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

Agreed it should have been decriminalized right away.  Still, good news that they're planning on legalizing it in 2017.

It will be handled like alcohol which I think is what the majority of Canadians want. It's much faster than I expected so I am pleased about that.

Decriminalization would be nice but would give opponents ammunition so I understand why it isn't happening. Only the Liberals were willing to legalize so I am not going to quibble about how they go about it. Once it is legal it will be almost impossible to reverse.

Announcing the timing now is great. It's going to encourage pharmaceutical and other research in Canada.

I wonder which Canadian will have the unwanted honour of being the very last Canadian to enjoy a criminal record because he had a dime bag in his pocket?

Similarly, who was the very last Catholic to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity for eating meat on a Friday?

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i'm waiting to see.

medical marijuana consumers want to grow their own and it is a big fkn issue if the Liberals don't allow it.

No problem. It will be legal for anyone to grow their own not just medical users.

Please share where you get your information from. I thought you were not a Liberal insider but merely someone that relies on the MSM like most people.

Quote:

“We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals,” Philpott said. “While this plan challenges the status quo in many countries, we are convinced it is the best way to protect our youth while enhancing public safety.”

No other details of the legislation were revealed during her speech.

swallow wrote:

Catholicism has this great get-out-of-hell-free card, called the sacrament of reconciliation. It's awesome. 

Indeed it even applies to recurring pedophiles.  If they repent they are forgiven and then the Church says its not its problem anymore. I had a Catholic lawyer who was acting for the Diocese explain that to me when I suggested one of the remedies that I would like to see in a settlement agreement should be excommunication.

Its all in the timing though. If you live a long life you can sin all you want as long as you have a few days advance notice to repent on time. Of course if you die suddenly you are on the hook for any sin since your last confession. In my case that would be 50 years or so.

We've made our own wine. Unfortunately I don't have the room to do it right now. Actually, since for many years I spent a lot of the year in Europe, I deeply resent the punishing wine prices here. And NO, I didn't drink more there just because it was cheaper. I do think the industry workers should get good wages and working conditions, but feel the same about all grocery and food service workers.

An aside. I hope there will be a side effect of promoting the HEMP industry (that is either cannabis without much THC or the parts that don't). I had a couple of great tops, which I've had for at least a decade, made of hemp. It grows here, and doesn't require as much chemical input as cotton. It is a strong and silky fibre. 

voice of the damned wrote:

Can someone find me the actual quote where Philpott says that marijuana will be legalized in 2017?

You will never hear anything clear and definitive from these liars.

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Can someone find me the actual quote where Philpott says that marijuana will be legalized in 2017?

You will never hear anything clear and definitive from these liars.

i'm alarmed from what i read. they keep this up and good bye 2019.

Pondering wrote:

"We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals," Jane Philpott said in her prepared speech to delegates.

"We will work with law enforcement partners to encourage appropriate and proportionate criminal justice measures. We know it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem,"

"The fact of the matter is we've been clear. We believe in legalization and regulation of marijuana because it protects our kids and keeps money out of the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs," Trudeau told the Commons.

You should be alarmed. They are on track for a second majority.

This simply says they intend to "legalize" Marijauna. It doesn't say what that means. You are speculating Pondering with no real proof of any kind other than you own opinion. Prove it. Write the Minister and prove to us all on here that Marijuana will be "legalized", with no restriction. You won't get that from the Minsiter because that is not their intent. This is simply one more pro Liberal cheer leading thread; simply one more of others that clutter this board regularly.

"Our approach to drugs must be comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate.  To that end we will be introducing legislation in the spring of 2017 that ensures that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and out of the hands of criminals."  Hmm.

Quote:

Later, during question period in the House of Commons, Mulcair asked whether Trudeau would at least promise legislation to remove criminal records of Canadians charged before a new law is in place.

In response, Trudeau said simply decriminalizing marijuana does not help the government meet its goal of keeping pot out of the hands of children, but would offer a legal stream of income to criminals selling it.

Trudeau is being an idiot on the issue of decriminalization of possession for personal use, IMO.  Like always, he sidestepped a reasonable question and sunk into mindless hyperbole.

Quote:

If the NDP were doing this you would all be praising them to high heaven.

Well, Tom did promise to do it the minute they took office.  Trudeau seems to be OK with a year and a half of more people being busted for possessing a joint.

