Pot busts surge after decriminalization bill dead:

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Pot busts surge after decriminalization bill dead

OTTAWA -- The number of people arrested for smoking pot rose dramatically in several Canadian cities last year after the Conservatives took office and killed a bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. The spike in arrests for simple possession of cannabis appears in data compiled by The Canadian Press from municipal police forces through interviews and Access to Information Act requests. National statistics will only be released next week but preliminary figures suggest the number of arrests jumped by more than one-third in several Canadian cities. Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax all reported increases of between 20 and 50 per cent in 2006, while Montreal and Calgary saw their number of arrests dip a few percentage points from the previous year. As a result thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that just recently was within a whisker of extinction. Every party in the House of Commons except the Conservatives supported a bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, but the Liberal government that sponsored it never brought it to a final vote. Several police officials say the trend is linked directly to that legislation, which died as a result of the federal election on Jan. 23, 2006. The head of one police association said many forces simply stopped laying charges after the Liberals first introduced a decriminalization bill under Jean Chretien in 2003. "There were several police jurisdictions not laying the simple ... possession charges," said Terry McLaren, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. "Everybody was waiting for what was going to happen. ... There'd be no use clogging up court system with that decriminalization bill there. "'When that was defeated, I'd say it was business as usual." The number of people charged plunged from 26,882 in 2002 and remained relatively steady, below 19,000, for the three years that decriminalization was being debated in Parliament. But police say many pot-smokers - especially younger ones - appear unaware that the bill never actually passed. So even if marijuana consumption remains as illegal in Canada as it has been since 1923, police say some people are toking more boldly than they've ever toked before. Which makes it far easier to arrest them. "You'd have a youth smoking a joint out on the street without any fear of being caught," said Toronto police Det. Doug McCutcheon. "You go to any high school and do a quiz. Find out how many kids realize that it takes three readings (in the House of Commons), plus Senate approval, before something happens." The stillborn bill by the previous Liberal government would have made possession under 15 grams a non-criminal offence punishable by fines starting at $150. Nearly half of Canadians have committed the crime spelled out in Section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It sets out a maximum six-month prison sentence and a $1,000 fine for anyone caught with 30 grams of marijuana or less. Liberalization advocates say 600,000 Canadians unfairly carry a criminal record because of existing laws. They call the decision to scrap decriminalization wrong-headed. "It seems to me that the clock is turning backwards here," said New Democrat MP Libby Davies, a persistent critic of current laws. "'They may charge more people - but they're not deterring youth, they're not putting in funds for education or prevention. "The (Tories) have a very regressive policy that's in line with what the U.S. is doing in its so-called war on drugs - which is a total failure." If this is a war on marijuana, the public is getting mixed messages about the declared enemy. The reality is that about only half the people arrested for simple possession even get charged, and the vast majority of those who are charged for pot possession alone never do any time. In some cases people are handcuffed, brought to jail, and strip-searched by police after being stopped. In other cases they just get told to toss away their joint, or get served papers ordering them to appear in court. That erratic application only serves to infuriate critics of the status quo. Several pot-smokers interviewed for this story shared anecdotes that illustrate how inconsistently the law is applied. One pot activist has been arrested at least seven times, been strip-searched, forced to ride in a police van with more violent criminals, and was once stopped for carrying just enough weed to roll a tiny joint. Marc-Boris St-Maurice compares that with the last time he was stopped by police, just a few weeks ago on a trendy Montreal boulevard. The former leader and founder of the federal Marijuana party tossed away his joint on the sidewalk and ended up chatting casually with two officers about politics. One Montreal cop who asked not to be identified said some officers can spend an entire career on the force without ever arresting any of the people they catch smoking a joint. "I'd rather stop someone breaking into a house or stealing a car," he said. He said some officers might lay charges in conjunction with an unrelated offence to increase the likelihood of a criminal conviction - for instance, if they detect pot during a domestic-abuse investigation. McLaren agrees that most possession arrests occur when officers are investigating another incident. He estimates that seven out of 10 pot busts stem from things as diverse as busted brake lights, break-and-enters, or traffic stops. A 2002 Senate report expressed alarm that the law is not applied equally to all Canadian citizens. While pot-smokers are regularly prosecuted in some parts of the country, the RCMP detachment in Richmond, B.C., told the Senate that only five per cent of cases resulted in charges there. The Senate committee - led by then-Progressive Conservative Sen. Pierre-Claude Nolin - proposed going even farther than the Liberals did, suggesting the legalization of marijuana. A 1972 royal commission headed by Gerald Le Dain also recommended liberalizing marijuana laws but its suggestions were immediately rejected by the government. The Nolin committee cited 1996 figures that pegged the annual cost of policing and prosecuting drug offences at $400 million, but suggested in its final report that the actual number could be more than double that. One police drug-policy expert said the cost to society of substance abuse is far greater. He said years of decriminalization talk has sent mixed messages. Barry McKnight expressed hope that the Conservatives' coming $64-million National Anti-Drug Strategy, promised in the last federal budget, will drive home one simple point. "I'm hoping for a clear message: ... that drugs are bad," said McKnight, a drug-policy expert with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. "Marijuana is a harmful drug. It's as simple as that - no ifs, ands, or buts. Period, end of sentence." The Nolin committee reported that excessive marijuana use can cause chronic bronchitis, create psychological problems, and affect learning. It also noted a higher concentration of some cancer-causing carcinogens in marijuana than in cigarettes. But the report also called pot less addictive than either alcohol or cigarettes. One criminology professor and drug-policy expert points out that alcohol consumption and cigarette-smoking rates have plummeted since the 1970s, while pot use has risen. Tighter controls and public awareness of the dangers associated with booze and cigarettes have succeeded where prohibition failed, said Eugene Oscapella, a lawyer and criminology professor at the University of Ottawa. "Going into the 21st century we should know better than to bludgeon the use of this drug with criminal law," he said. "It doesn't work, hasn't worked, never has worked, there's no prospect that it ever will work. Yet we continue to do it." The Senate committee also questioned the popular wisdom that marijuana is a so-called gateway drug that leads people to more dangerous substances. Philippe Lucas, an addiction researcher at the University of Victoria, says marijuana is more of a buffer than a gateway. He describes marijuana as a lesser evil that helps reduce the use of hard drugs, cuts into drinking and therefore prevents alcohol-related injuries. Lucas works at the local Compassion Club which supplies medical marijuana, and says many visitors believe pot keeps them out of worse trouble. "People don't view it as a gateway drug. They view it as an exit drug," he said. "They use cannabis to stay away from more dangerous substances. They use it because they've just quit heroin, they use it because they want to stay away from crystal meth and alcohol." But Oscapella says the status quo is still not justified by the traditional view - that marijuana is just plain bad. "Prohibition has been an utter and total failure," he said. "Not only has it failed to do anything, it has actually made the problem worse. It's not like some government programs that fail to do anything at all - this one does actual harm. "Instead of just keeping us static and wasting money, it actually moves us backwards. And wastes money. And destroys lives. And finances terrorism, and insurgent groups around the world."

