Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[MoneyGuy]

I've never used the stuff and I'm not sure I support legalization. Decriminalization, yes, but not necessarily legalization.

However, there are some issues here that interest me. One is how they'll treat criminal records from drug use. Will these be wiped off the books? That would open up travel and job opportunities. Also, what about insurance applications? I'm a financial planner and sometimes insurance applications have been denied or applicants have been rated for what has been deemed a criminal activity and, depending on usage, smoking.

Also, might insurance policies that had been rated (higher premiums) previously be reviewed and rated changed? You'd likely still be a smoker but a criminal conviction would presumably go away.

This will be very interesting.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Tell us about the hordes of stoned zombies that wander aimlessly at night. Are the children smoking joints in the school yards? Surely there must be hundreds of thousands of layabouts in the gutters around your once fine city.

Well sure you got your hordes of zombies and drugged up children but those are just Bronco fans and kids on adderall.

[Huntingwhale]

The majority of Canadians want it legalised, therefore it should be legalised. It drove me crazy when Harper just came and flat out said he wouldn't even have a debate on it because he thought weed was infinitely more dangerous then tobacco. He went against what Canadians wanted, which is the opposite of what an elected official should do.

Legalise it. Tax it. Make is safe for consumers to use. Cut out the criminal element. Educate people on it's effects instead of painting it as some gateway drug that leads to heroin addiction. By doing this, everyone wins (except the criminals).

The positives of legalisation far outweigh the negatives. Maintaining the status quo isn't the best option, as has been proven decade after decade.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I've never used the stuff and I'm not sure I support legalization. Decriminalization, yes, but not necessarily legalization.

I have to say, decriminalization is useless. It tends to be the default position for people who acknowledge that the war on drugs doesn't work, but are afraid of what it means to legalize a drug (even though we have plenty of those already, with varying degrees of potential benefit/harm) from a social perspective (will usage go up, is there easier access for kids, etc..)

But the problem with this position is that by decriminalizing possession, you essentially keep all the bad aspects of drug use (high-level crime, street dealings with no concern for age, possible usage increase, lack of proper studies on effects, etc..) while not allowing the benefits (taxation, age-limits, regulated distribution, more informative social and youth programs, less stress on justice system, etc..)

In my opinion, if you're for decriminalization but against legalization, you're letting your personal ideals regarding drug use cloud yourself to the overall social benefits. If you're against it, just be against it. Decriminalization is not a logical position to me, it's just sitting on the fence with a buzzword that makes you feel like your with the times. If you don't care either way, the default position should really be legalization. If you do care, your position should be not to legalize. Anything in-between is essentially useless.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I have to say, decriminalization is useless. It tends to be the default position for people who acknowledge that the war on drugs doesn't work, but are afraid of what it means to legalize a drug (even though we have plenty of those already, with varying degrees of potential benefit/harm) from a social perspective (will usage go up, is there easier access for kids, etc..)

But the problem with this position is that by decriminalizing possession, you essentially keep all the bad aspects of drug use (high-level crime, street dealings with no concern for age, possible usage increase, lack of proper studies on effects, etc..) while not allowing the benefits (taxation, age-limits, regulated distribution, more informative social and youth programs, less stress on justice system, etc..)

In my opinion, if you're for decriminalization but against legalization, you're letting your personal ideals regarding drug use cloud yourself to the overall social benefits. If you're against it, just be against it. Decriminalization is not a logical position to me, it's just sitting on the fence with a buzzword that makes you feel like your with the times. If you don't care either way, the default position should really be legalization. If you do care, your position should be not to legalize. Anything in-between is essentially useless.

Thank you good post.


Perhaps if we legalize and tax it, we can use that revenue stream to reduce income tax, yeah right.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Drak

OT from the current discussion - There are more dispensaries popping up here in Victoria. One is called Leaf which is on Yates Street. I went in to inquire about purchase last week whilst walking by and they offered me an 8 page application which required photo ID. I didn't feel comfortable about that at all, having that information on record. I couldn't take the application home to review either. I was told once filled out and accepted, I could purchase product in their upstairs showroom. I didn't need approval from a doctor. The local police are supportive but the feds, of course, not. RCMP busts would have access to those records.

I live in Nanaimo and only had to answer 3 or 4 questions on a one page form and show them two pieces of ID, one being my drivers license which they wrote the number down. I now have a dispensary card and can and have purchased weed and edibles in various dispensaries in Nanaimo and Victoria. Vancouver had 90+ dispensaries last I heard.

RCMP would only know you have a dispensary card, not that you bought anything.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Zevo

I live in Nanaimo and only had to answer 3 or 4 questions on a one page form and show them two pieces of ID, one being my drivers license which they wrote the number down. I now have a dispensary card and can and have purchased weed and edibles in various dispensaries in Nanaimo and Victoria. Vancouver had 90+ dispensaries last I heard.

