MarcO Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 Both The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail are running editorials today calling for the reform of canadian marajuana laws. Check 'em out: Toronto Star: Editorial 7/17 Globe and Mail: Editorial 7/17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
as is Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 the problem right now is that the government is looking at the poosibility of allowing municipalities to make their own laws concerning use and possesion. which means that it could be illegal in toronto, but legal in ottawa. the control would be given to city councils, and those who make by-laws. this would completely undermine the point of our federal legal system. things are supposed to be the same nation wide. they simply need to do it all across the board. everywhere. and the decision needs to be made by the federal gov't. by giving the authority to the cities, all they will do is pass the buck, and then it'll go through MORE red tape and beaurocracies. it's time for them to take some responsability for decision making. anyway, for those of you who are getting ready for the day you can walk down wellington street with a doobie, it's still gonna be awhile. this will take years. long years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 Note that not everything is (or should be) under federal jurisdiction. Things like zoning bylaws, smoking bylaws, etc., are municipal. (Ottawa, for example, has banned smoking in indoor public places like bars and restaurants; a challenge was made to this by-law on the basis that an outright ban was in essence a control of tobacco, which is federal [or was it provincial? anyway, it's not municipal] territory. The challengers lost, and the city-defined bylaw was upheld.) I don't have any problem with community standards defining what's legal/illegal/criminalized/decriminaized, provided things are enforced rationally and everybody knows what the rules are. Canada, I think, has a good split between federal, provincial, and municipal responsibilities; I wonder about the U.S.A.'s system when you can have a state like CA make something legal, but you can still get busted because the feds have a law against it. What would your opinion of the federal gov't defining the marijuana laws be if it was already in the hands of local gov't and the feds were going to make it illegal? Aloha, Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 the hell with decriminalizing it. LEGALIZE IT! nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 btw marco, very nice meeting you and your crew at the t.o. phil show. hope to run into you in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
as is Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 i'm not saying that maryjane shouldn' be legalized, i just beleive that it should be done by the federal gov't, and for the whole country. they were the ones who made illegal in the first place. if i could get a hefty fine in one city, and not in another, then the fine means nothing in the end. giving the municipalities control sets a precendent for other things. i just think it's a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weezy Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 as is - what about the vast difference in attitude towards pot from one end of the country to the other? Like here in Vancouver, where it's virtually legal and you can walk through any part of town and see and smell it everywhere - compared with the Toronto area, where people still keep it mostly out of sight for fear of being prosecuted. Or even compared with small town Saskatchewan, where they might throw your ass in jail for being a druggy. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce rules that do not reflect the general attitude of a community. I've always believed that trafficking marijuana should be illegal, but possession and cultivation should be completely legal. Communities could form small groups of people interested in sharing crops and split the costs and the labour. That way, there's no capitalism involved, therefore, no government intervension and no more tragic jail sentences or criminal records. If you take the greed-factor out of virtually anything, the trouble always seems to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberHippie Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 I guess what will happen probably is, there will be in one place in Canada where it will be decriminalized. So, we'll all be heading there for vacations! Our own little Amsterdamn! I bet it will be Vancouver! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms.Huxtable Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 Just to look at it from a different angle...If we take the drug THC out of the equation, and speak of hemp farming itself, just think of the positive environmental and economical impact legalizing it would have. Hemp is a resiliant plant, easy to grow in our environment and economical to cultivate. Canadian farmers could be wealthy and would be responsible for saving trees, importing less materials for cloth, building materials, paper, etc. The benfits are endless and the negatives are what exactly? I never did understand this. As much as I love Mary Jane, I sure wish the government would address the hemp issue first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 17, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Chewie: btw marco, very nice meeting you and your crew at the t.o. phil show. hope to run into you in the future.'Twas a pleasure to meet you! Hey, are you checking out Vida Blue in Detroit this weekend? I'll be there supporting my man Page! See you around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weezy Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 cyberhippy - it already is just that. High Times recently voted Vancouver #1 over Amsterdam as the worlds pot mecca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 marco. sorry man. won't be there but the next show i'll be checking out is probably the fort erie zoo thang then the abb at darien. u going to those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
as is Posted July 18, 2002 Report Share Posted July 18, 2002 weezy- first of all, it would mean that they wouldn't have to enforce it. second, just because some redneck out in saskatchewan thinks mary jane is a dangerous drug, doesn't mean that it should continue to be illegal. just think, if they decriminalize it out out west, then a lot more is going to be grown, and it sure as hell will come down to us, a lot more than is now. then what happens? provincial border checks? municipal border checks? (realize this is worst case senario) i beleive that this is a decion that needs to be made by the federal gov't, and should be canada wide, not just in random places. i think this is a little bigger issue than the smoking by-law's. anyway, it would be in the gov't best interest to control the whole thing any way. more revenue for them, if they grow it. and if not, then another thing for them to tax. now isn't that a peachy thought..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted July 18, 2002 Report Share Posted July 18, 2002 I think pot should be legalized for medicinal purposes. However, the one person that can't be helping the legalization movement is Woody Harelson. That guy is a freakin' lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treyter Posted July 18, 2002 Report Share Posted July 18, 2002 Woody lol here's a thought: until the american gov. relaxes on the drug issue, it is a probable fact that Canada would not be "allowed" to decriminalize pot on a nation-wide basis (they might, however, be allowed to do it on a municipal level because it wouldn't be sticking it to the man quite as much) "allowed" meaning that border trade controls might be beefed up to an unnacceptable level to our business world, which essentially controls our government policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts