6 ms·

One thing that I am disappointed in is that I wish the Liberal government first decriminalized marijuana. For one thing, decriminalization is easy to do. Simpl

by lee 10y ago

One thing that I am disappointed in is that I wish the Liberal government first decriminalized marijuana. For one thing, decriminalization is easy to do. Simply revoke the current criminal laws. The bill would be passed quite quickly. Which would then buy time to figure out a bill for legalization. Why is this important? Despite popular belief, simple possession laws ARE upheld in Canada, but the people charged are disproportionately minorities and poor/homeless people. IIRC, there were 40 000+ criminal charges for simple possession last year in Canada. That means thousands of citizens who are now burdened with a criminal record, making job searches difficult and border crossings into the US. So while laws for legalizing pot are getting figured out in Parliament, more people keep getting locked up for simple possession.

kobayashi 10y ago
Yah, but if you decriminalize possession it's a boon for the (still) illegal dealers and distributors. Is there any credible data to discredit my take on this?
- indlebe 10y ago
  Do you think decriminalizing for possessing a small amount in the interim would still fuel crime?
  - kobayashi 10y ago
    Well, 10 grams isn't that small (though certainly not large), and retails for about 100 CAD. So, if people become more likely to smoke up once it's decriminalized, then it would seem to me that it would provide a windfall for the sellers, distributors, and producers. I have no hard evidence to support this belief - it's just a supposition that seems to me to be reasonable and logical.
- a3n 10y ago
  If we have to keep putting civilians in jail so that criminals don't benefit for a brief time, I think that thought should be rethunk.
  - kobayashi 10y ago
    Well, as I mention in another comment [0], I'm uncertain as to whether the prospective bill will actually pass, and thus the "interim" situation could become the ongoing status quo. Additionally, such a situation would also include all the geopolitical risks I mention in that other comment, too, and could thus put the Canadian economy in peril. I'm a supporter of legalization, but I think half-measures can lead to avoidable, unforeseen negative consequences. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538708
- ktRolster 10y ago
  That is why I favor legalization over decriminalization. It looks like the Canadian PM has thought this through, though, so I don't expect problems like that. In the article he specifically said he wants to keep criminals from profiting from sales.
cb18 10y ago
Despite popular belief, simple possession laws ARE upheld in Canada, but the people charged are disproportionately minorities and poor/homeless people. It's quite likely that those are compound charges, meaning possession is not the only charge, i.e. they are arrested for something else, then found to be in possession. So they are charged disproportionately because they commit crimes disproportionately,[0] and some of them happen to have a bag in their pocket while doing so. [0]Aboriginal and black Canadians are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions http://www.academia.edu/5110524/Race_Crime_and_Criminal_Justice_in_Canada http://www.academia.edu/5110524/Race_Crime_and_Criminal_Just... This paper is itself biased against Ockham's Razor, they hit on some truth here, We cannot discount, however, the probability that increased rates of offending among certain racialized groups contributes to their overrepresentation in correctional statistics. but then spend the whole paper trying to hand wave it away.
- Nitramp 10y ago
  Not sure about Canada, but the whole story usually is that people with lower social class/backgrounds commit crimes more often, and that aboriginals/black people/foreigners/... etc are overrepresented in that group. Once you control for social status, there is no difference between white or non-white populations.
  - striking 10y ago
    Can I get a link to something that confirms this? I'd like to be able to use this point in conversation.
  - cb18 10y ago
    In the US there are groups of poor whites and poor blacks, the crime rates are not the same, they exhibit stark differences.
    - golergka 10y ago
      What if you account for rural/urban populations? Population density always has an effect on crime rate
ktRolster 10y ago
>For one thing, decriminalization is easy to do. Decriminalization is a bad idea. It increases demand, which gives gangs and mafia types more money. If you're going to do it, legalize it.
- paulojreis 10y ago
  The Portuguese case study says that it's really not a bad idea (though not referring specifically the increasing or diminishing illegal business, just less "street value") [1][2]. But I agree with your corollary. [1] https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Shee... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...
  - ctolsen 10y ago
    Well, even if it doesn't change much, you're still stuck with the absolute worst part of drug prohibition – unregulated and unclean drugs, turf wars and violence, and hundreds of thousands of murders in less fortunate countries. I find decriminalisation to be a pretty egoistic way around the problem. Sure, it makes lives better for people at home, but it completely ignores the massive amount of suffering countries (including Canada) has brought on supply and transit countries.
- bayesian_horse 10y ago
  I can't see that being an option in the case of heroin or meth. It makes sense to decriminalize users/addicts because they are the victims whom drug legislation is supposed to protect in the first place. But to me it makes no sense to allow anyone to profit from a substance that causes this much harm.
  - exprA 10y ago
    How did they manage it in the 30s (or whenever depending on your nationality)? Are you absolutely certain that criminalization wasn't an overreaction to a problem that after all wasn't all that big?

