Canada's Marijuana Laws and Justin Trudeau - Poll

[rideforever]

This is the thread for discussion of federal marijuana laws and federal politician's stances on marijuana laws. This includes Justin Trudeau's recent coming out in support of legalization and his admittance of using marijuana while being a sitting MP. Please keep posts on Sensible BC or other provincially related posts to the provincial thread found here: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=52094


http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/956 ... ot-slammed

Jul 25, 2013 / 9:16 pm

Justin Trudeau has gone one step further than he has previously in the marijuana debate by suggesting in B.C. this week the drug should be legalized, a stance that's drawn the ire of the Conservative government.

The issue moved to centre stage recently when pot activist Dana Larsen and his organization Sensible BC were given a green light to begin collecting names for a petition in September to decriminalize the drug.

Jodi Emery, the wife of Marc Emery, Canada's so-called Prince of Pot currently imprisoned in the U.S., also announced that her husband could soon be transferred to a Canadian prison.

The federal Liberal leader announced in Kelowna on Tuesday that he wants to legalize, tax and regulate pot, and he repeated the comments on Thursday in Vancouver.

The announcement is not new for the party, which endorsed the drug's legalization and regulation in January 2012, but until recently Trudeau only supported decriminalization and was skeptical of legalization.

The Conservative government said in a statement that the drug is illegal because it is harmful, the government has no interest in legalizing pot and Trudeau lacks the judgment to be prime minister.

I know these polls have been done and the debates are always the same, but now that the liberal leader is supporting legalization and we have potential for a law change on the horizon is anyone willing to rethink?

[coffeeFreak]

I'm completely for it as long as there are some regulations in place, as I really don't want to see kids or anyone else for that matter exposed to the second hand smoke.

[WhenWhatWho]

I'm completely for it as long as there are some regulations in place, as I really don't want to see kids or anyone else for that matter exposed to the second hand smoke.

What a silly comment. Mon Dieu

[coffeeFreak]

I'm completely for it as long as there are some regulations in place, as I really don't want to see kids or anyone else for that matter exposed to the second hand smoke.

What a silly comment. Mon Dieu

Why is that comment silly? I really don't want to be at a public place beside a group of people who decides to light up...Just as the consumption of alcohol in public places is regulated, IMO, so should the use of pot be.

[Lady tehMa]

Agreed - my parents were smokers and destroyed my lungs as well as their own. People should know better, but they don't. So legislate the common sense they are lacking. "Don't smoke ANYTHING around other people."

[Omnitheo]

The complaints against smoke seem kind of silly. If we're being indiscriminate about smoke be it tobacco or marijuana, lets apply your restrictions to other smokes. No more sitting around the campfire. Better put a halt to barbecues. Cars can't go in public spaces because of exhaust fumes.

I understand being confined to an enclosed space with smokers is undesirable and harmful, hence why we don't have smoking inside restaurants, or many other public spaces. But if you're just speaking about outside in general, then you're being a little rediculous. Kids are going to be exposed to second hand car exhaust and no amount of calling "white rabbits" is gonna keep campfire smoke out of their lungs. Really I think you're just worried because it has a distinct odour to it. Well so does beer, or anyone who's been drinking it.

Of course, marijuana isn't always smoked. More and more people who are smokers themselves understand the damage that smoke causes (in the case of marijuana potential bronchitis worst case scenario). This has led to the increasing popularity of vaporizers. These heat the active compound of marijuana along with the water, creating a vapor that is inhaled. This leaves no smoke, and has a far less albeit still noticeable odour.

[steven lloyd]

The complaints against smoke seem kind of silly.

Yes, let's legislate all potentially risky behaviour. After all, even tying shoelaces can be dangerous. We need to get spending bucks on some highly durable bubbles so we can all get around without bumping into each other.

[steven lloyd]

Trudeau risks getting stoned with talk of legalizing pot
Gord Woodward, July 26, 2013 1:35:59 PM

Finally, a way to get us all interested in elections again.

