Chris Selley: The day Michael Ignatieff lost the youth vote
Greetings Green !
Something profound happened and the best ammo you could hope for came in while we slept
It is yours for the taking.....fish or cut bait
It is a gift
(comments included below)
"If I had to tell you as a parent or as someone who has spent his whole life working with young people, the last darn thing I want you to be doing is smoking marijuana," the federal Liberal leader said.
"I want you to be out there digging a well, digging a ditch, getting a job, raising a family ... doing stuff, instead of parking your life on the end of a marijuana cigarette."
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/16/chris-selley-the-day-michael-ignatieff-lost-the-youth-vote.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage#ixzz0iPeeGcWA
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
WELL GREENS ?
ARE YOU RELEVANT ?
Or are you just yellow ?
Cheers
- John Shavluk's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- Stephen LaFrenie |
- David Barclay |
- Rick Shea |
- 1 of 2166
- ››
Comments
Harpers alcohol induced morals? He also demands to lose in the e
Go here scroll to 35 minutes and listen and watch harper lie like a ........well you decide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5tWSMwhGkc
But he is sickening and not once did the mediator point out that all of it was based on prohibition and harpers own mean spirited morals
Harper drinks alcohol so is a complete hypocrite
(He said when he was offered cannabis he was too drunk to try it ...LOL)
Alcohol is a drug
It kills cells on contact and kills very many every year
ITS STILL BY FAR SAFER LEGAL !!!
Cannabis has resulted in ZERO DEATHS...but much money to the killers on both sides feeding or eating citizens
What a stupid ignorant response to the biggest question of them all in this Youtube special (thanks to dan grice !)
http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2010/03/11/harpers-youtube-political-dilemma-cannabis-legalization/
Its all up to you greens.......and even you yellows
The Mood of the Times...there may be an opportunity here
Generally, I've not been particularly supportive about highlighting our Party's stance on the marijuana issue. Instead, I've favoured focusing our resources on bringing attention to our position on climate change, and to a lesser extent, democratic renewal, as I've seen those as more important wedge issues with Canadian voters, while not wanting to detract from those who vote for us because of our stance on legalizing pot.
With climate change issues becoming increasingly confused in the minds of voters (due in part to the success of the climate change denial industry, and in part due to the other Party's plans to "take action" on climate change through a cap-and-trade impending-fiasco), and with the need for democratic renewal having taken a bit of a back-seat to its poor-cousin "anti-prorogation", perhaps it is time for Greens to become more vocal about legalizing marijuana.
Lately, legalizing pot has been getting more attention in the mainstream media, and not just for Ignatieff's and Harper's pronouncements that they're against those efforts. That scientific study released last year generated a lot of (mostly) positive air-time. And the NDP's refusal to let pot activists attend their General Meeting exposed the Dippers as not wanting to touch the pot issue with a 10 foot pole.
Our focus on the Green Economy is never going to generate the sort of passion we'll need for success, as most Canadians (including myself) have only a vague idea of what the "green economy" actually is. Better to focus instead on reducing people's income taxes, and freeing up resources for law and order by ending the war on pot through legalization. Make it a money issue, and a jobs issue, as it's already a wedge issue.
Even some in the mainstream media, including respected Toronto Star urban journalist Joe Fiorto (see: "5 ways to make Toronto a better city"...about half-way down), have started talking about this issue in a positive way. Yes, legalizing pot is sure to generate a media-storm from hypocritical conservative media outlets, despite the law and order benefits.
I'm not totally convinced we should run with this yet, but I'm starting to climb down from the fence, based on what I'm sensing the "mood of the times" to be. Let's hope that our Campaign Committee give some careful consideration to looking at whether there is an opportunity for our Party to exploit our unique position on this issue.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Pot as an issue
Right now there are plenty of people who have told me that they thought the Green Party was the marijuana party and thus not worth thinking about seriously. Kind of a shame as marijuana is a lot less harmful (from what I know) than cigarettes, cigars, and alcohol. Thus having it as a key focus would be, imo, a mistake.
