I have no doubt it will be. The problem for the CRA and the police will determing who is doing it for personal use and not to sell on the black market.
Selling permits for home growing solves that issue, and is a way to get tax revenue from home growers.
The Following User Says Thank You to Grimbl420 For This Useful Post:
I do remember junior high and high school it was not that easy to get it (I went to school in Calgary so not some isolated tiny village or anything) and it was much easier to get the legal and regulated alcohol. Marijuana is much worse in my view than alcohol.
I think legalizing pot will definitely do more to legitimize so yes I think it will be harder to prevent my children from doing it.
Personally I think the better way to stop the criminals from selling it is to make the punishments real punishments not the weak punishments they have now. If you are caught selling you are in jail for life no parole. Caught with any marijuana even as little as one joint, ten years in jail minimum.
You do realize that the USA tried ridiculous sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug users, and they failed miserably, and are now getting rid of the mandatory minimum laws in California and Texas?
I have to ask you this, but hypothetically, what if it were your son or daughter that was caught with a joint by Police? They are looking at 10 years of their life for smoking a joint? Do you really want to see your child locked up in a cold cell, in some institution full of hardened criminals?
I'm sorry if it seems I'm picking on you, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how on earth is locking up some young adult for 10 years for smoking a joint, in the best interests of society?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jets4Life For This Useful Post:
I don't really want to keep this going but will answer your questions.
Yes if my kids were dumb enough to get involved with drugs and broke the law I would expect them to do the 10 years. Now I feel confident that I would raise them right so they would not get involved.
As for the States and their mandatory laws from what I have read they never were as severe as I am proposing. Therefore they were never enough of a deterent to stop people from selling and using, using especially, drugs.
I will say if you are going to keep the piddly little drug laws we have now then you likely won't do much to curb people's use. That is why I want the punishment to be very severe to actually make people consider not using the drugs.
I don't really want to keep this going but will answer your questions.
Yes if my kids were dumb enough to get involved with drugs and broke the law I would expect them to do the 10 years. Now I feel confident that I would raise them right so they would not get involved.
As for the States and their mandatory laws from what I have read they never were as severe as I am proposing. Therefore they were never enough of a deterent to stop people from selling and using, using especially, drugs.
I will say if you are going to keep the piddly little drug laws we have now then you likely won't do much to curb people's use. That is why I want the punishment to be very severe to actually make people consider not using the drugs.
This way of thinking basically is against any sort of research on the topic. Mandatory minimums and severe punishments don't deter crime. The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world, mostly due to mandatory minimums. People go to jail for minor offenses and leave prison hardened criminals with no prospects for lawful employment. What you're proposing is both ridiculously harmful on society and completely ineffective.
The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
I don't really want to keep this going but will answer your questions.
Yes if my kids were dumb enough to get involved with drugs and broke the law I would expect them to do the 10 years. Now I feel confident that I would raise them right so they would not get involved.
As for the States and their mandatory laws from what I have read they never were as severe as I am proposing. Therefore they were never enough of a deterent to stop people from selling and using, using especially, drugs.
I will say if you are going to keep the piddly little drug laws we have now then you likely won't do much to curb people's use. That is why I want the punishment to be very severe to actually make people consider not using the drugs.
Sometimes, no matter how well we raise our children, they will make mistakes, or do foolish things. It's human nature. The US War on Drugs was an abysmal failure, as it has been proven in America, that increasing sentencing guidelines do not work as a deterrent, as marijuana use did not change, when the US Government increased penalties for marijuana possession and use, in the 80s.
If it were up to me, I would decriminalize all drugs, as I truly believe it is a mental health issue, rather than a criminal issue. I'm not blowing smoke up my arse either (pardon the pun). As someone who has had issues with alcohol in the past, and attends AA meetings, and comes from a family where alcoholism is prevalent, I have first hand experience meeting with addicts.
Unfortunately, people make unwise decisions, and develop poor coping mechanisms. We should be spending money on mental health initiatives to prevent people from resorting to drug and alcohol abuse. It's a cost effective and preventative measure. We should also be spending more on treatment centers, for people who do develop problems related to drugs and alcohol.
