Liberal Candidates are now debating the decriminalization of marijuana

[cybercoma]

Explain to me why that dealer can't sell to a minor when it's decriminalised? Your argument is logically bankrupt.

Because criminalization of marijuana has created a multi-billion dollar black market. If that trade were legal and regulated, as it is with alcohol, that black market trade would dry up, just as it did when alcohol prohibition ended.

You don't see people selling beer in junior high schools very often. It may happen, but it's nowhere near the same level of trade as there is with criminalized drugs.

Should all multi-billion dollar black market trades be legalized and regulated (which doesn't make them totally legalized) then?

And people buy alcohol for minors all the time. So maybe you don't see people selling beer in junior highs very often, but that doesn't mean it does not happen.

[BubberMiley]

,

Edited March 29, 2016 by BubberMiley

[Hicksey]

My pot use doesn't cost you anything, I assure you. And some of us actually believe in personal freedom, autonomy, and responsibility. The state does not have dominion over my body, so uninformed laws that try to govern what I do with it are inconsequential

That is just an overly wordy way of saying that you will do whatever the hell you want all else be damned.

Freedom is not absolute, it is relative. We are free, but only in the relative sense that we are more free than others in the world. We are far from free. And even if you believe in 'personal freedom', I'm sure ven you realize that in a civilized society there will always be rules and limits to how far that freedom extends. The laws in question here are an example of just that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

People need to realize that there are ramifications of legislation. Make something illegal and you get to spend money policing it. Then you get to spend money prosecuting it. And finally you get to spend money penalizing the individuals found guilty of transgressing the legislation. I think the real question here should be is this cost an effecient use of tax payers money? Is there enough perceived value in the realization of the effort to warrant the expediture of public funds.

Lets put this into perspective for the purpose of debate shall we. The government spends millions of dollars a year in the war on pot heads. That money could go toward funding something else but instead it is used to stop Fred from catching a buzz. Now Fred the Pothead isn't exactly a big security risk. The Pothead family is related to the Couchpotato family. This species of humanity is a little different than other drug users, they are prone to fits of laughter, long naps and memory problems. Their condition requires special treatment of dietary supplements such as "junk food".

Having said that, from my perspective their condition and impact on society simply doesn't justify the use of my tax dollars. I have five children between 8and 19 with no drug users. They see them as losers and I doubt they would go there by choice or accident.

Theres my two cents on the subject.........

[Hicksey]

People need to realize that there are ramifications of legislation. Make something illegal and you get to spend money policing it. Then you get to spend money prosecuting it. And finally you get to spend money penalizing the individuals found guilty of transgressing the legislation. I think the real question here should be is this cost an effecient use of tax payers money? Is there enough perceived value in the realization of the effort to warrant the expediture of public funds.

Lets put this into perspective for the purpose of debate shall we. The government spends millions of dollars a year in the war on pot heads. That money could go toward funding something else but instead it is used to stop Fred from catching a buzz. Now Fred the Pothead isn't exactly a big security risk. The Pothead family is related to the Couchpotato family. This species of humanity is a little different than other drug users, they are prone to fits of laughter, long naps and memory problems. Their condition requires special treatment of dietary supplements such as "junk food".

Having said that, from my perspective their condition and impact on society simply doesn't justify the use of my tax dollars. I have five children between 8and 19 with no drug users. They see them as losers and I doubt they would go there by choice or accident.

Theres my two cents on the subject.........

So, the owness should be on those that play by the rules to let those who don't do whatever the hell they want?

If these people would do as the rest of us do and obey the law, there would be little to no cost associated with enforcement. In the last 20 years, the lax enforcement has caused anti-drug laws to be regarded as little more than affront to drug users' freedom. Bubber Miley is a great example of this. And while we do have the freedom to do what we please, nobody has bothered to educate these same people that that freedom does not include immunity from the consequences of their actions. This far into this grande miscarriage of justice, people that get arrested for their transgressions view themselves as the victims, when it is really the rest of us that are paying for their actions and are the true victims. It is assumed that the onus for solving this problem should be on the legal system to fix this, instead of being on those whose actions create this whole mess. The onus to fix this should be on drug users. A simple change of behavior fixes it all.

[cybercoma]

Should all multi-billion dollar black market trades be legalized and regulated (which doesn't make them totally legalized) then?

I don't know. I'm only an expert on weed.

And people buy alcohol for minors all the time. So maybe you don't see people selling beer in junior highs very often, but that doesn't mean it does not happen.

I said it may happen, but it's not the same level of trade as with weed. Regardless, the laws governing alcohol and tobacco have been reasonably effective in keeping them out of the hands of minors. They aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean that criminalizing possession of alcohol and tobacco wouldn't just make the problem worse. I shudder at the power that organized crime would wield if we tried that scenario.

Thanks for showing you have absolutely no way of backing up your claim that if something is sold on the black market it should be legalized....not to mention how out of touch you are with the fact that teenagers drink and smoke.

