# why are we legalizing cannabis?



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

what are the main reasons?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

One reason is to put the black market out of business. Organized crime might have to go back to highjacking trucks for an income. 
Another reason is, it isn't super harmful, large numers of people use it anyway, and for some, there are medicinal benifits.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

One reason is to put the black market out of business. Organized crime might have to go back to highjacking trucks for an income. 
Another reason is, it isn't super harmful, large numbers of people use it anyway, and for some, there are medicinal benefits. It also would free up court time for serious matters, in lieu of useless procecutions of users.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

The sole reason is that the Prime Minister is a toker and it was a way to attract the votes of a certain demographic. It positioned him as progressive and with it.

If we had had any one else running for the liberals it would not have been on the table at this point

I can't begin to count the number of posts I have seen on various forums and Reddit where people say they voted for him because of one of two things
legalization of pot
reform of election process

Many of those folks are now sounding off on how disappointed they are in his performance to date.

Having said that, I think the longer term, pot would have become legal in Canada anyway but it would have taken another 5 - 10 years.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)




----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Prohibition doesn’t work. 

New revenue stream for the government. 

Probably more the second than the first.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Despite all efforts, there have still been far too many old stock Canadian 20-somethings turning into responsible, productive 30-somethings who won't vote for Jr.

Let's try keeping the next batch perpetually stoned and unemployable and see if that works.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Those who want to be stoned, got stoned. Those who don’t didn’t. I don’t really see how legalizing it changes anything. I’m not lining up to start using, most of the people I know are of the same opinion.

The ones who are lining up, now contribute to the tax base and help pay for the health care they’ve been using at our expense.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^ You really don't think there will be a significant increase in usage?

And how is extra money going to taxes better than that same money going to the "black market" and being spent in the lower-middle class economy, pre-tax.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Are you going to rush out and buy? Are your friends and relatives? It wasn’t hard to get before if you wanted it, why would making it legal make you suddenly want to get it?

I think we will become aware of how many people were previously using, however I’m sure there will still be many closet users as well. Do I think these numbers will increase? Maybe a little, especially at first, but then it will normalize to probably very close to today’s numbers. Remember, many people have used or are using already...including our prime minister. 

If you don’t know the answer to your second question, then you really don’t understand economics.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I hate cigarette smoke and I am certainly not in favour of adding more smoke of any kind. I am for cannabis products that don't produce smoke and have no problem with making them legal.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Really, where would you, someone who doesn't partake presumably and is upper upper middle class with oodles of rental cash flow, first go to get the "not hard to get" weed? Let's not pretend than anything greater than some ~10% of Canadians have direct access to a person with marijuana for sale, when they want it. Opportunistically smoking because someone in your social group was able to procure it is the norm. I'm from lower middle class rural Ontario and I still only know a few guys who are regulars who I could partake with if I wanted, and I'm sure they would have a problem with selling to me other than infrequently. To gain further access I would need direct contact with a far far riskier person than my friends, and there is no way in hell I am doing that. Neither are you or most Canadians.

Please explain the (black market) economics then and how that is detrimental to the economy. I don't know much about black markets. I'm not being confrontational, I'd like to know, if you know. 

As I can see it, unless the majority of the end user's money is somehow _leaving the country_, then that money is circulating, untaxed, in the economy, to the great benefit of the lower middle class... Drug dealers pay rent and go to Boston Pizza too, and gangs buy motorcycles. 
How will the new system work? Government takes 30% off the top and the remainder of the profits go to bigger and bigger corporations, as the industry consolidates over the coming years? You don't seem to be an advocate of more taxes, nor for big corps kept in power by regulatory authorities.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe you don’t know how to find drugs, but that doesn’t mean it’s hard. I’ve been approached by dealers at shopping malls, probably half my tenants have easy access, I’ve got relatives that use, my kids are still in school...drugs are everywhere if you open your eyes. Heck, my first house was two doors away from a pizza restaurant that never sold any pizza, but did a lot of deliveries. 

When I lived in small town Ontario, you could get drugs from any of the local farm workers. In BC drugs are all over the place. Sellers are all around their safe injection sites. 

Despite all my “insider” knowledge, no one in my immediate family chooses to use, not even my kids. 

I’m actually not against controlling the quality of the product, I’ve known too many people injured by tainted drugs. Ironically, the US government actually poisoned its own population during prohibition as an enforcement tactic...

Perhaps you should do some research into prohibition and see how the underground economy worked so well in cities like Chicago, New York, Atlantic city...then maybe do a field trip down to some of the gang controlled areas of town, maybe during a turf war, before you tell me about all the benefits of the underground economy. Then tell me how all this money gets to the health care system (to take care of the people who used tainted drugs) from buying stolen motorcycles for cash.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

peterk said:


> ^ You really don't think there will be a significant increase in usage?
> 
> And how is extra money going to taxes better than that same money going to the "black market" and being spent in the lower-middle class economy, pre-tax.


No. And to the extent it does increase usage, it is more dose controlled (illicit weed can have THC content all over the map and is laden when pesticides), and displaces alcohol, tobacco and opioid use, all of which are likely more harmful. It is already a massive business in Canada (multiple billions $/year), but that is captured by organized crime.

The reason we are legalizing pot is that there is no good reason for it to be illegal.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

peterk said:


> Please explain the (black market) economics then and how that is detrimental to the economy. I don't know much about black markets. I'm not being confrontational, I'd like to know, if you know.
> 
> As I can see it, unless the majority of the end user's money is somehow _leaving the country_, then that money is circulating, untaxed, in the economy, to the great benefit of the lower middle class... Drug dealers pay rent and go to Boston Pizza too, and gangs buy motorcycles.


One downside is that without government enforcement of contracts and regulation of anticompetitive activity, the black market tends to settle these matters with violence. Sometimes that takes place in private, but sometimes that means bullets spraying a sidewalk outside a club in Toronto and hitting bystanders. And because the profits are so large, they are worth fighting over despite the risk of incarceration. And people who get recruited to such organizations at a low level to distribute drugs tend to get trapped and induced to commit greater crimes.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

peterk said:


> Really, where would you, someone who doesn't partake presumably and is upper upper middle class with oodles of rental cash flow, first go to get the "not hard to get" weed? Let's not pretend than anything greater than some ~10% of Canadians have direct access to a person with marijuana for sale, when they want it.


There are about a dozen online MOM sites out of Vancouver with a dizzying (pun) selection of consumables. Canada Post delivers discreetly in a few days across Canada. 
I'm not sure what their overall future will be after tomorrow. I thought their competitiveness was pretty secure, but according to those in the business in Nelson, they are worried: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/black-market-marijuana-growers-nelson-b-c-1.4863745


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Never used it and certainly won't be starting now. I believe there will be a huge negative impact on our healthcare system down the road, as a result of this. I think there may also be road safety concerns. Meanwhile, our idiot PM is trying to make himself popular, whilst raising more taxes to squander. The only good thing to come out of this, is I have made some nice profits trading on all the hype.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We were considering buying a condo in a high rise last year. Our realtor was/is an experienced pro. Halfway through one conversation about condo high rise living she commented that most larger buildings have at least one drug dealer. We were taken aback by this.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Marijuana prohibition is too costly to police and adjudicate through the courts. 

The government will collect tax revenue AND spend less on police and courts.

Resources can be allocated to more important needs. 

Marijuana is easier for teens to buy than cigarettes or alcohol. It is sold everywhere with no id necessary.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Marijuana prohibition is too costly to police and adjudicate through the courts.
> 
> The government will collect tax revenue AND spend less on police and courts.
> 
> ...


Good response Sags. As a non user I have been wondering why the government was legalizing it and your response answered my question very simply. No doubt its also safer than the unknown stuff you buy from a dealer.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Marijuana prohibition is too costly to police and adjudicate through the courts.
> 
> The government will collect tax revenue AND spend less on police and courts.
> 
> ...


 ... why fight them when you can join them? Like safe-injection sites. Win-win all around ... until half the population becomes addicts, burdening our healthcare systems. Hopefully, thes cannabis sales and taxes can overcome the extra load.

Btw, you need to be 19+ (in Ontario and most provinces/terrritories... Quebec 18+) to be able buy cannabis so even cc online is some form of "ID".


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What a sad view some people have of society...just because it’s legal, they assume everyone, or at least many people will suddenly become addicts...

Almost like they assume, just because it’s legal, people will be forced to use it...no such thing as free choice. Also funny that they think, just because it was illegal, that hardly anyone used it and there were very few addicts because it was illegal. Very foolish thinking in my opinion, totally departing from reality as usual. 

I’d bet, for the majority of people, nothing has really changed today. I woke up sober and drug free, I doubt I’m in the minority. I doubt I’ll meet anyone today who’s stoned either.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

.....huh???"?.......
....uh, what day is this, man?".........
.......uhhhhh.... where AM I...???......
....man!, I'm. hungry........
(giggle)
(giggle)
(giggle)


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> I’d bet, for the majority of people, nothing has really changed today. I woke up sober and drug free, I doubt I’m in the minority. *I doubt I’ll meet anyone today who’s stoned either.*


 ... there's one already - you met him online in post #23. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ... 



> What a sad view some people have of society...just because it’s legal, they assume everyone, or at least many people will suddenly become addicts...
> 
> Almost like they assume, just because it’s legal, people will be forced to use it...no such thing as free choice. Also funny that they think, just because it was illegal, that hardly anyone used it and there were very few addicts because it was illegal. Very foolish thinking in my opinion, totally departing from reality as usual.


 ... I'm not saying "everyone" will become addicts but half the population of "recreational" users can potentially be one. Especially for future generations - as it becomes the "norm" or "cool" to pop a joint. And yes, it'll be sad.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

boom shakalakala


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If people want to worry about something really dangerous, we have a prescription pill epidemic in our culture. Pot is the least of worries for society.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A couple of true stories.........

In a small town a group of 3 teenagers about 18 years old are walking down the street and one of them tosses a candy wrapper on a lawn. 

A police car was following behind them and pulled over. The police had the boys turn out their pockets and one of them had a tiny bit of marijuana flakes in his pocket.

They arrested and charged the kid with possession of marijuana. In a big city, the police wouldn't have bothered, but this was a small town with bored cops.

The teen has to go to court and the court adjourned until a Federal prosecutor was brought in for the case. Months later there was another court hearing and the lad pleaded guilty.

The Judge comments on the stupidity of it all but says his hands are tied and enters a criminal conviction.

Great.........the teen now has a criminal record that will haunt him until he applies for a suspension of the conviction. Well done to the police and Crown.........great job.

Second story.......

My son worked in construction and ruptured two disks in his back. He applied for WSIB and has been sent to 5 different clinics who all prescribed opioids for the pain.

