Sometime this year, if it hasn’t happened already, the millionth Canadian will be arrested for marijuana possession, Dana Larsen estimates.
Quote:
Two of the largest one-year increases in police-reported crimes in 2011 were a 40 per cent jump in child pornography cases (3,100 incidents), and a seven per cent hike (to 61,406 arrests) for pot possession. Taken together, all marijuana offences—possession, growing and trafficking—accounted for a record 78,000 arrests in 2011, or 69 per cent of all drug offences. Simple pot possession represented 54 per cent of every drug crime that police managed to uncover. This is more phony war than calamity, waged by a government determined to save us from a cannabis crisis of its own making. To have the minister imply a moral equivalency between child sexual abuse and carrying a couple of joints in your jeans underscores the emotionalism clouding the issue: reason enough to look at why marijuana is illegal in the first place.
Quote:
Estimates vary wildly on the cost impact of marijuana use and of enforcement. Back in 2002 the Senate report pegged the annual cost of cannabis to law enforcement and the justice system at $300 million to $500 million. The costs of enforcing criminalization, the report concluded, “are disproportionately high given the drug’s social and health consequences.”
Quote:
Canada has always taken a softer line on prosecuting drug offences than the U.S., which has recorded 45 million arrests since president Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. More than half of those in U.S. federal prison are there for drug offences. The Canadian drug incarceration rate is nowhere near as high. But the government’s omnibus crime bill includes a suite of harder penalties. It requires a six-month minimum sentence for those growing as few as six cannabis plants, with escalating minimums. It also doubled the maximum penalty to 14 years for trafficking pot. (In Colorado, by contrast, it’s now legal for an adult to grow six plants for personal use or to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.)
Quote:
UNICEF also recommended that child pot use can be reduced more effectively with the same kind of public information campaigns and other aggressive measures used to curtail tobacco use. Canadian children, it noted, have the third-lowest rate of tobacco smokers among 29 nations. Remarkably, whether you use the 28 or 22 per cent estimate, more Canadian children have at least tried pot than the number who who smoke or drink heavily.
Quote:
Despite the zeal for enforcement, most pot arrests in Canada never result in convictions. In 2010, just 7,500 of possession charges for all types of drugs resulted in guilty verdicts—about 10 per cent of all 74,000 possession offences. Most possession busts never make it to trial. Of those reaching court, more than half of the charges are stayed, withdrawn or result in acquittals. This dismal batting average begs two questions. Is this a wise use of police resources and court time?
Quote:
Will pot use increase? There’s little evidence internationally to suggest a surge in use, at least any more than it has as an easily obtainable illegal substance. The 2002 Senate report concluded: “We have not legalized cannabis and we have one of the highest rates [of use] in the world. Countries adopting a more liberal policy have, for the most part, rates of usage lower than ours, which stabilized after a short period of growth.”
Quote:
What is the health impact of pot? Expect further studies in the states where legalization has unfettered researchers. In Canada, Gerald Thomas, an analyst with the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C., and Chris Davis, an analyst with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, used Health Canada data to chart the health and social costs of cannabis, tobacco and alcohol. Their findings: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user; alcohol-related health costs were $165 per user; cannabis-related health costs were $20 per user. Enforcement costs added $153 per drinker and $328 for cannabis user. In other words, 94 per cent of the cost to society of cannabis comes from keeping it illegal.
Quote:
Would the federal government go to war with a province to protect a 90-year-old law built on myths, fears and hysteria; a law that crushed the ambitions of countless thousands of young people; a law that millions violate when it suits their purpose? Likely, but it would be one hell of a fight. After the legalization vote was decided in Washington last November, the Seattle Police Department posted a humourous online guide to pot use, entitled Marijwhatnow? Yes, it said, those over 21 can carry an ounce of pot. No, you can’t smoke it in public. Will Seattle police help federal investigations of marijuana use in the state? Not a chance. There was, between the lines, a palpable relief that they no longer had to play bad cops to a bad law. Marijwhatnow? ended with a clip from Lord of the Rings. Gandalf and Bilbo are smoking a pipe. “Gandalf, my friend,” says Bilbo, “this will be a night to remember.”
Perhaps one day Canadians will be as lucky.
What a great read when it comes to marijuana legalization. I'd recommend everyone take the time to read it, especially those in the group of 'will someone think of the children', unless you believe UNICEF is after your kids. There is no doubt the tides are turning on this but like most political changes it will be 40 years too late. There is no real good reason why this shouldn't happen sooner rather than later. It makes me more sad that an USA state legalized it before BC...something wrong there.
I still haven't heard a good argument why it should still be illegal to smoke cannabis. The anti-cannabis crowd, like the article says, likes to use myths, fears and hysteria while facts are thrown out the window.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Last edited by HOOT; 06-11-2013 at 12:20 PM.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
Long overdue. I'm not even a pot smoker but it's beyond silly it's not legal and if it was it might be nice to toke up once or twice a year on a whim, stop into a 7-11 and get some legal pot.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
UNICEF also recommended that child pot use can be reduced more effectively with the same kind of public information campaigns and other aggressive measures used to curtail tobacco use.
nevermind, I assume they mean child pot useage.
