Marijuana Industry Booming In Canada

The weed is illegal because big business wants it illegal.The prisons are already full.Do we build more prisons?Why are the police and other government people so vindictave towards the Canadian public?Why don`t they like democracy?If that much weed is being grown obviously sombody is buying it.Since the drug war was lost over 30 years ago why are they still fighting it?We all know prohibition does not work,so why keep at it?Legalize the damn weed already.

The more the crack down on it, the more profit they put into it. That will draw in even worse characters and do absolutely nothing for anyone involved. It will make the work of our police forces much more deadly. Police shootings will become common occurance as they are down south.

legalize weed - use the money saved from court costs, jail costs, insurance costs etc to fight the real society killers in cocaine, herion and meth.

I favour decriminalization.


As much as understand the sentiments, legalzation would normalize weed and increase usage amongst the young. This is undesirable in a productive country IMO.

I don't want to minimize the recent deaths at all, but part of being a cop is the risk of being attacked.

4 officers dying is horrible, but it is a rare thing for this to happen.

7-9 billion sounds like a lot, but the tobacco industry is much bigger, and both drugs are a fraction of Canada's GDP, so the potential tax revenue is less than many think.



---
The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

Legalization would not increase usage among the young. It`s already all too popular with the young. Legalizing it would get it out of the hands of dealers, who sell to the young, as opposed to a controlled environment where you have to be of age, as with alcohol. This also gets the youth away from these same dealers who pedal harder drugs. It`s time society quit being so terrified of marijuana.

---
Dave Ruston

Yes it would Dave. Is tobacco use more prevalent than marijuana use? Yes, about 20% of the population use tobacco regularly. Why? Because its legality made it a notmalized part of society.

Our society does not allow pharmaceutical drugs on the market that have been proven to harm large numbers of people. They should apply the same standards to other thigns as well, short of alcohol which is used by a majority of the population.

Please don't tell me Dave that age restrictions prevent underage drinking or smoking. 12 year olds can get tobacco in stores, and alcohol is also easy to get. Out of sight out of mind does count for something.

---
The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

The Alberta grow house ??????

Twenty plants does not a "growhouse" make.

It really is about time the rest of the world sent the USA a message about their offical anti drug policies.

Drug are illegal primarily because
of who benefits (cui bono?), the courts and those behind big pharma.

and we don't need more taxes especialy on something that can be grown like the weed it is!
What next a dandilion tax?

Yes..perhaps but what level of police state are you willing to tolerate to keep it 'out of sight'?

To me what this comes down to is a simple cost/benefit. I'll expand it a bit beyond MJ.

What's the benefit to society in retaining the status quo?

As Perturbed has indicated, current laws will prevent some who otherwise might try drugs from doing so. The exact numbers are anyone's guess.

What's the costs? Well, among others:

The untold millions spent on police and drug related bureaucracies, the court system, jails, etc, etc.
The continuance of vast sums of money being funneled into unsavoury hands to use for God knows what purposes.
Numerous lives being destroyed by the legal system solely due to the use of a substance that at the very most posed harm only to themselves.
Crime arising solely as a by-product of the drug users need to find funds for the drugs.
Prostitution, robbery, theft, etc. to fund extremely costly drug habits.

What benefits are received by taking drugs out of the criminal code, etc.?

Well, of the the above noted costs to retaining the status quo disappear and funds become available to, among other things, address problems encountered by drug users.

What are the costs?

Some who may not otherwise have used drugs will try them and some of those will encounter problems.

Of course, we need to consider the old 'Drugs Kill' admonition.

So do drugs kill and if so, why and how?

I'd guess that where this is true in the sense of directly causing death, it is largely due to poor manufacturing standard and the lifestyles endured by drug users within the current system. I'd also guess that there are as many, or nearly as many, indirect deaths attributable to drugs as direct and that these indirectly related deaths arise primarily from the nature of the risks run in participating in an illegal trade.

For those drugs where there is absolutely no dispute that any usage will cause irreparable harm or death, the penalties for manufacture and trafficking should correspond to those adminstered in respect of any person who attempts to poison another. The maximum repercussion for usage, if any, should be enforced treatment, not jail or a criminal record.

I can see no obvious pro to maintaining the status quo that is not firmly outweighed by the cons. The status quo has created and continues to create far more harm to society than it could ever have hoped to prevent. There is absolutely no sanity in maintaining a system that is at the very least hypocritical in terms of the many other areas in our society, e.g., automobiles and their emissions, which government chooses to ignore and which I would guess probably cause more deaths worldwide in a year than those directly caused by drug usage over the past century.

In terms of the source of the article, it's the usual scare tactics and news mongering that feeds off of tragedy. Won't surprise me to see numerous 'we need more money' stories coming out of drug enforcement agencies over the next few weeks.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).
http://directdemocracycanada.ca

Explain why people ought to be persecuted, kidnapped and tortured by the state to allegedly keep pot from kids? Make it legal for adults but illegal for kids just like we do with booze. Then the adults who want to smoke can without fear or state terror.

Actually, perturbed, tobacco use since the 50`s has declined because of EDUCATION. But even with tobacco, there`s no need to stigmatize the current smoking population.

---
Dave Ruston

I absolutely agree that marijuana should be legalized and then its use strictly regulated, ie. it can only be used in a licensed establishment that it intended only for that purpose (with appropriate equipment to ensure no one is exposed to the smell or smoke outside of that establishment) or in your own home and absolutely no smoking in public anywhere outside (even on your own property, as I couldn't imagine what it would be like living next door to some pothead who sits out on his back deck all summer long constantly toking away).

I do not favor governments collecting taxes on marijuana, as this would be incentive for them to allow its use to get out of hand like cigarettes and alcohol have done. Rather government should limit themselves to regulation of its use.

Also, this whole business of grow-ops could be solved by simply allowing people to grow a few plants for their own personal use, requiring it to be grown in a secure place indoors, along with severe penalities for growing it in amounts clearly for sale including lengthy prison terms and huge fines. The need for policing for such will be hugely decreased if people have their own supply.

As for its use being increased in the young by legalizing it, since when did it become the job of the police to stop people's children from using intoxicants? It's the parents' job to advise their children about the risks and consequences of using them as their children are growing so their children can make responsible decisions about such things.

<blockquote>I couldn't imagine what it would be like living next door to some pothead who sits out on his back deck all summer long constantly toking away).</blockquote> Well, on the other hand, it might beat living next door to an illegal grow-op, or whatever, owned by disreputable types with a fondness for automatic weapons, or for that matter a stressed out stock-broker with a fondness for the same and a bottle of Jack Daniels as thir main stress relievant. Who can say? <p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />
http://directdemocracycanada.ca

Anarcho, why are you so melodramatic? The police are not consistently prosecuting people for simple possession anymore. We are close to decriminalization in practice.

I do more productive things with my time and I couldn't care less.

---
The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

Hi Dave. I agree education has helped, but the stigmatization you speak of does more because it makes it less socially accpetable. People are now more health conscious.

I read a tonne on the subject until about 3 years ago and the factors that affected smoking rates were many and very complicated. The two things that seemed to cause smoking rates to drop the most were increased price due to taxes and anit-smoking regulation thought by-laws.

If tobacco were still cheap and usable everywhere I doubt you'd see the declining rates.

---
The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat