[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Duh. Because the penalties for cultivation are MUCH more severe than for simple possession.

Yea, because we have cops randomly searching through gardens all over the City looking for marijuana, right? It's really not that hard to grow a few plants for personal use. We had a neighbor with a nice garden and had a couple plants mixed within.

Let's get some actual numbers and look beyond the speculation.

Unsound Unsound:

If it truly is all opinion with no proven facts on either side of the argument, the moral thing to do is go in the direction that allows more freedom rather than less. That is, legalize it.

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

[Unsound]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA, do you read the news?

[OnTheIce]

Unsound Unsound:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA, do you read the news?

Might as well share your wisdom and share us the expense of having to look into a vacuum to guess.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

So where are the studies that show that mandatory minimums for pot are effective?

We made that policy/law change based on what? "speculation and a subjective moral compass" sounds about right.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

So where are the studies that show that mandatory minimums for pot are effective?

We made that policy/law change based on what? "speculation and a subjective moral compass" sounds about right.

Curt, I'm speaking for myself personally. I do not speak for the current or past governments of Canada.

I think it's terrible policy for anyone or any government to make major decisions based on speculation and some form of moral compass.

Speaking to your point; What mandatory minimums are you speaking of? I suspect you're going to tell me that there's a mandatory minimum sentence for pot possession which is completely false.

[Unsound]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Unsound Unsound:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA, do you read the news?

Might as well share your wisdom and share us the expense of having to look into a vacuum to guess.

Just a couple things off the top of my head

1) Cancelling the mandatory section of the census. Changed without warning or study. Ignored the experts and even carryed on with this capricious decision after the head of Stats-Can resigned inprotest.

2) Other side of the aisle, the Libs enacted the gun registry in an emotional reaction to Polytechnique and, obviously, didn't do their research there either.

Governments make major decisions all the time without anywhere near the kind of information and research that there is in the area of legalization.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

So where are the studies that show that mandatory minimums for pot are effective?

We made that policy/law change based on what? "speculation and a subjective moral compass" sounds about right.

Curt, I'm speaking for myself personally. I do not speak for the current or past governments of Canada.

I think it's terrible policy for anyone or any government to make major decisions based on speculation and some form of moral compass.

Speaking to your point; What mandatory minimums are you speaking of? I suspect you're going to tell me that there's a mandatory minimum sentence for pot possession which is completely false.

Don't be an idiot. You know exactly what mandatory minimums were imposed after 3 years of the opposition asking for even a single shred of evidence that they would be effective.

$1:

Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to establish mandatory minimum penalties for the aforementioned offences for drugs listed in Schedule I, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and in Schedule II, such as marijuana. Generally, the mandatory minimum penalty would apply where there is an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard. Also, the maximum sentence for production of marijuana would be increased from 7 to 14 years.

The aggravating factors involve offences committed:
for the benefit of organized crime;
involving use or threat of violence;
involving use or threat of use of weapons;
by someone who has been previously convicted (in the past 10 years) of a serious drug offence;
in a prison;
by abusing a position of authority or access to restricted areas;
in or near a school, in or near an area normally frequented by youth or in the presence of youth;
through involving a youth in the commission of the offence; and
in relation to a youth (e.g. selling to a youth).

What does "near a school" mean? Across the street, 3 blocks over, one kilometre?

It applies to anyone growing a marijuana plant, because the aggravating factors are intentionally vague enough they can apply to anyone.

[OnTheIce]

Unsound Unsound:

Governments make major decisions all the time without anywhere near the kind of information and research that there is in the area of legalization.

Personally, I think you're completely unaware of what takes place before decisions are made at a government level and even if they did make a decision based on speculation and morality that doesn't make it right.

Curtman Curtman:

Don't be an idiot. You know exactly what mandatory minimums were imposed after 3 years of the opposition asking for even a single shred of evidence that they would be effective.

Cut out the name calling Curt....no need to stoop to that level.

People of your ilk would love us to believe people are being throw into jail for holding a dime bag of weed. Those claims are false and unfounded. No bursting fails with pot smokers.

The bill was to target the thing you claim to want to get rid of when it comes to drugs; crime and gang involvement.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Unsound Unsound:

Governments make major decisions all the time without anywhere near the kind of information and research that there is in the area of legalization.

Personally, I think you're completely unaware of what takes place before decisions are made at a government level and even if they did make a decision based on speculation and morality that doesn't make it right.

Curtman Curtman:

Don't be an idiot. You know exactly what mandatory minimums were imposed after 3 years of the opposition asking for even a single shred of evidence that they would be effective.

Cut out the name calling Curt....no need to stoop to that level.

People of your ilk would love us to believe people are being throw into jail for holding a dime bag of weed. Those claims are false and unfounded. No bursting fails with pot smokers.

The bill was to target the thing you claim to want to get rid of when it comes to drugs; crime and gang involvement.

