[herbie]

None of which matters.
What matters is for 50 years they've failed to address a single report and continue to define pot smokers as criminals.
The criminality is entirely in the consolidation of trafficking into large distributors. Millions of small growers who sell independently to consumers or consumers who grew their own harm no one.
It's simply turned into a sheer insistence by some that they must tell others what they can and can't do even if it means nothing to them personally.
If you don't like pot don't smoke it. How fucking dare you tell others they're criminals for smoking it.
I don't smoke it. I did when I was younger, but I sure as FUCK am not gonna see my grandkids criminalized by a bunch of fucking dinosaurs if they try it.

[andyt]

What a bunch of idiots these guys are, thinking they know better than the bright minds on this forum:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is a non-profit, international, educational organization comprising former and current police officers, government agents and other law enforcement agents who oppose the current War on Drugs.[1][2] LEAP was founded on March 16, 2002. It is modeled after Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an organization which earned its credibility by utilizing speakers who had been on the frontlines of the war they later denounced. Incorporated on March 16, 2002, with five members, LEAP now claims to have more than 15,000 members but does not disclose how many of those are sworn law enforcement officers.[2] There are 85 speakers living in thirty-eight different states in the United States and eight other countries.[3] LEAP now has members in 86 countries.[2]

LEAP is a drug law reform organization that believes legalized regulation is the only ethical and efficient way to undo the damage caused by the War on Drugs. Legalized regulation would result in a system in which the sale and distribution of drugs is regulated by a government body similar to the regulation of alcohol and tobacco, thereby inhibiting, and eventually removing, the criminal monopoly on the sale of current illicit drugs.

[EyeBrock]

Your leaping to conclusions again andy. Parliament sets the laws, police enforce them.

The agreement of individual officers as to the validity of a particular law isn't something that is part of the law-enforcement process in Canada. You'll have to look for your fight elsewhere.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't smoke, drink or use drugs and frankly, I find alcohol to be an utter pain in the ass. I don't see the need to get intoxicated or why we feel the need to legalize the right for someone to get high on certain drugs.

"Everything I like should be legal, and everything I don't should be illegal."

You don't smoke, drink or use drugs? No wonder youre such a miserable prick.

[ShepherdsDog]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Your leaping to conclusions again andy. Parliament sets the laws, police enforce them.

The agreement of individual officers as to the validity of a particular law isn't something that is part of the law-enforcement process in Canada. You'll have to look for your fight elsewhere.

great! Some poor schlub will just be looking for coffee and a doughnut(likely one of your own) and Andy's going to have a whole pot of timmy's bitterness that no amount of cream can take the edge off.

[EyeBrock]

I'm sure they don't get free ones out of andy's TH!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Further, if the Government gets involved, they'll tax the shit out of it and you'll still have the gangs and OC selling as it'll be cheaper to buy it on the street corner.

It costs the same to produce one gram of marijuana as it does to produce one cigarette. A large pack of smokes contains 20 grams of tobacco and costs about $10.
An ounce of weed has 30 grams and costs anywhere from $200-$300. Now based on similar production costs and taxes as cigarettes, an ounce should cost about $15-20. The gov't could tax the shit out of it even further and drive the cost up to say $50 and ounce. I just don't see gangs dropping their prices by 75% and more.

[Curtman]

Robertson echoes call to weed out pot prohibition

$1:

Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson has joined four former city mayors in support of legalizing marijuana to stop gang violence.

On Thursday night, Robertson posted a message on the social net-working website Twitter: "Good to see 4 Vancouver ex-mayors calling for end of cannabis prohibition. I agree, we need to be smart and tax/regulate."

[Curtman]

Pot legalization calls hearten sister of hunger striker

$1:

Harcourt, former B.C. premier, compares the current marijuana legislation with alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s and believes, in time, it will be seen as equally dysfunctional.

"Look at the number of people who have been charged, convicted, imprisoned and the huge number of people who have unfortunate criminal records in the biggest failure since the prohibition of booze," Harcourt said.

"It's not that we are encouraging people to use drugs. We are saying regulate it, like we do alcohol. Prohibit it for minors, charge people if they are impaired and control the doses," he said.

Currently, marijuana is the biggest agricultural crop in B.C. and the profit is all going to gangsters, Harcourt said.

The alternative is to take the profit away from criminals, cut down on criminal justice costs and for government to collect $1 billion a year in taxes, he said.

"I think it's just common sense."

[EyeBrock]

These mayors are not considering the implications on cross-border trade and those pesky yank's views on weed. Really nothing is going to happen. Unilateral declaration of the abolition of weed laws just isn't something we could do without a really negative reaction from the US.