[Praxius]

I'd like to point out the comment here:

"Marijuana is a harmful drug. It's as simple as that - no ifs, ands, or buts. Period, end of sentence."

BS is what I say to that. Note that they say "CAN." Can, doesn't mean "Will." ~ I could label anything the same way and claim the same bad traits and say that they "Can Happen" even though no numbers of given as to just how possible.... it's a worst case scenario freak out is what it is. That worse case scenario could only be a remote 2.53% chance.... but do they explain? Nope..... why? Look it up.

It's this close-minded "This is how it is, because I say so, no if's ands or butts" attitude that gets nobody, anywhere... much like "God said so, deal with it."

The above reasons to the quote they gave are not only outdated, biased, but also incorrect and is exactly what the other person interviewed was explaining.... crap comments and opinions that are clearly one sided, do not help explain the real situation.

[Osborn F Enready]

Too bad you don't have rights up north.......or arms to defend them if you had them.

[MachineCode0110]

I'll never understand why alcohol and tobacco aren't controlled substances but marijuana and cocaine are.

[Osborn F Enready]

The thing is, NONE of them should be, as we own our own bodies, and have the RIGHT to consume what we wish.

We are responsible for our actions, at all times, whether or not we are "under the influence".

[ladyphoenix]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 I'll never understand why alcohol and tobacco aren't controlled substances but marijuana and cocaine are.

If alcohol and tobacco were not controlled there would not be age restrictions on their sale and consumption... controlled substance doesn't necessarily equal prohibited substance... even though the reverse is true.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Too bad you don't have rights up north.......

We have rights.... just not your rights.... which I'm greatful for. If our Prime Minister screws us over beyond any acceptance, we can pull his scrwany arse out of power...... and yet.... you guys gotta suck up another two years with Bush..... enjoy your rights

...... or arms to defend them if you had them.

To take up arms to fight for my right to smoke Marijuana?..... isn't that an oxymoron?

