injunction/court case updates

torontomeds

Well-Known Member
Decriminalization is a bullshit half measure. Full legalization with personal cultivation is the only thing that will ever work. I'd also like to point out the NDP and The Beard have pledged millions (we don't have by the way) for 2500+ more cops. We don't need more fucking storm troopers, we need better fucking laws.
Well specially if they took all the cops off of "Pot" then they could use them for other crime, I bet that would free up at least 1000 police across Canada (If not more).
 

torontoke

Well-Known Member
I was the one that wanted to open a mj friendly resort but everyone danced on the grave of that idea.
So wrong dude mang
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Here's a few more links that explain the difference. Mulcair hasn't ruled out legalization after some 'study', but he's playing the safe card with decrim. I don't like decrim cause it allows cops to still harass pot smokers and gives them a tax revenue through fines. I'd much rather legal, like booze.But thats just me. That said,I'll probably strategically vote NDP. We can push for what we want if he's already willing to listen.
http://o.canada.com/news/what-would-a-canada-with-legal-weed-look-like
http://globalnews.ca/news/2173919/majority-of-canadians-support-decriminalizing-marijuana-poll/
 

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
Here's a few more links that explain the difference. Mulcair hasn't ruled out legalization after some 'study', but he's playing the safe card with decrim. I don't like decrim cause it allows cops to still harass pot smokers and gives them a tax revenue through fines. I'd much rather legal, like booze.But thats just me. That said,I'll probably strategically vote NDP. We can push for what we want if he's already willing to listen.
http://o.canada.com/news/what-would-a-canada-with-legal-weed-look-like
http://globalnews.ca/news/2173919/majority-of-canadians-support-decriminalizing-marijuana-poll/
No mulcair hasn't said shit about fines. I asked for proof he will implement fines you've not provided in proof of that. Show me TM saying anything about fining pot smokers.
 

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
From your link


Ipsos found 65 per cent of Canadians (29 per cent strongly/36 per cent somewhat) support the decriminalization of marijuana so that possession of small amounts would no longer carry a penalty or fine. Conversely, 35 per cent of people oppose (18 per cent strongly/17 per cent somewhat) decriminali
 

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
Here's what he IS saying

Mulcair said it's time for a change.

"Mr. Harper's plan has failed so we've got to start doing things differently. I have been categorical that no person should ever face criminal charges or a criminal record for personal use of marijuana," Mulcair said.

Notice the lack of any mention of fining pot smokers? It's not part of his plan. It was part of previous decriminalizing ideas but not his. So again where is the quote from TM saying decriminalized =fines for possession?
 

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
2006
http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/index.php?/topic/133924-praise-flak-for-ndp-pot-resolution/




No fines mentioned back then either.

REGINA -- The provincial NDP's endorsement of a resolution backing decriminalization of marijuana laws at last weekend's party convention in Saskatoon drew both praise and scorn on Monday.

But NDP Justice Minister Frank Quennell says the resolution will have no effect on actions by the provincial government.

The resolution, which was supported by party members, calls for the provincial NDP to support the federal party's call for a "non-punitive approach to cannabis law, including all penalties for personal cultivation and possession by adults, and actively work to institute non-punitive cannabis policies at the provincial level." Quennell said he's not sure what the resolution means, since drug laws and drug prosecutions are both federal responsibilities.

"Police offi cers, prosecutors, judges, whether they're Crown prosecutors appointed by the province or judges appointed by the province, they're sworn to uphold the laws of Canada, whatever they might be. Saskatchewan can't change a federal law by subversion, if that's what's intended here.

That we wouldn't enforce federal law, then I'm against that," he said in an interview on the weekend.

"I believe the people who are in a position to administer the law should administer the law. If you don't like the law, you either as a legislator vote to change it or as a citizen you vote for a party that undertakes to change the law." Benn Greer, the president of eNDProhibition Saskatchewan, the provincial branch of the "unof- fi cial anti-prohibition wing" of the party, said in an interview he agrees with Quennell about the need to enforce laws as they exist.

But he helped push forward the resolution because he believes the provincial party can help advocate to the federal Conservative government to decriminalize marijuana.

"It's a first step in a long process, I think," said Greer, a former ministerial assistant to Premier Lorne Calvert who is now a personal chef in Regina.

"It isn't a good thing for everyone to smoke (marijuana). But . . . punishing both chronic and casual users with criminal sanctions and ruining the chances of getting a job, travelling abroad, things like that, is just wrong." Quennell said decriminalization is clearly not on the Conservative radar in any case. He said the provincial government has acknowledged in the past there are issues around the punishment for marijuana possession.

"There's a lot of details about where you draw lines. There's no question that I think most Canadians, if they realized what the maximum sentence was for simple possession, would like to see some change," he said.

NDP provincial secretary Doug Still said he didn't think it was likely the party would take much of an advocacy role on marijuana decriminalization.

The Saskatchewan Marijuana Party, which was registered as a provincial party seven months ago, issued a news release Monday praising the NDP for the resolution and said it would work with the party "to turn this resolution into reality."

Liberal Leader David Karwacki also weighed in the issue, criticizing the NDP for allowing eNDProhibition to run an advertisement on the back of its convention program. While the former federal Liberal government had planned on decriminalizing marijuana, Karwacki said the NDP appears to be advocating legalization and the use of marijuana.

Among others, the ad quotes federal leader Jack Layton as saying the party favours a "legal environment where people can enjoy marijuana in the peace and quiet of their own home, or in a cafe, without the fear of being criminalized." "I don't think it's appropriate," said Karwacki.

But Still said the organization has the right to advocate to change laws and the provincial party does not believe in censorship.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure you'll find a quote, but explain what decriminalization means to you then as opposed to legalization. I'm not trying to start an argument, but they are two very different things. Decriminalization without fines is legalization. I'm confused.
 

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure you'll find a quote, but explain what decriminalization means to you then as opposed to legalization. I'm not trying to start an argument, but they are two very different things. Decriminalization without fines is legalization. I'm confused.
The resolution, which was supported by party members, calls for the provincial NDP to support the federal party's call for a "non-punitive approach to cannabis law, including all penalties for personal cultivation and possession by adults, and actively work to institute non-punitive cannabis policies at the provincial level.
THAT
 

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
Corporate weed isn't the answer. That's legalization. Decriminalize is keep on trucking with no oversite. That's what I want. Fuck this pay tax on legal weed shit.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Corporate weed isn't the answer. That's legalization. Decriminalize is keep on trucking with no oversite. That's what I want.
I think you're thinking backwards...legalization means just that, sure there will be corporate weed, same as molsons or Wiser's, but you could grow your own personal and possess just like booze. Decriminalization would take away the risk of criminal charges, but you are at the mercy of the cops for fines, confiscation etc., and growing would still be a criminal offense. We both want the same thing...we're just arguing about what it's called. lol
 

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
I think you're thinking backwards...legalization means just that, sure there will be corporate weed, same as molsons or Wiser's, but you could grow your own personal and possess just like booze. Decriminalization would take away the risk of criminal charges, but you are at the mercy of the cops for fines, confiscation etc., and growing would still be a criminal offense. We both want the same thing...we're just arguing about what it's called. lol
That's simply not true. You've got it backwards. The liberals won't let you grow your own. They want you buying $20 tweed grams of floor sweepings at every corner store. Decriminalize means just that to take away the entire criminal aspect of it. Well still be able to grow they've said that much and haven't once said anything about fines. My challenge remains find me a TM quote saying anything about fines for possession or growing. You can't they don't exist. Corporate weed is not what we need.
 
Top