The late great Saturday afternoon cannabis debate ...

 On Saturday afternoon 6 March, the GPC candidates group had an extremely passionate debate on the marijuana issue.  It started with a response to a group post in which I advanced the idea that legalization may not be a good idea.  What erupted was an avalanche of emails, around 200 emails, mostly against, but a few supportive of my views. This lasted pretty well until about when the OSCARS began on Sunday night TV and into Monday.   Someone suggested that the candidates group was not the proper forum for this, and that GPC members were excluded.  Now I can only speak for myself, so below are some of my responses to emails that were directed at me, with some minor grammatical corrections.  The file is just too big to include all emails, but my own.  You have to use your imagination a bit.   Other candidates involved may wish to provide the assertions they made and their views in their blogs.  A great thing this democracy stuff, where people can freely express their views, and where disagreements can be had in a mostly respectful manner.

 My original post -  the perennial cannabis issue emerges again …

 What makes us green is the shared values of ecological wisdom, non-violence, social justice, sustainability, participatory democracy and respect for diversity.

 Just because something is policy does not always make it right by definition.  Just because it is policy does not mean we all have to agree with it.  We can work to change it if we disagree. This is participatory democracy in action.  Government policy changes all the time, grows or evolves or is discarded.  In the past you could smoke in restaurants, today you can’t.  This is not a party loyalty question. 

 I, for one, believe non-violence means that we do not traffic in harm, in any way.  Decriminalize cannabis for use perhaps, i.e., moving it from the criminal code to the civil code where fines replace criminal records for usage.  But legalize production, sales, trafficking and tax, I think not.  Not if means being complicit in harm, suffering, addictions, health issues such as COPDs, possibly cancers, social problems and abetting criminality. So I elect to disagree with legalization. Have we learned nothing from the cigarette insanity?

 My riding is 35,000 middle class households and our “business” is families, so if anyone thinks they want to walk their young children to school through clouds of pot smoke on sidewalks adjacent to school property, is only trying to NEVER GET ELECTED in a thousand years.

 Response 1

 I suggest this forum is about what the candidates want to make it about.  This cannot be about promoting policy that all do not agree with, but to have a respectful dialogue about differences and see where it takes us.

 Right now society criminalizes usage.  This means that offenses fall in the criminal code.  If usage only is shifted to the civil code then it becomes like a parking ticket for usage.  We do not want to criminalize our youth for making mistakes or uninformed choices.   I agree that we do not want to criminalize adults for that matter who make unhealthy choices.  But we have a clear political and social obligation to deal with harm.  We do not condone it.  We do not want to be complicit in it, i.e. tax revenues.  This does not make sense. 

 A lot of value judgments were expressed about what the extent of usage,  and what will reduce usage or not.  In my view, LEGALIZING MARIJUANA WILL LEGITIMATIZE MARIJUANA., and bring its usage into social norms and customs, exposing more to it, particularly children.  THE TOBACCO COMPANIES, I am sure would be more that eager to flood the country with the stuff on a level of mass production that will make production now look trivial.  I am sure that they are salivating at the prospect for the profits and to let the country pay the health and social costs.    I have not met a voter who thinks this is a good idea. Not in my riding.

 Let’s stick to our values; they define who we are as human beings, and how we see the best of human existence. I believe that there is no future or heart for our children in this path. You are taking an awful chance here with them.    One does not regulate and tax harm, or even potential harm, as a first choice, one works to reduce or eliminate it.

 We can always agree to disagree.

 Response 2

 Thank you.  I believe that you can never go wrong with strong human values and the ethic of care for others.  I cannot control the choices others make, but I can responsibly assert my values and the values of the green party in a manner that puts respect for life and non-violence above all.  Best wishes

 Response 3

 I am not sure about what you have said here:  Your first four points seem to argue against legalization.  Your next two seem to argue for legalization.  Number 6 seems to suggest that we give up on the crime issue.

 I am sure you know that your reference to alcohol, and our society’s current approach to alcohol and tobacco, results in many many tens of thousands of directly related deaths a year in Canada.  What we are doing now is unbelievably irresponsible.  Not perfect is the understatement of the century.

