Canada's pot legalization bill to be introduced in spring 2017, minister tells UN

407 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater
Canada's pot legalization bill to be introduced in spring 2017, minister tells UN

Apr 20, 2016

Quote:
The Liberal government announced Tuesday that it plans to introduce legislation legalizing marijuana in the spring of next year.

Health Minister Jane Philpott made the announcement during a special session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York regarding drug use and drug-related crime.

“We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals,” Philpott said. “While this plan challenges the status quo in many countries, we are convinced it is the best way to protect our youth while enhancing public safety.”

No other details of the legislation were revealed during her speech.

Her address happens to coincide with 4/20 – the annual day of celebration for cannabis culture lovers, which takes on special significance in Canada this year, with the governing Liberals having promised to legalize and regulate marijuana.

As a doctor, the health minister spoke of witnessing “people suffer the devastating consequences of drugs, drug-related crime, and ill-conceived drug policy.”

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

So for the next year we have to live with the current laws?

Lazy and unorganized. It should have been decriminalized until next Spring when the legislation is passed. That would be the right move. Unsurprisingly,I'm left very disappointed.

mark_alfred

Agreed it should have been decriminalized right away.  Still, good news that they're planning on legalizing it in 2017.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed it should have been decriminalized right away.  Still, good news that they're planning on legalizing it in 2017.

Before you celebrate I think you need to see the actual legislation. It will be technically legal but so highly regulated it will still allow the RCMP to conduct their war on the pot culture.

Pondering

It will be handled like alcohol which I think is what the majority of Canadians want. It's much faster than I expected so I am pleased about that.

Decriminalization would be nice but would give opponents ammunition so I understand why it isn't happening. Only the Liberals were willing to legalize so I am not going to quibble about how they go about it. Once it is legal it will be almost impossible to reverse.

Announcing the timing now is great. It's going to encourage pharmaceutical and other research in Canada.

quizzical

i'm waiting to see.

medical marijuana consumers want to grow their own and it is a big fkn issue if the Liberals don't allow it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I wonder which Canadian will have the unwanted honour of being the very last Canadian to enjoy a criminal record because he had a dime bag in his pocket?

Similarly, who was the very last Catholic to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity for eating meat on a Friday?

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i'm waiting to see.

medical marijuana consumers want to grow their own and it is a big fkn issue if the Liberals don't allow it.

No problem. It will be legal for anyone to grow their own not just medical users.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i'm waiting to see.

medical marijuana consumers want to grow their own and it is a big fkn issue if the Liberals don't allow it.

No problem. It will be legal for anyone to grow their own not just medical users.

Please share where you get your information from. I thought you were not a Liberal insider but merely someone that relies on the MSM like most people.

Quote:

“We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals,” Philpott said. “While this plan challenges the status quo in many countries, we are convinced it is the best way to protect our youth while enhancing public safety.”

No other details of the legislation were revealed during her speech.

 

 

swallow

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Similarly, who was the very last Catholic to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity for eating meat on a Friday?

Just in passing: no one ever burned in a lake of fire for eating meat on a Friday. They burned in a lake of fire for (1) breaking the rule of penance with clear knowledge and without need to eat for survival, and (2) for failing to repent and atone for their act. 

Catholicism has this great get-out-of-hell-free card, called the sacrament of reconciliation. It's awesome. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

swallow wrote:

Catholicism has this great get-out-of-hell-free card, called the sacrament of reconciliation. It's awesome. 

Indeed it even applies to recurring pedophiles.  If they repent they are forgiven and then the Church says its not its problem anymore. I had a Catholic lawyer who was acting for the Diocese explain that to me when I suggested one of the remedies that I would like to see in a settlement agreement should be excommunication.

Its all in the timing though. If you live a long life you can sin all you want as long as you have a few days advance notice to repent on time. Of course if you die suddenly you are on the hook for any sin since your last confession. In my case that would be 50 years or so.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i'm waiting to see.

medical marijuana consumers want to grow their own and it is a big fkn issue if the Liberals don't allow it.

