, write a list of all the ways in which it conceivably hurts the rest of us and the solution is in your hands: cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes.

[Hicksey]

Who does it hurt you ask? The rest of us. We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes.

Stop whining.

If that really is a concern, write a list of all the ways in which it conceivably hurts the rest of us and the solution is in your hands: cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes.

Cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes. OK!

When you need treatment for anything, we will drug test you. Care for anything related to your drug use you pay 100% -- no medicare money for you. That would certainly help reduce the strain on the health care system.

[gc1765]

Who does it hurt you ask? The rest of us. We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes.

Stop whining.

If that really is a concern, write a list of all the ways in which it conceivably hurts the rest of us and the solution is in your hands: cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes.

Cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes. OK!

When you need treatment for anything, we will drug test you. Care for anything related to your drug use you pay 100% -- no medicare money for you. That would certainly help reduce the strain on the health care system.

Tax marijuana the way we tax cigarettes (& alcohol). Smoking cigarettes (& drinking) is probably at least as bad for your health as smoking marijuana, especially for those who smoke a pack or more a day. Yet, we don't "drug" test smokers (or drinkers).

[watching&waiting]

I think that we should decriminalize Marijuana for personal use. The dealing and trafficing should have their own criminal aspects, such as trafficking to children and near schools 10 years first offence. Life for second offence. Anyone caught using violence during any drug deal should get an immediate 15 year sentence for all parties. Anyone that claims he was under the influence when committing a crime that says they only did it to get drugs should have a 3 year jail with detox during incarceration. Any drugs caught while in jail and 15 years high security facility.

Yes we need to get tough on drugs but we also do not want the occassional user to have a criminal record for his own use. He should be fined and made aware that the fines will be much higher the next time.

[Charles Anthony]

Yes we need to get tough on drugs but we also do not want the occassional user to have a criminal record for his own use. He should be fined and made aware that the fines will be much higher the next time.

Try applying that logic to other "crimes" and punishments.

I think we should get tough on robbery. The first robbery gets a fine and the robber is made aware that the fines will be much higher the next time.

I think we should get tough on rape. The first rape gets a fine and the rapist is made arware that the fines will be much higher the next time.

yadda yadda yadda

Why treat illicit drugs differently?

[Black Dog]

I tend to agree, with trafficking a criminal record. The big contention of the left on this one is that crime will disappear when the dealers are out of business. I disagree. Their profit margins are huge, they could compete with legit outlets. And if they couldn't compete... they'd move on to selling other things.

How's the bootlegging business doing these days?

[BubberMiley]

Why treat illicit drugs differently?

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV?

Because criminalizing something when there is no victim involved goes against the very conservative principle that government should not get involved in our personal lives?

[Hicksey]

Why treat illicit drugs differently?

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV?

Because criminalizing something when there is no victim involved goes against the very conservative principle that government should not get involved in our personal lives?

If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you ...

If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be?

We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone.

[Charles Anthony]

Why treat illicit drugs differently?

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV?

I agree. I do not think it is wrong. My question comes from the double standard.

We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone.

Actually, it should matter because otherwise you are dictating moral behavior and tradition and personal preference. That is none of your business.

If I do not hurt you or anybody else, what do you care???

Why do we have a fine for a small amount but a criminal record for a large amount???

Either it is a crime or not. Either it is wrong or it is not.

Reasonable people would not think that way for other transgressions.

I do not understand how anti-drug people can think it is reasonable to have that double standard.

[i understand the assumption of large amounts suggest trafficking, however, that is just a stupid triple standard.]

[bradco]

Why treat illicit drugs differently?

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV?

Because criminalizing something when there is no victim involved goes against the very conservative principle that government should not get involved in our personal lives?

If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you ...

If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be?

We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone.

Using the principle of harm to decide how much freedom we give to individuals in society is really the only way we can measure crime. If something doesnt harm someone it is not a crime. Doing it any other way is just picking someones values and saying that they are inherently better (works great if your values are picked....but what if they are not?)

"What's wrong is wrong": it is clearly not that simple. What is wrong to you is not going to be wrong to everyone else. We use the harm principle to get around this problem by allowing people to decide for themselves what is wrong and right as long as they are not harming another individual or society.

Why is using this principle the only way to go?

-no other alternative: any other alternative is choosing one group or persons value over another, which is clearly not acceptable

-prudence: it is simply the safest way to do things. Sure it might be great if what is a crime is being defined by your values but how can you guarantee it will always be that way? Because it is unlikely or uncertain that your values will always define what a crime is then it is only prudent to use the harm principle as a way of securing your own freedom (one day something you do that you consider to be alright could be defined a crime)

-acceptability: something considered prudent is usually acceptable to everyone.... making the harm principle generally acceptable to everyone since it grants equality to everyones values (with the only exception being that your values may not harm another/society as a whole).

"If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you"

-throw out eventually is the key here....you still loose the value you would gain from your property (even if it was only going to be in your possession for another 10 minutes)........if it is beside the garbage can on the street and someone jacks it Id say thats not a crime

"If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be?"

-well to simply answer this its the same as above. The prisoner is denying that man 5 minutes of life (not much but still harm). However, I would go on to argue that the state has no right to take the mans life either (but thats a different debate for another thread)