Legaliiize It!

[Mitch Cronin]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/09/03/f-marijuana-legalization.html

Eleven years ago today, a Senate committee issued a major report recommending that Canada legalize marijuana, as well as explaining how to go about it.

"Whether or not an individual uses marijuana should be a personal choice that is not subject to criminal penalties, but we have come to the conclusion that, as a drug, it should be regulated by the state much as we do for wine and beer," committee chairman Pierre Claude Nolin said at the time.

Eleven years later, the Conservative Senator tells CBC News he still stands by his committee's report. "The public is already there," Nolin observes, adding that the challenge is with the politicians.

[Specs]

I'd be comfortable legalizing it if I understood what the ramifications on the rest of the drug trade were and we could exercise some control over their impact.

Living in Toronto there must be almost one gang (drug related) shooting per week. I spent the largest part of my youth in Regent Park, Galloway Road and Malvern and that experience tells me the violence, certainly in the short term, will get worse and it will be like nothing we've seen before as gangs reposition and adjust to the new market conditions.

Can't say I'm thrilled with that outcome but have nothing better to suggest other than more draconian drug laws which aren't socially acceptable.

[Mitch Cronin]

Interesting comments Specs.... (incidentally, I wasn't too far from you in my early youth. Do you know where "Nightingale Place" is? ...just east of golf club rd.)

I think though, that you're assuming there's some connection from pot to harder drugs, and I don't think there generally is. Pot smokers have no use nor need for the baddies and violence which surround things like crack, H, or meth, etc...

Nobody needs to get anywhere need that crowd to procure it, even now.

I know many sources and none are anything close to the sorts of characters I'd hesitate to leave a child with for a day. in fact..... I suspect some people would be very surprised to learn how many respectable people could provide them with some herb if they wanted it.

The whole thing is like the prohibition of alcohol once was.... probably half the population indulge from time to time, (or once did) .... and there's just no reasonable justification for keeping it illegal.

[Don Hudson]

"The whole thing is like the prohibition of alcohol once was.... probably half the population indulge from time to time, (or once did) .... and there's just no reasonable justification for keeping it illegal."

Abolutely correct. Although for obvious reasons of health, (inhaling smoke, dwui, etc) I am not in favour of smoking pot, it makes no sense to give young people a criminal arrest record and/or jail time, where their young anger at "the system" opens them to becoming further "educated" by true criminals.

The case for legality was being made fourty years ago, on the same basis as it is being made today. When one steps away from a stance of superior, moral turpitude and examines social realities, the case for legalizing pot and even heroin, (in the case of safe injection sites which save lives, and souls as well) far outweighs the legalization of tobacco, a more addictive drug than heroin. Our history "rules" in very strange ways.

The media band-wagon question asked of politicians now is, "have you/when did you try pot?" and is just plain silly. No one asks when you first snuck one of your parent's cigarettes to try out back "behind the barn". Why not ask if they've tried crack?

Inevitably and as always, the case for legalization will be based upon potential for revenue, not morality.

[DEFCON]

Legalizing pot to create another 'revenue' stream for the government to waste at its discretion is a red herring, I believe. Legalizing pot to support taxation goals would by extension, create the need for a new generation of revenuers, employed by the taxpayer to seek out the backwoods grower. When the associated cumbersome and costly programs required to enforce new taxation laws are considered, I think we can safely assume the new pro-taxation approach to be little more than a modified continuation of the presently failed anti-pot schemes.

IMHO, drug use of all kinds should be decriminalized. To do so would remove profit from the equation in turn eliminating the main source of revenue for today's gangs. I think society could better and more economically deal with the few that get lost along the way than continuing to employ today's expensive, dangerous and apparently ineffective anti-drug armies.

[Specs]

The whole thing is like the prohibition of alcohol once was.... probably half the population indulge from time to time, (or once did) .... and there's just no reasonable justification for keeping it illegal.

Down here in the city it's different Mitch. In low income areas where the Mayor's brother fears to tread gangs control the trade - hard drugs, soft drugs, all of it and there will be bloodshed and bystanders will be killed.