He doesn't want to take any opioids, as he has seen what it did to some people he knows from school. He told our doctor and she told him to use marijuana for the pain.

The marijuana helps with the pain, but opioids would work better and are covered by OHIP. The cost of government approved cannabis is ridiculously high and not covered.

So people who can't afford the legal marijuana either use illegal marijuana or use the free opioids. Small wonder we got problems with opioid addiction.

He is now waiting for a second MRI and hoping for back surgery.............some day.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hopefully, the government will fulfill it's promise and remove any convictions for possession of cannabis from the criminal record system.

It may be too late for many Canadians already, as nobody in government seems to know or admit, how much personal information has already been transferred to the US.

Canadians won't know until they attempt to cross the US/Canada border and are informed the US already knows about the conviction, and they can't enter the US.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Wow, the news is reporting up to 20 people were in line since 6 am to buy legal marijuana. I certainly hope the emergency wards can handle the demand...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> A couple of true stories.........
> 
> In a small town a group of 3 teenagers about 18 years old are walking down the street and one of them tosses a candy wrapper on a lawn.
> 
> ...


 ... and why did the kid need those flakes in the first place? Because mom and dad were smoking it or possibly his buddy? And then imagine if the lad was the bored copper's or judge's kid. Same unfair treatment?



> Second story.......
> 
> My son worked in construction and ruptured two disks in his back. He applied for WSIB and has been sent to 5 different clinics who all prescribed opioids for the pain.
> 
> ...


 ... no qualm about "medicinal" use. As for waiting to get a second "MRI" for back problems, I know someone who can't even get one. Was told MRIs are not useful for diagnosing "back-related" problems but CT scans are. Presumably the latter is alot cheaper.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Wow, the news is reporting up to 20 people were in line since 6 am to buy legal marijuana. I certainly hope the emergency wards can handle the demand...


obviously not the NL news.... where theres been continous lineups of 20+ outside all the Dominion (loblaw) supermarkets smoke shops all day...


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Considering the government stated that between 15 and 20% of Canadians are already users, before legalization, I’m very concerned over lineups of 20+ people...the horror.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Hey, everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Clear and sunny this morning. I thought it might be hazy out, lol


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

did i just hear on the news that the goovt intends to use a large chunk or cannabis revenues ...to educate people...on ...the....dangers...of ...marijuana....use....???

what the....?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> What a sad view some people have of society...just because it’s legal, they assume everyone, or at least many people will suddenly become addicts...
> 
> Almost like they assume, just because it’s legal, people will be forced to use it...no such thing as free choice. Also funny that they think, just because it was illegal, that hardly anyone used it and there were very few addicts because it was illegal. Very foolish thinking in my opinion, totally departing from reality as usual.
> 
> I’d bet, for the majority of people, nothing has really changed today. I woke up sober and drug free, I doubt I’m in the minority. I doubt I’ll meet anyone today who’s stoned either.


Likely same people who think that but for belief in god, they would go around raping and killing without qualms.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... there's one already - you met him online in post #23. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ...
> 
> ... I'm not saying "everyone" will become addicts but half the population of "recreational" users can potentially be one. Especially for future generations - as it becomes the "norm" or "cool" to pop a joint. And yes, it'll be sad.


Oh wait, pot isn't cool now, but suddenly becomes cool because it isn't illegal and the government will sell you it and the bong to smoke it with?

Have you ever met a kid?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

hey!.......my glaucoma's. starting to clear up!


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, one month in, no spike in impaired driving...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/early...d-driving-after-legalization-police-1.4178044

No change in consumption...

https://globalnews.ca/video/4672718/how-has-legalization-changed-marijuana-consumption-in-canada

Guess the world didn’t come to an end once again.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

And polling indicates that illicit dealing is down to 35%.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Any time I have trouble understanding one of Trudeau junior's pronouncements, which is practically every time he opens his trap, I imagine him sitting on the floor of a dorm room after a couple of bong hits and all becomes clear.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... no qualm about "medicinal" use. As for waiting to get a second "MRI" for back problems, I know someone who can't even get one. Was told MRIs are not useful for diagnosing "back-related" problems but CT scans are. Presumably the latter is alot cheaper.


Off topic. But MRI's are better for imaging soft tissues while CT's are better for imaging bone. They both have their place in diagnosing spine related pathologies. Suspected disc issues would be better served with an MRI, IMO. CT's may be cheaper and have less wait times but they come with a good dose of radiation and aren't good at detecting small disc tears, etc.

Worth mentioning that there are a ton of people walking around with disc herniations, degenerative spines, etc. (confirmed by technology) and have absolutely no symptoms. There's no substitute for a skilled practitioner able to take a good history and perform a thorough physical examination - somewhat of a dying art....

Back on topic - Answer - Money!


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> A couple of true stories.........
> 
> In a small town a group of 3 teenagers about 18 years old are walking down the street and one of them tosses a candy wrapper on a lawn.
> 
> ...


Did the kid retain a lawyer...Legal Aid, perhaps?

There should never have been a charge and conviction on the facts laid out. The kids were not arrested, nor could they have been for the littering offence. Issued a ticket, maybe. That ends the inquiry right there.

Assuming (without deciding), that the police had "articulable cause" to detain the young lads for "investigative detention", then police would have been permitted to conduct a "pat down search" for "officer safety" reasons. A pat down is just that. The idea is to frisk to determine if a suspect might be armed. A "pat down" does not extend to a search of pockets. The result was a breach of the kid's s. 8 _Charter_ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Among other reasons, the search results should have been excluded under s. 24(2) on account of the breach. 

A leading case on point appears below. It is a 2003 BCSC decision. It remains good law today. It has never been overruled or questioned. 

SEARCH & SEIZURE — Warrantless searches • CHARTER OF RIGHTS — Section 8 • DRUG OFFENCES — Possession for purpose of trafficking — Police conducting surveillance of area known for drug trafficking observing 2 accused engaged in suspicious behaviour — Police having articulable cause for investigative detention, but not for search of pockets of one accused and vehicle of the other — 30 grams of cocaine found in pocket and 30 grams found in truck inadmissible — Accused acquitted of trafficking.

Finding a certain fast food restaurant, as well as other fast-food location parking lots and other high traffic parking lots in the general vicinity, to be an area with a high incidence of drug trafficking, members of an RCMP drug squad decided to conduct surveillance at that fast food restaurant. It set up surveillance in the parking lot with the intention of observing drug transactions and making arrests. The surveillance was random rather than targeted at specific individuals. Two officers noted a motor vehicle in the special order area of the parking lot. That area is generally for vehicles that had gone through the drive-through lane, but the vehicle had not gone through the drive-through, nor had the driver, later identified as the accused D., been into the restaurant to pick up food. D. appeared to be looking around the parking lot and then he drove to another space and waited there, still looking around. After a while, a person, later identified as the accused F. approached the vehicle and got into the passenger side. The surveillance officers did not notice him carrying any food. The vehicle left the parking lot and proceeded to drive a short distance away into an industrial area. The vehicle pulled over to the side of the road and stopped. The two occupants appeared to engage in conversation. After a period of two to five minutes, the vehicle returned to the parking lot. At that point, the constables, who had followed the vehicle, decided to do a takedown for the purposes of investigative detention of the occupants. They did not consider that they had sufficient evidence to arrest the occupants or to lay charges, but considered that they had articulable cause to detain the vehicle and its occupants and perform permitted investigations. They told the men to get out of the vehicle. When F. kept putting his hand into his back pocket after being told not to do so, an officer handcuffed him and searched his pockets. He found a bag containing 30 grams of cocaine. The other officer obtained D.’s permission to search the vehicle, on the pretext of looking for registration documents. He found 30 grams of cocaine in the console. The two men were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. The admissibility of the search evidence was at issue on a voir dire. Held, evidence inadmissible; accused acquitted. The activities observed by the police were suspicious, and the police had articulable cause to detain the accused. But once they had detained the accused, the police powers in the circumstances were very limited. They could not use an investigative detention as a replacement for a search warrant. The police powers perhaps extended to handcuffing F., but once that was done, there could have been no legitimate concern about officer safety. If any search were necessary, a simple pat-down to check for weapons would have sufficed. The search of F.’s pockets was unreasonable. Without the evidence of the contents of F.’s pockets, the search of D.’s vehicle was also unreasonable. The Charter violation was far from trivial. To admit the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

R. v. Bartoli S.C., Groberman J., 2003 BCSC 1888, Doc. Vancouver 21926, November 18, 2003 (oral), 21pp.

Here's the full text:

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/03/18/2003BCSC1888.htm

Even without a lawyer present for the accused, the trial judge should have recognized the obvious frailties in the prosecution and dismissed the charge. His hands were not tied at all. Even if the accused had no lawyer present, that does not mean that a conviction does by default, because the accused is not capable of presenting legal argument. While an unrepresented accused is not entitled to have the trial judge assume the role of his advocate, the court has a duty to unrepresented accused to give effect to any defence plainly arising on the evidence. 

See: https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/08/s00-0801.htm , where it was said (quoting an earlier Court of Appeal decision):

_The right to a fair trial imposes on the trial judge a duty to provide reasonable assistance to an unrepresented accused in order that his defence, or any defence the proceedings may disclose, is brought out with its full force and effect. The level of assistance is a matter of judicial discretion and will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.
_

Another difficulty arising from the facts is why were all 3 kids detained when there was only one candy wrapper? Was the litterer the kid with the marijuana in his pocket? Was the detention sufficient to give rise to the right to be informed of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay (s. 10(b) of the _Charter_)?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

I hope sags will return to this thread and provide the source for the "true story" about the teenager and the marijuana. It is so wrong on so many levels that such a thing could occur in the Canadian justice system. Those of us who are part of that system have a duty to react to anything that will bring the administration of justice in Canada into disrepute. While at first blush the whole thing seems trivial and of no moment, on more mature consideration of the matter I am frankly outraged. I am surprised no one here even commented. We Canadians are a complacent lot and put up with whatever our governments mete out, as least as long our individual ox is not being gored. If our neighbour's ox is gored, who cares?

