Canada's Marijuana Laws and Justin Trudeau - Poll

[Donald G]

To TMixer ...

I am at a loss to understand how those conclusions can be drawn from the information stated.

[TMixer]

To Donald,
I'm not surprised at all. However, I will point out that those conclusions come from your posts on these forums and they are open for everyone to read.

[flamingfingers]

Rethinking Canada’s approach to drugs and alcohol
Jesse Kline | 13/09/05 1:45 PM ET
More from Jesse Kline | @accessd

Since Liberal leader Justin Trudeau admitted to smoking pot this past summer, the issue of marijuana laws has dominated water cooler talk from coast to coast. Other politicians, including Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, have jumped on the bandwagon by fessing up to their past drug use (Mr. Ford, who has faced recent allegations of using much harder substances than pot, even went so far as to grant he’s smoked “a lot” of marijuana).

When public figures admit to their own drug use, it normalizes the issue. This could pave the way for future reforms. But one look at how this country deals with alcohol, even 90 years after prohibition ended, makes it hard to believe that our 20th-century laws against drug use will be changing anytime soon.

Most Canadians are used to dealing with archaic liquor laws — for many, it’s all they’ve ever known. In most parts of the country, it’s illegal to crack open a bottle of wine at the beach, or to grab a pint after 2 a.m. Despite recent changes to federal law, many provinces still maintain a prohibition-era ban on transporting alcohol over provincial borders. In Alberta, government inspectors can shut down a licensed venue if they deem the entertainment to be “bizarre, grotesque or offensive.” In British Columbia, it’s illegal to serve alcohol at the movies — an obscure law that almost put a theatre out of business after it obtained a liquor license, only to be told it could no longer show films. It’s also illegal in that province for bands to have a beer on stage, or for catering companies to bring wine to a wine and cheese party. Most provinces still maintain a government monopoly on liquor sales — stores that often close early, have high prices and, in B.C.’s case, stubbornly refuse to sell cold beer.

But to some, the status quo makes sense. “Last year alone the LCBO [Liquor Control Board of Ontario] challenged more than 1.2 million would-be buyers on suspicion of being under-age, intoxicated or those intent on buying alcohol for minors or the inebriated,” wrote Warren “Smokey” Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, in the Toronto Star. “Does anyone actually believe that private retailers will be as vigilant when the profit margin is at stake?”

Actually, yes. Thomas failed to mention a 2011 study, which found that one in four underage shoppers were able to purchase alcohol at the LCBO. Private convenience stores selling cigarettes and lottery tickets don’t have to try too hard to beat that dismal record.

Many jurisdictions around the world allow private alcohol sales and don’t suffer from the myriad of problems described by those in favour of strict controls. In Las Vegas, for example, most hotels have the same glasses because people are free to order a drink at one casino and take it on a stroll with them to the next. In Germany, beer can be purchased around the clock at a variety of different locations, and the country does not have a huge problem with public intoxication.

Even carrying hard drugs — including up to a gram of heroin, speed or meth — is treated by the Portuguese as little more than a traffic offence

One U.S. study, conducted by the Commonwealth Foundation, compared states with government monopolies on alcohol sales with those that allow the private sector to sell liquor. It found that both systems have “virtually identical” rates of underage drinking, underage binge drinking and alcohol-related traffic fatalities. When the researchers focused on just the states with government-run liquor monopolies, they found that states with “greater levels of control are actually associated with increased consumption rates” and “the highest rates of alcohol-related traffic deaths.”

The same is often true for jurisdictions that take a more liberal approach to dealing with narcotics. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. And, as Glenn Greenwald wrote in a CATO Institute report, “none of the nightmare scenarios touted by pre-enactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for ‘drug tourists’ — has occurred.”

Even carrying hard drugs — including up to a gram of heroin, speed or meth — is treated by the Portuguese as little more than a traffic offence, with violators being sent to a “warning commission on drug addiction,” where they are evaluated by a psychologist.

In the mid-1990s, at the height of Portugal’s drug epidemic, there were 100,000 people who were addicted to drugs (out of a population of 10 million). The country also had much higher rates of HIV than most other European countries. Today, the rate of drug use in the country is among the lowest in the European Union. Although the number of adults who have tried drugs in their lifetime has risen (as it has in much of the EU), the number of teenagers who have experimented with drugs has fallen. At the same time, the number of people in rehab has increased significantly while the rate of HIV infections has dropped dramatically.

The Netherlands has likewise taken a laissez-faire approach to soft-drug use for decades. Holland is not only home to the annual Cannabis Cup competition, it also has a thriving industry of “coffee shops,” which offer customers a selection of some of the dankest weed from the world’s top growers. Yet, according to the UN’s “World Drug Report,” a mere 5.4% of its population had smoked marijuana in the past year. In Portugal, the number is similarly low at 3.3%. But in Canada and the United States, which have maintained a strict prohibition on marijuana use, that number is 12.6% and 24.1% respectively.
Some argue drugs and alcohol should not be lumped into the same category. But both are mind-altering substances. And given that marijuana users are less prone to violence and ill health effects than their booze-guzzling brethren, it makes little sense that our society criminalizes one, and not the other.

