The 2018 Federal Wide Legalization for the Recreational Use of Cannabis - Canada

[MrTiki]

Steven you again make broad sweeping statements without having done the research.
Excessive marijuana use does have links to schizophrenia. That being said, it's usually able to be brought completely under control if the user stops and has antipsychotics to help. They are NOT locked away for life (that essentially never happens with mental disorders anyway).

As long as they're still tough on it with regards to minors, driving etc then I don't see any issues with it. Alcohol is infinitely more dangerous than marijuana both in terms of acute effects (violence, toxicity, RTAs) and long term (cirrhosis, hepatocellularcarcinomas, dementia). So long as there's a genuine plan in place to introduce it properly and to educate the public about it then I see it as a positive move, as do many health professionals, most notably the people who actually carry out the research on it.

Considering that (especially in the US but elsewhere as well) having a criminal record massively reduces your potential to achieve and contribute to society, removing the stigma associated with marijuana will be hugely beneficial. Typically, the people who abuse substances including marijuana, alcohol and other drugs already come from more deprived backgrounds, and getting a criminal record on top just perpetuates the inequality. Give these people the help they need instead of locking them up, which just makes them more likely to join gangs, get radicalised etc.
Having grown up in the Netherlands, many of my friends tried marijuana, some tried other things too. The drinking age was 16 and there was never a big deal about either. Nobody got blackout drunk, nobody committed crimes, it worked just fine. Nobody became regular users, nobody developed schizophrenia. Instead of having to get an elder brother to buy you a couple bottles of vodka and ending up in A&E with alcohol poisoning, there was a much more healthy and relaxed attitude.

[StevenChilton]

I did not say that people are 'locked away for life'. It is the case however that their stay in mental hospitals can be quite prolonged. Since you mention it the book 'Henry's Demons' by Patrick Cockburn is very good on the subject of cannabis and schizophrenia. Henry Cockburn spent the best part of eight years in a mental hospital. Your friends got lucky, others don't.

If you accept cannabis use leads to significantly higher risk of mental illness, which most legalisers now do including their main cheerleader Professor David Nutt who concedes users are '2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers', then you must also accept that the best policy is the one which makes usage rates as low as possible.

The evidence would suggest this is not decriminalisation, and certainly not legalisation either. In places that have followed that path usage rates have increased. Contrast that with places like South Korea and Japan which rigorously enforce their anti-drug laws and have among the lowest rates in the developed world.

I don't know why you're so worried about criminal records and cannabis since the drug is already largely decriminalised in most places. In the UK only around 1 in 4 people caught with possession are actually charged.

[Doer]

Keeping it illegal doesn't mean keeping it out of peoples hands. People are going to do what they want regardless of the laws. Police very rarely give people shit for smoking weed around here (unless it's in public and people are complaining) and there is very little stigma about it where I live and the surrounding areas because people know it's extremely petty to get upset over someone just trying to relax and smoke a bit of weed. I live in Canada and it's easier to buy weed off someone like your neighbour then it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

Either way if it's illegal - or not, people are still going to use it no matter what. If it's legalized, at least the taxation from it's sale will get put back into the Canadian infrastructure in terms of paying for schools, roads etc and most of all add more jobs to the economy. Keeping it illegal just takes up resources in the court system - law enforcement - incarceration - and ruins peoples lives over nothing but a bit of pot.

There is far worse things that are legal, like Alcohol that are responsible for an insane amount of deaths and car accidents each year. I know many, many, many weed smokers including my own father that is 65 years of age and he does not have a mental illness and is one of the most healthiest 65 year olds I know. Not a single person I know that is older has developed a mental illness from smoking weed, but that is not to say that the research is incorrect or it could happen. Smoking weed isn't for everyone.

In my opinion & conclusion, it would be absolutely stupid and a huge missed opportunity for the Canadian economy and the well being of thousands and thousands of pot-smoking Canadians in general if it is not legalized.

[MrTiki]

Can we not start dividing people up into "legalisers" vs whoever else please? This really doesn't have to be polarising at all, it's just a discussion about what people think are pros and cons.
I hate how everything vaguely political has become so extreme that there has to be an "Us" and "Them" aspect to it. I'm not a pothead who doesn't want to worry about the police; I've literally never smoked weed in my life. It's simply my point of view that we do more harm than good in keeping it illegal in making it impossible to regulate, in making people not come forward about it, in preventing people who use it to cope from coming forward and receiving help, not to mention the massive industry behind it.