  Let us not tie organized crime too closely to the immense tragedy that we have here.  We need to deal with them both.  Solving the organized crime issue will not save the life of one single person if the substances remain as readily or more readily available. 

 I suggest we do what we can to reduce the availability, and the social approval, and work every day to deal with crime issues.  Regards, Paul

 Response 4

 I also am against giving youth a criminal record for usage.  You have to understand the differences between the criminal code and the civil code.   A  civil offense does not result in a criminal record.  I  do not think it helpful to put people in jail for usage.  We do in fact allow people to make harmful choices such as with tobacco or alcohol.  Do we have to add to this? 

 As you say, the policy may not support drug use, but it certainly facilitates it.  If you believe we do not support drug use, let us be very clear then.  We do not support marijuana use,(let us put this front and center on this policy item),  now let us talk ways and means to get there.

 I agree that prohibition has problems.  We effectively have it now.   I just do not think we should legitimize the causes of all this..  I have lived in Europe for many years in my military career, and believe me, these areas are not where you would want your children to hang out, or grow up in.  Best regards

 Response 5

 I guess one can argue both sides of the issue.  That is what makes an ethical dilemma.  The Dutch have had the most experience with this.

Radio Netherlands World wide reported  “The staff and residents of an addiction clinic in The Hague, for example, resoundingly reject the notion that soft drugs are not addictive for young people… Ms Beltjens says between 80 and 90 percent of patients are young people who are addicted to soft drugs: "It's mistaken to believe you can't become addicted to soft drugs. Some of the kids here shake like leaves in a high wind because they haven't had their fix. In the 60s and 70s, you'd smoke a joint with a whole group of people; everybody would take a hit and pass it along. Now everybody has their own joint. The percentage of THC, the active component in marijuana and hash, has tripled over the past decade. That means you get a huge amount of THC in one fell swoop and it's addictive".  In other words, soft drugs aren't soft anymore. The clinic's waiting list is meanwhile getting longer and longer.”

 You know, I think people should go to jail for harming other people. Most of your so called facts I believe are just wishful thinking.  That organized crime wants to keep this illegal does not even make good nonsense.   You cannot whitewash this with these arguments. You may as well suggest that we can get rid of organized crime if we legalize everything, murder, rape, theft or violence. You have to argue from the basis of values and care.  I would not want to live in your world.  Prohibition can be dealt with in many ways but legalization may not be the best way, decriminalization for some things we can talk about.  .

 However, the best of luck to you, you will need it.

 Response 6

 I agree that the gateway issue is serious.  Most countries have prohibition, almost all western countries.  Certainly education is absolutely necessary.  The way ahead will probably include some balance of  decriminalization issues and need to be explored against our values.  We just need to focus on a legacy and future that we will be proud to leave our grandchildren, because they will be affected the most.  Thank you

 Response 7

 If that is true then why is all I hear about is that the GPC will "legalize use" as a policy statement.  Your 'do not encourage' message is not heard among high school students.  At a high school debate in the last election I got many students standing up and giving a "thumbs up" to the Green party for wanting to legalize the drug. They can't wait. 

 It is very hard to say what will make things worse or increase or decrease usage.  You can be sure that greater and easier availability will not be helpful either.

 Given the points you make, I therefore suggest we have a massive failure in communication here with the public, the way our policy is written.

 I too have lived in Europe. Regards, Paul

 Response 8

 As an aside you know what would really concern me, was if we legalized the drug and many farmers stopped growing food and shifted to marijuana crop because to was more profitable.  I wonder if the agriculture committee knows about this? And the bottom billion on this planet who go to bed hungry every day.

  Response 9

 I hear you.  I just would not want to give the tobacco companies a new life and profit margin with marijuana.

Response 10

 See my comments in underlined.

