babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
That's ridiculous. If the Royal Commission approach is such an effective way to go about changing drug laws, how come that approach has been so ineffective when it comes to changing drug laws?
Why would you hold up a process that never got us anywhere?
Expertise is relative, particularly in new fields. Regardless, the research was conducted by specialists, none of whom are claiming to have all the answers. In fact, that's why they are continuing their work.
That was addressed, specifically in regards to the early onset issue and disease progression.
More training is a good thing all around, particularly given that it wasn't a 'forty percent higher risk," it was a "four times higher risk" or 400 per cent. And perhaps "impressive" is not the word I would use, it's certainly worthy of concern.
I'm comfortable with my analysis.
After half a century of research involving billions of dollars spent by an ideological US Government obsessively trying to find any potential harm that could possibly be pinned on marijuana, the results are in!
And they are...inconclusive. Looks like we need more research folks.
Notwithstanding the fact that a lot can change between now and ~2023, my crystal ball says that Megan Leslie will be the frontrunner in the next race when PMTM steps down.
And why shoud every user have to risk hard time bcause some others might have more trouble handling it personally? And every taxpayer have to pay for the prisons?
'Erring on the side of caution' unfortunately also means erring on the side of detaining everyone caught using, including casual users of non-addictive drugs, for years along with hardened criminals. I"m sorry for your unhappy experiences, but pot doesn't necessarily lead to harder drugs either, another old claim used to support these regressive policies. As I wrote previously, the vast majority of young pot smokers never go beyond it and most eventually quit on theor own without any 'help' by the state. And as Jack Layton said, decriminalize and regulate pot not legalize everything from heroin to meth. Harm reduction maybe more politically wise for those, along with better employment policies for youth, etc. Regulation worked for alcohol, or rather it worked better than prohibition did.
That's okay. I understand your stance. But I reiterate mine that I think it was responsible of him to say the latest research needs to be addressed before a decision can be made on whether or not to legalize it.
...also...I could be wrong but I think at this point it's very rare for people to be thrown in prison for smoking pot. I haven't heard of that in years...if ever!
I'm sorry to hear about your daughter.
There are inherent risks with the use of any recreational substances. When making laws to manage these risks, it's important to look at whether a law solves more problems than it causes. What happened to your daughter happened under prohibition. If cannabis were legally available for adults then perhaps it may have been less available to your daughters' social group, and perhaps its use woul dhave been less associated with that of other drugs.
I certainly don't want to change our laws without the proper amount of thought. But I have been following this issue closely for a long time and I know that people have already put a lot of thought into this. If Mulcair personally hasn't put enough thought into it then he should be doing his homework.
I expect that by 2015 things will have already changed in several states in the US. Some states have already decriminalized, now, with successful results, and I would expect by 2015 we'll see legalization in one of them.
It happens all the time still, especially in the States, we just don't hear so much about it. Possession of an ounce or so could automatically lead to trafficking charges, even in more liberal jurisdictions.
Anyhow, I'm sorry to hear so many fellow members still have a hard time accepting the evidence thats already come out, but others can take this up now; I want to move onto others.
Well then let's address the research now. Why would we wait until we can get a commission set up in 2016 to do it? Why wait 4 years to start figuring out what we think our position is?
I agree. Address the research. And who has the power to do that, right now?
Well the NDP would certainly have the resources to address the research over the next couple years, by bringing those experts together to craft policy.
That's how policy works. Mulcair's not pushing a Royal Commission on climate change to determine if a cap and trade system would be a good idea...nor is he pushing that for any policy.
Yet for some reason with cannabis we need a commission to figure out what our stance should be...what's the difference? Why can't we start defining policy? Or why can't Mulcair?
This idea of a commission is a step backwards from current NDP policy. Does Mulcair think decriminalization is a good idea or not?
Additionally these commissions never seem to get us anywhere. In the last decade even the Senate did a study and recommended outright legalization. It never went anywhere.
The majority of the population favours outright legalization in polls.
Colorado and several other states have already decriminalized possession of personal amounts.
Anyone want to talk about booze and schizophrenia?
THe policy that I'd favour is Niki Ashton's interpretation of decriminalization. Cannabis prohibition would be removed from the federal law, and regulation would go to the provinces. Canada could help provinces transition to similar provincial laws as needed, and provinces would be free to regulate it as they saw fit, similar to how provinces have always had jurisidiction to regulate (and prohibit) alcohol.
This means that no province gets it forced upon them, and further loosening of any laws will be slowed by how long it would take for a province to make that decision.
Really the studies are all there, studies of decrim in US states, studies of Holland, studies of other countries (European and otherwise) that have decriminalized, medical studies, etc. For me, we have the knowldge we need.
Now I realize I'm not providing all of these links in a nice little package to conclusively show anything. I am simply stating why Mulcair's position is not adequate for me. I think he's using weasal language, and if he's really just uninformed then he really ought to educate himself.
I'd love to provide you with the complete case for decrim here and now but I'm really just commenting ont he leadership race. And I should get outside.
Hi. Thanks for this...
:)
I've read it quickly and would like to respond and will! But I have to head out. Will comment later.
...and go and get outside!
Pan
And new fundraising data is out - Cullen has pulled into third place financially, ahead of Nash and Dewar. Mulcair and Cullen are the ones with the momentum, as judged by number and volume of donations heading toward the convention...
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1147821--ndp-leaders...
This issue (what to do about pot) was studied to death by the LeDain Commission forty years ago. But successive governments have been too chickenshit to act on the commission's recommendations. Looks like Mulcair is in that camp too... i..e. let's have another study and hope the issue goes away.
I think you'd find a pretty broad consensus amongst the general population that Canada should move towards decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of pot. I think you'd also probably find strong support for legalization with regulation as well.
While the politicians figure out ways to not deal with this issue, our already clogged up justice system is clogged up further with prosecutions for something that should have been either decriminalized or legalized decades ago.
Because we didn't have an NDP government to implement its recommendations.
Royal Commissions can be good ways to tackle controversial policies. I think you are as convinced as I am that all the evidence will lead to a recommendation to embrace harm reduction. If so then this is the best way to go forward that I have heard. I would rather see a solid comprehensive policy based on mountains of peer-reviewed and closely examined evidence than a quick and dirty cannabis decriminalisation bill that could be overturned the next time the Conservatives come to power.
plus plus 100
Sloppy research by the CBC. When Stephen Lewis said he was staying out of it, Mansbridge should have said "your sister is supporting Topp. The Lewis family is quite a remarkable force. Is she the only family member supporting Topp?" I'd love to have seen Stephen's answer.
Wilf you are such a little crap stirrer!