In addition to the comments I already made about what I see wrong with the case described, the matter should never have got off the launchpad. "Bored cops" excuses nothing. Cops are supposed to be trained to recommend prosecution on grounds other than boredom. But they do not lay charges. That is for the Crown. There is vested in the Crown what I think even school kids know as "prosecutorial discretion". It means that just because some cop wants to nail some kid, the Crown must exercise some restraint and invoke the machinery of the courts only in those cases where mounting a prosecution and securing a conviction will be of some salutary effect for society. Prosecutions cost money - lots of it - and the Crown should not abuse the public purse as occurred here. What Crown counsel could have kept a straight face and agreed to prosecute this case? Part of the cost of the prosecution (albeit a minor one) was sending the "flakes" found in the accused's pocket to a lab for analysis. The Crown would have to place in evidence at trial a certificate of analysis, signed by an expert, certifying what was found to be marijuana. I am aware of one prosecution in the last 20 years or so where the court accepted the evidence of border officers as "expert evidence" identifying as marijuana 15 kilos of greenery intercepted at the Blaine border crossing, but those guys had direct relevant training and experience. Their qualifications transcended, I think, that of a couple of bored small town cops. See:

R. v. Betournay and LaVoie, 2004 BCPC 0373

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments.php?link=http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/

Further to the notion that the judge's "hands were tied", I have addressed that already, in brief compass. Our judges are not the handmaidens of the police or the Crown. This prosecution was an abuse of process and should have been halted. Even sans resort to the abuse of process doctrine, it should have been obvious to even a first year law student that the defence of _"de minimis non curat lex" _ applied. That is, the law does not concern itself with trifles. Here is an example of the application of that defence:

R. v. Dejong, 2005 BCPC 546

ASSAULT — Defences • Accused charged with assaulting his wife — Evidence showing he pushed her out of his way when she did not move when asked — Court finding the push was of minimal force, occurring during heated argument — Incident of such a minor nature as to make maxim of _de minimis non curat lex_ applicable — Accused acquitted.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments.php?link=http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/

And another (of dozens in my database):

R. v. Tanton, 2006 BCPC 226

DISORDERLY OR IMMORAL CONDUCT — Causing disturbance • OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON — Threats & intimidation - Uttering threats — • CHARTER OF RIGHTS — Sections 7 and 8 — Accused homeless person leaving his shopping cart in drop-in centre parking lot — Municipal workers removing cart at RCMP request — Accused storming over to City Hall and swearing loudly at staff — Accused leaving on request, saying words to effect "I should come back and pop you all" — Accused charged with causing disturbance and uttering threats — Court finding disturbance in _de minimis _range, and dismissing that charge — Court staying threat charge on basis of violation of accused’s Charter rights by seizure of his shopping cart.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments.php?link=http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/

Ed. Note: The court in _Tanton_ referred to the "_de mimimus_" rule, hence the correct phrase won't appear in a word or phrase search. I guess the judge slept though Grade 13 latin. 

Assuming it to be true (and I trust member sags would not report anything here of other than a credible source), i remain deeply offended by all that occurred in the case, _ab initio_. 

Postscript: I have, as is my wont, cited a few legal authorities here. JAG has suggested to me that this is a pedestrian and pestilential practice, boring, repetitive, a waste of bandwidth, etc. I do it because I feel that if I am going to come here and say "this is the law", I bloody well ought to back that up with some authority. I do not really expect anyone to read any of this stuff (and I am sure no one does). But it is there as mute testament to my having maintained some kind of professional standard.

I suppose, though, that JAG enjoys some judicial support. I never did a whole lot of litigation and, when I did, few of my cases landed in the Court of Appeal. However, in one that did, I was making my final argument to the 3 judges late on a Friday afternoon. When I started citing cases, the Chief Justice interrupted me and said: "Mukhang pera, just give us your _best_ case."


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The boy plead guilty to save the cost of a defense lawyer, so the judge accepted the plea and that supposedly "tied his hands".

I am well aware of another case where a young man was charged with domestic assault although it was reported by a passerby and no assault had taken place.

The "victim" said nothing happened. They had merely had a loud argument that a passerby had overheard and called the police.

The police called children's aid and they threatened to take away her child if she didn't testify. They threatened to charge her with perjury if she testified for him.

He hired a lawyer and they had to split up for a year while he waited trial. On the day of the trial the Crown offered a plea bargain. 

Plead guilty and there will be only a peace bond.

He accepted the plea bargain. Great...except the judge didn't except it. He said there were discrepancies about "intent" but the plea of guilty had already been entered.

He reluctantly found the guy guilty and sentenced him to probation. He also got a criminal record out of it.

I am aware of how the law is supposed to work, and it might work that way for people who can afford top level lawyers, but in the real world people get screwed over all the time.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This may explain some of the problems I have seen in the justice system here in Ontario.

The police lay charges in Ontario. I believe in other Provinces the Crown lays the charges.

Almost half of all criminal charges in Ontario are thrown out or withdrawn. Many of the remainder convictions are settled by plea deals.

_"Large numbers of gratuitous charges waste massive amounts of money and time," writes criminologist Christopher Williams in the report. _

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/crime-charge-crown-attorneys-police-1.4178234


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One of the legal questions I have always wondered.........

Why are plea bargains which are routinely offered by the Crown, not mandatory for a judge to accept ?

The first order of business in the court is the plea. The accused pleads guilty.........and then they discuss the terms of the plea bargain.

If the judge disagrees with the agreement.........tough luck. The accused already plead guilty and can't change the plea while standing there.

From what a defense lawyer friend told me.......judges almost always accept the plea agreement, but are not required to and sometimes don't.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Why are plea bargains which are routinely offered by the Crown, not mandatory for a judge to accept ?


I would think that since the defendant is under a certain type of pressure and the prosecutor may be under a different type of pressure, that occasionally renders neither one of them very good at determining the proper justice. Hence the Judge would intervene.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> The boy plead guilty to save the cost of a defense lawyer, so the judge accepted the plea and that supposedly "tied his hands".


Pretty weak judge. He had the ability to toss the thing on a variety of bases. Similarly, while in Ontario police might lay charges, I do not believe they appear in court as prosecuting attorneys (except in traffic court). Crown counsel had to show up for trial. The Crown could (and should) have entered a stay.

The case you describe about the domestic assault that never occurred is truly scary. It is a clear case of police and children's aid corruption. To threaten apprehension of the child, and perujuy charges! All involved with that travesty should be in jail!

As for the plea bargain, in BC, I have never heard of a judge rejecting (or having the power to reject) a plea bargain. In BC, judges do not see the original charges and they deal with what the Crown presents. In fact, they are not privy to plea deals, so they have, in effect, nothing to overrule, even if they could. They can reject a joint submission on sentence. 

If a judge knows that a plea of guilty was entered in expectation of a s.810 bond, it would not be open to the judge to simply say "well, you pleaded guilty having been promised no criminal record, but, surprise, I am giving you one." I would say that judge acted not at all "reluctantly", but with obvious glee, malice and vindictiveness. We have Judicial Councils to deal with such rogue judges. That judge had a clear duty to allow the plea to be withdrawn once the true consequences of a guilty plea were brought home to the accused.

Sags, please pm me with as much detail as you can about these cases, including newspaper reports and whatever you might have. I am surprised that the matters have gone unnoticed in proper circles. I have some connections and know where to squawk. These matters cry out for it.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> One of the legal questions I have always wondered.........
> 
> Why are plea bargains which are routinely offered by the Crown, not mandatory for a judge to accept ?
> 
> ...


All I can say on that score is that criminal law must operate under very different rules and in a very different environment where you are. In BC it would be considered dead wrong for a judge to have anything to do with a plea bargain. Sure, on occasions judges sniff out that one has been made and they might wonder about it. That is never even alluded to before sentencing. At that stage, they sometimes think out loud and say things like: "Given the facts, one might wonder why we are here today to sentence the accused for manslaughter, when the facts would seem to support a first degree murder charge, but then the court must take it that the Crown is fully aware of its case and any potential weaknesses, difficulties with witnesses, or forensic evidence, or police misconduct giving rise to Charter breaches that would impact on prosecution of the case, and so on, and it's not for me to second guess the Crown."

As I have said, in BC, the only time judge gets involved in any kind of plea bargaining is at the sentencing stage. Let's say the accused has been convicted of second degree murder. The mandatory sentence is life, but an accused can be released on parole after 10 years. But the judge can go up to 20 years. Sometimes, ahead of the sentencing hearing, the Crown and the defence with agree to make a "joint submission" on sentence, both agreeing to, say, a parole ineligibility period of 12 years. The court may reject the joint submission and find that 17 years would be appropriate. But that's a far cry from the court descending into the arena and participating in the charging process. That is a concept I, quite frankly, find inconsistent with the judicial role. I am shocked that it is occurring in 21st century Canada. I'll leave that one alone. If Ontario citizens are content to live under such a regime, not my place to say otherwise.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Can the defendant repeal their "guilty" admission when the judge decides to add more years to the sentence? I suspect the penalty agreement was probably done first before a defendant say's OK. For a judge to then change it after, I would think the defendant should be allowed to at least change their plea.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

jargey3000 said:


> what are the main reasons?


Why not? Alcohol is totally legal. Why should government have any role in telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies?

While I think it's important to protect minors from such substances, I have no interest is protecting adults from such things. Most pot users I know are totally functional, contributing members of society, and yet prior to this year, tons of resources and efforts were dedicated to getting these "criminals" in check...never made much sense to me. Live and let live and all that.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

OptsyEagle said:


> Can the defendant repeal their "guilty" admission when the judge decides to add more years to the sentence? I suspect the penalty agreement was probably done first before a defendant say's OK. For a judge to then change it after, I would think the defendant should be allowed to at least change their plea.


While the law on this is less than crystal clear, I would never assure a client who pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain, that the sentence negotiated between counsel would be the actual sentence imposed. Equally, I would not offer the client any assurance that he would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if the sentence was not to his liking. A guilty plea subject to the court accepting a joint submission has been held to be a "conditional plea", hence no plea at all. See:

PLEAS — Withdrawal • Accused pleading guilty provided court accepting joint sentence submission — Failure of trial court and counsel to recognize conditional nature of plea rendering subsequent proceedings nugatory, including dismissal of application to withdraw plea — Appeal court ordering new trial.

R. v. Kleinsteuber C.A., Esson, Southin & Cumming JJ.A., Vancouver CA021602, April 02, 1997 , 17pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/97/02/c97-0231.txt

For a sentencing judge to reject a joint submission is frowned upon by appellate courts. See:

MURDER — Manslaughter — Sentence • Trial judge going beyond admitted facts in sentencing accused to 8 years on guilty plea, notwithstanding joint submission for sentence of 6 years — Appeal court reducing sentence to 6 years.

R. v. Woods C.A., Carrothers, Goldie & Finch JJ.A., Vancouver CA021676, March 07, 1997 , 9pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/02/01/2002BCCA0157.htm

See also:

DRUG OFFENCES — Cultivation — Sentence • Crown and defence making joint submission for 3 months' imprisonment after accused's guilty plea to unlawfully producing marijuana — Sentencing judge imposing 1 year — Appeal court allowing appeal and reducing sentence to 3 months.

