We've been working on a resolution for the coming federal NDP Convention which would clarify and solidify the party's official policy in regards to marijuana and other psychoactive substances. I think what follows is the version which we've been able to get a pretty broad consensus on as something we can get behind. I'd love to get some feedback from fellow Babblers, and better yet, to see this resolution brought up for a vote at your local riding associations, so that it can come into the convention with a wide base of support. Anyone interested in seeing all the resolutions which have been passed in regards to federal and provincial NDP drug policy can go here: http://www.endprohibition.ca/resolution.php PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON DRUG POLICY FOR FEDERAL NDP CONVENTION 2009 WHEREAS the criminal prohibition of psychoactive substances has produced enormous social and economic costs, and has created and enriched organized criminal organizations by transferring to them complete control of drug markets, but has failed to control the use or availability of psychoactive substances in our society, WHEREAS regulation has been shown to be more effective than prohibition at controlling the availability and potential harm caused by the use of psychoactive substances, WHEREAS the criminal prohibition of marijuana and other psychoactive substances is inconsistent with "the creation of a legal system which must not be based, as is the present one, upon vengeance and fear, but upon an understanding of human behaviour," as enshrined in the 1933 Regina Manifesto, WHEREAS in 1999 the federal NDP resolved to support the decriminalization of marijuana, and in 2001 the NDP resolved to promote the "harm reduction model" for psychoactive substances, and redirect resources for this issue away from the Attorney General's Office and into the Ministry of Health, WHEREAS simply decriminalizing marijuana would still leave possession as an offence punishable by a fine, and would leave all the other harms associated with prohibition intact, WHEREAS since the last federal NDP convention, the provincial NDP in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have all passed resolutions calling for non-criminal alternatives to the current prohibition of psychoactive substances, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the NDP advocate for the elimination of all fines and criminal penalties for personal cultivation and possession of cannabis, and the establishment of a taxed and regulated framework for production and distribution of cannabis to adults; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP support a broad federal review of the impacts and harms caused by current drug policies, to select the best model for the government to implement a non-criminal, regulatory approach to psychoactive substance use that is based on reducing risk and harm, emphasizing prevention, public education, health promotion and safety.
Marijuana and drug policy resolution for federal NDP Convention
Wow is that frustrating to see the above post without paragraph breaks like that. I don't know why it came out like that, it wasn't like that when I clicked "Post".
And I cannot edit it either for some reason.
I am having trouble adapting the Babble these days.
Here it is again, I hope it works better this time...
RESOLUTION ON DRUG POLICY FOR FEDERAL NDP CONVENTION 2009
WHEREAS the criminal prohibition of psychoactive substances has produced enormous social and economic costs, and has created and enriched organized criminal organizations by transferring to them complete control of drug markets, but has failed to control the use or availability of psychoactive substances in our society,
WHEREAS regulation has been shown to be more effective than prohibition at controlling the availability and potential harm caused by the use of psychoactive substances,
WHEREAS the criminal prohibition of marijuana and other psychoactive substances is inconsistent with the creation of a legal system which "must not be based, as is the present one, upon vengeance and fear, but upon an understanding of human behaviour," as enshrined in the 1933 Regina Manifesto,
WHEREAS in 1999 the federal NDP resolved to support the decriminalization of marijuana, and in 2001 the NDP resolved to promote the "harm reduction model" for psychoactive substances, and redirect resources for this issue away from the Attorney General's Office and into the Ministry of Health,
WHEREAS simply decriminalizing marijuana would still leave possession as an offence punishable by a fine, and would leave all the other harms associated with prohibition intact,
WHEREAS since the last federal NDP convention, the provincial NDP in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have all passed resolutions calling for non-criminal alternatives to the current prohibition of psychoactive substances,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the NDP advocate for the elimination of all fines and criminal penalties for personal cultivation and possession of cannabis, and the establishment of a taxed and regulated framework for production and distribution of cannabis to adults;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP support a broad federal review of the impacts and harms caused by current drug policies, to select the best model for the government to implement a non-criminal, regulatory approach to psychoactive substance use that is based on reducing risk and harm, emphasizing prevention, public education, health promotion and safety.
I won't be at the convention but I would vote YES - and perhaps you should add a further BE IT RESOLVED - that any elected member of the NDP who does not vote in accordance with this motion NOT HAVE THEIR NOMINATION PAPERS SIGNED FOR RUNNING IN THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION.
