Posted on 01/03/2003 9:58:54 AM PST by MrLeRoy
Half of Canadians want the federal government to decriminalize possession of marijuana, and support for relaxed laws is not confined to the young.
The new survey comes at a time when Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says he is going to remove simple marijuana possession from the Criminal Code, but his boss, Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien, isn't sure.
"It certainly says that we are a relatively liberal society on this issue," said Toronto pollster Michael Sullivan.
The U.S. has also warned against decriminalization, saying Canada should get over its "reefer madness" if it doesn't want to face the wrath of its largest trading partner.
The survey of 1,400 adult Canadians showed 50 per cent either strongly or somewhat support decriminalization, while 47 per cent are somewhat or strongly opposed.
The poll was conducted in early November for Maclean's magazine, Global TV and Southam News by the Strategic Counsel, a Toronto-based polling firm. The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The survey showed 53 per cent of Canadians under 40 support looser laws, while 48 per cent of people aged 40 and older want to see marijuana decriminalized.
Mr. Sullivan said there was less of an age gap than there is on other social issues, such as gay marriage and gay adoption.
"I guess we should think that marijuana smoking in general started in the 1960s so a lot of people now who are 40 plus are people who may have tried marijuana in the 60s," he said.
The survey also revealed men are more likely than women to favour relaxed laws and support is strongest among people with money. Fifty-three per cent of men said the government should act, compared to 48 per cent of women.
The findings are different than they are for most social issues, in which women tend to be more liberal than men, Mr. Sullivan said.
Support for looser laws also increased with income. Of those earning more than $100,000, 59 per cent want marijuana decriminalized. The pollsters speculated support is driven by education and affordability.
But the pollsters warned the government should proceed with caution because the results show almost half of Canadians oppose any law changes.
"This isn't 70 or 80 per cent saying let's do it, but it certainly suggests that this is something that should be vigorously debated and as you get more information, let's see where people stand on it," said Mr. Sullivan.
The poll results show British Columbia leads the pack of supporters, with 56 per cent in favour. Support in Ontario registered at 51 per cent, while 48 per cent of Albertans and Quebecers reported favouring looser laws. Support was lowest in Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada, at 46 per cent in favour.
The Strategic Council did not ask Canadians whether they support legalization of marijuana. Rather the survey dealt with decriminalization, which would still make possession illegal, but people caught would be given a fine akin to a parking ticket rather than saddled with a criminal record.
But Mr. Sullivan suspects many of those surveyed did not distinguish between decriminalization and legalization.
Mr. Cauchon has rejected legalization, which was recommended by a Senate committee last summer, saying society still wants some sort of punishment for marijuana smokers.
Why are you allowed to bring in the concept of "risk", yet I'm not?
I never said you couldn't. You chose not to. I pointed out that comparisons to alcohol were appropriate as a comparative measure for determining acceptable risk. You agreed, but qualified it by saying that any comparison should only be made when and if the decision to legalize was made. You wish to determine wheather or not it should be legalized without any reference to risk, but I'm not sure what it is you intend to base that determination on. The decision that risk is not a consideration was yours.
Close. Legalization of marijuana should not be determined by a comparison to the risks of alcohol. For example, the arguments have gone, a) Marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol, b)Alcohol is legal, therefore c)Marijuana should be legal because it's not as harmful. I am not swayed by this argument, and it's an insult to my intelligence when it's made. I think there needs to be better arguments than that before people will vote to overturn the current laws.
If marijuana were legalized, then we can look at where it fits in with the other legal drugs (such as alcohol) in order to determine how it is to be distributed. Prescription only? State stores? Federal stores? 18 and over? 21 and over? Grow your own?
You seem to be arguing that legalization should not be determined by a criteria of "acceptable risk". If risk is to remain a factor, the it will have to be as an absolute - "risk" or "no risk".
For example, the arguments have gone, a) Marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol, b)Alcohol is legal, therefore c)Marijuana should be legal because it's not as harmful. I am not swayed by this argument, and it's an insult to my intelligence when it's made. I think there needs to be better arguments than that before people will vote to overturn the current laws.
What do you consider the appropriate criteria?
