View Full Version : " Pot decriminalization bill goes up in smoke in Canada"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/03/canada.pot.reut/index.html
OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canada's new Conservative government will scrap draft legislation that would have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday.
The legislation, drawn up by the previous Liberal government, alarmed police officials in Canada and the United States who said it would only encourage the already booming trade in pot.
Once the Liberals lost the January 23 election after 12 years in power, the bill looked to be in deep trouble. One of Harper's five priorities is to clamp down on crime.
"We will not be reintroducing the Liberal government's marijuana decriminalization legislation," he told a meeting of the Canadian Professional Police Association.
"I thought we might find a receptive audience here," he told his audience after winning a round of applause.
Under the Liberal bill, people found with small amounts of marijuana would have been fined but would not have received a criminal record.
Canadian police complain that judges often hand down lenient sentences on people found guilty of running operations to grow marijuana illegally.
Estimates for the value of Canada's booming pot business trade vary widely, and some experts say it is worth $8.5 billion a year.
The main center is the Pacific province of British Columbia, where criminals export potent marijuana, known as BC Bud, to the United States.
Oh no, this is really to bad.~;)
Hurin_Rules
04-03-2006, 16:56
Yes, but remember, Harper does not have a majority. Whether he will be able to pass any of his proposed legislation is still very much up in the air... or 'Up in Smoke' :)
Goofball
04-03-2006, 17:40
Oh no, this is really to bad.~;)
I find it amusing that a person who is in favor of everybody being able to walk around bristling with handguns in his own country somehow takes comfort and safety from the fact that a "hardened criminal" who happens to be caught with a joint in his pocket in Canada will suffer the utmost prosecution the legal system has to offer.
At any rate, this is no big surprise, nor is it any kind of a blow to the pro-marijuana types. Most of the serious pot advocates here didn't like the decrim bill anyway. They want legalization, not decriminalization, and there is a big difference between the two.
Decriminalization, while taking heat of private users, would still leave production in the hand of criminals/organized crime while legalization would solve the latter problem. Decrim is a bad idea and I'm glad it's dead for now.
Devastatin Dave
04-03-2006, 17:52
I'm for legalizing it. I wish they would do it here in this country. It helps "weed" out the slackers and keeps the job market open for me and my friends. The way the tax smokes in Canada these days, its cheaper to smoke pot and get a better buzz. God bless pot heads, they are important members of the economy when it comes to munchy time. Dominoes Pizza would go out of business if pot heads sobered up and realized that their pizza sucked!!!:laugh4:
I find it amusing that a person who is in favor of everybody being able to walk around bristling with handguns in his own country somehow takes comfort and safety from the fact that a "hardened criminal" who happens to be caught with a joint in his pocket in Canada will suffer the utmost prosecution the legal system has to offer.
Who would that be? I'm in favor of banning most guns, except ones that are used in hunting. That includes banning most handguns. I also think that you should not be able to "walk around bristling" with any sort of firearm. I'm also in favor of making it harder to get guns.
Here's an idea:
Next time, learn a few things about me before you judge me.
Goofball
04-03-2006, 18:10
Who would that be? I'm in favor of banning most guns, except ones that are used in hunting. That includes banning most handguns. I also think that you should not be able to "walk around bristling" with any sort of firearm. I'm also in favor of making it harder to get guns.
Then I applaud you for your damn civilized and practical views on guns.
Here's an idea:
Next time, learn a few things about me before you judge me.
I do apologize, ghost908. I had you mixed up with another Org member who is quite a vocal handgun advocate.
My mistake.
:shame:
Devastatin Dave
04-03-2006, 18:18
Goofy's just cranky from the lack of weed.:laugh4:
I do apologize, ghost908. I had you mixed up with another Org member who is quite a vocal handgun advocate.
My mistake.
:shame:
No problem. No harm done. :)
Kanamori
04-03-2006, 19:15
I'm just wondering why someone would want to make it illegal, let alone criminalize it. Alcohol is by far worse for the body than pot is, and maintaining a smoking habit costs the body much less than does maintaining a cigarette habit. Not to mention just about everything else I've heard about pot is an outright lie. But oh well, people do it now just to get a rise out of me, because I actually keep my view on liberty continuous throughout.
