Most Legalization Rawks, Most Decriminalization Sucks
"Several people, spearheaded by Hunter Thompson, attacked the current strategy of decriminalized pot as "another trick."
– High Times, March 1977
"The Single Convention Treaty could easily be nullified. There is no reason to stand for this. Every country that has signed that has broken the rule, and it’s legal tradition that when treaties are broken, people can resign the treaty. The Single Convention is not the end-all argument for decriminalization. Decriminalization has shortcomings in every way. It doesn't address the basic issues."
– Gatewood Galbraith, "1977 NORML Formal – Does Decrim Really Work?", Blacklisted News, pp. 278-279
Recently, 77% of Liberals attending their national convention voted in favor of LEGALIZING marijuana:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/16/Federal-Liberals-En...
This could mean anything from the coffee bean model (everyone can grow, deal and smoke cannabis) to the wine model (any adult can grow, deal and smoke cannabis) to a Prop 19-esque model (any adult can smoke cannabis or - if they own their own home - grow about one big plant but you have to be very, very lucky or connected to make money growing and dealing cannabis - all the unlucky ones still get busted).
Here is the wording of the resolution that was passed:
http://cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/11/Proposed-Liberal-Party-...
It really doesn't say what model is going to be proposed. I suppose the details will be flushed out IF they put it on their platform and IF they get elected and IF they keep their promise to legalize ... admittedly those are three very big IFs.
I hope for the coffee bean model, I can live with the wine model, and I will continue to fight against the Prop 19-type models as "fake legalization" that will sell out most of our growing and dealing community (the community that made the activist community possible all these years) for the sake of monopoly and greed.
But the fight over what kind of legalization we settle for may just be moot. The fact is - unfortunately - that just because 77% of the Liberal membership wants LEGALIZATION, it does not mean the leadership will put it on the platform:
"The resolution approved at the convention is non-binding. So there is no guarantee the issue will be in the 2015 Liberal election platform. In fact Canadian political parties have a history of ignoring policy resolutions from conventions, so the chances of this one being taken up are pretty low."
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/18/hugh-macintyre-the-econom...
DECRIMINALIZATION is being floated by the Liberal leadership types and the major media as an acceptable "first step":
"Martin Cauchon, the justice minister who introduced decriminalization, said Sunday he believes legalization is inevitable but that Canadians would be more comfortable with decriminalizing pot as a first step."
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/16/Federal-Liberals-En...
"But the Liberals set off down this road in government twice, and never even made it to decriminalization. This is a non-binding resolution by a third party to do something somewhat more ambitious than it declined to do when it was the first party."
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/chris-selley-its-a-perilo...
"More than a dozen states have already decriminalized the drug. Last year, Connecticut became the 13th state to do so. The Hartford Courant newspaper reported the state could save $885,000 every year in court costs and attorney salaries, and make as much as $1.4 million in fines and fees."
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/17/Dont-Fear-Reefer-Gr...
"“It says to Canadians that we know what’s going on in the country and we want to deal with it openly,” said Francis, adding that polls frequently indicate a majority of Canadians want marijuana decriminalized."
http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/137525918.html
"Released on Tuesday, the poll suggests 66% of Canadians are in favour of the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, with just 20% supporting leaving the laws as they are now."
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/majority-of-canadians-support-le...
This "contemplating decriminalization" is also happening in the UK:
http://www.theweedblog.com/uk-politicians-considering-marijuana-regulati...
Decrim, on the surface, sounds good. "No criminal record" is what sounds like will happen. "Reform" and all that. If one digs a little deeper, most versions of "decrim" - including every version ever proposed in Canada (and there have been over a dozen) - mean that your criminal record will be replaced with a "non-criminal record" that does everything a criminal record does: prevent you from getting a good job, getting bonded, crossing the border, etc. In these forms of decrim, the fines ($200 the first time, $500 the second time and $1000 the third, fourth, fifth etc etc time) virtually guarantee that more people will go to jail for unpaid fines than were going to jail before "decrim" was passed. Almost all of the versions of decrim that I examined - Singapore, Australia, Portugal, New York - made the situation worse for cannabis users, growers and dealers, not better.
Look at the myths and facts for yourself:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/descriminalization-decrim-myth...
And then join with me in demanding that the Liberal party go all the way with the coffee bean or wine models of legalization and avoid the sham reform of decrim.









Comments
If the Roots are Poison, So be the Fruit.