Far better to focus on items that we know sell. Cutting payroll taxes when everyone else wants to increase them gives us a nice wedge issue - I love the 'cut job killing taxes by 1/3' idea as a marketing tool in the next election. Pointing out that we're the party that first knew a deficit was coming, that the recession was coming, etc. is a great way to show how we'd be an effective team in the HOC. Show people why we are a strong alternative voice, why if we had the balance of power that we'd be able to work with the CPC or Liberals.
Marijuana is not top of mind or a high priority to the vast majority. A sane tax system, environmental protection without a heavy union influence (thus the NDP pushing for car subsidies) and a sane voice in the HOC are priorities. Lets focus on the things that Joe Voter wants that we represent rather than trying to preach to them.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Risk Riding the Gift Horse
John, you raise the very same issues which have kept me on the fence for some time now with regards to this matter. If all things were equal to where we were at in 2008, I think that I would continue to feel this way. But, all things aren’t equal any longer. We’re no longer the little Party that could...the mainstream gave us a shot in the 2008 election, and we failed to capitalize by taking a seat anywhere. We’ve lost vote percentage in recent by-elections. In some polls, we’re well above our 2008 vote percentage (such as EKOS), but in other polls like NANOS (which has a better track record of predicting results at election time), we’re at only 5.2% nationally as of yesterday.
In 2008, we had a Leader who hadn’t failed to win her seat in a general election, who rode a surge of public support into the televised debates. Without a seat in parliament, our Leader will not be participating in the debates in the next election. In 2008, we had a national campaign presence, with our Leader campaigning throughout the country. Now, our Campaign Plan wants to focus the majority of our resources in only a few ridings, particularly SGI.
I received an email earlier this week advising that the Sudbury EDA has a new staff Organizer to look after us – the third this year. Our latest Organizer is based out of Edmonton; she’ll be looking after Northern and Eastern Ontario. I understand that our Party continues to carry a significant debt load left over from the last election. Clearly, it’s not business as usual around here.
With the other Parties muddying the debate on climate change, and with the public really focussed on jobs and economic issues, it is going to be very difficult for us to get the message out about the superiority of our taxation policies. Tax policies usually take more than a sound-bite to explain (unless it’s all about cutting), and ours in particular require a little more time to do them justice. What’s a payroll tax anyway, and why is it important to me that it be cut by 1/3? I don’t see the direct benefit for me as a voter. That’s just an example (I think our policy on this is actually great, but someone had to explain it to me).
If we are not going to attract voters to us on economic issues (because voters aren’t looking to the Green Party to lead on economic ideas anyway, by and large), and if we can count on core support over climate change (an issue either to be largely ignored in the next election, or the other parties will fight over who has the best implementation strategy for cap and trade), it doesn’t leave us with a whole lot in terms of messaging. Couple all of that with a lack of resources with which to campaign, and we’re in trouble.
And that’s why, in part, I think that we need to take a bit of a risk, by promoting a wedge issue for ourselves. And that wedge issue may be marijuana, given that the discussion about decriminalization and legalization has begun to appear on the radars of mainstream media organizations. The timing might be right, and with the other Parties shying away from discussing any benefits of legalization, they can only hope to fall back on Harper and Ignatieff’s recent pronouncements: drugs are bad, so they should be avoided at all costs. And every Canadian knows that this is a hypocritical position.
So we say that the legalization of marijuana is good, because it will save lives and money that we can better spend elsewhere, tackling the issues of the day. We make it an economic argument, freeing up resources.
This approach could actually dovetail quite well with the current Campaign Plan, given that we are putting all of our eggs into one basket, and that basket is Saanich Gulf Islands, British Columbia. We are polling highest in B.C. already, and support for the legalization of marijuana is quite high in B.C. If we are going to achieve success as a Party in the next election, our best hope for a breakthrough will come in B.C., and our support for marijuana legalization would likely help us there. And potentially help us elsewhere.