No problem. It will be legal for anyone to grow their own not just medical users.

Please share where you get your information from. I thought you were not a Liberal insider but merely someone that relies on the MSM like most people.

Quote:

“We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals,” Philpott said. “While this plan challenges the status quo in many countries, we are convinced it is the best way to protect our youth while enhancing public safety.”

No other details of the legislation were revealed during her speech.

I know because so far the Liberals have followed logic and self-interest in their actions. Medical users have won the right to grow their own in court. As long as it's just for personal use there is no reason to make it illegal. It would be unenforceable and it could lead to charter challenges. It's not worth the hassle. All indications are that they intend to have a system similar to alcohol which is subject to individual provincial laws. Maybe some provinces will make it illegal to grow for personal use but there will be no federal law against it.

lagatta

We've made our own wine. Unfortunately I don't have the room to do it right now. Actually, since for many years I spent a lot of the year in Europe, I deeply resent the punishing wine prices here. And NO, I didn't drink more there just because it was cheaper. I do think the industry workers should get good wages and working conditions, but feel the same about all grocery and food service workers.

An aside. I hope there will be a side effect of promoting the HEMP industry (that is either cannabis without much THC or the parts that don't). I had a couple of great tops, which I've had for at least a decade, made of hemp. It grows here, and doesn't require as much chemical input as cotton. It is a strong and silky fibre. 

voice of the damned

Can someone find me the actual quote where Philpott says that marijuana will be legalized in 2017?

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:
Can someone find me the actual quote where Philpott says that marijuana will be legalized in 2017?

You will never hear anything clear and definitive from these liars.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You are not allowed to make your own whiskey and when alcohol was a prohibited substance you could buy whiskey in a pharmacy for medicinal purposes but not beer and wine. There is no historical reference point and every time anyone from this government talks about pot they talk about keeping it out of the hands of minors. Tell me if anyone can grow it how do they accomplish that?

I really hope I am wrong and the Liberals get it right but I don't trust them and since the messaging is all negative I will be pleasantly surprised if I can grow my own starting next year.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:
Can someone find me the actual quote where Philpott says that marijuana will be legalized in 2017?

You will never hear anything clear and definitive from these liars.

i'm alarmed from what i read. they keep this up and good bye 2019.

Pondering

"We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals," Jane Philpott said in her prepared speech to delegates.

"We will work with law enforcement partners to encourage appropriate and proportionate criminal justice measures. We know it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem,"

"The fact of the matter is we've been clear. We believe in legalization and regulation of marijuana because it protects our kids and keeps money out of the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs," Trudeau told the Commons.

You should be alarmed. They are on track for a second majority.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

"We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals," Jane Philpott said in her prepared speech to delegates.

"We will work with law enforcement partners to encourage appropriate and proportionate criminal justice measures. We know it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem,"

"The fact of the matter is we've been clear. We believe in legalization and regulation of marijuana because it protects our kids and keeps money out of the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs," Trudeau told the Commons.

You should be alarmed. They are on track for a second majority.

This simply says they intend to "legalize" Marijauna. It doesn't say what that means. You are speculating Pondering with no real proof of any kind other than you own opinion. Prove it. Write the Minister and prove to us all on here that Marijuana will be "legalized", with no restriction. You won't get that from the Minsiter because that is not their intent. This is simply one more pro Liberal cheer leading thread; simply one more of others that clutter this board regularly.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

"We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals," Jane Philpott said in her prepared speech to delegates.

"We will work with law enforcement partners to encourage appropriate and proportionate criminal justice measures. We know it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem,"

"The fact of the matter is we've been clear. We believe in legalization and regulation of marijuana because it protects our kids and keeps money out of the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs," Trudeau told the Commons.

You should be alarmed. They are on track for a second majority.

 

But where does it say that marijuana will be legailized in 2017?

mark_alfred

"Our approach to drugs must be comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate.  To that end we will be introducing legislation in the spring of 2017 that ensures that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and out of the hands of criminals."  Hmm.

Quote:

Later, during question period in the House of Commons, Mulcair asked whether Trudeau would at least promise legislation to remove criminal records of Canadians charged before a new law is in place.

