tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post2865158901383246383..comments2024-01-27T03:52:35.624-08:00Comments on The Maple Three: Sheila Copps' "Tory an inspiration for Dion"Kobyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-22027387521364693042007-10-04T13:00:00.000-07:002007-10-04T13:00:00.000-07:00I think Koby is right. I just do not think they w...I think Koby is right. I just do not think they will do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-53905628274250189732007-10-04T11:28:00.000-07:002007-10-04T11:28:00.000-07:00>>>>>And how can we propose Legalizing Marijuana a...>>>>>And how can we propose Legalizing Marijuana and then continue with these anti-smoking campaigns? Is that not in itself a contradiction? <BR/> <BR/>Come again? The two are not even remotely related. Anyway, in both cases the government’s motivation is the same, viz., the impetus for acting is reduce harm associated with both. In the case of cigarettes, the government aim to get people to stop smoking. In the case of marijuana, as the senate report quick clearly spelled out, the most harmful aspect of marijuana is that it is illegal. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>> And what about the logistics of Legalization? How do we stop drivers? How do we provide it? What are the costs involved? etc.<BR/><BR/>What about stoned drivers? I can assure you the problem already exists. Moreover, marijuana’s illegal status hinders the development of something resembling a breathalyzer. Marijuana’s continued illegal status, at least with regard to trafficking, makes, would make, testing hugely expensive and time consuming if they went through legal channels and quite risky if they procured it through the black market. For one thing, as Justice Minster Rob, reefer mad, Nicholson noted, marijuana is sometimes laced with some nasty stuff. If its production were monitored and regulated, this would not happen. <BR/><BR/>>>>>> I don't think decriminalization is playing both sides. I think its being rational and balanced. <BR/><BR/>It is half baked. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>> And what is wrong with the position that we don't want people with pot but we also don't think people should go to jail or have a criminal record because they are caught with small amounts of it. Why not just a small fine instead of ruining their lives?<BR/><BR/>For one thing a fine would represent a crack down in many parts of the country. As one VPD spokesperson said back in 2003, “in Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances." That though is the not the major problem. Such fines would lack legitimacy and it goes without saying so would the jail sentences handed out to traffickers. Can you image how ridiculous it would have sounded if this is what Chrétien said? “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand. Having paid my fine I would hope the cops find the person who sold it to me in put him in jail for a very long time.” This is essentially the Liberal’s current position. The problem is that if the act of consumption is not deemed overly ruinous then the whole punitive rationale comes crashing down.Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-27373716483787477352007-10-04T08:00:00.000-07:002007-10-04T08:00:00.000-07:00And how can we propose Legalizing Marijuana and th...And how can we propose Legalizing Marijuana and then continue with these anti-smoking campaigns? Is that not in itself a contradiction? And what about the logistics of Legalization? How do we stop drivers? How do we provide it? What are the costs involved? etc.<BR/><BR/>I don't think decriminalization is playing both sides. I think its being rational and balanced. You have to crawl before you walk. And what is wrong with the position that we don't want people with pot but we also don't think people should go to jail or have a criminal record because they are caught with small amounts of it. Why not just a small fine instead of ruining their lives? I don't think this is an incoherent position at all.<BR/><BR/>Also as I've said, I think more voters would support decriminalization before legalization.me dere roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278802993888928030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-7737870001915065372007-10-04T05:04:00.000-07:002007-10-04T05:04:00.000-07:00Legalization is sexy and headline grabbing which i...Legalization is sexy and headline grabbing which is the whole point. Decriminalization is not sexy. The Liberals have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on the marijuana issue for years. On the one hand the Liberals have long maintained that Canadians should not be saddled with a criminal record for consuming something that is, after all, less harmful than alcohol. It is this light that Chrétien famously joked about having a joint in one hand and the money to pay for the fine of having it in the other. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” On the other hand just as they are downplaying the affects of smoking marijuana they have stressed the importance of stiff penalties for trafficking. In other words, the Liberal policy of decriminalization is inherently incoherent; it is political position; it is an attempt to appeal to both sides of the political divide at the same time. One can not argue for tougher penalties for trafficking, which will inevitably lead one to reference the evils of marijuana, while at the same time arguing for the elimination of possession which will inevitably lead one to reference who harmless marijuana is in the greater scheme of things. Add to mix an acknowledgment that marijuana can serve a medical purpose and you have a conceptual train wreck as a policy. The only good thing to be said about Liberal’s decriminalization policy politically or otherwise is that it could serve as a Trojan horse. Indeed, robbed of the ability to charge traffickers with the lesser charge of possession, police may not be able to keep up with the huge number of growers coming onto the market and the whole rotten prohibition edifice may come crashing down. Marc Emery may get his wish. The producers might over grow the system. <BR/><BR/>Needless to day, the Liberal approach plays right into the Conservatives hands. The Conservatives will argue, checked that they already have argued, that Liberal mixed messaging has real consequences and will repeatedly reference the recent UN report on marijuana use. <BR/><BR/>As for pot heads voting not, did you not read the senate report? They debunked the unmotivated stoner myth. In all serious though, calling for legalization of marijuana will alone to define Conservatives and politics is all about defining your opponent. Moreover, the Conservatives will be pillard for months on end by the pundits, by academics, by movie stars, by rock stars, by the other opposition parties, by urbanites, by anyone under the age 30 and by bloggers.<BR/><BR/>Legalization is a winnerKobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-67144439920991613962007-10-04T04:26:00.000-07:002007-10-04T04:26:00.000-07:00I don't think it would work either. They should ju...I don't think it would work either. They should just go back to trying to decriminalizing small amounts and they should advertise it. I think more Canadians would be on board with that than the legalizing.<BR/><BR/>Plus, how smart is it to rely on the pot smokers to actually get out to the polls?me dere roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278802993888928030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-47736634686859862552007-10-04T03:36:00.000-07:002007-10-04T03:36:00.000-07:00no chance they would ever do it. No chanceno chance they would ever do it. No chanceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com