Relax man

February 21, 2003 9:03 AM

Toke off Hoser! If it was just a bunch of hippie pinkos, no one would care. But when 69% of the Canadian public at large would prefer relaxed marijuana laws, maybe something might actually happen. And it's not like the government has studied this and suggested the same thing...oh wait, they did.
posted by CrazyJub (17 comments total)

[smmmmmmaaaaacccchhhhurrrgghhh]

Ah. [wheeze]

Canada's, like, such a good place, eh? [huff]

Like, it's such a cool country. Hee. Get it? Cool. 'cause it's, like, cold. Hee.

[shhhheeeeeeeeeeee. koff. koff.]

Like, I think relaxed laws are, like, good. Because they're, like, relaxing, eh?

Yah.

Relaxing. Relaxing laws.

heh.

Hehheh.

Like, wow, eh?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:37 AM on February 21, 2003

(I'm all for relaxed laws. I think we'd do this country a damn good service if we'd allow cultivation and possession of personal amounts. We should, however, continue to prosecute commercial operations. I also think the goobermint could do quite well for itself by selling marijuana, using the same model as for alcohol distribution.)
posted by five fresh fish at 9:45 AM on February 21, 2003

...using the same model as for alcohol distribution.

I agree with this point especially, in that rules for alcohol distribution are determined, for the most part, on a state-by-state basis. I think marijuana decriminalization is a perfect issue for the states to decide on: there's no reason for the federal government to involve itself except in cases of interstate commerce.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:54 AM on February 21, 2003

Canada's pot advocates are smoking too much of the product.

Of more concern to Canada's federal politicians than the opinion of a majority of our citizens is the opinion of people in the White House, specifically those that decide how open or closed border crossings between Canada and the US will be. One billion dollars of trade passes through the border every day; keeping that going, especially post-911, is more important to Canada than our laws against pot.

(Which, to be honest, are irrelevant if you're living in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver; pot is widely-available, cheap and easily obtained. And a cop catching you with a joint or two will ask you to toss it rather than nick you for possession.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:52 AM on February 21, 2003

"It's wrong to go down that road," said Tory MP Elsie Wayne. Alliance Justice critic Chuck Cadman called decriminalization a confusing message for young people because the government is also telling them not to get involved with drugs.

Drugs? Like alcohol and tobacco? The government doesn't have much problem with these drugs, and they arguably have a greater negative effect on both society in general and the individuals that abuse them. I'd rather be behind a motorist who was high than drunk. I'd rather be in an argument with an angry pothead than alcoholic. I'd rather... well, you get the idea.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:05 AM on February 21, 2003

Ms Wayne aint the fastest bunny in the woods, nor the sharpest tack in the Conservative drawer. (Which, to be honest, aint sayin' a hell of much of anythin'. Anyhoo.)

What's odd about the debate over pot legalisation is that the libertarian wings of Canada's two right-wing parties, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, have been near silent. It's the law-and-order pinheads, see above, who have been carrying the day.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:10 AM on February 21, 2003

Alcohol and Tobacco kill in the tens of thousands.

How many deaths does marijuana cause?
posted by Satapher at 11:29 AM on February 21, 2003

Perhaps metafilter should rename to : PlatitudeFilter.
posted by Satapher at 11:30 AM on February 21, 2003

PlatitudeSchmaltitude.

I dunno what that means, but, hey, it sounds good. Like I'm dismissing you or something.

Our Prime Minister may be desperate enough to make a name for himself to actually go through with decrim. Also, I think our Feds are getting sick of the bullshit we put up with re: the American government and its anti-trade policies, strong-arm tactics, and chest-thumping. They just may see the loss of America as a chance to gain Europe and Asia.

I suspect that were the USA to close its borders to Canada, we'd hurt in the short term but gain in the long term. China, for instance, is a much, much bigger market.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:26 PM on February 21, 2003

five fresh fish: He probably already will make a name for himself with the campaign finance reform, if that makes its way through.
posted by ODiV at 4:25 PM on February 21, 2003

What does Canada have to lose from the States at this point. The US has been planning on implementing tougher border controls since the terrorist attacks anyway. While they're doing a once-over for terrorists, they can do the once-over for red-eyes and the green.

Yeah, they'll put more taxes on the softwood lumber and so forth and so on. But they've been trying to do that for years too. If you think about the money the government rakes in from alcohol and tobacco taxes, just think of the pot goldmine that's waiting for them.

That said, it's still up in the air. Sometimes Canada goes with US policy and sometimes it goes against (see Cuba).
posted by dave at 5:17 PM on February 21, 2003

Ok, point is about 70% of the population disagress with the government on this, ya think they'd wake up and listen before it's too late. Poof! You're outta there!
posted by CrazyJub at 6:26 PM on February 21, 2003

five fresh fish: "I suspect that were the USA to close its borders to Canada, we'd hurt in the short term but gain in the long term. China, for instance, is a much, much bigger market."

Huh?

The USA has a GDP of $10.8 trillion; China's is only $1.2 trillion. And since there are a hell of a lot less Americans, their per-capita buying power is that much larger. And transport costs to the American market are much lower than to China, cause THERE 'AINT A BIG OCEAN IN THE WAY.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:38 PM on February 21, 2003

I don't think the billion $ pr. day trade is something the US does to be nice to Canada.
If that trade stops, the US is hurting just as much as Canada.

In the end, I think Canada will be willing to endure more financial pain to have a bit of independence than the US would endure to force an essentially pointless law on another country.
posted by spazzm at 7:15 PM on February 21, 2003

To sum things up:
Go Canada!
posted by spazzm at 7:18 PM on February 21, 2003

Actually, the libertarian wings of both right-wing parties have been very vocal about marijuana legalisation. Unfortunately, people are too hung up about the pair of cretins in charge of both (Stockwell Day and Joe Clark) to actually listen to anything the rather small libertarian contingents of either say. As well, the fact that the "libertarian" wings of both parties is more or less synonymous with the "youth" wings doesn't exactly give them a lot of political power.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:32 PM on February 21, 2003

spazzm: I think many Canadians will be willing to endure a lot of financial pain to have independence from the US.

ODiV: yuppers. I sure hope that one passes. It'd cause short-term pain for the political parties, but give us all a long-term gain.

Lupus: Okay, then, let's go for Europe. Or, hell, Europe and Asia both, simultaneously. Point is, there's a lot of world out there: we do not need to trade with the USA to do well for ourselves. Heck, we got our start selling dead rodent parts to the Europeans. Surely we can always fall back on that.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:23 AM on February 22, 2003