50% support decriminalizing marijuana: poll

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | January 02, 2003 | Janice Tibbetts

[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.

[MrLeRoy]

you can't cut loose X hundred million people all at once and hope for order

Did anyone here claim otherwise?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Well put. Glad to see we're on the same page.

[Malcolm]

You show me a Libertarian, and I'll show you a Democrat who believes in fiscal conservatism, or either an agnostic Republican. With alcohol legal, and undeniable evidence that it inflicts far more injury than any benefits it could ever possibly provide, they want to include Marijuana, Cocaine, Crank, and other "geekin'" fun times, without thought to the damage it can do. No real need to argue with these hippies; being your brother's keeper is the ultimate joke to these heathen. But I have to admit, I love to see these posts, to see their lack of values and their lame arguments. Debate club material they are not.....

[MrLeRoy]

It would behoove Republicans in particular to lay off the Libertarian bashing and paranoia and start saying "hey guys, we don't think you're platform is entirely realistic in the current environment, but we'd sure as hell like your vote and we'll try to work on some of your agenda" and then back it up with action.

You're funded by George Soros, aren't you?

[MrLeRoy]

With alcohol legal, and undeniable evidence that it inflicts far more injury than any benefits it could ever possibly provide

The issue isn't benefits but FREEDOM. Individuals' bodies are their own, not the collective's.

[Axenolith]

I claimed that the Hindu\Moslem violence demonstrated that liberty without order resulted in chaos (at least in that instance).

You replied "Red Herring - no one is promoting anarchy"

And I replied "you can't cut loose X hundred million people all at once and hope for order"

It appeared that you were claiming or insinuating that sudden freedom for lots of people was followed by order or that I was utilizing that instance to make my peaceable rights regaining point (I just didn't consider it a valid instance of a right regained by peaceful means)... my bad if not.

[MrLeRoy]

being your brother's keeper is

... not the job of government.

I love to see these posts, to see their lack of values and their lame arguments.

Funny how you have yet to show that any of them are "lame".

[MrLeRoy]

I don't smoke pot---my short term memory is fine.

[tacticalogic]

I don't have a problem debating any of these points. I think they are debatable. But you'll note that these having nothing to do with the comparative effects between alcohol and marijuana. That's all I'm saying.

IMHO, it will be very difficult to avoid any comparison of the two, because at some point the issue will come down to what the appropriate venue and level of regulation is. At that point it becomes an issue of acceptable risk, and in that regard comparisons to alcohol are going to be appropriate because it is the closest analog we have for comparative measure.

[MrLeRoy]

Ignore previous post.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Like I wrote earlier, some FReepers have such a hard-on for battling Libertarians that they can't see the forest for the trees. You're one---And you've got a polisci degree? No wonder people scoff at BS majors.

[Axenolith]

Alcohols negatives are reinforced by societies inability to require strict accountability on behalf of the drinker.

Being your brothers keeper means you watch out for him, it doesn't mean you're his jailer and it doesn't mean you keep picking him up time and again if he repeats stupidity...

[Axenolith]

I don't see how my statement is germane to an international currency trader. Additionally, his support for drug legalization schemes is also predicated on a heavy state "safety net" from what I've heard.

[MrLeRoy]

Sorry, I forgot the smiley.

[IMHO]

I really have a hard time seeing a loosly organized bunch of individuals project even defensive naval power, widespread air defense or a multi-divisional armored formation.

The Japanese never invaded the US mainland due to the fact that "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass" (paraphrased quote by some Japanese Admiral). This worked as well for the Swiss in WWII, and the minutemen in the Revolution

[robertpaulsen]

At the point where a case has been made for legalization, I agree.

[tacticalogic]

At the point where a case has been made for legalization, I agree.

Considering the constitutional issues involved, can you make a case for continuting prohibition without introducing risk as an factor in the argument?

[robertpaulsen]

Good post. But why do you propose to start this process with the legalization/decriminalization of drugs?

Why not elimination of the NEA? HHS? HUD? Take your pick among a myriad of alphabet agencies.

It just seems a bit silly to make such a noble effort to return to a Constitutional government by starting with a campaign that has as it's slogan, "I want to smoke dope".

[robertpaulsen]

Risk of what?

[Axenolith]

Yamamoto made that statement, and it was true relative to that time. As for the Swiss, they afford an extremely low cost\benefit ratio for a potential attacker with respect to potential casualties and economic resources.

I'm not sure that scenario would hold against an aggressive nuclear armed China, and a battleship and aircraft carrier free US in 1941 would similarly not have detered Japan from at least beginning to sieze US territory, starting in Alaska and continuing south (which they did temporarily with Attu and Kiska).