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

407 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

I think the main struggle will be having the right to grow your own as opposed to being forced to rely on Liberal McWeed.  The government initially didn't allow medical marijuana users to grow their own until a court challenge over-ruled that (link) just recently -- and to the government's credit they did not appeal the decision.  As I understand it, med-marijuana people now can grow their own unimpeded at all by government until August, when the government will come up with regulations surrounding medical marijuana users gowing their own.  It will be interesting to see what these regulations will be. 

quizzical

it will all just be recriminalize. lyining liar liberals

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

How does one 'recriminalize' something that hasn't been 'decriminalized'?

I do think the Liberals are serious and marijuana laws will lax. I don't agree with their short term policy (status quo) but I look forward to the Spring of 2017. Then I can make an informed opinion on the Liberals integrity. They already have a reputation for lying.

But the one thing that was brought up in this thread that everyone should take note of is the NDP has not grilled them on this issue which leads me to believe the NDP would drag their feet on this issue too.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What if the guv'mint basically went with the same rules that govern alcohol for adults?  Specifically:

1.  you're allowed to brew your own wine and beer

2.  you're allowed to freely share your homemade wine and beer with other adults, but if you want to sell it then you need to be licenced

3.  you're not allowed to distill alcohol, unless you're licenced to do so*

4.  you can purchase, consume and share distilled alcohol, though most is "capped" at no more than 40%

5.  you can consume distilled alcohol that's higher than 40% (e.g. Everclear) if you possess it, but you cannot re-sell it**

* I'm not sure about techniques such as "freezer distillation" which represent no safety hazard

** I'm not sure whether it's legal to share it

Obviously "homemade" would be replaced by "homegrown", "distilling" would be replaced by "extracting", and "alcohol that's higher than 40%" would be replaced by more potent extracts like "shatter"

Anyway, I'm not specifically promoting this framework; just curious.

I think that would be a decent compromise. However the message so far is that pot is a dangerous substance and ergo I believe it will be treated like high octane alcohol i.e. no home brewing of spirits and a limit on the strength of government approved booze. Translate that to pot and you get no home growing and pot being sold at 5% THC. 

Couple that with more stringent regulations to ensure the dangerous substance doesn't fall into the hands of people under 21 and we will still have a war on drugs to keep the police forces happy and the government can boast about being so progressive that they "legalized" pot. After all it is not an issue that affects the majority of the population and the people it does effect are considered marginal by the powers that be so they will be vilified for not accepting the new reality and still wanting to have a pot culture.

quizzical

i agree kropotkin.

i take exception to this thread title now.

the liberals are not legalizing anything they are recriminalizing marijuana by creating different sections in the criminal code governing it. they're really further entrenching it in the criminal code, ignoring the health act governance and not legalizing it at all.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
However the message so far is that pot is a dangerous substance and ergo I believe it will be treated like high octane alcohol i.e. no home brewing of spirits and a limit on the strength of government approved booze.

Certainly what's been conspicuously absent from the public discussion is any kind of plausible scientific assessment of the health risks of higher THC weed or extracts.  Some stuff about memory issues or lower test scores among teens or whatever, but thus far nothing to suggest that 50% THC hash is potentially harmful the way a bottle of 151 proof rum can be.

As far as extracts go, I wouldn't be all that shocked if making your own extracts in your garage is prohibited, not because your homemade oil will kill you, but because fucking around with butane or ether or other flammable solvents might.  But if the government will sell a bottle of 151 proof rum -- which they do -- then why not an extract that's been made under safe and reliable conditions?  FWIW, i assume that home distillation is illegal for much the same reason.  Even if you water down your moonshine and drink it responsibly, the still itself is a potential hazard.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

i agree kropotkin.

i take exception to this thread title now.

the liberals are not legalizing anything they are recriminalizing marijuana by creating different sections in the criminal code governing it. they're really further entrenching it in the criminal code, ignoring the health act governance and not legalizing it at all.

Bahahaha! You can't 'recriminalize' something that hasn't been 'decriminalized'

Anyway,a lot of good posts. I'm skeptical but I will reserve anger if nothing is delivered by the Spring 2017.

And as I said,if it's an important issue for the NDP they would be grilling the LIberals for this black hole of status quo until their promise of legalizing,taxing and regulating cannabis is kept.

