[EyeBrock]

A rational position on this isn’t something you seem to consider. The US is still the biggest economy in the world and unless you’ve not noticed, our biggest trading partner.

Maybe weed is more important to you than our cross-border trade?

You should look beyond the subject and consider the greater implications. As for the rest of the drivel you posted on Christians etc. Well, I’ll just leave you to your own little world. Further discussion with you seems to be futile.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Cigarettes. Reality defies your argument.

Yeah. Cigarettes. A regulated market and education is able to reduce tobacco usage over a period of time. Prohibition leads to increased marijuana usage. Good point Gunny.

[EyeBrock]

peck420 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.

It was pretty soundly beaten in a recent vote in California (which surprised me). I think that until the US moves towards ending the prohibition of weed and other narcotics, Canada risks much by going it alone.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It was pretty soundly beaten in a recent vote in California (which surprised me). I think that until the US moves towards ending the prohibition of weed and other narcotics, Canada risks much by going it alone.

Many U.S. states have already decriminalized marijuana possession, so in some respects they are already ahead of us. But without a legal supply, decrim only feeds the gangster monopoly.

[EyeBrock]

I agree Curt. The other thing is 'decriminalized' doesn't mean legal, it's still an offence to possess. They have just moved the legal jeopardy down a notch.

It's nothing different than under 30 gms in Canada now being a summary offence instead of a dual (summary/indictable) offence.

[peck420]

Eyebrock,

Possibly. But, I do think that it will all come down to how we sell it (if we did legalise).

If we could sell it to the US by showing the cost and security benefits, they may bite.

If we could sell it as a large scale tourism bonus, and include direct tie ins to West Coast USA, they may bite.

If we do it with no consideration to the US, ie: We have legalised, deal with it!, they definitely will not bite.

Best scenario for us (if we wanted it legalised now) would be the economic spin off's. They are hurting economically, they may be willing to try (or allow their neighbours to try) just about anything.

[andyt]

As has been pointed out, they's already bitten. Many states have far more liberal pot laws than Canada. Obama hasn't moved on it because he has other battles that are more important to him, but if Canada legalized, it would give him a lot of ammunition to move in the same direction.

And what are they going to do if we legalize pot for use in Canada but it remains illegal in the US? It's no different now, where lots of pot flows illegally thru the border (well, less than it used to because many are now finding it easier to grow in the US - cheap foreclosed houses to use, liberal laws in many states, etc, high Canadian dollar). What will change if it's legal up here? Legit visitors to the US will still not be able to take it across the border. Since if it's legal and controlled here there will be a lot less illegal production, it might even cut down on pot smuggled to the US.

[peck420]

One thing that should be pointed out:

The trading relationship with the US is a two way street. They are just as reliant on us as we on them.

I doubt something as trivial (and yes it is trivial) as marijuana prohibition would even put a dent in that. Too many people that just don't care about it make too much money with the trade gates open. They will not let the gates close easily.

[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

As has been pointed out, they's already bitten. Many states have far more liberal pot laws than Canada. Obama hasn't moved on it because he has other battles that are more important to him, but if Canada legalized, it would give him a lot of ammunition to move in the same direction.

And what are they going to do if we legalize pot for use in Canada but it remains illegal in the US? It's no different now, where lots of pot flows illegally thru the border (well, less than it used to because many are now finding it easier to grow in the US - cheap foreclosed houses to use, liberal laws in many states, etc, high Canadian dollar). What will change if it's legal up here? Legit visitors to the US will still not be able to take it across the border. Since if it's legal and controlled here there will be a lot less illegal production, it might even cut down on pot smuggled to the US.

Ok, which State has more liberal pot laws than Canada?

[EyeBrock]

peck420 peck420:

One thing that should be pointed out:

The trading relationship with the US is a two way street. They are just as reliant on us as we on them.

I doubt something as trivial (and yes it is trivial) as marijuana prohibition would even put a dent in that. Too many people that just don't care about it make too much money with the trade gates open. They will not let the gates close easily.

You should talk to shipping companies peck. Obviously it's convenient that the US can import goods from Canada in a timely. But remember all the rhetoric after and since 911? Fortress America and all that. It’s a lot tougher to export to the US than it’s ever been, do we want to make it even harder?

There is a chunk of the right wing in the US that will use any excuse to return to 'splendid isolation'. Our semi-porous border with decriminalisation of narcotics would severely impede the flow of goods from Canada into the US.

Also law enforcement links would be jeopardised, free flow of information on drug and gang related investigations would be adversely affected.

I’m sorry, at the present time the strategic cons outweigh the local pros in my view.

Simple possession under 30 gms will get you a conditional discharge and all that goes with it in Canada. In the US, 30 gms could get you some real long and hard time.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Cigarettes. Reality defies your argument.

Yeah. Cigarettes. A regulated market and education is able to reduce tobacco usage over a period of time. Prohibition leads to increased marijuana usage. Good point Gunny.

I dumb it down a bit. Cigarettes are legal with a significant gang infiltraion with accompanying violence.

In other words, legalization is not a panacea to prevent gang violence.

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

Yeah. Cigarettes. A regulated market and education is able to reduce tobacco usage over a period of time. Prohibition leads to increased marijuana usage. Good point Gunny.

I dumb it down a bit. Cigarettes are legal with a significant gang infiltraion with accompanying violence.

In other words, legalization is not a panacea to prevent gang violence.

Not really. They have some part of that Market, but only a small part.