Canada's pot legalization bill to be introduced in spring 2017, minister tells UN

407 posts / 0 new
Last post
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'd like to thank the Liberals for their inactivity and tough words without action. Now I need to find a lawyer.

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering wrote:
Have you bothered to participate in the consultation?

I believe that the NDP has an opportunity to become a true party of the people. Am I the only one? You seem content to settle for a softer neoliberalism you just don't want the Liberals or Trudeau running it.

Yes I bothered even though it will make no difference since the fix is in. 

You clainming that I seem content to settle for a softer neoliberalism is a fucking bizarre statement coming from a sycophant for the Liberals. I told you months ago that this was coming but you just posted more tripe about how great Just'Isnt Trudeau is.  Given your posting history the idea that you want the NDP to succeed is totally laughable. 

i know eh. the ones here, and ya gotta know they poorly advised their peers too, saying "don't vote NDP they only want to decriminalize" are now pretending they didn't shill for Justin.

i'm so fkn sick of lyin liar fascists. because we might as well cut to the chase. when you support a government using tax dollars to have for wars for corporations then you're a supporter of fascism.

 

mark_alfred
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

That was a good read with excellent points.

But personally,I wouldn't care less if Imperial or MacDonald cornered the market. Back when cigarettes were acceptable,these companies employed a lot of people and offered a generous salary (though that was thanks to their Union to clarify.)

I'm tired of being labeled a criminal because I prefer to alter my mood smoking (or eating) a weed,so what? Why must I be strong armed to consume alcohol,something I do not enjoy at all?

But more importantly I'm awaiting a summons to appear in court for simple possession. I'm hoping there's a lot of beaurocracy and I'm not summoned for a year (fat chance)

I don't care whether it's Silly Billy's home crafted weed or BUDweiser or Imperial or MacDonald. I want the criminal code changed,period.Who reaps the profit,I couldn't care less.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Have you bothered to participate in the consultation?

I believe that the NDP has an opportunity to become a true party of the people. Am I the only one? You seem content to settle for a softer neoliberalism you just don't want the Liberals or Trudeau running it.

Yes I bothered even though it will make no difference since the fix is in. 

You clainming that I seem content to settle for a softer neoliberalism is a fucking bizarre statement coming from a sycophant for the Liberals. I told you months ago that this was coming but you just posted more tripe about how great Just'Isnt Trudeau is.  Given your posting history the idea that you want the NDP to succeed is totally laughable. 

Just because you call me something doesn't make it true. If I were a sycophant I would support CETA and TPP and wouldn't be critical of the Liberal's failure to follow through on C-51.

I want neoliberalism to fail and the best potential vehicle for that is the NDP if the executive can be deposed and for the NDP to find a leader that can lead from the left and can inspire people. 

There are minor differences between the NDP and the Liberals when it comes to actual governing. The NDP is pretty quiet on CETA so you don't think CETA is a big deal. 

From a MARKETING perspective he is hugely successful. You want to give him horns but that won't help defeat him. It does the opposite because it's quite obvious that he isn't a demon.

You warned me what was "coming"? Legalization is happening. That is what I want. I hope that the compassion clubs won't be shut out and that small growers will be able to operate but if neither of those things happen legalization will still happen. All I would have gotten from Mulcair was decriminalization and more studies.

Mulcair wouldn't have stopped the trade deals and you know it. He said he would renegotiate which we both know, and he knew, was not possible. The NDP executive is like the Labour executive in GB.

I don't care whether or not the NDP succeeds. I think they are the party most ripe for a takeover by the left. If that happens, then I want them to succeed. If it doesn't happen the NDP is redundant. You apparently have some nostalgia for the party so you will support it no matter what it becomes. That's fine. It's your right. It's also my right to want the NDP to become more progressive. Isn't this the third time the Liberal party has won by running to the left of the NDP?

The NDP's line has become we have to run on the right because that's the only way to win.

NDP support is down to its core supporters only. That means many former NDP supporters have gone Liberal. The Liberals aren't to blame for that the NDP is.

I'm not a sycophant for the Liberals. I give them no loyalty at all. Once legalization happens the playing field will be even again. I can be bought. If the NDP offers me something better than what the Liberals offer me then I will go NDP. If the Liberals offer me better then I will stick with them. I can't imagine the Conservatives ever offering me anything I want but if they did, or another new party arose, then I would vote for them. You are an NDP syncophant. They don't have to give a shit what you want because you will support them no matter what.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
Legalization is happening. That is what I want. I hope that the compassion clubs won't be shut out and that small growers will be able to operate but if neither of those things happen legalization will still happen.

no it won't because it's not "legalization" then.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Legalization is happening. That is what I want. I hope that the compassion clubs won't be shut out and that small growers will be able to operate but if neither of those things happen legalization will still happen.

no it won't because it's not "legalization" then.