The argument in favour of legalization, though, needs to be an economic one. Those who support legalization already know about the health issues, etc., so there is no need to play those up. Joe Voter isn’t going to care about the health benefits, because Joe Voter isn’t going to use it that way, if at all. But Joe Voter might be very concerned about putting pot smokers in prison and paying higher taxes in order for the police to do so. Joe Voter might be concerned about the message that this sends to kids, but if you legalize it, you regulate it, and you actually make it harder for kids to get ahold of it. Everyone knows that it’s easier for a 16 year old to buy a joint than a beer, and the reason has to do with regulation.
We need to take some risk in the next election, or else it could very well be all over for us as a Party. If we fail to elect an MP, and if we lose our 2008 percentage of the popular vote, we will be in trouble.
I think John S. is right: Harper and Ignatieff have given us a gift this week. Let’s not look this horse in the mouth, but instead let’s ride it to success.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Moderated
This post was removed due to violation of the Terms of Service.
Moderated
This post was removed due to violation of the Terms of Service.
Please, turn it down a little
Ya, John S., you know that little rants like this (and the others above) aren't being helpful in selling your position on the issue. For example, while I can agree that maybe it's time we highlighted our policy to legalize marijuana a little more forcefully than we've done in the past, I can't agree that the Green Party is a pawn to keep Stephen Harper in power. Nor does altering the names of those who disagree with you do your argument justice. I understand that you feel very passionately about the things which you write about. I believe that there are a number of good ideas which you bring to the table.
What I'd like to see, though, is toning down the rhetoric and name-calling, because it really does hurt your core issues. Reading your posts (or at least the parts of your posts pertinent to the issues) has led to my own re-examination of our Party's policy on marijuana. In other words, you've brought me around to your way of thinking about this issue. I'm sure that you can bring others around as well, and maybe I will too. But, please, the personal attacks aren't helpful. For example, John Northey isn't your opponent here. He's your ally; he just doesn't agree that it's in the best interests of the Party to trumpet this particular policy when there are others out there we should be upselling. But, at the end of the day, both you and he are here, presumably for the good of the Party, to fight the good fight. It's just a question of prioritization.
John, you can be a thoughtful guy at times. Build on that. I understand that you probably feel like tearing things down around here sometimes, or often, and I can appreciate where you're coming from, as I've read a lot of what you've had to say, and my eyes have been opened. You're still here, though, and I'm glad that you are. As you're still here, though, you must want the Party to experience some degree of success. And that's why I urge you to build on that, because some good can come out of it. To build, though, you need to turn it down a little. Please?
"Sudbury" Steve May
Repealing the Prohibition of Cannabis
I ran against Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008.
Calgary Southwest is among the most redneck conservative ridings in Canada
The only GPC policy I talked about was legalizing cannabis.
I was rewarded with 4,732 votes (9%), only 175 votes behind the second place Liberals.
This was the 26th highest vote total among our 300+ candidates.
If E. May had spoken about our cannabis policy during the debates, I feel sure that I would have gained enough votes to overtake the Liberals and easily been over 10%.
Do not be afraid to campaign on this issue; it sets us apart by showing that we do respect the science, not the propaganda.
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Robert A. Heinlein
Harper Vs. The Weed Trolls on YouTube
When PM Harper announced his foray into the world of YouTube democracy I was really curious to see what sort of mobilization we would get from the Troll community- what issues would take centre stage and what herd would be the most disruptive. The win, without a doubt, went to the pro-legalization trolls who managed to own most of the conversation. For the first few days of the experiment it seemed like every second or third comment/question was related to legalization of cannabis. I can't help but ask if this reflects voter opinion or if there was an organized trolling initiative undertaken (and by who?).
