Marijuana.com

Stray Cat

I have a few predictions about legalization that I have been thinking about lately, and I wish to share them with everyone.

As we all know by now, cannabis is not illegal in Ontario. The reason it is legal is because Canada's government failed to renew its laws against it. Is it possible that Canada is in fact following through with its promise of complete legalization? After all, we heard so much outcry and opposition from the US to simply decriminalizing in Canada. But how much opposition have we heard since Ontario has legalized? Not much. In fact, none as I can recall.

So is this just a passive way to legalize without too much opposition from the US? I would say so.

Another point I would like to make is that no matter what happens, cannabis will remain legal until at least November in Ontario. Is it possible that after five months people will become so used to it being legal that the public demand to keep it legal will outweigh the demand to recriminalize it?

Legalization in Ontario will also likely set a precedent for other provinces to do the same thing. You cannot have your dominoes fall over in succession without pushing over that first one. And, my friends, Ontario has knocked over one hell of a domino. My prediction is that cannabis will never be illegal in Ontario again.

What does everyone think?

 

broomhdj

Seeing as I live in Ontario, I hope you are right...
I don't know a whole lot about what's going on with that kind of thing anymore, but your prediction seems possible, that's for sure.
Maybe a little bit unlikely though, I'd expect the whole decrim thing to happen.

I really hope that they don't make up a new law that is harsh and makes weed illegal, but I REALLY REALLY doubt that too. It seems as though they want to legalize eventually, but American pressure is making it hard to.

MrIMStoned

Weed will become illegal in ontario once again. It would be foolish to think the government is just gonna let it stay legal. I also dont think there will be much of a public outcry either, there will be if it stays legal but i don't see alot of pot smokers being taken seriously by the government.

__________________
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

footix

They might not take potsmokers seriously but they might rethink the report from the senate from a few months ago.

__________________
legalize worldwide.

Cannabis Connoisseur

And I don't think it will be Fully Legalized...at least not anytime soon...here in Canada

Martin Cauchon, our current Justice Minister, is starting to back peddle a bit even on the "Decriminalization of less than 15 grams"...prorobably due to U.S. pressure.

My little group and I also have a theory:

Marijuana will be decrimanalized in Canada...but at a price. We all think that a policy trade will be made. Our best guess is that the Americans will FINALLY (God knows they've been asking for 30 years) get to put up a land based missle defence on Canadian soil. But again...that's just a bunch of stoners shooting around random conjecture.

C.C.

 

Stray Cat

Why would there (or should there) be a contingency on a sovereign country making its own laws?

footix

Cause the United States is a ****in bully.

Cannabis Connoisseur

... the one that ALWAYS had an opinion on things. The same kid would ALWAYS stick his face into business that did not directly involve him/her. That same kid would try to mediate disputes...just for the sake of being involved in something dramatic. That kid does his/her best to make things the way THEY think it should be. Well, ladies and gentlemen...that kid is now the American government. And the rest of the world is forced to deal with the anger of an insecure, yet overbearing, child.

Just my thoughts on the matter....I'm off to smoke some fine Alberta Homegrown to try and calm down This stuff irritates me to no end...I'm glad I dropped in here to CHEAPTALK, it gives me a place to vent

Thanks for listening to my rant...

C.C.

jvthc

I nearly started this subject a short while ago - been looking for this thread topic for a while now. I’m about 2500 miles from Canada, so my knowledge is limited to what I can read.

I've been following the Marc Emery exploits (touring, getting arrested, and attempting to force the issue of court action temporarily invalidating all marijuana prohibition law throughout Canada). A few months ago, I heard an interview he held with Randy White, one of the most anti-marijuana members of the legislature. At that time White was summarily against legalization, but accepted some sort of “summary conviction” alternative (decriminalization). When Emery asked about the pending court’s full out invalidation of the law (which had not occurred at that point), White responded with indignation for the court’s “interference.” When Emery asked what could they do about it, White started to respond with “Well, we’ll march right back into….” and then stopped short of saying they’d reinstate the laws, probably realizing that it sounded quite belligerent toward the courts power to start a ping-pong match to determine just who is powerful enough to run the nation.

Now the court’s invalidation of the laws came to pass, and demonstrations all over Canada are attempting to press the precedent as a defacto legalization throughout the nation. If that succeeds, and several knowledgeable attorneys think it just might, a most interesting situation presents itself.

At the same time, the lame compliance of the health minister to supply “medical marijuana” is so poor that it’s likely to further dissatisfy the court. While it’s unfortunate that the sick will still continue to pay an unfortunate burden, at least the temporary legalization will offer limited relief. Its odd logic, but the best thing for “us” would be for the doctors to refuse to dispense the herb for whatever reason they indicate, since this would exacerbate the concept of “compliance” as ordered by the court. That way, the courts will likely consider this “non-compliance,” since no realistic access has actually been provided, which then probably gives the court additional power to invalidate even the “decriminalization” laws under proposal, quite probably starting this cycle all over again. In a backwards way, it’s likely a good thing the health minister isn’t in significant compliance.