I appreciate what you're saying about Japan and South Korea, but they're completely different cultures; their strict anti-drug laws are a consequence of that, not a causative factor. Far more people die of suicide and alcohol abuse among working, career oriented individuals is exceptionally high. In the West alcohol abuse and drug use tends to be more among the lower socioeconomic groups. There's a massive stigma there about mental health and drug use which has created an incredibly unhealthy environment, even without drugs.

As for mental health, having a "psychotic-like experience" is not at all the same as being diagnosed with a psychosis like schizophrenia. In the majority of cases the episodes only occur when using cannabis and are self limiting. It's almost like it's a substance which alters your mental state. Huh, who'd have thought.
For long term effects, the studies quoted by the RCPsych tend to look at use in children, which I am completely against of course. Alcohol in young children also fucks you up for life developmentally and educationally (although in marijuana use the educational link isn't proved to be due to the drug, it seems more likely it's the type of individual who uses marijuana).

It's really quite interesting, because if alcohol was a new substance which had the same wealth of research it does now, spirits would never have been legal. There just needs to be an in between point for both marijuana and alcohol where they are legal, but the potency is controlled. People do far more damage to themselves with hard alcohol than even the high THC skunk you get nowadays. At least there are anti-psychotics, whereas there's only so many livers to go around for those dependent on alcohol.

I don't know about the 1/4 figure or where you got that, but that's because the police give several warnings first. It's presumably based on incidents (rather than people), in which case that makes sense as you get 2-3 warnings before anything else happens. Many will learn after getting caught the first couple times and won't get caught again.

[Windflower]

stoner boizz

[close]

But seriously I don't think legalizing Cannabis would be good for our country. Youth are going to be using cannabis WAY more than any other time in Canada.

[StevenChilton]

Can we not start dividing people up into "legalisers" vs whoever else please? This really doesn't have to be polarising at all, it's just a discussion about what people think are pros and cons.

We are talking about whether Canada is right to legalise cannabis, so by definition it is polarising. You polarised yourself by voting in the poll!

I appreciate what you're saying about Japan and South Korea, but they're completely different cultures; their strict anti-drug laws are a consequence of that, not a causative factor.

Total rubbish. Japan had a massive problem with amphetamines in the 1940s and 1950s, which is where its tough drug laws originate from.
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1957-01-01_3_page003.html

Similarly South Korea had high rates of cannabis and barbiturates addiction in the 1960s and 1970s. Their different cultures are a consequence of their drug laws. They got tough on drugs, and yes a lot of people went to prison to begin with, but they now have among the lowest rates of drug use on the planet. At the same time the West went soft, went down the path of decriminalisation and now has among the highest usage rates.

The idea we're tough on cannabis is a joke. As early as 1973 the British government was telling local magistrates not to send those caught in possession of cannabis to prison.

As for mental health, having a "psychotic-like experience" is not at all the same as being diagnosed with a psychosis like schizophrenia. In the majority of cases the episodes only occur when using cannabis and are self limiting. It's almost like it's a substance which alters your mental state. Huh, who'd have thought.

I never said it was 'like schizophrenia', which is not the only mental disorder that can arise from smoking cannabis. There's plenty more, including violent behaviour:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201603/marijuana-use-increases-violent-behavior

I find it interesting that with just about *every* terrorist outrage that has been committed in the last 20 years, the perpetrators have been found to have been cannabis users.

I don't know about the 1/4 figure or where you got that, but that's because the police give several warnings first. It's presumably based on incidents (rather than people), in which case that makes sense as you get 2-3 warnings before anything else happens. Many will learn after getting caught the first couple times and won't get caught again.

It's from the latest police figures, see here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cannabis-arrests-charges-fall-police-giving-up-drug-policy-uk-a7206036.html

Yeah, they'll learn the UK has a soft touch and they can carry on smoking it for as long as they like, safe in the knowledge that if they do get mentally ill the UK taxpayer will pay for their treatment.

[Riddlez]

Cannabis is not legal in the Netherlands and never has been, so your argument falls. M

Pretty sure they passed legislation about proffessional weed growing. Please, Vincenzo and I know the politics of our own country.
Already in Febuary of this year parliament passed a law that would enable legal production and selling to coffeeshops. A simple google search would've helped you. You're a bit too aggressive without backing up statements.