I'm not against decriminalizing pot but we need some measures in place beforehand to deal with the violence that will ensue afterwards. If somebody were to suggest the tax money would go towards more gang related policing then great - proceed. Otherwise, I'm fearful.

(Nightingales? I was a kid and don;t know the name but have known the area for a long time - Is that called the stone cottage Inn now?)

[Seeker]

IMHO, drug use of all kinds should be decriminalized. To do so would remove profit from the equation in turn eliminating the main source of revenue for today's gangs. I think society could better and more economically deal with the few that get lost along the way than continuing to employ today's expensive, dangerous and apparently ineffective anti-drug armies.

How do you see that working? I understand, and agree with, the desire to remove the criminal profit from the equation but can't imagine how this could be incorporated into our society. For example; if it's no longer criminal to be in possession of or to be selling cocaine you might find someone on your street corner offering free samples to your children. Since it would no longer be illegal the price would presumably fall and all sorts of new customers might give meth a try at a buck or two who couldn't at twenty or thirty.

Along with these sorts of issues I could see the borders being jammed with "immigrants" seeking asylum for the persecution they feel in their current country - don't really want my tax dollars supporting those who can't contribute to society due to their addiction to a "legal" product.

[boestar]

And if its legal then you would need manditory testing for anyone operating a vehicle or any equipment to ensure they are not under the influence.

[Mitch Cronin]

And if its legal then you would need manditory testing for anyone operating a vehicle or any equipment to ensure they are not under the influence.

Why? Is that currently done for alcohol?

[J.O.]

No, it's not Mitch. But, it's a little easier to smell the whiskey on someone's breath than it is to detect the heroin they injected into a vein under that long sleeve. I'm not saying you don't have a point but if I were, for instance, the owner of a trucking company, and all drugs were legalized, I'd at least want legal protections to allow me to test my employees at random and to remove them from duty any time they fail a test.

[Mitch Cronin]

ALL drugs?

Good grief, do you all think weed is akin to heroine? Please, if you must lump it in with something, try beer, or tobacco, or wine, or apple cider, or catnip maybe...

Thinking that legalizing marijuana will have anything to do with an increase in violence, or stoned bus drivers, or bulldozer operators, et al, ....is nuts. (especially the increase in violence bit)

[mo32a]

A lot of companies drug test before you get hired and some drugs can stay in your system for a while.

Then there is the case of the young woman crossing the border at Blaine WA, when asked if she had ever smoked marijuana and she answered yes and was banned from the USA. This while pot is legal in Washington State, but she could pay $600 and apply for a waiver.

[CanadaEH]

Legalizing pot to create another 'revenue' stream for the government to waste at its discretion is a red herring, I believe. Legalizing pot to support taxation goals would by extension, create the need for a new generation of revenuers, employed by the taxpayer to seek out the backwoods grower. When the associated cumbersome and costly programs required to enforce new taxation laws are considered, I think we can safely assume the new pro-taxation approach to be little more than a modified continuation of the presently failed anti-pot schemes.

IMHO, drug use of all kinds should be decriminalized. To do so would remove profit from the equation in turn eliminating the main source of revenue for today's gangs. I think society could better and more economically deal with the few that get lost along the way than continuing to employ today's expensive, dangerous and apparently ineffective anti-drug armies.

There will always be an underground drug trade - illegal, decriminalized, or legal. I know of at least a half dozen people who can legally purchase pot from dispensaries and yet they choose to buy elsewhere from friends or friends of friends. The fact they can "legally" buy it is basically a free pass for them to possess and smoke it; where they buy it from doesn't matter to them. So while you might think gangs are the ones that would suffer I would suggest that they would not. They typically control the "good" stuff - the higher quality drugs. People want quality. Gangs will always be in the picture.

[Mitch Cronin]

Malcolm, I was never about to argue that driving (or any responsible activity at all!) under the influence, is a good idea. Quite the contrary, I've always been a vocal proponent of total abstinence in such situations... you may recall my telling of my own experience and how I learned?

In any case, I object to the transformation of the discussion in this thread. I meant to discuss the legalization of marijuana. That some may still consider it something that belongs in the same grouping as things like heroine is proof that the discussion really begs to be had!