R. v. Anderson C.A., Southin, Huddart & Smith JJ.A., 2002 BCCA 157, Doc. Vancouver CA029336, February 25, 2002 , 2pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/02/01/2002BCCA0157.htm

For those interested in this subject (no one, I know), a worthwhile read would be:

SENTENCING 2007 PAPER 2.1 
_Ethical Issues in the Sentencing Context: The Obligations of Defence and Crown Counsel in Negotiating a Plea Agreement 
_
Published by the Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Well isn't that just waiting for change once the first unscrupulous judge and prosecutor get exposed. 

To think that you can come up with an agreement, where sentence is an extremely important part of that agreement, and then to find out that someone else, not party to the agreement, can change it without recourse, sounds like plea deals should be abolished until this issue is dealt with. I mean the decision maker is not even in the room, why then negotiate...in just the hopes that the judge will be respectful of the situation.

Anyway, I assumed it was this way. Obviously the alternatives must appear worse to both parties then taking a roll of the dice with the judge, but that in itself does not make it right.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^ Plus,
Apparently it is not as harmful as some make it out to be, and
Reportedly about half the population was using anyway, and,
The black market was supplying orgnaized crime with an easy income. Prohibitions feed crime with cash.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It was a massive waste of justice system resources to enforce prohibition, as well.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> It was a massive waste of justice system resources to enforce prohibition, as well.


Which prohibition?

We prohibit lots of bad things, and if we relaxed those prohibitions we'd have more problems.

With regard to marijuanna specifically, we know that it has both temporary and long lasting effects on brain function.
We don't know what all the effects are, but there is increasing evidence that marijuanna, and CBD in particular can have very significant effects on the brain. 

Since there is limited data on long term use, we should have studied it.
Anecdotal data suggests long term use is bad, most former pot heads I know quit because they felt pot destroyed their motivation.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I thought you were a libertarian? Adults can make that decision for themselves. I think for all the stereotypical burnouts you might see/know where marijuana becomes a little too central to their lives, there are likely 10-20 people who use it casually without any notable adverse effects (quite akin to alcohol, but with much reduced negative social and health outcomes). I don't use it myself. By all means, the health effects of marijuana use should be studied. I think you mean THC. CBD is relatively benign (so far as we know). 

Frankly, I think all illicit drug use should be decriminalized. Not because it is safe or desirable to use illicit drugs, but because the focus should be on reducing harm and addressing the root cause reason why people use these drugs. Criminalizing them forces people with substance abuse problems into secrecy and not to seek help for the drug use or underlying psychological problems that lead to the drug use.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I have no problem with de criminalizing it. They could do the same with all drugs as far as I am concerned. Our attempts to reduce and police substance abuse have been a failure. Time for an alternative approach.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

With a government supplier, people know that the product has not been tainted with some type of pharmaceutical spray to increase toxicity.
I could not ever fully trust a back yard grower not to produce a spray formulation using a multitude of toxic chemicals.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I thought you were a libertarian? Adults can make that decision for themselves. I think for all the stereotypical burnouts you might see/know where marijuana becomes a little too central to their lives, there are likely 10-20 people who use it casually without any notable adverse effects (quite akin to alcohol, but with much reduced negative social and health outcomes). I don't use it myself. By all means, the health effects of marijuana use should be studied. I think you mean THC. CBD is relatively benign (so far as we know).
> 
> Frankly, I think all illicit drug use should be decriminalized. Not because it is safe or desirable to use illicit drugs, but because the focus should be on reducing harm and addressing the root cause reason why people use these drugs. Criminalizing them forces people with substance abuse problems into secrecy and not to seek help for the drug use or underlying psychological problems that lead to the drug use.


I am, and if you were to free me from the costs of your marijuanna use, I'd have no problems.
If I don't have to pay your welfare, or if I can fire you for poor performance, and I don't have to pay your medical bills, go ahead, smoke your brains out.

The problem with Liberty and freedom, is that if people aren't responsible for the outcomes of their decisions, they have no incentive to make good decisions.

As far as your claim, I believe there are people who use drugs and alcohol responsibly, and those who use them irresponsibly.
In my ideal world, you would be free to use them as you see fit, and that you would not be able to project the costs of doing so onto me.
In this world, I pay the costs of your substance abuse, therefore I should have some control on it.

What's the difference between abuse and responsible use, that's a tough one. I actually think that's a personal decision.

I know a few people who used a variety of recreational drugs.
Some of them are doing ok, even relatively well. However those who went on to very high performance ALL quit recreational drug use. Sure there are Elon Musks out there, but I believe they're in the minority.
I know a lot of people, alcoholics, potheads, and other drugs, who quit and are all clear that they're better off.

Again, as long as I don't have to subsidize this choice, I don't care. But since I do, I should have input.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I am, and if you were to free me from the costs of your marijuanna use, I'd have no problems.
> If I don't have to pay your welfare, or if I can fire you for poor performance, and I don't have to pay your medical bills, go ahead, smoke your brains out.
> 
> <snip>
> ...


Do you feel that alcohol should also be prohibited by the same reasoning?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

The problem with these arguments is the fact that the majority of people who are against something don't use it and therefore see no benefits. The people who continue to use marijuana seem to enjoy the effects and therefore that must be taken into account.

There is a cost to everyone on just about everything other people do. If my neighbor cuts his grass the noise goes into the bedroom where I am taking a nap, but it would appear that my neighbor gets a lot out of having a well groomed lawn, enough to go to the trouble of running a lawn mower over it. This list of other peoples annoyances could go on forever if we all started adding to it. As was stated above. Marijuana was not legalized because we knew it was safe. Common sense should tell anyone the contrary. It was not legalized because we knew it would not bother other people. People will always find something to complain about. As Twain once said, nothing needs reforming more then other people's habits. Marijuana was legalized because a very large majority of our voting public were using it and we failed to stop them and were wasting a tremendous amount of taxpayer money for very little positive change.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

It is all about "Social Control".

Pot was used as a Legal Reason to stop you and ask for I,D, because the Constitution says that the cops need a reason to stop and search you.
The Ruling Class used anti-drug laws as a police control method.

Anti-Drug laws are not needed anymore.
Too many middle class kids getting arrested.
That is why pot is now legal.

Social Control is now performed by Anti-Terror legislation.
Cops can stop anybody who they think is a terrorist.

Politicians are different than the cops ....

When Politicians want to stop a wealthy person and learn about them, they just invent a law or regulation that might affect some wealthy person.

In no time flat hundreds of people are calling congress and wanting to influence the final writing of the new law. Begging to give the congress person some money.

It is a country of laws.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> The problem with these arguments is the fact that the majority of people who are against something don't use it and therefore see no benefits. The people who continue to use marijuana seem to enjoy the effects and therefore that must be taken into account.
> 
> There is a cost to everyone on just about everything other people do. If my neighbor cuts his grass the noise goes into the bedroom where I am taking a nap, but it would appear that my neighbor gets a lot out of having a well groomed lawn, enough to go to the trouble of running a lawn mower over it. This list of other peoples annoyances could go on forever if we all started adding to it. As was stated above. Marijuana was not legalized because we knew it was safe. Common sense should tell anyone the contrary. It was not legalized because we knew it would not bother other people. People will always find something to complain about. As Twain once said, nothing needs reforming more then other people's habits. Marijuana was legalized because a very large majority of our voting public were using it and we failed to stop them and were wasting a tremendous amount of taxpayer money for very little positive change.


People almost always want to ban stuff they don't see a need for. If they understand the reason to have it, they might consider it.

Marijunana isn't safe. I'm not saying it is instant death, realistically it is somewhere in the middle.

The question is what the cost/benefit is, and if we should allow it.
That's really what it boils down to, some people think the benefit is greater than the cost, some people think the cost is greater than the benefit.

I personally feel that both the cost and benefit are generally pretty small for alcohol and marijuanna.
However I do feel that for some people the costs are much higher, I know many people who have had significant negative impact due to the use/abuse of alcohol or marijuanna.

The biggest concern I have with marijuanna is that there is perception that it is safe, unfortunately we know it interferes with brain development until young adulthood (early 20's), I think that's a problem.
My overall opinion is that
1. The risks of marijuanna use are not widely known, available, or communicated to the users.
- since they generally don't have this information, there is a problem with the "free and informed choice" argument. Particularly when the government does not provide appropriate warnings regarding safe usage.
2. There are significant externalities.
3. The cost/benefit isn't worth it. This is based on anecdotal evidence of those who have used, quit, and the comments from those people and their families/social circles.


FWIW, I do consume alcohol, yet I think drunk driving should have the death penalty (morally, pragmatically I don't think this is a good idea)


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Marijunana isn't safe. I'm not saying it is instant death, realistically it is somewhere in the middle.


.
Not Safe?

Going outside is not even safe anymore.
People are swallowing so many pharmaceutical drugs that our waterways are polluted and the fish have three eyes.
Foods are chemically formulated. (Some contain plastic microbeads.)
We are swimming in a world totally contaminated by chemicals.
You will notice that the March Of Dimes does not talk about what caused cancer. They only talk about a cure, Not allowed to talk about what chemicals may of caused the cancer.

I buy a jar of jam at the store and the fruit was grown near Chernobyl.

Smoke a joint and turn on your music.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

As I said. It does not really matter whether it is safe or not. Canadians are going to use it and the government cannot seem to stop it. Soooooo, they threw in the towel and legalized it. End of story.

At least with it legal we might be able to get some data on it so that a future generation might know more about it's real effects and not its mythical effects as we seem to know them now. As for the current generation. They will be forced to use their common sense as to the long term effects. As I said before, to me it is common sense. Inhaling smoke into your lungs just has to be bad for you. I am not really sure I need a comprehensive study to prove that but I am always open to be proven wrong if we ever get one. For now that is what makes sense to me. Until a good study comes along in 10 or 20 years, I will simply go with that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> As I said. It does not really matter whether it is safe or not. Canadians are going to use it and the government cannot seem to stop it. Soooooo, they threw in the towel and legalized it. End of story.


You know, we should try that with more.
Murder, we know it's not safe, Canadians are going to do it, and the government can't seem to stop it, so they should throw in the towel and legalize it. End of Story.

The idea because it's impossible, shouldn't prevent the attempt.

Marijuanna was legal, then illegal, now legal again. The argument that "it's the law" shouldn't be "end of story" is equally stupid.

We should discuss the issue on its merits and create policy accordingly.

Again, as long as I don't have to pay for your Doritos, I don't care if you smoke pot. 
But we seem to be on this nanny state of irresponsible entitlement, which I find objectionable.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I can think of countless instances where the government decided to walk away from a policy or a law.

It is not just a law.
It is about "Enforcing" a law.

Governments did not "Enforce" the laws against the Economic Terrorists on Wall Street after the collapse in 2008.

The government has many laws.

The government writes the "Law" ..... The Ruling Class decide which laws to "Enforce" and more importantly ..... which city will be purposely selected to experience these laws being enforced.?

