normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I do not believe in legalization. I do believe in decriminalization. I think that decriminalization is really a half measure. It just makes it easier for bikers to profit of the trade in the business. I favour legalization with a regulated production industry and very strict laws for large scale illegal growing operations and unlicensed vendors. Your position is consistent with that of the Fraser Institute which funded a 40 page report on the topic: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/...s/Marijuana.pdf Here's a summary of what's in the report: "June 9, 2004 Legalize Marijuana, Fraser Institute Advises $2-Billion Tax Source: Group Says Move Would Seize Control From Criminals OTTAWA - Marijuana should be legalized and then taxed like any other product, says a study by an economic think-tank. The Fraser Institute estimates such a move would easily generate more than $2-billion a year in additional tax revenues. All that would really change is that governments, rather than criminals, would enjoy the spoils, argues the study being released today by the Vancouver-based institute. The potential tax revenue is based on the study's estimate that in British Columbia alone, the annual marijuana crop, if valued at retail street prices and sold by the cigarette, is worth more than $7-billion. "Using conservative assumptions about Canadian consumption, this could translate into potential revenues for the government of over $2-billion," the study states. "In British Columbia -- as in other provinces, notably Quebec and Ontario, it is a significant crop that fuels organized crime." Study author Stephen Easton, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University and a senior fellow at the institute, estimates there are as many as 17,500 marijuana grow operations in B.C. alone. Marijuana is widely produced and about one quarter of Canadians admit to having used it, the study says. As such, the broader social question has become not whether to approve or disapprove of production, but rather who should enjoy the spoils. "If we treat marijuana like any other commodity, we can tax it, regulate it and use the resources the industry generates rather than continue a war against consumption and production that has long since been lost," Dr. Easton said. "It is apparent that we are reliving the experience of alcohol prohibition of the early years of the last century." In British Columbia, indoor marijuana cultivation and consumption appears to be higher than in the rest of Canada, it notes. The most striking difference is that only 13% of offenders in the province are actually charged while that number climbs to 60% for the rest of Canada. In addition, the penalties for conviction in B.C. are low, it said. Fifty-five per cent of those convicted receive no jail time. While police resources are spent destroying nearly 3,000 marijuana grow operations a year in B.C., the consequences are relatively minor for those convicted, it says. The industry is simply too profitable to prevent new people moving into production and old producers from rebuilding. A modest grow-operation of 100 plants generates $80,000 a year in gross revenues, and with production costs of about $25,000, the potential return on invested money is a high 55%, it says. It currently costs $1.50 to produce a marijuana cigarette, which sells for $8.60. "Unless we wish to continue the transfer of these billions from this lucrative endeavour to organized crime, the current policy on prohibition should be changed," it says. "Not only would we deprive some very unsavoury groups of a profound source of easy money, but also resources currently spent on marijuana enforcement would be available for other activities." Two years ago, a Senate report also urged the government to ends its prohibition of the drug and implement a system to regulate its production, distribution and consumption. A federal bill that would have decriminalized marijuana use, but imposed harsher penalties on growers, died with the calling of the election. Pubdate: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 Source: National Post (Canada) Copyright: 2004 Southam Inc. Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/ Author: Eric Beauchesne, CanWest News Service" Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Diefenbaker's final term of office saw the escalation of a nuclear arms question brought on by the imported Bomarc missiles and the Voodoo aircraft that had replaced the Avro Arrow. Diefenbaker rejected American nuclear warheads being put in missiles, warplanes and ground-based tactical rockets. The already strained relationship in government deteriorated faster, and a Cabinet split further undermined the government. Social Credit and the CCF withdrew their support of the government, This does not imply that the SC and NDP/CCF did nothing to aid the Progressive Conservative. Just the opposite, they propped it up, until it collapsed from within. And if you have a better version of history..... Yes, Diefenbaker lost power because of the Bomarc decision and the objection withing his caucus and the Liberals. That still doesn't show your *just the opposite*. What actual steps did the NDP take to prop up the Government? Do you have even one example of an issue that the CCF supported the Government on? Even if that were true the NDP didn't help or hurt themselves by their actions in the Diefenbaker government of 62-63. They got almost exactly the same number of votes in both elections. They got 53 fewer votes NATIONALLY in 1963. That definitely disproves Spears' theory... Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Are you not aware that there is already hate crimes legislation in place which makes it a crime to advocate or promote the killing of people based on their religion? Harper supports that legislation. He also supports hate crimes legislation based on race or ethnicity. But he opposes hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation. I don't support any of these foolish endeavours. Fine, your position is perfectly clear and I respect it, i.e., you oppose all hate crimes legislation. If that were Harper's position, it would be understandable and consistent with the libertarian position. But that's not Harper's position. He only opposes hate crimes legislation with respect to sexual orientation but has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Two years ago, a Senate report also urged the government to ends its prohibition of the drug and implement a system to regulate its production, distribution and consumption. That original Senate report was very solid, other than the recommendations on 30 grams of pot for simple possession. The bill that was presented to Parliament was a half measure. Man, wouldn't that be interesting if the Conservatives followed the recommendations of the Senate and legalized pot... Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Two years ago, a Senate report also urged the government to ends its prohibition of the drug and implement a system to regulate its production, distribution and consumption. That original Senate report was very solid, other than the recommendations on 30 grams of pot for simple possession. Man, wouldn't that be interesting if the Conservatives followed the recommendations of the Senate and legalized pot... The Chairman and lead author of the Senate report was Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, originally appointed as a Progressive Conservative but now a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. There's not a chance that the Senate report will be followed as long as Stephen Harper leads that party. Even Stockwell Day has a more socially moderate position on the issue. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 There's not a chance that the Senate report will be followed as long as Stephen Harper leads that party. Even Stockwell Day has a more socially moderate position on the issue. Do support that one.... Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 There's not a chance that the Senate report will be followed as long as Stephen Harper leads that party. Even Stockwell Day has a more socially moderate position on the issue. Do support that one.... "The Canadian Alliance is a new conservative party that grew out of the disintegration of the old Progressive Conservative [Tory] Party. Its new leader, Stockwell Day, is a "social conservative," who says that marijuana users "should not go to jail." http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=263 Quote
Canadian Blue Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I think the guy who wrote that heading was on pot, since the Canadian Alliance grew out of the former Reform party. Stockwell Day a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper, not according to history. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I think the guy who wrote that heading was on pot, since the Canadian Alliance grew out of the former Reform party.Stockwell Day a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper, not according to history. Stephen Harper has made it clear that he supports current laws with respect to simple possession. Current laws permit the courts to jail offenders. Some offenders are jailed. Stockwell Day, who admitted to using marijuana himself in the past, opposes jail sentences for simple posession. But perhaps you have a different version of their respective views on simple possession and if so, please provide your sources. Quote
Canadian Blue Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Stephen Harper has made it clear that he supports current laws with respect to simple possession. Current laws permit the courts to jail offenders. Some offenders are jailed. Stockwell Day, who admitted to using marijuana himself in the past, opposes jail sentences for simple posession. But perhaps you have a different version of their respective views on simple possession and if so, please provide your sources. Well, I don't even really know what Harper's position is, as the marijuana bill died due to the election. For all I know it simply hasn't been addressed due to that fact, and the fact the government has different priorities. I agree with Stockwell Day though, we shouldn't jail people for simple possession. However I think the people that are jailed with possession, usually have done something else which warranted the jail sentence. In Winnipeg a women got time served for assisting her husband in raping children, I doubt we'd see stiffer penalties against simple possession. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
scribblet Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I think the guy who wrote that heading was on pot, since the Canadian Alliance grew out of the former Reform party.Stockwell Day a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper, not according to history. Agreed, but some people use 'revisionist history' actually I nearly fell off my chair when I read that bit about Stockwell Day being a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper. There is absolutely no evidence for that but I guess it is in the category of, if you say something often enough, people start to believe it. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Agreed, but some people use 'revisionist history' actually I nearly fell off my chair when I read that bit about Stockwell Day being a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper. There is absolutely no evidence for that but I guess it is in the category of, if you say something often enough, people start to believe it. You should look at the *proof* Normie supplied to support that nose-stretcher. It is from a Web site called Marijuana News that hasn't been updated in eight months. They provide some random unattributed quote to Day. This is in comparison to Harper who isn't discussed at all... Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