 (There is a criminal code and a civil code, for example, if pot usage was shifted from the criminal code to the civil code it may a lesser punishment and no criminal record and usually no jail time.  Trafficking can remain in the criminal code for example.  You are mixing up the terms legalization and decriminalization.  They are not the same.  WE MAY CHOOSE TO DECRIMINALIZE USAGE BUT CRIMINALIZE TRAFFICKING.  Lots of ways this could work) 

 Decriminalization will increase the number of people going to jail,   (I do not know how you can say this, people do not go to jail for parking tickets unless massive number of violations occur, and usually only for a few days) Repealing prohibition will free up tax dollars to focus on education and prevention.  (That is in reaction to social problems, not in prevention of them.  It is like our health care system paying for lung cancer costs and yet allowing and profiting from cigarette sales.  Is it only me who sees a problem here?  What about the preventative stuff?)  This has worked quite well to reduce the use of tobacco.  (At an almost unbelievable cost in death and suffering. Perhaps we can do better. We are making progress I admit.)

Your reference to alcohol and tobacco resulting in many tens of thousands of directly related deaths per year in Canada is nothing but a red herring.  Cannabis has never directly killed anyone. It is impossible to overdose on it. The harm comes from its prohibition, specifically the risk of jail time. (Really? there are super potent versions coming on line.  Talk to the Netherlands)

 Organized crime is intimately tied to prohibition.  (No argument there, we need to deal with this for sure)  Without prohibition, there are no large profits to be made, "grow-ops" are unnecessary, and gang violence is reduced. (Evidence does not suggest that organized crime will leave the field if legalization occurs, they still smuggle alcohol and cigarettes.  If profits can be made by evading sin taxes they will be there.  THEY WILL GROW IT HERE SAFELY FOR EXPORT TO OTHER COUNTRIES who have prohibition.)

 What "immense tragedy" are you referring to with respect to cannabis?  (All of the above, it is a tragedy already in my view)

 You cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand, but we can educate and reduce harm. Prohibition has been around for over one hundred years, it has not worked yet. What makes you think that it ever will?  (Maybe we have to lose the word prohibition here and talk about what we can do, i.e. what decriminalization to protect our youth, education, go after crime and traffickers.  It will not be easy.  It never is.  We cannot repeat mistakes.  Both sides "prohibition or not" have huge social consequences; look at the history of alcohol. Removing prohibition is not working either.  We need a way forward that reflects our caring for each other and our children.  There is a saying, I may be one and only one but I will not refuse to do what one can do.  We have to try.  Thank you)

 Response 11

 I sincerely hope you are right.  I would hate for Canada to become the golden triangle for marijuana production for the planet.

 You have my vote on the distribution issue.  This world is suffering.  Regards Paul

Response 12

 The great Saturday afternoon marijuana debate.   I would like to thank all who participated  in what turned out to be quite the afternoon.  Lots of passion out there, and passion is a good thing.   I confess to feeling somewhat surrounded, but such is life.

 I would like to share a message I received from an EDA exec member  a moment ago, who was following this, which may or may not be typical across Canada, but certainly typical in my riding.

 "Excellent post! I couldn't agree with you more. I sometimes feel there are elements of the Green Party that are so quick to criticize (quite legitimately in many cases) the failings of the current system and other political parties, that they become blind to half-baked mularky about the "benefits" of marijuana. I do not know of any police officer or people who have seen the effects of drug addiction and criminal elements related to it that advocate legalizing it. That is only the domestic side of it. Internationally as I am sure you know, the drug trade is invariably tied up with unstable governments, arms smuggling and the rest.

 If the Green Party is going to publicly support the decriminalization of marijuana usage to the point you mention (e.g. pot smoking adjacent to school property), then I will be running for the exit. As the father of two young children, I think I can speak for other parents who feel that kind of twaddle coming from a political party trying to be taken seriously is very disturbing. I don't think the intent was ever to have the Green Party get elected so it will be easier to get stoned."

 Good luck to us, Cheers, have a great afternoon, it is a perfect day in Ottawa, very warm and the snow is melting.  Take care all

 Response 13

 Scary stuff our marijuana industry.  Sartre said something about life being a process of becoming.  Makes one wonder, just what are we becoming.  I do some first nations work in strengthening ethics in  governance, and for the most part I find they live in a paradise of nature, on the great lakes with a view you could not pay a million dollars for in Ottawa.   Yet how some of them manage to have such dire social problems when they have so much, is a mystery to me.  I wonder if we are on the road to doing the same thing.