The Liberals took it to the UN,they mentioned it in their Throne Speech and once in awhile an MP will concede that the current system isn't working.

This makes me believe they will act upon it. I have no idea what they have in mind but if it's a policy that ends criminalizing people for possesssing an innocuous weed,I'll be satisfied.

mark_alfred

Quote:
And as I said,if it's an important issue for the NDP they would be grilling the LIberals for this black hole of status quo until their promise of legalizing,taxing and regulating cannabis is kept.

The NDP have raised the issue of "this black hole of status quo until their promise of legalizing,taxing and regulating cannabis is kept", providing a tangible way to address this via a motion (rejected by the Libs and Cons).  See link 1 and link 2.

mark_alfred

Quote:

How does one 'recriminalize' something that hasn't been 'decriminalized'?

Regarding medical marijuana, people eligible for medical marijuana being able to grow their own plants has been decriminalized due to a recent court decision (previously this was illegal for them to do).  But the government is expected to bring in new regulations on the growing of plants come this August.  So, in this case, it could be a "recriminalization" of sorts.  It should be noted that growing your own is cheaper than buying it from the authorized producers.

ETA:  and these regulations will provide a clue as to how the government plans to approach the issue of growing your own when it comes to recreational marijuana, I'm guessing.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:
And as I said,if it's an important issue for the NDP they would be grilling the LIberals for this black hole of status quo until their promise of legalizing,taxing and regulating cannabis is kept.

The NDP have raised the issue of "this black hole of status quo until their promise of legalizing,taxing and regulating cannabis is kept", providing a tangible way to address this via a motion (rejected by the Libs and Cons).  See link 1 and link 2.

     If the government wishes to address this as a preparatory step on the road to regulation and permitting the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, it has the ability, under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, for the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, to issue a directive to the director of public prosecutions to the effect that it is no longer in the public interest for small quantities of marijuana to be the subject of prosecutions.

This I agree with 100%. This should have been done within the first 100 days of power.

I stand corrected about the NDP.

However I do not believe the Liberals will go after medical marijuana. I could be wrong but I highly doubt it.

quizzical

lol, they've said they would and you've been wrong about everything else. i don't expect this time is any different.

lyin liar Liberals.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

lol, they've said they would and you've been wrong about everything else. i don't expect this time is any different.

lyin liar Liberals.

 

The fuck are you talking about? I've been wrong about everything else? I was calling Trudeau the next PM over a year before it happened..Anyway,big deal,lucky guess.

I've been here a while and am familiar with most posters.

But you are a troublemaker and probably THE MOST PARTISAN poster on babble.

I'm sure you're blissful in your little bubble.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

alan smithee wrote:

quizzical wrote:

lol, they've said they would and you've been wrong about everything else. i don't expect this time is any different.

lyin liar Liberals.

 

The fuck are you talking about? I've been wrong about everything else? I was calling Trudeau the next PM over a year before it happened..Anyway,big deal,lucky guess.

I've been here a while and am familiar with most posters.

But you are a troublemaker and probably THE MOST PARTISAN poster on babble.

I'm sure you're blissful in your little bubble.

Sorry Alan, but I think you're off mark here. Quizzical is no more a trouble maker here than most of the obvious LPC partisans who post here. And to claim that somehow she is the most partisan, is absurd, again givne the single minded partisan nature of the the content of the posts of obvious LPC partisan posters on this board.

I think this is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I've been consistent in my defense of you when you were attacked on here, but I just don't think your commentary is on target at all. Frankly, it is pretty hard to post on here as a New Democrat partisan poster here without knowing that the usuall suspects will gang up on you without hesitation. There has been a marked move on this board to its domination by LPC partisans who show no restraint of any kind in attacking NDP partisans at the drop of a hat.

You are certainly entitled to your opinon, but not to post without expectiing challenge. Now you may have issues with Quizzical as a poster and the content of her posts, but I think you are blurring the lines between content on one hand, and the poster on the other. I stand with Quizzial here in terms of her privelege to post here and to be judged on the content of her posts, without an expectation that commentary on here as a poster as well will also occur.

ETA: having a consistent set of principles isn't what makes someone partisan. Frankly, that is the basic difference between Liberals, and New Democrats.

Unionist

I love these last few posts.