In 1949, after being denied a beer at a Vancouver bar because he was standing up (whereas the law required him to be sitting), British journalist Noel Monks wrote that Canada is “a tremendous, virile country.… Yet you’ve apparently let yourselves be legislated into a state of adolescence when it comes to the use of alcohol.” This statement still holds true today. It also holds up if we substitute the word “marijuana” for “alcohol.” In Canada, you’re free to smoke tobacco, but not marijuana; you can have a cocktail in your yard, but don’t you dare step foot onto the sidewalk.

The way we deal with drugs and alcohol is counterproductive. Telling adults — the same people charged with voting in those who run the country — that politicians and bureaucrats know what’s best for all is simply offensive. Justin Trudeau was right about one thing: It’s time we fundamentally rethink how this country deals with marijuana. And while we’re at it, we should take a hard look at how we treat other substances, as well.

National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... d-alcohol/

[Donald G]

To TMixer ...

Interpreting what I have written in the way you apparently have, and drawing the conclusions that you have, from the information in my posts is far from accurate. All I can suggest is that you go back and read my comments again starting at Page 21 of the string captioned Justin Trudeau. Especially the part about high THC marijuana, which is the type of marijuana developed by criminal gang traffickers over the years.

[TMixer]

It's only illegal for someone to drink onstage if they're getting paid. They fall under "employee" at that point and then you're breaking labour law, not liquor law.

[TMixer]

To TMixer ...

Interpreting what I have written in the way you apparently have, and drawing the conclusions that you have, from the information in my posts is far from accurate.

What information? You've posted nothing to indicate what you say is more than your opinion while everyone against you has posted actual backing evidence to their claims.

If my interpretation is "far from accurate" it's your fault. You make wild claims, you don't back them up, you try to hit emotion and you give no fact. Then you turn around and accuse others of doing exactly that.

All I can suggest is that you go back and read my comments again starting at Page 21 of the string captioned Justin Trudeau.

And I will suggest you stop pointing people to an irrelevant thread, especially when I personally moved your posts to a relevant thread when you refused. No one is going in there, marijuana talk is closed.

Figure this out, please.

Especially the part about high THC marijuana, which is the type of marijuana developed by criminal gang traffickers over the years.

And what dies that have to do with legalization? You're going in circles again.

[Donald G]

*off-topic: nobody moves comments except the mods and myself/Jo*

[Donald G]

*off-topic/Jo*

[Jo]

A reminder: If you have a concern about moderation, contact me directly via PM. Do NOT derail the thread.

[Jo]

If all you guys have left are off-topic rants, I'll lock the thread.

Get back on topic. Now.

[flamingfingers]

From an earlier post:

The way we deal with drugs and alcohol is counterproductive. Telling adults — the same people charged with voting in those who run the country — that politicians and bureaucrats know what’s best for all is simply offensive. Justin Trudeau was right about one thing: It’s time we fundamentally rethink how this country deals with marijuana. And while we’re at it, we should take a hard look at how we treat other substances, as well.

[Donald G]

I see that the same people are still trying to sell the magic world that they say would somehow immediately appear if Canada was to Decriminalize or Legalize (flip flop) marijuana as stated by Mr Trudeau. I would imagine that Justin would try to sell that completely ridiculous idea as well. No gangs, no gang violence, and money to burn magically available. The only thing about it is that it is a theoretical pipe dream similar to the theoretical pipe dream his father imposed on our Criminal Court System rather than reality.

[TMixer]

I see that the same people are still trying to sell the magic world that they say would somehow immediately appear if Canada was to Decriminalize or Legalize (flip flop) marijuana as stated by Mr Trudeau. I would imagine that Justin would try to sell that completely ridiculous idea as well. No gangs, no gang violence, and money to burn magically available. The only thing about it is that it is a theoretical pipe dream similar to the theoretical pipe dream his father imposed on our Criminal Court System rather than reality.

1: It's not a flip-flop to move further one way.
2: Everyone seems pretty on the same page. Legalize, regulate and tax. The confusion only exists within you.
3: Who said no gangs? I only see people claiming that legalization would lead to people buying their product legally instead of from gangs as they (ultimately) are forced to now. As for them growing legally to trade and transport it elsewhere, say Idaho, that's what borders are for. With all that said, gangs will always exist and will always make money legally where it can't be made legally, drugs or no drugs. This is where I will tell you not to twist the words of other people. No one is saying any of what you are claiming.

[Donald G]

To TMixer ...

You continue to profess to speak for the unidentified masses of people identified in your last post. Surely you do not actually believe that? Even Justin knows he is simply generating votes rather than spouting completely unqualified information about decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana.

Cigarettes were completely legalized for years because people with inadequate knowledge professed to know the "truth" about cigarettes. The same goes for drugs like thalidomide. Your unqualified persistence in speaking for "everyone" IMO sounds like others who have spoken similar words in the past.

[TMixer]

To TMixer ...

You continue to profess to speak for the unidentified masses of people identified in your last post. Surely you do not actually believe that? Even Justin knows he is simply generating votes rather than spouting completely unqualified information about decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana.

Actually I'm not doing that at all. I'm telling you what is right there for you to read.

Cigarettes were completely legalized for years because people with inadequate knowledge professed to know the "truth" about cigarettes. The same goes for drugs like thalidomide. Your unqualified persistence in speaking for "everyone" IMO sounds like others who have spoken similar words in the past.

Again, I'm speaking for posts made in this forum, not for any people. Those people have already spoken for themselves and I am merely passing on the message. Your accusations are, in reality, lies.