It is one of the most harmless drugs ever. It is quite impossible to overdose. I wonder if somebody can take ten pills of Ibuprofen without having to make a trip to the hospital? Not to mention that for me, and many others, it is a way of going through some things in life more happily and deriving more enjoyment from just getting out and doing things. The pursuit of happiness was one of the things the founders fought for, and I am certainly not making the neo-liberal argument that the Government should make me more happy, I simply want the government to let me seek my own happiness when I am not harming anybody else in the slightest. If anything, pot makes more people far more benign. It is so amusing that any one would want to totally restrict some action that doesn't effect anyone else.
Crazed Rabbit
04-03-2006, 19:35
Then I applaud you for your damn civilized and practical views on guns.
What's so 'civilized' and 'practical' about being defenseless?
As for pot, I think it would be better to perhaps slightly legalize it, mostly due to the bad policies that have arisen from the 'war on drugs'.
Crazed Rabbit
Ironside
04-03-2006, 21:09
What's so 'civilized' and 'practical' about being defenseless?
Pesonally, I consider lacking the need of defending myself with a gun both civilized and practical. :2thumbsup:
Goofball
04-03-2006, 21:51
What's so 'civilized' and 'practical' about being defenseless?
Speak for yourself, my friend.
Even without any guns, I am far from defenseless. And with a hunting rifle or shotgun (which I have no objection to people owning) I would consider myself a force to tread lightly around if you were intent on harming me or mine.
Now, I know that there are many people out there who feel that they are defenceless without a large caliber handgun (a.k.a. penis extender), but as far as I'm concerned they simply suffer from a lack of self confidence.
~;)
As for pot, I think it would be better to perhaps slightly legalize it, mostly due to the bad policies that have arisen from the 'war on drugs'.
Exactly.
Just think: without all of the crime associated with illegal drug production, you might not even feel the need to own a gun.
Kralizec
04-03-2006, 21:57
I assume that Canadian parliament members have the power to issue their own legislation drafts?
Then they could legalize or decriminalize pot without the cooperation of some minority government.
That is called a private members bill. The problem with that is it still has to go through the 3 readings and votes. With ammendments and all that. And a private bill has no guarentee of total party voting support.
Strike For The South
04-04-2006, 00:42
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo
I knew it. Oh, well. It'll just take longer now.
I'd rather they legalize and tax the shit out of pot. Hell no taxes is whey all the pot heads want decrim instead of legalize.
Kanamori
04-04-2006, 11:10
And still, nobody offers any arguments at all. One is led to think that they have no reason for their belief that it ought to be criminalized.
Goofy's just cranky from the lack of weed.:laugh4:
A lack of weed in BC?
That's like saying there's a lack of guns in Texas or sand in Arabia.
Divinus Arma
04-04-2006, 21:02
That is a shame. One of the downfalls of conservative politics. I would be very impressed with Canada if they allowed decrim at the province (state?) level and then left the federal government out of it. That would be a real federal conservative's point of view.
Criminalization of Marijuana, in my opinion, is what makes it a "gateway drug". This is because a user trys it and realizes that it isn't nearly as bad as all the hype says. Then the user thinks that maybe all the hype over other drugs is fabricated too. This then leads them to experiment with the really bad stuff which really does destroy people.
They should legalize it simply because it creates a false impression of safety for harder drugs. Legalizing marijuana would legitamize public education on hard drugs.
Not to mention that alcohol is far more destructive to society then marijuana.
What do our canadian friends think of this topic?
I think it's a pain, but I knew it would happen. I'd rather this didn't get through legislature.
Strike For The South
04-05-2006, 02:10
Someone gives ma a good arguement against it. I will burn my stash.
That is a shame. One of the downfalls of conservative politics. I would be very impressed with Canada if they allowed decrim at the province (state?) level and then left the federal government out of it. That would be a real federal conservative's point of view.