In light of this, I am wondering if the time is right for the GP to begin addressing this issue more directly. This issue is already a part of our platform (Vision Green), seems to have quite a bit of appeal to our core supporters (at least here in BC), and obviously has a dedicated (and organized) group of activists working on it. Is it possible for us to capitalize on these factors and the momentum generated by the trolls by facing the cannabis issue head on?"
My gut tells me there is a great opportunity to rally a wide variety of people around this issue if we focus in, but I can't help but shy away from it when I am talking to folks in my very conservative riding. I don't know if it is a fear of not being taken seriously (viewed as fringe) or, like John S. notes, the number of people who are already confusing the GP with the Marijuana Party and missing some of the other issues we think are important. Maybe it's time we take the risk, though... we might end up surprised.
Since the hard core conservatives are unlikely to support us anyway, the big question is how focusing on this issue would affect the swing voters. I can't help but think that this is the type of issue that can draw people to the Greens regardless of their views about the the issues that we typically focus on. I know lots of folks around here who think that environmental issues are a joke, but would love to see cannabis legalized. Could legalization be the open door for swing voters to find a place in the GP? It definitely sets us apart from the other parties and, hey, people already think that we are the Marijuana party.
Just thinking out loud....
48% of Conservatives here ...Favor cannabis legalization..NOW !
I spent years over here if you look and know my names there
http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/topic8474.html
In this one though I am now called Sofia King...any 420's here will laugh with me as they know what that name really means....so f ing ...(add high.. LOL)
Its about my 10th name there now though
shavluk obviously ... justice... pearls before swine ....kulvahs...etc etc etc
Long story short here but this thread now with almost 8,000 views and one of their biggest ever ...now shows...and get this that yes 48 % !!! of them now are on our side !!!
Look at the poll results
When I started there in 2005 ...I think ...you would be lucky to not just be deleted for even mentioning cannabis (much like how we were treated here in bc just before we ran the first time in 2001) anyhoo even they know what we say is true and harper will never get a majority while he wants to be a fascist to cannabis users
On a side note Steve I get you...though no one here is named northy John Northey knows I mix vinegar with everything and I am a crusty old coot ...and he has big shoulders as well......I think he can speak for himself and when I get a secretary...you guys will not dislike my style so much ...LOL
Maybe just read that thread over there please?
Hey its like some of you don't get it...how the hell am I going to go do what I used to do as an anti semitic as may says??
huhh ...of course I am mad !
I should be out there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have spent a long time doing a lot most know nothing about ..in the greens obviously for sure but make no mistake I mean well and am actually tolerable in person ...LOL
Sorry if I again offended those with that sensitive streak
You should try jail and bankruptcy and not seeing your kids for two years as well yes as an innocently jailed man and see how smooth your bed side manner is
Hell no one reads here but us die hards any way..relax
At least with this thread paul maillet can see the other side of the coin
cheers
Stephen Harper accidentally proves the case for LEGALIZING
'''''And, with that, Stephen Harper gives the best argument I have ever heard in my life ... for legalizing marijuana. Because the second you legalize it and decide to sell it in LCBOs or licenced stores/restaurants/etc., you drive a stake through the heart of organized crime and drug cartels, both inside Canada and around the world. By controlling who sells it, you move the industry above ground and choke off a huge source of revenue from organized crime.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/17/dan-arnold-stephen-harper-accidentally-proves-the-case-for-legalized-marijuana.aspx#ixzz0iVaAmucg
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.''
SEE THE LINK..........
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/17/dan-arnold-stephen-harper-accidentally-proves-the-case-for-legalized-marijuana.aspx
Could be time...maybe...but risk is high
When it comes to legalizing I am on the side of the GPC - namely that legalizing and taxing it ala cigarettes and booze makes a lot of sense. However, if we make it a core and visible policy I suspect we can write off winning in rural Ontario (aka Bruce Grey-Owen Sound) but might up the odds in Guelph and BC.