In response, Trudeau said simply decriminalizing marijuana does not help the government meet its goal of keeping pot out of the hands of children, but would offer a legal stream of income to criminals selling it.

Trudeau is being an idiot on the issue of decriminalization of possession for personal use, IMO.  Like always, he sidestepped a reasonable question and sunk into mindless hyperbole.

Pondering

You're playing semantics. This is very similar to the pre-election days when many of you bought Harper and Mulcair's portrayal of Trudeau as an idiot who would be doing well if he arrived at the debate with his pants on.

Proving yourselves wrong time after time doesn't enhance your credibility. It also detracts from the real issues.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
This simply says they intend to "legalize" Marijauna. It doesn't say what that means. You are speculating Pondering with no real proof of any kind other than you own opinion. Prove it. Write the Minister and prove to us all on here that Marijuana will be "legalized", with no restriction. You won't get that from the Minsiter because that is not their intent. This is simply one more pro Liberal cheer leading thread; simply one more of others that clutter this board regularly.

Of course there will be restrictions just like there are on alcohol sales and production. None of us have proof of what will happen in the future. It's the nature of the future.

When I or others say that the Liberals will ratify TPP we have no proof yet no one objects to that prediction not being proven.

Marijuana legalization is something the Liberals are doing right. Criticizing them on it just comes across as complete partisanship. If the NDP were doing this you would all be praising them to high heaven. Try for a minute to take an outsider's point of view of the two parties. The NDP is whining about how the Liberals are approaching legalization when the NDP didn't even support legalization until days before the election. Mulcair then took voters for idiots by implying that of course he had always been in favor of legalization.

At this point even if the NDP managed to take down the Liberals it is the Conservatives that would benefit. They are at 34% approval with the NDP at a dismal 11%. The NDP will not improve its position with weak attacks against a popular Liberal government. The NDP should focus on renewal not on what the Liberals are doing day to day. You will say I am just trying to protect the Liberals but that is ridiculous. The Liberals don't need any protection from the likes of me. The accusation is a cop-out because you ignore my reasoning.

As an extra liberal party the NDP is redundant. The NDP needs to commit to a realistic big vision of Canada's future and to sell it. That is unlikely to deliver a win in 2019 but it might in 2023.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If the NDP were doing this you would all be praising them to high heaven.

Well, Tom did promise to do it the minute they took office.  Trudeau seems to be OK with a year and a half of more people being busted for possessing a joint.

You identify as feminist, yes?  If the federal government -- Liberal, BTW -- had proclaimed in 1918 that they would be ready to consider women full citizens, and grant them suffrage, a year later, would you say:

a) Yay!  In only one more year I'll be a person!  Thx!!!

b) Why am I not just a person right now?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If the NDP were doing this you would all be praising them to high heaven.

Well, Tom did promise to do it the minute they took office.  Trudeau seems to be OK with a year and a half of more people being busted for possessing a joint.

You identify as feminist, yes?  If the federal government -- Liberal, BTW -- had proclaimed in 1918 that they would be ready to consider women full citizens, and grant them suffrage, a year later, would you say:

a) Yay!  In only one more year I'll be a person!  Thx!!!

b) Why am I not just a person right now?

You're just playing a debate game. The NDP would not have legalized or decriminalized their first day in office.

Legalizing marijuana is not even close to acknowledging women as people and I expect it took time for the actual law to change on that.

Smoking pot is not a human right. If I get busted for it so be it. I know that it is illegal. The Liberals criticized decriminalization. They said they would legalize. The NDP did promise rapid decriminalization, first 100 days I think. The Liberals got elected.

The NDP is still promoting their failed campaign trying to convince voters that they made a mistake. It's a crappy strategy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You're just playing a debate game. The NDP would not have legalized or decriminalized their first day in office.

Really?  We know this how?

Quote:
Legalizing marijuana is not even close to acknowledging women as people

True dat!  One is a common plant, and the other is slightly over half of the population.

Quote:
The NDP did promise rapid decriminalization, first 100 days I think.

