Kate, I agree with everything you write on your site, except on this point. If it was decriminalised, would there still be 4 officers down? Think back to prohibition.
I would prefer if it was out of the hands of motorcycle gangs et al., and in the hands of legitimate businesses. Let people smoke what they want, and let them pay for the consequences themselves.
Law enforcement would be serving us better protecting citizens and their private property.

Still best damn blog in Canada, keep it up.

Hmmmm ... I'd kinda have to argue about going the other way, we have no consequences left, unless your a smoker in hotel, as Kate say's.

Two ugly cases I can think of is a man driving over and killing his wife in Winnipeg and getting 6 months house arrest, and nore recently, Atlanta women kills baby and agrees to sterlization to stay out of prison.

Drugs of all types need to be hammered on, the gangs are getting out of hand.

Decriminalization doens't make grow ops legal.

This is a slaughter. I hope they shoot the fuckers dead.

Let me guess.....a biker gang operation? The idea that commerical dope production is a harmless activity done by congenial,camomile tea sipping hippies is a libertoids fantasy.Ask the OPP about the biker gangs in the Golden Horsehoe,or the Quebec Surete.They are dangerous outlaws, and nothing would change that fact if the weed became decriminalized.They also do things like loansharking,prostitution,gun smuggling,protection rackets, and bank robberies.

Legalize marijuana and eliminate the incentive to kill gendarmes.

Horseshit.

It's a fallacy to suggest that if marijuana is legalized, that organized crime will throw up their hands in defeat, and apply for jobs selling used cars.

They will simply redouble efforts to manufacture and promote other drugs, and the cycle will begin anew.

Not many law officers during prohibition were killed because they were all totally corrupt. Do you want a totally corrupt (thereby useless) law enforcement?

Legalize pot and they won;t become happy peaceful marijuana growers, they'll move to something else illegal, it's what that sort of people do.

I hope the RCMP makes a point of not taking in any of them alive.

Twba says the criminals have an incentive to kill cops...like that's a legitimate thing to do.Like they are being FORCED to murder a cop.

If you think cop killers would stop at the men in blue, think again.You'll be next.

About an hour ago I sent the link to my buddy.

along with

"how long before the idiots spout, if it was legal this wouldn't of happened"?

Guess I should have checked the comments first.

Here in Vancouver, grow-op operators are arrested, slapped on the wrist and usually back growing dope before the presiding judge has hung up his robe for the day. It'll be interesting to hear if the suspect had a prior. If so, I'd lay a great deal of the blame for this tragedy at the feet of a justice system and government that persist in forcing our police to arrest the same useless thugs over and over again.

It was really the point of the editorial comment - that legislators seem to be making a choice - given the difficulty of controlling true criminality, they search instead to create new ones who are easier to manage.

A tragedy. But step back for a minute and look at the big picture. Big government leads to high taxes. High taxes discourage people from doing honest work and starting honest businesses, and the result is permanent large-scale unemployment and underemployment. Lack of fulfilling work leads to boredom. Bored people smoke weed. People who would otherwise run respectable businesses, turn to growing, distributing and selling weed. The more drug busts, the higher the price of weed, and the more incentive to grow it. The more people smoke and grow weed, the more money the government spends on police, prisons, health care, detox, welfare, etc. The more money they spend, the more taxes they need. The more taxation and spending ... you know the rest.

Okay, so make it legal and while you're at it, bring back Murder, Inc. Just think of the jobs that would provide.

Well, which way are you going to go? If marijauna is illegal, why not alcohol. What's the diff?

There is a lot of cash to be made with illegal dope. Archer Daniels and Monsanto would put grow ops out of business in a real hurry if it was legal.

And I don't buy the line that there will always be criminals (of course there will be), but it is a matter of how many and what incentives there are to be one. That's like saying there will always be terrorists, so why bother trying to spread democracy.

"It's a fallacy to suggest that if marijuana is legalized, that organized crime will throw up their hands in defeat, and apply for jobs selling used cars."

Right. Uh huh. Organized crime only takes advantage of markets. If there is NO market for marijauna, no organized crime would ever get into it.

As long as consentual acts are outlawed, you will indeed always have "organized crime."

As soon as all consentual acts are legalized, you will see the disappearance of "organized crime" as there is nothing to make a profit on.

Sheesh.. when will right wingers actually think through this all?

What those who support the continued illegalization of substances and activities are really saying is that it is those substances and activities that are responsible for any consequences.. not the individual(s) using the substances or willfully engaging in the activities.

This is insane thinking though.

"What those who support the continued [gun registry] are really saying is that it is those [guns] that are responsible for any consequences.. not the individual(s) using the [guns] or willfully engaging in the [shootings].