If marijuana were legalized, then we can look at where it fits in with the other legal drugs (such as alcohol) in order to determine how it is to be distributed.
If legalization is to be determined by risk, in absolute terms, then prohibition should be maintained if there is any risk. The decision to legalize would have to be based upon a determination of an absence of risk, and you are arguing that we should not make any determinations about acceptable risk until we have first determined that there is no risk.
Maybe this will help (and I've tried to restrict this to recreational drugs to simplify things). Legalization of marijuana should not be determined solely by a comparison to the risks of alcohol. In other words, just because marijuana may be "less risky" than alcohol is no reason to legalize it.
Furthermore, "risk" should play no part on whether or not a drug is legal. (Many legal prescription drugs are very "risky", and their usage has to be monitored closely).
So, in summary, risk is not a factor in determining the legality of a drug.
Now, once a drug has been declared legal, we can then consider risk. Very risky? Prescription or research only. Little or no risk? Over the counter. Anything in between can be handled by age restriction, quantity availability, licensing of distribution, etc.
"What do you consider the appropriate criteria?"
I have no desire to see marijuana legal. I used to feel that the arguments for medical marijuana and decriminalization had some merits. But the more I'm exposed to it, the more I see that these are just ploys towards eventual legalization. Nevada is a good case in point.
I have yet to see one good argument on why we should legalize (just) marijuana.
I have no desire to see marijuana legal.
If that's your answer, then basically it comes down to the only criteria that anyone should consider relevant is what you want.
Like I said, I never said you couldn't bring up the risk factors, you simply choose not to. And if risk factors are not a consideration, why did your duly elected representatives spend your money on research specifically to gauge what those factors are, for the purpose of determining legal status?
In post #137 you said:
"Considering the constitutional issues involved, can you make a case for continuting prohibition without introducing risk as an factor in the argument?"
What's up with that?
"..research specifically to gauge what those factors are, for the purpose of determining legal status?"
I am aware of research being conducted on the potential medical benefits of marijuana. Can you cite the research being done "for the purpose of determining legal status"?
It's not up to the researchers to determine legal status. That decision is made by the lawmakers.
Of course not. Everyone agrees we should do what tacticalogic wants.
I gave you the criteria. I mentioned decriminalization. I mentioned medical marijuana. These are valid arguments. And I told you how I now feel about them.
You can make the constitutional arguments. You can argue Commerce Clause, States Rights, Tenth Amendment. Fine. But those arguments must include all drugs for those arguments to be valid. I'm not ready to go there.
You can argue War On Drugs. Again, you have to legalize all drugs to end the WOD. You can legalize only marijuana, and the WOD will continue against all other drugs. Where's your benefit?
You can argue freedom and personal responsibility. Really? Personal responsibility? We've got the biggest social safety net in the world outside of socialist countries. We've got a legal system that denies any personal responsibility. I am not interested in spending even more of my tax dollars on this system.
Why don't you cite for me your "appropriate criteria" other than "I want to smoke dope?"
It's not up to the researchers to determine legal status. That decision is made by the lawmakers.
In 1970 Congress passed the CSA after the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was found to be unconstitutional as a means of enforcing prohibition. At that time, marijuana was provisionally classified as a Schedule I substance, pending the outcome of research to determine it's appropriate scheduling. The conclusions of that research - the report of the Schafer Commission - were that marijuana did not pose sufficient risk to justify it's classification as a Schedule I substance, and recommended that it be re-classified. The DEA buried the report and ignored the recommendations. And just FYI, the CSA proceedure for classifying drugs involves, from start to finish, not one single elected representative of the people.
It means just what it says. Can you give me any reason to involve the federal government in establishing and enforcing marijuana prohibition that does not rely on arguments that revolve around potential risk?
How about "The reasons given for imposing prohibition in the first place have been found to be objectively unsupportable."
WTF? You did it again. So, can I mention risk or not? The above sentence says, in effect, "Make your case without arguing potential risk".
"Like I said, I never said you couldn't bring up the risk factors"
Put down the bong and start making sense or we part ways.
Not really .. look at it this way. How is it worse than alcohol ?
I read that 30-year-old report and couldn't find that. Could you please point it out to me or retract it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.