Letting Canadians decide our future?

[mikedavid00]

People in Canada vote against parties, not for them. They say this is because the average Canadian has no faith with politicians in general. Better to trust the devil you know, then the devil you don't. Also, a lot of Canadians are simply not informed with a lot of issues or have not developed the skill to be able to have an opinion. Thus, they are made to think that they have no say so don't bother getting involved with discussion. Why? Becuase they don't.

Is it time that we start to give votes back to the people of Canada instead of letting politicians and judges determine our future?

For instance, it is not up to my elected official to determine whether pot should be legal or taxed. This affects everyone and it shall be up to the citizens if we want to live in a country where pot is legal. They have done this in the US in a couple of states and it's always a 45/55 vote. The people decide. That's democracy. And they have decided against it.

I feel that since I can remeber, our elected officials have been over-stepping their role as gov't officials. They've started to dictate. It's troubling when a co-worker from mainland China tells me that our politics is just like China's: everythign happens behind closed doors and people have no say.

If Canadian citizens were to vote on propositions each year, like for fixed election dates, or electoral reform, immigration, then it would encourage citizens to learn about the issue at hand. It would create discussion at work and people would learn about their own country. Yes there would be commericals saying 'Say YES to prop 215!'. But it would be fun.

And maybe, just maybe, Canadians could feel for ONCE, they had some sort of say in our country. And maybe we could even stop the expectation that all politicians are bad because they'll start to work for us the people and not their dictator style 'visions of Canada'.

But how do we get there? Is it even possible?

[Riverwind]

Yes there would be commericals saying 'Say YES to prop 215!'. But it would be fun.

For every 'good' proposition there are about 20 dumb ones that end up creating more problems than the solve because the people that vote for them are uninformed idiots. In some cases, the propositions end up in court because the violate the state or federal constitution. Representative democracy is not perfect but the last thing we need a never ending system of referendums.

[bk59]

Another problem I see has to do with voter apathy. Right now you claim that no one cares and no one really takes the time to inform themselves of the issues. So what happens when every two years you have to vote on dozens of propositions? My guess is that most people will just continue with their apathy and say "who cares, I'm not taking the time to figure all of this out."

I think representative democracy can work. Right now we just need to get rid of some of the party rhetoric and have a bit more party cooperation. Part of the reason people feel that no one is listening is because all anyone ever sees are party representatives (from all parties) screaming at one another about how so-and-so is wrong, or how so-and-so is to blame, etc. No one appears to be listening to anyone else.

[bk59]

For every 'good' proposition there are about 20 dumb ones that end up creating more problems than the solve because the people that vote for them are uninformed idiots. In some cases, the propositions end up in court because the violate the state or federal constitution. Representative democracy is not perfect but the last thing we need a never ending system of referendums.

Agreed. The last thing we need is a bunch of crack-pots creating binding referendums on modifying our justice system when they don't even know how our current system works, let alone how their proposed system would work. Likewise those who don't understand science shouldn't be dictating research policy, those who don't understand how the environment works shouldn't be dictating enivronmental policy, etc. I'm not saying our current politicians are much better, but at least they (are supposed to) take the time to consider their options and have staff available to make sure they are informed properly. House Committees investigate potential legislative changes, etc. No system is perfect, but representative democracy can give the people a voice in these matters while giving the decision-makers a chance to filter out some of the outlying noise (after at least considering it).

[normanchateau]

For instance, it is not up to my elected official to determine whether pot should be legal or taxed. This affects everyone and it shall be up to the citizens if we want to live in a country where pot is legal. They have done this in the US in a couple of states and it's always a 45/55 vote. The people decide. That's democracy.

True enough.

"A poll by Zogby International found that 41% of Americans agree that “the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate it, control it, tax it and only make it illegal for children.”

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/p...se/pr062403.cfm

In the same year, 2003, that Zogby Internation released their US data, SES Research released Canadian data. The Canadian data indicate that 69% of Canadians favour decriminalization of marijuana. Only 25% oppose it:

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/Febr...inalization.pdf

So I agree with you. Let the American people decide on US drug policies. That's democracy.

And let the Canadian people decide on Canada's drug policies. But don't let the US government decide on Canada's drug policies. That's not democracy.

[Riverwind]

But don't let the US government decide on Canada's drug policies. That's not democracy.

This is the perfect example of why gov't by referendum is a bad idea. The US does not dictate Canadian drug policy - however, Canadian policy makers must consider the the broader implications before changing any laws. Legalizing pot in Canada would have a negative impact on cross border trade since the US would continue to enforce its laws no matter what Canada did. Furthermore, the existence of a legal market for the substance in Canada would provide cover for illegal operators who wanted to export to the US.

IOW - legalizing pot is a complex issue that requires someone to be fully informed before they could make a sensible choice in a referendum.

[Charles Anthony]

legalizing pot is a complex issue that requires someone to be fully informed before they could make a sensible choice in a referendum.

Not if every jurisdiction including the U.S.A. legalized pot.

[normanchateau]

But don't let the US government decide on Canada's drug policies. That's not democracy.

This is the perfect example of why gov't by referendum is a bad idea.

True enough. Let the politicians decide.

Stephane Dion and most Liberal MPs favour the Liberal decriminalization bill which would have been passed had the Liberals not lost the January election. The BQ and NDP favour decriminalization.

The Green Party favours outright legalization but will support decriminalization as an interim position.

