“I never make comments on the personal lifestyle choices of my colleagues and friends, and I’ve never felt that marijuana use or, for example, possession of small amounts of marijuana are to be criminalized or that anybody should suffer consequences for personal recreational uses of marijuana. But then I have to say to people who then ask me if I want to legalize marijuana, and I know you don’t want to hear me say this, but I’d say no.”
Frankly, this is the typical bs response, simultaneously condoning the activity, but also rejecting legalization. So, people are free to make "personal" choices, no one in possession of personal marijuana should be sanctioned and there should really be NO consequences, but it will remain illegal. Huh?
The debate on marijuana has reached the level of absurdity, wherein politicians effectively skate around the edges and actually try to have it both ways. How can you say the law shouldn't intervene, there is no consequence and also keep the activity illegal. You've effectively neutered the legal component, but kept the activity technically illegal. In so doing, you've robbed the treasury of billions in tax, instead preferring to leave the proceeds in the hands of organized crime. Where is the sense in that position? You're allowing people to feed organized crime, you're saying you can buy it from illegal sources. My head hurts.
The most maddening thing about this debate, the above position pretty much favors legalization, but doesn't have the "jam" to come out and formally say so. Instead, you get this inherent contradiction, and all the while you reward the supposed "criminals", waste resources that could be used elsewhere, and squander a huge revenue stream. With the new fiscal reality, accompanied by all these supposed promises, a sober re-think might find a common equation.
It's not about becoming some advocate, it's about nonsensical policy and ridiculous doublespeak. On top of that, this political hesitancy seems misplaced, because for the Liberals there is really little downside, maybe potential gains. Am I missing some finding that shows the massive liability? Are people afraid of the "tough on crime" Conservatives fermenting a wedge issue? Is there some belief that full formal acceptance will lead to higher usage amongst young people? I honestly don't understand why this is such a taboo issue, that necessitates such smoke and mirrors response.