In the bad old days, when someone opened a thread about pot legalization, or child care, or NATO, the dullard babblers would all start chiming in with comments about pot legalization, or child care, or NATO.

Thank God almighty we've come such a long way since then.

________________________________

By the way, what do babblers think of decriminalizing possession of "small" amounts (undefined) of cannabis for personal use, but maintaining the sale of small amounts of cannabis for personal use as a criminal offence?

Good idea, bad idea?

My opinion: Extremely wrong and hypocritical. Similar to "decriminalizing sex work", but only for the seller, not the buyer.

Thoughts?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

quizzical wrote:

lol, they've said they would and you've been wrong about everything else. i don't expect this time is any different.

lyin liar Liberals.

 

The fuck are you talking about? I've been wrong about everything else? I was calling Trudeau the next PM over a year before it happened..Anyway,big deal,lucky guess.

I've been here a while and am familiar with most posters.

But you are a troublemaker and probably THE MOST PARTISAN poster on babble.

I'm sure you're blissful in your little bubble.

Sorry Alan, but I think you're off mark here. Quizzical is no more a trouble maker here than most of the obvious LPC partisans who post here. And to claim that somehow she is the most partisan, is absurd, again givne the single minded partisan nature of the the content of the posts of obvious LPC partisan posters on this board.

I think this is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I've been consistent in my defense of you when you were attacked on here, but I just don't think your commentary is on target at all. Frankly, it is pretty hard to post on here as a New Democrat partisan poster here without knowing that the usuall suspects will gang up on you without hesitation. There has been a marked move on this board to its domination by LPC partisans who show no restraint of any kind in attacking NDP partisans at the drop of a hat.

You are certainly entitled to your opinon, but not to post without expectiing challenge. Now you may have issues with Quizzical as a poster and the content of her posts, but I think you are blurring the lines between content on one hand, and the poster on the other. I stand with Quizzial here in terms of her privelege to post here and to be judged on the content of her posts, without an expectation that commentary on here as a poster as well will also occur.

ETA: having a consistent set of principles isn't what makes someone partisan. Frankly, that is the basic difference between Liberals, and New Democrats.

Sorry Arthur. She is HYPERPARTISAN it's embarrassing. But if you're up to it..you can check all my old posts going back almost 7 years ago and you will see quite clearly that I'm not partisan.

I admit I hate Conservatives but even if THEY came up with a policy I support,I'd admit it and I'd take it. I wouldn't shit all over it simply because the idea or policy is coming from Team Blue.

It's very hard to debate issues which would be praised if they came from Team Orange but rip it apart simply because it's Team Red. Can't debate with such a narrow mind.

Anywayt,to those who think the Liberals are going to follow the Tories and meddle with medicinal marijuana,take another toke and try not to choke.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Good idea, bad idea?

Not a good idea. Decriminalizing demand, but continuing to criminalize supply, is just an end run on that demand.  Basically, "buy it if you can afford it, but really we're hoping that you never get any".

The only possible objection to decriminalizing the sale of small amounts of weed would be the necessity of defining "small".  Not just because we'd have to arbitrarily pick some amount, like "an ounce" or whatever, but because the guy who's selling dimes buys ounces, the guy who's selling those ounces buys pounds, and the guy who supplies those pounds probably has 600 plants in a moldy house basement with an illegal electrical hookup.  No matter which of these guys remains criminalized, supply gets choked off.  Nobody's selling weed they found growing beside the road.

Quote:
Some kind of phony Nordic model for marijuana. How are you supposed to get marijuana for personal use without producing it (unlawfully) or someone selling it to you (unlawfully)?

It would be interesting to consider a very literal application of the "Nordic" model:

1.  it would be entirely legal to grow and sell marijuana, as much as you wish

2.  it would be illegal to buy marijuana

3.  it would be entirely legal to share marijuana freely, with no money or other compensation involved, as much as you wish

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I see nothing wrong with Dutch policy. There's restrictions but you're not breaking the law.

I believe it's 5 grams possession and 2-3 personal plants. Works for me.

Obviously,the LIberals are not going to look to Uruguay. In Uruaguay you have a 30 gram limit but a gram costs $1.

I think the Liberals are looking at the States who legalized it and follow that model.

The only problem is that in these States that legalized recreational marijuana, 1/8 of an ounce is $50. The underground is half that price.