[Durgan]

The illegal drugs is about a five billion dollar industry. To chase these illegal drugs the governmnet is spending about seven billion dollars per year. The figures are subject ot correction, since there are many available and they do vary. Economics alone suggest this is a losing battle, and is similar to the NATO Mission in Afghanistan. Do we fight on or withdraw?

I suggest we withdraw. Simply remove marajuana from the illegal list. Those who want it can partake. I cannot see how it can affect those who desist. The police could concentrate on other more important issues, like auto theft. Smoking in a public place could be subject to the current anti-smoking laws.

Clearly our current marajuana laws don't work, so it is time for a change. A stupid person does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. I am sure the same arguments, pro and con, presented on this thread are applicable to the consumption of alcohol. We as a society accept one, why not the other?

I suggest the benefits of legalizing marajuana use far outweigh the downside. Personally, not partaking of alcohol or marajuana, I feel it should be a personal choice. It should be a non-issue.

Durgan.

[Higgly]

One aspect of the decriminalization bill put forward by the Liberals was that it would include not only small amounts of pot, but also the growing of one or two plants. Would tend to put a dent in the dealers' market.

With respect to marijuana being a gateway drug, the thing that leads to harder drugs is not the marijuana, but the dealer who sells it. He also has a whole bag of other drugs he would love to have you buy, and most especially if those drugs are addictive. I say take the sale of marijuana out of the hands of the dealers and then go after them for the really harmful drugs like cocaine, meth, heroine, what have you.

Even the RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were in favour of the decriminalization bill although they quibbled over the amounts. I watched the RCMP witness to the committee studying the bill on CPAC and he said they were in favour of it because busting potheads was wasting too much of their time and the penalties were overkill.

[Hicksey]

One aspect of the decriminalization bill put forward by the Liberals was that it would include not only small amounts of pot, but also the growing of one or two plants. Would tend to put a dent in the dealers' market.

With respect to marijuana being a gateway drug, the thing that leads to harder drugs is not the marijuana, but the dealer who sells it. He also has a whole bag of other drugs he would love to have you buy, and most especially if those drugs are addictive. I say take the sale of marijuana out of the hands of the dealers and then go after them for the really harmful drugs like cocaine, meth, heroine, what have you.

Even the RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were in favour of the decriminalization bill although they quibbled over the amounts. I watched the RCMP witness to the committee studying the bill on CPAC and he said they were in favour of it because busting potheads was wasting too much of their time and the penalties were overkill.

So what then? Since they are going to do it anyway wrong becomes right?

[M.Dancer]

I wish they would debate lowering the potency of today's chemo crop.......when one puffs sends you to la la land, it's way to strong......

....to be honest though, I haven't considered it to be illegal in at least 20 years

[LonJowett]

So what then? Since they are going to do it anyway wrong becomes right?

What makes it wrong? The fact that it's illegal? Then your argument can be a perfect circle--it's wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong.

[LonJowett]

I wish they would debate lowering the potency of today's chemo crop.......when one puffs sends you to la la land, it's way to strong......

That just makes it easier on the lungs, and way more affordable...

[M.Dancer]

So what then? Since they are going to do it anyway wrong becomes right?

What makes it wrong? The fact that it's illegal? Then your argument can be a perfect circle--it's wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong.

Hygrade! Hygrade!

Fresher, cause more people eat them

More people eat them, because they're fresher!

http://www.mapleleaf.com/ConsumerProducts/...x?ID=7%20%20%20

[geoffrey]

My pot use doesn't cost you anything, I assure you. And some of us actually believe in personal freedom, autonomy, and responsibility. The state does not have dominion over my body, so uninformed laws that try to govern what I do with it are inconsequential

I don't care about harm to you, I care that you financially support an industry that preys on junior high children. Hopefully you can morally justify that.

[BubberMiley]

I care that you financially support an industry that preys on junior high children. Hopefully you can morally justify that.

You, however, actively support a government that maintains the legal structure that supports a black market that preys on junior high children. Hopefully you can morally justify that.

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[BubberMiley]

Thanks for showing you have absolutely no way of backing up your claim that if something is sold on the black market it should be legalized....not to mention how out of touch you are with the fact that teenagers drink and smoke.

Huh?

Anyway, I didn't say teenagers don't drink and smoke. I said weed is easier for them to buy.

[Chrissy1979]

It wasn't that long ago I was in Jr High. I never did that stuff but my boyfriend did but you could just buy it between classes. If we wanted to drink I'd have to steal it from my dad.

Seems to me the laws the way they are just makes it easier for dealers to get in the door, get customers and then maybe sell them something that actaully hurts them like crystal meth.

[BubberMiley]

The U.S. government is trying a new approach with their anti-drug ads: honesty. I particularly enjoyed Pete's Couch at http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/the-ads/default.aspx

It states that smoking weed is actually "the safest thing in the world," but you're unlikely to accomplish much while stoned.

