Marijuana problem: Parents do want it legal

Kelly Egan authored a column in the Ottawa Citizen that claims that “ordinary people” don’t want pot legalized. I suppose it Egan world “ordinary” is the minority of people because fifty-three per cent of people do want it legalized. I’m pretty sure that 1 or 2 of that fifty-three per cent are parents, and so I feel comfortable saying that at least some parents want it legalized.

That’s not good enough for Ms. Egan. You see, she has “eyes” and her “eyes” tell her that at least one parent doesn’t want it legal, and of course that means that no parents want it legal.

You know all that academic evidence that prohibition is bad for individuals and society? That doesn’t matter!

Ordinary people are not going to read academic studies, unravel complex science on addictions or solve a harm benefit equation.

They are probably going to ask themselves: Would you buy a bag of weed and give it to your teenager?

My parents wouldn’t buy me alcohol when I was a teenager, therefore alcohol should be prohibited by the state. Try to parse that as a logical argument if you dare.

Reason TV: alcohol vs marijuana prohibition in the arts

Mandatory minimums and plea bargains

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the Conservative's crime bill is the unwillingness to learn from what has happened in the United States. Plenty of evidence regarding the negative consequence of mandatory minimums. Just two days ago the New York Times took a look at how mandatory minimums have influenced plea bargain negotiations.

Some experts say the process has become coercive in many state and federal jurisdictions, forcing defendants to weigh their options based on the relative risks of facing a judge and jury rather than simple matters of guilt or innocence. In effect, prosecutors are giving defendants more reasons to avoid having their day in court.

“We now have an incredible concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors,” said Richard E. Myers II, a former assistant United States attorney who is now an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. He said that so much influence now resides with prosecutors that “in the wrong hands, the criminal justice system can be held hostage.”

The justice system should not be set up in a way that discourages people from trying to prove their innocence. It should be about finding the truth not locking up as many people for as long as possible.

The Conservatives thinks that growing pot is worst than raping a child

Of course my title isn’t true. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all Conservatives, much like 99.9% of all sane decent human beings, would agree that raping a child is worst than growing pot. So it is incredibly puzzling to me why the Conservative government would want to create a justice system that views pot growers as being worst than child rapists. As Ethan Baron of the Province points out, the proposed sentencing guidelines for pot growers is harsher than for a pedophile:

Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.

The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.

As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.

We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?

Reason TV: The CA Marijuana Movement after Prop 19

Prop 19 was a fascinating and very plausable attempt to end maurijuana prohibition. Why did it fail? What about 2012?

Tim Hudak is bad because drugs are bad (mmkay)

PC Party leader Tim Hudak hits the nail on the head. When asked today if he had ever used marijuana he responded:

"I lived a pretty normal life as a kid growing up so yes, I have. It's been some time."

He lived a normal life and so of course he smoked up as a young man. It is normal…IT IS NORMAL…for people to consume this illicit drug.



This drug has been banned since 1923 and yet almost 80 years later it is still considered normal to consume it. Hell I will wager that it is far more normal than it was in the 1920s. Talk about a failure of government policy.



It also begs the question of what is the point of trying to stop people from smoking cannabis in the first place.



Watch out kids! If you smoke up that weed stick you might end up being some loser, like the leader of a major political party in Canada’s largest province (or like the President of the United States for that matter).



The pointlessness of marijuana prohibition is mind boggling.

The Cost of the War on Drugs

These numbers are almost too big to comprehend.