Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
To a vast number of Canadians, the availability of medical cannabis to treat a range of ailments is a pharma-free blessing. To the federal government, today's ruling against the Tories' appeal to restrict that option is, put simply, a big damn buzzkill.
While Canada's status as a weed haven includes government-sanctioned grow ops, the government has kept such operations in check by introducing legislation limiting the availability of the federal green to one patient at a time. Prairie Plant Systems, the Manitoba outfit tasked with producing, as critics allege, Health Canada's ineffectual, skunky marijuana, is the only vendor for those without an exclusively dedicated grower—a proviso that means patients may as well be smoking oregano.
In January, Federal Court Justice Barry Strayer shot down the Health Canada regulation, declaring its limitations "unconstitutional." A group of thirty pro-pot activists turned up at Osgoode Hall on Monday to support Strayer's ruling, their lawyers confronting those of the government who, predictably, insist that such restrictions keep cannabis out of the hands of children, organized crime, Al-Qaeda, Satan, and a host of evil influences hell-bent on tearing apart the vulnerable fabric of Canadian society. Despite Strayer's decision, the law of the land remained, pending today's appeal.
Without the testimony of the assembled thirty, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of medical cannabis patients—an historic first. Relieved users will enjoy greater access to the cannabis of their choice, without worrying about being their source's one and only market.
Photo by splifr.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Can anyone think of a single action that would have a more positive overall effect for our country than drug legalization/regulation? I don't think so.
If it were legal, terrorists and organized crime would have no use for the damn stuff. As an added bonus, they'd go out of business.
spacejack, implementing proportional representation?
It would have longer lasting impact, and drug legalization/regulation would likely follow, rather than being stuck with the social policy of the Regressive Conservatives.
I would really love to smoke bongs in streets
Leaving aside the mertis/demerits of your proposal, this statement:
If it were legal, terrorists and organized crime would have no use for the damn stuff. As an added bonus, they'd go out of business.
... is naive, in that is assumes that organized crime doesn't have an interest in legitimate businesses. If the damn stuff was declared legal today, the first businesses off the ground would be those who already have access to supply and a network to deliver it. Those who control the drug trade would continue to control the drug trade if it were legal, they just wouldn't have the same prosecutorial risk.
I don't know if this changes your view on the matter, but "put the bad guys out of business" is not a good reason to consider a change in the current legal regime.
But they'd be law abiding citizens (at least in this country.) They'd be paying taxes. They wouldn't be "competing" by shooting each other in the streets. Our police budget would drop by a huge amount.
The main problem would come all the countries where drugs would still be illegal (namely the US, who would continue to put pressure on us to keep prohibition.)
Legalization could actually increase involvement by organized crime. Look at cigarettes and alcohol.
You think there's more organized crime involved in alcohol now than during prohibition?
Organized crime becomes more involved with cigarettes when the taxes are too high.
Exactly my point. I have to think the government wouldn't pass up the opportunity of another sin tax if pot were legalized. Contraband marijuana would just be another avenue for organized crime to sell a cheaper product.
Obviously there would be some sort of tax added on. That's part of the incentive to legalize the stuff. But placing a lower tax on pot than there is on cigarettes would discourage such elements from dealing under the radar. As for alcohol, I can't say I've heard too much at all about illegal alcohol running. Is it really that much of a problem? If you're really cheap, it's fairly easy (and legal) to make your own beer or wine. And I'm sure that folks make bathtub hooch too, but I wouldn't assume that it's a huge market for organized crime.
spacejack,
To answer your original question, yes, I think a integrated, properly funded approach to homelessness and poverty that included durable, non-stigmatized or ghettoized housing; long- and short-term mental and physical healthcare where needed; as well as educational resources would be far, far more beneficial to Canadian society as a whole.
Well yes, obviously the government should take care to set the tax rate, quality of the drugs, etc. at an optimal level - as close to, but not past the level that drives people to purchase the product from illegal sources.
They've done a lot of tweaking with cigarettes over the years.
They tried raising taxes too high in the 90s, and found that the market for contraband cigarettes grew too large, so they dropped the taxes. Then they started raising them again. I'm not sure where it's at currently, but they may need to drop the tax a bit again. But I think it's a manageable thing.
badbhoy, it sounds like you're opposed to regulation. I'd be in favour of legalization over the prohibition we've got now, but I just don't think legalization is potitically feasible, certainly not in this country.
Anything legal can be illegally traded or manipulated as long as there are taxes and tariffs to dodge, borders to cross, permits to fake and inspectors to bribe. Pot should be legalized for reasons entirely unrelated to organized crime.
>As an added bonus, they'd go out of business.
You honestly believe that organized crime has put all their investments into drugs?
That's about 10% of organized crime, sorry to break it to ya.
I've only ever read that drugs are the main source of revenue for organized crime. I don't doubt that organized crime invests in legitimate businesses, nor would I guess how much.
If someone can find a breakdown of where illegal revenue comes from, that would be useful.
"Anything legal can be illegally traded or manipulated as long as there are taxes and tariffs to dodge, borders to cross, permits to fake and inspectors to bribe. Pot should be legalized for reasons entirely unrelated to organized crime."
I agree and I do actually support legalization. My arguement was in response to the position that legalization will curb the involvement of organized crime.
Just think of the obvious ones:
Prostitution
Gambling
Loan Sharking
Protection
Racketeering
That doesn't even touch the 'legal' side of organized crime or the hundreds of other facets they are involved in.
It's also worth mentioning that most 'local law enforcement' don't deal with organized crime, that is mostly handled by or with the help of the feds (RCMP) so the likely hood that police budgets would be saved is a nice dream but unlikely. Not to mention, it's not like they wouldn't use that money for something else.
The cops have their own 'schemes' to get more money from government. They aren't going to give it up anytime soon.
Somehow I doubt those provide close to the same revenue as drug production and distribution. But there are similar reasons to consider legalizing prostitution. Gambling is already legal and regulated.
Local law enforcement deals with the side effects of illegal drug trade, like shootings. Whenever I read about police corruption, it seems to be the drug/undercover divisions that are involved.
I'll admit to some hyperbole in my original comment, and shouldn't have written that organized crime would go out of business. But I do think it would shrink considerably.
If organized crime shifts toward legitimate business, they won't be organized crime any longer, nor can they conduct business violently. They'll be regular tax-paying citizens.