Canada under Harper Is Less Sovereign Than Nevada

[LonJowett]

Nevada feels its free to determine for itself whether marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated.

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

By comparison, the CPC defers to Bush for their policy on decriminalization. There are even people on this board whos only argument for decriminalization is that the U.S. would be mad. Pathetic

[Argus]

Nevada feels its free to determine for itself whether marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated.

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

By comparison, the CPC defers to Bush for their policy on decriminalization. There are even people on this board whos only argument for decriminalization is that the U.S. would be mad. Pathetic

What's pathetic is believing it's pathetic to take many things into consideration when making a decision - not just the petty, selfish desires for drug use among the more degenerate members of our society. These are things like, how much effort we want everyone to have to put into crossing the border - which Canadians do millions of times a year, and what cultural side-effects legalizing drugs might have, like more users.

Nevada can say what it wants about legalizing drugs, but the DEA will still bust anyone that sets up shop. Canada's decision is based on the well-being of its society and culture as a whole.

Maybe you'd think of things like that too, if you didn't feel the need to fuzz out on drugs.

[Drea]

What's pathetic is believing it's pathetic to take many things into consideration when making a decision - not just the petty, selfish desires for drug use among the more degenerate members of our society.

You wrongly assume that anyone who smokes marijuana is a "degenerate". This is simply not true.

T

hese are things like, how much effort we want everyone to have to put into crossing the border - which Canadians do millions of times a year, and what cultural side-effects legalizing drugs might have, like more users.

If more people smoked marijuana (as opposed to drink alcohol) then there would be less spousal abuse, less wreckless driving, less wanton destruction and more mellow people.

I am not advocating for the legalization (or decrim at the least) of anything but marijuana, btw.

Nevada can say what it wants about legalizing drugs, but the DEA will still bust anyone that sets up shop. Canada's decision is based on the well-being of its society and culture as a whole.

Maybe you'd think of things like that too, if you didn't feel the need to fuzz out on drugs.

I always have wondered why people have the need to "fuzz out" on alcohol. I don't drink and really don't enjoy the effect.... but does that give me the right to tell you that you cannot ingest it? No, it doesn't. Drinking is your personal choice, even though many studies have been done on the emotional and physical detriments that occur when alcohol is consumed.

[B. Max]

Nevada feels its free to determine for itself whether marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated.

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

By comparison, the CPC defers to Bush for their policy on decriminalization. There are even people on this board whos only argument for decriminalization is that the U.S. would be mad. Pathetic

That's funny when you consider since Person's time the left has vested the countries sovereignty at the UN. A leftist cesspool of corruption from they get their marching orders which can easily be demonstrate by simpily looking at all the nonsense they've signed onto.

[Wilber]

Nevada feels its free to determine for itself whether marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated.

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

By comparison, the CPC defers to Bush for their policy on decriminalization. There are even people on this board whos only argument for decriminalization is that the U.S. would be mad. Pathetic

If your standard of living depends on doing business with the US it is a definite consideration. Probably more important to you than someone else's right to get stoned. I really don't care one way or the other but think it should be way down on any government's list of priorities.

[Canadian Blue]

I always have wondered why people have the need to "fuzz out" on alcohol. I don't drink and really don't enjoy the effect.... but does that give me the right to tell you that you cannot ingest it? No, it doesn't. Drinking is your personal choice, even though many studies have been done on the emotional and physical detriments that occur when alcohol is consumed.

I'd happily vote to make alcohol illegal. It has contributed to a large proportion of the problems that exist in society and I would happily give up my right to enjoy a social drink so the amount of spousal, sexaul, and emotional abuse caused by liquor would decrease.

[MSH]

If more people smoked marijuana (as opposed to drink alcohol) then there would be less spousal abuse, less wreckless driving, less wanton destruction and more mellow people.

I am not advocating for the legalization (or decrim at the least) of anything but marijuana, btw.

As someone who has sat in the more "libertarian" camp of the old Alliance crowd and is now currently a Conservative supporter I do believe we have to look at why we criminalise the posession of marijuana...the benefits to society of such government intervention are questionable (yes, there was a number of libertarian-oriented Reformers/Alliance supporters who advocated decriminalisation for a number of years, though it was always a minority opinion).

However, I'd have to say that the statements above are baseless and it shows an irresponsible attitude on your part.

I don't think there is any evidence at all that toking up would reduce domestic violence, though I'd imagine its calming effects could very well have that effect. In any case irrisponsible use of marijuana would certainly contribute to the decay of a domestic relationship, just as irresponsible use of alcohol does.

As to the "less wreckless driving" claim, THAT IS OUTRIGHT FALSE. Speaking from firsthand experience as a passenger in a car driven by someone who was stoned many years ago, as well as knowing what I felt like when stoned I can say you are COMPLETELY WRONG. It is VERY DANGEROUS to drive when stoned and doing so is just as irresponsible and reckless as driving drunk. It puts your own lives and the lives of innocent others in danger. Being stoned is different from being drunk to be sure, but it is NO SAFER to get behind the wheel.