You identify as feminist, yes?  If the federal government -- Liberal, BTW -- had proclaimed in 1918 that they would be ready to consider women full citizens, and grant them suffrage, a year later, would you say:

a) Yay!  In only one more year I'll be a person!  Thx!!!

b) Why am I not just a person right now?

Quote:

You're just playing a debate game. The NDP would not have legalized or decriminalized their first day in office.

Really?  We know this how?

Quote:

Legalizing marijuana is not even close to acknowledging women as people

True dat!  One is a common plant, and the other is slightly over half of the population.

Quote:

The NDP did promise rapid decriminalization, first 100 days I think.

Mulcair pledges NDP will decriminalize pot 'the minute we form government'

Here's my thinking.  I totally get that if convenience stores are going to sell honey oil beside the Doritos and the comic books, that could take some time and debate to work out.

But if the government is really going to allow adult Canadians to smoke a plant, and if this is not just bullshit on their part, then can you give us any reasonable reason why they cannot promptly declare that an adult "caught" with an ounce or less of marijuana will not be criminally charged for that?  Is there some debate that needs to happen over whether they should be forever criminalized?  Is there some public safety issue around some guy with enough pot to get high several times over?

I'm not talking about someone with 15 pounds in a duffel bag in the shed.  I'm not talking about someone selling weed in the schoolyard.  I'm not talking about someone with an ounce of pot and 5,000 extacy pills.  Why would the government declare their intent to make more sensible laws around weed and still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint?? 

Just tell us why someone should get a criminal record for a joint.  Or, tell us what's the real obstacle to a majority government fixing that.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

You're just playing a debate game. The NDP would not have legalized or decriminalized their first day in office.

Really?  We know this how?

Because of Mulcair's attitude and comments concerning marijuana and oregano.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But if the government is really going to allow adult Canadians to smoke a plant, and if this is not just bullshit on their part, then can you give us any reasonable reason why they cannot promptly declare that an adult "caught" with an ounce or less of marijuana will not be criminally charged for that?  Is there some debate that needs to happen over whether they should be forever criminalized?  Is there some public safety issue around some guy with enough pot to get high several times over?

I'm not talking about someone with 15 pounds in a duffel bag in the shed.  I'm not talking about someone selling weed in the schoolyard.  I'm not talking about someone with an ounce of pot and 5,000 extacy pills.  Why would the government declare their intent to make more sensible laws around weed and still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint?? 

Just tell us why someone should get a criminal record for a joint.  Or, tell us what's the real obstacle to a majority government fixing that.

Because the money is going to organized crime, or that's the theory anyway. The point of legalization is to keep it out of the hands of minors and money out of the hands of criminals. Decriminalization achieves neither and makes life easier for dealers. I am not saying I agree with that reasoning but it is the logic given by the Liberals.

Someone shouldn't get a criminal record for a joint. That's why the law is being changed. Until the law changes they (I) are choosing to break the law therefore they are deliberately deciding to risk getting a record. I'd be annoyed if I got arrested but I'd be the only person to blame.

Legalization is way more important to me than decriminalization.

Quote:

Someone shouldn't get a criminal record for a joint. That's why the law is being changed. Until the law changes they (I) are choosing to break the law therefore they are deliberately deciding to risk getting a record. I'd be annoyed if I got arrested but I'd be the only person to blame.

I'm not saying someone else is to blame.  I'm not talking about "blame" at all.

I'm saying that Trudeau can stop charging people with simple possession as soon as tomorrow.

Or, he can keep making sure that Canadians get a criminal record for having a doobie, until a year from now.

Quote:

Legalization is way more important to me than decriminalization.

There's no need to choose one or the other.

Pondering wrote:

 

Smoking pot is not a human right.

Wrong. I have a human right to do with my body,to put in my body what I choose and to change my mood anytime I damn well want to. Who is the government to criminalize me for wanting to alter my mood?...Unless,of course,it's a liquid.

So yes,smoking pot (or doing any drug you prefer for that matter) is a human right.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Going to prison for something that is acknowledged by the government as a flawed law is a breach of human rights. Of course that will only last for a year or so. White middle aged women have little to worry about because middle class white people hardly ever get charged with simple possession only the poor and marginalized.

Breaking flawed laws is not a human right. Consuming marijuana is not a human right.