So you think alcohol isn't legalized? I disagree. Just because distribution of alcohol is controlled doesn't mean it isn't legalized. Same goes for marijuana. I don't want existing compassion clubs and growers left out of the process. It would be an injustice but marijuana will still be legalized which is the primary goal.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So you think alcohol isn't legalized? I disagree. Just because distribution of alcohol is controlled doesn't mean it isn't legalized.

Interesting point.  And I get that I cannot sell moonshine out of my garage.  But what of craft brewers?  Specifically what does "control" mean in the context of them, other than that they have to be selling beer that meets some pretty minimal standards?

What SHOULD an independent grower have to do, in an age of "controlled" legalization?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
So you think alcohol isn't legalized? I disagree. Just because distribution of alcohol is controlled doesn't mean it isn't legalized.

Interesting point.  And I get that I cannot sell moonshine out of my garage.  But what of craft brewers?  Specifically what does "control" mean in the context of them, other than that they have to be selling beer that meets some pretty minimal standards?

What SHOULD an independent grower have to do, in an age of "controlled" legalization?

Regulations akin to growing tomatoes but the grower must remain responsible for keeping it out of the hands of minors because unlike wine marijuana doesn't need to be processed.

What I would like is for compassion clubs and their growers to be included in deliberations on a fair system. I don't think it needs to be sold at depanneurs or grocery stores. I would be fine with a system similar to alcohol. In Quebec that means the SAQ or a similar set up mainly because that would mean unionized workers.

swallow swallow's picture

In the meantime, people are still being charged for simple posession. That needs to stop. 

swallow swallow's picture

In the meantime, people are still being charged for simple posession. That needs to stop. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

swallow wrote:

In the meantime, people are still being charged for simple posession. That needs to stop. 

 

Amen to that. I'll keep you up to date on what happens at my court appearance. It was such a joke,the arresting officer said I'd most likely be fined or,if I have a decent lawyer,I can be exhonnerated.

So why go through all that paperwork for something that will most likely not pan out?

Meanwhile the Liberals come out and concede the current approach is not working yet the arrests continue. Shit or get off the pot (no pun intended)

A year. It would only take 5 minutes. Take off the Class 1 list. There.no longer a criminal issue,now let's move on. But no. Better to wait until suppposedly a year.

The studies were made and the Liberals were seriously looking at legalization back in 19fucking71. All it takes is the re-classification. So simple but logic is not the Liberals' strong point. Heavy pn talking the talk,not willing to even attempt to do the walk.

 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

In the meantime, people are still being charged for simple posession. That needs to stop. 

It's not going to stop. They've been pretty clear that the status quo remains until legalization which is less than a year away. Better to focus on other fights.

Complaining about lack of decriminalization for less than a year is a waste of time. It won't result in decriminalization nor in hurting Trudeau so I don't see the point.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

swallow wrote:

In the meantime, people are still being charged for simple posession. That needs to stop. 

 

Amen to that. I'll keep you up to date on what happens at my court appearance. It was such a joke,the arresting officer said I'd most likely be fined or,if I have a decent lawyer,I can be exhonnerated.

So why go through all that paperwork for something that will most likely not pan out?

Meanwhile the Liberals come out and concede the current approach is not working yet the arrests continue. Shit or get off the pot (no pun intended)

A year. It would only take 5 minutes. Take off the Class 1 list. There.no longer a criminal issue,now let's move on. But no. Better to wait until suppposedly a year.

The studies were made and the Liberals were seriously looking at legalization back in 19fucking71. All it takes is the re-classification. So simple but logic is not the Liberals' strong point. Heavy pn talking the talk,not willing to even attempt to do the walk.

 

I can see why you are annoyed but you know it isn't as simple as reclassification. It will be regulated.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
Legalization is happening. That is what I want. I hope that the compassion clubs won't be shut out and that small growers will be able to operate but if neither of those things happen legalization will still happen.

no it won't because it's not "legalization" then.