$1:

The number of people arrested for smoking pot rose dramatically in several Canadian cities last year after the Conservatives took office and killed a bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

The spike in arrests for simple possession of cannabis appears in data compiled by The Canadian Press from municipal police forces through interviews and Access to Information Act requests.

National statistics will be released next week, but preliminary figures suggest the number of arrests jumped by more than one-third in several Canadian cities.

Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax reported increases of between 20 and 50 per cent in 2006, while Montreal and Calgary saw their number of arrests dip a few percentage points from the previous year.

As a result, thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that recently was within a whisker of extinction.

Every party in the House of Commons except the Conservatives supported the decriminalization bill

So you are in favour of decriminalization or not? The decrim bill of the Liberal era, didn't make pot legal. It imposed a fine instead of jail time for less than 15 grams in your possession.

You are saying (incorrectly) that people arent being thrown in jail for pot, in a thread where the UBCM voted in favour of exactly that.

The conservative law protects the cartels, because it ensures that anybody who decides to grow-their-own will be put in front of a judge who is powerless to give them a reasonable sentence.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Duh. Because the penalties for cultivation are MUCH more severe than for simple possession.

Yea, because we have cops randomly searching through gardens all over the City looking for marijuana, right? It's really not that hard to grow a few plants for personal use. We had a neighbor with a nice garden and had a couple plants mixed within.

Let's get some actual numbers and look beyond the speculation.

It's all about risk assessment. All it takes is one nosey, self-righteous idiot and yer screwed.

[Unsound]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

even if they did make a decision based on speculation and morality that doesn't make it right.

Based on this one sentance alone, I'm not sure I can be bothered to continue.

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

So why don't people do it more often if it's so easy and inexpensive? Why do people opt to support criminal enterprise by buying it from the guy on the street and not quietly grow their own in the backyard, balcony or basement?

You can't say on one hand that it's so easy for people to grow their own and then say "if pot were legal, most pot smokers would grow their own". That's false. It's speculation at best. I don't buy the notion that "most" pot smokers would run out and get their plants. If it's so easy and inexpensive now, they'd be doing it already.

I think you would agree that many many more people would grow plants than currently if it were legal to do so. Those who can't be bothered to grow would probably have a close friend who does. Althought I don't smoke pot, Marijuana is probably the only contraband item that I could get my hands on any time I wanted it, from more than 1 source.

The fact that cultivation is illegal means that the grower is taking a risk of being caught, and therefore needs a hiding place for their plants. If it were legal, they could grow their plants in the open. A single indoor plant apparently yields around 1-2 ounces which is a few hundred bucks worth at street value, so logic dictates that if one could legally buy seeds at a local store and grow it themselves, they would do so to save money. A single plant is right at the threshold of posession for the purposes of trafficking (30 gms or more), which currently carries a maximum penalty of 5 yrs less a day in prison.

[andyt]

I don't know how dead easy it is to grow good pot. There are different strains, it's almost like choosing a wine. Apartment dwellers will have a problem with where to grow. Many people don't smoke it on a regular basis, just want some available when they feel like it. Busy people aren't going to want to take the time to grow pot. Legalize it, sell it in liquor stores, and a large part of the business would go there. But obviously people should be able to grow their own for personal use.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

So you are in favour of decriminalization or not? The decrim bill of the Liberal era, didn't make pot legal. It imposed a fine instead of jail time for less than 15 grams in your possession.

Sure, although I don't see it making a difference at all.

Curtman Curtman:

You are saying (incorrectly) that people arent being thrown in jail for pot, in a thread where the UBCM voted in favour of exactly that.

No doubt some people end up in jail. However, we have heard from police in here and I have heard from those friends of mine that almost all the people they catch with a small bit of weed they just send them on their way and take the weed.

Cops aren't out hunting for people smoking pot for personal use. I've heard from officer friends of mine that they usually find pot smokers during traffic stops when the windows roll down and the haze and smell comes pouring out. Is that a charge not worthy of the ticket and/or court date? Those charges get lumped in with the numbers quotes for total charges and they are fully just, IMO.

Curtman Curtman:

The conservative law protects the cartels, because it ensures that anybody who decides to grow-their-own will be put in front of a judge who is powerless to give them a reasonable sentence.

Always with the extreme scenarios and I don't buy it at all. Ever hear of anyone who grows pot for themselves being caught and sent to jail? It's got nothing to do with fear of being caught...it's laziness, as it's much easier to make a phone call and pick it up.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

No doubt some people end up in jail. However, we have heard from police in here and I have heard from those friends of mine that almost all the people they catch with a small bit of weed they just send them on their way and take the weed.

Cops aren't out hunting for people smoking pot for personal use. I've heard from officer friends of mine that they usually find pot smokers during traffic stops when the windows roll down and the haze and smell comes pouring out.

Not sure that applies at Jane and Finch and similar areas.