Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

50% support decriminalizing marijuana: poll
The Ottawa Citizen ^ | January 02, 2003 | Janice Tibbetts

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.


TOPICS: Canada; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: headlinefraud; marijuana; misleading; pot; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last
To: MrLeRoy
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...

41 posted on 01/03/2003 10:53:28 AM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent; Axenolith
you also have to take into account the enormous amount we're spending today on enforcement of drug laws and imprisonment of drug offenders.

And the loss of tax revenue when productive people are put in prison---or shot in drug-turf battles.

42 posted on 01/03/2003 10:53:38 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Is there any evidence that any pot user has ever ODed or been made violent?
------
One of my college roomates comes to mind.
43 posted on 01/03/2003 10:54:38 AM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
Nasty ... but it doesn't have much to do with your statement about the populace needing guns to save them from drug users.
44 posted on 01/03/2003 10:55:14 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
Is there any evidence that any pot user has ever ODed or been made violent?
------
One of my college roomates comes to mind.

Tell on---which did he do?

45 posted on 01/03/2003 10:56:07 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
One of the areas where liberals and Libertarians agree.

For entirely diferent reasons.

EBUCK

46 posted on 01/03/2003 10:59:25 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Do you HONESTLY think the federal government will legalize marijuana while they are outlawing tobacco?

Watch the tobacco companies switch to pot and start lobbying Congress ;-)

47 posted on 01/03/2003 10:59:33 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
One of those same types of folks, albeit not quite as low on the human scale of degradation, hopped on BART and came out to my town and butchered a woman in her home a couple of years ago for the pleasure of it.

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.

48 posted on 01/03/2003 11:03:42 AM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
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.

Do you support the legality of alcohol? If so, have you received guarantees on cost and safety?

49 posted on 01/03/2003 11:09:14 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: MrLeRoy
One person I was closely associated with was a genius at math and was in the navy. He smoked some of what today would definitly be the dank chronic and it scrambled his brains good. while being stoned postumous to that didn't necessarily make him violent, his post first time mental instability greatly contributed to a propensity to get himself into fights, and he could kick ass too. He was basically useless from an employability standpoint after that intial episode (He was medically discharged from the service).

He was an excellent example of the propensity for pot to push a small (~5-10% max) borderline sample of the population who are initially lucid into an unstable mental state (I'm not sure whether it would be defined as Manic or Psychotic, he took, irregularly, lithium for it).

Other folks I knew and lived with didn't have any problem just generically getting into fights while stoned, the peaceful hippy types just start out that way IMHO.
51 posted on 01/03/2003 11:32:59 AM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cynaman
if you took it out of the hands of the govt., chances are its no more addictative than tobbaco, and even less than booze.

That's well known; even a National Institute for Drug Abuse scientist says so.

52 posted on 01/03/2003 11:33:48 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
He was an excellent example of the propensity for pot to push a small (~5-10% max) borderline sample of the population who are initially lucid into an unstable mental state

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.

53 posted on 01/03/2003 11:36:41 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

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

The issue here is decriminalization, not legalization. Would you consider Dan Burton to be a liberal?
54 posted on 01/03/2003 11:43:22 AM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
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 ;)

55 posted on 01/03/2003 11:47:13 AM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cynaman
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.

56 posted on 01/03/2003 11:53:46 AM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
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.

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.

57 posted on 01/03/2003 11:58:23 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cynaman
Your right. If it were legalized and taxed, the politicians wouldn't know what to do with the billions in tax revenue. I'm sure they're happier with the illegal bribe money.

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.

58 posted on 01/03/2003 12:16:33 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
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.

59 posted on 01/03/2003 12:23:49 PM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
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.

60 posted on 01/03/2003 12:27:49 PM PST by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson