Posted on 03/08/2005 10:38:47 AM PST by youngtory
What did "legal pot" (which Canada doesn't have) have to do with these deaths?
Pot isn't legal yet the government is about to legalise it.It was too premature for me to conclude that. The police went to investigate a building which was a grop-op area to investigate and this man who grew the pot fired at the police killing them.
They weren't investigating it as a grow-op, and the RCMP commissioner admits there's no connection.
Ok, my error.
Perhaps you should learn to read beforee you take me to task. The point I made included the words "with restrictions and regulations". This means:
1. Marijuana is legal in Canada, by government decree, provided it is intended for medical use. That's a regulation and a restriction right there.
2. The point is still highly relevant because even with a legal catchet, people are still gowing and selling marijuana for NON-MEDICAL purposes, i.e. crimninal purposes.
3. I do have my facts straight -- the Canadian government is growing marijuana (even if there's a third party involved, it's still being done under government auspices). Whoever the third party is, they're making a profit, but since the Canadian gov't is cheap about everything except handing out housing allowances to terrorists, there's still more money to be made in the criminal production and distribution of pot.
You said:
"1. The government must grow some really bad pot if there are people willing to kill in order to grow their own."
Since the pot is not available for recreational purposes, which is what the vast majority of users want it for (which no honest person is denying), of course there is still a demand for it in the illegal market. And the only people willing to kill over it are those involved in the large scale production and distribution of, due to the huge profits that it's continuing illegality provides.
"2. The argument that once an illicit substance is legalized, with regulation and restrictions on it's use, it does not automatically follow that you eliminate the criminal element."
If we were talking about the re-legalization of alcohol during prohibition and you used the phrase "with regulation and restrictions" I, or others, would assume you were talking about reasonable restrictions, like drinking ages and public consumption laws and licensing of sales. The legalization of pot for medicinal use is a separate issue (as far as I'm concerned, anyway). Its recreational use remains illegal, plain and simple, which is hardly what anyone here means by legalization. Would you have expected legalization of alcohol for strictly medicinal use to have any affect on the demand for it as a libation?
By your reasoning, the user of heroin has been "legalized" in Canada because it available by prescription as a painkiller in terminal cases.
Are you playing word games or just being pedantic?
"Pot isn't legal yet the government is about to legalise it.It was too premature for me to conclude that."
No, they have introduced a bill that will decriminalize personal possession of a small quantity of pot, much like a number of US states. The same bill increases penalties for growing and, I believe, trafficking.
The only real difference will be that a simple posssession arrest will not result in a criminal record, or probably even an arrest record.
It's neither semantics or pedantry. It's a matter of gov't dealing with the unintended consequenmces of it's actions (or, in this case, it's ability to cave in to a vocal constituency).
Whether or not the pot in question is restricted solely to medical purposes, the Canadian gov't is now the de facto largest distributor of narcotics in Canada (or at least it has the potential to be). The fact that someone else is growing it under contract makes no difference --- if tomorrow, the Candian gov't decided cocaine had the same therauetic effect (and potential for profit), it would get into the cocaine business as quickly as it could. However, cocaine still has bad P.R. attached to it, unlike pot.
This is not a government's job.
Whenever a government condones or expedites the public's penchant for getting high, whether it is medical marijuana or a needle-exchange program, and does so under the aegis of "protecting the public" or "administering to the public need", it is, in fact, trying to muscle in on a criminal activity. It does not do so because the public wants it, it does so because the government has it's own motive: i.e. profit.
From what I've heard (I have several friends in Toronto and Calgary), the government-issue pot is absolutely awful, and so, those who want it find alternate supplies. The criminal element is still profiting from a so-called "legal" commodity, probably more so now since the government contractor cannot even grow pot properly.
If the intention of the Canadian government was to profit from a previously illegal trade, and I believe it was, it has failed miserably. If the intention of the Canadian government was to pander to a small, but vocal, minority, it has done so to the potential detriment of the rest of the nation.
The same arguments are made here in the United States, the difference is that we haven't (yet) totally lost our minds on the subject of government involvement in the drug trade.
The de-criminalizing of previously-illegal substances and activities, even when narrowly defined and rigidly controlled, does not remove the criminal element, nor is it good public policy. In this country, Prohibition was finally repealed because the government needed tax revenue, not because there was a major hue and cry for alcohol(the fact that there was, was simply convenient). The U.S. government may pretend otherwise, but it really only sought to profit from an illegal activity. Why should Al Capone have made all the money?
The Canadian government is doing the same thing --- hiding it's true intentions behind "doing the public will".
The number of people approved for legal medical pot is a tiny proportion of the users in Canada. It is misleading to imply that the black market in pot still exists because of people who aren't satisfied with the gov't produced stuff. Even if they were perfectly satisfied with it, there would still be a huge demand for it for recreational purposes.
Decriminalization is about removing the worst of the consequences for users. I don't think anybody expects it to have any effect on criminality on the production side. I certainly don't. I do think it's a good thing that people won't have their lives ruined over a minor pot possession bust.
As to the government's motivation for legalizing it, well they haven't proposed doing that. The legalization of medicinal pot is not going to produce any major revenues for the gov't. In fact, the main reason they did it is because of court decisions that were on the verge of completely striking down the laws against possession due to the lack of provision for medical use. Having dealt with that they can get back to making the laws they see fit to. As it happens, decriminalization for possession of small amounts enjoys widespread support in the Canadian public, for just the reason that I've mentioned.
Well, that's my point of view, anyway. Yours obviously differs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.