Forget that mind-numbing trivia about the economy, health care and crime that politicians unceasingly bore us with. You want to get us excited about going to the polls? Talk about legalizing marijuana. (Just make sure you talk slowly. We’re likely high.)

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau jolted us out of our annual summer stupor (see: “We’re high,” above) by declaring his support this week for the legalization of pot.

“Tax it, regulate,” he told a crowd in B.C. (hmm, wonder why he chose that province for his announcement?). “It’s one of the only ways to keep it out of the hands of our kids.” (Just as taxing and regulating alcohol has ensured that booze never touches the lips of anyone under 19, we assume.)

His words sent members of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Canada scurrying to borrow those “We (Heart) Justin” buttons from their 12-year-old Belieber daughters, and members of the Conservative Party of Canada scurrying for their digitalis to restart their hearts.

“These drugs are illegal because of the harmful effect they have on users and on society,” the Tory website harrumphs. “We will continue protecting the interests of families across this country” (which comes as news to most families across this country, actually).

Those same families were scurrying too, using Trudeau’s declaration as an opportunity to start that long-overdue Talk About Drugs with our kids (you know, the one in which we parents ask all the questions. Like, “Are you smoking pot? And if so, can you score me a couple of joints? My dealer is on vacation”).

Whatever the reaction, let’s hope that Trudeau has started a real conversation about ending the futile “War on Drugs” (a law enforcement term meaning “a colossal waste of time and money”), and not just indulged in some political grand-standing. Our elected officials have avoided this issue for too long, preferring to spout sound-bites of support instead of taking action (though Green Party leader Elizabeth May earned some street corner cred by apologizing for not smoking pot).

As a result, it’s been left to citizens to try to bring about change. In a rather clever move, the group Sensible B.C. (two words rarely seen together when it comes to the West Coast) is pressing for a provincial referendum that would forbid the cops from using their resources to search or arrest folks for pot possession.

It’s a form of decriminalization rather than legalization, which, until this week, is what Trudeau had been favouring (perhaps he was just following Liberal tradition, along the lines of MacKenzie King’s famous “conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription” draft for the military in wartime).

Let’s hope his new, firmer stand for legal marijuana becomes an election platform for the party’s Hair Apparent. Just think of the possibilities for stirring voter interest. Rather than promise “a chicken in every pot,” candidates can excite the masses with an updated slogan at fundraising dinners: “pot with every chicken.” Politicians at rallies wouldn’t flip burgers or pancakes; they’d dole out Cheetos, pizza and cereal. And the leaders’ debates would be Must-See TV (right now, being high is the only way to get through them).

But the best attention-grabber of all would be the election date itself. April 20 anyone?

http://www.theloop.ca/opinion/politics/ ... lizing-pot

[maryjane48]

Bruce Hicks, political scientist at Carleton University, called Trudeau’s support a “smart move,” because it differentiates the Liberals from the other parties.

“Political strategists tend to advise caution, and that makes sense if you’re in first place and the government, but it doesn’t makes sense if you’re trying to become the government. You’ve got to make the bold moves.”

But Hicks said while it’s possible Trudeau could lose support from some older voters, the Conservatives have spent years courting that demographic anyway, and he can’t see the Conservatives making it an issue come election time in 2015 because it wouldn’t win them any new votes.

“It just stops them losing some of their base support to Trudeau, whereas this would probably endear Justin to the youth vote and may even mobilize some people that otherwise wouldn’t vote,” he said.

http://o.canada.com/2013/07/26/justin-t ... alization/

[steven lloyd]

A bit off topic, but as rationally sound as this policy is both socially and fiscally,
none of this will matter if Canadians don’t trust the Liberals to manage the economy.

[Omnitheo]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana I believe is to take advantage of that economy.

On that subject, the last liberal government we had did a fine job of managing Canada's economy. While the conservatives may blame the recession (though conveniently forgetting that Pierre trudeaus deficit was during a world wide recession as well) the recession has supposedly been over for years now, and the government seems to be going further and further into debt. I'd say I have much more faith in a liberal economy at the moment.