But besides that, we have our ways

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: We have rights.... just not your rights.... which I'm greatful for. If our Prime Minister screws us over beyond any acceptance, we can pull his scrwany arse out of power.

How can you do that without force, if the PM decides to use force against those who seek to pull him out, and uses words like "terrorist" to define those who seek to remove him?

Prax said: ..... and yet.... you guys gotta suck up another two years with Bush..... enjoy your rights

No, we don't. We probably WILL, but we don't HAVE to, and having that option makes all the difference in the world.

Prax said: To take up arms to fight for my right to smoke Marijuana?..... isn't that an oxymoron?

I don't know why it would be an oxymoron.

Seriously though, all rights are the same. To take one, is to take them all. To be powerless to resist, is to be powerless.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How can you do that without force, if the PM decides to use force against those who seek to pull him out, and uses words like "terrorist" to define those who seek to remove him?

lol.... the funny thing is, the majority of the Canadian population honestly hate the government, don't trust the government, but it's the best government we got at the moment.... but that doesn't mean we take our eye off those in power. As mentioned in a previous thread a while back, your president, I can see trying a stunt like that, and it possibly working to an extent (At least there would be enough confusion between those who support him and those who support the people) But here in Canada, it has always been people and country first, not those in power, and if for some rare occurance Harper tried something like the above and tried to use the military against the Canadian people.... he'd last a day, before the military actually pulled him out of power. Not only would that go completely against what Canada stands for, but for the most part, the Canadian Military is for the Canadian people.......

For example, if the majority of the population opposed the war in Afghanistan, then Harper would have no other choice but to pull our troops out of there, or he'd loose his job quickly. At this point, it's still in a balancing act, and the country is still sorta split on the War.

There are plenty of things so far already that Harper has screwed up on royally that in most cases would cause an election and to get his ass out of power..... unfortunatly, most of Canada is tired of going to the polls so often, the political parties know this, and if they forced an election, whoever started it would be almost garunteed to loose, for the simple fact we're tired of voting at the moment. That and most of the other political party leaders suck.... Harper is currently the lesser of 4-5 evils viewed by most, but in the last few months, he has not only alienated the Atlantic Coast, Quebec, and some of the west, he has also had plenty of dissent and firing within his own party and otherparties to boot...... I would have to say so far, he has been an overall failure...... like a substitute teacher until the real one comes back.... he'll have to do for now.

No, we don't. We probably WILL, but we don't HAVE to, and having that option makes all the difference in the world.

Well to know that is good.... but I am still confused as to how he remains in power..... *Shrugs*

I don't know why it would be an oxymoron.

More of a joke..... Using or expressing force and hostility to fight for the right to use something mellow and relaxing. I don't know too many Rambo-Pot Heads...... maybe that's why it's been illegal for so long.... we're too dam mellow to do anything about it.

Seriously though, all rights are the same. To take one, is to take them all. To be powerless to resist, is to be powerless.

But I certainly wouldn't considder us powerless by any standards..... sure we don't have a semi-auto in the closet three feet away from the computer desk, but as mentioned before, if we need weapons and firearms, we can easily get them and fast.

I just can't fathom our Forces being used against our own people..... I can't even fathom it getting close to a point where someone could get into power to even try something like that. That's just not Canada, lol..... not to be sterio-typical about my own country.....

But no.... with our current PM, and all the PM's in the past history, none of them had enough backbone or guts to think of such an attempt. Our country's principles are a bit different than your own, and I think that's where the differences lie. Perhaps Pierre Trudeau might have pulled something like this off.... he sure had a mouth and action to back it up in the day...... but he was just too...... "Canadian" to do something like that...... it's hard to explain.

A Prime Minister in Canada trying to use the military to oppress the country as he see fits is about as logical as Fish Bacon.

But besides that, and I just realized it..... our government system of Parliament prevents our Prime Minister or Majority Party from doing something like this..... there are usually 3 or 4 other parties in power as well who all have the final say in things as well..... and even if Harper had a Majority government..... he would find it almost impossible to impliment what you are speculating. It's not like how you guys pretty much only have the Republicans and Democrats to listen to and "attempt" to believe.... we have the NDP, Conservatives, Liberals, PQ, and a few other no name parties in power, which all get the camera coverage here in Canada, and we get all the perspectives of each party as to what's going on.......

so in other words, we have more than just two political outlets of information

[ladyphoenix]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't know why it would be an oxymoron. Seriously though, all rights are the same. To take one, is to take them all. To be powerless to resist, is to be powerless.