Most voters tend to be older and resistant to change that doesn't directly impact them in a positive fashion. However, it has been shown that marijuana can be helpful to older people with certain long term diseases thus perhaps the time has come to make it a core policy rather than a side one.
Like I say, this is a genie in a bottle and if we let it out it could either be a good genie and jump up in the polls or a bad one and knock us out. If the party wasn't in debt right now I'd suggest a strong poll to be done to see if people who are leaning Green (as a 1st or 2nd choice) are willing to accept and vote for us if this becomes a core policy.
Perhaps done as an economic argument - see the tax revenue, we can cut overall taxes via it plus allow police to focus on real crime - we'd have a shot with rural voters as well.
Like I say though, this is something that could make or break us ala the carbon tax with Dion or the GST cut for Harper.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
High Stakes Gamble
Good points, John. I agree that we potentially would risk negatively impacting on some of our small "c" conservative voters in rural areas, despite that John S. believes that almost 50% of conservative voters support legalization (I don't buy that number). But consider a few things: you wrote about two Ontario ridings, one which might be negatively impacted, the other potentially positively impacted. Throw in SGI in the mix, and maybe Adrian Carr's downtown Vancouver riding, and now we're having a discussion about the extent of the ridings we might have a realistic shot at in the next election. And 3 of them are urban, two currently held by Liberals and where there has been a historic vote-split between all the parties, and SGI can be a little fragmented too. If we expect our vote count to increase in these areas if we highlight legalization, than I say go for it. If it means a potential loss in BGOS, so be it. Whose the nominated candidate in BGOS anyway who can speak to these matters? I'm not sure that BGOS is ready to go Green in the same way that Guelph is (and I happen to agree with Dave Bagler on this...look to Guelph on election night for electing Canada's first Green parliamentarian. A lot of hard work remains, though, and we must do everything we can to help Bell and his team in Guelph, including providing them with a wedge policy issue to entice fiscally conservative, but socially progressive voters to cast a ballot for him. Legalizing marijuana might be that issue).
"Sudbury" Steve May
Good points
Good points Steve. A high stakes gamble might be needed now, especially if Ms. May isn't allowed into the debates this time. As to BG-OS our provincial GPO candidate has an office there year-round between elections (I see it whenever I go up to visit my parents who are in Southampton) thus checking with Shayne Jolley to see what the word on the street is up there (FYI his site is http://www.shanejolley.com/)
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
That was my question that
That was my question that topped the YouTube challenge, typo and all, and which ended up having an overwhelming response as about 8 times as many people recommended the question as opposed it. (I also had a question on building new railways which finished in number 9).
Yes, there was some active promotion of the site, but someone needed to :-)
Frank from EKOS was on power and politics today confirming that this issue is indeed popular and the strong supporters are much higher than our base support.
It won't win us a majority, but when we can win seats with 29% of the vote, we should embrace wedge issues --which we can own -- in the poll.
While any online poll is not really an accurate polling issue, in the last few years, a majority of Canadians have supported it:
http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/2008.05.12_Drugs_1.pdf
In BC, its 2:1 in favour
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2009.05.01_BCIssue...
In BC, marijuana legalization polled 80% amongst Green Party supporters.
Even the US thinks so:
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2009.12.09_Drug...
Noting that 43% of Republican voters think marijuana should be legalized..
Please note, that the support for marijuana legalization does not extend to harder drugs though.
Power and Politics Poll on Marijuana
Fresh Today..
About 36 minutes in:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/ID=1444584276
Winning votes is different
Its encouraging that the latest Ekos poll indicates 50% of Canadians support decriminalizing marijuana, only 30% against, the remainder ‘neither’. Its no longer an issue to run away from.
However, let’s keep in mind that Canadians vote on the issues which are most ‘central’ to their lives, and for the party they think can run the country best. The job of communications is to determine what are the issues most essential to the public, and focus on them. To present a party that is competent to run the country.
While people are realizing that criminalizing marijuana is wrong, its unlikely that for majority its the central feature in their lives, and what is going to be the deciding issue in an election. Especially during an economic recession. A recession which is not over, despite the media propaganda; where the only job growth is in government, not the in private sector where jobs are still declining.
Its an issue that if addressed progessively can complement strong messaging that needs to concentrate squarely on reshaping the economy and restoring democracy.
How to use marijuana to get votes
If we go down this route then we need to make it an issue that does affect Joe Voter in their everyday life.
So, how to do so? I'd think we'd have to frame it as...
Our police are overburdened, our taxes are too high. How to solve? By legalizing marijuana we can cut your taxes and leave the police to work on solving real crime rather than chasing down people using pot.
Something along those lines would show the average voter that we are thinking of them. Another way to frame it would be to have any tax revenue generated be earmarked for the police (local & RCMP). The media & CPC has put a fear in people despite dropping crime rates so if we show a plan that helps deal with that fear in a way the CPC won't (ie: concrete proposals that would clearly help) then we have us a wedge issue that could be a winner with both the left wing (pro-legalization) and the right (pro-police).
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
The Marijuana votes
While I appreciate your pragmatism on the issue, it is unfortunately directed at a situation where no one is pragmatic. The reason why there is such a drug war in the US is that it is well known that it is one of the few issues where you can approach a conservative electorate asking for tax increases.
I do agree that this issue can be polarizing and framing the message correctly is important. I would like to see survey data that describes the winning wording to use. Realistically, the first step would have to be decriminalization rather than an outright legalization scheme, and everyone here needs to understand that there are sometimes other points between point A and point B.
For the most part, I believe that enforcing marijuana laws is not useful, does not achieve any goal, and even if you believe the goal is noble, it does not make any economic sense to do it the way we are doing. Treatment and addition control centres are a much better way to handle people with dysfunctional drug habits rather than implementing a scheme of criminalization.
Regardless, I do not believe the government should be telling adults what they should or should not be ingesting or smoking. In the case of marijuana, it has minimal or no permanent psychological effects, and it is not any more habit forming than food. It is therefore not a product that causes meaningfully irreversible effects, and thus people can make a rational choice to stop at any time without first having fallen into a trap like with many other drugs, including many legal pharmaceuticals -- oxycodone anyone?
Moderated Comment
This comment was removed due to violation of the Terms of Service.
Realism..
Decriminalization is a necessary first step. It is unreasonable to expect that enough people will be behind full legalization right away. So instead of getting nothing done, we should do something. I think you are mistaking my end goal. Decriminalization is a much easier goal to attain, so I think we should try for something attainable even if it is a compromise of our position. Getting ticketed for cannabis is a small inconvenience in the meantime.
Decriminalization Vs Legalization
Decriminalization will not work to remove organized crime from the equation.
Decriminalization has always been a red herring of the prohibishionists, a way to keep cannabis illegal while pretending to be progressive.
Violent crime will continue and the naysayers will point to that as a reason to deny legalization.
I'm not a real fan of the term "legalization" as it implies making legal something previously forbidden.
I prefer "repeal the prohibition of cannabis".
Many older voters still remember the "repeal of the prohibition of alcohol" and can identify with that term.
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Robert A. Heinlein
Decrim does not exist....its imposible
How about we say REPEAL cannabis prohibition?
Its not legalization ...ITS REGULATION
OUR POLICY
Like alcohol calling it legalization may be the problem as alcohol is regulated and not called legalized
Does that help?
REPEAL CANNABIS PROHIBITION...JOIN THE GREEN PARTY
kelly you beat me by one minute hahhaha
yes I agree...obviously
Legalization vs. Decriminalization.