The CIA introduced many drugs into American cities.
When the Vietnam war was happening, millions of tons of drugs was shipped out of Vietnam and Laos.
North America was swimming in all things smoke-able.
It probably paid for the Vietnam War.
Even today, the CIA entered Afghanistan 10 years ago, and the size of the Poppy Crop has totally and hugely increased.
Who is buying all that heroin from Afghanistan? I bet all the druggies had FaceBook profiles. (We should close down FaceBook?)
American Cities bought all that heroin from Afghanistan.
How was it all shipped out?
Who fueled the planes and who fed the donkeys?

Drugs are not grown in a cave like Osama and The Boys.
These poppies are growing in plain sight, like corn on the cob fields in America.
The CIA probably sold it to America and it served as a tax to help pay for the war.

Maybe the peace deal with the Taliban was America controls the oil and the Taliban control the Poppies?

Drugs create a demand for U.S. currency and which helps with the GDP.

Drugs are only about Social Control.

A jail cell cost a minimum of 50 thousand a year.

Social Control is an "Industry" .

Kind of like Sheep Farmers.
-------
Edit:

Everything was going according to plan until this virus hit North America,
And now we got supply chain complications. And we now have the street violence because a zillion heroin addicts need their fix.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Marijuana has been studied for years, and the research is pretty clear that it is a benign substance that causes no long term harm.

There are many beneficial uses for marijuana from relief from nerve pain to an aid for stress and anxiety.

What happened to the predictions that people would be driving around stoned causing all kinds of accidents ?

Conservatives should just give it up already. Everyone knows their talking points on marijuana are total BS based on religious ideology.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think legalizing and making it more banal actually will likely help with reducing use among youth who are most at risk of cognitive problems. A lot of marijuana use is rebelliousness. Legalizing and public education seems to be working quite well with reducing tobacco use and binge drinking for young people. It is absolutely hilarious to think any degree of prohibition is going to have a meaningful impact on availability of marijuana, and you also have the consider the enormous social costs of prohibition (incarcerating young people, making them unemployable, putting them onto a path to more serious crime, etc.).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> What happened to the predictions that people would be driving around stoned causing all kinds of accidents ?
> 
> Conservatives should just give it up already. Everyone knows their talking points on marijuana are total BS based on religious ideology.


Indeed. The world did not end when Canada legalized marijuana and much of the FUD about it has been shown to be misplaced.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I wonder if MrMatt would apply similar logic to gun ownership. Why should I allow people to own guns when I have to pay the police that deal with domestic disturbances or when a kid shoots his brother with an unsecured gun. The rights of those many people who own guns legally and without incident be damned..


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I wonder if MrMatt would apply similar logic to gun ownership. Why should I allow people to own guns when I have to pay the police that deal with domestic disturbances or when a kid shoots his brother with an unsecured gun. The rights of those many people who own guns legally and without incident be damned..


Sure, why not?
Well again, it's the cost benefit.

Legally owned guns cause virtually no harm in Canada.

Care to tell me the last time a kid shot his brother with a legal firearm in Canada?
How many domestic disturbances in Canada involved a legally owned firearm?

These things, from a practical standpoint don't really happen that often.
If a spouse feels they're at risk, they can get their partners guns seized immediately.

If you look at US data, defensive use of firearms dwarfs offensive use of firearms.
Also they have a truly massive illegal gun problem.
Heck cilivilians with carry permits commit fewer crimes overall than almost any other group, including police.

The data backed reality is law abiding gun owners are the group you WANT to be around.

The big issue I see with marijuanna use is that like smoking, there isn't some "safe" level that I'm aware of.
Quite simply you can't use it safely.

Guns, cars, knives, swimming pools, bathtubs, all safe when used properly, all potentially dangerous when used improperly.

So as a debate it's pretty simple, but I understand that most people don't really believe in science and data.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The big issue I see with marijuanna use is that like smoking, there isn't some "safe" level that I'm aware of.
> Quite simply you can't use it safely.


I think this is the place your argument falls down. Evidence that marijuana is particularly dangerous?


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I don't know of any person who smoked a doobie and then went out to commit a break and enter.
I think mostly they just stayed home and spazzed out with a bag of chips.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think this is the place your argument falls down. Evidence that marijuana is particularly dangerous?


1. Smoking particulate causes cancer. Please find any evidence that proves inhaling smoke particles has no ill effect.
2. What are marijuana's long-term effects on the brain? | National Institute on Drug Abuse

To be clear, there is some evidence that marijuana causes harm across various aspects of ones health.
I am not aware of any information that it is safe.

My argument isn't that it's particularly dangerous.
My argument is that the risks of usage are not available to the users, or well publicized and known by the users.
I think they've done a good job communicating some of the risks of tobacco smoke and alcohol to people, not so with pot.

I think we should have quantified the risks of marijuana before legalizing it.
We should have also had an education campaign on the risks of use.

I think it is a bad idea to push policies without clear evidence as to their impact, and if there are risks, to not address them as part of the policy. Pot legalization was simply a vote buying exercise.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I used to laugh out loud each time I saw somebody peddling a bike in downtown Toronto near the waterfront. I could not believe that health nuts were peddling bikes through a haze of exhaust fumes from the Gardner Expressway and with a huge smile on their faces.

Maybe they were like pot smokers with suicidal tendencies?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> 1. Smoking particulate causes cancer. Please find any evidence that proves inhaling smoke particles has no ill effect.


One does not need to smoke marijuana to consume it.



> 2. What are marijuana's long-term effects on the brain? | National Institute on Drug Abuse
> 
> To be clear, there is some evidence that marijuana causes harm across various aspects of ones health.
> I am not aware of any information that it is safe.











How Marijuana Affects Your Mind and Body


Pot, weed, dope, or marijuana. No matter what you call it, here’s what it will do to your body and brain.




www.webmd.com








> My argument isn't that it's particularly dangerous.
> My argument is that the risks of usage are not available to the users, or well publicized and known by the users.
> I think they've done a good job communicating some of the risks of tobacco smoke and alcohol to people, not so with pot.


Seems to me that risks of marijuana are reasonably well advertised. It's not clear to me that prohibition improves education about risks.



> I think we should have quantified the risks of marijuana before legalizing it.
> We should have also had an education campaign on the risks of use.
> 
> I think it is a bad idea to push policies without clear evidence as to their impact, and if there are risks, to not address them as part of the policy. Pot legalization was simply a vote buying exercise.


I think the risks are reasonably well known. Prohibition presents a barrier to further study. There are medical uses where marijuana and derived compounds has shown clear and unquestionable benefit. There will always be room for more study, and that study can lead to harm reduction for people who are going to use these drugs. Under prohibition there is no regulation of THC content, etc. 

We have clear evidence that prohibition was an utter failure. What about using evidence to guide policy on prohibition?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mr.Matt would probably be surprised how many of his friends and family partake of the weed.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> We have clear evidence that prohibition was an utter failure. What about using evidence to guide policy on prohibition?


Okay, should we relax the prohibitions on other bad things because prohibition is hard?
To be fair, particularly in recent years they never really enforced the prohibition on marijuana anyway.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Mr.Matt would probably be surprised how many of his friends and family partake of the weed.


Depending on the subcircle it ranges from nearly 0 to 100%.
Just because I think it is a bad thing doesn't mean I'm unaware of who's using it.

It's interesting, you seem to conflate disagreement with ignorance. 
Not having the facts isn't the only reason to disagree.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Okay, should we relax the prohibitions on other bad things because prohibition is hard?
> To be fair, particularly in recent years they never really enforced the prohibition on marijuana anyway.


Sugar is also bad, and no evidence that it is good. Agreed? Should we regulate it like cocaine as well?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Sugar is also bad, and no evidence that it is good. Agreed? Should we regulate it like cocaine as well?


I do believe that's what the nanny state wants to do.

Also there is evidence that there is a safe dose of sugar. There is no such evidence to particulate matter.

Lets start there maybe.
lets ban smoking marijuana in a manner that expose others.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I do believe that's what the nanny state wants to do.
> 
> Also there is evidence that there is a safe dose of sugar. There is no such evidence to particulate matter.
> 
> ...


All prohibitions on second-hand smoking for tobacco apply to marijuana as well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I do believe that's what the nanny state wants to do.


You will find no one who actually believes this (incarceration for possession of a few grams of sugar for instance).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> All prohibitions on second-hand smoking for tobacco apply to marijuana as well.


That is not true. You can smoke marijuana in some places where it is not legal to smoke tobacco.
Can you smoke or vape cannabis in your apartment or rental unit? - FREE Legal Information | Legal Line


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You seem to be alluding to the medical use exemption, which doesn't have anything to do with legalizing recreational marijuana.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You seem to be alluding to the medical use exemption, which doesn't have anything to do with legalizing recreational marijuana.


No, I'm talking specifically about exposure to people without their consent.
"lets ban smoking marijuana in a manner that expose others."

"All prohibitions on second-hand smoking for tobacco apply to marijuana as well." << You made this false claim.
I provided evidence that it is not true.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> You know, we should try that with more.
> Murder, we know it's not safe, Canadians are going to do it, and the government can't seem to stop it, so they should throw in the towel and legalize it. End of Story.
> 
> The idea because it's impossible, shouldn't prevent the attempt.
> ...


I am pretty sure the law against murder dramatically reduces the rate of its occurrence. 

If you want to give out life sentences for Marijuana use I imagine you would have seen a decline in that as well, but I don't think anyone was going to do that so here we are. Can't stop them and without enough reason to continue they decided to legalize it. Nothing is perfect, but it was a smart move.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No, I'm talking specifically about exposure to people without their consent.
> "lets ban smoking marijuana in a manner that expose others."
> 
> "All prohibitions on second-hand smoking for tobacco apply to marijuana as well." << You made this false claim.
> I provided evidence that it is not true.


The exception seems to be for medical reasons, which has nothing to do with recreational marijuana.

That said, not sure if there is any evidence to suggest that second hand marijuana smoke is as harmful as tobacco. I find smoke objectionable as well, but you seem to be rather emotional about this. If I had my druthers loud exhausts would be banned with decibel limits on road vehicles. I find them obnoxious. They probably have more negative health effects than marijuana smoke.

Also, smoking is a big reason why I never wanted to live in a multi-unit residential building. As it stands now, I can still smell my neighbour's cigarette smoke wafting over sometimes outside.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> The exception seems to be for medical reasons, which has nothing to do with recreational marijuana.
> 
> That said, not sure if there is any evidence to suggest that second hand marijuana smoke is as harmful as tobacco. I find smoke objectionable as well, but you seem to be rather emotional about this. If I had my druthers loud exhausts would be banned with decibel limits on road vehicles. I find them obnoxious. They probably have more negative health effects than marijuana smoke.
> 
> Also, smoking is a big reason why I never wanted to live in a multi-unit residential building. As it stands now, I can still smell my neighbour's cigarette smoke wafting over sometimes outside.


