Why does Trudeau dawdle when benefits of Cannabis control go to the evil side?
- Thread starter French Patriot
- Start date
Perhaps. But somehow I doubt that any government would simply fall back on a report issued 40 years ago. And if I recall correctly there was no proposed legislation, but rather a Royal Commission called the Le Dain Commission that issued a report on marijuana.
Why does Trudeau dawdle when benefits of Cannabis control go to the evil side?
That's what happens to you when you smoke dope. It takes away all of your motivation.
That's what happens to you when you smoke dope. It takes away all of your motivation.
I see nothing wrong in ignoring the alcohol and tobacco lobbies or ignoring anecdotal renderings and going by hard statistics.
What do you see wrong in that?
Further, he is there to create the legislation. He is not there to determine policy. Trudeau does that.
Regards
DL
Yes. In this case, a long awaited justice and an end to a damaging prohibition policy that has cost Canadians dearly.
People seem to forget that our LeDain Royal Commission report is considered to be the best in the world and that we should have acted on it years ago.
Regards
DL
No. A bill died on the order paper that the then justice minister, Chretien, had put forward.
As to the age of the report, irrelevant as nothing much has changed. So said Justice LeDain the last time we talked as well as the last time he made a public statement.
Nothing has basically changed in 100 years except that now we know how stupid we have been in legalizing dangerous killer drugs while make the more benign illegal.
We have the Cadillac of drug reports in LeDain and are stupid Canadians if we do not recognize it's expertise the way the rest of the world does.
Regards
DL
Get a photo or evidence or stop trying to denigrate a Canadian Prime minister.
Lying is not a usual Canadian trait.
Regards
DL
I do not recall such a bill. Perhaps you are thinking of this.
Failed decriminalization bills (2003, 2004)On May 27, 2003, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien introduced a bill that would have decriminalized the possession for personal use of small amounts of cannabis. Possession of 15 grams or less would have been punishable only with a fine, and those possessing between 15 and 30 grams would be either ticketed or arrested for criminal charges at the officer's discretion. Personal cultivation of up to seven plants would have also become a summary offence, while the punishment for cultivation in larger amounts would have been more severe. The bill looked likely to pass into law, but it died when Parliament prorogued. The bill's death was largely due to pressure from the American government's Drug Enforcement Administration, which had threatened to slow down border-crossings along the Canadian-American border with increased searches for cannabis.
An identical bill was introduced in November 2004 by the minority Liberal government of Paul Martin, but it too died, when Martin's government was defeated in a confidence vote. After the Conservative victory in the 2006 election, the new government did not resurrect this bill.[35]
That may indeed be the bill. Thanks for fleshing out my original thought. Good research.
It would just take some short amendments to make that bill reflect the more liberal position of today on legalization.
We will profit even more with an improved legislation. By profit, I do not only mean in wealth but in the many other benefits to our society.
Regards
DL
Define 'normal dopers' please. A recent poll identified only 15% of canadians self identify as someone that has used marijuana in the past year. This activity is by definition a deviant activity. too bad, so sad.
Legalization of any drug is always a double edged sword. Almost certainly governments will gain due to taxes on the product, but it probably won't do away with the underground market, especially if taxes are so high that the illegal product is cheaper. It also won't eliminate illegal sales to underage buyers and it may lead to more people using the drug when they shouldn't, such as behind the wheel. The biggest benefits I can see are the elimination of marijuana use as a criminal offense, the availability of cannabis products to people who want to use them medically, and of course more case for government coffers.
Screw that. Legalize it.
Anyone that wants to smoke pot is smoking it. Random drug testing is not stopping folks and neither is a law against it. Why not give entrepreneurs a legal avenue to sell it and yes, the government will get it's taxes?
Anyone that is driving while impaired will continue to do so until they are either caught or they smarten up.
Thanks for the reply. You do realize that I advocated nothing in my post either way. As you pointed out. Stupid people will continue to be stupid people with regard to drug use. However, there is one thing you are wrong about. If marijuana is legalized my wife might use it for medical reasons. She does not use it now and never has. Ditto for me. I expect a number of non-users might be willing to give it a try once the stigma of it being an illegal drug is removed.
Good luck holding any kind of a f**king job! I have nothing against pot, except that it and work don't mix!
It's only a deviant activity to fear-mongers who want us to think that as soon as you smoke a joint, you suddenly have an irresistible urge to shoot heroin.
There's a difference between social-recreational use, and persistent use as a coping mechanism. And when it comes to labour, it's already the case that if someone requires consistent marijuana use for medicinal purposes, an employer must accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship (and that threshold is extremely high).Good luck holding any kind of a f**king job! I have nothing against pot, except that it and work don't mix!
It will take time. Not everybody is as judgemental as you are assuming.
There are whole industries where by the creative process is the money maker and the more creative the people...
There are lots of companies right now who require the knowledge of pot and the stone the pot gives...
It's really only a percentage of the population that has a huge fear of users. The Cheech and Chong edition of stoner, is no more valid then Reefer Madness...
Your stats are off as I would say a lot more than 15% have done so.
Regardless. Psychiatrists and psychologists call what we are discussing risk taking. It has been proven that risk takers are better adjusted than those who are not so I hope the 15% is a lot higher as it would show a higher level of health for more of us.
That fact may be why LeDain coined the phrase intelligent use of freedom of choice. To show thatit was more intelligent to smoke cannabis than to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco.
Regards
DL
The daycare lady who looked after my daughter has terminal cancer and is NOW smoking pot.
She never smoked it before. She is using it because it was prescribed by her doctor to help with the pain, and her appetite.
She says it's working. That's good.
You're so right about the stigma...how unfortunate that stigma is.
If it wasn't so strong we'd know just how many professionals do use regularily and while working. Right now, they can't. Too bad. Imagine how much we'd know about "impairment" and the like if so many weren't afraid of the stigma...
We have no real argument but I would point out that under a legal alcohol system, bootleggers and moonshining has basically disappeared and few grow their own tobacco.
As far as children go. We will have a lot fewer pushers after them and any pushers who are targeting children in particular can be dealt with in a harsher way than the slap on the wrist we presently give them. We would be justified in doing so and pushers would be fools for targeting children.
Regards
DL