Report calls for decriminalizing both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs

[HOOT]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/...013/story.html

A report out Thursday calls on Canada to decriminalize personal use of all narcotics and regulate cannabis, saying current policies are failing to reduce drug use or make Canadians safer.

The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition says treating drug use as a health problem, rather than a criminal one, would meet many of the objectives prohibitions has historically failed to accomplish.

Pointing toward tobacco as an example, MacPherson said regulation could decrease cannabis use and do more to keep it out of the hands of young people.

A 2012 study done by researchers in B.C. estimated the value of the province’s recreational marijuana market at more than $350 million — a lucrative commodity the government could reap tax revenue from if it was regulated, MacPherson said.

Instead, the report said the federal government has set aside $528 million between 2012 and 2017 for its National Anti-Drug plan, with most of that money going toward law enforcement.

This.

The British researchers, who compared drug policies around the world, also said decriminalization isn’t a cure-all but it’s preferable to prohibition.

“What emerges is that the harms of criminalization far outweigh those of decriminalization,” they wrote.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have always said that I would be fine with legalizing dope as long as it can be controlled and taxed.

In no way would I ever be on board with legalizing and making available the hard stuff like Meth and crack and others because of their nature.

I'm more in line with putting a bullet in the heads of people who make a living off of hooking people on it.

[MelBridgeman]

They don't have substance abuse programs in jail?

A big chunk of that weed revenue in BC is generated by not selling to local users but exported to other countries in exchange for other drugs - how does the government handle that and tax that revenue

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have always said that I would be fine with legalizing dope as long as it can be controlled and taxed.

In no way would I ever be on board with legalizing and making available the hard stuff like Meth and crack and others because of their nature.

I'm more in line with putting a bullet in the heads of people who make a living off of hooking people on it.

There's a difference between legalizing and decriminalizing though - if decriminalized it would still be illegal but users wouldn't get thrown in jail. I don't know whether this is the right choice, but the current approach sure isn't working.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't like hard drugs being decriminalized, but I am for marijuana being decriminalized on the possession level. Make it a fine for possession for use and focus on the high level trafficers.

[zamler]

Making illegal drug use a social rather than criminal problem is bad for business.

[SebC]

The Conservatives' approach to drugs is one of the worst (and costliest) things they have done. Expensive to implement and the outcomes are worse. There's nothing good about it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

There's a difference between legalizing and decriminalizing though - if decriminalized it would still be illegal but users wouldn't get thrown in jail. I don't know whether this is the right choice, but the current approach sure isn't working.

I get that, I am fine with completely legalizing grass, but making it only legal to sell in liquor stores so that we can keep it out of the hands of teenagers with developing minds, gain a wack of tax revenue that can go towards rehab services for other drugs and education.

I would rather keep the options open on hard drugs. I hate what they do to people. I think people that make money on it are scum who deserve no quarter.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would rather keep the options open on hard drugs. I hate what they do to people. I think people that make money on it are scum who deserve no quarter.

If you look at psychological studies, the majority of people who abuse illicit narcotics do so because their brain is prewired for risk-seeking behaviour. If anything, the current legal status of these substances likely contributes to their abuse. This also doesn't even begin to cover the myriad of problems created by the black-market (i.e. poor cutting agents, lack of medical support, safe injection, etc.).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

They don't have substance abuse programs in jail?

A big chunk of that weed revenue in BC is generated by not selling to local users but exported to other countries in exchange for other drugs - how does the government handle that and tax that revenue

That's not really the point.

The suggested model is the one created by Portugal, and it's been shown to work. To respond to your concerns:

1) You don't decriminilize traffickers and dealers. In fact, you come down on them harder. You divert law enforcement resources directed at users and put it all on the distributers. Arreset the people making money and not the one's who are addicted to drugs.

2) The point is to stop the problem before people go to jail. Many people end up in jail because of drugs. Because using drugs and possessing personal amounts of drugs is illegal, people are unable to seek treatment and, generally, distrustful of the system.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

The Conservatives' approach to drugs is one of the worst (and costliest) things they have done. Expensive to implement and the outcomes are worse. There's nothing good about it.

Yep.