So you think alcohol isn't legalized? I disagree. Just because distribution of alcohol is controlled doesn't mean it isn't legalized. Same goes for marijuana. I don't want existing compassion clubs and growers left out of the process. It would be an injustice but marijuana will still be legalized which is the primary goal.

no alcohol is not legalized.  it's restricted in distribution and production with the government taking taxes and controlling distribution and production regulations.

the celery i grow in my garden is "legal" for me to consume. it has no restrictions. i can't get a criminal record for growing it to consume. the government doesn't tax me on my growing it.

taking marijuana out of the criminal code as a restrictd narcotic substance aka decriminalization could've happened immediately with the government having no part in it ever again. just like with my celery production.

what's being done is shifting the goal posts of what is considered criminal behaviour in respect to it. just like with alcohol and its production and sales and the government getting their cut and saying what people can and can't consume, and when.

NOT legalization just different criminalization.

 

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
Legalization is happening. That is what I want. I hope that the compassion clubs won't be shut out and that small growers will be able to operate but if neither of those things happen legalization will still happen.

no it won't because it's not "legalization" then.

So you think alcohol isn't legalized? I disagree. Just because distribution of alcohol is controlled doesn't mean it isn't legalized. Same goes for marijuana. I don't want existing compassion clubs and growers left out of the process. It would be an injustice but marijuana will still be legalized which is the primary goal.

no alcohol is not legalized.  it's restricted in distribution and production with the government taking taxes and controlling distribution and production regulations.

the celery i grow in my garden is "legal" for me to consume. it has no restrictions. i can't get a criminal record for growing it to consume. the government doesn't tax me on my growing it.

taking marijuana out of the criminal code as a restrictd narcotic substance aka decriminalization could've happened immediately with the government having no part in it ever again. just like with my celery production.

what's being done is shifting the goal posts of what is considered criminal behaviour in respect to it. just like with alcohol and its production and sales and the government getting their cut and saying what people can and can't consume, and when.

NOT legalization just different criminalization.

You can consume that celery but you can't sell it. I expect there to be provisions for homegrown in whatever law is devised.

Yes Trudeau and the Liberals should have decriminalized immediately but it isn't what they promised and they clearly won't do it for political reasons. Now that everyone knows legalization is coming we can grumble but few people would join demonstrations over it so I don't see any future in agitating over it.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Really sorry to hear that Alan, hope it goes well for you. 

Pondering: "they've been pretty clear" should not be a reason to stop advocating for something that needs to happen. Stephen Harper was "pretty clear" on any number of things. So we should all have gone home and accepted his decisions, I guess. 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Really sorry to hear that Alan, hope it goes well for you. 

Pondering: "they've been pretty clear" should not be a reason to stop advocating for something that needs to happen. Stephen Harper was "pretty clear" on any number of things. So we should all have gone home and accepted his decisions, I guess. 

No but maybe if we had focused on one or two items we might have had more impact. For example, C-51 is much more significant than decriminalization preceding legalization. So is stopping the pipelines, and police violence.

Hopefully Alan can stall his case or get it thrown out but if not it still doesn't compare to the larger issues that need to be tackled. The marijuana battle is won as long as Trudeau keeps his word which we will only know next spring. Even then I expect that is when the announcement will be made as to how it will be legalized. Implementation will take longer.

quizzical

i'm gonna start first off by saying we shouldn't even be having this conversation. there only needed  to be removal of marijuana from the restricted narcotic section of the criminal code. or in short form 'decriminalization'.

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
Legalization is happening. That is what I want. I hope that the compassion clubs won't be shut out and that small growers will be able to operate but if neither of those things happen legalization will still happen.

no it won't because it's not "legalization" then.

So you think alcohol isn't legalized? I disagree. Just because distribution of alcohol is controlled doesn't mean it isn't legalized. Same goes for marijuana. I don't want existing compassion clubs and growers left out of the process. It would be an injustice but marijuana will still be legalized which is the primary goal.

no alcohol is not legalized.  it's restricted in distribution and production with the government taking taxes and controlling distribution and production regulations.

the celery i grow in my garden is "legal" for me to consume. it has no restrictions. i can't get a criminal record for growing it to consume. the government doesn't tax me on my growing it.

taking marijuana out of the criminal code as a restrictd narcotic substance aka decriminalization could've happened immediately with the government having no part in it ever again. just like with my celery production.

what's being done is shifting the goal posts of what is considered criminal behaviour in respect to it. just like with alcohol and its production and sales and the government getting their cut and saying what people can and can't consume, and when.

NOT legalization just different criminalization.

Quote:
You can consume that celery but you can't sell it.

sure i can there's farmers markets everywhere.

Quote:
I expect there to be provisions for homegrown in whatever law is devised.

bet you're wrong. as usual.

