Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[Coach]

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 agree with everything, I would even be ok with a higher age limit for weed, except it being sold in liquor stores. Those things should be kept separate and people shouldn't be encouraged to buy and consume them together.

[blankall]

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.

Great post.

However, the argument for decriminilization is that the negatives you talk about are going to occur regardless of the legal status of the drug.

The benefit is that with decriminilization you can provide treatment to people, without them fearing legal consequences. The strategy is to eliminate traffickers and dealers with the criminal system and eliminate addicts with the health system.

The issue with full legalization is that it will create more users and eventually more addicts.

The decriminilization system is what Portugal has used, and it's been shown to be extremely effective.

Of course, we are talking about marijuana here, not crack. The biggest argument for legalizing marijuana is that a lot of people are making money of it now. Why not the government.

[Fuzz]

What about home brew? You can make your own beer and wine to skip taxes, should you be able to grow your own pot as well?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What about home brew? You can make your own beer and wine to skip taxes, should you be able to grow your own pot as well?

Sure why not.


I don't know, but suspect there is a limit on the quantity of beer/wine you can make in your house.

[PsYcNeT]

I'm not sure if liquor stores are required, though separate dispensaries could be created (storage isn't as much of an issue as liquor).

For those interested, the Alberta government made 912 million dollars in tobacco taxes/levies in 12-13.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf

The fact that we not only haven't been exploiting this revenue stream all along, but wasting police and prosecution and jail resources this whole time, is insane.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What about home brew? You can make your own beer and wine to skip taxes, should you be able to grow your own pot as well?

Sure, but barely anybody will. You can grow your own wheat if you want, too, but most people just buy flour from the store.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sure why not.


I don't know, but suspect there is a limit on the quantity of beer/wine you can make in your house.

Is there?? Eeek, I hope not! Don't tell the feds...
/runs home and hides some carboys

[MoneyGuy]

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.

Agreed. If you're referring to my post, it never said otherwise. I was just wondering how this would play out.

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

The majority of Canadians want it legalised, therefore it should be legalised.

Source for this?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Sure, but barely anybody will. You can grow your own wheat if you want, too, but most people just buy flour from the store.

Ya, but wheat isn't taxed at 70%. People brew their own beer for many reasons. Quality, hobby, avoiding taxes...I'd imagine weed would be the same.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blankall

Great post.

However, the argument for decriminilization is that the negatives you talk about are going to occur regardless of the legal status of the drug.

The benefit is that with decriminilization you can provide treatment to people, without them fearing legal consequences. The strategy is to eliminate traffickers and dealers with the criminal system and eliminate addicts with the health system.

The issue with full legalization is that it will create more users and eventually more addicts.

The decriminilization system is what Portugal has used, and it's been shown to be extremely effective.

Of course, we are talking about marijuana here, not crack. The biggest argument for legalizing marijuana is that a lot of people are making money of it now. Why not the government.

Yeah, I think decriminalization of possession is more the way to go with hard, highly-addictive drugs for the reasons you mentioned.

Legalization will likely create more users, but evidence (albeit, short term) from places like Colorado is that the increase in rec use is quite marginal. However, that's hard to track without solid stats on how many users there were before. Some habitual users may actually consume LESS as they don't have to buy in bulk, which would then have them contributing more to the tax portion.

My problem with decriminalization, as I mentioned, is that it doesn't target the main reasons for looking at doing this in the first place. IE eliminating the black market for it and thereby reducing the organized crime associated with it, and allowing the people to benefit from it overall via taxation. If the strategy is to eliminate traffickers and dealers, decriminalization does nothing to combat that, and may actually increase it as usage sees a bump.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, but wheat isn't taxed at 70%. People brew their own beer for many reasons. Quality, hobby, avoiding taxes...I'd imagine weed would be the same.

I suspect that most people will buy it. I don't know numbers but I struggle to believe that the majority of people home brew.

[puffnstuff]

What are the current rules in regards to driving under the influence of the weed? What would or should be the rules?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

What are the current rules in regards to driving under the influence of the weed? What would or should be the rules?

I don't believe it is currently allowed.

I believe the rules should be the same as it is for booze, I will say I don't know how you implement a "level" like blood alcohol level. For me, a non-user I would be OK with zero tolerance, but say this from a position of limited knowledge.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

What are the current rules in regards to driving under the influence of the weed? What would or should be the rules?

Zero tolerance should be the rule and I am pretty sure that it already is.