by lee 10y ago

kobayashi 10y ago

Yah, but if you decriminalize possession it's a boon for the (still) illegal dealers and distributors. Is there any credible data to discredit my take on this?

indlebe 10y ago
Do you think decriminalizing for possessing a small amount in the interim would still fuel crime?
- kobayashi 10y ago
  Well, 10 grams isn't that small (though certainly not large), and retails for about 100 CAD. So, if people become more likely to smoke up once it's decriminalized, then it would seem to me that it would provide a windfall for the sellers, distributors, and producers. I have no hard evidence to support this belief - it's just a supposition that seems to me to be reasonable and logical.
a3n 10y ago
If we have to keep putting civilians in jail so that criminals don't benefit for a brief time, I think that thought should be rethunk.
- kobayashi 10y ago
  Well, as I mention in another comment [0], I'm uncertain as to whether the prospective bill will actually pass, and thus the "interim" situation could become the ongoing status quo. Additionally, such a situation would also include all the geopolitical risks I mention in that other comment, too, and could thus put the Canadian economy in peril. I'm a supporter of legalization, but I think half-measures can lead to avoidable, unforeseen negative consequences. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538708
ktRolster 10y ago
That is why I favor legalization over decriminalization. It looks like the Canadian PM has thought this through, though, so I don't expect problems like that. In the article he specifically said he wants to keep criminals from profiting from sales.

cb18 10y ago

Despite popular belief, simple possession laws ARE upheld in Canada, but the people charged are disproportionately minorities and poor/homeless people. It's quite likely that those are compound charges, meaning possession is not the only charge, i.e. they are arrested for something else, then found to be in possession. So they are charged disproportionately because they commit crimes disproportionately,[0] and some of them happen to have a bag in their pocket while doing so. [0]Aboriginal and black Canadians are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions http://www.academia.edu/5110524/Race_Crime_and_Criminal_Justice_in_Canada http://www.academia.edu/5110524/Race_Crime_and_Criminal_Just... This paper is itself biased against Ockham's Razor, they hit on some truth here, We cannot discount, however, the probability that increased rates of offending among certain racialized groups contributes to their overrepresentation in correctional statistics. but then spend the whole paper trying to hand wave it away.

Nitramp 10y ago
Not sure about Canada, but the whole story usually is that people with lower social class/backgrounds commit crimes more often, and that aboriginals/black people/foreigners/... etc are overrepresented in that group. Once you control for social status, there is no difference between white or non-white populations.
- striking 10y ago
  Can I get a link to something that confirms this? I'd like to be able to use this point in conversation.
- cb18 10y ago
  In the US there are groups of poor whites and poor blacks, the crime rates are not the same, they exhibit stark differences.
  - golergka 10y ago
    What if you account for rural/urban populations? Population density always has an effect on crime rate

ktRolster 10y ago

>For one thing, decriminalization is easy to do. Decriminalization is a bad idea. It increases demand, which gives gangs and mafia types more money. If you're going to do it, legalize it.

paulojreis 10y ago
The Portuguese case study says that it's really not a bad idea (though not referring specifically the increasing or diminishing illegal business, just less "street value") [1][2]. But I agree with your corollary. [1] https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Shee... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...
- ctolsen 10y ago
  Well, even if it doesn't change much, you're still stuck with the absolute worst part of drug prohibition – unregulated and unclean drugs, turf wars and violence, and hundreds of thousands of murders in less fortunate countries. I find decriminalisation to be a pretty egoistic way around the problem. Sure, it makes lives better for people at home, but it completely ignores the massive amount of suffering countries (including Canada) has brought on supply and transit countries.
bayesian_horse 10y ago
I can't see that being an option in the case of heroin or meth. It makes sense to decriminalize users/addicts because they are the victims whom drug legislation is supposed to protect in the first place. But to me it makes no sense to allow anyone to profit from a substance that causes this much harm.
- exprA 10y ago
  How did they manage it in the 30s (or whenever depending on your nationality)? Are you absolutely certain that criminalization wasn't an overreaction to a problem that after all wasn't all that big?