B.C. pot petition would end enforcement of possession laws

[steven lloyd]

The attitude appears to be the hell with it... I want to smoke dope legally and could care less whether there are negative impacts to legalization.

I don’t even smoke (or want to) but I already know there are incredibly wasteful and destructive impacts from prohibition. To pretend otherwise is simply an effort in denial, an attempt to stick a head even further into the sand to protect failed but entrenched ideological or moralistic beliefs. One would hope there might one day be enough intelligence [at least collectively] amongst the anti-pot crowd to realize the way this matter is being handled right now is a complete and utter failure resulting in ridiculous and completely wasted costs (that we can hardly afford) and causing far more harm to society than the use of the drug ever will.

http://www.leap.cc/

CopsSayLegalize: "I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us,
that the less we use our power the greater it will be." – Thomas Jefferson

[steven lloyd]

Interesting...I was under the impression that the police weren't really busting people for simple possession.

Sadly, that would be incorrect. So much harm and damage created by these archaic laws. Such a waste.

[Donald G]

I think you will find that charges for simple possession are rising only because charges of Possession for the Purpose, Cultivation, Trafficking and importing marijuana are routinely being dealt down by Crown Counsel and Defense Counsel in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser possession charge with or without all circumstances being read into court. The sentence range differs considerably between the various more serious offenses and simple possession. It's part of the game.

When is the last time you know of anyone being charged with the straight forward possession of a joint or two? Please omit the simple possession charges that you do not know the history of.

[maryjane48]

It’s a police-driven agenda much more than a prosecution-driven agenda, it appears to me,” he said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/posses ... z2ZGK6eO1Q

[steven lloyd]

I think you will find that charges for simple possession are rising only because charges of Possession for the Purpose, Cultivation, Trafficking and importing marijuana are routinely being dealt down by Crown Counsel and Defense Counsel in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser possession charge with or without all circumstances being read into court.

Again – sadly you would be incorrect. I think you will find that after more than ten years of working within the criminal justice system functioning directly with police, Crown Counsel and the judiciary, addiction, mental health and Forensics specialists, and with ten years previous experience working directly with people suffering from addiction and mental illness I know a little bit about this issue. In addition, the willingness to study the matter without a preconceived moralistic standpoint has assisted me in developing a more realistic viewpoint. I’m not going to try and dissuade you from your ideological perspective Donald. I imagine you’ve spent a good amount of time & energy shoring it up. It’s a beautiful evening up here in the north. Cheerio.

[Donald G]

To lakevixen ...

I can understand people with an existing annual venue not wanting to become involved in any additional controversial ventures such as decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana. No matter what perspective they took they would lose supporters.

To Steven Lloyd ...

If you are that closely associated with the Criminal Court System then you are aware that a charge of simple possession of marijuana is laid with EVERY more serious charge. The question I asked was in regard to the police laying simple possession charge ALONE as the result of people having a few joints or a nickel or dime baggie of marijuana.

The 3,800 figure suggested as being the number of possession charges laid WITHOUT originating from more serious charges is not, in my opinion, realistic. Was that figure taken from Stats Canada information?

[steven lloyd]

To Steven Lloyd ... If you are that closely associated with the Criminal Court System then you are aware that a charge of simple possession of marijuana is laid with EVERY more serious charge.

Sorry Donald, but just repeating your flawed supposition does not somehow make it true. You are still incorrect on this matter. I can understand that you want to find a way to rationalize and justify your support for a law that causes more far grief and harm and costs society such complete and terrible waste in our already limited resources than the simple use of the drug ever could come close to. *removed/Jo*

http://www.leap.cc/

[Donald G]

You obviously feel strongly that marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized. You are entitled to your opinion, as others are to theirs.

But the number of strictly possession charges laid that are positively linked to small amounts of marijuana remains unanswered. In my opinion your refusal to clarify the 3,800 statistic is very misleading to those who do not understand more serious charges frequently being "dealt down" to possession charges in exchange for a guilty plea in our present criminal court system.

[maryjane48]

But the number of strictly possession charges laid that are positively linked to small amounts of marijuana remains unanswered. In my opinion your refusal to clarify the 3,800 statistic is very misleading to those who do not understand more serious charges frequently being "dealt down" to possession charges in exchange for a guilty plea in our present criminal court system.

who cares legalize it

[Donald G]

(off-topic comment removed - fluffy)

[Boda]

(edited by fluffy)
What is your argument against decriminalization?

[Donald G]

Given the huge assortment of other legal and illegal drugs that are available I personally have no serious objection to the decriminalization of up to an ounce of marijuana ... with the reservation that I would object to people smoking while pregnant or teens ingesting marijuana during their teen years ... due to the resulting psychosis and lack of neuron development that result in some such people.

Like alcohol, it will present its own slate of serious and less serious problems in society. To some degree, the lack of enforcement regarding small amounts has already had much the same effect as decriminalizing it.

[WhatThe]

The difference is, police are mandated to arrest now and it's only their discretion that prevents it from going to crown. Instead of criminalizing behaviour ie. breaking common sense laws just having MJ is criminal. There's hours of paper work involved not only at the time of arrest but documentation after the fact never mind jail and court time if it goes that far. Time better spent on real crime that truly affects others in a negative way.

This piece of legislation will do away with that ineffective use of time.

[WhatThe]

Given the huge assortment of other legal and illegal drugs that are available I personally have no serious objection to the decriminalization of up to an ounce of marijuana

Not sure what other drugs have to due with a common sense approach to MJ. Besides, if you want to buy 10 forty pounders of rye what business is it of mine, so why the need to place weight limits on a plant?
...

with the reservation that I would object to people smoking while pregnant or teens ingesting marijuana during their teen years ... due to the resulting psychosis and lack of neuron development that result in some such people.

For me, this is one of the reasons regulation needs to be implemented. A part measure to be sure but myths and rhetoric need to be dispelled and steps taken as a preventative measure before that first joint is ever considered by young people

Like alcohol, it will present its own slate of serious and less serious problems in society. To some degree, the lack of enforcement regarding small amounts has already had much the same effect as decriminalizing it.

See my previous post.

[Treblehook]

Stevenlloyd has in his comments, unambiguously declared himself an expert on the topic of marihuana; the enforcement of the law in respect to it; the actions of the courts respecting prosecutions; and in the area of addiction/treatment, etc. Perhaps he could take a minute of two to enlighten us as to his knowledge regarding the pharmacological effects of tetrahydrocannabinol. It seems odd to me that such informed persons never speak about the negatives or downsides to marihuana use. Or, is it possible that he believes that marihuana is a "harmless" substance? In respect to his recent exchanges with DonaldG, stevenlloyd is quite wrong. Undoubtedly, there were over 3000 charges of simple possession of cannabis preferred against individuals, as indicated by the statistics. It is quite ludicrous to purport that anything but an insignificantly small number of those prosecutions related to persons who's only involvement amounted to having a small amount of pot in their possession. It is simply not happening that way. There is nothing honorable about trying to mislead others by making such claims either.