Marijuana In Canada

[trex]

You gave me three sites, one of which claims 1/4 of the world's prisoners are in the US...the world socialist website. Now you've obviously modified the wiki article which didn't say any such thing yesterday, and cited MSNBC...which doesn't say it either.

While talking to americanwoman about the BBC, there was a quote there which will put your silliness to rest-

"We have 25% of the world's prisoners but we're only 5% of the world's population"

Kara Gotsch, American Civil Liberties Union

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1242368.stm

and guess what, i did not put it there, scott!

[ScottSA]

forget about the numbers, forget about china... what is it saying, the article talks about the fallout of criminal stigma for the families, the kids who gets their parents taken away. sure the parents broke the law, sure they have an addiction. no one denies this, but the question is does the punishment fit the crime? theres people in the US in jail for 20 years, for growing 3 plants in his basement. they were his plants, not for sale but he was still charged with cultivation, treated more punitively. since he used his basement to grow the plants, his house came under rules of forfeiture, family home gone... among thousands of other horror stories. basically mandatory minimus allows no exception, no judges discretion for extenuating circumstances.

Well, let's get past the "victimless crime" meme. I would say a good many of the druggies doing hard time plea bargained themselves out of far worse things. Or, alternatively, they are drug dealers, including those selling to kids. You make it sound as if everyone got caught smoking a joint while singing Kumbaya, and that's obviously not the case. I strongly suspect the vast majority are not innocent victims who just managed to have the bad luck to be persecuted by "the man."

[Guest coot]

Well, let's get past the "victimless crime" meme.

Don't you think that the many times you smoked pot, it was a victimless crime? If not, why would you have done it? The simple fact is that marijuana use makes criminals out of people who are otherwise happy to live their lives within the law. It's not like it's a misdemeanor like cruising for sex in a public washroom; it's a criminal offence--a gross legal overreaction to a somewhat innocuous activity that you and many others admit to having done without any serious consequence whatsoever. It is highly hypocritical of anyone who has ever casually smoked pot to believe that others should get a criminal record for the same behaviour.

[Guest American Woman]

if those other numbers are right, then you can reassure yourself that US is better than china. fine... and maybe even most of the other so-called axis of evil countries, or whatever.

but that is hardly good enough a comparator, the harsh dictatorships. are we saying, the US is the best of the harsh dictatorships?

or the worst of the so-called free world?

we can certainly trust the numbers from those countries, like Britain, or Canada. you know what it means if we do that... We could take a look at the graph

some people call it, the prison-industrial system, with the drug war pumping the money. Jails is big business, lots of jobs. I heard some states offer incentives to build the supermax prisons there, is this true?

Just asking...

forget about the numbers, forget about china... what is it saying, the article talks about the fallout of criminal stigma for the families, the kids who gets their parents taken away. sure the parents broke the law, sure they have an addiction. no one denies this, but the question is does the punishment fit the crime? theres people in the US in jail for 20 years, for growing 3 plants in his basement. they were his plants, not for sale but he was still charged with cultivation, treated more punitively. since he used his basement to grow the plants, his house came under rules of forfeiture, family home gone... among thousands of other horror stories. basically mandatory minimus allows no exception, no judges discretion for extenuating circumstances.

The numbers were posted, so I refuted them. I'm the first to criticize my country when necessary, and with so many people in prison there is likely something wrong with the system, but I don't think it's necessary to use 'false low' numbers for places like China in order to say 'oh, look how bad the United States is!' I don't see people doing that with other countries.

But while we're on the topic, according to the link I posted:

In many countries, it is common for prisoners to be paroled after serving as little as one third of their sentences. In the U.S., most states strictly limit parole, requiring that at least half of a sentence be served. For certain heinous crimes, there is no parole and the full sentence must be served.

So. Is that a bad thing in your opinion? Also, I'd like to know how many people are in jail for having three plants in their basement.

And for the record, I've never even hear of a "supermax prison," much less incentives to build them. I don't know what people think living in the U.S. is like, but as I already pointed out, some places have decriminalized pot, same as in Canada. People aren't rotting away in jail for smoking a joint.

And I feel for the kids whose parents get put in jail, but I feel for the parents whose kids are preyed upon by some of these prisoners too.

I do think the prison system should be geared towards rehabilitation rather than punative, but that's a whole different topic.

[Guest coot]

The Americans will spend their money as they damn well please.