Hallelujah Kate,
SDM is not just for the converted. The power thinkers have arrived and are taking part and not just partaking.
HolD on larRy tha't s shag uare droppin ure ashhes. As i was saying an indeevidual free choice should not be constayned for sosyahtill concernrs !! it's a free country
So siety as a hole is a sum of its parts pas the chips, as long as you don't hurt some person or persons by your actions
my DaD drank and raised a fine ree sponsible family so whatts the diff with alittle smoke
laRRY WHATCH THE Shag
htere going to blow this all out off pproportiom BLOW THIS OUTT OF PROPORSION
LAY OF weres the chips
as i was saying or writting or what ever maariwana has down less harm than the blackhand of STeven harply

Four policemen murdered, four families devastated. Our Canada. This was not where I was born or where I grew up.

First, this was a wildly incompetent police operation and there must be a full investigation of who gave the orders which resulted in these tragic deaths. It wasn't a bike gang or organized crime. It was one loner with a high powered rifle.

Second, Alberta's answer to some village is missing its idiot, Anne McLellan, is trying to spin this as a grow op issue. It isn't. It is about wasting RCMP members lives in an ill conceived raid.

Third, it is a no brainer to realize that legalization will drain the criminal swamp of grow ops. Ian is dead right.

Fourth, under the proposed legislation individuals will be aable to grow up to four plants without being in danger of being charged with running a grow op. What this will mean is a huge new source of pot as anyone with a spare closet will jump at the chance to make $4000-8000 a person per quarter. Decriminalization - which I support - is simply going to make the police job even more impossible than it is now.

Fifth, we have all lost four of our guys for nothing. My sorrow for the families of these men is matched only at my outrage that their lives should have been wasted with such apparent recklessness for such a remarkably trivial purpose.

Ya, maybe the lefties are right here, let's legalize everything, murder, rape, crack, weed, etc. etc.

I think the first thing I would do after it's all legal is declar open season on lefties. The only problem with it, unlike gophers, is there is no usable portion of a leftie to turn in for the reward.

It's total idiocy to legalize this when were so close to being Afgan north already.

One thing on this, it was a total failure on the part of the Judicial system. This guy was a bad ass and in and out of jail for a number of violent crimes, but because of our lack of consequences for crimes, was running loss to terrorize all he came in contact with. His father even claimed he was possessed by the devil.

If pot had been decriminalized then this fellow probably would have been growing poppies for heroin or cooking meth instead. Having hung around the fringes of that crowd as a lad I can safely say that they tend to eschew legitimate endeavours (unless they're laundering $$$).

In any case, I suspect we'd still have four dead cops. :-(

If we were all able to grow 4 plants ourselves then we would only need to buy seeds from a legal business.
The street value would go down to about $40 to $50 an ounce and ALL criminal elements would dissappear.

Prohibition is a proven crock,.. almost everyone I know has tried it and none has ever had a bad experience that did not involve the police.

It's beer that you smoke instead of drink.

We would have 4 live cops today if the f'n guvment would just legalize it.

Now that Anne(the young offenders name is)Mclellan has spoken does'nt that

Agree -- Best Canadian blog site !

William F. Buckley and I advocate legalization of marijuana. Neither he nor I is a left-winger.

If legalizing marijuana would have saved the lives of those cops, then why are they dead? Ending prohibition should have saved their lives by putting "those crooks out of business" decades ago.

Hey what the
Sorry second to last paragraph above should have read

Now that Anne(the young offenders name is ...)Mclellan has said that this murder is a grow op problem, does'nt that prove that this is not a grow op problem .

End the prohibition of marijuana (legalize it) and there are no more grow ops because the smokers would grow it themselves in personal use quantities, like we grow vegetables in our backyards or balconies.

Also cut the easy money out of organized crime.

Most of it is exported to the US. As one commentor at the Shotgun pointed out, legalize it in Canada, and the ones growing the crop will be major organized crime syndicates - complete with licenses.

Send the bastards to penitentiary for growing dope whether they are chamomile sipping hippies or not. There they can get acquainted intravenous drugs and associate with murderers and rapists. This way we can insure that the only sorts of people who grow pot will be very hardened criminals who will think nothing of killing someone rather than go back, or before going back, to penitentiary. I think it's in the public interest to keep such a desired commodity in the hands of organized crime - you wouldn't want your kid to buy his or her pot from someone who has never commited or been gang raped in a federal prison would you? I don't like smoking pot, therefore, no one else should be allowed to do so either.

let me say up front that the murder of four rcmp officers is tragedy that no one in their right mind –stoned or not- would ever condone or take glee in. that being said, it never ceases to amaze me how otherwise rational conservatives can collectively stick their heads up their butts when they insist on mistaking marijuana as a vice issue rather than strictly an economic one. it is no more possible to break the grow-op industry than it is to stop people from smoking pot when and if they want to. it’s a matter of free will and a conscious decision to tell the nanny state to go fuck itself. and yet we have some people on the right taking a page from joe stalin's play book and demanding that these weed growing kulaks be taken care off. jesus! it’s clear that the ganja industry in canada is a functioning free market responding to the laws of supply and demand. adam smith would recognize this in an instant. why can’t you?