Prison should be an absolute last resort. Don;t get me wrong though, if people who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol commit crimes (i.e drunk driving, assault, robbery, etc) throw the book at them. However, I disagree with the way the Conservative Government is handling the marijuana issue.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jets4Life For This Useful Post:
This way of thinking basically is against any sort of research on the topic. Mandatory minimums and severe punishments don't deter crime. The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world, mostly due to mandatory minimums. People go to jail for minor offenses and leave prison hardened criminals with no prospects for lawful employment. What you're proposing is both ridiculously harmful on society and completely ineffective.
Exactly.
What a lot of people don't understand about punishment is that - the more you punish someone - the more the person is going to want to get retribution of some sort, especially if the person feels that the punishment was undeserved and/or excessive.
Issues such as drug use can't be stamped out with brute force. The drug war of the past several decades has proven that.
This way of thinking basically is against any sort of research on the topic. Mandatory minimums and severe punishments don't deter crime. The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world, mostly due to mandatory minimums. People go to jail for minor offenses and leave prison hardened criminals with no prospects for lawful employment. What you're proposing is both ridiculously harmful on society and completely ineffective.
I don't really want to keep this going but will answer your questions.
Yes if my kids were dumb enough to get involved with drugs and broke the law I would expect them to do the 10 years. Now I feel confident that I would raise them right so they would not get involved.
As for the States and their mandatory laws from what I have read they never were as severe as I am proposing. Therefore they were never enough of a deterent to stop people from selling and using, using especially, drugs.
I will say if you are going to keep the piddly little drug laws we have now then you likely won't do much to curb people's use. That is why I want the punishment to be very severe to actually make people consider not using the drugs.
I know based off your views that you won't like Jon Oliver but watch this:
You said earlier in the thread that you followed the election this year and that makes you more educated, yet you say stuff like "from what I have read they never were as severe as I am proposing." How about you actually do your homework to be a more informed voter.
Even the lawmakers that introduced mandatory minimums are now saying that it does not work. It doesn't deter it, it just makes the jails overloaded. There is a reason they are getting rid of minimums down south, when we are trying to implement them here now that it's been proven to fail?
in the video you see people who have Life without parole for having 3 ounces of meth.
Just look at minimum sentences - a lot of them are 10+ year minimums.
In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than 4 oz (112 g) of a hard drug.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flamesfan6 For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drak
Not really. Growing in large quantities would require a business license to operate - like any other business. If you violate that you get shut down. If you're growing small amounts the black market doesn't have much use for you. Regardless, if legalized I suspect people are going to prefer buying from legal dispensaries and with competition the prices will be competitive.
Pot black market still thrives after Colorado legalization
Quote:
Although recreational use of marijuana has been legal in the state of Colorado for nine months, some people are still choosing to buy it on the black market. Critics say legalization has created two systems: a legal market for those who can afford it and an underground market for people who can't. PBS NewsHour Special Correspondent Rick Karr reports from Denver.
Quote:
RICK KARR: One of the benefits attached to legalization was that it would eliminate the black market. But that market is still thriving, according to a 39 year old marijuana grower who asked us to call him John Doe and to conceal his identity because he sells on the underground market.
The illegal trade is doing especially well in black and Latino communities, and he says it works the same way it did when pot was illegal.
JOHN DOE: You have that one guy, that guy that shines, that’s the Robin Hood of the neighborhood. This man supplies a little ghetto area. Simple as that. Breaks his own pound into little ounces and helps everybody in his community. So they can afford it with him. That’s how it’s happened.
RICK KARR: Yeah. And that’s how it happened before, too.
JOHN DOE: Yeah. Yeah. Nothing’s changed.
RICK KARR: John Doe says low-income buyers turn to the black market because prices are higher at legal retail stores. There’s conflicting information, but an ounce of pot on the black market can cost as little as 180 dollars. At the store Andy Williams owns, you have to pay around 240 dollars for an ounce.
That’s partly because the price includes a 15 percent excise tax, a 10 percent marijuana tax, the state sales tax, and Denver’s marijuana sales tax.
Quote:
RICK KARR: But for anyone who was caught and convicted of a drug-related felony before legalization, state law makes it virtually impossible to join the industry now that marijuana is legal. John Doe says that keeps a lot of people working on the black market.
JOHN DOE: There’s a lot of people that have broken the law that are great entrepreneurs, work very hard, have good work ethics, family values, good communication skills. I mean, I definitely believe that they should be given a chance. The rules and regulations should allow a good grower that’s been in trouble to do this. They’re not hurting anybody. They’re not out there you know, stealing and robbing. Most of these people probably got caught up trying to make a living. Trying to make money.