Mulcair pledges NDP will decriminalize pot 'the minute we form government'

Here's my thinking.  I totally get that if convenience stores are going to sell honey oil beside the Doritos and the comic books, that could take some time and debate to work out.

But if the government is really going to allow adult Canadians to smoke a plant, and if this is not just bullshit on their part, then can you give us any reasonable reason why they cannot promptly declare that an adult "caught" with an ounce or less of marijuana will not be criminally charged for that?  Is there some debate that needs to happen over whether they should be forever criminalized?  Is there some public safety issue around some guy with enough pot to get high several times over?

I'm not talking about someone with 15 pounds in a duffel bag in the shed.  I'm not talking about someone selling weed in the schoolyard.  I'm not talking about someone with an ounce of pot and 5,000 extacy pills.  Why would the government declare their intent to make more sensible laws around weed and still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint?? 

Just tell us why someone should get a criminal record for a joint.  Or, tell us what's the real obstacle to a majority government fixing that.

mark_alfred

You're playing semantics Magoo.  Trudeau showed up to the debates clearly with his pants on.  So stop trying to refight the election.  The election is over.  Current policy directions of the government cannot be questioned.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You're just playing a debate game. The NDP would not have legalized or decriminalized their first day in office.

Really?  We know this how?

Because of Mulcair's attitude and comments concerning marijuana and oregano.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But if the government is really going to allow adult Canadians to smoke a plant, and if this is not just bullshit on their part, then can you give us any reasonable reason why they cannot promptly declare that an adult "caught" with an ounce or less of marijuana will not be criminally charged for that?  Is there some debate that needs to happen over whether they should be forever criminalized?  Is there some public safety issue around some guy with enough pot to get high several times over?

I'm not talking about someone with 15 pounds in a duffel bag in the shed.  I'm not talking about someone selling weed in the schoolyard.  I'm not talking about someone with an ounce of pot and 5,000 extacy pills.  Why would the government declare their intent to make more sensible laws around weed and still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint?? 

Just tell us why someone should get a criminal record for a joint.  Or, tell us what's the real obstacle to a majority government fixing that.

Because the money is going to organized crime, or that's the theory anyway. The point of legalization is to keep it out of the hands of minors and money out of the hands of criminals. Decriminalization achieves neither and makes life easier for dealers. I am not saying I agree with that reasoning but it is the logic given by the Liberals.

Someone shouldn't get a criminal record for a joint. That's why the law is being changed. Until the law changes they (I) are choosing to break the law therefore they are deliberately deciding to risk getting a record. I'd be annoyed if I got arrested but I'd be the only person to blame.

Legalization is way more important to me than decriminalization.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

You're playing semantics Magoo.  Trudeau showed up to the debates clearly with his pants on.  So stop trying to refight the election.  The election is over.  Current policy directions of the government cannot be questioned.

Of course it can be but stick to significant issues that won't fade away. Weak attacks are worse than nothing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Someone shouldn't get a criminal record for a joint. That's why the law is being changed. Until the law changes they (I) are choosing to break the law therefore they are deliberately deciding to risk getting a record. I'd be annoyed if I got arrested but I'd be the only person to blame.

I'm not saying someone else is to blame.  I'm not talking about "blame" at all.

I'm saying that Trudeau can stop charging people with simple possession as soon as tomorrow.

Or, he can keep making sure that Canadians get a criminal record for having a doobie, until a year from now.

Quote:
Legalization is way more important to me than decriminalization.

There's no need to choose one or the other.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Someone shouldn't get a criminal record for a joint. That's why the law is being changed. Until the law changes they (I) are choosing to break the law therefore they are deliberately deciding to risk getting a record. I'd be annoyed if I got arrested but I'd be the only person to blame.

I'm not saying someone else is to blame.  I'm not talking about "blame" at all.

I'm saying that Trudeau can stop charging people with simple possession as soon as tomorrow.

Or, he can keep making sure that Canadians get a criminal record for having a doobie, until a year from now.

Quote:
Legalization is way more important to me than decriminalization.