It begs the question, though: why is this stuff illegal again?

[LonJowett]

I think that's the first time I ever saw an antidrug ad that wasnt total crap. But they don't mention that you can smoke dope and go mountain biking or skating or whatever. Then your really having fun.

[geoffrey]

I care that you financially support an industry that preys on junior high children. Hopefully you can morally justify that.

Actually it's easy to only do business with mom&pops that have no connection to organized crime, thanks to hydroponic technology.

Nonetheless, one might say I'm keeping weed out of the hands of minors by buying up supplies and burning them.

You, however, actively support a government that maintains the legal structure that supports a black market that preys on junior high children. Hopefully you can morally justify that.

I could also say I'm morally justified in buying automatic weapons to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Are you ok with completely liberalisation of gun ownership to 'eliminate the black market'. Why not?

Your completely ignorant of many facts, firstly that alcohol is constantly sold in schools, somehow you believe that high school kids gave up drinking once prohibition ended... and then you compare this to pot, how when that's legalised all the kids will stop.

Is there any logic there, I really can't follow such an argument based completely on false premises?

[geoffrey]

I think that's the first time I ever saw an antidrug ad that wasnt total crap. But they don't mention that you can smoke dope and go mountain biking or skating or whatever. Then your really having fun.

Oh yes, between the crazied IPOD listening hikers (I really am suprised more of them haven't been killed yet in accidents on trails) and Shitsu walking types, the last thing we need is a ton more stoners on the trails. If they aren't running over the above mentioned, they're going to be run over by people like me who aren't impaired with significantly slower reaction times.

Biking high is actually dangerous to others, it's not a libertarian issue...

[gc1765]

Your completely ignorant of many facts, firstly that alcohol is constantly sold in schools, somehow you believe that high school kids gave up drinking once prohibition ended... and then you compare this to pot, how when that's legalised all the kids will stop.

I think the difference here is that alcohol is not usually sold by "drug dealers". It is usually acquired through older siblings, or friends' older siblings. Back when I was in high school, I don't remember anyone coming around selling alcohol to minors or pushing them to buy it. I guess all schools are different. If pot was legalized and made available only to those over 19 (or 18 in alberta etc. ) I imagine the scenario would be similar. If there are drug dealers preying on junior high school students (which I never saw at my school), I doubt there will be as much of that if it were legal. Most minors would get pot through siblings etc. leaving a much smaller 'market' for drug dealers to prey on.

[geoffrey]

Your completely ignorant of many facts, firstly that alcohol is constantly sold in schools, somehow you believe that high school kids gave up drinking once prohibition ended... and then you compare this to pot, how when that's legalised all the kids will stop.

I think the difference here is that alcohol is not usually sold by "drug dealers". It is usually acquired through older siblings, or friends' older siblings. Back when I was in high school, I don't remember anyone coming around selling alcohol to minors or pushing them to buy it. I guess all schools are different. If pot was legalized and made available only to those over 19 (or 18 in alberta etc. ) I imagine the scenario would be similar. If there are drug dealers preying on junior high school students (which I never saw at my school), I doubt there will be as much of that if it were legal. Most minors would get pot through siblings etc. leaving a much smaller 'market' for drug dealers to prey on.

The kids are still getting pot. Unless, of course, that's what pot advocates support? The freedom of these 15 year olds right... not because they are pressured or coerced much during that time of their life...

We can't give moral justification to pot smoking. We already have an obesity problem in Canada...

[gc1765]

The kids are still getting pot. Unless, of course, that's what pot advocates support? The freedom of these 15 year olds right... not because they are pressured or coerced much during that time of their life...

Kids are going to be able to get pot whether it's legal or not. It's illegal now, but it's not that hard for kids to get (sometimes easier, especially if you live in vancouver ). I thought the point you were trying to make is that drug dealers are pressuring kids to buy? There will still be peer pressure yes, but I don't think there's any way to get around that.

We can't give moral justification to pot smoking. We already have an obesity problem in Canada...

Why can't we give moral justification to pot smoking when we give moral justification to smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol?

[geoffrey]

Why can't we give moral justification to pot smoking when we give moral justification to smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol?

There isn't much moral justification left in cigarettes my friend, they are banned from pretty much everywhere but your lower floor bathroom with a high capacity HVAC system.

Alcohol is a tricky issue. I see your point. But I counter with a similarly troublesome point. If alcohol and cigarettes do so much harm, I hardly think you can point to them and say "see those drugs!! those are legal!!"

Alcohol can be used in moderation, pot you smoke to get high, alcohol you don't neccessarily drink to get drunk. That's my best defense. Alcohol is a social encouragement as well, where as pot just puts ya to sleep. Either way, alcohol is troublesome as well, though I still stand by my claim that pointing to and comparing with other major problems in society is no way to further your agenda.