Isn't pot smoke worse for you lungs, like 3 times worse?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
She is celebrated in a statue on Parliament Hill for her leading role among the Famous Five, who fought in the courts and were ultimately successful in having women recognized as “persons” under the law. And she endures in the spirit of Canada’s marijuana laws, which continue to reflect some of her hysterical views.
I laughed.
They might as well just title the article "Why it's time to boot the Conservatives". This isn't the only time they've ignored all the evidence in favour of ideology.
Isn't pot smoke worse for you lungs, like 3 times worse?
depends, that sounds about right in terms of dirtying up your lungs, however, pot smoke is considerably less carcinogenic (or anti-carcinogenic, depending on who's writing the article), and has killed a total of zero people. Pot consumption is generally far less than tobacco (easily less than a third for typical users) and you can use vaporizers which are pretty much harmless.
Isn't pot smoke worse for you lungs, like 3 times worse?
Myth! Just like one joint is worse than a pack of cigarettes. Any time you inhale smoke it is not going to be good for you, doesn't matter if it's the grass in your front lawn.
But there has been studies showing that even though cannabis has a higher concentrate of harmful ingredients it also has THC which combats those effects of lung cancer. It has something to do with the receptors in the lungs only 'connecting' to tobacco smoke.
It's even been shown that THC can block cancerous cells from growing. I know right now there is a study going on where they are injecting THC for brain tumors and are seeing success with them shrinking.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
Myth! Just like one joint is worse than a pack of cigarettes. Any time you inhale smoke it is not going to be good for you, doesn't matter if it's the grass in your front lawn.
But there has been studies showing that even though cannabis has a higher concentrate of harmful ingredients it also has THC which combats those effects of lung cancer. It has something to do with the receptors in the lungs only 'connecting' to tobacco smoke.
It's even been shown that THC can block cancerous cells from growing. I know right now there is a study going on where they are injecting THC for brain tumors and are seeing success with them shrinking.
"Putting smoke in your lungs is not good for the lungs," says Roland Lamarine, HSD, professor of public health at California State University, Chico. He reviewed published studies on the health effects of marijuana earlier this year for the Journal of Drug Education. Smoking marijuana produces a nearly threefold increase of inhaled tar compared with tobacco, according to some studies. Other research suggests that marijuana smokers, compared to cigarette smokers, inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer.
"There are still questions that aren't answered about lung damage," Lamarine says. For cigarette smokers who also smoke marijuana, there may be an additive effect, he says.
Combining the two appears to be a trend, he says. "Some of the [college] kids tell me they buy cigars and put in some marijuana, so there is both marijuana and tobacco," Lamarine says.
Marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing substances, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Some research shows that marijuana smoke has up to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke, it says.
"Nobody is advocating that routinely inhaling carcinogenic smoke is healthy," says Paul Armentano, the deputy director of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).
However, he says, many marijuana users these days have turned to alternate delivery methods, such as oral, tinctures, and vapor forms. In research, he says, the vaporized forms have fewer adverse chemicals than the inhaled form.
Those who keep marijuana use light do not appear to lose lung function, according to a 2012 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Researchers compared tobacco and marijuana users. Tobacco use was associated with lower lung function, and the function got worse as smoking levels increased.
For the study, low levels of lifetime exposure to marijuana, defined as one joint a day for seven years, did not show evidence of adverse effects on lung function. The study does not confirm these findings with heavy users.
Is it possible that more study needs to be done? My only concerns is, I wonder if there is the ability to do an independent study anymore. Both side are strongly entrenched.
In fact a quick google search shows that you can find studies that support both sides, but they come from entities that support the findings of the study.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
Last edited by undercoverbrother; 06-11-2013 at 12:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
After spending a week in Paris, I've realized that we have nothing to complain about regarding the prevalence of smoking in Canada.
Seems that way for any European city. We just got back from St. Maarten last month (Dutch/French) and it seemed like everyone smoked. I think it's the first place I"ve been where the smokers outnumbered the non smokers.
Seems that way for any European city. We just got back from St. Maarten last month (Dutch/French) and EVERYONE smoked. I think it's the first place I"ve been where the smokers outnumbered the non smokers.
Yup. A few times I even saw preteen-aged kids smoking with their parents.
I don't think that they care about the health effects. It seems like the general attitude I saw was that it's just part of life. You smoke and if you get sick, you get sick and you die and thats that.
Is it possible that more study needs to be done? My only concerns is, I wonder if there is the ability to do an independent study anymore. Both side are strongly entrenched.
Thanks for calling out the 'cures cancer', 'it's actually good for you' BS. I'm in support of legalization for libertarian and cost savings purposes, but I hate it when pot smokers try to rationalize it as healthy. While it certainly has medicinal qualities of making some nasty symptoms from some nasty medical conditions easier to endure, it's not something that more people need to be smoking.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
I can't see myself smoking a joint at this stage of my life but I'd be lying if I said I'm not intrigued by the edibles. A pot lolipop or cookie might be fun for the "body stone" or whatever the kids are calling it these days. Some day maybe...
Why It’s Time To Legalize Marijuana (MacLeans Article)
