- 57% of respondents effectively backed legalization of the herb. Those persons said that persons caught with small amounts of marijuana should be "left alone."
-only 8% of Canadians support sending pot smokers to jail
- 32% favor a scheme of tickets and fines rather than a criminal conviction. That minority position is the one embraced by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin
"A clear majority of Canadians believe that individuals who possess small quantities of marijuana for personal use should be left alone," said SES president Nikita James Nanos...
Law enforcement spends upwards of 400 million dollars per year to enforce our cannabis laws. I find it curious that Harper chose to make this announcement while at the same time arguing for more cops on the street to tackle serious crime. If resources weren't wasted on an issue Canadians clearly have accepted, then surely this would allow police officers more time to spend on real criminals. Harper also spoke of a spike in organized crime, which has flourished through the illegality of marijuana. You could fund more police resources with a taxation plan on marijuana, another measure which Canadians favor.
I am not surprised that a hard right government can't bring itself to accept legalization, despite the "we the people" rhetoric that Harper spews. However, I do believe there is some truth in this statement:
"I think there's enormous pressure from the United States and I think Stephen Harper wants to mend fences with George Bush, and is quite willing to give up this issue," Young told CTV Newsnet.
As I have argued before, it is easy to improve relations when you adopt the other side's viewpoint. Is the role of the Canadian government to reflect the wishes of its populus, or appease a foreign government? Bush has already made it clear that ID cards are coming, minuteman are already patrolling the Canadian border, what to we gain from stepping back on marijuana? Harper is out of touch, or Bush's eager ally, or more probably a bit of both.
6 comments:
I am inclined to agree with you that this is the result of either disinclination because of personal belief by Harper or to accommodate GWB, indeed for that matter I see no problem with it being the combination of the two at that. This is a serious waste of resources and a clear unwillingness to accommodate the clear majority of Canadians on this issue. Since this is an issue that has been intensively studied in this country for 35 years now and shown time and again that the costs of prohibition seriously outweigh the cost of the drug being available to the general public it is a stupid policy as well as unpopular.
I was raised by a relative who among other things had worked to bust rumrunners in the 1930s. While she died in 1999 she and I had many years to discuss the issue of cannabis prohibition. Her view was that it caused more trouble to prohibit it than the substance itself warranted. She thought trying to prohibit alcohol was a self defeating proposition because of its widespread usage despite such prohibition and she saw the exact same problem with cannabis. While it was not a substance she herself had ever used she did know it had never killed from overdose, which is rare for any drug legal or otherwise. That the users did not act as irresponsibly under its influence as they do under alcohol. That cannabis had been proven to have several useful medicinal qualities and was also a plant that can be grown very easily so the cost of drugs made from it would also be quite cheap.
Harper appears to have issues with cannabis on moral grounds since there aren't any other grounds to take issue with when you get right down to it, and even on moral grounds this is a bad idea. Morality would insist after all that ultimately it is the harm done that determines whether something is moral or not, and it is clear that the harm done from prohibition far outweighs the harm done from the drug itself. I am a firm supporter of decriminalization of cannabis, although I do not support complete deregulation. I would treat it the same way we do alcohol for recreational use and when used medicinally upon a doctor's order treated no differently than other medical usage of prescriptions with all the proper warnings given. The reason I am opposed to complete deregulation is because while mild it is an active psychoactive substance that can alter perceptions to an extent. I am not comfortable with the idea that any psychoactive should be totally unregulated, but the type of regulation should not be the criminal code. That is just absolutely idiotic.
Yet again Harper underwhelms with his amazing inability to grasp basic logic and reasoning, not to mention where the majority of Canadians are on an issue. This is getting to be a real recurring theme with the Harper government to date.
scotian
"Harper appears to have issues with cannabis on moral grounds"
That statement pretty much summarizes why I fear social conservatives. They have no trouble projecting their own morality onto others, in a "I know best" way.
I agree with your opinion on complete deregulation, it should be treated like alcohol.
I honestly think of anyone who states that marijuana should be thrown out on the market as a backwards thinking individual. Cigarettes and alcohol have to be taken off of the market.
There's nothing wrong with taking a moral stand on an issue. Is there something justifiably wrong with that?
Also, what are "real criminals"? Criminals are individuals who committ crimes and if marijuana is illegal then they are REAL CRIMINALS.
The problem with marijuana being illegal is the same problem as alcohol and tobacco being illegal, gangs. If you wish to keep them illegal then you have to take a strong stand against gangs. If $600M is the cost of cutting down gangs then Canadian tax payers would be fine with that.
If a person was to make everything that the gangs were engaged in legal there is no telling what effect it will have on them. When America first reengaged in licensing alcohol facilities it saw a sharp increase in gang-related violence.
Its not a black and white issue. A lot of police officers feel that when governments make legislation that is soft on criminals or supports actions taken by criminals that a government is being soft on crime and surrendering to the needs of criminals, ergo not support police. The reason why he made this announcement at a police convention was just that, to show he supported police enforcement.
paul
"alcohol have to be taken off of the market."
Yes, that went over really well before didn't it. What government can do is educate people on the dangers of certain "drugs". I think government has been reasonably effective with regard to tobacco.
Ask yourself a simple question, have the laws against marijuana effectively prohibited the use? All you do is make it a black market enterprise, that attracts segments of the population so inclined.
I live in a rural area. Every year, around September, you see the police planes flying around cornfields searching for the "stuff". I think to myself, are you guys for real? What a colossal waste of money and manpower, with minor results and mostly show- go do something productive.
Ahh yes, treat 'em like real criminals;
bring back the death penalty;
build more prisons...
morality is always so absolute!
The problem with Paul V's position about the gangs being the reason to not decriminalize is that the gangs are already taking advantage of the illegal status to make serious profits on this exact substance, so if anything this would more likely reduce gang involvement not increase it. Another thing though being ignored is the cost/harm balance between harm done from enforcing prohibition and harm done from legal regulated availability, a test where prohibition of cannabis is concerned prohibition is clearly shown to have the higher cost to society.
There are costs to a open/free society with prohibition of anything, which is why there is supposed to be a balancing test followed regarding which is more harmful and to what extent that it is. It would be nice if moralists would get off their high horse and actually consider this for a moment instead of living in their black or white world, but I supposed if they did that they wouldn't be moralists anymore eh?
Post a Comment