RCMP would only know you have a dispensary card, not that you bought anything.

Interesting. Maybe Leaf was an 8 question application and not "8 pages" which seems ridiculous. I probably misheard the guy. Regardless, I still don't like handing over personal info and ID at this point.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

However, there are some issues here that interest me. One is how they'll treat criminal records from drug use. Will these be wiped off the books? That would open up travel and job opportunities. Also, what about insurance applications?

Usage-only records/jail terms should be expunged and exonerated immediately after legalization. Full stop.

There is no question that those busted for possession should not have criminal records or be in jail. The fact that there are a mind-boggling amount of those who currently have criminal records for marijuana possession (let alone those in jail) is ludicrous and criminal in itself.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Usage-only records/jail terms should be expunged and exonerated immediately after legalization. Full stop.

There is no question that those busted for possession should not have criminal records or be in jail. The fact that there are a mind-boggling amount of those who currently have criminal records for marijuana possession (let alone those in jail) is ludicrous and criminal in itself.

I don't disagree with your post but the logistics of it are mind bottling.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Drak

Interesting. Maybe Leaf was an 8 question application and not "8 pages" which seems ridiculous. I probably misheard the guy. Regardless, I still don't like handing over personal info and ID at this point.

Understandable, I had reservations at first but the more I thought about it the less I was worried. What can the RCMP do?

I love the one store. If a friend signs up and uses you as a referral('reefer a friend' they call it) I get a $10 dollar credit, which I've had 3 already. Also toonie Tuesdays.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't disagree with your post but the logistics of it are mind bottling.

Yeah, as mentioned in my thread bump, there are a lot of sensitive and complicated issues that need to be dealt with upon/leading up to legalization. But those are not reasons to inhibit progress, and using them as reasons to not is pure laziness.

It's like me not doing the dishes because I have no soap, when I can walk to the store and get some. If it's a blizzard, well I could stand the cold for 10 minutes, or I could just let my house be overtaken by dishes and all the grime and problems that goes along with them.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't disagree with your post but the logistics of it are mind bottling.

They could do it by requiring an application. That way, only people who care to have it removed for their record would have it happen, then the govt. wouldn't have to hunt down unnecessary records.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, as mentioned in my thread bump, there are a lot of sensitive and complicated issues that need to be dealt with upon/leading up to legalization. But those are not reasons to inhibit progress, and using them as reasons to not is pure laziness.

We are of the same mind.

Thankfully there are smarter people than me to address this massive problem, otherwise you would find me buried under a mountain of dirty plates.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Understandable, I had reservations at first but the more I thought about it the less I was worried. What can the RCMP do?

I love the one store. If a friend signs up and uses you as a referral('reefer a friend' they call it) I get a $10 dollar credit, which I've had 3 already. Also toonie Tuesdays.

Not so much what the RCMP can/will do, but who has access to that information and will it affect insurance (it should, if you're smoking it) or job applications (it shouldn't, unless alcoholism and other drug use is being monitored the same way).

If it's going to show up on a police check, well that's just BS. And would do nothing to deter people from smoking, only deter them from using the legal channels to obtain it, which is the whole point in doing this.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They could do it by requiring an application. That way, only people who care to have it removed for their record would have it happen, then the govt. wouldn't have to hunt down unnecessary records.

You could run it through the existing Pardon system just instead of suppressing the records you could destroy the records.

And it would be reasonable to have it be a user pay system as you did break the law of the day.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Thank you good post.


Perhaps if we legalize and tax it, we can use that revenue stream to reduce income tax, yeah right.

Or even better, use that revenue stream to create more addiction and treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by heep223

Or even better, use that revenue stream to create more addiction and treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse.

Let's not shift focus from my issue(s).

[PsYcNeT]

Well it certainly could help though, government revenue from liquor in Alberta alone for fiscal year 2014 was 766 million dollars. If marijuana brings in even 1/3rd of that, it is a huuuuuge financial windfall for every province in the country.

http://www.aglc.gov.ab.ca/pdf/quickf...cts_liquor.pdf

[CaptainCrunch]

I would only be good with this is there was actually a system that made sure that it was only sold in liquor stores to people over 18 and we gained wicked revenue from it.

I would only be good with it if there were heavy fines for people selling it outside of the system

I would only be good with it if people that sold it to kids under 18 faced prosecution.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would only be good with this is there was actually a system that made sure that it was only sold in liquor stores to people over 18 and we gained wicked revenue from it.

I would only be good with it if there were heavy fines for people selling it outside of the system

I would only be good with it if people that sold it to kids under 18 faced prosecution.

I posted somewhere else on CP, that is should have very similar rules to alcohol, both in usage and availability.

I can't wait out front of my kids school while having a beer so I shouldn't be able to smoke pot.

I can't go to the lake and drink beer, same rules should apply.

It actually should be pretty easy as we have a frame work in place already.