Canada to press ahead with pot reform bill - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

BBtB · 12-26-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyman

if i smoke in puplic.....just like alcohol,give me a fine.
(in canada we're not allowed to drink in the open...ie:walking down the street with drink in hand)

Exactly, for some odd reason it seems that most people who are opposed to legalization seem to think that would mean a total legalization of it. We are not asking to give it to children or to smoke in public parks. I think that weed should be legalized but with all the same laws as alcohol. You have to be 21 to buy (and smoke) it. Strong laws against smoking and driving. And still the same laws against public intoxication. I think it sucks that this bill was voted down but it does show that canada is very progress in its marijuana outlook, this would have never even made it as bill or even a mention in the US. I see pot being atleast decriminalized and maybe even legalized in all of canada as well as a few other countries within 10 years. US will probably follow suit eventually but it will be awhile..

R_R_R · 11-02-2004, 08:56 AM

Thought I'd bump this thread considering there's new news..

Quote:

By CAMPBELL CLARK
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - Page A4

OTTAWA -- The federal Liberals revived two controversial law-enforcement bills yesterday, playing down one that would decriminalize marijuana while emphasizing a get-tough plan to catch drug-impaired drivers.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler reintroduced a bill that would allow police officers to demand blood or urine samples from drivers suspected of being impaired by marijuana or other drugs as a companion piece to the revival of efforts to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

At the same time, he announced $6.8-million to train police officers to conduct the new tests to detect drivers on drugs.

Mr. Cotler avoided any mention of decriminalization -- instead calling his cannabis enforcement reform "alternate penalty frameworks."

The Martin government allowed both bills to languish and die before the spring election, thus sidestepping the qualms of some of its own MPs and the U.S. government, as well as adamant opposition from a minority of voters.

Yesterday, Mr. Cotler argued that measures to make drug-impaired driving tests mandatory will help save lives and said they are no more an infringement on civil rights than roadside breath-analysis tests.

"The whole idea here is to make what is now voluntary, mandatory," Mr. Cotler said. "We're not creating a new offence . . . what is new here is that we are giving the law-enforcement authorities the tools they need to investigate the offence and to ensure that what we do with regard to alcohol impairment, we're going to be doing with regard to drug impairment."

Mr. Cotler insisted he is not giving police officers arbitrary powers, saying the measures are modelled on alcohol-impairment testing and that the courts will find them to fit with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some, including the Canadian Bar Association, have questioned whether allowing police to demand body fluid samples without obtaining a warrant would pass muster in the courts.

No simple, reliable breath test for drugs exists, so police officers will have to be trained to conduct physiological impairment tests, such as asking suspects to stand on one leg. If impairment by a particular drug is indicated, suspects would be given further tests at the police station, indicators such as blood pressure and pulse would be measured -- and then they would have to provide blood or urine, or possibly saliva.

Those samples will not prove that someone was driving while impaired by a drug, however. There are no agreed-on levels of drugs in the system that would cause impairment, similar to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level, and the metabolites of some drugs can be found in the system weeks after they were ingested.

Government and RCMP officials said the fluid samples only add "a piece of the puzzle" once an officer has identified that a driver is impaired and determined that a drug is probably the cause.

Only 123 officers have completed the training to conduct the tests, compared to more than 3,000 who have taken the less extensive Breathalyzer training.

Mr. Cotler announced a $6.8-million fund for training in catching drug-impaired drivers, aimed at tripling the number of qualified officers in three years, but government officials concede that even that will not be enough.

Conservative justice critic Vic Toews said that the money would be better spent developing more reliable tests, and that the decriminalization of marijuana should wait until the tests are available.

The decriminalization bill, which would replace criminal sanctions and jail terms for the possession of less than 15 grams of marijuana with fines akin to those for traffic tickets, is also opposed by the Canadian Professional Police Association, which represents police officers. President Tony Cannavino said the 15-grams cutoff will allow small-time dealers to avoid prosecution. He suggested the bill should decriminalize amounts of only one or two grams.

Mr. Toews said he is concerned that decriminalization will increase demand for pot, and that the supply will come from organized crime. But he also raised fears that the United States, which has opposed the move, will fight back with sanctions that affect Canadian trade.

This comes from

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...nal/TopStories
(sorry, don't know how to make a link)

And Bush says Kerry's a flip-flopper. I wish they would just get on with it and LEGALIZE the stuff. This flip-flopping has been going on for years...

EDIT: I guess it automatically sets up the link...

Charlatan · 11-02-2004, 10:06 AM

Here's the kicker... while you won't have to go to jail you will have to pay a fine...

"The bill did not legalize the drug, and maintained or increased already stiff penalties for large-scale growers and traffickers. It made possession of less than 15 grams of pot a minor offense punishable by fines of $100 to $400, much like traffic tickets."

Yes, they could legalize it and tax it but why piss off those who don't want it to be legal? Just decriminalize, charge a hefty fine and watch the money roll in...

That said, it is a step in the right direction.

Suave · 11-02-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phaedrus

Hell, if they are going to decriminalize possession of small amounts, then they might as well just legalize it. That way, they can tax it. They can use the tax revenue to help support their medical programs and also drug rehab centers.

That is not a viable option with the U.S. government narcs threatening us at every turn when this kind of legislation is brought up. I like Americans, but the government acts like a spoiled child in regards to foreign policy.

JustDisGuy · 11-02-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

If I can own a gun, a car, knives, take karate- all things that can allow me to instantly and indescriminatly end another person's life, or smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol AS MUCH AS I WANT, then why all the fuss over pot?