Stephen Harper favours criminalization for even simple possession, i.e., any quantity of marijuana below 30 grams. I'm not sure where other CPC MPs stand but I'd be surprised if socially liberal BC MPs like David Emerson and James Moore opposed decriminalization. Even BC MP Stockwell Day once mused he'd likely favour decriminalization.

So if you don't want the people to decide because you think they're just not smart enough to make the prohibitionist decision you want, you should at least let the politicians decide.

And if you think neither the people nor the politicians should decide, who should?

[Charles Anthony]

And if you think neither the people nor the politicians should decide, who should?

The market.

[normanchateau]

And if you think neither the people nor the politicians should decide, who should?

The market.

The market should decide whether people go to jail?

[Riverwind]

The market should decide whether people go to jail?

Of course, anyone accused of a crime should have a selection of courts to choose from. Cases would be decided based on a competitive bid system where the accused or the alleged victim would both ante up and the court would choose the best bid.

[normanchateau]

Legalizing pot in Canada would have a negative impact on cross border trade since the US would continue to enforce its laws no matter what Canada did. Furthermore, the existence of a legal market for the substance in Canada would provide cover for illegal operators who wanted to export to the US.

Deja vu. Exactly the same arguments were made when alcohol was illegal in the US but legal in Canada. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_i...e_United_States

A quote from the above link:

" * While the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol was illegal in the U.S., it was not illegal in surrounding countries. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally imported to the U.S.

* The Ku Klux Klan strongly supported Prohibition and its strict enforcement [1].

* Carrie Nation of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union fought for prohibition by walking into saloons, scolding customers, and using her hatchet to destroy bottles of liquor. Other activists enforced the cause by entering saloons, singing, praying, and urging saloon keepers to stop selling alcohol [2].

* Joseph Kennedy, father of John F. Kennedy, smuggled alcohol from Canada to the US and built a sizable fortune both during and after Prohibition. "

Carrie Nation and the Ku Klux Klan ultimately lost the battle. So will Stephen Harper.

Except for so-cons, Canadians are not inherently prohibitionist.

[Charles Anthony]

Of course, anyone accused of a crime should have a selection of courts to choose from. Cases would be decided based on a competitive bid system where the accused or the alleged victim would both ante up and the court would choose the best bid.

That might work.

However, decriminalizing pot would make more sense.

[normanchateau]

Of course, anyone accused of a crime should have a selection of courts to choose from. Cases would be decided based on a competitive bid system where the accused or the alleged victim would both ante up and the court would choose the best bid.

That might work.

However, decriminalizing pot would make more sense.

Yes, finding alleged victims of those who possess a gram of marijuana while not completely impossible, could be a challenge.

Perhaps one could even argue that the taxpayer-funded courts and police forces have more pressing issues than arresting and convicting people for simple possession. Maybe there are better ways to spend our money.

However an economic argument could be made for keeping the legislation as is. Those with a criminal record for simple possession of ANY quantity of marijuana are now permanently barred from entering the US. This is true whether they do jail time or not. They'll spend more of their hard-earned $CAD in Canada. Maybe that's why so-con Harper favours criminalization for possession of any quantity of marijuana.

[mikedavid00]

But don't let the US government decide on Canada's drug policies. That's not democracy.

This is the perfect example of why gov't by referendum is a bad idea. The US does not dictate Canadian drug policy - however, Canadian policy makers must consider the the broader implications before changing any laws. Legalizing pot in Canada would have a negative impact on cross border trade since the US would continue to enforce its laws no matter what Canada did. Furthermore, the existence of a legal market for the substance in Canada would provide cover for illegal operators who wanted to export to the US.

IOW - legalizing pot is a complex issue that requires someone to be fully informed before they could make a sensible choice in a referendum.

Whoah hold on there.

There is a differnce between decriminalization and legalization. The latter is what Layton and Ignatieff would love to have. That would mean that the gov't would basically be creating a new tabacco industry.

Decriminlization upholds the right of induviduals to consume a subastance of ones own choice as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. This would mean that if you were caught with it, you wouldn't have a criminal record. Most states and provinces have already decriminilzed pot.

I know it's complex, but they say Alaska has the 'right' policy which protects all rights. I don't know what's going on these days though:

http://norml.com/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4522

[mikedavid00]

But don't let the US government decide on Canada's drug policies. That's not democracy.

This is the perfect example of why gov't by referendum is a bad idea. The US does not dictate Canadian drug policy - however, Canadian policy makers must consider the the broader implications before changing any laws. Legalizing pot in Canada would have a negative impact on cross border trade since the US would continue to enforce its laws no matter what Canada did. Furthermore, the existence of a legal market for the substance in Canada would provide cover for illegal operators who wanted to export to the US.

IOW - legalizing pot is a complex issue that requires someone to be fully informed before they could make a sensible choice in a referendum.

Don't you see what you are doing though?

You are not trusting in the ability of your fellow citizens to learn the same as the points your outlined. It would be an issue talked about at work and through 'NO' campaigns. The country would most likely decide that we do not want to ba a nation (there's that word again) of legalized drugs.

Why is it that you don't feel Canadian citizens are not 'able' enough to rationalize these things?

Why do you feel you must 'profess to the little people'?

I felt the same when I was younger, but this is not a way to run our country view your fellow citizens.

[mikedavid00]

And if you think neither the people nor the politicians should decide, who should?

'Riverwind' should be the one deciding.

Don't you see? It's the bigger picture of the dictatorship style of leadership that we've been so used to.