Harper: "Legalize It"

[viper37]

Yeah. I don't think the Hells Angels are big Conservative supporters (they could be, though),

They are Federalists, that we know for sure, but I've no idea wich party they pick, though.  Italian mafia on the other hand is clearly pro-Liberal.

[Capetan Mihali]

So where does Europe get its cannabis from?  Is it all produced locally at this point or is there still some kind of long-distance hash trade?

Appalachia has gotten heavily into weed cultivation.

[Iormlund]

AFAIK Morroco used to be a prime exporter. I doubt that has changed much.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I think it's a pretty big leap to take Harper's comment as some sort of legalize it code phrase. I'd be pretty surprised if The current regime went that direction, You could also take it to mean that they will get even tougher on drug crime, were you the paranoid type.. Gotta fill those new prison/work farms somehow. :p

nothing story.

[grumbler]

I think it's a pretty big leap to take Harper's comment as some sort of legalize it code phrase.

It's Fireblade.  I don't think he created the thread title in an effort to be accurate. 

nothing story.

Agreed.  There's no way the criminals are going to let the politicians screw them over by being smart about the drug issue.  And no way Harper is going to throw away the votes of the drug lord scum and the right wing at the same time by doing something smart.  Dumb wins elections and gains the approbation of the crooks.  Dumb is win-win for Harper. 

[Razgovory]

From new reports the US and Canada were opposed to such a move.  Instead, as a compromise, everyone agreed that the issue of the drug trade be further studied (ie very much the do nothing option). 

In a nutshell.

Someone called?

[Eddie Teach]

From new reports the US and Canada were opposed to such a move.  Instead, as a compromise, everyone agreed that the issue of the drug trade be further studied (ie very much the do nothing option). 

In a nutshell.

Someone called?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMK3XGO27k

[CountDeMoney]

Dumb is win-win for Harper.

And law enforcement keeps its budgets!

[Gups]

.

"The current approach isn't working, but there's no agreement on what the proper approach should be."

...and therefore we have no option to carry on with the current approach which we at least know doesn't work.

[crazy canuck]

.

"The current approach isn't working, but there's no agreement on what the proper approach should be."

...and therefore we have no option to carry on with the current approach which we at least know doesn't work.

Yeah, the drug law change is inevitable.  The question is which party is going to make it a formal plank in an election campaign.  My prediction is that whoever does that will, in Canada at least, win the election for a whole variety of reasons not the least of which is it makes the most sense.

If I was advising the NDP, I would tell them to move quickly on the issue.  They are not going to lose votes from there core by taking this move and they stand a very good chance of attracting right of centre voters who recognize the present drug policies only enrich the criminals - with all the violence that comes with that.

If I was advising the Conservatives, I would tell them to move quickly on the issue because, being a fiscal conservative party, it makes the most sense from a fiscal point of view.  The current laws act as a subsidy to the criminal element.  The government spends billions of dollars on criminal law enforcement which on a practical level does nothing but raise the risk and therefore profit margins of the drug trade.  I would advise the Conservatives that they would take a lot of votes from the left if they shifted from treating drug as a criminal to a medical issue.  And the bonus is that the taxes realized from the money already spent on drugs would actually fund the medical system for this and everything else - something which, as a fiscal conservative, I would support.

If I was advising the Liberals I would shoot myself.

[Gups]

AFAIK Morroco used to be a prime exporter. I doubt that has changed much.

It's changed a lot. Nobody outside Iberia smokes rocky (or hash generally) much any more. In northern Europe its all hydroponic skunk shit, grown in houses with the electricity rigged.

[Barrister]

.

"The current approach isn't working, but there's no agreement on what the proper approach should be."

...and therefore we have no option to carry on with the current approach which we at least know doesn't work.

Since making any substantial changes runs the very real risk of making the drug problem worse, not better - yes.  Until we have some idea what might work staying the course is probably the best option.

[Jacob]

My impression is that one of the serious obstacles to Canada legalizing and controlling various currently illegal drugs (esp. cannabis) is the US. At least in the past, the argument was that the US would respond to legalization with a number of regulatory actions that would be very inconvenient and potentially harmful to the Canadian economy; the main thing that was mentioned were more stringent border controls to the degree that it would hurt trade.

How much does (and should) a potential very negative response from the US figure into deliberations about legalizing cannabis (and possibly other drugs) in Canada? To what degree is such a negative response likely?

[Barrister]

My impression is that one of the serious obstacles to Canada legalizing and controlling various currently illegal drugs (esp. cannabis) is the US. At least in the past, the argument was that the US would respond to legalization with a number of regulatory actions that would be very inconvenient and potentially harmful to the Canadian economy; the main thing that was mentioned were more stringent border controls to the degree that it would hurt trade.

How much does (and should) a potential very negative response from the US figure into deliberations about legalizing cannabis (and possibly other drugs) in Canada? To what degree is such a negative response likely?

I suspect that's a very real concern, in particular if we took more agressive steps to liberalize drug laws.  Unless such a reaction was co-ordinated with the US I think they would undoubtedly put in much stricter border controls.

Now that's not an excuse to do nothing however, but is definitely a limiting feature.

[Valmy]

Considering Canada is our #1 trading partner I would think there would be a powerful lobby against that sort of action.