Well I double-checked the government's own website before I posted that, which confirmed what I thought to be the case which is that cannabis is not legal, merely decriminalised for personal use:
https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-regarding-soft-drugs-and-coffee-shops

So either the Dutch government is wrong, or you do not in fact know the politics of your own country.

That's the point though, both the government website and myself are right. Parliament passed a law proposal, which means it's going to be signed into law eventually anyway. It still, however, needs to be passed by the constitutional court and the Senate, both of which are practically a formality. The government hasn't updated it on their website because it hasn't been officially legalised yet.

[StevenChilton]

It is illegal since we're talking about a bill which has not yet passed. And I may be wrong on this but from what I can see that bill isn't legalisation, merely an extension of decriminalisation to commerical growers of cannabis. If it passed it would not make it legal, merely further decriminalised.

I've not seen the Canadian legislation (I don't think its been published yet, and it doesn't help that dimwit Trudeau is confusing decriminalisation with legalisation when he makes pronouncements on it), but the politicians are claiming it will be fully legalised for commercial sale, which includes advertising, no limits on possession etc and treated much the same way as tobacco. This is not what the Dutch are proposing.

[Riddlez]

It's been advertised by all the media as legalisation. My bad if I've gotten te terms wrong.

[Duuring]

The legality of weed (or better put, the lack thereof) is one of the most confusing part of Dutch law and it's kept confusing on purpose. De facto, using, buying and selling weed as a coffeeshop are all completely legal. The difference between decriminizalition and legalisation is razor-thin in the Netherlands, and countering the benefits of the de facto legalization of weed with 'technically not legal' is a weak argument. The main reason it's not legal is because everybody thinks it's legal.

it still, however, needs to be passed by the constitutional court and the Senate, both of which are practically a formality.

Calling the Dutch Senate (First Chamber of the States-General, damnit!) a formality is nonsense. Laws have been struck down or left abandoned after no majority could be reached countless of times. And we don't have a constitutional court - in fact, we have a ban on the concept of constitutional review by judges, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[StevenChilton]

Cannabis is not legal, it's decriminalised for personal use. This isn't a 'technicality' and it's not a 'razor-thin' difference when you consider many people are arrested for growing more than 5 cannabis plants at any one time, or for possessing more than 5 grams. It's not commercially advertised, you can't buy it over the counter, possession is still strictly controlled, and coffee shops have to buy their stock from criminals. Ergo it's not legal.

[Duuring]

It's not commercially advertised

Neither is tabacco.

you can't buy it over the counter

What do you mean by this?

possession is still strictly controlled

It really isn't.

and coffee shops have to buy their stock from criminals

Which is why we should legalize it.

If cannabis is legalized, nothing in effect will change for users as it will still be subject to rules on possession and personal use, just like it is now.

[Windflower]

Neither is tabacco.

TABACCO, OH PUTAINE OH JE SUIS ETOILE

[George385]

A little bit of history about why cannabis is illegal in the first place.

It all started with Harry J Anslinger, the FBI director during the 1930's. When the FBI was in danger of being defunded, he needed a new drug to scare the public with. He associated Mexicans (who were not well liked at the time) with cannabis (this is where the term marijuana comes from). He testified before congress saying that "the drug causes violence and death in its users". In 1937, the first anti cannabis laws were passed by congress. Making your first time getting caught with a single joint punishable by 2 to 10 years incarceration.

Fast forward to the Nixon era, there was a huge push by the American people to legalize cannabis, Nixon being Nixon vetoed it. One of his top advisers, a man named John Ehrlichman, said in 1994; "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana, and the black with heroin, and by criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did".

Scientists knew cannabis didn't cause death or violence, it was proven in the 1940's. So, basically, the whole reason cannabis is illegal in the first place is due to a racist idea to gain money, and the reason it's still illegal is because a power hungry Nixon wanted to eliminate his political rivals and minorities.

I'm not making a word of this up. Cannabis was totally legal and fine to use in the US and around the world well and truly into the mid 1930's. It was a racist, expensive and jealous idea made by corrupt, power hungry, lying government officials.

Regardless of what people's opinions are on the legalization of the drug now, knowing that the only reason cannabis is illegal right now is because of racism and political rivalry, how can you defend its criminalization in the first place?

[BabyJesus]

How to spot a pot head ^