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.
Whatever you perceive the potential downside to be. Or are you of the opinion that arbitrary regulation is perfectly acceptable, and that government control of everything should be the norm - that everything should be denied except that which is specifically allowed, and that before something is allowed it must be proven to be beneficial?
Because that is the linchpin for the conservatives. The drug war is the one thing that makes them complicit in the liberal's abuse of the commerce clause. Get that out of the way, and we can attack the root cause of the problem. Going after individual agencies is simply attacking the symptoms and ignoring the problem. If we absolutely have to have a federal drug war, then let's do it right, and pass an amendment.
So, objectively speaking, you would be more in favor of making alcohol illegal than legal, especially given the far greater body count that it produces than other immoral substances? If not, why not?
Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution grant to the Federal government the power to be involved in marijuana policies within a State's territory?
I'll take the Almighty's word over yours any day.
Yes it is, since it's the only legal way to do it, and it should be done, since it is the right and correct thing to do.
Funny how you have yet to show that any of them are "lame".
I don't have to do a thing; they are OBVIOUSLY lame. You and your pro-drug buddies are just to ignorant and/or obstinate to know any better.
LOL, I'm more pro-Republican than anti-Libertarian. Tell you what; if the Libertarians and their ignorant pro-drug surrogates stop posting their garbage here, I'll stop posting against them. I don't post any articles, so any anti-Libertarian remarks on my part will be in response to a provocation on their part. So much for your gross exaggeration, if not false accusation. And if you do not stand up for what is right, that is, to stand up against Libertarians, drug pushers and everyone else who posts something wrong here, whether you're college educated or like you, someone with much less time in school, then you are as wrong as they are. The forest is not Libertarians, it is evil in general, whether Libertarian, Democrat, or the few Republicans that decide they are ultraleftists as well. You scoff at whatever you want, buddy. If you stand up for these cheeseballs and against someone with my values, then who are you to question me? Certainly not someone with any wisdom to share.....
My point, for the slow among you: 1) Alcohol is legal, 2) Alcohol does much damage, very little medicinal use, if any, 3) tell your story to the relatives of those killed every day by drunk drivers, you know, those "free" to drink. LOL, and based on the above let's open the floodgates of "freedom" and legalize all the other drugs, so John Q. Nutcase can have his fix, er, freedom.....
Being your brother's keeper is being your brother's keeper, period. Being your brother's keeper means keeping everything now illegal in that status permanently. What do most posters on this site value? Freedom or Responsibility? No contest there! Responsibility is someone else's job, right. By your thinking, (if you can honestly call it that), let's get ex-cons guns, because freedom is more important than responsibility. And while we're dispensing all this freedom, let's give children sex education and birth control. If they screw up and ruin someone's life, that's not your problem! (yeah, right).
A lot of you people on here are as irresponsible as anyone you condemn. You compete with each other to see who can be the most conservative and free-loving, but without one ounce of responsibility. Freedom without responsibility ultimately results in loss of freedom. That is coming. One day your freedom will be lost. You'll either be one of the cattle, (LOL, and many hyper-free nuts on here will be the first ones in that herd), or one of a few who will REALLY stand for the ultimate freedom. So smoke your little joints while you can, professor. Your freedom will be lost and you people are so glaringly ignorant, you will never even know it is gone.....
One day, when the man comes to take away your freedom, and he will since most of your don't have the slightest idea that that word really means, you will give it to him, and without a word, much less a fight. Then you will know, but that knowledge will be useless to you then. Who you gonna call then? Bob Barr and the ACLU? LOL, they will probably be the ones who come to drag your sorry, dope-smoking buns off to camp.....
ALL drugs have a risk (some much greater than others), society has made alcohol an acceptable drug. If you outlaw one you must outlaw them all. But if you remember we already tried alcohol back in the 30's.
You have an excellent point, but it's even better than you realize. Check this out:
Freedom can exist without responsibilty. You can do whatever you please, from about the point that you jump off the cliff until you hit the ground.
Responsibility can exist without freedom. Ask any North Korean border guard, and he'll tell you a thing or two about the concept of duty.
These are both extreme examples to show that these two concepts are only good if they exist together. Let me put it another way.
Some people, as you note, want freedom but not have to pay for it. Others want responsibility at any cost. Sure, freedom is important, but what good is it if you don't vote, think, read or dare? Responsibility is the cornerstone of a solid society, but what good is that society if that virtue is enforced at gunpoint? So what is the right answer? Moderation.
