Is this really a good platform to run on to erode the conservatives lead ? I understand that it will get some NDPers onboard, but If anything this reeks like a move just to get into the opposition chair next election and I am unsure it really will let them take a run a the conservatives next election.
This is independant of the issue of Pot legalization, which frankly I am indifferent on. Decriminilization is likely the better option anyways.
I don't know, it depends on how things are going in three years.
to be honest, the Conservatives haven't really given the Liberal's all that much to work with in terms of policy decisions.
The evil secret agenda that the Liberal's were hoping for hasn't appeared.
I would be more for legalization if we can generate revenue from it.
But I don't think that its going to change liberal fortunes that much.
It depends on who becomes the Lib leader anyways, if they pick the same old party hack like Bob Rae they will fumble away an opportunity to get back into official opposition.
But right now, unless the Liberal's come out with a strong policy statement instead of something wishy washy and get their fund raising in order, the only thing that might happen in the next election is that the Liberal's and NDP might swtich seat counts, or the Bloc might resurge into quebec because the NDP is doing a lousy job
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Legalize it. Who the f actually cares if people smoke it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people will use it. Same principle goes to alcohol and tobacco.
Some police officers I know say they would be in favour of legalizing in a second if there was an easy way of detecting whether a driver was impaired on the stuff or not (much like the handheld devices for drunk drivers).
I myself would support legalization if there was an easier manner of detecting such drivers and I think many Canadians still on the fence would come of it were that the case. I just don't know if such a device is feasible or even technically possible at this point.
If nothing else, this gives the Liberals a clear policy plank in which they can contrast themselves with the Conservatives. Harper's crime bill is going to cost taxpayers billions and criminalize Canadians for possessing even a small amount of marijuana, so it makes sense for the Liberals to take the opposite approach and frame it as saving the government huge amounts of money instead of fighting an activity that most Canadians don't even view as harmful.
I'm not a pot user myself and thus am not personally affected either way, but from a fiscal prudence standpoint decriminalization and/or legalization is a much more sensible approach than Harper's position. There have been numerous scientific studies (including one a few years ago conducted on behalf of the Canadian senate) that have shown the medical affects of smoking weed are no worse than that of other legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco, so why waste billions of taxpayer dollars to enforce a prohibition policy? Not to mention how the underground drug trade enables organized crime and gang-related violence.
Last edited by MarchHare; 01-16-2012 at 02:18 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Some police officers I know say they would be in favour of legalizing in a second if there was an easy way of detecting whether a driver was impaired on the stuff or not (much like the handheld devices for drunk drivers).
I myself would support legalization if there was an easier manner of detecting such drivers and I think many Canadians still on the fence would come of it were that the case. I just don't know if such a device is feasible or even technically possible at this point.
Do the cops not currently have any capability to enforce DUI laws on people who smoke pot and then drive?
I feel like the legalization and/or decriminalization carrot has been dangled in front of the voting public for so long that the window for making it an election issue has passed.
It seems the general Canadian population is sick of having this "debate" around pot, most agree that it's ultimately harmless and it should be legalized and taxed like booze.
Getting caught by a cop smoking a joint isn't the same offence is was 15 years ago, I've even heard cops say "there was a time when resin on a pipe was enough to arrest you. Now even a joint or a roach isn't worth our time."
I fully support full legalization & taxing of it, but it's been quasi legal for so long now that it won't sway my vote on it's own.
It just seems like such a trivial thing to trumpet out of a convention when they are trying to claw their way back. It reeks to me like a move just to get their name into the papers.
Do the cops not currently have any capability to enforce DUI laws on people who smoke pot and then drive?
They can, but a large portion of that is recognition of the drug in the system, which is quite the prolonged, extended process.
I think it would be best to decriminalize it (ie. remove it from the criminal code), but make it something along a bylaw to smoke it in public. Person gets a ticket, they can still enjoy it in the comfort of their own home, and it would hopefully curb some issues with people smoking up in public and a bunch of baked out people running around or driving vehicles.
The Following User Says Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
The real question I have is how many oil & gas companies, auto makers, etc are going to allow rig workers/heavy equipment operators and the like, to get stoned at work?
In the case of ANY business, you'd think productivity would go right down the tubes. Will there be a limit of how stoned you can get at work, just as there's usually a 1-2 beer at lunch rule with some companies?
The real question I have is how many oil & gas companies, auto makers, etc are going to allow rig workers/heavy equipment operators and the like, to get stoned at work?
Why would companies treat it any differently than they do alcohol? I'd get fired with cause if I show up to work drunk, so why would showing up to work high be any different? Also, I imagine most organizations already have policies about working while under the influence of drugs; decriminalization of marijuana shouldn't change anything there.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
The real question I have is how many oil & gas companies, auto makers, etc are going to allow rig workers/heavy equipment operators and the like, to get stoned at work?
In the case of ANY business, you'd think productivity would go right down the tubes. Will there be a limit of how stoned you can get at work, just as there's usually a 1-2 beer at lunch rule with some companies?
You can't drink at work, so why would they let people get high at work?
You can't drink at work, so why would they let people get high at work?
I'm talking about having a beer or a joint at lunch.
EDIT - obviously some companies have zero tolerance at work, but even then, what about off shift hours? I suppose people would just piss kit their tests the same way they always have....
Last edited by Frank MetaMusil; 01-16-2012 at 02:55 PM.
Liberals interested in legalizing Pot ?
