Legality of Cannabis: Exploring the Debate

[Travis_King]

I don't see how it was out of context nor meaningless, I've clarified my point. Abuse needs to be taken into account where the likelihood and/or severity of abuse are high..

But is it the government's job to determine how much of a given substance an individual can use? A good example is sugar and caffeine. New York is pushing a bill (maybe it's already been passed here) making it illegal to sell drinks like the Big Gulp which are, they say, exorbitantly sized. Now I personally agree with the idea; it is certainly a health conscious objective, but is it really the job of government to determine how healthily we eat?

Many people abuse sugar and caffeine (admittedly, substances with less obvious state-altering effects), but that does not mean they should be illegal simply because they have a high probability of abuse...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Were you not of the opinion that government regulation that causes more problems than it solves is a bad thing? i.e making marijuana possession illegal.

Depends on the regulation. I am of the opinion that current approaches do make things worse yes. But I have to stress the false dichotomy that often pervades debates of this type: the idea that the options are draconian regulation OR no regulation.

Were I to have started this poll I would have emphasised that more.

people do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions. "the idea obviously being that " they can.

Yes we seem to be in agreement there. Though the obvious point is that people do not have the right to see their decisions fulfilled.

 

[sas3]

Just a comment on what EVO said "the majority decides what is acceptable", too bad this is not true, in the government it seems to me that the corporations often decide what is good for us, and in the case of marijuana I think it is the big drug companies that are dictating what laws get passed not the people.

 

[Evo]

Just a comment on what EVO said "the majority decides what is acceptable", too bad this is not true, in the government it seems to me that the corporations often decide what is good for us, and in the case of marijuana I think it is the big drug companies that are dictating what laws get passed not the people.

But those laws are made by the people that were elected "by the majority" of voters for their particular position. Whether those politicians are corrupt is not part of this discussion.

If a law is decided to not be what the actual majority wants, then there are processes to change that law.

 

[Travis_King]

It's not as black and white as that Evo...

1. Who says the majority of the people who want to see marijuana legalized voted for the party that the elected official belongs to?

2. People want to see their political party (the one that lies most in line with their views) in the elected position. So do coorporations. People generally understand that coorporations pay for the campaigns of their political parties and have significant influence on their stance on various issues. It's a trade-off. Sometimes the stances align, sometimes they do not. That is not corruption, that is a pitfall of modern campaigning. Your party will not win if they don't have money, but in order to get money (in meaningful amounts) their political directions kinda have to align with those of the various interest groups that are funding them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's not as black and white as that Evo...

1. Who says the majority of the people who want to see marijuana legalized voted for the party that the elected official belongs to?

2. People want to see their political party (the one that lies most in line with their views) in the elected position. So do coorporations. People generally understand that coorporations pay for the campaigns of their political parties and have significant influence on their stance on various issues. It's a trade-off. Sometimes the stances align, sometimes they do not. That is not corruption, that is a pitfall of modern campaigning. Your party will not win if they don't have money, but in order to get money (in meaningful amounts) their political directions kinda have to align with those of the various interest groups that are funding them.

Just as a polite reminder this is an international forum. In other nations the effects of donors are mitigated via regulation e.g. campaign funding caps.

Otherwise you do have some points, there are various examples of a failings in democracy wherein the opinions of a majority are not respected. That's mainly due to the inherent problems in representative democracy IMO, but that's another conversation.

 

[nitsuj]

Just as a polite reminder this is an international forum. In other nations the effects of donors are mitigated via regulation e.g. campaign funding caps.

Otherwise you do have some points, there are various examples of a failings in democracy wherein the opinions of a majority are not respected. That's mainly due to the inherent problems in representative democracy IMO, but that's another conversation.

That's a good point, Ima go check and see if the spread between party coffers is remarkable.

Okay,

wiki says for Canada '09 it was this for "Individual political contributions made to federal political parties in 2009"I'll start from the bottom of the list 'cause it's funny, understandable and on topic

Marijuana Party 2,610.00
Bloc Québécois (our separatist party) 621,000.00
Green Party 1,100,000.00
NDP 4,000,000.00
Liberal 9,000,000.00
Conservatives 17,700,000.00Liberals have been Canada's reigning political party champs for a near unprecedented amount of time.

Wanna guess when the Conservatives where able to break that precedence?

This is just the individual contributions. There is also $1-2.00 addition for each vote the party got. With the VERY common correlation between the individual contribution figure and the number of votes the party gets, I'm sure it's clear how a party can become a "perpetual" winner.

In the UK or which ever you were reffering too, is it a max coffer that's allowed? as in Max 10 million in revenue?

But yea, I'm sure Canada is unique in political landscape from this perspective.Here is an Interesting quote from that same wiki article, and note the funding cap you mention Ryan.

"In 2006, it was revealed during the Liberal leadership contest that one candidate, Joe Volpe, had received a total of $108,000 in contributions from 20 individuals that were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of Apotex Pharmaceuticals. Each of the 20 individuals - which included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy - gave exactly $5,400, the maximum allowed at the time."As if eh? And from a pharma company?? weird...:tongue2:

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'll start from the bottom of the list 'cause it's funny, understandable and on topic

Marijuana Party 2,610.00
Bloc Québécois (our separatist party) 621,000.00
Green Party 1,100,000.00
NDP 4,000,000.00
Liberal 9,000,000.00
Conservatives 17,700,000.00

One wonders how much the Marijuana party would have if they could sell it :tongue2:

In the UK or which ever you were reffering too, is it a max coffer that's allowed? as in Max 10 million in revenue?

As far as I am aware there is no limit to donations nor to how much a party can hve in the bank though PR has to be taken into account (if you're campaigning against a green policy having it on record that you recently received £10,000,000 from an oil company will damage your campaign). What I was referring to however is http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure, in other words it doesn't matter if one party could afford to spend £100,000 per constituency and another £40,000 because they are both limited.