 Response 14

 Well maybe, but my view is that you would hand organized crime the biggest Christmas present they ever had.  You would attract them worldwide because the market is worldwide. The global community is oriented towards fighting this problem.  There are some very bad people out there that would jump at a regulated market.  33 years in the military have taught me that.   It would not stay free from criminal abuse for long, maybe 10 minutes.   I guess we have had different life experiences in this regard.  I wish I had your faith.

 Response 15

 Yes, the internet is full of conflicting information, and cases are being made for all sides of the argument.  Even biased people can tell the truth if it is the truth.  So what is the truth of the matter.  I think we can agree that it is uncertain, as I am not an expert either.  Given such conflicting information how does one make an ethical decision.  In such decisions regarding uncertainty (of a reasoned solution) the decision usually defaults to your personal values and an emotive response. Your call.  Our society usually considers and balances the ethic of justice with the ethic of care.  I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the prevention of even potential harm  to others, especially our youth, and protect them as much as I can.

 Then this may lead to a different perspective regarding ways and means. This is what participative democracy is all about.  We will see what happens.

 Response 16

 I agree, certainly it is time to look at alternatives.  It is a mess for sure.  I like your line "UNLESS our actions directly cause harm to another person or their property." and certainly constitutional rights are limited by the rights of others.

 Response 17

 I can assure you that in my military mind that "unquestioning obedience and faith in authority is most valued" is a slippery slope to war crimes and NEVER EVER EVER in my vocabulary.  I spent 4 years as director of defense ethics after Somalia affair, and through Bosnia and Rwanda and can assure you that you have seen nothing yet if this gets out of hand, if not already too late.  I have worked in countries where this stuff pales in comparison to what people do to people.  We would become a haven for such people and such production, and the global community would not be happy.  Nations do not tolerate criminals under their laws, operating with impunity from other countries.  If you think they would not gravitate here in huge numbers, you are fooling yourself.  Canadian law would not become international law.

 If stubbornness is an uncompromising assertion of the ethic of care and human values, and green party values, then so be it.  My voice is as valuable as yours.

 I will say again that I do not advocate criminal penalties for usage, (there are personal choices there and civil mechanisms may suffice), but traffickers and producers for trafficking do not get my sympathy. All of the free world is in a prohibition context.  There are some tolerance relaxations for usage but the laws are quite clear. I think we can make some allowances but there are clear limits.

 If prohibitions never work, the entire body of law we have is an entire series of prohibitions, how do you live with that.  I do not think your mantra is universal or useful.  Let us talk about the problem.  If the evidence is debatable or unclear then we have an issue of values.  Adam and Eve made moral choices as they had the power to do and were held accountable and suffered the consequences.

 It seems we agree to disagree, but with respect please.

 Response  18

 And a bit further down in that article reads

 Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission,.... etc"

 This is a partial decriminalization option for addicts and small usage.  They do not want the traffickers or dealers either.

 This is something to discuss for sure.  Treat addicts as needing care not jail.  I agree with that completely.  I have said this over and over again.  The same as they say.

 Thanks again, I hope you read the whole article. I thought my views were clear over the last 20 or so emails.  I am pretty sure that bombing BC will not be helpful either. Far too big a province.  

 I wonder how the Portuguese handle the big producers and dealers problem.  Just hard and old fashioned policing I assume.  We have to look for a new book for that one.  Cheers, Paul

 Response 19

 An incredibly difficult ethical issue you have raised.  The notion of practicality, a looking the other way, because no other better solution comes to mind.

 The bottom line is that we allow alcohol and tobacco use because we recognize a basic freedom of choice, regarding oneself.  We draw the line at harming others.  The question is our role in facilitating or complicity in that "allowance".

 In this issue, society is involved, no matter what language we use. We have a certain obligation to care for one another.  This raises many questions.  Is it ethical or right to profit in any way, off the blood, harm and suffering or others?  Have we done everything possible to prevent or eliminate in a reasonable way what is harmful, or potentially harmful?  These are the questions that a values based organization asks itself as it considers responses that may involve prohibition, no prohibition, legalization, partial legalization, decriminalizing,  taxation, social approval, education, health care, policing, etc.  Is usage a high crime or a misdemeanor?  Is user care preferable to jail time?  Each of you must decide if we have it right or not, and that should guide your voice on policy development or evolution.

