Liberals interested in legalizing Pot ?

[prarieboy]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

same goes for tobacco and alcohol though. why is pot treated different?

kids shouldnt be using any of thes products and the law says they arent allowed to either.

hows that working?

if a kid wants to drink, he will find a way.
if a kid wants to smoke pot, he will find a way.

why should we let the profits goto brutal gangs and syndicates while we spend millions (billions?) fighting it?

a reallocation of resources makes sense. take the money being spent on keeping it illegal and instead spend it on education, health, and helping families create enviroments for kids and those at risk to make other choices.

That's my point exactly and your right it's not working.

Kids will find a way no question. They always have. I just believe that legalization makes it more acceptable in general and therefore more prevelant. No one bats an eye at a teenager smoking a cigarette. I wouldn't like to see that same attitude be applied to pot.

I'm not totally against de-criminalization I just want it to be made clear that its for an adult to make a choice to use or not. Use by minors should be discouraged somehow.

[SebC]

I think people here are underrating how serious and important this proposal is.

The Liberals are presenting Canadians with a clear choice: pragmatic, evidence-based policy that serves the public good, or costly and ineffective policies that are driven by ideology.

And no party that holds the political center is ever irrelevant.

For what it's worth, the National Post Editorial Board has endorsed this move, largely for the same reasons that MarchHare has been presenting.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-legalization/

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by SebC

...The Liberals are presenting Canadians with a clear choice: pragmatic, evidence-based policy that serves the public good, or costly and ineffective policies that are driven by ideology.

i agree and i hate the liberals. i often have said that my kids could be running as a Liberal and i woudnt vote for them.

my instinct therefore tells me that the Liberals motives are based on gaining votes and media PR and not for the pragmatic, evidence based reasons they would like us to believe.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

same goes for tobacco and alcohol though. why is pot treated different?

kids shouldnt be using any of thes products and the law says they arent allowed to either.

hows that working?

if a kid wants to drink, he will find a way.
if a kid wants to smoke pot, he will find a way.

why should we let the profits goto brutal gangs and syndicates while we spend millions (billions?) fighting it?

a reallocation of resources makes sense. take the money being spent on keeping it illegal and instead spend it on education, health, and helping families create enviroments for kids and those at risk to make other choices.

I don't agree with you on this at all, if we legalize it, I still firmly believe that the government for example shouldn't be providing dope and cigarettes or booze to kids. There should be enforcement in place to prevent people from supplying underagers with that stuff.

I think if you fined retailers and adults $10,000 if they're busted supplying under agers with this stuff there would be lessons learned. I don't blame kids for trying to get at it, they're going to get at it and you find a way to deal with it by educating it, but adults supply kids should know better and we should make it hurt. Plus at $10,000 a fine we could pay for education.

[Flash Walken]

Aren't there existing penalties for selling alcohol and tobacco to minors?

[prarieboy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Aren't there existing penalties for selling alcohol and tobacco to minors?

I believe there must be but insufficent to provide any real deterent.

[V]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i agree and i hate the liberals. i often have said that my kids could be running as a Liberal and i woudnt vote for them.

my instinct therefore tells me that the Liberals motives are based on gaining votes and media PR and not for the pragmatic, evidence based reasons they would like us to believe.

This post is very strange in two ways:

1) You can't trust that they're making this decision for the right reasons because they're the liberals and your instincts are to not trust them.

2) Who the heck cares what their motives are, if it's the right move to make? You sound like Ozy.

Weird post.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by prarieboy

I believe there must be but insufficent to provide any real deterent.

Really?

It seems to me that parents are more at fault for their children's access to alcohol and tobacco than retail outlets.

If I am freshly shaven, I STILL get carded, and I'm no spring chicken anymore.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i agree and i hate the liberals. i often have said that my kids could be running as a Liberal and i woudnt vote for them.

my instinct therefore tells me that the Liberals motives are based on gaining votes and media PR and not for the pragmatic, evidence based reasons they would like us to believe.

Just to add to what V said, if the Liberals are adding a policy "based on gaining votes" isn't that what political parties are supposed to do?

[prarieboy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Really?

It seems to me that parents are more at fault for their children's access to alcohol and tobacco than retail outlets.

If I am freshly shaven, I STILL get carded, and I'm no spring chicken anymore.

Off Topic but....

That's probably true in some cases but I think it depends on the family for the most part.

[prarieboy]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just to add to what V said, if the Liberals are adding a policy "based on gaining votes" isn't that what political parties are supposed to do?

It might be what they are supposed to do to get elected but isn't running the government/country what they should really be doing??

Just a jab from a con to a lib. Don't take offence.

[V]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just to add to what V said, if the Liberals are adding a policy "based on gaining votes" isn't that what political parties are supposed to do?

I like my politicians to try to win votes with bad ideas. It's those good idea vote winners that I just can't trust.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by prarieboy

It might be what they are supposed to do to get elected but isn't running the government/country what they should really be doing??

Just a jab from a con to a lib. Don't take offence.

That's funny because of the GST cut and the omni-bus crime bill. Both of which are near universally derided by the relevant experts (economists and criminoligists, respectively) but are popular with the general public.

(Or, it's tragic.)