I think, Osborn, he's trying to insinuate that those of... I mean... People who smoke marijuana are not remotely motivated to do anything. In which case he'd be very, VERY wrong...

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: ladyphoenix If alcohol and tobacco were not controlled there would not be age restrictions on their sale and consumption

Right, but you can buy them legally.

You can't buy marijuana or cocaine legally under any circumstance.


Doesn't add up.

[ladyphoenix]

I understand where you're going with that... I'm just saying that claiming they are not controlled is incorrect.

I would agree that both tobacco and alcohol, espeically when consumed together, are far worse for you than marijuana, and at least as addictive as cocaine... So no, I don't think it adds up either. :)

[Praxius]

Quote by: ladyphoenix I think, Osborn, he's trying to insinuate that those of... I mean... People who smoke marijuana are not remotely motivated to do anything. In which case he'd be very, VERY wrong...

Sorry, you're very wrong, considdering that's not exactly what I was saying, nor was I even being remotely serious, and I even expressed above I wasn't being serious.

Since this seemed to have gone over some heads when I said an oxymoron, I was referring to the sterio-type (Yes, I am saying a sterio-type as a joke) that the common marijuana user is not that much into the promotion of violence via firearms when they are high, compared to something like.... oh gee.... I dunno..... alchohol, cocaine, whatever..... pick any other drug that has a high violence history...... andbody should get the joke.... but I guess not.

The comment was Canadians didn't have the right to bare arms to protect the rights we don't have in the first place:

Too bad you don't have rights up north.......or arms to defend them if you had them.

I got the joke by Oz, but I don't think some here got my joke.... oh well.

ANYWAYS....... back on track a bit:

Most protests and those who promote the legalization or decriminalization of Marijuana, usually have protests and organizations which are quite passive and progressive, compared to many other organizations out there and people who like to protest things. The fact that our country is at least this far in our understanding of Maijuana and this close to one more step towards decriminalization or even legalization of weed, goes to show that we don't need weapons to get the point across...... this isn't the "Carry the Faith by the Sword" country like some, where force and aggression has to solve everything.... there are other methods.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ladyphoenix I understand where you're going with that... I'm just saying that claiming they are not controlled is incorrect. I would agree that both tobacco and alcohol, espeically when consumed together, are far worse for you than marijuana, and at least as addictive as cocaine... So no, I don't think it adds up either. :)

Fair enough and agreed.... now if only we can get our poloticians to think the same way as their citizens, perhaps the whole world wouldn't be as screwed up as it is.

Speaking about drugs and poloticians..... How many of those who fight to keep them illegal are probably on a few of their own?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius Fair enough and agreed.... now if only we can get our poloticians to think the same way as their citizens, perhaps the whole world wouldn't be as screwed up as it is.

The ultimate goal should be to get rid of their positions of power, especially when they're doing things stupidly anyway.

Grandpa h.

[ladyphoenix]

Quote by: Praxius Speaking about drugs and poloticians..... How many of those who fight to keep them illegal are probably on a few of their own?

I don't know... Our president has a known cocaine and alcohol problem... I'd imagine quite a few.

Who was it who got caught snorting coke off the belly of a gay prostitute? I don't remember... Going to have to go look that one up... Unfortunately, I think it was a religious leader, not really a politician, but I really can't remember, so don't quote me or anything...

[Frasier]

If I may, here's a speech I wrote about cannabis legislation a while back (I'm from the UK, so it uses UK based statistics). I have posted this for the ideas presented, obviously ignore the stuff aimed at students:

I am here today to talk to you about the legalisation of cannabis, which I am against. I know; you’ve probably heard about how bad illegal drugs and cannabis are hundreds of times, right? What I’m here to talk to you about is not just the medical effects of cannabis, but also what the social effects of legalisation.

Despite its illegality, I would guess that quite a few of you have been offered cannabis, at a party, on the street, or even by a friend. If you said no, and I hope you did, they would probably have made the claim “it’s harmless, go on”. Indeed, quite a few people who want to legalise the drug claim that cannabis hasn’t killed anyone, and that therefore it should be legalised.

The fact is is that that is completely untrue. True, cannabis does not kill as many people as smoking or alcohol, even if you do it with percentages, rather than by just looking at the figures. But the fact is it does kill, especially coupled with alcohol.

However, this is misleading. For a start, there is a definite link between cannabis use and being involved in a car crash. It is thought that 4 to 12% of accident fatalities has detected levels of cannabis. True, the drug stays in your system for up to a month. But when you consider that the percentage of cannabis smokers in Britain is far less than even 4%, I think that arguing that this is merely a coincidence is simply ignoring the facts.