First off, if growing cannabis in your house was a ticketable offense, I think organized crime would be mostly pushed out of the market, but that's just me. Speeding is illegal, but the last time I checked it didn't stop people from doing it. I am not suggesting that we decriminalize it but then fine people thousands of dollars for possession. However, you are going to get a lot of pushback from lobby groups like police groups, religious groups, children's groups, etc..
Regardless, I don't care either way, I just know that the GPC does not have enough voters now, so I'd like to do things that gets us more votes. If you honestly believe that saying legalization would get us votes, then fine -- the debate isn't relevant to me seeing as how I am not a cannabis user. But it's incumbent on us as a party to find out what messaging works. So if you are interested in legalization then somehow you have to get someone (maybe even the GPC) to sponsor a survey to find out what actually resonates with voters. If you can arrange proper evidence in hand, it would make everyone's life a lot easier.
Now, I ask you, if you could achieve legalization in 50 years or decrminalization in 10, are you saying that you would hold out for legalization? It will be a lot easier to achieve legalization once it has been decrminalized. I don't understand why don't believe this, or if you do believe it, why you don't care that it is true.
Moderated Comment
This comment has been removed due to violation of the Terms of Service.
Medscape Article: 'Medical Marijuana'
Note: You have to first register with 'Medscape' to view medical articles, but there is no cost:
http://cme.medscape.com/medscapetoday
Here is a review of the medical uses and legal landscape of marijuana and associated derivatives:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/716940?src=mp&spon=17&uac=113089BK
(Medscape is one website with aggregate access to medical articles, journals, learning activities from many different sources)
Decrim vs Legalization:
I think the average Canadian interchanges the terms legalization and decriminalization. If you legalize cannabis you decriminalize it, however if decriminalize it you don't necessarily provide a legal outlet.
Realistically, we already have pseudo decriminalization in this country for possession as courts are throwing out simple charges and police are moving possession to lowest priority.
Without a legalized effort, though, we lack the ability to control distribution, tax sales, and license growers.
Can you just tell us what this MERC site says?
Merc is one of the pharmaceutical companies financing the harpercrites so I will wait with baited breath
The press release page is only about share prices and how many drugs they can sell
Something tells me you are also maybe afraid of our policy?
If you are referring to the
If you are referring to the Medscape links, I've revised them above. They should work now, but you have to register.
The article is a comprehensive review of history, past and current uses, and the legal landscape.
Legalization vs. Decriminalization.
John, make it easy for me: what would be the difference in support the GPC would get for a two step process of decrminalization then legalization, vs. just immediate legalization? This is what we need to know. What the senate heard in 2002 is old now, we need new information.
For the record: I do not want you to go to jail for smoking pot. This is my motivation. The quickest path that allows us to stop jailing individuals for smoking pot is what I want. This is sometimes called compromise. My point about many people being speeders specifically relates to the fact that if you set the punishment sufficiently low, it is no longer a deterrent. I would also think that you would appreciate the decentralizing effect that occurs by keeping it illegal. It would prevent big agribusiness from growing your weed with pesticides and genetic modification. Instead, it would make it a mom and pop operation. Cops aren't going to get search warrants for someone growing weed in the basement if it was only treated as a minor offense.
Moderated Comment
Comment removed due to violation of the site's Terms of Service.
Move to Legalize Marijuana in California Sparks Fears About Drop
Here's an interesting article that I found on CommonDreams.org today titled "Move to Legalize Marijuana in California Sparks Fears About Drop in Prices" .
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/23-5
Raises some good questions about what impact legalization would have on towns in Canada that rely on the underground cannabis economy to stay afloat... (I'm thinking the Kootenays here in BC). This is something we should probably be thinking about if we are serious about about increasing our focus on the legalization issue.
Shifting Markets
End user prices should remain relatively constant (in Canada) with taxation replacing high profit ratios and inputs such a stolen power in place.
For Canada, the pricing is already much more reasonable than some US markets.
