Should Cannabis Remain Illegal Amid Growing Debate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nitsuj
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the cultural significance of April 20th, known for its association with marijuana, and the protests in Ottawa advocating for its legalization. Participants argue that current laws are ineffective, as prohibition has not deterred use and has led to a costly prison system filled with nonviolent offenders. The conversation highlights the need for a shift towards treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, referencing Portugal's humane drug policies as a model. There is a consensus that legalizing marijuana could generate tax revenue and reduce the burden on law enforcement. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the importance of reevaluating drug laws to reflect societal attitudes and practical realities.

About pot in "personal" quantities (like 24grams or whatever)

  • Marijuana should be legal & controlled like alcohol/tobacoo

    Votes: 78 73.6%
  • Marijuana should be legal & open market

    Votes: 15 14.2%
  • Marijuan should be illegal with fines as punishment (misdemeanor)

    Votes: 7 6.6%
  • Marijuan should be illegal with jail as punishment

    Votes: 6 5.7%

  • Total voters
    106
  • #181
Travis_King said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
Ryan_m_b said:
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...:-p
 
Last edited:
  • #183
nitsuj said:
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 :-p
nitsuj said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K