45 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

I don't care about pot, but heroin addiction threatens more than the user as many turn to theft to feed the need.

The problem is that people don't really have anywhere to turn when they're addicted either, as it's illegal. They don't want to admit to breaking the law and the stigma associated with the addiction is quite high. Decriminalizing it would allow us to turn the focus to recovery and healthcare for addicts.

[noahbody]

The problem is that people don't really have anywhere to turn when they're addicted either, as it's illegal. They don't want to admit to breaking the law and the stigma associated with the addiction is quite high. Decriminalizing it would allow us to turn the focus to recovery and healthcare for addicts.

Google "heroin addition help Canada" without quotation marks. There is no shortage of places to turn in Canada.

The message that it's illegal does stop many kids from trying it. It's not a good drug to send out mixed messages on as it's not very forgiving.

[cybercoma]

Google "heroin addition help Canada" without quotation marks. There is no shortage of places to turn in Canada.

The message that it's illegal does stop many kids from trying it. It's not a good drug to send out mixed messages on as it's not very forgiving.

I know there are plenty of places. What I meant is that people don't seek help because the drug is illegal. They don't want to be arrested or stigmatized, so they perceive their situation as though they have nowhere to turn for help.

Edited by cybercoma, 17 March 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Manny]

Since almost every argument becomes a reductio ad prohibitionum, I must point out that it should be looked upon in exactly the same was as alcohol prohibition was almost a century ago. We all know what happened back then and we all know what the only solution was. Remove prohibition to eliminate gang violence and death. Because the criminals made the bad hooch and some used improper methods or put in additives that killed the user. Therefor the only sensible resolution to the drug problem today is to legalize, not just decriminalize. Full legalization of all drugs. And if the government is really interested in protecting the health of Canadians, they should do what was done with alcohol, not allow production without a special license. Other than soft substances, your weed and your hashise. And teach people about the potential dangers of drug abuse. Teach the general public that drug users are not criminals in and of themselves, just people who've made a mistake and have a mental problem. And also allow it for medicinal purposes. That's right, legalize, regulate, educate, medicate!

[Tilter]

Since almost every argument becomes a reductio ad prohibitionum, I must point out that it should be looked upon in exactly the same was as alcohol prohibition was almost a century ago. We all know what happened back then and we all know what the only solution was. Remove prohibition to eliminate gang violence and death. Because the criminals made the bad hooch and some used improper methods or put in additives that killed the user. Therefor the only sensible resolution to the drug problem today is to legalize, not just decriminalize. Full legalization of all drugs. And if the government is really interested in protecting the health of Canadians, they should do what was done with alcohol, not allow production without a special license. Other than soft substances, your weed and your hashise. And teach people about the potential dangers of drug abuse. Teach the general public that drug users are not criminals in and of themselves, just people who've made a mistake and have a mental problem. And also allow it for medicinal purposes. That's right, legalize, regulate, educate, medicate!

Teach the general public that drug users are not criminals in and of themselves, just people who've made a mistake and have a mental problem.

(add this to the sentence)-----and to support their 500 dollar a day habit must turn to prostitution, burglary, armed robbery or car theft to support it. but remember,

drug users are not criminals in and of themselves.

[MACKER]

rug users are not criminals in and of themselves.

unless they have a prohibited substance on their person.

Just like people with machine guns arn't criminals except for the fact they possess machine guns.

Or just cause someone has explosives in their undies doesn't make them a terrorist, much like someone with a key of cocaine up their front isn't a drug traffiker, as an alternative chastity belt. Maybe they are just kinky with more money than they know what to do, or are cocerned with safety. Right..

The issue thought that many drugusers are casual users or recreational users not addicts. The term addict is thrown around a lot but very few are actual addicts. Lots for instance college kids are experimental, by the time they turn 30 they will have moved on to booze and the odd joint perhaps. It is pervasive not a special case. just because someone does drugs it does not mean they are an addict, an addict is someone who is too weak to quit, it is a psychological weapon, no one is truely an addict, they just have different priorities

Very few people do not do some form of drug from coffee, to alchohol to pot, to others.

Edited by MACKER, 17 March 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Manny]

(add this to the sentence)-----and to support their 500 dollar a day habit must turn to prostitution, burglary, armed robbery or car theft to support it. but remember,

Those are separate crimes. It's like with alcohol, again. A person can drink alcohol all they want, drink as much as they want but they can't get behind the wheel of a car. Then their action becomes a crime.