mikedavid00 Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Two years ago, a Senate report also urged the government to ends its prohibition of the drug and implement a system to regulate its production, distribution and consumption. That original Senate report was very solid, other than the recommendations on 30 grams of pot for simple possession. The bill that was presented to Parliament was a half measure. Man, wouldn't that be interesting if the Conservatives followed the recommendations of the Senate and legalized pot... I don't know that the gov't should be making this discussion. If we are going to all Canada to be a nation of readily available pot at the store, I know I would have most likely gotten some over the years when I was bored. But I haven't because I don't know at all where to get it. They say that most adults use every few years when it's around. If it's readily available, people will use more. You also have to consider other citizens who won't be using pot. You have to be very careful in not infringing on others' rights. I think there should be a yes/no side to this debate becuase there are pro's and cons and the people should decide. I don't feel the gov't should do this in order for a cash grab. If pot is legalized, innocent Canadian lives will be claimed due to driving while intoxicated. That's almost a garuntee so you have to weight the pro's and con's. It will also greatly suffer our already bad relations with the US. Can't we just stick with Alaska's policy which protects personal rights? Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Canuck E Stan Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I don't know that the gov't should be making this discussion. If we are going to all Canada to be a nation of readily available pot at the store, I know I would have most likely gotten some over the years when I was bored. But I haven't because I don't know at all where to get it. They say that most adults use every few years when it's around. If it's readily available, people will use more. You also have to consider other citizens who won't be using pot. You have to be very careful in not infringing on others' rights. I think there should be a yes/no side to this debate becuase there are pro's and cons and the people should decide. I don't feel the gov't should do this in order for a cash grab. If pot is legalized, innocent Canadian lives will be claimed due to driving while intoxicated. That's almost a garuntee so you have to weight the pro's and con's. It will also greatly suffer our already bad relations with the US. Can't we just stick with Alaska's policy which protects personal rights? I understand drug and pot use causes people to be incoherent and ramble, is that true? Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
madmax Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 They got 53 fewer votes NATIONALLY in 1963. That definitely disproves Spears' theory... It certainly is an interesting point. Yet 53 votes cost them 2 seats. And It could disprove Spears Theory. Quote
madmax Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 It is from a Web site called Marijuana News that hasn't been updated in eight months. Look.....These.......Things.......TKEA...TAKE.....IMTE.......TIME....SOOOOOOOOOO .......WHHHAT.......IS....YOUR...........rrruuyhry............Hurrrrry.......... ....I.........MEAN..........Really..............ISN't...........it...........PRetty.................Currrent............what.... .........were............we TOKing............Talking.........aboot........OH......Yeah..........sTOKEwell Day........Great Guy. Quote
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I think the guy who wrote that heading was on pot, since the Canadian Alliance grew out of the former Reform party. Stockwell Day a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper, not according to history. Agreed, but some people use 'revisionist history' actually I nearly fell off my chair when I read that bit about Stockwell Day being a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper. There is absolutely no evidence for that but I guess it is in the category of, if you say something often enough, people start to believe it. You must not be reading very carefully. I never said that Stockwell Day is a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper. That claim came from CanadianBlue, i.e., "Stockwell Day a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper..." What I said is that on the specific issue of marijuana, Stockwell Day took a more moderate position than Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper favours current legislation. Stockwell Day planned a free vote in parliament on the issue if he were elected. But hey, it's a lot easier to attack someone's inaccurate and distorted portrayal of my position than actually attacking my position. And if the inaccurate and distorted position is repeated often enough, it will with time be attributed to me. Quote
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 "Toronto — Under the prime ministership of Stockwell Day, Parliament would hold a free vote on marijuana use, natives on reserves would lose their sales-tax exemptions, the CBC would be put up for sale, and 25 per cent of the voters in a riding could unseat a member of Parliament. These and many other policies are contained in the official but confidential policy background document sent to Canadian Alliance riding candidates in the coming federal election. A copy of the document has been obtained by The Globe and Mail." Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/RTG...i&date=20001108 Quote