What do our canadian friends think of this topic?
Well our justice and federal system is not yours. It works differently. Each province doesn't have a set of individual laws. It's the criminal code of Canada not the criminal code of Nova Scotia after all. Crimes are defined at the federal level and are changed at that level. So all capital and misdominer crimes are federal laws as you would see it. (Now before you ask about gay marriage that is covered by provincial marriage acts that the provincial legislative assemblies can change at their disgression) Our crimes are commited against the crown not the people.
Divinus Arma
04-05-2006, 05:09
Our crimes are commited against the crown not the people.
If that is the case then sovereignty rests with the crown and not the people. Which is the opposite of the United States.
Thats another strike against Canada. :no:
If that is the case then sovereignty rests with the crown and not the people. Which is the opposite of the United States.
Exactly. The only similarities between Canada and the US our cultural. Go beyond that and the differences are quite large. Our democracy is a privaledge not a right
But the crown has a social contract with the people. It has a reponsibility to provide peace order and good governemnt. In that order. These days that is acomplished with a multiparty democratic system and an open society. Also the crown tends/tries to act as the representative of the people.
Thats another strike against Canada.
I fail to see how. Explain please?
Kanamori
04-05-2006, 13:29
The sovereignty is in name only, just like the States.:book:
Someone gives ma a good arguement against it. I will burn my stash.
I don't need a good argument against smoking to burn my stash.:balloon2:
Someone gives ma a good arguement against it. I will burn my stash.
If you're going to burn that - can I be next on it?:idea2:
Strike For The South
04-06-2006, 01:45
If you're going to burn that - can I be next on it?:idea2:
:inquisitive: :furious3: :laugh4:
Lars demcoracy is a right No inbred will tell me what to do. Hell thats been my policey my whole life.
Lars demcoracy is a right No inbred will tell me what to do. Hell thats been my policey my whole life.
All rights are privileges.
All rights are privileges.
Agreed. Plus it's not like they'd step on us little guys more than they do already (read up on imminent domain).
Alexanderofmacedon
04-06-2006, 03:23
Someone gives ma a good arguement against it. I will burn my stash.
It's against Texas law. You are loyal to Texas aren't you?!?!
Well, aren't you?!?!
TRAITOR!!!
That is a shame. One of the downfalls of conservative politics. I would be very impressed with Canada if they allowed decrim at the province (state?) level and then left the federal government out of it. That would be a real federal conservative's point of view.
Criminalization of Marijuana, in my opinion, is what makes it a "gateway drug". This is because a user trys it and realizes that it isn't nearly as bad as all the hype says. Then the user thinks that maybe all the hype over other drugs is fabricated too. This then leads them to experiment with the really bad stuff which really does destroy people.
They should legalize it simply because it creates a false impression of safety for harder drugs. Legalizing marijuana would legitamize public education on hard drugs.
Not to mention that alcohol is far more destructive to society then marijuana.
What do our canadian friends think of this topic?
I'm not canadian, but I will still comment on it.
I agree, while it is only part of the reason I want it legalized, I think you are right.
The way weed is presented in it's various forms, by the various state-efforts to kill it, is something like this:
Weed = heroin!!! Don't smoke it, it is evil and you will go crazy ect ect.
That is just plain wrong. It is very soft on the user (and even the abuser), and so when people find out they have no trust in what they have been told. Lucklily most people who have smoked it understand that the people fighting it are being dimwits in their presentations, but some don't and apply the faults to the the harder drugs too, where the claims aer in fact true. So if you believe it is not that bad and try heroin, I'm certain you will do it again, for what I have heard is that it gives the best high you can think of, and then some.
But personally I just find it hypocritical that we allow it to an extent as a medication, but not as a enjoyment (though at times the two mix). Also we allow something that most can agree on is worse, alcohol. The only argument I have ever heard against weed is that it is a stepping stone to hard drugs. And so is tobacco and alcohol, but both are still legal.