[WWWTT]

Many believe that the criminalization of substance use is an improper legal definition.

This is because a criminal act is defined as an act against another person/their well being/property.And substance use by an individual does not fall under any of these so therefore can not be a criminal act!

Impaired driving clearly falls under the definition of criminality.But consuming alcohol/substance use in a recreational setting such as at a bar or private residence does not.

I thought we went over this like several times here and clealry established this fact?

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

...I thought we went over this like several times here and clealry established this fact?

Kinda...sorta. It is illegal for Canadian Forces personnel to use illegal drugs or legal drugs in a way not prescribed by a doctor or regulating authority.

[bjre]

http://www.thestar.c...s?bn=1#comments

generationofswine Mar 18, 2012 6:27 PM
"Only those that have been in trouble or want to create a impression of being cool and anti cop will object" I have never been arrested in my life and I object to Canada being turned into a "Show me your papers" society instead of a democracy. How do you explain that one. The police are above the law in Canada, have no respect for the citizens who pay their huge salaries, and behave like a gang of criminal thugs because they know there are no consequences when they get caught. They do their job poorly, if at all, and seem to focus on minor drug crimes like marijuana possession instead of things that really matter. As a result, I would not help them because I do not respect them. Ask anyone who has been a victim of crime and they will tell you that the cops re-victimized them and did absolutely nothing to catch the perpetrator. We have to re-examine how we approach the issue of crime and punishment in Canada and change the system so that it works for the public. Of course the cops want us to follow the American system like we have been up until now: giant police budgets and no questions asked or permitted. Works great, eh? I can't think of anything more insane than looking to the US for solutions, when their problems with crime are far worse than ours. They have the largest prison population on earth and ridiculous sentences for minor, non-violent crimes, the death penalty, gigantic police budgets when their streets are filled with the homeless, etc. The conservative approach to crime has failed miserably and made them much less safe. The only ones who support this approach are the ones who stand to profit directly from it. They couldn't care less whether Canadians are safer or not.

[Bryan]

Many believe that the criminalization of substance use is an improper legal definition.

This is because a criminal act is defined as an act against another person/their well being/property.And substance use by an individual does not fall under any of these so therefore can not be a criminal act!

Impaired driving clearly falls under the definition of criminality.But consuming alcohol/substance use in a recreational setting such as at a bar or private residence does not.

I thought we went over this like several times here and clealry established this fact?

WWWTT

I agree with this. Perhaps the middle ground might be for personal possession and use of these substances to be fully up to the individual user, while keeping if not stiffening penalties for producing and/or distributing them--especially to minors.

[eyeball]

I agree with this. Perhaps the middle ground might be for personal possession and use of these substances to be fully up to the individual user, while keeping if not stiffening penalties for producing and/or distributing them--especially to minors.

So you're saying people who do things like growing grapes and making wine should be penalized but not the people who drink it?

[Topaz]

No one like crime, so why not start at the top with the governments of Canada, at the three levels, Feds, provincial and municipality. I would think those kind of crime hurt more people then the crime on the street, something like the silent killer, what we don't know won't hurts us. Do you think more severe punishment should apply to politicians who commit crimes, and not a slap on the hand or a fine?? It seems like a farce for politicians to bring forth rules against crime when in the background they are doing it themselves.

[bjre]

So you're saying people who do things like growing grapes and making wine should be penalized but not the people who drink it?

I believe only those who drink and drive need to need to be punished.

Those who drink and destroy other's property, drink and hurt others should be punished for destroy/hurt.

Those who drink and hurt themselves should pay the medical cost themselves.

[Topaz]

I believe only those who drink and drive need to need to be punished.

Those who drink and destroy other's property, drink and hurt others should be punished for destroy/hurt.

Those who drink and hurt themselves should pay the medical cost themselves.

Have you ever watched the senate committee hearings on this topic? It very interesting. Repeat offenders, have a health problem, mental problem, and shouldn't be put in jail but to go to rehab until they are able to stay away from the alcohol or drugs that change their behaviour and do damaging things. Half the people in jails are under this category, it cost taxpayers and they person doesn't get the help they need in jail, all this said by every expert, who went before the senators.