Good luck to us.

 Response 20

 Well, we do have a massive industry to control naturally growing plants harmful or otherwise, weeds poison ivy, to crabgrass on our lawns or in farmer's fields.  The issue is not the plants but the uses harmful or otherwise they are put too.

 I am not trying to modify legislation, I am trying to exercise my democratic right to change something that i think should be changed.  Otherwise we are an organization of "blind obedience' and not an organization that encourages progressive and critical thinking as we say we do. I do not suggest this list can change policy but it can have a frank and respectful dialogue.   Things can always be improved.  I am not asking that one candidate, myself, have the power to change policy, but if one becomes two, then three, and so on, then at some point.,  I expect democracy to prevail.

 Response 21

 I also agree with the therapist.  I also believe that there are multiple solutions that must be applied here.  No one solution seems to be able to solve the social problems by itself.  It takes a village to raise a child.  It is going to take a village of solutions to deal with this in the long term.

 Response 22

 I agree, but the ethic of care does not mean the facilitation of harm, or any complicity.  We do not leave drugs lying around in nurseries.  Asserting our values means expressing our views when appropriate to do so and in a responsible manner.

 Response 23

 It seems you are just playing with words here.

 The law does prohibit stabbing people

It prohibits rape

It prohibits assault with TV sets

It prohibits dangerous driving, or impaired driving

It prohibits causing harm through making bad pharmaceuticals

It prohibits harmful substance abuse

 Controlling or banning things are just ways and means that society chooses to enact its laws.

Values are those enduring beliefs which we choose to guide our choices and lives.

 Response 24

 If you are saying that cannabis use is up because of prohibition and implying that cannabis use will go down if we make it easier to get and more available, and you have facts to prove this, then I categorically disagree with them.  This does not make any sense whatsoever to me.  Increase supply and decrease demand, what kind of logic is that?

 I also do not like the word prohibition as applying to this, as many allowances can be made, as I have said over and over again

 Response 25

 Have I ever said I want to maintain prohibition? You seem to want to put me in a black or white position here.  Sorry, but not so simple. Here is my personal opinion again of which I am entitled to hold and voice:

 I do not believe that this is a socially desirable or beneficial substance for use other than for medicinal purposes. 

I believe that there is an unacceptable level of harm (although not on the level of hard drugs) in both direct and indirect ways, and social costs.

I do not believe in social approval of any direct or indirect kind, or that indirectly condoning people being stoned is a good idea, or the message it sends out children, or exposing this to our children.

I do not want to criminalize users. They need treatment not jail.  Fines can act as a general deterrence.

I do not want pot cafes in my neighborhood, or smoking pot in public places.

I do not want traffickers or dealers or production around.  I want protection and policing here.

I want education and prevention also.

I believe that medicinal usage is ok if regulated.

 Surely we can agree on some of the above.  We live in a world where the rule of law sometimes hangs on by the skin of its teeth.  We may not be perfect, but our quality of life depends on the justice system waking up every day and working very hard at controlling crime, and on us to do what we can to relieve suffering and prevent harm.  As imperfect as it may be, the alternative is not pleasant.

 The whole tobacco history is moving from a direction of tolerance to squeezing producers, prohibiting advertising, to smoking prohibitions in public, towards virtual or eventual elimination.  Do we have to go through all this again?  All the pain and suffering.  Look at the growing numbers in the Netherlands seeking treatment.

 I said we have options and we should think them through. The Netherlands are rethinking their policies and may reverse them.  There is a case in the courts now.  With all your science and the opposing scientific assertions, the truth indeed seems elusive. There is enough there to suggest caution and that something is not good about this drug.  If you rule out the hysteria, maybe you were right as a high school student.  Do not be so selective when you consider scientific evidence.  It is not absolute by a long stretch.

 You can play with all the statistics you want, the bottom line for me, that even all the statistics validate, is that people traffic in the stuff, people use the stuff, and there is harm that to me is unacceptable, and that there is a moral obligation to mitigate this harm as best we can and  if we can.  Then there is the question of ways and means.

 If we disagree,fine.  We each have one vote.