The main danger of cannabis, medically speaking, is not, however, in the deaths it causes. The main danger is that it is the cause of many metal illnesses. Here in Britain, for example, people with schizophrenia do not take more alcohol, heroin, or ecstasy than the rest of us - but they are twice as likely to smoke cannabis regularly. Experts estimate that between 8% and 13% of all schizophrenia cases are linked to cannabis use during teen years. Again, considering the small percentage of cannabis users in this country, that statistic is startling. As well as this, cannabis can also have negative effects on learning. Long-term users of marijuana gradually become worse at learning and remembering things. This means that if you start smoking cannabis at a young age, it will negatively effect your ability to learn. This means that you cannot get good qualifications, meaning you are more likely to be poor. This in turn means you have to steal to fund your ridiculously expensive habit. This means that you would be in and out of jail for the rest of your life, even if it was not for smoking the drug.

The fact is, if cannabis was legalised, the amount of people affected by mental illnesses associated with cannabis would go up. A lot. This would only have a negative effect on our nation, and I ask the question; what possible benefit would legalising cannabis have to society?

One argument for the legalisation of cannabis is that alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and they are dangerous drugs, perhaps even more so than cannabis. So why not legalise it? I argue that banning cannabis but allowing alcohol and tobacco may be inconsistent, but that inconsistency, should not be used as an argument on behalf of cannabis legalisation. At present, cannabis is still only used by a comparative minority and its continued prohibition helps to prevent its use becoming widespread and entrenched.

The point is that the law's job in this area is not consistency, it is the protection of the population - in which case, I would argue that it is better to have an inconsistent law that saves lives and helps society than a consistent one that does the opposite.

I argue that the decriminalisation of cannabis sends the wrong message to the young in particular, conveying to them the impression that cannabis use is sanctioned by society or, conversely, that society does not look upon cannabis use as a serious issue involving the use of a harmful drug. Increased social acceptance of cannabis will result in a diminished perception of the risks involved.

As well as this, there is the well known, but still very true “gateway” argument. The `gateway' argument holds that cannabis use opens the way to the use of `hard' drugs, notably heroin. Research suggests that most heroin users started their drug-taking habits with cannabis. Therefore, legalisation of cannabis would most likely result in a great number of people using cannabis, and therefore, a greater number of people using “harder” drugs like heroin and cocaine, and I don’t think anyone can argue that this is a good thing, can they?

Cannabis, and illegal drugs in general, are just that; illegal. Thus, if they are suddenly legalised people will feel that they are suddenly more safe to use. They are not. I fear legalising them could cause a major problem, people will feel that they are more safe, and therefore a great majority of people will use them. This will cause many deaths, damage society, and will put great stains on our all ready overburdened health service. Therefore, it is the very fact that cannabis is illegal that I believe it should not become legal.

If the government legalises the drug, then the public will believe it is not harmful, or at least, somehow less harmful than it was before. Look at all the reactions when the drug was moved from class B to Class C. Increased social acceptance of cannabis will result in a diminished perception of the risks involved. So called differentiation of drugs into hard and soft drugs is misleading and inaccurate. Cannabis is a drug with as much potential to do harm as heroin and labelling it as soft is only glossing over the facts.

The present system of prohibition has the effect of pushing up cannabis prices, thus discouraging its use. Again, if it were legalised, the price would actually come down, despite the taxes that would be placed on it, which would mean more people would want to use it.

As well as this experience in the Netherlands and elsewhere shows that decriminalisation can markedly increase the drug market, as individuals who would normally respect the law are encouraged to consider experimentation with illegal substances.

The fact is, if cannabis was legalised, the social implications for the country would be far more damaging than any medical implications. If cannabis is legalised, more young people, like you, will take it. This is a wholly bad thing, as it will result in more cases of mental illness, more deaths on the road, and most worryingly perhaps of all, more children and students who lose out on a future because of cannabis use. Students just like you.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Frasier it will result in more cases of mental illness, more deaths on the road, and most worryingly perhaps of all, more children and students who lose out on a future because of cannabis use.

Quickly and easily defeated by saying "it's our right to do harm to our own body if we choose to".

[Frasier]

Quickly and easily defeated by saying "it's our right to do harm to our own body if we choose to".

If legislation leads to an increase in the use of cannabis, then personally I see that as a bad thing for society.

[MachineCode0110]

I guess I really don't care if you don't like it.


You don't get to tell me what I can do with my own body.