Good luck ....LOL
Although as someone who already did what you are attempting to do way back in 2006 I know it wont get approved...nor even to the convention floor.
The ndp is going the other way and even calling for mandatory minimum sentences in jail.
The removal of Kirk Tousaw was a travesty and a big mistake here in BC.
You? maybe not.
I thought it was LSD you were promoting now anyway ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYA5R4264Mg
Only the Greens and the Bloc have the right policy on cannabis today.
Vote Green instead....maybe?
The war on drugs has been a huge failure, just as prohibision was. I would like to see a concerted effort by a political party to legalize drugs in the same manor as alcohol. I know that there would be many protractors to this, but given the mountains of money made by criminals and the tactics used to earn it, this is the only option that can defeat them. There will be many personal tragedies as a result, but over time with education and more public awareness the level of usage and trouble will drop just as tobacco usage has dropped.
My party would never push for this, but maybe the NDP can champion this cause and over time bring about change. After all the Cons will not be in government for ever. 
I would like to see legalization and i'm not sold that this is the way to go. I think a having a policy for setting up a legalized framework would only be window dressing. Sure it passed at the convention. But the executive would not run on it, and candidates would backpedal and then it would be a wedge issue. Plus it looks like the NDP will need to cooperate with another party to share power and this would be a very tough policy to enact within a coalition.
I wonder if it would make more sense to push a "province's rights" argument and say that it should be provincial law regulating cannabis in the same way that alcohol is regulated provincially. Open the door to provinces to legalize. That way we could take a few shots at it. This would be a more accessible platform for the entire party and less exploitable by the media.
I wonder if it would make more sense to push a "province's rights" argument and say that it should be provincial law regulating cannabis in the same way that alcohol is regulated provincially.
This absolutely makes sense, as regulation of cannabis and other psychoactives should be provincial responsibility. And once we have removed criminal sanctions from cannabis, it would devolve to the provinces anyways in terms of issues like age of access and so on.
Although as someone who already did what you are attempting to do way back in 2006 I know it wont get approved...nor even to the convention floor.
If we can get it to the convention floor it will pass, I am quite confident of that. After attending 12 NDP conventions and passing 8 drug-policy resolutions, we have never seen one of our resolutions get voted down once it has made it to the floor. We have created the official marijuana and drug policy for the NDP in BC and Saskatchewan, and also passed drug policy resolutions in Ontario and federally.
Sure it passed at the convention. But the executive would not run on it, and candidates would backpedal and then it would be a wedge issue.
Well that has certainly happened elsewhere provincially. For instance, the NDP in BC and Saskatchewan have both passed our resolutions supporting "non-punitive" marijuana policies and pledging to support an end to marijuana prohibition at the provincial level. Yet in both provinces the party leader and caucus have never openly acknowledged or supported their own policy on this issue.
However with the federal NDP it will be different I think. This is because we already have support from within the caucus, and because we have been working with some MPs in crafting this resolution so that it will have their support. There are a number of MPs in the NDP caucus, like Bill Siksay, Libby Davies and Denise Savoie, who would like to see the NDP adopt this resolution so that they will be enabled to speak and act against prohibition more clearly. But there are also NDP MPs, like Joe Comartin and Peter Stoffer, who prefer only "decriminalization" and don't want to see the NDP resolve to end all drug prohibition or legalize marijuana.
So federally, I think passing this resolution will enable Davies, Siskay, Savoie and hopefully also Layton to take a stronger stand on this issue, without being held back by other MPs who say "well, party policy is only to decriminalize."
Only the Greens and the Bloc have the right policy on cannabis today.
The BC and federal Greens both have excellent marijuana policies, and I am very pleased to see that the BC Greens are running Jodie Emery as a candidate as well. I am disappointed that the BC NDP is trying to play the "tough on crime" card when that isn't really the formal BC NDP policy, and it is certainly a failed electoral tactic for us as well.
Although the Bloc has said some positive things about cannabis law reform, I am unaware of any specific policy which they have passed. Would you have a link or more details on BQ drug policy?
I won't be at the convention but I would vote YES
Even if you are not attending the convention, if you are an NDP member you can still vote yes for this resolution, by bringing it up at your local riding association meeting and seeing if they will support it in advance of the convention. That will help a great deal.