[Bownesian]

Until the Liberals stop running election platforms that aim to redistribute Alberta wealth to economically failing parts of the country, they won't get a second look from me. For me the macro-economy is the most important part of the Federal Government's job.

If we blow a couple billion on ultimately unneeded crime bills and waste resources on keeping pot illegal, I couldn't care less because those are small potatoes compared to the damage they threatened through the Green Shift and their last incarnation of their environmental policies. I agree with evidence-based polity (including being against some of the crime bill and supporting legalization of pot) and would vote for it but they need to apply it across the board and not just on justice issues.

The Liberal party has become an ideological party when it comes to siphoning money out of the economy to fund daycare and "green" initiatives that have no evidence to support them. There has never been an economically sustainable "green" job created by government money (see Ontario's experience over the last half-decade or so), there are no mega-tonnes of money to be made by shifting money out of Alberta and Saskatchewan and into Quebec like they proposed.

If they want a proper carbon tax, let's have it but put all the revenues into funds to help development in the industries that it directly affects. Don't use it to pay for Pharmacare, Daycare and the Kelowna Accord, and don't pretend like those are evidence-based, non-ideological initiatives.

[Calgaryborn]

There was a Liberal apologist on the Sun news network commenting on the convention. He said the pot talk was coming from the younger wing of the party and shouldn't amount to much.

He did say that the convention was very well attended with more people attending then the last Conservative and NDP conventions combined. I'm sure many Liberals believe they will bounce back at the NDP's expanse in the next election. I think they will as well.

One thing that concerned him was that the vote for party leader will be open to people outside of the party. He thinks that some Conservatives or NDPers might try to rig the vote.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't agree with you on this at all, if we legalize it, I still firmly believe that the government for example shouldn't be providing dope and cigarettes or booze to kids. There should be enforcement in place to prevent people from supplying underagers with that stuff.

I think if you fined retailers and adults $10,000 if they're busted supplying under agers with this stuff there would be lessons learned. I don't blame kids for trying to get at it, they're going to get at it and you find a way to deal with it by educating it, but adults supply kids should know better and we should make it hurt. Plus at $10,000 a fine we could pay for education.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Aren't there existing penalties for selling alcohol and tobacco to minors?

Originally Posted by prarieboy

I believe there must be but insufficent to provide any real deterent.

i dont see what this has to do with legalizing pot. Clearly the system must be set up to ensure kids dont have access to lots of things, porn, smokes, gambling, booze, so why would pot all of sudden be the one where we declare it must be illegal or kids would access it?

Originally Posted by V

This post is very strange in two ways:

1) You can't trust that they're making this decision for the right reasons because they're the liberals and your instincts are to not trust them.

2) Who the heck cares what their motives are, if it's the right move to make? You sound like Ozy.

Weird post.

1) i just dont trust them, yes because they are in the Liberal party. Sorry, Jean Cretien ruined my perception of that party.

2) they are liberals, they will find a way to suck us in and then beat us up. thats what The Liberal Party of Canada is about.

Originally Posted by Slava

Just to add to what V said, if the Liberals are adding a policy "based on gaining votes" isn't that what political parties are supposed to do?

i see what you did there, but no. political parties should build a platform they believe in and if the electorate support their positions, they will get in power. In this case, I wonder out loud if its more for PR than for policy change.

Originally Posted by V

I like my politicians to try to win votes with bad ideas. It's those good idea vote winners that I just can't trust.

nice spin, you in politics?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by prarieboy

It might be what they are supposed to do to get elected but isn't running the government/country what they should really be doing??

Just a jab from a con to a lib. Don't take offence.

Don't worry, I don't take offence to any of this.

They probably would be governing if you would vote for them already!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There was a Liberal apologist on the Sun news network ...

They're still on the air? People actually watch?! How are they allowed to call that tripe they run "news"??

That said, coming from you CB it all makes a little bit of sense!

[Vulcan]

I don't think Canada will ever make cannabis legal as long as the USA can put trade pressure on us.

On May 27, 2002, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien introduced a bill that would have decriminalized the possession for personal use of small amounts of cannabis. Possession of 15 grams or less would have been punishable only with a fine, and those possessing between 15 and 30 grams would be either ticketed or arrested for criminal charges at the officer's discretion. Personal cultivation of up to seven plants would have also become a summary offence, while the punishment for cultivation in larger amounts would have been more severe. The bill looked likely to pass into law, but it died when Parliament prorogued. The bill's death was largely due to pressure from the American government's Drug Enforcement Administration, which had threatened to slow down border-crossings along the Canadian-American border so as to control the smuggling of cannabis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_h...abis_in_Canada

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

If we blow a couple billion on ultimately unneeded crime bills and waste resources on keeping pot illegal, I couldn't care less because those are small potatoes compared to the damage they threatened through the Green Shift and their last incarnation of their environmental policies. I agree with evidence-based polity (including being against some of the crime bill and supporting legalization of pot) and would vote for it but they need to apply it across the board and not just on justice issues.

Yeah, Green Shift was an awful policy. We'll see what the Liberals run on in the next election - I hope they've learnt from their old mistakes. It'll be a while before we see what happens. And there's no such thing as a "proper" carbon tax when our neighbours to the south don't have one. Who knows, maybe the Conservatives can figure something out with the rest of the world that works for everyone before the next election.