Quote:
Yes Trudeau and the Liberals should have decriminalized immediately but it isn't what they promised and they clearly won't do it for political reasons. Now that everyone knows legalization is coming we can grumble but few people would join demonstrations over it so I don't see any future in agitating over it.

what a load of crap. "nothing to see here propaganda" pondering.

if we would've shut up about it it wouldn't even be this far along or happening.

i'm glad to see you now admit the NDP and Mulcair were right about decriminalization immediately. you spoke a different turn in the lead up to the election. you sung the siren song of "legalization is better than decriminalization".

when the opposite is true.

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i'm gonna start first off by saying we shouldn't even be having this conversation. there only needed  to be removal of marijuana from the restricted narcotic section of the criminal code. or in short form 'decriminalization'.

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
Legalization is happening. That is what I want. I hope that the compassion clubs won't be shut out and that small growers will be able to operate but if neither of those things happen legalization will still happen.

no it won't because it's not "legalization" then.

So you think alcohol isn't legalized? I disagree. Just because distribution of alcohol is controlled doesn't mean it isn't legalized. Same goes for marijuana. I don't want existing compassion clubs and growers left out of the process. It would be an injustice but marijuana will still be legalized which is the primary goal.

no alcohol is not legalized.  it's restricted in distribution and production with the government taking taxes and controlling distribution and production regulations.

the celery i grow in my garden is "legal" for me to consume. it has no restrictions. i can't get a criminal record for growing it to consume. the government doesn't tax me on my growing it.

taking marijuana out of the criminal code as a restrictd narcotic substance aka decriminalization could've happened immediately with the government having no part in it ever again. just like with my celery production.

what's being done is shifting the goal posts of what is considered criminal behaviour in respect to it. just like with alcohol and its production and sales and the government getting their cut and saying what people can and can't consume, and when.

NOT legalization just different criminalization.

Quote:
You can consume that celery but you can't sell it.

sure i can there's farmers markets everywhere.

Quote:
I expect there to be provisions for homegrown in whatever law is devised.

bet you're wrong. as usual.

Quote:
Yes Trudeau and the Liberals should have decriminalized immediately but it isn't what they promised and they clearly won't do it for political reasons. Now that everyone knows legalization is coming we can grumble but few people would join demonstrations over it so I don't see any future in agitating over it.

what a load of crap. "nothing to see here propaganda" pondering.

if we would've shut up about it it wouldn't even be this far along or happening.

i'm glad to see you now admit the NDP and Mulcair were right about decriminalization immediately. you spoke a different turn in the lead up to the election. you sung the siren song of "legalization is better than decriminalization".

when the opposite is true.

Mulcair only supported decriminalization for small amounts. Legalization is better than decriminalization. It's silly to think that the entire marijuana industry would be unregulated under any government in any developed country. As it is Canada is leading the pack.

quizzical

uh no, no and no.

eta:

this is why there needs to be NO criminalization of it in any aspect.

Quote:
During a short time window at the end of the last ice age, Stone Age humans in Europe and Asia independently began using a new plant: cannabis.

That’s the conclusion of a review of cannabis archaeology, which also links an intensification of cannabis use in East Asia with the rise of transcontinental trade at the dawn of the Bronze Age, some 5000 years ago.

Central Eurasia’s Yamnaya people – thought to be one of the three key tribes that founded European civilisation ­– dispersed eastwards at this time and are thought to have spread cannabis, and possibly its psychoactive use, throughout Eurasia.

Advertisement .

The pollen, fruit and fibres of cannabis have been turning up in Eurasian archaeological digs for decades. 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Reschedule,ask prosecuters,judges and police to disregard simple possession.These are things the Liberals could and should have done. They came to a consensus. That the system isn't working,why flog a dead horse? I have a feeling the Liberals are waiting to see what happens in a few states this election,especially California,who have legalization of recreation use on the ballot. Or they could be waiting to see who wins the election this Fall in USSA. Or both.

This should have been done in 1971. It was briefly 'decriminalized' as to say getting a ticket.Then we went back on the hard ass approach. And if Trudeau and the Liberals honestly believe that it is an injustice and that it's not working they would have immediately decriminalized it.

Now,when and if this actually happens and pot is legal,I wouldn't have a problem with certain restrictions. I wouldn't mind them adopting the Dutch policy. I also don't care who reaps the profits. The important thing is to decriminalize peaceful law abiding citizens who happen to prefer smoking or eating some cannabis to drinking alcohol.

Grow up,get it done and let's please move on from this.

mark_alfred

The Libs are just being mule-headed about it now.  There's no reason to clog up the courts and mess around with people's lives on something the government is planning to legalize anyway.  Decriminalize simple possession now and then work out the particulars of legalization.

quizzical

oh alan you wouldn't have a problem now with a few restrictions???? lmao. not your tune during the election.

can't believe a word you or pondering say in this regard.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

oh alan you wouldn't have a problem now with a few restrictions???? lmao. not your tune during the election.