My party would never push for this,
I don't know which party you belong to, but there are supporters of marijuana and drug policy reform in every party. For example, Liberal Senator Larry Campbell and Conservative Senator Claude Nolin have both been ardent and vocal supporters of marijuana and drug policy reform.
I thought it was LSD you were promoting now anyway ?
I advocate for an end to the criminal prohibition of all psychoactive substances. I personally found LSD and other psychedelics very useful for gaining understanding of myself and the world around me. While I rarely have time or energy for psychedelic adventures these days, I feel like I benefitted from those experiences, as do the vast majority of people who have used psychedelics. Many studies show the psychological, spiritual and creative benefits of psychedelics, but that is a conversation for another day.
"""We have created the official marijuana and drug policy for the NDP in BC and Saskatchewan, and also passed drug policy resolutions in Ontario and federally."""quote dana
what do you mean by "WE" paleface?
You better brush up on your BC history and my two luncheons with carol james
Ps had my first debate tonight
wally oppal didnt like my calling for man slaughter charges against the 4 rcmp trigger happy taser cowboys...but the crowd sure did
I do it ALL again on 4/20.... in our biggest debate ...WHAT FUN !!
pss happy birthday any way dana
I wonder if it would make more sense to push a "province's rights" argument and say that it should be provincial law regulating cannabis in the same way that alcohol is regulated provincially. Open the door to provinces to legalize. That way we could take a few shots at it. This would be a more accessible platform for the entire party and less exploitable by the media.
Brilliant! Although that's a defacto legalization, since all it basically calls for is repealing federal anti-marijuana statutes. I also think it falls well within the notion of the property and civil rights powers of the provinces (and no provincial party in its right mind is going to want to enact prohibition if the federal law is repealed). Especially possession and production, neither of which really ought to be a federal matter.
I also think that it might be a good case for a referendum, rather than just a legislative decision. It wouldn't be the first national referendum on prohibition in this country, nor would it be the first time prohibition was a matter delegated to the provinces. Both tactics once suited prohibitionists, actually!
I'm not a member of the NDP (or any party) but I wish you well. I sense a growing chorus of calls for easing of drug laws along the lines of harm reduction. I hope they don't stop at decriminalization, which is a poor compromise that will continue to enrich organized crime.
Good luck!
This resolution has now been passed by 7 riding association and also the federal Disability Committee.
West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea-to-Sky Country
North Vancouver
Toronto Danforth
Hamilton Centre
Esquimalt Juan de Fuca
Welland
St. Catharines
However, it doesn't seem like many Babblers are planning on attending the convention. That's too bad, it should be a fun time.
Getting enthused Dana, keep up the good work my friend.
I have a question for Dana or others more well-versed in drug policy issues than I. What is the distinction between "decriminalization" of cannabis, on the one hand, and "ending prohibition" of cannabis on the other hand? I gather from Dana's posts that his proposed resolution falls into the latter category and that current party policy is for "decriminalization".
As I read Dana's resolution, it appears to call for what I would term "decriminalization" of cannabis (ie removing criminal penalties), but I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding. I'm also wondering if someone could explain how Dana's resolution is different from current party policy. Thanks to all in advance.
Doesn't "End Prohiibtion" click?
There is a great deal of confusion around the terms "decriminalization" and "legalization" and what they mean.
These words means different things to different people.
To some people "decrim" simply means removing marijuana from the list of Controlled Drugs.
But when police and politicians say "decrim" they usually mean a system where users get a ticket and fine and the cops focus on the growers and sellers.
To some people "legalization" means that marijuana gets taken over by DuMaurier and other tobacco companies. But to other people legalization means a taxed and regulated system of access to pot products.
I try to avoid both these terms as they are emotional, value-laden and imprecise. I prefer to say "taxed and regulated" when asked what kind of pot laws I support.
In 1999 the federal NDP passed a resolution saying "BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP support the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in its call for decriminalization of cannabis."
The definition of decriminalization is not given in this resolution, but in the context of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police it is likely intending to mean a ticketing-based system.
In 2001 the federal NDP passed a resolution saying: BE IT RESOLVED that we accept and promote the Harm Reduction Model for drug addiction and abuse, taking the responsibility for this problem away from the Attorney General/Solicitor General's Office and directing the resources and personnel presently allocated to the Ministry of Health.
