[Curtman]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's still an irrelevant argument. Decriminalizing pot is no more constitutional that prohibiting it. And 95% of people don't understand the difference between legalization and decriminalization well enough to favour one over the other.

Then it's time to stop the double speak from both sides of the equation and put it out there once and for all with an explanation of exactly what each term means. But the only way they'll be able to put unbiased facts about the subject to the people is if they don't allow either side to put out bullshit on the subject before people can make an informed decision.

There are plenty of unbiased people speaking about this.

Would you call this "bullshit"?



Why do they care enough to speak about it? I bet they're all dopers who just want to get high and care nothing about crime and violence from gangs who prosper from prohibition.

There's no doublespeak.. You're asking two different questions:

Do Canadians support legalization of marijuana?

and

Do Canadians support legalization or decriminalization of marijuana?

Every which way, legalization is the number one choice. Not that many people smoke the stuff. Why oppose the sale of marijuana if you allow the use of it? It just doesn't make any sense as a solution to anything. Why give gangs billions of dollars in tax free revenue if use is legal?

$1:

[They will not admit the war on drugs is a failure], because the culture will eat you up. And I have experienced this. They labelled me as not being one of them. As being an advocate for the drug user.

Bullshit? Or common occurrence?

[Freakinoldguy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then how did the Government keep the homosexuality laws on the books for so long if they had no authority to do it? They may not have had a moral right to do so but by the definition of democracy and majority rule they had a legal one.

That was before the Charter. There used to be lots of unconstitutional laws. Now there are fewer.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So just because one person or a million feel persecuted doesn't mean that the Government is legally obliged to accommodate them so I don't see where you're going with this but I'm sure you're going to tell me.

You're mischaractizing the term accommodate. You are not accommodating me by not penalyzing me for possessing pot. If 99% of Canadians wanted a law that prohibited Orientals from attending public school, could the government pass such s law?

Now I see where you're going with this and you'd probably be correct.

The Charter which IMO is an extremely flawed document does in fact give rights to people who may oppose the will of the majority of Canadians be it with the legalization of pot or the marrying of 12 year old girls in Bountiful BC.

But, if that's true why don't the activists take their marijuana challenge to the Supreme court and have it overturned based on charter rights or does the not withstanding clause come into effect which basically gives the law back to the rights of the majority?

[Freakinoldguy]

Curtman Curtman:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's still an irrelevant argument. Decriminalizing pot is no more constitutional that prohibiting it. And 95% of people don't understand the difference between legalization and decriminalization well enough to favour one over the other.

Then it's time to stop the double speak from both sides of the equation and put it out there once and for all with an explanation of exactly what each term means. But the only way they'll be able to put unbiased facts about the subject to the people is if they don't allow either side to put out bullshit on the subject before people can make an informed decision.

There are plenty of unbiased people speaking about this.

Would you call this "bullshit"?



Why do they care enough to speak about it? I bet they're all dopers who just want to get high and care nothing about crime and violence from gangs who prosper from prohibition.

There's no doublespeak.. You're asking two different questions:

Do Canadians support legalization of marijuana?

and

Do Canadians support legalization or decriminalization of marijuana?

Every which way, legalization is the number one choice. Not that many people smoke the stuff. Why oppose the sale of marijuana if you allow the use of it? It just doesn't make any sense as a solution to anything. Why give gangs billions of dollars in tax free revenue if use is legal?

$1:

[They will not admit the war on drugs is a failure], because the culture will eat you up. And I have experienced this. They labelled me as not being one of them. As being an advocate for the drug user.

Bullshit? Or common occurrence?

No more bullshit than things like this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-575 ... -all-time/

$1:

"Medical, my... come on. There's no medical," Bloomberg said on WOR radio according to CBS New York. "This is one of the great hoaxes of all time."

The New York State Assembly recently made possession of small amounts of marijuana punishable by a small fine instead of an arrest. But, Bloomberg reiterated his opposition to legalization.

"But the bottom line is I'm told marijuana is much stronger today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. I don't have any personal experience in terms of today. So that's one problem," he said.

"And number two, drug dealers have families to feed. If they can't sell marijuana, they'll sell something else, and the something else is going to be worse, and the push to legalize this is just wrong-headed," he added. "But they say: 'Oh, well, it's not going to hurt anybody. It doesn't lead to dependency.' Of course it does. And you can argue about recreational things, but it's a very slippery path."

Do you see what I mean about double speak and rhetoric. Depending on which outcome you want you can pretty much say anything and get away with it Richard Branson, Kash Heed and Mayor Bloomberg who is just as unbiased included.

But I also don't see any of this legalization happening without a process that includes a referendum for decriminalization first, then another referendum on legalization and then, depending on outcome, outright legalization. Pretty much what is happening in BC right now. Also having the US say yes to legalization would go along way in getting our politicians to follow suit. Otherwise we, like the NDP said will have major issues with the NSA that will affect all our trade.