Modified exhausts are prohibed under Ontario law.
I'd like to see a noise limit as well.
I'd also like it if Chrysler fixed their vehicles so that the headlights didn't turn off when you signal, but hey that's just me.

Back to pot, I shouldn't be forcibly medicated, marijuana does cause neurological changes, and that should not be applied to other people without their consent.
Secondly, I'm not aware of any research that shows a "safe dose" for airborne particulate.
As far as I know it's all dangerous, tobacco smoke just happens to put off a lot of it, but even sanding wood puts out a lot of particulate, that's why modern wood shops have a lot of filtration these days.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I dislike 2nd hand smoke when I have visitors arriving.
The hallway smells like a greenhouse.
My visitors will think my building is a druggie hideout.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Modified exhausts are prohibed under Ontario law.
> I'd like to see a noise limit as well.


Given how common they are, I think this falls under another example of the ineffectiveness of prohibition. A lot of vehicles are exempt, such as motorcycles, or come from the factory with unnecessarily loud exhausts. Can't wait for EVs to take over.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Given how common they are, I think this falls under another example of the ineffectiveness of prohibition. A lot of vehicles are exempt, such as motorcycles, or come from the factory with unnecessarily loud exhausts. Can't wait for EVs to take over.


I think it's a lack of enforcement.
Just like illegal handguns in Toronto.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think that is melodramatic. In many parts of downtown you can detect the odour of marijuana smoke. But same is true of cigarettes. Addicts you see on the streets are not there because of marijuana. More likely heroin, meth, etc.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Sugar is also bad, and no evidence that it is good. Agreed? Should we regulate it like cocaine as well?


No evidence that sugar is good? Glucose is the primary fuel for your brain! Comparing sugar (whether refined or not) to cocaine is ridiculous. Cocaine is a huge problem in any quantity while small amounts of refined sugar is not harmful and has numerous benefits for a variety of individuals. Readily used in healthcare, sport, etc.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Your body can make all the glucose your brain needs. Your dietary requirement is 0g. And sugar is sucrose, not glucose.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Your body can make all the glucose your brain needs. Your dietary requirement is 0g. And sugar is sucrose, not glucose.


Glucose is not a sugar??? Someone needs to go back to school. All carbohydrates are sugars. Please stop spreading misinformation. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Sugar, as in table sugar, is sucrose. What you are saying is akin to saying that salt is potassium chloride. Potassium chloride is _a _salt, but not what people generally mean when they say salt (sodium chloride).

People don't bake cookies and make cakes with glucose as a sweetener. Glucose is not as sweet as sugar. The fructose component of sugar (and corn syrups, etc.) are what is problematic about sugar, as only the liver can only metabolize it, and excess fructose causes fatty liver. I would say it is misinformation to cast sugar as a good or required source of the glucose required by the brain. Glucose can be synthesized by your body in absence of sugar (sucrose), in sufficient quantity to meet the brain's need, and glucose can be derived from non-sucrose carbohydrates.

I don't think the invective is helpful or called for.









Abundance of Fructose Not Good for the Liver, Heart - Harvard Health Publications - Harvard Health


A high intake of fructose can lead to a buildup of fat in the liver, as well as an increase in bad cholesterol, blood pressure, and other factors that are bad for the heart. ...




www.health.harvard.edu


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Comparing "sugar" or in your case refined table sugar to cocaine is ridiculous. Consuming small amounts of simple refined sugars is not unhealthy in the context of a healthy balanced diet and lifestyle. Over consumption is a different story. Sugar is not an evil poison some lead you to believe.

Labelling sugar as bad simply distracts one from the true problem.

Enough said, I'm not about to turn this into a biochemistry lesson. 

Sorry if I was coming across rudely, it's just very frustrating to read.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Clearly, they are both on the spectrum of 'controlled substances', with several jurisdictions imposing sin taxes on sugary beverages. However, you correctly note that the comparison was absurd, it was an attempt at the reductio ad absurdum logical argument against the original argument that (A) marijuana is at least somewhat 'bad' and (B) all bad things should be prohibited therefore (C) marijuana should be prohibited. You can slot many things in place of marijuana in proposition (A) that makes the conclusion absurd, therefore the argument is not sound.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Ah, the dreaded fat tax. This is not just on sugary drinks. It's bad public policy that fails to address the real problem. A topic for another thread!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Is it time for Canada to consider decriminalizing all drugs like Oregon just did? This would mean no jail time for small amounts of any drug (cocaine, meth, etc)

With this measure, the penalty for minor drug possession will be similar to a traffic ticket. $100 fine if you are caught with a small amount of cocaine, heroine, etc. and I believe it comes with mandatory referral to addiction counselling.

This is a good move to stop wasting everyone's time and money, including the courts, for small drug offences. The police can then focus their time & energy on more significant crimes... which is what most of us want.

Lots of money will be saved on not arresting, not prosecuting, and not jailing people for minor drug offences. We know that Conservatives love to save money, and want government to mostly stay out of people's business... so I expect this would be popular among Conservatives and Republicans.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Is it time for Canada to consider decriminalizing all drugs like Oregon just did? This would mean no jail time for small amounts of any drug (cocaine, meth, etc)
> 
> With this measure, the penalty for minor drug possession will be similar to a traffic ticket. $100 fine if you are caught with a small amount of cocaine, heroine, etc. and I believe it comes with mandatory referral to addiction counselling.
> 
> ...


Haha, mandatory addiction counselling? You try to implement that and the lefties will be all over you.
You're not the boss of me! Just give me my money.

Many people don't even think drug abuse is a problem


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Many people? 

Conservatives tend to want to punish drug users for their moral failures. Prison and homelessness is what they deserve. Add a dash of racism and you get the war on drugs. Thankfully that is starting to end and we are beginning to treat it as the socialogical and public health problem it is, rather than a matter of ever harsher criminal penalties.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Many people?
> 
> Conservatives tend to want to punish drug users for their moral failures. Prison and homelessness is what they deserve. Add a dash of racism and you get the war on drugs. Thankfully that is starting to end and we are beginning to treat it as the socialogical and public health problem it is, rather than a matter of ever harsher criminal penalties.


I guess.

I'm not that type of Conservative though.

I agree it is a public health problem, and we need to develop more sophisticated methods to deal with it.

Drug addiction is most certainly NOT a "moral failing".
For sufficiently antisocial behaviour, I'm not opposed to criminal penalties, or aggressive attempts to address the problem.

Being an alcoholic is a public health problem, driving a car and putting people at risk is criminal.

Pretending that substance abuse impact doesn't exist on a spectrum from marginally bad, to absolutely abhorrent is ignorant.

That being said, I don't think encouraging recreational drug use is a good idea.
Legalizing pot, calling supervised injection sites "safe injection" sites is misleading.

I agree with the restrictions we have on tobacco and alcohol advertising. Perhaps we should do more here as well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Vice has been running a pretty interesting series on the War on Drugs. Just saw this and thought I would share. Essentially, there is a massive problem with cannabis adulterated with synthetic CBD compounds in Germany. Goes to answer the question of why we are legalizing marijuana (to provide a regulated supply). As the dealer in the video says, people think they are buying a shanty but are instead getting moonshine.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

We're legalizing pot because it won Trudeau an election.

As a recreational product, it is unsafe.
Knowing what we know, legalizing pot makes less sense than legalizing tobacco.

This whole "a legal supply is safer" argument is BS, it's laziness and an unwillingness to do the right thing.

I shouldn't be forced to get my fentanyl from street vendors, they should have it at Walmart, maybe subsidize it with tax dollars.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Strawman. And prohibition is a taxpayer subsidy (costs the treasury). Legalization generates revenue. Experience with jurisdictions that have legalized shows that the sky has not fallen. It is absolutely bizarre to see people who normally espouse libertarian views twist themselves into knots to justify prohibition.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> ^ Strawman. And prohibition is a taxpayer subsidy (costs the treasury). Legalization generates revenue. Experience with jurisdictions that have legalized shows that the sky has not fallen. It is absolutely bizarre to see people who normally espouse libertarian views twist themselves into knots to justify prohibition.


I'm being pragmatic.
We have governments that have massive control over our lives and reallocated tremendous amounts of wealth, often to our detriment.
Given the incredible influence and control they've been granted over our lives, shouldn't at least some of that be directed to our benefit?


Personally I'm only libertarian leaning due to the lack of better options.
Look at the US President & Senate, or the Canadian PM, do you _really_ want them deciding how things should be done?

Given the choice between them, and not them, I choose not them.

If governments were capable of making good decisions I'd be happier giving them more power, but since they are not, they shouldn't... hence my Liberal leanings.

Finally I'm okay with you smoking pot, just
1. Don't expose me or my family to any of your pollution
2. Don't expect me to pay for it.
3. Don't expect me to bail out any impacts it has upon your life. ie take responsibility for your decision.

Unless you take the libertarian position in regards to your actions, don't expect me to take it in regards to your actions either.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> ^ Strawman. And prohibition is a taxpayer subsidy (costs the treasury). Legalization generates revenue. Experience with jurisdictions that have legalized shows that the sky has not fallen. It is absolutely bizarre to see people who normally espouse libertarian views twist themselves into knots to justify prohibition.


Lets legalize prostitution then.

Oh wait, we can't take the libertarian position and allow people bodily autonomy. My body my choice.. unless, you know, we actually let people choose things for themselves.

Secondly spending tax dollars for the benefit of society is reasonable, and arguably the only reason for taxation.
The government should definitely not be putting profit before people.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Lets legalize prostitution then.


It's legal in some countries ... just saying.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> It's legal in some countries ... just saying.


But not here, so why the double standard?
It's really simple actually.

Pot was legalized for votes, there is no moral, philosophical or scientific reason, just votes.

Prostitution is banned because our political leaders are overwhelmingly sexist. 
Heck here the laws are specifically designed based on being "victim centric", because people don't believe women should be permitted bodily autonomy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HodgesNick said:


> That's actually not a bad thing to do. Just try doing some research for yourself. It would actually help with diminishing the rape rate, the girls working in the domain would have actual healthcare benefits and proper conditons. STDs would be so much more controlled, etc...


yes, part of me agrees with this.
However if you consider sex violence against women, then simply decrimalizing a bad thing doesn't suddenly make it good.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> But not here, so why the double standard?


Many different standards exist around the world, maybe the next PM will get elected by making prostitution legal!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Lets legalize prostitution then.
> 
> Oh wait, we can't take the libertarian position and allow people bodily autonomy. My body my choice.. unless, you know, we actually let people choose things for themselves.
> 
> ...