 

Bullshit. I never changed my tune. A few minor restrictions will not and never did bother me. You're a liar.

M y goal,going back to the start of my opinion going back to 1983.is to stop arresting and charging people for simple possession. That's all I care about.

Who profits from it,how many grams can I legally buy at a time,etc...I couldn't care less.

mark_alfred

Given the substance of the government's overbearing questionaire, I'm almost starting to think that decriminalization might be better than legalization.  After decriminalization, let municipalities and/or provinces work out their own bylaws and licensing schemes to restrict grow-ops or license vendors or monitor drivers or whatever according to local community standards.  The greatest harm of marijuana is the occasional panic attack that a small few experience, which is nothing compared to the huge harm we see from alcohol.  This ongoing delay by the feds is laughably stupid.

quizzical

alan smithee wrote:
quizzical wrote:

oh alan you wouldn't have a problem now with a few restrictions???? lmao. not your tune during the election.

Bullshit. I never changed my tune. A few minor restrictions will not and never did bother me. You're a liar.

M y goal,going back to the start of my opinion going back to 1983.is to stop arresting and charging people for simple possession. That's all I care about.

Who profits from it,how many grams can I legally buy at a time,etc...I couldn't care less.

bs. during the election you carried on about how instant decriminalization supported by the NDP was not enough you wanted it fully legal the way "Justin" promised. and you went on to carry on about how ALL drugs should be entirely legal.

i could go back and dig up your words but frankly can't be bothered. waste of time and energy.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
quizzical wrote:

oh alan you wouldn't have a problem now with a few restrictions???? lmao. not your tune during the election.

Bullshit. I never changed my tune. A few minor restrictions will not and never did bother me. You're a liar.

M y goal,going back to the start of my opinion going back to 1983.is to stop arresting and charging people for simple possession. That's all I care about.

Who profits from it,how many grams can I legally buy at a time,etc...I couldn't care less.

bs. during the election you carried on about how instant decriminalization supported by the NDP was not enough you wanted it fully legal the way "Justin" promised. and you went on to carry on about how ALL drugs should be entirely legal.

i could go back and dig up your words but frankly can't be bothered. waste of time and energy.

 

Hey,troublemaker...I'm in favour of legalization ...of all drugs. I never waivered from this position and you can quote me. I'm saying it should have been decriminalized in some fashion until the actual legislation is written.

Now fuck off.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

~~ If it makes you happy, why are you so mad?

mark_alfred

Hmm.  I think it's certainly possible for those who supported the Liberals (or at least supported their position on legalization of marijuana) to have assumed that the Liberal's promise of legalization would also include decriminalization initially, and thus to be disappointed with the reality that the Liberals have not chosen this path.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Well,personally I didn't assume they would. It's just something that would actually be logical. If legalization is just another 10 months away,why continue arresting and charging people for simple possession? Where's the logic in that?

Common sense,something politicians couldn't locate with a GPS.

mark_alfred

Yeah, even if they didn't officially decriminalize, I think everyone expected them to set the tone for relaxed enforcement.  Instead, their rhetoric has been the opposite ("save the children!"), resulting ironically in increased enforcement.  It does make me think that the structure of legalized pot will be so restrictive that we may barely notice a difference.  Wait and see, I guess.  But yes, this weird heavy handed approach of encouraging enforcement now by the Libs doesn't make sense.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think it makes perfect sense in the leadup to a new crackdown on the alternative culture that includes smoking the weed. The context will include a lot of hype on how it is now legal but the kicker will be the only legal pot is going to be crap that no Deadhead would be caught dead smoking. Welcome to a brave new world of legalized pot where anyone who wants to smoke real ganja is still chased for not settling for the government approved low THC product. Hell there might even be new "regulations" that will make it an offense to promote cannabis use that would see youth being ticketed for wearing pot themed clothing. 

My impressions from the phoney consultation process were similar to Emery's.

Quote:

The discussion paper should have a voice for the millions of Canadians who are going to be smoking and consuming all this legal cannabis. But in fact it has the voice of those who do not use cannabis, do not understand its incredible value, and are opposed to its use.

So when I read the “discussion paper” put forward by the government about considerations being made as to "how to legalize marijuana", some things were immediately noticeable. 

This discussion paper has the bias of those who do not “get” it. In other words, the prohibitionist nonbelievers are controlling and leading the legalization discussion. 