As for the Angus Reid poll you posted. Well, it would appear that it contradicts the other poll and the majority do want marijuana legalized. So. despite having contradictory polls and in fairness to you, as I stated, I stand corrected and your poll has as much validity as the one that says they want it legalized over decriminalized.

So, I wait with bated breath for the Gov't to do the right thing and act on these contradictory findings by holding a nationwide referendum on the subject which will finally end the insanity of everybody claiming to be right.

Then maybe we can move on to more important things in this country.

[Curtman]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Do you see what I mean about double speak and rhetoric. Depending on which outcome you want you can pretty much say anything and get away with it Richard Branson, Kash Heed and Mayor Bloomberg who is just as unbiased included.

Now you're asking a third question:

Do Canadians support medical marijuana?

I'm not aware of any Canadian polls, but those numbers are much higher, and have been increasing if we mirror the US results as well:

$1:

72 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "Adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it."
POLL: AARP
DATE: November 2004
Sample Size: 1,706

80 percent of respondents supported allowing adults to "legally use marijuana for medical purposes."
POLL: Time Magazine/CNN Poll
DATE: October 2002
Sample Size: 1,007

70 percent of respondents answered affirmatively to the question, "Should the use of medical marijuana be allowed?"
POLL: Center for Substance Abuse Research
DATE: January 2002
Sample Size: N/A

73 percent of respondents supported allowing doctors "to prescribe marijuana."
POLL: Pew Research Center Poll
DATE: March 2001
Sample Size: 1,513

73 percent of respondents said they "would vote for making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe."
POLL: Gallup
DATE: March 1999
Sample size: 1,018

60 percent of respondents supported allowing physicians to prescribe medical marijuana.
POLL: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
DATE: March 1998
Sample size: N/A

62 percent of respondents favored legalizing marijuana "strictly for medical use."
POLL: Luntz Research Poll
DATE: September 1997
Sample size: 1,444

66 percent of Independent voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
64 percent of Democrat voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
57 percent of Republican voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
POLL: CBS News telephone poll
DATE: June 1997
Sample size: N/A

74 percent of respondents agreed "people who find that marijuana is effective for their medical condition should be able to use it legally."
POLL: Family Research Council
DATE: June 1997
Sample size: 1,000

69 percent of respondents favored "legalizing [the] medical use of marijuana."
POLL: ABC News/Discovery News Poll
DATE: May 1997
Sample size: 517

68 percent of respondents said the federal government should not punish doctors who prescribe marijuana. 60 percent of respondents said doctors should "be able to prescribe marijuana."
POLL: Lake Research Poll
DATE: February 1997
Sample size: 1,002

85 percent of respondents favored "making marijuana legally available for medical uses where it has been proven effective for treating a problem."
POLL: ACLU Topline Poll
DATE: November 1995
Sample size: 1,001

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But I also don't see any of this legalization happening without a process that includes a referendum for decriminalization first, then another referendum on legalization and then, depending on outcome, outright legalization. Pretty much what is happening in BC right now. Also having the US say yes to legalization would go along way in getting our politicians to follow suit. Otherwise we, like the NDP said will have major issues with the NSA that will affect all our trade.

Now you're getting it. Why not just ask about legalization first? BC doesn't have authority to legalize if you believe what some say around here, so it would be a silly referendum to have in BC. You don't need to have two referendums. Why not just sample Canadians to see which idea they like better, and have one? You've given us two polls that say they choose Legalization. Did you find any where they preferred decriminalization? I couldn't.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

As for the Angus Reid poll you posted. Well, it would appear that it contradicts the other poll and the majority do want marijuana legalized. So. despite having contradictory polls and in fairness to you, as I stated, I stand corrected and your poll has as much validity as the one that says they want it legalized over decriminalized.

I get that you aren't good with statistics. You're asking two different questions (now three) and you're surprised you don't get the same answer! There is absolutely nothing contradictory about those polls.

Lets make an analogy here:

40% support legalization (We'll call them Conservatives)
26% support decriminalization (We'll call them New Democrats)
20% support prohibition (We'll call them Liberals)
11% support increased prohibition (We'll call them Greens)

Are you saying that the Conservatives in fact do not have a majority?

They do when the result is a plurality, unfortunately.

Would we be better off with a coalition of Conservatives and New Democrats that has 66% of support because they support some kind of reform? Maybe, but nobody asked that in your poll they just told you about that statistic. People tend to think its unfair to change the question after the vote.