A drop in price will probably hurt bathtub drug manufactures more, such as crystal meth producers, who are horrible substances which only gain users due to their relatively cheap production cost.
Communities or industry propped up by the black market will likely face competition from traditional agricultural sources and production will probably shift.
However, our proposal for creating an independent licensing system for growers will actually help small legitimate growers who actually take pride in their horticulture skills (and are at the vanguard of medical marijuana growing already) and hurt most the "big box" quantity growing operations (that use faster growing breeds which often produce less canniboid and other therapeutic traits.)
You will still see consumers willing to pay a premium for micro-growing operations, in the same way microbreweries and spirit companies still maintain a sizable market share.
If concerns about prices and usage rates are of any indication, (for economists worries about elasticity of prices). One of the phenomenoms we are likely to see is a shift from bulk purchases (ounces, etc) to smaller purchases which will probably reduce amounts consumer by some individuals. We'll likely see increased usages amongst older adults who may be potential users without suppliers. On the flip side, we are likely to see no increase or even a decrease in youth rates since we will probably see an almost immediate reduction in teenage "dealers" recruited by gangs to avoid detection by authorities and to skirt criminal justice rates. The largest shift in economical position will be the end user retailers, as legalized methods will essentially shift all purchasing habits.
This should also be accompanied by a reduction in harder drug usage amongst individuals as supply and vending changes rank. Particularly amongst younger users whose only exposure to chemical drugs is through a youth dealer,
Considering recent polls have
Considering recent polls have shown a majority of Californians support the idea of Legalization, and that a ballot initiative for it has just qualified for the November elections today which has financial backing, Greens in Canada should prepare for this potential outcome, especially in BC.
I would expect a bounce as the credibility of the concept would shoot up if California is successful in this as World Media would by default be covering the arguments in favour of ending prohibiton. That in my opinion would be the time to talk it up, or shortly before if signs are favourable amongst likely voters there and the media is already covering it. i.e. We need to have prepared detailed policy on the subject in advance.
Have a clear media message ready
Unlike the mess with strategic voting last election, if we go for a pro-legalization key-platform lets be sure that the talking points are made 100% clear to all candidates and 'talking heads' for the party.
I think the main talking points should be...
- (finanical) We favour legalization as it will reduce the stress on our police forces and provide additional revenue for the government while cutting down revenue for organized crime.
- (logical) We favour legalization as marijuana has been shown to be less harmful than many legal products such as alcohol and cigarettes thus if you do not favour banning those then you should be pro-legalization
- (emotional) We favour legalization as marijuana has been shown to be helpful for certain medical conditions and the current restrictions make it very difficult for those who need it to get it.
Try to avoid statements that suggest people against it are evil or dumb. The logic argument will push a few over the edge either towards legalization (and hopefully to voting for us) or towards banning other stuff. In either case they will see our position as consistent vs the CPC/Liberal/NDP who are hypocritical on it. Consistency from Ms May on down to volunteers at the local level is needed if we make this a major platform. To my thinking cutting payroll taxes by 33% vs the CPC/Liberal/NDP plans to increase them by 34% is a bigger winner, but there should be space for both as major planks. We also have to watch for whatever the CPC/Liberals make into a major issue and be prepared to react. Any ideas on major issues between them that could blow up in the upcoming election (whenever it may be)?John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Pre-election best
This issue is probably strongest pre-election as a means of engaging with non-members and increasing capacity (petition, supported ID, etc.)
Find the contact for your local April 20th organizer (an annual day of legalization rallies) and set up a GPC booth. We did that one year with a bowl of inexpensive chocolates and gathered 400+ emails of supporters from across the area.
During an election, we have a much harder time controlling our message so laying the groundwork in advance are much greater.
The big thing is to get the central party firmly on side.
Without a coordinated effort, (central online petition, some inexpensive radio ads --which we release with a picture overlay on youtube and hope the TV media picks up for free.) its hard to get much affect.