I don't expect the government to open the gates where everyone can grow 100 plants at a time,but 2-3 plants is plenty (2-3 lbs)

I think they should follow Dutch policy. But it's more likely they will follow Colorado's policy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I could be all wrong about this, but I recall reading that Holland did revise its restrictions, such that non-citizens can't visit "coffee shops".  If that's true, what's that all about??

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I could be all wrong about this, but I recall reading that Holland did revise its restrictions, such that non-citizens can't visit "coffee shops".  If that's true, what's that all about??

Supposedly Holland had (has) a right wing government that wanted to close down the coffee shops...Then they said the coffeeshops can stay but only Dutch nationals could go to the coffee shops.

The last I heard was coffee shop owners got pissed off and the govewrnment backed down from it.

I'd have to look it up but I'm pretty sure the trial balloon of restricting foreigners from going to coffee shops blew up and crashed to the ground.

 

mark_alfred

Regardless of the lacklustre policy of decriminalization that the NDP ran on, I feel that them advocating decriminalization of simple possession now during the transition period, when the details of legalization are being worked out, makes sense.  Presumably simple possession would be 30 grams or less of marijuana and 1 gram or less of hash (I also assume this could cover people growing a few plants).  Anyway, it really doesn't matter since the government rejected this idea of the NDP (and thus continue to needlessly clog the courts until it's legalized). 

Once the government's bill for legalizing is introduced and passes second reading and goes to committee, that would be the time to take a hard look at the details of what the government's plan to legalize it is, I feel.  And again, it will be interesting to see if they propose new regulations on medical marijuana users' current court-fought right to grow their own (expected in August).  This will provide a clue as to the approach they'll take to recreational marijuana, I feel.  On the bright side, they didn't appeal the court decision.  But again, new regulations are expected in August.  This I feel will be important to watch for.

mark_alfred

Quote:
There has been a marked move on this board to its domination by LPC partisans who show no restraint of any kind in attacking NDP partisans at the drop of a hat.

Hey Art!  Good seeing you! 

The whole anti-partisan rhetoric is such horseshit, IMO.  Nothing wrong with being loyal to the NDP and the idea of a more social democratic Canada.  Long live the raging grannies, the champagne socialists, the blue collar hard-core union workers in small industrial towns, and all the rest.  A loyal base is power for social democracy, in my opinion.  Demeaning that isn't.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'll tell you what's horseshit. Being called a Liberal partisan for supporting their efforts to legalize cannabis. Pasrtisanship is narrow mindedness. As I said in my post,the Team Orange partisans living in an orange bubble would be defending and praising this policy if it was introduced by the NDP.

But it wasn't. Team Red beat them to it. Admit,Team Red is right about legalization. Having said that,Team Red is irresponsible by not immmediately decriminalizing it before legislation is passed and Team Orange is right about that.

That isn't partisanship. That's acknowledging facts. Sorry if you can't deal with it.

mark_alfred

Yes, I should be fair.  So, while not my choice, but for those whose choice it is...

The whole anti-partisan rhetoric is such horseshit, IMO.  Nothing wrong with being loyal to the Liberals and the idea of a more free trading anti-protectionist corporate Canada.  Long live the yuppies, the latte liberals, the white collar hard-core entrepeneurs in big urban cities, and all the rest.  A loyal base is power for liberal democracy, in my opinion.  Demeaning that isn't.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I always thought you were a reasonable person,mark_alfred. I'm very disappointed.

But thanks for proving my point :)

 

 

 

mark_alfred

[off topic]

My point is that loyalty to a general idea as represented by each of the political parties, be it conservative, liberal democracy, or social democracy (Con, Lib, NDP) is more likely to be successful when the base behind each of the respected parties is not vilified as being impure.  And we see evidence of this, in that supporters of ideas behind the Cons and Liberals seem, IMO, to be far less likely to vilify their loyal bases (or "partisans", if you prefer) than are supporters of the ideas behind social democracy (IE, the left seems very open to infighting and vilifying one another, much to the delight of, in my opinion, supporters of liberal democracy particularly.)  And they are more successful because of this, and Canada has moved rightward.  Wishing to see the NDP succeed, even knowing that their policies are not "perfect", should be okay.  Vilifying members of the NDP (IE, partisans of the NDP) is detrimental overall to moving Canada to the left, in my opinion. 