I don't really want to keep this going but will answer your questions.
Yes if my kids were dumb enough to get involved with drugs and broke the law I would expect them to do the 10 years. Now I feel confident that I would raise them right so they would not get involved.
As for the States and their mandatory laws from what I have read they never were as severe as I am proposing. Therefore they were never enough of a deterent to stop people from selling and using, using especially, drugs.
I will say if you are going to keep the piddly little drug laws we have now then you likely won't do much to curb people's use. That is why I want the punishment to be very severe to actually make people consider not using the drugs.
Hopefully your unrealistic harsh idea of prison sentencing will never come to pass in future times. If it does, may the gods help us.
Regardless, if you believe in such punishments I wonder what sort of discipline will your children might receive if you catch one of them with a joint.
Regardless, if you believe in such punishments I wonder what sort of discipline will your children might receive if you catch one of them with a joint.
They would be taught the dangers of doing drugs and the consequences that their actions will have on their future if they continue down that path.
This way of thinking basically is against any sort of research on the topic. Mandatory minimums and severe punishments don't deter crime. The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world, mostly due to mandatory minimums. People go to jail for minor offenses and leave prison hardened criminals with no prospects for lawful employment. What you're proposing is both ridiculously harmful on society and completely ineffective.
That's the thing though, adc and so many other hardline conservative supports simply don't care about the research. They have their pre-formed opinion and nothing will change that, so there's really no point in trying to argue with him. adc saying that marijuana is an extremely harmful drug is the same as republicans who say that climate change isn't real, both use the same logic (or lack thereof) in their reasoning
That's the thing though, adc and so many other hardline conservative supports simply don't care about the research. They have their pre-formed opinion and nothing will change that, so there's really no point in trying to argue with him. adc saying that marijuana is an extremely harmful drug is the same as republicans who say that climate change isn't real, both use the same logic (or lack thereof) in their reasoning
Science and facts be damned.
The Following User Says Thank You to Drak For This Useful Post:
You seem to be going really hard at this, Dion. It's almost impossible to not infer that you're against legalization at this point. I'm not so sure about the articles you're posting either, it seems like you're just madly google searching "Colorado legalization issues" and pasting anything that comes up.
Hell, if I cherry pick quotes from your last article, I can paint an entirely different picture. These are all from the article you just posted;
Quote:
In the first seven months, those taxes have generated 24 million dollars in revenue. A chunk of that is slated for public school construction.
Besides he says the legal market offers some things that consumers find more important than the lowest price. Variety, convenience, safety. That’s what drives every product in the entire world. You know, that’s what’s going to drive this market
Quote:
I think it’s absurd for anyone to assume that we can eliminate a black market that grew over 80 plus years within the course of eight, nine months. But we’ve seen this industry take a huge bite out of the underground market.
Quote:
People of color were being disproportionately impacted when it came to marijuana possession, and now whether you’re white, whether you’re black, whether you’re a Latino, you are no longer going to be booked and convicted and treated like a criminal the rest of your life simply for possessing marijuana
Your cherry picking sounds bad, my cherry picking sounds great! That's why cherry picking isn't a great way to go about an argument.
Last edited by jayswin; 10-18-2015 at 08:12 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
But of course, the black market exists in the first place because of the historical prohibition in the US for the past 80 years. You can't erase that in a short period of time and it is unrealistic to expect all the negative effects from 80 years of prohibition to just disappear over night after legalization. There are people who depend on the black market for revenue and won't give it up easily.
It will probably take a whole generation before the effectiveness can be judged fairly.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
You seem to be going really hard at this, Dion. It's almost impossible to not infer that you're against legalization at this point. I'm not so sure about the articles you're posting either, it seems like you're just madly google searching "Colorado legalization issues" and pasting anything that comes up.
Hell, if I cherry pick quotes from your last article, I can paint an entirely different picture. These are all from the article you just posted;
Your cherry picking sounds bad, my cherry picking sounds great! That's why cherry picking isn't a great way to go about an argument.
If I was against legalisation you'd have a point. It's not going to be an easy process and it would make the process better if we learned from any pitfalls the Colorado govt has faced.
For example what would we do with people who are convicted pot crimes. Do we not allow them to set up a business like Colorado has?
__________________
Last edited by Dion; 10-18-2015 at 08:28 PM.
Reason: more added