The compulsive delusion thats runs through the discussion paper is that marijuana can never be “normalized” in Canadian society. It is stressed so incessantly you can feel the puritanical obsession within its insistence. That, and the kids and the kids and the kids and the kids.

http://www.straight.com/news/737936/marc-emery-justin-trudeaus-reefer-ma...

 

Unionist

The Liberals lied. They pretended they were for "legalization", and yet it remains illegal.

The NDP are no better. They introduced a motion in June (which they knew would be defeated) to "immediately decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana for personal use". They did not propose deleting the existing criminal records. They did not propose decriminalization of the sale of marijuana for personal use. They did not propose decriminalization of the production (i.e. growing) of marijuana for personal use.

Some kind of phony Nordic model for marijuana. How are you supposed to get marijuana for personal use without producing it (unlawfully) or someone selling it to you (unlawfully)?

Duhhhh.

It's quite sad to see the usual unthinking partisans of one useless political party or another wrestling with each other. But not stopping to think this through rationally.

 

 

mark_alfred

They did not propose deleting the existing criminal records.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2687209028/

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

They did not propose deleting the existing criminal records.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2687209028/

Sorry, I listened and watched, and have no clue as to exactly what Mulcair proposed. Is it written down somewhere so that I can analyze it? Does it apply to all existing criminal records - of what, possession? Regardless of quantity? Production? Sale?

This is typical bullshit by a cowardly politician, matched only by the bombastic rhetoric of the other cowardly politician (Trudeau) who outsmarted him in the election campaign.

This is a good example of why the House of Commons should be abolished and replaced by a truly representative and democratic body, where people have to speak and act clearly and take responsibility for their comments and deeds. Not this ugly spectacle of deception.

mark_alfred

There's more details in the introduction and discussion of the NDP motion as to its nature and rationale. 

ETA:  Regarding Mulcair's question in the House of Commons, it was just a question, and thus wouldn't contain all the detail you seem to want (IE, detail that might be found in a bill rather than a question).  Given the tenor of Trudeau's response, I don't think it would be productive for the NDP to pursue drafting a private member's bill on it.  As for what Mulcair was referring to, I think it's safe to assume that Mulcair was referring to simple possession charges incurred in the interim between the government's openly declared intention of legalization (referred to in Mulcair's question) and when marijuana is eventually legalized.

quizzical

let’s  get back to basics here and look at the definition of decriminalize. Oxford dictionary says:

de·crim·i·nal·ize

 

VERB

cease by legislation to treat (something) as illegal:

 

dictionary.com says:

verb (used with object), decriminalized, decriminalizing.

to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against

Canadians, and babblers, here were sold a phoney line of legalize it is better than decriminalize it and completely trashed the truth of decriminalize it and still are i see.

decriminalize can only mean to take it out of the criminal code where it exists in the restricted narcotic substances. it’s how it becomes non-criminal.  

legalize it means recriminalize it in different ways. even the Liberals words say so “ We will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.”

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/marijuana/

Mulcair said immediate decriminalization as the NDP has been saying for 40 years

 as quoted here  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mulcair-marijuana-decriminalization-...

i give a rat’s ass if some try to skew it as partisanship when it’s pointing out the bs shoved on us here both during the election and now. i will call propaganda out and not allow it labelled partisanship.

 

 

mark_alfred

Agreed.  I don't see the point in trying to demean or complicate a request that is simple, logical and makes sense (other than to be oddly bitter to the extreme).

Anyway, it's apparently not specifically referenced in the Criminal Code, but rather in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and I believe it's s. 4(5) that's specifically being referenced, which is possession of up to 1 gram of hash or 30 grams of pot, resulting in an offence "punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both."

From Murray Lankin's description of the NDP's motion to decriminalize:

Quote:
.. should it [legalization] take two years, something perhaps approaching 100,000 Canadians would find themselves with a record for possession of small quantities of marijuana.     

Statistics Canada reports that something approaching 60,000 Canadians a year will be convicted for that offence, because it currently is an offence. The government would say that the law is the law. Of course, it is right on that. However, what it does not tell us is that it has the ability under the law to address this injustice. That ability can be found in any number of ways.    

I am not here to suggest the best way, but I will speak to one way.    

If the government wishes to address this as a preparatory step on the road to regulation and permitting the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, it has the ability, under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, for the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, to issue a directive to the director of public prosecutions to the effect that it is no longer in the public interest for small quantities of marijuana to be the subject of prosecutions.     