[/off topic]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Presumably simple possession would be 30 grams or less of marijuana and 1 gram or less of hash (I also assume this could cover people growing a few plants).  

Why in an age when pot is now similar to hash in THC content do you think that a 30 to 1 ratio is a presumption? You also left out all the other great products that are available at pot dispensaries.

 

mark_alfred

I was going by my understanding of the current law.  I'm not a marijuana user myself, so I don't really have a personal idea as to what would be the appropriate level. 

Quote:
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, s 4 <http://canlii.ca/t/52n84#sec4> retrieved on 2016-07-24

Possession of substance

4 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.

    Punishment

    (5) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II in an amount that does not exceed the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VIII is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

     

    SCHEDULE II

    1 Cannabis, its preparations and derivatives, including

    1. Cannabis resin
    2. Cannabis (marihuana)

     

    SCHEDULE VIII (Sections 4 and 60)

    Substance, Amount

    1. Cannabis resin, 1 g
    2. Cannabis (marihuana), 30 g

    It seems the amounts could be easily changed:

    Quote:
    Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, s 60 <http://canlii.ca/t/52n84#sec60> retrieved on 2016-07-24

    Amendments to Schedules

    Schedules

    60 The Governor in Council may, by order, amend any of Schedules I to VIII by adding to them or deleting from them any item or portion of an item, where the Governor in Council deems the amendment to be necessary in the public interest.

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    A bit of an eye opener. I didn't know 1 gram of hash was the equivalent to 30 grams of pot.

    Glad I never was arrested for possession in my younger days because that's all I smoked and I usually had a big chunk of it on my person.

    Cannabis is cannabis,bud or hash. I don't understand that provision of the law.

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    dp

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    FWIW, I've heard it suggested that those amounts helped to drive growers and breeders toward higher THC strains.  Better to have 29 grams of total high-test weed on you than 31 grams of shitty rope-weed.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Mr. Magoo wrote:

    FWIW, I've heard it suggested that those amounts helped to drive growers and breeders toward higher THC strains.  Better to have 29 grams of total high-test weed on you than 31 grams of shitty rope-weed.

    The people I know who actually developed some of the most potent strains of BC bud did it because they wanted to grow the best pot in the world. The US helped when it sprayed paraquat in the early '80's making all the high quality pot from Mexico poisonous. We then got Thai pot as a replacement and BC growers got very serious about matching that kind of quality with a homegrown product.

    My friends made good money exporting to the Netherlands before they started growing their own high potency bud.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Well, I don't doubt that pride in craftsmanship plays a role too, not that dissimilar to some guy trying to grow the biggest squash, or whatever.

    But it does highlight an interesting difference between pot and alcohol:  pot seems to be primarily governed and priced by weight, not potency, whereas alcohol -- or at least the tax on it -- is generally a function of the actual amount of ethanol in the bottle.  You could probably manufacture a very cheap, plain, uninspired vodka for much less than even some non-premium brand like "Prince Igor" or whatever, but the LCBO wouldn't sell it for much less, if any less.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    If the Liberals are actually serious about taking on organized crime involved in the pot industry then they will allow individuals to grow pot. If they, as I fear, chose to restrict the growing of pot to large corporations and restrict the amount of THC in the "legal" pot to low levels they will not succeed. 

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Quote:
    If the Liberals are actually serious about taking on organized crime involved in the pot industry then they will allow individuals to grow pot.

    I would assume that all "organized crime" weed is grown by individuals.  How should the government distinguish between the individual growing to thwart organized crime, and the individual growing to sell to them?  I'm thinking "number of plants" perhaps, but what number?

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    If the Liberals are actually serious about taking on organized crime involved in the pot industry then they will allow individuals to grow pot. If they, as I fear, chose to restrict the growing of pot to large corporations and restrict the amount of THC in the "legal" pot to low levels they will not succeed. 

    Low grade pot for high grade price is incredibly stupid. People will stick to their own connections.Let's hope they don't go that route.

    As for growing,I see why not let people grow, for example, maximum of 3 plants. It's plenty for a while even for a person like myself that regularly smokes it. Were talking about 2 or 3 pounds though so I don't think that's likely. Also,if individuals were to be able to grow their own,there'd be new businesses that sell clones and hydroponic equipment for example. Want to create jobs and business? There's the answer.