Aspirin has more in common with H than pot does, ffs. ... and by the bye... I'll call it anything you like... like the song in the vid above says: some call it Ganja... etc... - I think I usually call it dope?

Legaliiize it!

[boestar]

My personal belief is that if Nature produces it then there should be NO LEGISLATION AT ALL surrounding it. If it is created in a Lab then controls are required.

[deicer]

Personally......

Ain't never seen anyone smoke a joint and then tear up a bar

[inchman]

Malcolm, I was never about to argue that driving (or any responsible activity at all!) under the influence, is a good idea. Quite the contrary, I've always been a vocal proponent of total abstinence in such situations... you may recall my telling of my own experience and how I learned?

In any case, I object to the transformation of the discussion in this thread. I meant to discuss the legalization of marijuana. That some may still consider it something that belongs in the same grouping as things like heroine is proof that the discussion really begs to be had!

Aspirin has more in common with H than pot does, ffs. ... and by the bye... I'll call it anything you like... like the song in the vid above says: some call it Ganja... etc... - I think I usually call it dope?

Legaliiize it!

One problem with the concept of us grown ups being proponents of anything is that young people know they are invincible (as you once did, Mitch), until IT happens to THEM. Unfortunately, sometimes the light goes on only after the blood runs.

I agree that, in principle, pot should be legalized, but there is no question that the roads will be less safe, especially if there is no way to do a roadside test for consumption (and then, will it show concentration of THC?... is one toke safe?... two?... a joint?). The only reason why accidents due to drinking and driving is as "rare" as it is, is that there is some risk of being caught if one consumes and drives. There probably isn't a person on this forum that hasn't limited their alcohol intake because of the potential for a RIDE. It would be nice to say it is for altruistic reasons, but for the most part, it is the risk of being caught that keeps us honest.

So, legalizing pot is a great idea until more people start using it (many, supposedly without experience) and road deaths increase and one of those killed or injured is your nephew, daughter,wife, or your wife's husband.

minor edit for clarification

[Dropzone]

I've watched first hand, drugs and alcohol destroy marriages, careers, families and communities. If making access easier is the answer....then heaven help us all.........

[FireFox]

Myth: “No one gets hurt from Marijuana”

In fact, the reality is:

26.9% of seriously injured drivers test positive for marijuana and 20% of all vehicle crashes are attributed to drugged driving. Source

Myth: “No one gets sick or dies from smoking marijuana”.

In fact, the reality is:

• 290,563 emergency department visits involved marijuana, the second leading drug cause, surpassing heroin, for an ER visit. (DAWN 2006).
• Emergency department mentions of the drug among 12- to 17-year old’s jumped 48 percent since 1999. Especially troubling is the possibility that this rise in teen emergency department mentions is related to the increased potency of the drug. (CASA 2008)
• Of the 53,481 alcohol-related ED (emergency room) visits by patients aged 12 to 20 where alcohol was combined with another drug, 69 percent involved an illicit drug. Marijuana was involved 47% of these cases. (DAWN 2006-2)
• Marijuana use accounted for 87,150 emergency-room admissions, up 455 percent from a decade earlier. 40,000 of these came from young people aged 12-25 years old. (DAWN 1999)
• To investigate the relationship between marijuana use prior to driving, habitual marijuana use and car crash injury, this population-based case–control study suggests that habitual marijuana use is associated with a 10-fold increase in the risk of car crash injury. The relationship between both habitual and acute marijuana use and car crashes is complex and is likely to be related to other risktaking behaviours, particularly risky driving. (GEORGE 2004)

http://www.calmca.org/myths/

[Mitch Cronin]

I think we've all seen that happen, Dropzone... ...sure is sad to see. But access has never been a problem with pot, and it's wrecked far fewer marriages and/or lives throughout time than alcohol does in a single year. (or, so I'd wager) ...

Inchman, I agree with almost everything in your post. ...until I got to that last sentence. I think that's a fear too far.

... but I could swear I'd read something a while ago that said there was a device police could use for roadside testing? ...I'll do some Googling...

[Mitch Cronin]

Interesting stats Gatekeeper.