We are fortunate because that is quite readily done. Marijuana is not regulated under the Criminal Code, which would engage all the attorneys general and crown counsels across the land, at every provincial level. It is dealt with under the Department of Justice, through the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Therefore, it would [be] federal employees, crown counsel, who would be given that directive. In that way we could ensure that what I fear is a patchwork across the country would be dealt with as well.    

When I say a patchwork, the situation at present is chaotic at best. I live in Victoria. The police have better things to do than prosecute people for simple possession of marijuana in most circumstances.

[..]

In addition, hundreds of thousands of Canadians have criminal records for the possession of marijuana, often going back 20 years. That is wrong. The government could, as a consequential amendment, deal with that, and I hope it does. In the meantime, the lives of people are being affected by an injustice that could be addressed by the government should it wish to do so.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed.  I don't see the point in trying to demean or complicate a request that is simple, logical and makes sense (other than to be oddly bitter to the extreme).

Since it's so simple and logical, help me with my previous question:

Unionist wrote:
Does it apply to all existing criminal records - of what, possession? Regardless of quantity? Production? Sale?

Sorry if that sounds "oddly bitter to the extreme", but I'm sincerely interested in the answers. Please answer.

mark_alfred

You can look up stuff on the internet as easily as I (or use a phone, or write an email).  I already said what I think above, along with including a quote from Murray that deals with the issue you just cited.  Anyway, regardless, the Liberals aren't open to the decriminalization.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

You can look up stuff on the internet as easily as I (or use a phone, or write an email).  I already said what I think above, along with including a quote from Murray that deals with the issue you just cited.  Anyway, regardless, the Liberals aren't open to the decriminalization.

I asked you for answers to simple questions. I can't look them up on the internet, because the NDP has never answered these questions. Like:

Unionist wrote:
 How are you supposed to get marijuana for personal use without producing it (unlawfully) or someone selling it to you (unlawfully)?

No one - no one - has yet called for the decriminalization of growing or selling marijuana, no matter how small the quantity. Nor has the NDP called for existing criminal records to be deleted. I don't much like doubletalk, whether from the Liberals or from the so-called opposition.

The NDP should state clearly whether they believe the production of cannabis for personal use, or the sale of cannabis for personal use, should be decriminalized. My opinion? If they believed that, they would have said so by now.

I checked the entire internet. Couldn't find it. Let me know who I should email or phone on this.

mark_alfred

I think finer details like that would be part of the law and regulations that the government shall be working on (first reading of the government's bill should be interesting).  Perhaps later there'll be stuff in committee on such issues regarding sales, growing, producing, selling, as this will be what the government is working on for legalization of it, and we can get a better idea of where it's going to go. At the moment the NDP is proposing decriminalization of simple possession so that people don't get a record for personal use of it during this transition period, which makes sense since it will (presumably) be legal in 2017 or 2018.  I don't see the NDP doing this as an "ugly spectacle of deception."  The NDP has been upfront about this, so I don't understand your confusion.  The statement by Murray was interesting.  It shows that decriminalization of simple possession is something that could be easily accomplished and would be beneficial.  Again, I feel the Liberals are being mule-headed about it.

ETA:

Nor has the NDP called for existing criminal records to be deleted.

From an earlier post, I noted that Murray Lankin did say the following:

Quote:
In addition, hundreds of thousands of Canadians have criminal records for the possession of marijuana, often going back 20 years. That is wrong. The government could, as a consequential amendment, deal with that, and I hope it does. In the meantime, the lives of people are being affected by an injustice that could be addressed by the government should it wish to do so.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
At the moment the NDP is proposing decriminalization of simple possession so that people don't get a record for personal use of it during this transition period, which makes sense since it will (presumably) be legal in 2017 or 2018.  I don't see the NDP doing this as an "ugly spectacle of deception."  The NDP has been upfront about this, so I don't understand your confusion.

Under the NDP's current proposal, if you come over to my place, and I share some of my marijuana with you (even for free), you wouldn't be subject to criminal charges, but I would - because I'm possessing some marijuana which is not for "personal use". And if I bought it from someone (which ultimately must be the case), that person is subject to criminal charges.

Calling this scenario "decriminalization" is deception - exactly the same kind of deception practised by Harper in his phony compliance with Bedford (SCC).

It would be useful, at this stage, to have someone, anyone, in Parliament that is actually calling for decriminalization of cannabis (never mind other substances for the moment). That means possession, growing, buying, and selling. It means removing this entire sphere from the Criminal Code (whether directly or indirectly), except for where it resembles alcohol (DWI, etc.).