While all of this plays out, it’s curious that Walters and company haven’t made louder noise about the defacto legalization. I’m sure they see that as a temporary nuisance, but actually if they press the issue, it could backfire and they probably know that.

I seriously doubt even one of the prohibitionists’ dire predictions due to legalization will prove true during this “experiment” with legalization. Certainly no increased “emergency room” incidents, and no additional “stone heads” emerging as a result. It may happen, though, that IF the price of bud drops, because the risk of production and distribution drops, the “manufacturers” would be motivated to seek higher profits by selling to a prohibitionist state’s market place, where prices would remain high. We can only hope that this doesn’t happen, because it’s the only statistic I can expect to favor the prohibitionists’ arguments.

Won’t it be fascinating debate, in six months time, to demonstrate to the prohibitionists that none of the debauchery and evil they predicted actually occurred. It will leave the anti-prohibitionists in a much stronger debating position on both sides of the border, and if the courts continue to argue with the health minister’s “program” of distribution to the extent I expect, even the decriminalization laws currently under proposal may be struck down before long.

This comes into play about the time the U.S. elections get started. Kerry, one of the democratic presidential candidates, is on record as supportive of medical marijuana. Recently it was reported that democratic congressmen have issued significant statements to the effect that the WOD is a tragic waste, that the “prison state” we have manufactured is the shame of modern America, and that Walter’s department doesn’t deserve it’s funding. While only a small committee, the momentum of that sentiment is building. For the first time in over a decade that Barney Frank has been resubmitting similar bills, support for medical marijuana defense in federal courts, and the rescheduling of marijuana to a “Schedule 2” substance, is mounting.

All this while, at the same time, Tandy – arguably more of a medical marijuana enemy than all previous that have held her new title – takes the reigns of the DEA. This happens while Bush is pressing the courts to allow them free reign to punish the free speech rights of doctors who suggest, recommend or even favorably discuss marijuana with their patients. Several knowledgeable attorneys think this will be denied, but the fact that they’re trying it shows that the pressure of opposing points of view is mounting, which suggests a that a political earthquake will occur at some point in the future.

Tandy made a most curious reply to a significant question during her “hearing” for confirmation. She was asked about the recent clinical trials (99 and later) that indicated significant benefit from certain applications of medical marijuana, and the finding that little if any significant health problems result even from recreational use, but regarding the now “enshrined” wisdom of Judge F. Young’s statement that marijuana was among the “safest therapeutic substances known to man” – she replied that she was unaware of the “material being cited.”

I do understand that Tandy will be charge with the job of pursuing drug crime, and that her oath to that office requires her to perform her job according to the law, not her preferences or beliefs, and that any “compartmentalization” of her thought processes is excusable in that she will be performing as a “good little soldier” in charge of a war on drugs. However, to be uninformed regarding recent findings and a DEA judge’s own conclusions are, in my opinion, quite remise of her duty. She is known to be a “balls to the wall all out prosecutor” with a tendency to bend the rules to their maximum extent while pursuing her prey. Exactly the kind of ***** one wants for the job of a top cop, perhaps, and so her appointment was enthusiastically, if not summarily, approved.

However, the rest of our governing body is less enthusiastic about what has transpired over the last few years. Poindexter’s funding for the now renamed “Terrorist Information Awareness” – which was previously named “Total Information Awareness” – has been scrapped. This means that wholesale consolidation of every piece of data available on all American’s lives will NOT be under the control of a man convicted of abuses of power.

Why do I drift into American political material on a thread regarding predictions about Canada’s future marijuana law? Well, as you know, Canada is under pressure by the Bush administration, but not everyone else. It appears that support within Canada is growing, and that the decriminalization proposals may not withstand court scrutiny. The U.S. reaction is bitter and loud at the moment, but pressure within the American public and, as an indirect result, the congress opposing that position is also mounting. With an election in the U.S. looming, there’s a chance a full turnabout may happen by late 2005. If Bush does win re-election, he’ll likely press even harder, both against marijuana and against other nations his administration deems “threats.” Americans are already tiring of the Iraq responsibilities, and if he does press even further, it will only disserve him for the congressional elections due in 2006. A change of the house and senate may occur, and he’ll end up a “lame duck” – a non-electable president battling against an opposing party majority, who just recently have increased their energies against prohibition.

It looks like things may improve for everyone interested in real decriminalization by 2006, even if Bush wins. Canada may very well provide a clear demonstration that harm reduction is a successful social strategy, and that legalized marijuana won’t end democracy, as was “suggested” by the likes of Asa Hutchinson.

__________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge - Sounds like BS, until you realize Einstein said that.

Skater dusto

I don't know if marijuana will be kept legal in Ontario. They'll probably make it illegal again... I have little faith that weed will be legalized any time soon. America is too much of a bully to let Canada do anything.

Ah well. If marijuana's legalized then I'll probably start doing a stupid jig for days. I'm all for it. I think it's immoral for it to be illegal, but it is.... I'm never going to stop smoking because of that though. No one can tell me that I can't smoke marijuana because they think it's bad or anything. We all know that it's not bad. If the government was serious about keeping tokers safe then they'd grow marijuana and dispense it safely. It's all so frustrating.