There's no need to choose one or the other.

There was a need to choose. Mulcair promised decriminalization only. Trudeau promised legalization only.

I voted for legalization. Now Mulcair is complaining I didn't get decriminalization. I'm getting what I want. Legalization. I am not going to complain that I am not getting less faster.

I don't know that Trudeau could do it as soon as tomorrow but yes he could decriminalize much sooner. He could also not legalize at all. He chose to push for legalization based on keeping it out of the hands of minors and money away from criminals.

I don't care that I not getting a consolation prize. Trudeau's reasoning leads to legalization not decriminalization. Legalization is the prize.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

Smoking pot is not a human right.

Wrong. I have a human right to do with my body,to put in my body what I choose and to change my mood anytime I damn well want to. Who is the government to criminalize me for wanting to alter my mood?...Unless,of course,it's a liquid.

So yes,smoking pot (or doing any drug you prefer for that matter) is a human right.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Going to prison for something that is acknowledged by the government as a flawed law is a breach of human rights. Of course that will only last for a year or so. White middle aged women have little to worry about because middle class white people hardly ever get charged with simple possession only the poor and marginalized.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Going to prison for something that is acknowledged by the government as a flawed law is a breach of human rights. Of course that will only last for a year or so. White middle aged women have little to worry about because middle class white people hardly ever get charged with simple possession only the poor and marginalized.

Breaking flawed laws is not a human right. Consuming marijuana is not a human right.

I live in low income housing so by income I am no where near middle class. Your assumptions about me are rooted in prejudice.

You are far more likely to be a middle class white person than I am.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Going to prison for something that is acknowledged by the government as a flawed law is a breach of human rights. Of course that will only last for a year or so. White middle aged women have little to worry about because middle class white people hardly ever get charged with simple possession only the poor and marginalized.

Breaking flawed laws is not a human right. Consuming marijuana is not a human right.

I live in low income housing so by income I am no where near middle class. Your assumptions about me are rooted in prejudice.

You are far more likely to be a middle class white person than I am.

Being subject to jail time for breaking an unjust law is IMO a human rights issue. Especially when the enforcement of that law is disproportionate on the marginalized.

I never said anything about you personally I merely made a general statement about a class of people in this country that would include my pot smoking wife and many of the women I know. As for me I consider myself working class although in my best income years I was upper middle class and in my worst poverty stricken. I am now a retired senior citizen and unlikely to be arrested unlike some of my nephews who are mixed race and identify as black or some of my grandchildren who are First Nations.

mark_alfred

Mr Magoo wrote:
I'm not talking about someone with 15 pounds in a duffel bag in the shed.  I'm not talking about someone selling weed in the schoolyard.  I'm not talking about someone with an ounce of pot and 5,000 extacy pills.  Why would the government declare their intent to make more sensible laws around weed and still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint?? 

Just tell us why someone should get a criminal record for a joint.  Or, tell us what's the real obstacle to a majority government fixing that.

They shouldn't.  And there's no reason for the Liberals to "still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint".  The rationale offered by the Trudeau apologist here that they need not do what makes sense in the context of legalization (which decriminalization of simple possession does) because they didn't promise to do what makes sense in this context, well, is an argument that makes no sense at all.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Going to prison for something that is acknowledged by the government as a flawed law is a breach of human rights. Of course that will only last for a year or so. White middle aged women have little to worry about because middle class white people hardly ever get charged with simple possession only the poor and marginalized.

Breaking flawed laws is not a human right. Consuming marijuana is not a human right.

I live in low income housing so by income I am no where near middle class. Your assumptions about me are rooted in prejudice.

You are far more likely to be a middle class white person than I am.

Being subject to jail time for breaking an unjust law is IMO a human rights issue. Especially when the enforcement of that law is disproportionate on the marginalized.

I never said anything about you personally I merely made a general statement about a class of people in this country that would include my pot smoking wife and many of the women I know. As for me I consider myself working class although in my best income years I was upper middle class and in my worst poverty stricken. I am now a retired senior citizen and unlikely to be arrested unlike some of my nephews who are mixed race and identify as black or some of my grandchildren who are First Nations.