The NDP Caucus is divided on this issue, although there's no NDP MPs calling for longer sentences for pot people, some of them don't want to go beyond decriminalization. When Jack Layton was saying he supported going beyond decrim shortly after he became NDP leader, he got pressure from some of his caucus to not go that far.
But some in the caucus, like Libby Davies, Denise Savoye and Bill Siksay, support ending prohibition and the whole drug war. So getting this resolution through and into official party policy empowers them to speak more boldly and will help to silence those in the Caucus who are afraid of this issue.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the NDP advocate for the elimination of all fines and criminal penalties for personal cultivation and possession of cannabis, and the establishment of a taxed and regulated framework for production and distribution of cannabis to adults;BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP support a broad federal review of the impacts and harms caused by current drug policies, to select the best model for the government to implement a non-criminal, regulatory approach to psychoactive substance use that is based on reducing risk and harm, emphasizing prevention, public education, health promotion and safety.
In this resolution we are calling for a few things:
1) removal of penalties from personal cultivation for personal use
2) creating a taxed and regulated framework for sale of pot products to adults
3) replacing the drug war and prohibition with a non-criminal approach which allows legal access to some psychoactive substances in a safe and regulated manner.
How to stop the drug wars is an excellent opinion piece from the Economist.
Good luck in Halifax, Dana!
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the NDP advocate for the elimination of all fines and criminal penalties for personal cultivation and possession of cannabis, and the establishment of a taxed and regulated framework for production and distribution of cannabis to adults; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP support a broad federal review of the impacts and harms caused by current drug policies, to select the best model for the government to implement a non-criminal, regulatory approach to psychoactive substance use that is based on reducing risk and harm, emphasizing prevention, public education, health promotion and safety.In this resolution we are calling for a few things: 1) removal of penalties from personal cultivation for personal use 2) creating a taxed and regulated framework for sale of pot products to adults 3) replacing the drug war and prohibition with a non-criminal approach which allows legal access to some psychoactive substances in a safe and regulated manner.
This is excellent work, and I commend you for your efforts in this regard. Not sure if I have much faith in the NDP to advocate for such policies, but hey, if you don't try, then it will never be - so more power to you.
Would an overhaul of the current Scheduling system be part and parcel with the NDP approach as you envision it? Certainly Schedule 2 would be gone, but do you see a need for a Scheduling system going forward, and if so, how many Schedules would we have?
I sincerely hope that the NDP move forward on this, it would mark them as a party that understands that many Canadians who do not use marijuana are tolerant of those who do and do not want to see their friends or families jailed. We do not need a Usian system.
My father, in his seventies now and never a pot smoker, supports the legalization of marijuana. He is also a Conservative and has been for years. I suspect that if the NDP were to make this their position on the issue they might get his vote, he is pretty fed up with the party line on criminalization.
As a slight thread drift, in regards to cultivation and health Rick Simpson has discovered that the oil of marijuana has incredible healing properties and has been growing and distributing it to friends for a few years now. The R.C.M.P. say he doesn't fit the profile of a drug dealer because he has come in to see them and informed them that he is growing pot for that purpose. In once case it appears that a man with a terminal diagnosis of lung cancer, doctors were offering nothing, recovered and for that reason alone people should have the right to cultivate it.
I won't be at the convention but I would vote YES - and perhaps you should add a further BE IT RESOLVED - that any elected member of the NDP who does not vote in accordance with this motion NOT HAVE THEIR NOMINATION PAPERS SIGNED FOR RUNNING IN THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION.
But it isn't NDP policy now and people who are proponents of it have been allowed to run as candidates. If you're saying that people who do not adhere to the NDP policies 100% cannot be candidates, then no pot activists should have been allowed to run up to this point, right?
Yes, well, people always prefer to close the door behind rather than before them.
I read the policy about marijuana but as tempted as it might sound, I cannot agree with it for the sake of my children. I really don't want them to end up in some kind of ....[commercial spam removed, as is the poster ] .... or something like this. I want them close to me and I want to keep them away from all that evil present in our society.
Good luck with that!
Just also want to add I take huge exception to your "evil" word use!
Such a polarizing and inaccurate labelling is of no help to society, nor in fact your children.