50% support decriminalizing marijuana: poll

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.

You can argue War On Drugs. Again, you have to legalize all drugs to end the WOD. You can legalize only marijuana, and the WOD will continue against all other drugs. Where's your benefit? Resources. De-criminalizing marijuana would free up resources in law enforcement, the courts, the prisons, the military, the government, and in society in general to focus on what few drugs are actually known to be dangerous.

Drugs like cocaine, alcohol, herion, cigarettes, etc, can and should be treated in different ways, but education most of all has shown to be the only thing to cause real long term trends in reduction of use.

Why don't you cite for me your "appropriate criteria" other than "I want to smoke dope?"

Believe it or not, I and many other have never touched the stuff, and don't intend to (thanks to education), but still favor decriminalization. That's because I do favor my rights and my tax dollars, both of which are wasted at an absurd rate.

I don't care if people want to smoke up, watch cartoons and laugh at nothing. It's a lot safer than drinking and driving, and less costly than treating chronic smoker cancer patients who hoist cigarette after cigarette to their lips in their hospital beds. Enough is enough.

Yup. The more liberal you are the more you want to legalize drugs. It's a liberal issue. Not really .. look at it this way. How is it worse than alcohol ?

That's such an idiotic liberal question.

Everyone knows that marijuana is worse than alcohol because... it's, .. um... BAD. Everyone knows that marijuana is bad. Terrorists smoke weed and sell it, too. That's what I heard. Did I mention it was bad? It is. Real bad.

I would in fact settle for either, at this point. Since no one on Earth has been able to explain to me objectively why alcohol and tobacco are legal, and marijuana is not, I'd take what I could get.

It never ceases to astound me why people would want scarce resources commited to this. Police efforts could be spent on violent crime. Prisons could hold dangerous offenders for the actual length of their sentances. The courts wouldn't be so overburdned. Any effort to reduce the marijuana cases would result in huge benefits for the system.

Certainly it should be controlled as well as alcohol and tobacco, but the enforcement aspect does us no end of trouble.

WTF? You did it again. So, can I mention risk or not? The above sentence says, in effect, "Make your case without arguing potential risk".

Sure you can. You just can't claim that risk assesment is relevant criteria for establishing prohibition, but irrelevant to removing it.

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

I'll take the Almighty's word over yours any day.

What does the Almighty say about the issue? Does He favor caging adults for what they put into their own bodies? ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's" and "Put away your sword" strongly suggest otherwise.)

it should be done, since it is the right and correct thing to do.

Spoken like a true liberal.

they are OBVIOUSLY lame.

Spoken like a true intellectual coward.

All of the people here, who accuse those of us who see the War on Drugs as a HUGE FAILURE of being drug users are no better than one who accuses anyone in favor of protecting our borders of being a racist; or those accusing anyone against affirmative action of being a Klans-man.

Absolutely correct---time after time the Drug Warriors use the logic and tactics of liberals.

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.

Do you support banning alcohol? If not, why not?

let's get ex-cons guns, because freedom is more important than responsibility.

Ex-cons' crimes show a willingness to violate the rights of others; drug use does not.

And while we're dispensing all this freedom, let's give children sex education and birth control.

Red herring---we're discussing the freedoms of adults.

Yes, I would like to see Alcohol prohibited.

Are you aware that we've tried this? Do you know how that turned out?

let's raise a new generation of dope smokers, crackheads, and others "geekin" for 2-3 days on end without sleep.

Alcohol is legal; have the last several generations of Americans been "generations of alkies"?

[Malcolm:] because I'm religious.

[MrLeRoy:] So am I, and I support legalization.

[Malcolm, via FRmail:] If you're REALLY religious at all, you would oppose it.

I am really religious and I support it. But I so enjoyed your baseless and sleazy ad hominem that I decided to share it with FR.

Malcom beat me to removing the halt, but in answer to the efforts to criminalize and not decriminalize marijuana and not other immoral products; the effort to criminalize booze failed, the effort to criminalize pot succeeded, efforts to criminalize porn, for example, have had marginal success and so forth. It is a constant struggle to erode our rights in the name of public safety. Another "moral" issue is the citizen's right to bear arms. If'n I had my druthers, I could pull my pistol and blast the drunk that runs a kid over in a crosswalk, especially if it was my kid. Our system is not the greatest, but if people who really care about what they believe in give it their all toward how this country is run, the collective voices of concern are what is heard. BTW, this is threatened by the latest campaign finance reform laws, but the NRA was waiting at the courthouse door to appeal.

Yup. The more liberal you are the more you want to legalize drugs. It's a liberal issue.

Huh? LOL!

I usually don't post on these threads, but, in this country anyone can walk down to the local greedy mart and buy a gallon of Wild Turkey or Jack Daniels and drink 6 glasses of that sh*t and fall over dead.

Happens all the time. Compared to pot, hard liquor and beer is a brutal, mass killer. Look no further than the drunk driving stats. In case you don't know, alcohol can make one pass out, forget where the hell they even were, or what they did, or what they were doing, no memory at all! And one can easily OD and die on alcohol.

There is no more bigger killer drug than alcohol. Ask any cop.......

There is no "reasoning" with an opinionated person. People try to reason with me all the time to no avail. You and I have come to our seperate opinions through observation and thought. Debating is for the benifit of the observer who may not be set on his or her opinion, and a debate is what we have here.
I'm OK with decrimalization of all drugs, including alcahol, as long as we don't label the drug user as a victim of a desease. I don't see our lame, victim mentality ridden bunch of feel-good law makers letting that happen.

I read that 30-year-old report and couldn't find that. Could you please point it out to me or retract it?

The Commission recommends only the following changes in federal law:

POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA FOR PERSONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE, BUT MARIHUANA POSSESSED IN PUBLIC WOULD REMAIN CONTRABAND SUBJECT TO SUMMARY SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE.

CASUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION, OR INSIGNIFICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING PROFIT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

These recommendations are inconsistent with a Schedule I classification.

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.