Legalize and tax it all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get that, I am fine with completely legalizing grass, but making it only legal to sell in liquor stores so that we can keep it out of the hands of teenagers with developing minds, gain a wack of tax revenue that can go towards rehab services for other drugs and education.

I would rather keep the options open on hard drugs. I hate what they do to people. I think people that make money on it are scum who deserve no quarter.

Who says those teenagers don't have access to it even if it is illegal and hard to get?

I could have easily obtained any drug I wanted, and I was hardly a part of the 'drug' crowd.

[zamler]

Drug users are not criminals, that's about the dumbest possible interpretation of what they are doing. I fail to see any meaningful differences between drinking alcohol, taking prescription medication, and illegal drugs. All have their down sides to varying degrees. Sure some hard drugs are incredibly addictive and dangerous, but so are legal products like tobacco, and legal drugs also extract a heavy toll on society.

Imagine if you tossed people that smoked tobacco in jail, instead of trying to prevent people from getting addicted in the first place, and helping people with the habit quit. Yet the fact remains that tobacco is undisputedly one of the most dangerous substances out there, and should be highly illegal if we accept the fact that the current illegal drugs are that way because the law is there to protect you.

Nothing will ever be accomplished if drug use is treated as a criminal act instead of a social issue.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's not really the point.

The suggested model is the one created by Portugal, and it's been shown to work. To respond to your concerns:

1) You don't decriminilize traffickers and dealers. In fact, you come down on them harder. You divert law enforcement resources directed at users and put it all on the distributers. Arreset the people making money and not the one's who are addicted to drugs.

2) The point is to stop the problem before people go to jail. Many people end up in jail because of drugs. Because using drugs and possessing personal amounts of drugs is illegal, people are unable to seek treatment and, generally, distrustful of the system.

Giving people a way to legally buy drugs will be the hardest way to come down on the dealers. Take away their source of income, and they go away.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Who says those teenagers don't have access to it even if it is illegal and hard to get?

I could have easily obtained any drug I wanted, and I was hardly a part of the 'drug' crowd.

that's why you define illegal distribution as a crime, you can even treat it through revenue Canada.

Hey I hear you sold Jimmy some pot for $80.00?

Yup

Well you now owe the Canadian government $30 of that, plus penalties and interest.

The condition of legalization of grass is on the user end not of the distribution end. If you straight out legalize the selling up it, then you will create a pipeline of cheaper tax free grass coming up from the drug gangs in South America to compete against the legally distributed stuff.

Move the focus from users to dealers and that's fine.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Giving people a way to legally buy drugs will be the hardest way to come down on the dealers. Take away their source of income, and they go away.

Yeah, I don't get why people don't understand this. Cocaine and heroin, for example, are incredibly cheap to produce, and both of the producing plants could be easily grown within Canada, which would basically cut the cartels' and HA's legs right out from under them. By regulating them you'd also remove a lot of the cutting agents that lead to major health problems and higher overdose rates.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I don't get why people don't understand this. Cocaine and heroin, for example, are incredibly cheap to produce, and both of the producing plants could be easily grown within Canada, which would basically cut the cartels' and HA's legs right out from under them. By regulating them you'd also remove a lot of the cutting agents that lead to major health problems and higher overdose rates.

..and the associated crime that goes along with all that garbage.

win/win.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Giving people a way to legally buy drugs will be the hardest way to come down on the dealers. Take away their source of income, and they go away.

I am not disagreeing, but I have trouble with the thought that taking away millions from dealers that they would "just go away"..eventually yes but probably not without a fight.

They guys kill each other for control - don't think they would just go away

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I don't get why people don't understand this. Cocaine and heroin, for example, are incredibly cheap to produce, and both of the producing plants could be easily grown within Canada, which would basically cut the cartels' and HA's legs right out from under them. By regulating them you'd also remove a lot of the cutting agents that lead to major health problems and higher overdose rates.

I understand it but like i said you aren't cutting out dick and jane, you are cutting out VIOLENT DRUG CARTELS - who wouldn't go out without a fight.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I understand it but like i said you aren't cutting out dick and jane, you are cutting out VIOLENT DRUG CARTELS - who wouldn't go out without a fight.

So what are you suggesting they will do?