It doesn't mean legalization. It doesn't mean deregulation. It means decriminalization. If that's the term the NDP has chosen to use (which some above claim, incredibly, has been the NDP's position for 40 years!), then they should either mean it, or stop saying it.

My preference: They should mean it. And their supporters should tell them to do so. Otherwise, Trudeau will do what he pleases, and even be able to claim that no one told him different.

mark_alfred

Yes, perhaps.  I myself favour legalization over the blanket decriminalization you speak of, actually.  If they sell it in LCBO liquor store like places (I'm from Ontario) I'm fine with that.  Or if it's a mix of smaller stores and areas designated in grocery stores, etc., or head shops or whatever, again, I'm also fine with that.  That said, in the interim people shouldn't get pulled in for having a joint.  Especially now that it's going to be legal. 

exactly the same kind of deception practised by Harper in his phony compliance with Bedford (SCC).

It would be the mirror image actually, where it's okay to have bought but not to sell.  That said, I imagine that decriminalization of simple possession would, or at least could (via regulation), cover growing a few plants as well.  

if you come over to my place, and I share some of my marijuana with you (even for free), you wouldn't be subject to criminal charges, but I would - because I'm possessing some marijuana which is not for "personal use".

I imagine the sharing scenario you specify would (or could) be considered similar to going over to a friend's house and being offered some wine or some beers -- personal use, as opposed to running a boozecan.

Regarding growing plants, the NDP did mention this:

Christine Moore wrote:
If we decriminalize marijuana, then presumably the people who possess it for personal use will be able to grow the few plants they need for their own consumption.    

The spouse of a man who uses marijuana for medical purposes was interviewed in a 2014 news article on medical marijuana. Even though she knows it is illegal, she grows marijuana because her spouse is suffering. She estimates it costs her 5¢ a gram. According to the Sûreté du Québec, the black market price is about $10 a gram.    

If marijuana is decriminalized and the price stays that high, most people will choose to grow their own marijuana. Eventually, the black market will lose its appeal because most people will choose to grow their own depending on the price.

I imagine most marijuana users would just continue to buy from whomever they've previously bought from, regardless of the scenario Ms Moore portrays.  But, growing a few plants for personal use in the interim before Liberal McWeed is ready would be good.

The NDP platform said,

Quote:
The NDP will also take steps to ensure that police are free to focus on serious crimes by:
Immediately decriminalizing possession of personal amounts of marijuana.

It was one area where I felt the Libs had better policy than the NDP.  That said, I didn't imagine the Libs would be so anal about it that they'd ramp up rhetoric leading to greater arrests in the interim before it was legalized.  That's just nuts, IMO. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

 

It was one area where I felt the Libs had better policy than the NDP.  That said, I didn't imagine the Libs would be so anal about it that they'd ramp up rhetoric leading to greater arrests in the interim before it was legalized.  That's just nuts, IMO. 

+1

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

DP

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It is not nuts it is double speak. Claiming to "legalize" pot while putting in place even more reasons to arrest potheads. The government has no intention of making it easier for anyone in this country to use pot. Its stated intention is to make it harder for anyone in this country to obtain pot. So it makes perfect sense to not ease up on enforcement prior to doubling down on enforcement of possesion of non-legal pot.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What if the guv'mint basically went with the same rules that govern alcohol for adults?  Specifically:

1.  you're allowed to brew your own wine and beer

2.  you're allowed to freely share your homemade wine and beer with other adults, but if you want to sell it then you need to be licenced

3.  you're not allowed to distill alcohol, unless you're licenced to do so*

4.  you can purchase, consume and share distilled alcohol, though most is "capped" at no more than 40%

5.  you can consume distilled alcohol that's higher than 40% (e.g. Everclear) if you possess it, but you cannot re-sell it**

* I'm not sure about techniques such as "freezer distillation" which represent no safety hazard

** I'm not sure whether it's legal to share it

Obviously "homemade" would be replaced by "homegrown", "distilling" would be replaced by "extracting", and "alcohol that's higher than 40%" would be replaced by more potent extracts like "shatter"

Anyway, I'm not specifically promoting this framework; just curious.

 

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What if the guv'mint basically went with the same rules that govern alcohol for adults?

Sounds reasonable. But the immediate issue is this: Violation of all or any of the current rules you mentioned for alcohol is not a criminal offence. For cannabis - all of them are.

So the first issue which I think the opposition should demand (because the government will not) is: decriminalization. Let there be rules, regulations, penalties, fines, distribution methods, production methods, etc. - but not criminal charges - except for impaired driving.

Unfortunately, no one has put forward this demand. 

Pages

Topic locked