This is not a contradiction, it's the result of asking a multiple choice question instead of a true/false question. The only way to fix this with multiple choice is by asking respondents to rank their choices (First choice, second choice, etc) we can get a good idea of the level of support for each choice with math

Or some kind of elimination round:

Increase penalties is off the list, only one person in 10 supports that, vote again, now current prohibition is off the list, and see which Canadians will choose between legalization and decriminalization. That would be an interesting question to ask but I doubt it has been.

More likely when increased penalties is eliminated, those votes move to prohibition, and 31% prohibitionist support eliminates 26% decriminalization. Then it's a yes/no on legalization again.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So, I wait with bated breath for the Gov't to do the right thing and act on these contradictory findings by holding a nationwide referendum on the subject which will finally end the insanity of everybody claiming to be right.

Then maybe we can move on to more important things in this country.

Do that. There is no evidence to say Canadians or Americans would say no to legalization if given a yes/no question. Anywhere.

[Curtman]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But, if that's true why don't the activists take their marijuana challenge to the Supreme court and have it overturned based on charter rights or does the not withstanding clause come into effect which basically gives the law back to the rights of the majority?

This is excellent. You've come around to Marc Emery's position. Force the Canadian government to prosecute you so you can have the Canadian supreme court rule on the matter. Canada refused to prosecute him each and every time, so he turned his efforts to the U.S.. Overgrow the US government was a tremendous success. Two states have voted to legalize since then.




Or this one:

[Freakinoldguy]

Curtman Curtman:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But, if that's true why don't the activists take their marijuana challenge to the Supreme court and have it overturned based on charter rights or does the not withstanding clause come into effect which basically gives the law back to the rights of the majority?

This is excellent. You've come around to Marc Emery's position. Force the Canadian government to prosecute you so you can have the Canadian supreme court rule on the matter. Canada refused to prosecute him each and every time, so he turned his efforts to the U.S.. Overgrow the US government was a tremendous success. Two states have voted to legalize since then.




Or this one:

To be honest I think Marc Emery's conviction In the US had less to do with legalization in Washington and Colorado than the changing demographics of people who live in those states. Had he been the catalyst for legalization there would have been alot more fanfare outside the activist community about it than there was. What he did was break the law of another country that couldn't give a shit about our charter just to prove a point, so equating that to forcing the Canadian Gov't to charge him is a stretch.

But like I told you I'd be fine of the country going with what a real majority of Canadians wanted WRT legalization since polls are nice but aren't always accurate as the NDP in BC and the Wild Rose party in Alberta discovered.

My only objections in this whole boondoggle is the rhetoric and unproven theories that are espoused by both the pro and anti crowd which, is why months ago I said we should be watching what happens in Washington and Colorado to see how they regulate it and if it works before we proceed.

And as for the numbers I see what you're doing there. Your using our electoral system as a baseline to show that even if a larger percentage of Canadians voted against something or someone, the guy or in this case marijuana ,who was first to the finish line won. Well as you people on the left like to point out. A majority of Canadians didn't vote for Mr. Harper so the same could be said for the numbers in the poll that said only 40% of the people polled voted for legalization.

So given the options for seeking legalization, you folks might want to go the Supreme Court route because it would take out all the uncertainties of having to get a real majority of Canadians to vote for it and as we all know politicians have been remiss to enact the will of the Canadians when it doesn't suit their political agendas parties not withstanding.

[andyt]

The political analogy is apt - 60 percent of people voted against Harper, yet he still gets to govern. Change the question to for/against legalization, and how will those 26% for decrim split? Less than half of them would be required to to go for full legalization to get a majority for it. I would guess many decrim people would go for legalization in that case, they just want to be more cautious, but faced with the ongoing insanity of keeping pot illegal would go for full legalization. Maybe they would even reflect on how making use legal but keeping production illegal just makes no sense before voting.

[Curtman]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

To be honest I think Marc Emery's conviction In the US had less to do with legalization in Washington and Colorado than the changing demographics of people who live in those states. Had he been the catalyst for legalization there would have been alot more fanfare outside the activist community about it than there was. What he did was break the law of another country that couldn't give a shit about our charter just to prove a point, so equating that to forcing the Canadian Gov't to charge him is a stretch.

There's a lot of history prior to the U.S. raid..


The summer of legalization tour 2003, etc..

$1:

In November 2002, then US Drug Czar John Walters visited Vancouver to give a speech at a luncheon sponsored by the Vancouver Board of Trade. Emery bought a table for himself and other local cannabis activists, and heckled Walters as he spoke about the need for Canada to embrace the "War on Drugs."

Marijuana activism was almost non-existent before Marc lead the way.

[OnTheIce]

Do you discuss with your kid(s), Curtman, the importance of legalizing marijuana?

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Do you discuss with your kid(s), Curtman, the importance of legalizing marijuana?

A little bit, our oldest is entering middle school in September. He knows who to stay away from and why.

[Curtman]

The Munchies

[llama66]

nice.