[WhenWhatWho]

The complaints against smoke seem kind of silly. If we're being indiscriminate about smoke be it tobacco or marijuana, lets apply your restrictions to other smokes. No more sitting around the campfire. Better put a halt to barbecues. Cars can't go in public spaces because of exhaust fumes.

I understand being confined to an enclosed space with smokers is undesirable and harmful, hence why we don't have smoking inside restaurants, or many other public spaces. But if you're just speaking about outside in general, then you're being a little rediculous. Kids are going to be exposed to second hand car exhaust and no amount of calling "white rabbits" is gonna keep campfire smoke out of their lungs. Really I think you're just worried because it has a distinct odour to it. Well so does beer, or anyone who's been drinking it.

Of course, marijuana isn't always smoked. More and more people who are smokers themselves understand the damage that smoke causes (in the case of marijuana potential bronchitis worst case scenario). This has led to the increasing popularity of vaporizers. These heat the active compound of marijuana along with the water, creating a vapor that is inhaled. This leaves no smoke, and has a far less albeit still noticeable odour.

Thanks Omnitheo, I just got back to the forum and seen that you answered the inquiry to me with exactly what I was going to respond with.

Do these people leave BC during the fire season, never have a campfire or BBQ? Those apartment fires must of really freaked them out.

I would love to see one unbiased second hand smoke study that was actually conducted under real world conditions.

[Relentless]

I disagree, I don't think bud should ever be legalized!
If it's all about money, we are back to living in a society full of greed and not common sense.
I can't stand most people who smoke it, and did I ever tell anyone that it doesn't smell good either.
Dope doesn't really serve a purpose. Legalizing it will possibly make our society full of more dope heads and irresponsible clowns!

[Corneliousrooster]

I disagree, I don't think bud should ever be legalized!
If it's all about money, we are back to living in a society full of greed and not common sense.
I can't stand most people who smoke it, and did I ever tell anyone that it doesn't smell good either.
Dope doesn't really serve a purpose. Legalizing it will possibly make our society full of more dope heads and irresponsible clowns!

Then don't smoke it and don't place yourself in situations where you would be in the company of people who smoke it. You have no right to impose your beliefs on the general population because you have an opinion.

This prohibition law is nothing more than an imposed, [b]uninformed[b], ignorance based opinion - that does not have the backing of science or statistics and is fueled purely by fear and misinformation.

If you would like to see a society full of irresponsible clowns , I suggest you bear witness to any night club during its closing time - the conservative gov't has zero problems cashing in on the taxes based on these activities - I can assure you the police resources necessary to attempt to manage this far outweighs the police presence that would be required to ensure the same population of dopesmokers finished their evening in a safe and non-disruptive manor.

You would have to be brain dead dope head to think continuing the futile war on drugs is worth pursuing.....Kudos to the liberals for have the sense to see it for what it is and be brave enough to make a monumental change to the benefit of ALL Canadians without continuing to "babysit" fully grown adults from using their own judgement to make decisions that fit "their own personal life" rather than fitting "your opinion".

[rideforever]

A bit off topic, but as rationally sound as this policy is both socially and fiscally,
none of this will matter if Canadians don’t trust the Liberals to manage the economy.

I think the reason people think the cons arent bad for the economy is that theyre bad at everything else and they cant be bad at everything. The only thing theyre good at is winning elections and that only happens because theyre good at raising money which is only because theyre willing to hurt our economy to appease their weathly political donors.

Supporting the enormous waste of money that is drug prohibition should make it clear that the cons are bad at managing an economy.

Allowing an enormous amount of money to be given to criminals when it could easily be diverted to law abiding businesses and taxed should make it clear the cons are bad at managing an economy.

Perpitrating these attrocities while popular opinion is strongly against it should make it clear the cons should never be voted for.