I have a daughter, I have nieces and nephews. Everyone I know who cares about marijuana laws wants full legalization not decriminalization. Fines would likely be applied because it still wouldn't be legal. The government would be accused of funneling money to organized crime. The whole thing would be a distraction from legalization and could even delay it. Why risk that for the sake of a year?

As a political attack from the NDP it's a dud and portrays the NDP as out-of-touch with the concerns of the 99%.

mark_alfred

It clogs the courts and wastes police resources which could be put to better use.  It gives criminal records to those who, in a year's time, would not get them given the government's own stated policy goal of legalization.  The Liberals are being idiotic about this.  The NDP are right to question it.  Decriminalization of simple possession now makes sense.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

I have a daughter, I have nieces and nephews. Everyone I know who cares about marijuana laws wants full legalization not decriminalization. Fines would likely be applied because it still wouldn't be legal. The government would be accused of funneling money to organized crime. The whole thing would be a distraction from legalization and could even delay it. Why risk that for the sake of a year?

Gee I guess the young people in your circle always listen to their elders and never do anything that Mommy and Daddy tell them not to. I don't seem to live in that same world. In my world young people sometimes rebel and do things that are not in their best long term interest.

We are talking about immediately telling the police forces not to impose criminal sentences for small amounts of pot. Its an interim measure people on this board are arguing for. Police already have that discretion and it would take nothing much to tell them to regularly use it. Police often let the "good" kids go after confiscating their pot and giving them a dressing down. I can't for the live of me understand how suggesting that discretion be applied to all citizens offends you.

cco

Pondering wrote:

He chose to push for legalization based on keeping it out of the hands of minors and money away from criminals.

No. He chose those as the talking points with which to push legalization. The realistic calculation was that a lot of Canadians smoke marijuana recreationally and he's more likely to be rewarded for it at the polls than punished. (I'm predicting the bill receives royal assent somewhere around the time of the 2019 election.)

If Trudeau really believed legalization of marijuana was only necessary in order to keep it away from kids and starve criminals of funds, his bill would also include legalization of cocaine, heroin, and all other recreational drugs, for which the same calculation applies. And I'd be in favour of that, as I've argued on this board before. But it's pretty precious for the Liberals to now be campaigning that marijuana is the only drug so dangerous to the children!!! that it needs to be legalized. Just own up to it. Politicians smoke weed. The prime minister smokes weed. People want to smoke weed, legally or not. That they want to do so doesn't have a damn thing to do with "the children" (the invocation of which are my #1 sign that I can tune out of any political argument).

swallow

Pondering wrote:

Everyone I know who cares about marijuana laws wants full legalization not decriminalization. 

Everyone I know wants full legalization as soon as it can be done, and full decriminalization now. 

Why is that so hard? 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I have a daughter, I have nieces and nephews. Everyone I know who cares about marijuana laws wants full legalization not decriminalization. Fines would likely be applied because it still wouldn't be legal. The government would be accused of funneling money to organized crime. The whole thing would be a distraction from legalization and could even delay it. Why risk that for the sake of a year?

Gee I guess the young people in your circle always listen to their elders and never do anything that Mommy and Daddy tell them not to. I don't seem to live in that same world. In my world young people sometimes rebel and do things that are not in their best long term interest.

We are talking about immediately telling the police forces not to impose criminal sentences for small amounts of pot. Its an interim measure people on this board are arguing for. Police already have that discretion and it would take nothing much to tell them to regularly use it. Police often let the "good" kids go after confiscating their pot and giving them a dressing down. I can't for the live of me understand how suggesting that discretion be applied to all citizens offends you.

True. I was arrested for simple possession twice. Once for 2 joints and the second time for 18 grams. In the end,all they did was confiscate my stash,hold me in a cell for a couple hours and let me walk without a fine,court date or criminal record.

The moral of the story is that the police already have the discretion to decide if it's worth the paper work and the judicial system.

To me,that isn't fair because their discretion could mean they could bust my fuckin' ass if they want to.

