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.
What motivates you to frequent such places?
Being a geologist for an environmental services firm that does a lot of work for Caltrans (sampling for aerially deposited lead in the surface and just about anything you can think of in the subsurface prior to construction or retrofit work on freeway structures).
Nothing quite drives home the magnitude of SF's "homeless" lunacy than having your driller say "don't step backward or you'll need a hepatitis shot" and turning to see that pile of dirt you saw out of the corner of your eye is actually a 2-3 foot pile of human excrement and TP up against the abutment...
And the loss of tax revenue when productive people are put in prison---or shot in drug-turf battles.
Tell on---which did he do?
For entirely diferent reasons.
EBUCK
Watch the tobacco companies switch to pot and start lobbying Congress ;-)
Like I said, I'll buy into it if the cost is guaranteed to be at least a net zero and the rest of folks get the means to defend themselves from the users even if there is debate over whether that threat is real or percieved. We don't need to argue over those concepts, pro legalizers will probably get what they want if they legislatively insure those two concerns.
Do you support the legality of alcohol? If so, have you received guarantees on cost and safety?
That's well known; even a National Institute for Drug Abuse scientist says so.
Messing with an already off-kilter mind is clearly not a good idea. But it remains the case that alcohol is much likelier to trigger violence.
Do you support the legality of alcohol? If so, have you received guarantees on cost and safety?
Irrelevant. Just because something was or wasn't done in the past with respect to an issue has no bearing on whether to do it now with a completely different issue. My proposal would automatically apply to alcohol in the matter of defense anyway, and the no net cost part could be retroactived in too.
Besides, if there were more opportunities for people accosted or harmed by obnoxious drunks to shoot them, the world would probably be a better place ;)
For whatever its worth, over 500 thousand a year die due to the use of tobbaco, about 250 thousand die from booze and not one death has been reported caused by pot.
One of the reasons drug legalizers always get the dog walked on them in debates is because they utilize this supposed "statistic". As if sucking the smoke of one type of burning leaves into your lungs is significantly less hazardous than another? Neither is extremely bright from a long term health standpoint, the only reason you don't have a "pot" column is that no one has an agenda to regulate it or tax it for its evils (since its illegal) and therefore they don't actively track it like booze or smokes.
It's NOT "a completely different issue"---it's just another mind-altering substance.
My proposal would automatically apply to alcohol in the matter of defense anyway, and the no net cost part could be retroactived in too.
That's not the point---the point is that if your real objection to drug legalization is higher costs it would stand to reason that you'd seek to lower your current costs by banning currently legal recreational drugs like alcohol.
And if pot were legal, it would stop the drug company contributions overnight. Although I'm not sure why, I'll just take your word for it.
That's not the point---the point is that if your real objection to drug legalization is higher costs it would stand to reason that you'd seek to lower your current costs by banning currently legal recreational drugs like alcohol.
Thats a facetious arguement, you as well as I know that to ban alcohol now would result in the instantaneous unelection of anyone proposing it, if not open rebellion. I just outlined what would possibly get legalizers what they want, don't shoot the messenger. Arguing the fairness, logic or constitutionality of currently legal substances vs pot is stupid. You have to lay out your desire and provide guarantees and insurances as to how it [lagalization] won't impact the anti crowd who currently control the majority and fear its legalization.
It would also help on the no cost side if many of the proponents weren't these moronic medical marijuana advocates who also subscribe to the free clinics and medical care for everyone [read - Socialism] dogma.
Summary- Root out or alienate the socialists from the pro crowd and guarantee and\or insure net zero or negative cost benefit and readily available personal defense for everyone. Be prepared to offer a sunset clause, it will provide anti 's an incentive to try and pro's the incentive to police their own.
I'm sure they're happier with the illegal bribe money.
Actually, you're probably right here in a mass psychological sense. Tax money is transparent and open to competition among politicians while bribe money isn't. Better to get whats sure than fight for possibilities, particularly if you're in a small, low population state.
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.