There is no science base to include cannabis as a schedule#1 narcotic in the states. The roots of the The Single Convention Treaty. By none other than Harry Anslinger. The base to list cannabis as a schedule #1 narcotic, including hemp is a profit for Wall St corporations and the prohibition industry. Not a science based conclusion. Nixon rejected his own science and then lumped in medicinal and hemp after the Marihuana Tax Ax was overturned in 69 as Un-Constitutional. So ethically, morally and economically for the majority of tax payers it would be prudent at this juncture to remove all laws concerning cannabis and its possession, manufacture and use. Thats logically speaking and most already know that doesn't mean governments or profiteers.
Recently a judge decided the DEA wasn't arbitrary and capricious rejecting science, after-all their job is to perpetuate the Ganjawar. They never decided IF cannabis was worthy of such a status among the heavy duties such as crack and pcp. Only that the DEA wasn't being asses but simply following asinine rules. Not that there was no medicinal value in cannabis. Just that they weren't being arbitrary and capricious.
As it stands states are persecuting individuals, not the feds. Feds IRS are enforcing Commerce Laws determined by Raich v Gonzales. States with mmj laws are restricting individual users to impossible amounts to legally grow. An ounce or less? Feds rule states in all matters as listed in the Constitution or amendments such as the Commerce and Patriot Axes. States under the 10th amendment have the jurisdiction of all else. Including individuals not growing more than reasonable amounts or selling or exchanging it as charity. A reasonable amount has been determined by the Feds own IND program. 300 joints every 25 days or less than 100 plants per year. For individual use or as a bona fide caregiver for their patients. So I'd highly advise writing the initiatives using the CA prop 215 template that has no limits or conditions. That makes the feds amounts law of the land for individuals. To get around the selling perhaps BYOB clubs could provide paraphernalia and music cover charges and individuals supply their own needs. ??? Top priority is to remove Ganja and Hemp from the CSA.
No state can authorize Buyers Clubs as long as cannabis remains a schedule #1 narcotic. That's straight up even if we didn't know the true plan is to use cannabis medicinally and have it sold by Big Pharma. Already in the works from DEA patents on hundreds of individual cannabinoids to x deputy drug czar Barthwell heading up Sativex for GW Pharmaceuticals and distribution by Bayer. Grown on the same schwag farm as grows it now for bogus NIDA gossip or the 4 remaining IND patients. Prop 19 would have put CA in the same status as the remaining MMJ states with restrictions maintaining the dysfunctional prohibition on several levels. Not with the Compassionate Use Act written by we the people for we the people and over riding all politicians and local ordinances concerning individual users. In spite of many attempts to appease the prohibitionists from SB420 to selling bag ties. Locals or politicians can't regulate Buyers Clubs either according to the latest Supreme decision, even though the Feds can enforce Commerce Laws and Tax laws.
And the drug war wages on... by Thom Hartmann
Court Rejects Bid To Have Marijuana Reclassified
By Frederic J. Frommer, January 22, 2013 Associated Press
Shame on the Drug Worrier Profiteers
California Supreme Court Deems Legality
of Storefront Medical Marijuana Dispensaries "Final"
"Arbitrary and capricious" is legal language that was used by DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young in 1988 to conclude that DEA was obligated under the Controlled Substances Act to reschedule marijuana as a prescription medicine. DEA Chief Administrator Robert Bonner proceeded to arbitrarily and capriciously disregard Judge Young's well researched and reasoned decision, which the Act allowed him to do.
legalize is what it says read the comments that shaped policy
Read the comments that will shape the policy and already have
http://convention.liberal.ca/justice/117-legalize-and-regulate-marijuana/
What I said to neil
What I get right off the hop lookin @ daavy s whine is like what I get from all those who think they are activists
I must refer to something I have said many times
""""no 420jes they are saying they no longer close the door on our joining using them and freeing ourselves
it is retarded to think they will do anything for us... I for one though ..
AM ALL IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please any of you lets put aside your disdain of me blowing up things with truth and honesty and hard work and see the big picture here
I know very old men ...who probably broke down and cried when this vote came out
Even I did
Take care all !""""
OR
""None of you it seems realize just what this means and how it effects bi elections etc and how it will finally put pressure on the ndp who PRETENDS they have cannabis policy ...as even well known traitors to our movement tell you""
Real activists dont turn down any opportunity and as you know I also dont believe they make their livelihood exploiting cannabis in any way
I cant get my old professional jobs
I make my money with sweat tears and blood
But I have spent well over 50 grand made the hard way and put in thousands and thousands of the real work HOURS required
To be honest I consider people like davy more the journalist historian of our clan
Thanks eh Neil !
6 minutes ago · Like
It as usual will take the heavy lifting
Any one with more than talk to offer??
liberal.ca
or
endprohibition@telus.net
I am three party's for three party's
jack layton turning coward is not my fault
I have brought re legalized cannabis policy IN THREE NATIONAL MAIN STREAM POLITICAL PARTY'S
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it