scribblet Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 If pot is legalized, innocent Canadian lives will be claimed due to driving while intoxicated. That's almost a garuntee so you have to weight the pro's and con's. It will also greatly suffer our already bad relations with the US. Can't we just stick with Alaska's policy which protects personal rights? Agreed. I only tried it once (had to try it before I die - ) there is no way I could have driven a vehicle or done anything rational for some time, and no I wouldn't try it again, I see no need to. As far as I'm concerned it is the gateway drug. I don't object to medicinal use if people think it helps them, who am I to stop them, but it has to still have gov't oversight. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Agreed. I only tried it once (had to try it before I die - ) there is no way I could have driven a vehicle or done anything rational for some time, and no I wouldn't try it again, I see no need to. As far as I'm concerned it is the gateway drug. I don't object to medicinal use if people think it helps them, who am I to stop them, but it has to still have gov't oversight. I completely agree that stoned driving should be treated as seriously as drunk driving. I know that some police forces have begun training their officers to detect stoned driving and this should continue. I don't buy the whole gateway drug thing for a couple reasons. Pot is so easy to get in Canada now that I don't think you would see a great increase in usage due to decriminalization or legalization. I think that if either happened people would be shocked at the number of Canadians who do smoke. I don't smoke any more for health reasons. But what's the difference between buddy who puts down a 24 over the weekend and budy smoking a couple joints over the weekend? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I only tried it once (had to try it before I die - ) there is no way I could have driven a vehicle Who's suggesting people should drive under the influence of marijuana? No one that I know of. Driving under the influence of marijuana should be treated in the same manner as driving under the influence of alcohol. Quote
mikedavid00 Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I understand drug and pot use causes people to be incoherent and ramble, is that true? Yeah I knew someone would throw a joke at me Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
blueblood Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 I don't buy the whole gateway drug thing for a couple reasons I buy it, I've seen it happen with my own eyes. I'll say with all the people I know that smoke pot 75% went on to worse stuff because of the same reason they tried pot in the first place. It's not worth the gov'ts time to be pissing around wasting time and money decriminizing/legalizing it. There are more issues that are way more important than that. If you don't want a record then don't do the crime, it's that easy. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
normanchateau Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Agreed. I only tried it once (had to try it before I die - ) there is no way I could have driven a vehicle or done anything rational for some time, and no I wouldn't try it again, I see no need to. As far as I'm concerned it is the gateway drug. I don't object to medicinal use if people think it helps them, who am I to stop them, but it has to still have gov't oversight. I completely agree that stoned driving should be treated as seriously as drunk driving. I know that some police forces have begun training their officers to detect stoned driving and this should continue. In parts of Australia they now employ saliva tests which accurately detects tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most powerful and psychoactive component of marijuana. This is the equivalent of a breathalyzer test for alcohol. In my opinion, Canadian police forces could be employing the THC saliva test now whether or not decriminalization/legalization happens. No one should be allowed to drive stoned. Quote
mikedavid00 Posted January 14, 2007 Report Posted January 14, 2007 Who's suggesting people should drive under the influence of marijuana? No one that I know of. Driving under the influence of marijuana should be treated in the same manner as driving under the influence of alcohol. That's idealism. If there is an increase in pot usage (which there obviously would be) then we would see an increase of deaths and for innocent Canadians. The pot cafe's in Canada would be much more high buget, high end, and probably multi-million dollar establishments (like a good trendy resturaunt). The difference between Amsterdam and the GTA is that the majority of people would be taking 400 series highways to get to their destination and it's almost certain that there would be lives claims. Also there would be a massive new tourist industry and Toronto would basically become a red light district. We already have a drinking and driving, homeless, hard drug problem in Toronto. Legalization I think would be the straw that breaks the camels back. All Canadians should be able to decide if they want this and need to outweigh the pro's and con's. If people decide for it, than that's the will of the people and I'll agree with their desciison. Alaska: "Possession 1 oz or less in your residence or home no penalty N/A N/A " "Possession of less than 25 plants is protected under the Alaska Constitution’s right to privacy (See Ravin v. Alaska). " "It is an affirmative defense to possession, manufacture or delivery that the offender is a patient or caregiver who is registered with the state for medical use of marijuana." Can't we just let people do what they want in their own homes? Isn't that reasonable enought? Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.