Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Addicts and people with compulsive tendencies are going to do what they do regardless of the legality. Might as well make it as safe as possible for them.

But they are bad people who must be punished. /s

[CliffFletcher]

While I broadly support legalizing drugs to make them safer and get the business out of the hands of organized crime, hard drugs do pose some problems.

Take cocaine. Not only can it be extremely habit-forming (and expensive) for those inclined to addictive behaviour, even casual use poses significant health risks. A 45 year old who hasn't used in a while might think he's good to do a couple lines on a special occasion after having a few drinks. But he's incurring a significant risk of a cardiac arrest - a higher level of risk than any legal, over-the-counter drug sold today poses. So I don't know how you'd fit cocaine into our existing safety regulations around commercial products.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...imes-year.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's like most substances that are addictive. I have friends who do it once in a while or just on the weekends and are fully functional members societies, and I have others who started using it and then turned into total addicts who you can't trust. I would say that those in the latter group also generally tend to be raging alcoholics and smokers, as well as the type who if they couldn't score cocaine would switch to meth or whatever else they could get their hands on. Addicts and people with compulsive tendencies are going to do what they do regardless of the legality. Might as well make it as safe as possible for them.

Sounds to me like education and warning people about what can happen if you do coke is a FAR better option than thinking the penalty of throwing them in jail if they use is going to keep them from trying it.

At the VERY least it should be decriminalized if you are using.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While I broadly support legalizing drugs to make them safer and get the business out of the hands of organized crime, hard drugs do pose some problems.

Take cocaine. Not only can it be extremely habit-forming (and expensive) for those inclined to addictive behaviour, even casual use poses significant health risks. A 45 year old who hasn't used in a while might think he's good to do a couple lines on a special occasion after having a few drinks. But he's incurring a significant risk of a cardiac arrest - a higher level of risk than any legal, over-the-counter drug sold today poses. So I don't know how you'd fit cocaine into our existing safety regulations around commercial products.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...imes-year.html

I'm not really sure how that differs from other harmful substances. Couldn't they just put warnings on packaging like they do with cigarettes?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not really sure how that differs from other harmful substances. Couldn't they just put warnings on packaging like they do with cigarettes?

Cigarettes pose a long-term health risk. You're not going to drop dead if you chain-smoke five smokes in a couple hours. With drugs like cocaine, a single use dramatically elevates your chances of a heart attack. There's a limit on how much caffeine a manufacturer can put in energy drinks, for just this reason.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Cigarettes pose a long-term health risk. You're not going to drop dead if you chain-smoke five smokes in a couple hours. With drugs like cocaine, a single use dramatically elevates your chances of a heart attack. There's a limit on how much caffeine a manufacturer can put in energy drinks, for just this reason.

I guess, but I mean you can also kill yourself from drinking too much alcohol in one sitting. I'm not debating that cocaine is dangerous, I just don't see the difference from a legal standpoint.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Cigarettes pose a long-term health risk. You're not going to drop dead if you chain-smoke five smokes in a couple hours. With drugs like cocaine, a single use dramatically elevates your chances of a heart attack. There's a limit on how much caffeine a manufacturer can put in energy drinks, for just this reason.

Doesn't it seem a little weird to keep one thing illegal because it could kill you in one shot in rare instances but the government's okay with the other one because it will very, very likely kill you but over a longer period of time?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Good write-up in the G&M on why we shouldn't just stop with pot.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...b+Articl+Links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:

Increased uptake of treatment (roughly 60% increase as of 2012.)[12]
Reduction in new HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%[19] and a general drop of 90% in drug-related HIV infection
Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years. The number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented.[12][19] However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded.[20]
Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[19] It has been proposed[by whom?] that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[20] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [20][21] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[22][23] The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.[24]
Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined.[20]
Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased.[20]
Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly
The number of drug related deaths has reduced from 131 in 2001 to 20 in 2008.[25]As of 2012, Portugal's drug death toll sat at 3 per million, in comparison to the EU average of 17.3 per million.
Homicide rate increased 40% between 2001 and 2006 [26]

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While I broadly support legalizing drugs to make them safer and get the business out of the hands of organized crime, hard drugs do pose some problems.

For sure other problems are introduced, I would imagine that (similar to marijuana legalization) the government will sort some of that out.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Take cocaine. Not only can it be extremely habit-forming (and expensive) for those inclined to addictive behaviour, even casual use poses significant health risks. A 45 year old who hasn't used in a while might think he's good to do a couple lines on a special occasion after having a few drinks. But he's incurring a significant risk of a cardiac arrest - a higher level of risk than any legal, over-the-counter drug sold today poses. So I don't know how you'd fit cocaine into our existing safety regulations around commercial products.