I live in low income housing so by income I am no where near middle class. Your assumptions about me are rooted in prejudice.

You are far more likely to be a middle class white person than I am.

Mr Magoo wrote:

I'm not talking about someone with 15 pounds in a duffel bag in the shed.  I'm not talking about someone selling weed in the schoolyard.  I'm not talking about someone with an ounce of pot and 5,000 extacy pills.  Why would the government declare their intent to make more sensible laws around weed and still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint?? 

Just tell us why someone should get a criminal record for a joint.  Or, tell us what's the real obstacle to a majority government fixing that.

They shouldn't.  And there's no reason for the Liberals to "still stand by as someone gets a criminal record for a joint".  The rationale offered by the Trudeau apologist here that they need not do what makes sense in the context of legalization (which decriminalization of simple possession does) because they didn't promise to do what makes sense in this context, well, is an argument that makes no sense at all.

It clogs the courts and wastes police resources which could be put to better use.  It gives criminal records to those who, in a year's time, would not get them given the government's own stated policy goal of legalization.  The Liberals are being idiotic about this.  The NDP are right to question it.  Decriminalization of simple possession now makes sense.

Pondering wrote:

He chose to push for legalization based on keeping it out of the hands of minors and money away from criminals.

No. He chose those as the talking points with which to push legalization. The realistic calculation was that a lot of Canadians smoke marijuana recreationally and he's more likely to be rewarded for it at the polls than punished. (I'm predicting the bill receives royal assent somewhere around the time of the 2019 election.)

If Trudeau really believed legalization of marijuana was only necessary in order to keep it away from kids and starve criminals of funds, his bill would also include legalization of cocaine, heroin, and all other recreational drugs, for which the same calculation applies. And I'd be in favour of that, as I've argued on this board before. But it's pretty precious for the Liberals to now be campaigning that marijuana is the only drug so dangerous to the children!!! that it needs to be legalized. Just own up to it. Politicians smoke weed. The prime minister smokes weed. People want to smoke weed, legally or not. That they want to do so doesn't have a damn thing to do with "the children" (the invocation of which are my #1 sign that I can tune out of any political argument).

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I have a daughter, I have nieces and nephews. Everyone I know who cares about marijuana laws wants full legalization not decriminalization. Fines would likely be applied because it still wouldn't be legal. The government would be accused of funneling money to organized crime. The whole thing would be a distraction from legalization and could even delay it. Why risk that for the sake of a year?

Gee I guess the young people in your circle always listen to their elders and never do anything that Mommy and Daddy tell them not to. I don't seem to live in that same world. In my world young people sometimes rebel and do things that are not in their best long term interest.

We are talking about immediately telling the police forces not to impose criminal sentences for small amounts of pot. Its an interim measure people on this board are arguing for. Police already have that discretion and it would take nothing much to tell them to regularly use it. Police often let the "good" kids go after confiscating their pot and giving them a dressing down. I can't for the live of me understand how suggesting that discretion be applied to all citizens offends you.

True. I was arrested for simple possession twice. Once for 2 joints and the second time for 18 grams. In the end,all they did was confiscate my stash,hold me in a cell for a couple hours and let me walk without a fine,court date or criminal record.

The moral of the story is that the police already have the discretion to decide if it's worth the paper work and the judicial system.

To me,that isn't fair because their discretion could mean they could bust my fuckin' ass if they want to.

What's the big deal for the Liberals to simply inform police forces (RCMP.provincial police and local police) to turn a blind eye until their legislation is passed? It's not rocket science.

I can't speak for Pandering's cirtcle of acquaintances but my circle just wants the cops to use their time and resources on real dangers to society instead of arresting people for eating Doritos or growing a weed.

Enough of this already. Did anyone learn anything from alcohol prohibition? Apparently,not

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I have a daughter, I have nieces and nephews. Everyone I know who cares about marijuana laws wants full legalization not decriminalization. Fines would likely be applied because it still wouldn't be legal. The government would be accused of funneling money to organized crime. The whole thing would be a distraction from legalization and could even delay it. Why risk that for the sake of a year?

Gee I guess the young people in your circle always listen to their elders and never do anything that Mommy and Daddy tell them not to. I don't seem to live in that same world. In my world young people sometimes rebel and do things that are not in their best long term interest.