"Fuck the US!" do I hear from the usual internet warriors? Yea, well the sun hasn't quite set on the US Empire yet, contrary to the CBC, BBC, Globe and TorStar's viewpoints. They remain our biggest partners in just about everything, and they are the senior partner. That's the reality.

The mayors know that and it's politicians playing the only game they know. The popularity game and taking a stance on an issue that they have no control or impact on.

But hey, it makes them look good to the yoof vote and you guys think they are heroes. Easy stuff really isn't it?

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

These mayors are not considering the implications on cross-border trade and those pesky yank's views on weed. Really nothing is going to happen. Unilateral declaration of the abolition of weed laws just isn't something we could do without a really negative reaction from the US.

"Fuck the US!" do I hear from the usual internet warriors? Yea, well the sun hasn't quite set on the US Empire yet, contrary to the CBC, BBC, Globe and TorStar's viewpoints. They remain our biggest partners in just about everything, and they are the senior partner. That's the reality.

The mayors know that and it's politicians playing the only game they know. The popularity game and taking a stance on an issue that they have no control or impact on.

But hey, it makes them look good to the yoof vote and you guys think they are heroes. Easy stuff really isn't it?

We moved first on alcohol prohibition. History defies your argument.

[peck420]

Eyebrock,

I don't know if it would be as bad as you would think. There are more than a few states that are just as close to legalising (or at least want to legalise) that it would make for an interesting period.

To say out of hand that the US would be against it does not take into account US politics. A very large voter block is at stake. The question would really be if we should do it with a Dem in power or with the Rep trying to get into power.

Whichever would net the most votes would win.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

These mayors are not considering the implications on cross-border trade and those pesky yank's views on weed. Really nothing is going to happen. Unilateral declaration of the abolition of weed laws just isn't something we could do without a really negative reaction from the US.

"Fuck the US!" do I hear from the usual internet warriors? Yea, well the sun hasn't quite set on the US Empire yet, contrary to the CBC, BBC, Globe and TorStar's viewpoints. They remain our biggest partners in just about everything, and they are the senior partner. That's the reality.

The mayors know that and it's politicians playing the only game they know. The popularity game and taking a stance on an issue that they have no control or impact on.

But hey, it makes them look good to the yoof vote and you guys think they are heroes. Easy stuff really isn't it?

We moved first on alcohol prohibition. History defies your argument.

Cigarettes. Reality defies your argument.

[EyeBrock]

Curtman Curtman:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

These mayors are not considering the implications on cross-border trade and those pesky yank's views on weed. Really nothing is going to happen. Unilateral declaration of the abolition of weed laws just isn't something we could do without a really negative reaction from the US.

"Fuck the US!" do I hear from the usual internet warriors? Yea, well the sun hasn't quite set on the US Empire yet, contrary to the CBC, BBC, Globe and TorStar's viewpoints. They remain our biggest partners in just about everything, and they are the senior partner. That's the reality.

The mayors know that and it's politicians playing the only game they know. The popularity game and taking a stance on an issue that they have no control or impact on.

But hey, it makes them look good to the yoof vote and you guys think they are heroes. Easy stuff really isn't it?

We moved first on alcohol prohibition. History defies your argument.

Simplistic. The temperance movement was huge in the US and UK before prohibition, no massive and mainstream movement in the US re weed exists to anywhere near the same extent. Bad application of historical comparisons.

I'm for weed being avaiable without the threat of arrest, but you 'legalise it' crowd need to think about the knock-on implications.

But hey, this is the internet. You don't really need to think about the big picture!

[Macguyver]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

These mayors are not considering the implications on cross-border trade and those pesky yank's views on weed. Really nothing is going to happen. Unilateral declaration of the abolition of weed laws just isn't something we could do without a really negative reaction from the US.

"Fuck the US!" do I hear from the usual internet warriors? Yea, well the sun hasn't quite set on the US Empire yet, contrary to the CBC, BBC, Globe and TorStar's viewpoints. They remain our biggest partners in just about everything, and they are the senior partner. That's the reality.

The mayors know that and it's politicians playing the only game they know. The popularity game and taking a stance on an issue that they have no control or impact on.

But hey, it makes them look good to the yoof vote and you guys think they are heroes. Easy stuff really isn't it?

Well, if you think like you are the bitch in the relationship then you probably are.

Americans might not like it when we decriminalize pot, but their economy is weak and this might be the best time to see if they want to risk making it worse by imposing more trade barriers.

Let them react. The people pulling the strings of the government there might get their panties in a bunch for a while, but they are not going to stop the gravy train because they are greedy fuckers and I bet those billionaires don;t give a fuck one way or another what our weed laws are. The only people that care are the Christians and the hard line right wingers - and both of those groups have gays and socialism and immigrants to worry about already.

It might be more reasonable to worry about how the Chinese react.