If you eliminated the posts that merely stated the obvious, you would have nothing left to say.

[trex]

Well, let's get past the "victimless crime" meme. I would say a good many of the druggies doing hard time plea bargained themselves out of far worse things. Or, alternatively, they are drug dealers, including those selling to kids. You make it sound as if everyone got caught smoking a joint while singing Kumbaya, and that's obviously not the case. I strongly suspect the vast majority are not innocent victims who just managed to have the bad luck to be persecuted by "the man."

fine, then you support decriminilazation then. because all those bad ones would be outta work, if you decriminilized at least small amounts, and allowed small personal grows, there would be nomarket. all those guys would be gone. not gone, they would find another area of society to exploit. go after the criminals yes, but lets just take their legs out from under them. The same thing happened during alcohol prohibition, and regulation proved itself to be the only sensibleway to manage the problem.

theres even evidence, that regulation reduced the use of alcohol, plus reduced the deaths since they no longer drank hootch made in a garage, they had ways to make the alcohol safe and regulated the strength of it... makes sense and proved to be the only way out.

[shavluk]

Sorry, but after this response, I'm no longer interested in wasting my time in 'discussion' with you.

Does no one here have a sense of humor or what?

Can you at least answer the question about drug use?

I will assume that if you don't answerthat its "yes"

or and none of my business.

Got it.

YES is what I believe

i do apologize if you are that thin skinned as really ,really I have no bitch with you at all.

None ,,

well so far and dont really need more enemys ,,,as I beat too many now hahhaha come on

[trex]

Does no one here have a sense of humor or what?

evidently not, they do not get the jokes, mr. shav.

when you first hit em where it hurts...

;^)

[old_bold&cold]

fine, then you support decriminilazation then. because all those bad ones would be outta work, if you decriminilized at least small amounts, and allowed small personal grows, there would be nomarket. all those guys would be gone. not gone, they would find another area of society to exploit. go after the criminals yes, but lets just take their legs out from under them. The same thing happened during alcohol prohibition, and regulation proved itself to be the only sensibleway to manage the problem.

theres even evidence, that regulation reduced the use of alcohol, plus reduced the deaths since they no longer drank hootch made in a garage, they had ways to make the alcohol safe and regulated the strength of it... makes sense and proved to be the only way out.

Tbud why is it that you think that people just becuause the say they would give a small break to minor possession or things maybe a even a little higher and you say then you support Decriminalization? You know if there were a real honest effort made to have it so the first offence for under 30 grams of pot to be a $500.00 fine no criminal record, and the next offense a $5,000.00 and one year suspended sentence, and any offence after that would be 2 years less a day up to 20 years. Then maybe there would be some following for this. You and your cause will never sell the voters on complete decriminalization of pot. Also you have really picked the wrong place to argue this, as from whay I am seeing most have just writtren of all these threads as a joke. I sure know I have. If you want to get something at the open end and make it just a fine, then it will have to be a fine that hurts. Not $50.00 or $100.00, but $500.00 or more. Then in order to get that you will have to be harder on the muliple offences. It won't fly any other way. But spin your wheels and waste your time if you like.

For the most part of Canada the people want to see pot stamped out, unless prescribed, and then the legal stuff is so low in THC content, that it ends up being way too expensive. If pot was legal and taxed, then licenses would be required and growing your own would be even a bigger offence, and yes you would easily see jail for unlicensed growing, and unpaid tax etc.. Just like those who would distill wiskey on their own would today. But we do have a home made beer, but if it exceeds the strength set in law its is then illegal. So I hope you get my drift, that things will not change anytime soon and probably not in your or my lifetime. I am assuming you are young by the way. Me Iam an old fart.

You will never get any real support for your issue on the net, because it is a paper tiger where people can stay anomynous. When they would have to shown how they feel where friends Families and employers are, it will be a vastly different story. Much as it is with drinking and alcohol abuse, and even regular use.

[Guest coot]

Me Iam an old fart.