[inchman]

There are some excellent uses for medical marijuana especially in the area of pain and neural diseases, and Dr. Gupta from CNN did an excellent documentary on it recently.

No question that alcohol has destroyed many lives. I'm not sure that marijuana would reduce the incidence of alcohol addiction and a simple google of marijuana ruined my

• Life: 642,000 results
• Relationship: 770,000 results
• Brain : 394,000 results
• Marriage: 522,000 results

Substituting alcohol, we get

• Life: 2,880,000
• Relationship: 1,600,000
• Brain: 4,300,000
• Marriage: 1,290,000

According to the World Drug Report, 12.6% of people in Canada had used marijuana in the year preceding 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

The Canadian stats show only 9.1%.... a reduction from 14% in 2004.

(edit... the 12.6% is for 2009 in the WDR, bringing it closer to the Canadian government figures of 10.6% for that year)

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2011/summary-sommaire-eng.php#a7

The same Canadian website shows alcohol use in 2011 at 78%.

Given an almost 9-fold difference in use, the "ruined" numbers above do not bode well for marijuana.

Marijuana clearly has an affect on relationships and won't decrease the numbers of damaged relationships due to alcohol. Adding another "devil" to the details is not the right answer.

Reducing the penalties for simple possession to misdemeanor and making medicinal marijuana available (in a low THC form and/or rescinding driving privileges while using) is a correct move, but I don't think that "in the right direction" is the right ending to the sentence.

[planett]

I wish I could provide a link, The Economist had an article on Lisbon and decriminalization a few years ago. Drug tourism and increased use by locals and crime were fears that proved unfounded since the laws changed. I suspect the biggest obstacle for Canadians is that we've never done it that way before.

[IFG]

Myth: “No one gets hurt from Marijuana” .... [etc.] .... http://www.calmca.org/myths/

Hi, GateKeeper - I don't find those "statistics" as interesting as Mitch. They don't pass a gut check (e.g. about 300K ER "visits" for marijuana - Where & when, for how long? Compounding %'s on other stats. 20% of MV injuries "related" to marijuana - based on what testing?) The sourcing is terrible, leading, if anywhere, to articles' "estimates", or just to dead links.

.... Morbid risk of schizophrenia for relatives of patients with cannabis-associated psychosis: Schizophrenia Research Volume 15, Issue 3, May 1995, Pages 277–281

• Cannabis is also frequently abused by schizophrenic patients, and it is associated with worse clinical outcomes. For example, a recent magnetic resonance imaging study concluded that the loss of gray matter, commonly seen in the brains of schizophrenic patients, proceeds nearly twice as fast in patients who also used cannabis over a 5-year follow-up:

.... Probably nothing at all to worry about though.

Peter Gill - What caught my eye, in the article from which you extracted those two sentences, was a bit further down:

• "Though there is evidence of alterations in cannabinoid signaling in the brain of schizophrenic patients,26 their role in the neuropathology of schizophrenia is still poorly understood. It is also still unclear if marijuana abuse constitutes a risk factor for schizophrenia that by itself has a causative role and/or if it just serves to trigger the disease in those who are vulnerable. In this respect, the role of marijuana on schizophrenia is a good example of the importance of gene/environment interactions in psychiatric diseases." [my italics]

There can clearly be a discussion about whether smoking weed is as harmless as many believe it to be, but that's not directly the question which Mitch is raising here, Even if marijuana use is an increased risk for a sub-set of the population, can anybody here show how its criminalization, with all the obvious harm that that entails, is/has been an effective health policy, which is the underlying argument in all this study/data-dumping.

There may or may not be "nothing to worry about", but that worry should not ignore the efficacy (or lack) of the present law. How much resource has gone into enforcement? How many lives ruined? How much crime directly related to its illegality, and the additional resources to deal with that? These are verifiable costs, both financial and societal, much more founded on hard fact than all these conjectures about harm-from-use, and there's not much to show that this alleged harm-from-use is in any way mitigated by criminalization.

Cheers - IFG

[Mitch Cronin]

IFG.... I'm starting to think of you as something of a carpenter since you're so good at hitting nails on the head.