What's the big deal for the Liberals to simply inform police forces (RCMP.provincial police and local police) to turn a blind eye until their legislation is passed? It's not rocket science.

I can't speak for Pandering's cirtcle of acquaintances but my circle just wants the cops to use their time and resources on real dangers to society instead of arresting people for eating Doritos or growing a weed.

Enough of this already. Did anyone learn anything from alcohol prohibition? Apparently,not

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

This gave me a giggle.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/chretien-calls-for-decriminalized-marijua...

And I wouldn't call nor mistake Chrétien for a progressive.

I think the Liberals really are serious this time....LOL! I'll believe it when I see it. But it's nice to see the Establishment conceding defeat.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I have a daughter, I have nieces and nephews. Everyone I know who cares about marijuana laws wants full legalization not decriminalization. Fines would likely be applied because it still wouldn't be legal. The government would be accused of funneling money to organized crime. The whole thing would be a distraction from legalization and could even delay it. Why risk that for the sake of a year?

Gee I guess the young people in your circle always listen to their elders and never do anything that Mommy and Daddy tell them not to. I don't seem to live in that same world. In my world young people sometimes rebel and do things that are not in their best long term interest.

We are talking about immediately telling the police forces not to impose criminal sentences for small amounts of pot. Its an interim measure people on this board are arguing for. Police already have that discretion and it would take nothing much to tell them to regularly use it. Police often let the "good" kids go after confiscating their pot and giving them a dressing down. I can't for the live of me understand how suggesting that discretion be applied to all citizens offends you.

It doesn't offend me at all. I simply understand why he isn't doing that and is taking a cautious approach. No, I didn't always listen to Mommy and Daddy so I have a record. I have no one to blame but myself. If I were to get charged now I would contest it.

I wish he would decriminalize but I am keeping my eye on the prize, full legalization.

Speaking of which, the consultation has begun.

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/...

Make your opinions known.

Pondering

P.S. If you don't mine, add something to the effect that this being a new and lucrative industry all jobs should be unionized.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Full legalization sounds good but in fact what is coming will be extremely restrictive if this push/poll style consultation is any indication. I almost choked when I read the floated idea that we are going to prevent youth from smoking pot by setting an age limit above 24 and reducing the harm by restricting the amount of THC in the government bud.

If this document is the basis for the new law we will see no personal growing and corporate pot at such low levels of THC that you would have to smoke a bale to get high. But this is exactly the kind of bullshit I expected when Blair was appointed point person.

What do you think the penalties will be for growing your own in this new "legalized" regime? 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

P.S. If you don't mine, add something to the effect that this being a new and lucrative industry all jobs should be unionized.

You mean like the Post Office?

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

He chose to push for legalization based on keeping it out of the hands of minors and money away from criminals.

No. He chose those as the talking points with which to push legalization. The realistic calculation was that a lot of Canadians smoke marijuana recreationally and he's more likely to be rewarded for it at the polls than punished. (I'm predicting the bill receives royal assent somewhere around the time of the 2019 election.)

If Trudeau really believed legalization of marijuana was only necessary in order to keep it away from kids and starve criminals of funds, his bill would also include legalization of cocaine, heroin, and all other recreational drugs, for which the same calculation applies. And I'd be in favour of that, as I've argued on this board before. But it's pretty precious for the Liberals to now be campaigning that marijuana is the only drug so dangerous to the children!!! that it needs to be legalized. Just own up to it. Politicians smoke weed. The prime minister smokes weed. People want to smoke weed, legally or not. That they want to do so doesn't have a damn thing to do with "the children" (the invocation of which are my #1 sign that I can tune out of any political argument).

It's definitely a political call. They all are. Every single party and leader considers the political ramifications of every decision they make. They "pick their battles" so to speak. Trudeau chose marijuana way back when to place himself left of the NDP. He correctly guessed that Mulcair wouldn't support it which would turn off many progressives. It was like a dog whistle.

The NDP chose to hang back and reaffirm their commitment to decriminalization only because they calculated that it would reassure conservative types that they aren't the hippie party and make them seem more centrist.