We are talking about immediately telling the police forces not to impose criminal sentences for small amounts of pot. Its an interim measure people on this board are arguing for. Police already have that discretion and it would take nothing much to tell them to regularly use it. Police often let the "good" kids go after confiscating their pot and giving them a dressing down. I can't for the live of me understand how suggesting that discretion be applied to all citizens offends you.

It doesn't offend me at all. I simply understand why he isn't doing that and is taking a cautious approach. No, I didn't always listen to Mommy and Daddy so I have a record. I have no one to blame but myself. If I were to get charged now I would contest it.

I wish he would decriminalize but I am keeping my eye on the prize, full legalization.

Speaking of which, the consultation has begun.

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/...

Make your opinions known.

Full legalization sounds good but in fact what is coming will be extremely restrictive if this push/poll style consultation is any indication. I almost choked when I read the floated idea that we are going to prevent youth from smoking pot by setting an age limit above 24 and reducing the harm by restricting the amount of THC in the government bud.

If this document is the basis for the new law we will see no personal growing and corporate pot at such low levels of THC that you would have to smoke a bale to get high. But this is exactly the kind of bullshit I expected when Blair was appointed point person.

What do you think the penalties will be for growing your own in this new "legalized" regime? 

cco wrote:

Pondering wrote:

He chose to push for legalization based on keeping it out of the hands of minors and money away from criminals.

No. He chose those as the talking points with which to push legalization. The realistic calculation was that a lot of Canadians smoke marijuana recreationally and he's more likely to be rewarded for it at the polls than punished. (I'm predicting the bill receives royal assent somewhere around the time of the 2019 election.)

If Trudeau really believed legalization of marijuana was only necessary in order to keep it away from kids and starve criminals of funds, his bill would also include legalization of cocaine, heroin, and all other recreational drugs, for which the same calculation applies. And I'd be in favour of that, as I've argued on this board before. But it's pretty precious for the Liberals to now be campaigning that marijuana is the only drug so dangerous to the children!!! that it needs to be legalized. Just own up to it. Politicians smoke weed. The prime minister smokes weed. People want to smoke weed, legally or not. That they want to do so doesn't have a damn thing to do with "the children" (the invocation of which are my #1 sign that I can tune out of any political argument).

It's definitely a political call. They all are. Every single party and leader considers the political ramifications of every decision they make. They "pick their battles" so to speak. Trudeau chose marijuana way back when to place himself left of the NDP. He correctly guessed that Mulcair wouldn't support it which would turn off many progressives. It was like a dog whistle.

The NDP chose to hang back and reaffirm their commitment to decriminalization only because they calculated that it would reassure conservative types that they aren't the hippie party and make them seem more centrist.

Trudeau used "the children" argument and the "organized crime" argument. He doesn't want to give the Conservatives ammunition to say that he is authorizing money going to organized crime by decriminalizing. Even Chretien's call for decriminalization serves to support the narrative that Trudeau is being cautious. Politically there is no pay back for decriminalizing right away.

Anyone who paid close attention to the polls in the years since Trudeau became leader should have a good understanding of voter behavior and how that pertains to winning elections and that includes the rise and fall of the NDP.

Lesson 1 - All the hullabaloo that goes on between elections matters very little. 85% were against bill C 51 but it didn't affect their votes. The average voter doesn't know or care who Morneau or Freeland are.

Lesson 2 - Many voters vote based on their perception of the leader. Policy only matters in that it impacts the reputation of the leader and even then it's just the headliner stuff not the details. Give to those who need it most by taking it away from those who don't-the child tax credit expressed an attitude. Increase taxes on the 1% and lower taxes for the middle-class worked like a charm. The details don't get through. Sanders and Corbyn have strong support based on who their followers think they are, not just their specific policies. Alot of Trump supporters know he's an ass they just think the rest are worse. Ford and Trump are a big F-U to the elite and that includes the so called left.

Lesson 3 - Don't expect the media to inform people not only because they won't but because most people don't watch the news anymore and just check online for huge stuff like terrorist attacks or missing planes. I'm just taking in the headlines right now because I am really busy. I know about Brexit and CETA, the model for the TPP and TIPP that Canada is pushing so hard for. I also know there is no point in talking to anyone I know about it.

Knowing the true lay of the land is the first step to planning a battle.

FYI

Medical marijuana use linked to lower prescription drug use

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medical-marijuana-prescription-drugs-1.366...

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.