Posted on 01/03/2003 9:58:54 AM PST by MrLeRoy
Half of Canadians want the federal government to decriminalize possession of marijuana, and support for relaxed laws is not confined to the young.
The new survey comes at a time when Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says he is going to remove simple marijuana possession from the Criminal Code, but his boss, Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien, isn't sure.
"It certainly says that we are a relatively liberal society on this issue," said Toronto pollster Michael Sullivan.
The U.S. has also warned against decriminalization, saying Canada should get over its "reefer madness" if it doesn't want to face the wrath of its largest trading partner.
The survey of 1,400 adult Canadians showed 50 per cent either strongly or somewhat support decriminalization, while 47 per cent are somewhat or strongly opposed.
The poll was conducted in early November for Maclean's magazine, Global TV and Southam News by the Strategic Counsel, a Toronto-based polling firm. The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The survey showed 53 per cent of Canadians under 40 support looser laws, while 48 per cent of people aged 40 and older want to see marijuana decriminalized.
Mr. Sullivan said there was less of an age gap than there is on other social issues, such as gay marriage and gay adoption.
"I guess we should think that marijuana smoking in general started in the 1960s so a lot of people now who are 40 plus are people who may have tried marijuana in the 60s," he said.
The survey also revealed men are more likely than women to favour relaxed laws and support is strongest among people with money. Fifty-three per cent of men said the government should act, compared to 48 per cent of women.
The findings are different than they are for most social issues, in which women tend to be more liberal than men, Mr. Sullivan said.
Support for looser laws also increased with income. Of those earning more than $100,000, 59 per cent want marijuana decriminalized. The pollsters speculated support is driven by education and affordability.
But the pollsters warned the government should proceed with caution because the results show almost half of Canadians oppose any law changes.
"This isn't 70 or 80 per cent saying let's do it, but it certainly suggests that this is something that should be vigorously debated and as you get more information, let's see where people stand on it," said Mr. Sullivan.
The poll results show British Columbia leads the pack of supporters, with 56 per cent in favour. Support in Ontario registered at 51 per cent, while 48 per cent of Albertans and Quebecers reported favouring looser laws. Support was lowest in Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada, at 46 per cent in favour.
The Strategic Council did not ask Canadians whether they support legalization of marijuana. Rather the survey dealt with decriminalization, which would still make possession illegal, but people caught would be given a fine akin to a parking ticket rather than saddled with a criminal record.
But Mr. Sullivan suspects many of those surveyed did not distinguish between decriminalization and legalization.
Mr. Cauchon has rejected legalization, which was recommended by a Senate committee last summer, saying society still wants some sort of punishment for marijuana smokers.
Now, if you're talking Libertarian world hegemony... MUAAHAHAhahahahaaa...
Maybe not you specifically, but so many FR posters have such a hard-on for "dismantling" Libertarian ideas they can't see the forest for the trees. Even theoretically, there's no reason a "Libertarian" nation would be destroyed any more readily or handily than a nation founded on any other political ideology. One of the fundamental tenents of Libertarianism, as I understand it, is the right---no, duty---to defend one's self.
It's more a case of "You favor the federal government's right to tell you what you can grow in a flower pot on your window sill. Why not their right to tell you where you can build your home, or how much water your toilet uses, or take your property for a wildlife preserve because an endangered species might want to live there some day?" They claim the authority to do all of those things from the same source - the New Deal Commerce Clause. You can't support federal marijuana prohibition without supporting that doctrine, and having done that, you support their authority to control virtually every aspect of your life by bureaucrats empowered through the ESA, the EPA, and a boatload of other alphabet agencies. Virtually all of the infringements on our second amendment rights is being done via the Commerce Clause. Does the means justify the end?
"Point, counterpoint, point, counterpoint" looks like 'reasoning with' to me. What's your idea of 'reasoning with'?
I take it back. Make that second grade.
Content-free disparagement is not a rebuttal.
The bloodshed that chronologically followed does not make the regaining of liberty other than peaceful.
I'm sorry, but I still don't get your rhetorical point, whatever it is. I submitted that your attitude about this subject---i.e., that it's now the responsibility for those who support marijuana decriminalization or even legalization to show how it won't harm anyone before anyone accepts his or her claims as valid---is an example of the notion that "a right lost is a right permanently lost." It was once perfectly within everyone in America's "right" to smoke marijuana. That "right" was taken away when people in government were decided to criminalize the practice. My inability to name at the drop of a hat a peacefully regained lost right only adds more credence to the notion that a right lost is a right permanently lost.
I would've had a hard time believing that a bunch of farmers, storekeepers, shipbuilders, and windbags masquerading as part-time militiamen, bitching about not getting paid, bitching about crappy duty, and even picking up and leaving defensive posts when their enlistments were up could defeat the world's strongest superpower. But it happened.
Red herring---nobody here is calling for anarchy.
I thought (and it seems so did Ax) that you disagreed that "a right lost is a right permanently lost".
But you'll note that these having nothing to do with the comparative effects between alcohol and marijuana. That's all I'm saying.
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.