    I must admit,I fear too much restriction too. If they do,this will be a dismal failure. And then we'd be back to square one until a Leader and a Party takes a stand against injustice,wasteful spending,etc...etc...and just legalizes it full out but obviously with some regulation which I hope is minor and only has to do with keeping it out of the hands of kids (as much as humanly possible.) If that's the message I'm supposed to believe.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Quote:
    Also,if individuals were to be able to grow their own,there'd be new businesses that sell clones and hydroponic equipment for example. Want to create jobs and business? There's the answer.

    So this will grow our economy in a way that home-brew beer kits failed to?

    I'm not averse to the idea, but let's not get our hopes up.

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    Mr. Magoo wrote:

    Quote:
    Also,if individuals were to be able to grow their own,there'd be new businesses that sell clones and hydroponic equipment for example. Want to create jobs and business? There's the answer.

    So this will grow our economy in a way that home-brew beer kits failed to?

    I'm not averse to the idea, but let's not get our hopes up.

    Fair enough. But I'm sure there'll be people capitalizing if you can buy the clones and equipment.

    Years ago,I remember hearing of a hydroponic system that is the size of an aquarium (as a matter of fact it looks like an aquarium ) And can grow a maximum of 3 plants in 3 to 4 months.

    It would be a hot item.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    I'm sure I've at least once mentioned "Mr. Beer" -- a 2l bottle of wort, with some yeast in a wee container in the cap.  Mix them, wait ten days, and you have beer.  Wait 14 days and you have strong beer.  And since no "alcohol" is being sold, it's not subject to the usual taxes.  And if you can find it, it's actually pretty damn good beer -- er, that you're making yourself and not buying.  :)

    quizzical

    alan smithee wrote:
    Low grade pot for high grade price is incredibly stupid. People will stick to their own connections.Let's hope they don't go that route.

    lmao.

    they already are and getting rid of medical marijuana status.

     

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    quizzical wrote:

    alan smithee wrote:
    Low grade pot for high grade price is incredibly stupid. People will stick to their own connections.Let's hope they don't go that route.

    getting rid of medical marijuana status.

     

    Link

    BTW. Stop trolling me,OK..Get over your obsession, I always count on some snarky childish comment from you. You never disappoint.

    quizzical

    what link?

    MegB

    alan smithee wrote:

    quizzical wrote:

    alan smithee wrote:
    quizzical wrote:

    oh alan you wouldn't have a problem now with a few restrictions???? lmao. not your tune during the election.

    Bullshit. I never changed my tune. A few minor restrictions will not and never did bother me. You're a liar.

    M y goal,going back to the start of my opinion going back to 1983.is to stop arresting and charging people for simple possession. That's all I care about.

    Who profits from it,how many grams can I legally buy at a time,etc...I couldn't care less.

    bs. during the election you carried on about how instant decriminalization supported by the NDP was not enough you wanted it fully legal the way "Justin" promised. and you went on to carry on about how ALL drugs should be entirely legal.

    i could go back and dig up your words but frankly can't be bothered. waste of time and energy.

     

    Hey,troublemaker...I'm in favour of legalization ...of all drugs. I never waivered from this position and you can quote me. I'm saying it should have been decriminalized in some fashion until the actual legislation is written.

    Now fuck off.

    Quizzical, stop poking the hornets nest. Mr. Smithee, restrain yourself. Calling quizzical a liar and telling them to fuck off is toxic and against babble policy.

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    MegB wrote:

    alan smithee wrote:

    quizzical wrote:

    alan smithee wrote:
    quizzical wrote:

    oh alan you wouldn't have a problem now with a few restrictions???? lmao. not your tune during the election.

    Bullshit. I never changed my tune. A few minor restrictions will not and never did bother me. You're a liar.

    M y goal,going back to the start of my opinion going back to 1983.is to stop arresting and charging people for simple possession. That's all I care about.

    Who profits from it,how many grams can I legally buy at a time,etc...I couldn't care less.

    bs. during the election you carried on about how instant decriminalization supported by the NDP was not enough you wanted it fully legal the way "Justin" promised. and you went on to carry on about how ALL drugs should be entirely legal.

    i could go back and dig up your words but frankly can't be bothered. waste of time and energy.

     

    Hey,troublemaker...I'm in favour of legalization ...of all drugs. I never waivered from this position and you can quote me. I'm saying it should have been decriminalized in some fashion until the actual legislation is written.

    Now fuck off.

    Quizzical, stop poking the hornets nest. Mr. Smithee, restrain yourself. Calling quizzical a liar and telling them to fuck off is toxic and against babble policy.

    Duly noted.

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    OK. So the NDP hammered the Liberals to decriminalize simple possession while we wait for supposed 'legalization' legislation. I'm hoping they continue hammering away at them about this and not let it all get swept under the rug.

    Here's some recent but old news.

    http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/06/12/le-npd-veut-decriminaliser-l...

    So hats off to the NDP. Please keep it up.

     

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    Turn a blind eye to it. It would take 5 minutes to fax a memo to the courts and police chiefs that cannabis is no longer a priority and it's in everyone's best interest not to enforce the ban.

    It makes sense to me..I guess I'm just a crazy leftist.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    It does make sense.  But...  once word leaked out that they did this, all hell would break loose from a lot of different fronts.  The usual stick-up-the-ass crowd would demand that the law be enforced until struck down, NIMBY councillors would win their next two elections by proposing a "marijuana-free" zone within 300m of their Ward, meth users would demand their right to use whatever they want even though it's also still illegal on the books, and so on.

    I still think they should anyway, but it'll open up more cans of worms than it closes.

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    Mr. Magoo wrote:

    It does make sense.  But...  once word leaked out that they did this, all hell would break loose from a lot of different fronts.  The usual stick-up-the-ass crowd would demand that the law be enforced until struck down, NIMBY councillors would win their next two elections by proposing a "marijuana-free" zone within 300m of their Ward, meth users would demand their right to use whatever they want even though it's also still illegal on the books, and so on.

    I still think they should anyway, but it'll open up more cans of worms than it closes.

    I agree with you about the stick-up-the-ass portion of our populace. But that is THEIR can of worms. If I had the power,I'd immediately legalize and regulate all drugs. It would eliminate crap like meth,crack and krokodil.It would save billions in spending and add more billions in tax revenue. I think prohibitionists are children that need to grow up. Fortunately,more and more of these children are dying off.

    alan smithee alan smithee's picture

    dp

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Quote:
    If I had the power,I'd immediately legalize and regulate all drugs.

    As a civil-libertarian type, I could vote for that bill, but with a couple of small riders.

    1.  if smoking/snorting/injecting/ingesting drugs is your right then it's also your responsibility.  What you do while high, baked, blotto or completely fucked up is still your responsibility.  In the same way that being "too drunk to know right from wrong" is not an acceptable defense against a DUI charge, neither must "I swear to God, I thought Henry Kissinger sent that kid to assasinate me" be an acceptable defense against a murder charge.

    2.  you'll need to support this habit the way others need to support their hobbies.  It could be wise to not start with drugs that are expensive, addictive, or both.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    alan smithee wrote:

    Turn a blind eye to it. It would take 5 minutes to fax a memo to the courts and police chiefs that cannabis is no longer a priority and it's in everyone's best interest not to enforce the ban.

    It makes sense to me..I guess I'm just a crazy leftist.

    No the police and Trudeau would rather that they have the right to harass and arrest people from marginalized communities. After all our drug laws are way more about social control than anything else.  The nice story Justin told during the election was a clear case of trafficking but you will note that it is highly unlikely that the RCMP are investigating who gave Justin a joint at a party attended by members of the rich white elite.

    Quote:

    Racial Profiling

    By 2002, the Toronto Star began publication of a series of articles on the topic of race and crime. In “Singled Out”, the Star’s analysis of arrest data from the Toronto Police Services revealed that Black Canadians were highly over-represented in certain offence categories, including drug possession and trafficking. The data also showed that in stops, searches, arrests and detentions from 1996 to 2002, the Toronto Police Service treated people of African descent differently from other racialized groups. Examining data after the release of the report from the Commission on Systemic Racism,the Star maintained that this pattern of over-representation was consistent with the idea that Toronto police engaged in racial profiling and that racialized offenders were treated more harshly after arrest than their White counterparts. 

    Pages

    Topic locked