As I understand it, back when the government made it illegal to smoke/possess, it was seen as 'the poor man's alcohol' and so it was considered by many to have been a discriminatory decision.

I don't use the stuff myself anymore, but I sure as hell don't understand why if the government is going to decriminalize it, they want to leave the market uncontested for the biker gangs. Maybe it's true that they have friends in high places (pardon the pun)...

JustDisGuy · 11-02-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Yes, they could legalize it and tax it but why piss off those who don't want it to be legal? Just decriminalize, charge a hefty fine and watch the money roll in...

Thing is, we don't elect governments to not piss people off. We elect them to manage our country in the best interest of the majority of citizens. A government that truly wanted to do so, in this arena, would ensure a safe and clean supply of a recreational drug for those citizens who wished to consume it. They would attempt to control the distribution of it in order to protect minors as well. They would NOT disregard a major source of revenue, ie. the revenue stream generated by taxes on that drug nor would they entrench organized crime in the supply chain for that drug. The fact that it is not being outright legalized here AND in the States is insane, and I think we really need to bitch-slap some politicians until they understand.

hunnychile · 11-03-2004, 07:17 PM

In my hometown, the cops had all the best smoke and they were the ones who sold it.

_Yossarian · 11-03-2004, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaenx

"Haha! Smoke that, hippies!" -Canada

Marijuana possession should result in 10 years of public service. Put them in the chain gang cleaning up the highways every weekend, that oughta keep them from turning into a mass of apathetic, lazy, good-for-nothings.

I'm lazy and apathetic. I smoke pot. When I stab someone or run your grandmammy down with my car because I was driving high then you can throw the book at me.

Slavakion · 11-04-2004, 03:26 AM

I personally think that the government should do one of two things

1) Ban alcohol and tobacco

2) Legalize everything

Do illegal drugs fuck you up? Yes. Do tobacco and alcohol fuck you up? Yes. What they're doing right now it hypocritical and probably because big tobaccy is handing a check to Uncle Sam. Treat all drugs equally, whatever the outcome! You destroy your body/life, whose fault is it? Yours.

/soapbox

_Yossarian · 11-04-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slavakion

I personally think that the government should do one of two things

1) Ban alcohol and tobacco

2) Legalize everything

Do illegal drugs fuck you up? Yes. Do tobacco and alcohol fuck you up? Yes. What they're doing right now it hypocritical and probably because big tobaccy is handing a check to Uncle Sam. Treat all drugs equally, whatever the outcome! You destroy your body/life, whose fault is it? Yours.

/soapbox

I agree with you on at least one point. Who's fault is it when you fuck yourself up on too many drugs? Answer is obvious. Just don't be stupid =/. I've known a lot of people who've done a lot of drugs, and I wouldn't even have known that they've herion, crack, ecstacy(spelling?) or whatever until they told me. Not everyone that does these things is addicted or out of control, granted they all do fuck you up in some way. Legalize it all, then maybe you can get the coke to not be cut with dangerous chemicals.
On a different note, props to the people that give clean needles to junkies.
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/

pinkie · 11-04-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by present_future

I don't think it's necessarily that bad of an idea. I mean when you think about it, marijuana and alcohol are really on the same level of drugs.

No. Alcohol is much more dangerous.

Pheer · 11-06-2004, 03:33 AM

Drugs a Drug

I've never done n e drugs nor do i what ppl do as long as its responsible.

it's hypocritical to allow ppl to drink alcohol and smoke cigs but not allow weed.

When u drunk, your physically and mentally impaired and ruining your liver
When u smoke, you are subjecting your lungs to garbage
When u do weed you get hungry, minor physical/mental imparment and in some cases paranoia. U might get more facked up if its laced with something.

If they legalized it, thay would reduce minor crimes, be able to control quality and make money off of it that could be used to the system.

11-02-2004, 10:06 AM	#43 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Here's the kicker... while you won't have to go to jail you will have to pay a fine... "The bill did not legalize the drug, and maintained or increased already stiff penalties for large-scale growers and traffickers. It made possession of less than 15 grams of pot a minor offense punishable by fines of $100 to $400, much like traffic tickets." Yes, they could legalize it and tax it but why piss off those who don't want it to be legal? Just decriminalize, charge a hefty fine and watch the money roll in... That said, it is a step in the right direction. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-03-2004, 07:17 PM	#47 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	In my hometown, the cops had all the best smoke and they were the ones who sold it. __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

11-04-2004, 03:26 AM	#49 (permalink)
Slavakion Mjollnir Incarnate Location: Lost in thought	I personally think that the government should do one of two things 1) Ban alcohol and tobacco 2) Legalize everything Do illegal drugs fuck you up? Yes. Do tobacco and alcohol fuck you up? Yes. What they're doing right now it hypocritical and probably because big tobaccy is handing a check to Uncle Sam. Treat all drugs equally, whatever the outcome! You destroy your body/life, whose fault is it? Yours. /soapbox

11-06-2004, 03:33 AM	#52 (permalink)
Pheer Upright Location: Calgary	Drugs a Drug I've never done n e drugs nor do i what ppl do as long as its responsible. it's hypocritical to allow ppl to drink alcohol and smoke cigs but not allow weed. When u drunk, your physically and mentally impaired and ruining your liver When u smoke, you are subjecting your lungs to garbage When u do weed you get hungry, minor physical/mental imparment and in some cases paranoia. U might get more facked up if its laced with something. If they legalized it, thay would reduce minor crimes, be able to control quality and make money off of it that could be used to the system.