Somewhere between Berkely and Riyadh there is middle ground, where people freely choose to be responsible.
That may sound laughable. It certainly is optimistic. Faced with choice between no-cost freedom and mandatory virtue, the only option worth having is a good balance of each.
Easy, trigger, easy. After ten years in uniform, the concept of responsibility and I have bumped into each other here and there. I completely understand your disgust with today's society, and their absurd self indulgence. In many ways I hear what you're saying. I just think you're just missing the bigger point.
Lots of people in America are killed, maimed, and damaged by their own stupid choices every day.
Lots of people in other countries are killed, maimed, and damaged by their own government for little to no reason every day.
The ones in America who make dumb choices can learn from them, grow, and become better people, or they can keep screwing up. What a country!
Many people in other counties lead stable, regulated lives that come to nothing. They'll live like that for generations, until they get out from under the whip, and get to start making their own mistakes.
What it comes down to is that you must have faith in the concept that America, for all its many faults, is better because our people, for good or evil, enjoy their lievs, liberties, and pursuits of happiness, without being forced.
If not, there's plenty of people in the world who would be more than happy to tell you what to do, if you're interested.
Forced virtue is as appealing a lie as total freedom.
This arguement always comes up, the 'If we can't ban marijuana, why have laws at all?'. When random killing is morally equivalent to being unproductive, I'll be right on board with you.
One day, when the man comes to take away your freedom, and he will since most of your don't have the slightest idea that that word really means, you will give it to him, and without a word, much less a fight.
They won't have to try hard with you, Malcom, you don't seem to want it anyway. I'm sure they'll have plenty of responsibility for you, though.
Who you gonna call then? Bob Barr and the ACLU? LOL, they will probably be the ones who come to drag your sorry, dope-smoking buns off to camp.....
These buns don't smoke dope, and never have. I've made my mistakes in other places, and don't need to repeat them. But I wouldn't be who I was without the freedom to make those choices.
Risk is the elephant in the living room that you're asking me to ignore. But I'll assume that you're searching for the constitutional/legal basis for continuing prohibition?
Simply put, a majority of the people don't want marijuana and the other illegal drugs in society. They also don't want prostitution, child porn, unrestricted gambling, suicide, open borders, gay marriage, and a whole slew of other activities. These people elected others to represent their interests in Washington. Those elected representatives passed the CSA listing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, making it illegal. It is enforced under the Commerce Clause. The CSA has been challenged as to it's constitutionality numerous times in various Federal Circuit Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals (including the infamous, liberal 9th Circuit) and has been unanimously found constitutional.
Now, you can sit there and type away as to how the people are wrong, how the people are ignorant, how the people have no right to tell you what you can and can't do, and how (in your opinion) it is unconstitutional. Maybe one day enough people will agree with you and vote to overturn the existing constitutional laws. Until that day comes, marijuana will remain prohibited.
But, I also think that you need to be fair in clarifying your position. Based on the structure of your argument, it sounds as though you would like all drugs, including prescription drugs to be legal. And you would probably want the FDA eliminated? It really isn't just marijuana with you, is it?
Wouldn't it be fairer to people to understand just what they're getting into if they buy into your arguments? Or is it your intent to deceive?
But do a majority of the people think it is, or should be, the job of the federal government to control these things?
These people elected others to represent their interests in Washington.
Why then, are there no federal laws against prostitution, gambling, suicide, etc.?
Those elected representatives passed the CSA listing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, making it illegal.
Those elected representatives passed the CSA listing marijuana as a schedule I drug, pending to outcome of research to determine what it's appropriate scheduling should be. Were they told when they voted on that the the DEA had no intention of changing the scheduling, regardless of what the results of that research turned out to be?
It is enforced under the Commerce Clause. The CSA has been challenged as to it's constitutionality numerous times in various Federal Circuit Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals (including the infamous, liberal 9th Circuit) and has been unanimously found constitutional.
Only recently has the USSC found any attempt by Congress to pass regulations under the "substantial effects" doctrine to be beyond their authority. That doctrine stems from FDR's New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and liberal courts have been the most willing to uphold it. Defending the constitutionality of the CSA as a "conservative" position based on it's being considered a socially condervative issue is an exercise in the the ends justifying the means. If you use it to justify the CSA, then you have no grounds to complain about that same doctrine being used to advance liberal agendas.
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Justice Clarence Thomas
This is about federal law. If anyone is being deceptive, it is those who insist that anything short of absolute control by the federal government is a free-for-all.
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.