I think you believe I wouldn't agree with this. I think prostitution should be legalized and regulated to address issues of STI/public health, violence against women, and people trafficking/slavery. And if you think people shouldn't engage in sex work (I'm not a big fan of its existence), you should address it by providing the right supports for those who are drawn to it out of desperation, etc. to escape that lifestyle. There are some that claim to quite like it and I can't really second guess them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> But not here, so why the double standard?
> It's really simple actually.
> 
> Pot was legalized for votes, there is no moral, philosophical or scientific reason, just votes.
> ...


Prostitution has not been legalized.... yet. It is probably coming in Canada (there have been Supreme Court cases on the matter). It is definitely a bridge beyond legalizing pot. I also tend to think we should decriminalize harder drugs and treat addiction as a public health problem. A lot of petty property crime and theft is to fund drug addiction habits that are beyond the reach of public health outreach. I would not object to public health supplying safe supply of such drugs to bring addicts into contact with programs to get them help and break the cycle. It is very expensive to force them to the shadows and tie up emergency services, prisons, hospitals not to mention the property loss and damage. Also highly related to homelessness.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> yes, part of me agrees with this.
> However if you consider sex violence against women, then simply decrimalizing a bad thing doesn't suddenly make it good.


Prohibiting sex work prevents sex workers from seeking legal recourse/protection from harm. Also it makes it harder to identify people are being trafficked for sex work. Wanting to ban all these things seems akin to wanting to stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen. I think it is better to let it all happen in the open and have the legal system handle any disputes rather than guys shooting each other outside nightclubs on Friday night.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think you believe I wouldn't agree with this. I think prostitution should be legalized and regulated to address issues of STI/public health, violence against women, and people trafficking/slavery. And if you think people shouldn't engage in sex work (I'm not a big fan of its existence), you should address it by providing the right supports for those who are drawn to it out of desperation, etc. to escape that lifestyle. There are some that claim to quite like it and I can't really second guess them.


Well, you actually get to part of the problem. " providing the right supports for those who are drawn to it out of desperation"
This is the path to ..... massive welfare support and Universal basic income.

I don't think anyone should be forced into sex work.
But the same logic that nobody should be coerced through economic pressures to do work they find distasteful leads to a whole bunch of things.

I know people who find the following work "distasteful"
sex work
medical work
sanitation & garbage
law enforcement (prison guards more than police)
restaurant work/Food service

and on and on.
Some people walk out of call centers because it's a "horrible work environment". I know people who quit high paying design jobs because National Defense is "unethical".

To be fair I actually know people who do all those jobs, many enjoy them. I did know some sex workers who actually enjoyed their jobs.
So where is the dividing line of what we should as a society pay to avoid and not?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Well, you actually get to part of the problem. " providing the right supports for those who are drawn to it out of desperation"
> This is the path to ..... massive welfare support and Universal basic income.


I'm not talking welfare or UBI here. I mean people who are doing sex work to fund addictions, etc. Supports I meant were more along the lines of assisting with getting independent housing, training, addiction treatment, etc. Not financial assistance. Your whole diatribe about prima donnas not wanting to do certain jobs is not really relevant. Or are you trying to say that people shouldn't be picky about doing sex work? I'm honestly kind of baffled. People shouldn't be 'above' working in a call centre or a rub and tug?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> But not here, so why the double standard?
> It's really simple actually.
> 
> Pot was legalized for votes, there is no moral, philosophical or scientific reason, just votes.
> ...


If an issue garners votes isn't that democracy? If the issue was that divisive, it wouldn’t have been brought forward, or the sponsoring party would have lost. If we grant some freedoms, without alienating a large group, then I think it’s ok. Not pontificating, just asking.
a issue was put on a platform, and that party won. If it was deemed an issue by the rest of the parties, they would run on criminalizing it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> If an issue garners votes isn't that democracy? If the issue was that divisive, it wouldn’t have been brought forward, or the sponsoring party would have lost. If we grant some freedoms, without alienating a large group, then I think it’s ok. Not pontificating, just asking.
> a issue was put on a platform, and that party won. If it was deemed an issue by the rest of the parties, they would run on criminalizing it.


Well that's actually my point.
It was legalized for votes, not any "scientific" reason.

One of the problems of democracy is that it can be wrong (factually wrong), bad ideas, and most importantly it's logically inconsistent.
There is no principles or coherent philosophy in a mob.

Also it was chosen as a wedge issue, it is very divisive.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Well that's actually my point.
> It was legalized for votes, not any "scientific" reason.
> 
> One of the problems of democracy is that it can be wrong (factually wrong), bad ideas, and most importantly it's logically inconsistent.
> ...


I don’t think it was divisive. and I don’t seen it changing.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> I don’t think it was divisive. and I don’t seen it changing.


I don't see how you can not see how divisive an issue it is.

But I don't see it changing either, it's not a vote getting.

Some things, as wrong as they are, aren't going to get fixed.
Banning sexual or racial discrimination for instance, everyone knows it's wrong, nobody is going to ban it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Prostitution has not been legalized.... yet.


Prostitution is not a crime in Canada.
If you think it is, please link to the section of the Criminal code.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Prostitution is not a crime in Canada.
> If you think it is, please link to the section of the Criminal code.


Because it wouldn't withstand a charter challenge. Everything around prostitution is illegal (living off proceeds, solicitation, etc.), which makes it defacto illegal. It is obviously not a well-functioning legal market, but a black market.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I don't see how you can not see how divisive an issue it is.
> 
> But I don't see it changing either, it's not a vote getting.
> 
> ...


Cannabis legalization enjoyed 70% support. Would you be willing to let 30% of the population dictate what laws you need to live under? I can only imagine what fun policies could be dreamed up that have 70% opposition and 30% support.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Cannabis legalization enjoyed 70% support. Would you be willing to let 30% of the population dictate what laws you need to live under? I can only imagine what fun policies could be dreamed up that have 70% opposition and 30% support.


46%/36%

Being indifferent isn't support.





__





Abacus Data | Canadians are ready for legal cannabis







abacusdata.ca


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Six in ten (61%) ‘support’ (26% strongly/35% somewhat) the ‘legalization of marijuana for recreational use in Canada


we can all find stats to support our argument. This issue is a non-issue


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Now your turn.....find some data that says the opposite. Let’s keep this thread alive.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Six in ten (61%) ‘support’ (26% strongly/35% somewhat) the ‘legalization of marijuana for recreational use in Canada
> 
> 
> we can all find stats to support our argument. This issue is a non-issue


Actually the stats are pretty significant.
That being said, the government should endeavour to "do the right thing".

Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Actually the stats are pretty significant.
> That being said, the government should endeavour to "do the right thing".
> 
> Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right.


“Right” is often a matter of opinion. i Disagree with a lot of laws, but I try to obey them since the majority feels they are important.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> “Right” is often a matter of opinion. i Disagree with a lot of laws, but I try to obey them since the majority feels they are important.


Not in Canada.
I feel that the laws are generally legitimate because they've come to be in a process we've agreed to.

We haven't had a government elected by a majority of the population since Mulroney.
To suggest that a majority feels they're important isn't true.

But as long as the system is believed to be fair, the vast majority of us can agree to accept it.
That's the problem with corruption.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> 46%/36%
> 
> Being indifferent isn't support.
> 
> ...











7 in 10 Canadians support marijuana legalization: Nanos poll


Nearly 70 per cent of Canadians are in favour of marijuana legalization, according to a new Nanos survey.



www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Actually the stats are pretty significant.
> That being said, the government should endeavour to "do the right thing".
> 
> Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right.


That's kind of your job to convince the population it is a bad policy. It has not been a resounding success (mostly due to government bungling of legalized distribution) but legal procurement of marijuana is up front 10% to 30%. It will take time for people to move over to legal distribution. Regular usage has risen only slightly, and not at all among young adults.

The sky did not fall chicken little.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Actually the stats are pretty significant.
> That being said, the government should endeavour to "do the right thing".
> 
> Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right.


Should we ban pork because our Jewish and Muslim minorities disapprove? After all, bacon is harmful to your health.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Should we ban pork because our Jewish and Muslim minorities disapprove? After all, bacon is harmful to your health.


Bacon isn't harmful to your health.
Should we ban tofu since soy consumption is harmful to your health?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

More people die every year from being attacked by swarms of army ants than die from marijuana use.

More people suffer brain damage from cellphone use every year than from marijuana use.

More people get severely ill every year from wearing a pink bikini than from marijuana use.

So if you aren't overtaken by a swarm of army ants while wearing a pink bikini and talking on your cellphone..........you should be okay with a bit of the bud.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Bacon isn't harmful to your health.
> Should we ban tofu since soy consumption is harmful to your health?


No, that would be way too popular! You have to pick the minority position and impose it on the rest of society.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

I thought this recent study was apropos: we legalized it to increase junk food sales and stimulate the economy.





Legalizing marijuana boosts junk food sales


Legalizing recreational marijuana leads to increased sales of ice cream, cookies and chips, according to a first-of-its-kind study establishing a causal relationship between legal cannabis and junk food consumption.




academictimes.com





Why do you think the founders of Ben and Jerry's were pushing hard for legalization?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Interesting study regarding cannabis legalization and decrease in opioid prescriptions used for pain control. The decrease in use and spending on opioids means a savings for the health care system.








Opioid Prescribing in Canada following the Legalization of Cannabis: A Clinical and Economic Time-Series Analysis - PubMed


Our findings support the hypothesis that easier access to cannabis for pain may reduce opioid use for both public and private drug plans.




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Interesting study regarding cannabis legalization and decrease in opioid prescriptions used for pain control. The decrease in use and spending on opioids means a savings for the health care system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know what else would decrease opioid prescriptions? Legalizing heroin.

Great cost savings to be found!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> You know what else would decrease opioid prescriptions? Legalizing heroin.
> 
> Great cost savings to be found!


What's wrong with legalizing heroin?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Another episode in Vice's excellent series on the war on drugs. This one is on the topic of legalizing harder drugs, and what that might look like and how effective it could be.






Prohibition has been an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> What's wrong with legalizing heroin?


What's wrong with legalizing opioids?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

cainvest said:


> What's wrong with legalizing opioids?


What's wrong with legalizing prostitution ?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

cainvest said:


> What's wrong with legalizing opioids?


I assume that was tongue in cheek, but didn't the opioid crisis start due to the fact that oxycontin (legal drug), was being prescribed and passed around like candy?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> I assume that was tongue in cheek, but didn't the opioid crisis start due to the fact that oxycontin (legal drug), was being prescribed and passed around like candy?


That was because we let companies like Purdue market opiods heavily, and essentially bribe doctors/mislead them into prescribing. Similar to letting tobacco companies sponsor sporting events and advertise on TV.

If someone develops a dependency, they should go into a treatment regime where they can be prescribed the substance under doctor supervision, not merely cut off and expected to go cold turkey. They end up turning to the grey or black market (buying illicit prescription pills or worse unregulated narcotics).