"Less wanton destruction"? Sorry, that's pretty flaky too. Less violent? Perhaps...but stoned people act like STUPID people that do stupid, reckless things...anything from urinating in the streets to jumping around on cars...these are the kind of things "fun loving" stoned people liked to do on the Red Mile a couple years ago. Oh yeah, and really stoned people like to try drinking in public too...then you have to deal with soned...and drink...and as a result probably vomiting...party-goers too.

These ridiculous statements do more to damage the case for decriminalisation more than they do to suppport it. Marijuana souldn't simply be legal, just like alcohol isn't "simply legal" (it is a regulated substance). Responsible adults can enjoy it responsibly for sure, but irrisponsible/excessive/chronic use of pot will ruin lives and damage health and, well, make you look like an ass...just like alcohol does. And, as in the case of alcohol, unfortunately too many people use it irresponsibly.

I do not advocate decriminalisation as a magical solution to societal ills...I advocate it becasue making simple posession and use a crime seems to serve no useful purpose at all. If pot was legal then we wouldn't have to waste law enforcement resources on busting grow ops and it would take the wind out of a major revenue stream for organised crime. However, pot would still ruin the lives of countless people...just like alcohol does. At least we could then re-prioritise and focus on education, addiction prevention and rehabilitation anyways.

[Wilber]

I always have wondered why people have the need to "fuzz out" on alcohol. I don't drink and really don't enjoy the effect.... but does that give me the right to tell you that you cannot ingest it? No, it doesn't. Drinking is your personal choice, even though many studies have been done on the emotional and physical detriments that occur when alcohol is consumed.

I'd happily vote to make alcohol illegal. It has contributed to a large proportion of the problems that exist in society and I would happily give up my right to enjoy a social drink so the amount of spousal, sexaul, and emotional abuse caused by liquor would decrease.

Already been done, it was called prohibition. Didn't work. Happily give up your own rights if you wish but don't be so cavalier with the rights of others. If we ban everything that some people do irresponsibly we will have no rights at all.

[BubberMiley]

It's extremely foolish and naive to think that prohibition reduces consumption. It has no effect on access, other than the fact that its deregulation facilitates access to minors. And there isn't a person alive who abstains today because of its criminalization. You abstain because you don't want to be a pothead, not because it's illegal.

[Topaz]

You don't need smoking of anything or drinking to live your life. Smoking todays tobacco, does nothing but make you sick and rise the price of healthcare and drinking isn't much better unless you are a "social drinker" and never been drunk more than once. I think you will see in the future if you abuse your body by drinking, smoking, eating , whatever, YOU will pay and NOT the taxpayers of this country.

[Canadian Blue]

Already been done, it was called prohibition. Didn't work. Happily give up your own rights if you wish but don't be so cavalier with the rights of others. If we ban everything that some people do irresponsibly we will have no rights at all.

Meh, not really. I already pay taxes to fund peoples stupid mistakes. Drinking should be more of a privilege then a right. I would be willing to give up my right to drink, if it could be done. But your right prohibition would never work, unless the laws were extremely strict. I would legalize marijauna in much the same way liquor is. But I'm not willing to see unemployment go up so some high school kids can get high.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Legalize the weed folks. Not decriminalize but actually make it legal. Tax the crap out of it and subsidize the public healthcare system. Add a similiar tax to cigs and booze. Sin tax the stuff to the nines. Use our vices to cover our costs......might as well add prostitutes to the list while we are at it. Its not like legislation prevents these everyday vices from happening, aside from that while these things are illegal they are literally out of control of the government. So legalize them and regulate them to actually protect society to the fullest extent possible.

[geoffrey]

Legalize the weed folks. Not decriminalize but actually make it legal. Tax the crap out of it and subsidize the public healthcare system. Add a similiar tax to cigs and booze. Sin tax the stuff to the nines. Use our vices to cover our costs......might as well add prostitutes to the list while we are at it. Its not like legislation prevents these everyday vices from happening, aside from that while these things are illegal they are literally out of control of the government. So legalize them and regulate them to actually protect society to the fullest extent possible.

While prohibition has rarely been successful (other than western private business clubs, it does work in Saudi Arabia), legalisation has never been shown to reduce consumption or improve society in any meaningful way either.

The criminals and mob just move on to other worthwhile endeavours.

[jbg]

What's pathetic is believing it's pathetic to take many things into consideration when making a decision - not just the petty, selfish desires for drug use among the more degenerate members of our society. These are things like, how much effort we want everyone to have to put into crossing the border - which Canadians do millions of times a year, and what cultural side-effects legalizing drugs might have, like more users.

I do remember that under Martin Canada was fast setting up to the capital of vice tourism; legal prostitution, legal marijuana, etc.

As far as Nevada (and for that matter New York) the furthest they can go is to decriminalize pot. They cannot legalize it. That means the possession of pot would bring penalties the equivalent of a traffic conviction, and of course it could not be sold through vending machines or other legal channels.