I am not sure how the solution is to keep it illegal. I care less about the guy you are describing than I do about the money I pay in tax to hunt down drug dealing criminals. Legalize and minimize the criminal element.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...imes-year.html

I have never used it and never will. But why am I paying to stop people from using it? Legalize it all, work out some of the major issues, invest some of that money (currently spent fighting it) into some sort of treatment. In a legal world there might be standard doses of a cleaner product that could have saved lives already.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Doesn't it seem a little weird to keep one thing illegal because it could kill you in one shot in rare instances but the government's okay with the other one because it will very, very likely kill you but over a longer period of time?

No.

Lots of things will kill you over a long period of time. Like sugar.

[Red Slinger]

The problem with nicotine isn't that one smoke will kill you. The problem is that it is so addictive that most people that try it end up being long-term smokers with all the personal and societal repercussions that go along with it. Comparing it to sugar is not applicable.

Whether it's legal or not, people will use cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. Some people, teenagers in particular, will try these drugs primarily because they're illegal.

I think what Portugal is doing is legalizing drugs, allocating the resources away from policing evil drug users and instead put those resources towards drug education, treatment and rehabilitation. The results have been largely positive for the overall health and well-being on their society. Isn't that what we ultimately want?

[Fuzz]

No, we want to punish the dirty sinners and throw them in prison! Think of the children!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not really sure how that differs from other harmful substances. Couldn't they just put warnings on packaging like they do with cigarettes?

Man oh man, I would love to see the Government Certified Warning Label on a baggie of Coke. I mean, they hit those cigarette packages out of the park, I cant imagine how they'd follow that up with Cocaine.

I figured the Government Warning Labels on Marijuana were going to be entertaining enough!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Man oh man, I would love to see the Government Certified Warning Label on a baggie of Coke. I mean, they hit those cigarette packages out of the park, I cant imagine how they'd follow that up with Cocaine.

I figured the Government Warning Labels on Marijuana were going to be entertaining enough!

I'd hope they'd go with pictures of people with holes in the roofs of their mouths.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No.

Lots of things will kill you over a long period of time. Like sugar.

Everything kills you over a long period of time, ultimately...

Originally Posted by Locke

Man oh man, I would love to see the Government Certified Warning Label on a baggie of Coke. I mean, they hit those cigarette packages out of the park, I cant imagine how they'd follow that up with Cocaine.

I figured the Government Warning Labels on Marijuana were going to be entertaining enough!

Maybe something like this?

Spoiler!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No.

Lots of things will kill you over a long period of time. Like sugar.

Sugar is the biggest health issue in the 1st world. It’s arguable that I.t should be illegal, or at worst levels closely scrutinized and with “warning over consumption will cause sever health problems” much more so than any of the substances we’re discussing here.

The double standard of these things is exactly the argument being made for legalization. Basically, if you think drug addiction is a health and safety issue, and that making those substances illegal is the best method to combat it, then you must also conclude that most of humanity’s vices must also e illegal.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Locke

Man oh man, I would love to see the Government Certified Warning Label on a baggie of Coke. I mean, they hit those cigarette packages out of the park, I cant imagine how they'd follow that up with Cocaine.

I figured the Government Warning Labels on Marijuana were going to be entertaining enough!

With instructions

[transplant99]

Trust the feds to screw this up one way or another. This morning it was said that legalization is not happening next July 1 as has been announced for over a year, but instead sometime "next summer".

The prime minister said it "would not be July 1," but that it would be "for next summer."

"The date will not be July 1, I can assure you of that," Trudeau said. "I don't know where that date came from.

"

Then this report comes out.

Statistics Canada has published new data on the street value for cannabis showing it could cost at least 13 per cent less than the proposed legal price.

The price point will be crucial as nearly a century of prohibition ends: While some people may be willing to pay a slight markup for the quality and security of the legal product, others may opt for the cheaper, underground supply, especially if they are already used to buying it that way.

Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced a week ago that the price that the provinces and federal government are proposing for legal cannabis is $10 a gram including a federal excise tax of $1 or 10 per cent, whichever is higher.

That would make legal cannabis considerably higher than the $8.84 per gram a Statscan report released on Monday found people were willing to pay on the black market in 2015.

It would be so typical of politicians to find a massive new revenue stream, and promptly screw themselves out of acheiving it.

This would have likely happened regardless of who is in power as well.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37363670/

[Fuzz]

How would this "have likely happened regardless of who is in power as well?" The Conservatives would never even consider legalizing it.

[rubecube]

Where are people buying $8.84 grams from? I haven't purchased weed from dealer in about 15 years but it was $10/G back when I did. I guess this could apply to bulk orders but I'd hope the government wasn't dumb enough to overlook that.