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> That was because we let companies like Purdue market opiods heavily, and essentially bribe doctors/mislead them into prescribing. Similar to letting tobacco companies sponsor sporting events and advertise on TV.
> 
> If someone develops a dependency, they should go into a treatment regime where they can be prescribed the substance under doctor supervision, not merely cut off and expected to go cold turkey. They end up turning to the grey or black market (buying illicit prescription pills or worse unregulated narcotics).


I don't disagree with you. My initial point is that the opioid crisis didn't start with the illegal opioids, but started with prescribed medication that was marketed as "safe" and "non-addictive". 
Strategies on addressing the whole opioid crisis is a whole other kettle of fish.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> I assume that was tongue in cheek, but didn't the opioid crisis start due to the fact that oxycontin (legal drug), was being prescribed and passed around like candy?


Ya, that was just in response to "legalizing heroin" ... basically the same thing as opioids. 



bgc_fan said:


> I don't disagree with you. My initial point is that the opioid crisis didn't start with the illegal opioids, but started with prescribed medication that was marketed as "safe" and "non-addictive".


Just wondering how any opioid can be marketed as "non-addictive"? 
It's well known to any doctor (and many people) that they are highly additive and can/do have side effects especially with prolonged use.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Just wondering how any opioid can be marketed as "non-addictive"?
> It's well known to any doctor (and many people) that they are highly additive and can/do have side effects especially with prolonged use.


Maybe marketed more as "less-addictive", by Purdue Pharma:

_Purdue Pharma and other companies promoted their opioid products heavily. They lobbied lawmakers, sponsored continuing medical-education courses, funded professional and patient organizations and sent representatives to visit individual doctors. During all of these activities, they emphasized the safety, efficacy and low potential for addiction of prescription opioids.

In fact, opioids are not particularly effective for treating chronic pain; with long-term use, people can develop tolerance to the drugs and even become more sensitive to pain. And the claim that OxyContin was less addictive than other opioid painkillers was untrue — Purdue Pharma knew that it was addictive, as it admitted in a 2007 lawsuit that resulted in a US$635 million fine for the company. But doctors and patients were unaware of that at the time._

But, what's interesting is that the article states that opioids aren't particularly effective for treating chronic pain, yet that's what was prescribed. OTOH marijuana has shown promise for dealing with chronic pain. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Another great entry in Vice's series on the War on Drugs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Maybe marketed more as "less-addictive", by Purdue Pharma:
> 
> _Purdue Pharma and other companies promoted their opioid products heavily. They lobbied lawmakers, sponsored continuing medical-education courses, funded professional and patient organizations and sent representatives to visit individual doctors. During all of these activities, they emphasized the safety, efficacy and low potential for addiction of prescription opioids.
> 
> ...


The reality is we really suck at treating chronic pain, and no pain relievers are actually safe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Maybe enlightening for the empathy deficient. I guess we could toss him in prison... that'd really solve the problem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Maybe enlightening for the empathy deficient. I guess we could toss him in prison... that'd really solve the problem.


I know, lets spend millions putting opiate dispensers on streetcorners.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-drug-dispensing-machine-opioids-overdoses-1.5429704




We need a better plan than the "free drugs for everyone everywhere all the time", and "put them in jail".
Both those plans suck, and they both lack empathy.

Honestly locking people up, or giving them all the drugs they want are both cruel, heartless and ineffective.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't see how that is 'free drugs for everyone'. It is prescribed by a doctor, which means addicts need to see and speak with that doctor at some point, and have an incentive to go back. The guy in the video tried methadone, but he couldn't maintain his commitments as a functioning member of society and attend a methadone clinic daily.



> *Who can use it?*
> Participants are opioid users who have a history of overdosing. They must undergo a medical evaluation before being prescribed hydromorphone and agree to regular followups with a health professional. During the pre-screening, a prospective participant must have fentanyl detected in their urine to be eligible.
> 
> MySafe is located next to an overdose prevention site and participants can use the drugs there in the presence of health-care and front-line workers. The machine can supply enough pills for 48 users, holding five days worth of drugs for each participant, all of whom have their own specific prescriptions.
> ...


Sounds like a pretty clever way of reducing the risk of overdose and getting addicts in contact with health professionals that can help them find an off-ramp to their addiction. I don't know what the alternative is: lecture addicts to just quit cold-turkey?

Fundamentally, it doesn't seem all that different to how my mother was able to quit smoking. She was a life long smoker who had quit at times but always found it very difficult. She joined a smoking cessation support group, lead by a public health nurse. They would meet weekly and exchange stories and what they were struggling with, the nurse would give advice, and they would also give various smoking cessation products for free (patches, lozenges, sprays, etc. whatever would work) and even advise on off-label use (ie, use way more than the recommended dose of patches if you couldn't manage the cravings without it). It was very successful. My mom found it very helpful and has stayed off tobacco (as well as all the cessation products) for 4 years now, even after my dad had a several-month relapse. She kept going for some time just for the community and accountability aspect. The program was very successful at helping people quit and maintain it.

I don't see why a similar approach can't be used for other addictive substances. No one is suggesting we just hand out oxy like candy to anyone who wants it. But if people are trying to (or at least considering to) quit, we can do better than forcing them to source suspect product on the street, and engage in criminality to fund it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> The reality is we really suck at treating chronic pain, and no pain relievers are actually safe.


I don't really understand what's going on in this entire area but I get the strong feeling that modern medicine is just failing to study / understand these issues.

There's the problem of treating chronic pain, which you bring up. As I understand it, many people's complaints about pain are not even taken seriously by doctors. It seems that medicine doesn't really know how to handle "pain", doesn't know the right strategy.

And I'm sure there are many doctors that just write the painkiller prescription and are 'done with it'. There, I addressed his/her pain. Next patient!

I don't have any answers for any of this. I just wish that the medical field would look more seriously at the fields of pain & addiction.

I think people would be surprised if they knew how many people around them, their coworkers, various professionals (lawyers, doctors, dentists, etc) had various kinds of pill addictions and substance use problems. Very very common, and very hidden.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> No one is suggesting we just hand out oxy like candy to anyone who wants it.


Yes there are those who are.
They literally want to decriminalize all possession.

I do not think widespread availability of high risk drugs is a good thing.
I think we need to address it in a compassionate and effective way.

I don't think simply giving them enough drugs that they stop bothering us, or so we undercut the illegal market, is a good idea.

Pain is not understood, therefore hard to treat.
Just like many mental illnesses are poorly understood and hard to treat.
Addiction is similarly hard to treat.

Just because something is hard, should we just give up.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Yes there are those who are.
> They literally want to decriminalize all possession.
> 
> I do not think widespread availability of high risk drugs is a good thing.
> ...


I don't see why you're criticizing that vending machine concept when the whole point is to get them connected with medical professionals and to avoid putting them at high risk of overdose (must have history of overdose and fentanyl use to qualify).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I don't see why you're criticizing that vending machine concept when the whole point is to get them connected with medical professionals and to avoid putting them at high risk of overdose (must have history of overdose and fentanyl use to qualify).


I'm against providing free opiates, or other drug abuse support systems without proper supports to provide treatment and protect the public at large.
I think these efforts are likely well meaning, and well intentioned, but they are being done without proper consideration of the trade offs and harms they inflict.

For example, in many cities, including mine, "needle exchange" gets back less than half the needles they give out. 
Availability of clean needles dramatically reduces transmission of blood borne illness. However improper disposal also has a cost.
I think at a 50% recovery rate we have to seriously consider if we're doing more harm than good. 

I feel that these systems, while they likely do have some positive effect, do not properly account for the negative effects.
For example, in the study of Insite (quoted previously), the flagship "supervised injection site", they claim there were no negative effects in any of the 40 studies they looked at.

Quite honestly anyone who says any policy is all good with absolutely no trade offs, is lying.
I can't think of a single policy that doesn't have at least 1 drawback. Might be small compared to the benefit, but nothing is all good.

Since there is little data, or discussion on the risks, because these "solutions" are being pushed by the proponents, and there is inadequate criticism. For example in this case they are willing to spend millions trying this, how much is being dedicated to investigate the negatives? Will they even collect such data, or share it with those who are critical?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> *why are we legalizing cannabis? *


*
So, people get high and still would thing that they live in the "best country in the World" LOL*


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Another episode in Vice's series. This one tackles how 'war on drugs' enforcement has led to child exploitation and trafficking by gangs looking to insulate themselves from enforcement.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Another episode in Vice's series. This one tackles how 'war on drugs' enforcement has led to child exploitation and trafficking by gangs looking to insulate themselves from enforcement.


Yeah, so we should prosecute them for child exploitation, just like we do in sex crimes.

Really the whole "we should get rid of drug laws because it's hard to enforce drug laws" argument rings hollow.
It's often hard to do the right thing, that doesn't mean we should give up.

I think the whole drug argument comes down to a few different arguments wrt drug prohibition.
1. Drugs aren't that bad, so we shouldn't ban them. I agree, if it is sufficiently dangerous it should be restricted, if not, it should not be restricted. I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept here.
2. It's hard to enforce the law. That's a dumb argument. 
- The benefits of enforcing the law are outweight by the cost of enforcing the law. Much more nuanced, but again I think it's wrong, allowing low level crimes feed into the higher level crimes. This is where the role of government should be balancing the costs and making the laws.
3. The government lacks the moral authority to make these rules. That argument can be made for lots, but I think the argument that we should be permitting self harm is weaker than their other infringements on our personal autonomy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's about prohibition. It doesn't work where there is a demand. Just like alcohol prohibition was a colossal failure. The only thing that will work is addressing demand.

We can keep tossing children in jail to show that we're being 'tough on crime' and give ourselves a pat on the back for waging the war on drugs. Who cares if we are actually making any progress in reducing drug use or not? As long as we are feeding children into the prison industrial complex. And we can do like the UK, and get children to act as police informants. No chance that is going to lead to children getting murdered by drug gangs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> It's about prohibition. It doesn't work where there is a demand. Just like alcohol prohibition was a colossal failure. The only thing that will work is addressing demand.


I agree that we need to address the demand side.

However I think, that restrictions and prohibitions are appropriate for sufficiently harmful activities.

We have a prohibition on murder, because it's bad. 
Just like other prohibitions, it has been a failure. That doesn't mean we should relax the prohibition, but we can't rely on punative measures alone to solve these problems.


I am very strongly anti drug.
I don't support either of the following approaches in their entirety.
The war on drugs and tough on crime
Supervised injection and government sponsored drug abuse & legalization

I think there is a middle ground between "here is your government heroin" and "life in jail for smoking pot".


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Another episode in the Vice series, this time focusing specifically on cannabis and talking at some length about the situation in Canada.


----------