 Response 27

 Well maybe someone will buy it at Mac's milk and sell it to your kids.  Same as they do cigarettes.  All those underage smokers on sidewalks near schools do not steal the stuff from parents.   Life gets pretty easy as a dealer.

 Response 28

I hear exactly what you have said.  I understand very well when I speak for the GPC and when for myself.   I do not believe that all our green values leads us to be a cannabis legalization party as a core platform item.  If this is a core pillar that trumps things like social responsibility
(integrity in government, environmental responsibility, economic sustainability and societal beneficence) then I suggest we are in very big trouble in the long term.  I do not think we will elect many candidates on the back of a marijuana platform.  The youth vote is depressingly low.

I do not see this emphasis on the global green party scene or in our charter values.  Being branded as a marijuana party is absolutely death in my riding, perhaps not in yours, or in others.  All I can do about this is to democratically voice the truth in the party as I see it, and change things if I can.  This I am doing.  This is a right I have.  At least I hope so.

If the green party position is to keep drugs away from kids, and the good things you talk about, this is not how I believe the public perceives this in any way, shape or form.   I also suggest that many who wrote in yesterday do not see it this way.  To many this seems more about outright
legalization, commercial sale, cash crop farming, pot cafes, large scale production, no constraints on usage.    Some think traffickers and criminal elements will go away or become legitimate. To me there is a harm and social concern.

This is not a platform issue for me to advocate in my riding.  I agree with you.   To those who ask, I am willing to tell the party position, and what I personally believe, and what I am working to democratically change in the party.  The truth.   The first casualty in any party that is values based, on any subject, should never be the truth.

Policy can always change.  It does all the time.  Every AGM in fact.   I believe that all is possible here as we grow and mature as a party.  I agree that the cannabis status quo is a problem and must change.  All we are really are talking about is how and to what extent.

The condition of membership in the green party is a belief in our core values.  I think we have a great future if we never lose sight of these values and of a respect we must have for each other.  Thank you Paul

 Response 29

 Read the mail.  I said regulated use for approved medicinal purposes I would support.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I would say 1000 uses is somewhat of an exaggeration.  Also there may be other medical alternatives just as good.

 Response 30

 Ok, then to use your words and your argument, lets ban cannabis as a harmful substance except for approved medicinal uses.

 Response 31

 I just do not believe that.  Who ever told you that I would take with a very very very large grain of grain of salt.  I would even suggest that it does not even make good nonsense.  There are a few economic laws in play here.

Increase supply = satisfy demand (as availability is easier)
Reduce supply = reduce consumption (if it falls below demand level)

Response 32

 I guess the bottom line for me is the adage do no harm and respect a deep and abiding responsibility to care for others, especially in terms of the relief of suffering and for children. It is that simple.   That is where I am coming from and going. All the rest is a just a debate about ways and means to do this. I think most of our policy is ok, but I do not think legalization as helpful here.  I would not criminalize drug addicts or users either.  The ethic of care always trumps jail time for me.  I do not know how I can make this clearer.

 The speed and the relentless way that the opposition mobilized itself against me should give everyone some cause for concern here.  I am not the enemy. This is a democratic party.  It is not a marijuana party.  I am really trying to make a difference for the better.  It is not easy to express ones views here. It is only my opinion, so what are people so afraid of here?

 Response 33

 Wow!  This is exactly the disrespect and visceral discrimination we should all be afraid of.  Is this how you propose to "cut me off as early as possible?"

 You do not have to be a doctor to care for others or do no harm.  A human being will do.

 Response 34

 Yes, most were very respectful, but not all. We are in politics and should be used to it by now.   I do appreciate your comments.  You seem to have given this much thought, you respect human values, and made a choice, for which the consequences, good or not, are not only yours, but indirectly for others if they are enacted.  Society sanctions lots of things, like hard drugs.  Perhaps the debate is about the degree of harm of this substance and if it is acceptable to us.  If we agree, then a course of action should be pretty obvious. However the subject is messy and muddy. So I guess I elect to invoke the "precautionary principle," until I am sure.  If you are sure, I would only suggest you follow your values and vote accordingly.  This I am sure we both do.