Perhaps that's why all your posts remind me of Abe Simpson:

"We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don’t go anywhere—like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you’d say. Now where were we? Oh yeah—the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

[shavluk]

Hahahhahahhaha

yes exactly

[old_bold&cold]

Perhaps that's why all your posts remind me of Abe Simpson:

"We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don’t go anywhere—like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you’d say. Now where were we? Oh yeah—the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

Well I thought I made my point in that post and it may have been long winded by it still is the only sensible thing that I have seen posted. There is absolutely no will of this government to decriminalize pot. It is not going to happen. But If there were a reasonable and well developed petition to give fist time offenders a break but a fair fine, and no criminal record, and also then making it more severe for mulitiple offenders, then and only then would it stand a chance of happening. Harper is for get tough and the get tough on multioffenders would allow him that. Easing up on first timers would be where the trade was being made. If there were reasonable support for that, maybe you would see it happen. But the public at large would have to consulted and it would have to be sold to them properly. The way these drive by posts have been going most of the members here will not answer these and many have put them on their ignore lists, so they do not even see them. That is why I say it has been the wrong way right from the first post on it.

[old_bold&cold]

Hahahhahahhaha

yes exactly

I am only a few years older then you Shavluk, and as for posts that are incoherrent goes... You win that prize. Coot I believe is a younger person still trying to make his mark in life,. So yes I give him a lot more lea way.

[Guest coot]

That is why I say it has been the wrong way right from the first post on it.

I think most people's reasons for posting are to have a discussion/argument. I don't think anyone is so delusional that their posts might initiate social change. And BTW, I never heard of a young coot. Only old ones.

[old_bold&cold]

Under fifty is young. I felt my youngest times were up to 48, and then health drops off big time now I am late fifties, and while I am not even clos to kicking, my activities are at a much slower pace. But hey if you are older, then just take it as an compliment.

[shavluk]

Under fifty is young. I felt my youngest times were up to 48, and then health drops off big time now I am late fifties, and while I am not even clos to kicking, my activities are at a much slower pace. But hey if you are older, then just take it as an compliment.

I guess I am an old,bold & hot old coot then.

Still no excuse to be so stuck in our ways to not consider alternatives to 84 year old failed policies.

[jefferiah]

Does no one here have a sense of humor or what?

Maybe comedy is not your forte.

[trex]

Tbud why is it that you think that people just becuause the say they would give a small break to minor possession or things maybe a even a little higher and you say then you support Decriminalization? You know if there were a real honest effort made to have it so the first offence for under 30 grams of pot to be a $500.00 fine no criminal record, and the next offense a $5,000.00 and one year suspended sentence, and any offence after that would be 2 years less a day up to 20 years.

because that is still far too harsh. if for a first offence we admit there was minimal injury to the public made the first time, we forgive it with a fine. why the state must even be paid then... better yet tell you what, just tax me for the product and we'll save us the court fees and backlog for serious offences?

and if its not an offence once, and nothings changed between then and the next time, same circumstances, why is it then a greater offence?

certainly, 20 years, or even two years, for mere possession is too much! lets compare what else in the criminal system gets such sentences, and see what sort of place these people are put into... they share the detention centre for 2 years to 20 years, for some comparable, extremely violent sociopathic individuals!

even if it is only two years, we all know that a sentence doesnt end there. the stigma of being an ex-con affects them for the rest of their life, in serious ways. so the punishment is never over. not just two years in prison, it has lasting repercussions. if he or she is a parent, their family also suffers for it.

that is still comparable to the punishment of much more serious offences, gun crimes, petty theft, break and enter, assault

who comes out then after two years, a reformed person or a greater criminal? even made more desparate by their inability to get a decent job, most places do background checks and wont hire someone with a record... etc

i could go on, but its just too obvious to argue it anymore.

[jbg]

Sorry, but after this response, I'm no longer interested in wasting my time in 'discussion' with you.

Thanks. I have gained a lot of respect for you, AW, even though we agree on almost nothing.

[jbg]

And as I pointed out, it's highly unlikely that China would be giving accurate statistics. So it's not numerous sources that say that China has 1.5 million prisoners, but numerous sources repeating the claim. Many of those sources also point out what I already pointed out:

China's true prison population has been speculated to be considerable higher by activists such as Harry Wu.

Good point, and that doesn't count ones executed, driven to suicide or "re-educated".

[jbg]

Maybe comedy is not your forte.

I fail to see what about "zoning out" is funny.