I don't touch the stuff anymore, did for a while (I lived in Jamaica, what was I supposed to do?), but in the end I got bored of it. Just wasn't worth being that silly. At least while drunk you are rationally silly (conundrum?).
I find it odd that people often mention the potheads when talking about this. As if they are a fair representation of the users? And even if they were, isn't it better to be a pothead than a drunkard? The pothead sits in a corner in his little world, but functions pretty well when not affected, the drunkard on the other hand is not very effective...
Kanamori
04-06-2006, 11:58
Walking around and doing stuff is the only way to enjoy marijuana. After the first few times of being totally incapacitated you get used to it, and can function like an otherwise normal person, things just get more interesting sometimes.:laugh4:
Walking around and doing stuff is the only way to enjoy marijuana. After the first few times of being totally incapacitated you get used to it, and can function like an otherwise normal person, things just get more interesting sometimes.:laugh4:
No way. The best way to enjoy it is Oh Yeah by Yello.
It is best used by doing it with friends you know are pretty funny... You know people that do funny stuff. It is not fun to do it with people who are pretty dour or just not as active.
Since I enjoy sitting around talking stuff with my friends and in general being relatively docile I think it would be a great letdown to smoke weed in that company. But I do haev some friends that have always been the odd ones, you know them, they can't help themselves they were just eternal 18 yearolds. Always saying something stupid in jest, always getting into half-trouble, falling over own legs ect ect. Those are the people to smoke it with. Much like you shouldn't drink with people you don't like at all...
Divinus Arma
04-07-2006, 04:30
It seems that most of us agree that pot is pretty harmless. Don't we represent a diversified field of the mainstream? Liberals and conservative alike here. yeah.
Someone gives ma a good arguement against it. I will burn my stash. If you are already addicted, a good argument will make very little difference, because even if you throw away your stash, you will still have to go through withdrawal.
It's like telling a smoker cigarettes increase the risk of cancer. Throwing away a pack doesn't mean the end of it, because the cravings for smokes will remain.
If you are already addicted, a good argument will make very little difference, because even if you throw away your stash, you will still have to go through withdrawal.
It's like telling a smoker cigarettes increase the risk of cancer. Throwing away a pack doesn't mean the end of it, because the cravings for smokes will remain.
It's clear that you don't know much about marijuana.
Strike For The South
04-07-2006, 12:59
If you are already addicted, a good argument will make very little difference, because even if you throw away your stash, you will still have to go through withdrawal.
It's like telling a smoker cigarettes increase the risk of cancer. Throwing away a pack doesn't mean the end of it, because the cravings for smokes will remain.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: withdrawal man read up before you make assumptions. Its not herion. I can smoke all weekend and not do it agian for another month. Its not addicting.
R'as al Ghul
04-07-2006, 13:58
Someone gives ma a good arguement against it. I will burn my stash.
Are you going to inhale the smoke? ~:smoking:
If you are already addicted, a good argument will make very little difference, because even if you throw away your stash, you will still have to go through withdrawal.
It's like telling a smoker cigarettes increase the risk of cancer. Throwing away a pack doesn't mean the end of it, because the cravings for smokes will remain.
I smoked enough weed in Jamaica to put down an elephant for weeks (was there for a year), but when I got home I quiet it at once and didn't touch it for an entire year, never feeling a craving. I just didn't think it was worth the money I had to pay for it, and that was that.
Had it been tobacco or alcohol it would have been quite different.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: withdrawal man read up before you make assumptions. Its not herion. I can smoke all weekend and not do it agian for another month. Its not addicting.
I smoked enough weed in Jamaica to put down an elephant for weeks (was there for a year), but when I got home I quiet it at once and didn't touch it for an entire year, never feeling a craving. I just didn't think it was worth the money I had to pay for it, and that was that.
Had it been tobacco or alcohol it would have been quite different. It simply meant both of you aren't addicted. :)
It simply meant both of you aren't addicted. :)
Exactly... If I didn't get addicted from the amount I smoked (and with that frequency), I doubt I would ever get addicted.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.