 Response 35

 Something to think about for sure.  But my direct experience in driving my son to school was to always see a group of largely underage kids smoking on the sidewalk adjacent to the school.  Always, no matter what the weather. I think with legalization any kid with a valid ID can become a "dealer" to these children. The drug becomes no risk to obtain or to possess in allowable quantities.   The "dealer" population could in effect expand exponentially.  The risks would be greatly reduced for them, easy money.  I believe that the problem we have now would only become worse.  Very hard to predict the future.  A real tough problem no doubt.

 Response 36

 That conclusion is just not valid, because usage rates can be different for many many different social, educative and cultural reasons. As I pointed out before:

Quote again from Radio Netherlands.  "The staff and residents of an addiction clinic in The Hague, for example, resoundingly reject the notion that soft drugs are not addictive for young people… Ms Beltjens says between 80 and 90 percent of patients are young people who are addicted to soft drugs: "It's mistaken to believe you can't become addicted to soft drugs. Some of the kids here shake like leaves in a high wind because they haven't had their fix.  The percentage of THC, the active component in marijuana and hash, has tripled over the past decade. That means you get a huge amount of THC in one fell swoop and it's addictive".  In other words, soft drugs aren't soft anymore. The clinic's waiting list is meanwhile getting longer and longer.”

This does not indicate to me, that the problem is solved or is even getting better.  Now pick whatever statistics you want and draw your own conclusions.  I choose to give significant weight to the ones who are in the front line.

This really worries me.   I do not want this in our country and will work to minimize it..  Ask yourself as a parent how you would feel when you discover your child is smoking dope, how you would feel when you have her in hand waiting to get into an addiction or counseling  clinic and are told that the waiting list is six months long.  I imagine sick to your stomach and sleepless nights for a start.  You have better add the human side to your statistics.

The inconvenient truth here is that I seem to have touched a nerve that certainly reveals a big insecurity here.    I am not alone in my views I assure you.   Perhaps you can tell me why most of the free world including the Netherlands do not legalize the drug.  A minority have tolerance policies, but still retain criminality laws.   The majority of countries in the free world oppose legalization.  The ethic of care for users - yes. They have all the same science and data at their disposal.  Every bit.

Good luck, because I do not think Canadians will buy your arguments.  They don't now.

 Response 37

 I am willing to be flexible and consider changes.  Being compared to Harper and Bush, now that is a new one, especially for exercising my rights as I see it.  I offered a middle ground to talk and got a lot a rigid and uncompromising responses, pretty characteristic of Harper I would say. Bush I have no regard for whatsoever.  You blame protecting  prison jobs and spending interests, and pharmaceuticals and sweep everything away with a vast body of authoritative reports which presumably all government just totally ignore.   I am surprised that the CIA was not in there somewhere. I agree that the soft/hard issue is a problem, but as do others, believe that the soft drug issue is becoming a hard one.  I agree availability is a problem.  I agree with "plenty of available after school activities for kids of all age".  I agree with classes so as to ensure they have motivating exercises. I agree the status quo is not acceptable.  I have this legalization hang-up, given the evidence as I see it.   Where is your willingness to consider my views?   I opened the door, but you did not budge an inch.  The unbeliever must be made a believer.   I just do not believe that this substance is as harmless as you say.   The clinics in Netherlands do not think it is harmless.  I assume they are professionals.  You have to stop these sweeping categorical statements.   There is a measure of harm here.  There is lots of so called "evidence" on both sides of this question. The question is what do we believe and what do we do about it?

Sorry for the concern and focus on children, my "thought-terminating cliché" as you put it,  but I am a parent and this is a huge one for me.  I care. There is no one else we are doing this for.  This is more than a scientific issue, this is a moral one.

I thought I had my final words and not say more, but being compared to Harper and Bush as representative of your  "causality and real arguments", as you say, is something I just cannot let pass.  Putting me in the camp with Bush and Harper as those who you have been "mobilizing against" (your words), well, good luck to you and your mobilizations.  You will not find me so easy to intimidate that way.