They currently use road side tests and pupil charts to determine if someone is intoxicated by a drug, but there are roadside saliva tests on the market that police in some European countries use. I heard police in Quebec are going to start using them as well.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, but wheat isn't taxed at 70%. People brew their own beer for many reasons. Quality, hobby, avoiding taxes...I'd imagine weed would be the same.

Yeah, I've never heard anyone say they brew their own beer to avoid liquor taxes. If you drink so much that liquor taxes are a significant drain on you, you need help.

People will grow their own for sure, but without any personal experience there, my understanding is that it is difficult to grow and maintain if you want any significant yield. It will most certainly be for hobby or desired quality/strain. This isn't like growing basil on your windowsill. Guy who want's a joint/week isn't going to be setting up and taking care of plants in their house. They'll eat the few dollars of tax on their one joint instead, just like the vast majority of us do with booze.

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

What are the current rules in regards to driving under the influence of the weed? What would or should be the rules?

It's definitely, and should remain, illegal. The problem is there isn't a great road-side system for determining if someone is IN FACT stoned. Obviously you can look to red-eyes, speech, etc.. but none of that proves someone was stoned. This is part of the benefits of legalization as well. More research into how to test it, and at what THC concentration is someone "stoned".

It should probably be zero-tolerance though, at least until there's more research into how it affects your driving and what levels are acceptable. Maybe we should just nip it in the bud (no pun intended) and not let it get to a point of being acceptable at all, like it is with booze.

[Fuzz]

Well ya, but its a weed. You can just throw 30 seeds in your garden and let it grow. Sure, it wouldn't be top quality but it wouldn't be that hard.

[Sled]

I disagree with the argument of "if they legalize it then all back records of convictions should be expunged". When the felony was committed it was illegal, period.

It's not like when they raise the speed limit on a road they go back two years and reimburse (expunge) everyone who got a speeding ticket along that stretch of the road.

You choose to break the law and those were the consequences. At the very least it will be treated as even more of a misdemeanor then it would be if the choose not to legalize it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well ya, but its a weed. You can just throw 30 seeds in your garden and let it grow. Sure, it wouldn't be top quality but it wouldn't be that hard.

So all I have to do is, chuck some crushed grapes, sugar and yeast into a tub, right?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, I think decriminalization of possession is more the way to go with hard, highly-addictive drugs for the reasons you mentioned.

Legalization will likely create more users, but evidence (albeit, short term) from places like Colorado is that the increase in rec use is quite marginal. However, that's hard to track without solid stats on how many users there were before. Some habitual users may actually consume LESS as they don't have to buy in bulk, which would then have them contributing more to the tax portion.

My problem with decriminalization, as I mentioned, is that it doesn't target the main reasons for looking at doing this in the first place. IE eliminating the black market for it and thereby reducing the organized crime associated with it, and allowing the people to benefit from it overall via taxation. If the strategy is to eliminate traffickers and dealers, decriminalization does nothing to combat that, and may actually increase it as usage sees a bump.

Legalizing marijuana will have very little impact on organized crime, particularly the large violent groups. They make most of their money off prostitution and harder drugs.

In BC, we've got a de facto legal marijuana system, with the dispensaries. It hasn't affected organized crime in any way. A lot of the dispensaries and their suppliers are actually former illegal producers/growers who've gone legit. Now that they're allowed to operate legally, they're just making a lot more money.

When you legalize a drug like marijuana, which requires a fair amount of experience, knowledge, and infrastructure to produce, the people who already have experience with it are the most likely to profit from the legalization. The same thing happened with alcohol post-prohibition. The former boot leggers weren't punished. Instead, they became billionaires, as they had a jump into the marketplace.

By legalizing marijuana, you might be turning some criminals legit, but you're not going to punish them or eliminate the organized crime infrastructure around them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, I think decriminalization of possession is more the way to go with hard, highly-addictive drugs for the reasons you mentioned.

Legalization will likely create more users, but evidence (albeit, short term) from places like Colorado is that the increase in rec use is quite marginal. However, that's hard to track without solid stats on how many users there were before. Some habitual users may actually consume LESS as they don't have to buy in bulk, which would then have them contributing more to the tax portion.

My problem with decriminalization, as I mentioned, is that it doesn't target the main reasons for looking at doing this in the first place. IE eliminating the black market for it and thereby reducing the organized crime associated with it, and allowing the people to benefit from it overall via taxation. If the strategy is to eliminate traffickers and dealers, decriminalization does nothing to combat that, and may actually increase it as usage sees a bump.

In the harder drugs side I disagree that legalization would increase use.

If I ask people here why don't you smoke crack the answer isn't because its illegal.

For the softer drugs legalization will result in increased useage because there is definitely a segment of the population that doesn't use because of the illegality.