[old_bold&cold]

because that is still far too harsh. if for a first offence we admit there was minimal injury to the public made the first time, we forgive it with a fine. why the state must even be paid then... better yet tell you what, just tax me for the product and we'll save us the court fees and backlog for serious offences?

and if its not an offence once, and nothings changed between then and the next time, same circumstances, why is it then a greater offence?

certainly, 20 years, or even two years, for mere possession is too much! lets compare what else in the criminal system gets such sentences, and see what sort of place these people are put into... they share the detention centre for 2 years to 20 years, for some comparable, extremely violent sociopathic individuals!

even if it is only two years, we all know that a sentence doesnt end there. the stigma of being an ex-con affects them for the rest of their life, in serious ways. so the punishment is never over. not just two years in prison, it has lasting repercussions. if he or she is a parent, their family also suffers for it.

that is still comparable to the punishment of much more serious offences, gun crimes, petty theft, break and enter, assault

who comes out then after two years, a reformed person or a greater criminal? even made more desparate by their inability to get a decent job, most places do background checks and wont hire someone with a record... etc

i could go on, but its just too obvious to argue it anymore.

You are fogetting on very important fact, and that is while there is some sympathy for the first time offender to not be saddled with a criminal record for life, there is not enough support for the multi-offence offender, and even far less willing to legalize the drug completely. So those are the facts of life in this, and speculating on whethere or not legalizing it would change things, is not what the reality is, now isn't it? I proposed a fair fine and no record for first time offender. The $500.00 fine is not that high and is only 25% of the fine for speeding over 50 KPH when no one was hurt. So it is not something that is without merit, but rather a sensible fine. If that person then decides that this is not enough to stop hom from using, then he get the record and the sizable increase in fines to $5,000.00. If he goes beyond that then, yes ,jail is called for after a 3 time loser. That does follow what the concept of obeying the law calls for. The jail for 2years less a day, is so they can first be sent to provincial jails which are less strict then federal prisons. Again , if he goes past that then federal prison and all that goes with takes place. Depending on the amounts and othet things will determine the time sentenced to and yes up to 20 years would have to be in the mix as deallers are also in this group at this point.

You may not like this, but that is only because you intend to break the law and there fore have biased to any punishment. Your position on this (legalization), is not about to happen anytime soon if ever. So while the government amy be willing to give a firt time offendera break, that doe not mean it will entertain outright legalization. So whose postion of what and how to get something on this, is more likely to come about yours or mine?

[bush_cheney2004]

You may not like this, but that is only because you intend to break the law and there fore have biased to any punishment. Your position on this (legalization), is not about to happen anytime soon if ever. So while the government amy be willing to give a firt time offendera break, that doe not mean it will entertain outright legalization. So whose postion of what and how to get something on this, is more likely to come about yours or mine?

Agreed...I think this point is often lost on those who maintain legalization positions based on alcohol or other legal vices. Those who get tagged and fined for using/possessing ganja (with a persistent criminal record) have emphatically broken the law with prior intent to do so, starting with illegal growing or procurement from another criminal. It is not an accident, or over indulgence with a legal product. The "Spiccoli" types think that just getting a cool buzz is where the story starts and ends....but it ain't so. So let their criminal records reflect this decision to be so "cool".

Edited October 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Agreed...I think this point is often lost on those who maintain legalization positions based on alcohol or other legal vices. Those who get tagged and fined for using/possessing ganja (with a persistent criminal record) have emphatically broken the law with prior intent to do so, starting with illegal growing or procurement from another criminal. It is not an accident, or over indulgence with a legal product. The "Spiccoli" types think that just getting a cool buzz is where the story starts and ends....but it ain't so. So let their criminal records reflect this decision to be so "cool".

Under the Prohobition of alcohol in the early part of the 1900's, there were many people doing illegal things, and knowingly break the law. We can actually compare weed to this prohobition of alcohol. But, alcohol was eventually legalized and now it is a huge social problem just like any other illegal drug.

We can also see how it is glamourized in a Simpson's eppisode about Homer being the Beer Baron.

People who drink alcohol legaly can get charged with some of the side effects that one can get with alcohol. Like drinking and driving is illegal. But people do it. So charge them for it. Let those criminal records show and tell as well. Drinking in public, giving alcohol to minors, ect ect ect....

Booze is just as dangerous as any other drug. Moderation and self control is the key.

[shavluk]

All we are going to do is put the poor in jail with these fines.

Alcohol is by far safer legal than not , by far!

This fine or that fine?

No its the wrong way to go and as such I can not continue to comment on these types of views.

Mandatory surprise drug testing of all school teachers by next Monday morning will have cannabis legalized pretty quickly.

Its not the addicts on the street keeping demand up for drugs.