I am in the green party.  I am a candidate. I have been through an election. I believe in green party values.  The moment you start throwing stones at that, I will not be happy.  There are differences in this party.  This is why we have a future. When people remain silent, then we are in big big trouble.  Have a nice day

 Response 38

 No thanks.  I will pass on trying it.  If you want to bet your health and well being, even on "only bronchitis", (what can become a chronic respiratory condition), feel free.   I will pass on that too, thank you very much.  Just do not ask me to impose your view on others. Regards Paul

 Response 39

 At least you are acknowledging that addiction is in this picture here, or at least a possibility.  Sounds like a small beginning for you.

 In your argument, if opinions must be objective, then we cannot take the opinion of someone who is the publisher of Cannabis Culture as an unbiased source either, or a user.  There are many good people in religions.

 I will keep my viewpoint, thank you very much for that.  And I will vote accordingly.

 Response 40

 I have some news for you.  All laws are simply the codification of those societal morals and ethics in areas that are of significant impact to society.  We do not as a society make laws about everything.  The moral value of honesty is reflected in law as a prohibition against theft or fraud for example.     Respect for life in laws about assault or murder or racism.  Society imposes moral values on you ALL THE TIME through its laws.

 Response 41

You are right in most respects.  Who decides? You and I do decide.  We collectively do through our government.  Societies elect governments to make laws that reflect societal norms and moral values.  This is what the green party aspires to do, to bring our values and voice into this framework.

Laws grant you rights and freedoms only  limited by the rights and freedoms of others.  Free choice is not extended to choosing to harm others, like choosing to be a drug trafficker of hard drugs.

General morals such as honesty, respect, care of others, non-violence, justice, etc, do have a broad consensus in our society and form the basis of our  laws.  for example, we move from the duty of care, to determinations of harm involving certain drugs, to sanctions or allowances in a manner that attempts to balance the rights of all.   As facts change or new facts come to light, laws change, or are repealed or new ones created.  It is a dynamic on going process.  Sometimes messy, never perfect, and like the debate we are having.

As to science, I assume you mean that we, for example, do not attempt to repeal the law of gravity, or lower the boiling point of water to save energy (a joke) but regarding something patently untrue.  I agree with you there.   I have a long scientific background, 25 years as an aerospace engineering officer in the air force.  I do appreciate and can understand and evaluate science reasonably well.   That has to count for something.

 Response 42

 Are you willing to reflect on the direct experiences and views of Addiction Clinics in the Netherlands?  Professionals in health care who are front line in this issue.  That is at least some of the scientific evidence in this picture.  Or are they spreading lies also?

 Maybe, just maybe, the issue is not as clear cut as we would like it to be?

 Response 43

 Since (you characterized me) as an honest misinformed guy "having been fed from birth prohibitionist propaganda and thoroughly brainwashed as most adults are, and still in the shackles of oppression"  (I assume that you are not an adult or one of the lucky enlightened few who have escaped all this),  I guess I am still going to choose to still put some credence in what people in addiction clinics say.  Are you open enough to consider that there is at least some harm in this substance?

 I guess if your statistics are current you have to ignore one half of the electorate or the other (those who support you or those who oppose your views). Pick the half you want to ignore. Given the above, I guess you choose to ignore the adult half.  I wonder which half is more likely to vote, and where did those 30,000 or 40,000 or more votes go.....

 Good luck in your riding.  Watch out for those adults.

 Response 44

 They teach engineers critical thinking.  Creating things is what we do.

The victims are in the waiting lines at rehab clinics in the Netherlands for a start.    Many are on the streets in the form of high school drop outs. Is that a direct enough answer?  Go visit them and make up your own mind.

 My Final Word

 Dear friends;

 Look at the issue, consider your values, consider the duty of care for others and the planet, talk to those you trust, make up your mind, then vote or speak up accordingly, and resolve to be accountable for the consequences of your actions.  That is all anyone could ever ask of you.  It is what I intend to do.

 Good luck to our children.  Best wishes, Paul

 Closing remarks

  If I have accomplished anything at all in this debate, I hope it is that people can believe that thinking for themselves is ok on the issues we face.  Critical thinking is ok.  That it is ok to disagree and try to change things. It is ok and encouraged to speak up, or others will do it for you.  I believe that this is a “free vote” issue in this party and not a “vote of confidence” issue.  I do not believe that the Green Party of Canada, or the Green Parties around the world, defines themselves around this issue. We are much much bigger than this, and have so much more to offer.