Trudeau used "the children" argument and the "organized crime" argument. He doesn't want to give the Conservatives ammunition to say that he is authorizing money going to organized crime by decriminalizing. Even Chretien's call for decriminalization serves to support the narrative that Trudeau is being cautious. Politically there is no pay back for decriminalizing right away.

Anyone who paid close attention to the polls in the years since Trudeau became leader should have a good understanding of voter behavior and how that pertains to winning elections and that includes the rise and fall of the NDP.

Lesson 1 - All the hullabaloo that goes on between elections matters very little. 85% were against bill C 51 but it didn't affect their votes. The average voter doesn't know or care who Morneau or Freeland are.

Lesson 2 - Many voters vote based on their perception of the leader. Policy only matters in that it impacts the reputation of the leader and even then it's just the headliner stuff not the details. Give to those who need it most by taking it away from those who don't-the child tax credit expressed an attitude. Increase taxes on the 1% and lower taxes for the middle-class worked like a charm. The details don't get through. Sanders and Corbyn have strong support based on who their followers think they are, not just their specific policies. Alot of Trump supporters know he's an ass they just think the rest are worse. Ford and Trump are a big F-U to the elite and that includes the so called left.

Lesson 3 - Don't expect the media to inform people not only because they won't but because most people don't watch the news anymore and just check online for huge stuff like terrorist attacks or missing planes. I'm just taking in the headlines right now because I am really busy. I know about Brexit and CETA, the model for the TPP and TIPP that Canada is pushing so hard for. I also know there is no point in talking to anyone I know about it.

Knowing the true lay of the land is the first step to planning a battle.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WTF does your last post have to do with pot. Your pandering to King Trudeau is getting ponderous. Why spam every thread with nauseating tripe about our photo-op King. 

Mighty Middle

FYI

Medical marijuana use linked to lower prescription drug use

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medical-marijuana-prescription-drugs-1.366...

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

WTF does your last post have to do with pot. Your pandering to King Trudeau is getting ponderous. Why spam every thread with nauseating tripe about our photo-op King. 

How am I pandering? I am agreeing that Trudeau's decision not to decriminalize and to legalize is all about political positioning and maximizing his support, not about doing what's right.

This is the same track the NDP was on when they were attacking Trudeau because he had no policy.  As soon as he had policy that criticism was like it never existed.

Same goes for decriminalization. The moment pot is legalized, even if it is heavily controlled and compassion clubs are frozen out and corporations are empowered at the expense of  those who have been fighting for legalization the criticism will be completely neutered. Complaining that he isn't decriminalizing right away is a complete waste of time. There are more serious issues to address.

From the consultation process it appears to me that they are planning to shut existing growers and compassion clubs out of the market based on their activities being currently illegal.  Licences will likely be too expensive for small growers to participate. This is a problem because not only is it unfair but because these people have a wealth of knowledge. The sellers know about the effects of different strains and small growers are the ones who have developed strains like Charlotte's Web.

This is a rare opportunity to to design an industry from the ground up, no pun intended.  I want all workers within it to be unionized no matter what part of the process they participate in.

Those are the sorts of comments I made through the consultation process. I doubt it will help but maybe if enough people say they don't want the Compassions clubs locked out of the process it would make a difference.

Have you bothered to participate in the consultation?

I believe that the NDP has an opportunity to become a true party of the people. Am I the only one? You seem content to settle for a softer neoliberalism you just don't want the Liberals or Trudeau running it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Have you bothered to participate in the consultation?

I believe that the NDP has an opportunity to become a true party of the people. Am I the only one? You seem content to settle for a softer neoliberalism you just don't want the Liberals or Trudeau running it.

Yes I bothered even though it will make no difference since the fix is in. 

You clainming that I seem content to settle for a softer neoliberalism is a fucking bizarre statement coming from a sycophant for the Liberals. I told you months ago that this was coming but you just posted more tripe about how great Just'Isnt Trudeau is.  Given your posting history the idea that you want the NDP to succeed is totally laughable. 

Pages

Topic locked