If legalizing marijuana would have saved the lives of those cops, then why are they dead? Ending prohibition should have saved their lives by putting "those crooks out of business" decades ago.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. We could never know if legalizing marijuana would have save the lives of those cops, but this guy was crazy and would have killed cops someday when they went to get him for sexual assault or stolen cars or whatever else he's done. The point being, that he is a criminal who happened to grow pot. Is he a criminal because he grew pot? He is a criminal even if marijuana was legalized. Other people who grow pot are criminals only because the law says they are. If it was not illegal, it would not be a crime. Organized crime gets into because, well frankly, they have the cajones to invest in illegal operations. And by the way, not one of the news articles I've found has mentioned any connection between organized crime and this gunman — why is the anti-pot crowd seizing on organized crime to get the blood boiling?

And, I mention again, I don't understand the second sentence either.

Marijuana use tends to exact penalties on its users, anyway, and only on themselves — even more so than alcohol use for that matter, which is perfectly legal. So why do we need the government exacting penalties in addition? It's just overkill — and to say that its use encourages dangerous grow operations ignores the fact that these grow operations would not be dangerous if they were legal as well.

Hysteria — and I'm sorry to see this tragic event being used to whip it up.

A guy wanted for stolen cars must know how to fence them,ergo,must know organized crime.Chances the same people who fence his cars know people who can move his dope.That's takes an organization.Distributors,mules,money launderers.It's isn't the Korean Mac's Milk store owners doing this.

Given that criteria, other than the occasional spontaneous assualt, or sexual harrasment, what crimes aren't organized to some degree?

You toke to get stoned.That automatically does not make it comparable to booze,so the equivalence argument used is bogus.

These honest growers, just trying to get by through meeting market demand, are forced to kill cops, because they are doing illegal business.Nah....they really don't have to go that extreme.Why, they could surrender.They could avoid murder and mayhem by not acting as outlaws.People break laws everyday, but committing violent acts isn't an inevitability,where the perp has no choice.The perp always has a choice, and chooses death.

If he goes down that road, he will have no qualms about robbing a bank or a gasbar, and killing a witness.These dope growers know they can face arrest, so does that justify them killing cops?

I know my comment about prohibition was oblique, but people continue to reference prohibition in the pot legalization debate, on the premise that legalizing marijuana will "remove the criminal element".

I'm pointing out that legalization does nothing to curb organized crime - they simply redouble efforts in other activities to make up for the lost profit and the end result is the same.

One can argue that marijuana should be legal for other reasons, but criminality isn't one of them. In fact, I think decriminalization is the worst of both worlds. It expands the market base (by removing some of the real deterents from some consumers), with the net effect of pouring more money into the criminal network.

Kate, you are right about decriminalization being the worst of both worlds. It would be better to leave things as is than do what the are planning.

Howie is right about booze and pot being a bad comparison. I have never seen anyone start bashing heads because he couldn't handle his dope, whereas I've seen it happen all to often with booze - they are completely different drugs.
Why is pot illegal?

Kate, you are perfectly correct that criminality is a red herring when it comes to arguing reasons for legalizing marijuana, since one follows the other and vice versa. The justification for legal prohibition should be something concrete, inarguable and non-arbitrary, like for instance (and the only instance I can think of) whether the actions of a person interfere with the rights of any other person. Murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. all qualify. Doing harm to yourself? Nope, you are not interfering with anyone else's rights. Getting the government to protect people from themselves is terribly Liberal, I should say.

As far as organized crime goes, why bring it up in the first place? It's the people who want to prohibit marijuana that bring that up. But in any case, if we applied the standard of non-inteference with others' rights to determine what is legal (criminal), then organized crime would go where? Cocaine, heroine, prostitution? I guess they couldn't really be considered illegal from that standpoint either — only human tragedies. Just like pot. We don't like it, but turning humanity into a pure and wholesome innocent being is another Liberal project. No problem there, then. What would they do? Well, if they move into murder, rape and theft for profit, then they are breaking laws that are governed by the above-mentioned standard, and noone would have a problem with that. But they're already into that, right?

But I agree, decriminalization is the worst of both worlds — it's logically inconsistent to say the least.

Howie Meeker:

"You toke to get stoned." And you drink to get drunk. Precisely what is the difference? (Apart from one being legal and the other not.)

I heard a great comment today about the decriminalization issue. The impetus behind the drive to decriminalize is that people are having their lives ruined by having a criminal record for a youthful indiscretion, bad judgement, blah, blah, blah. This commentator went on to say that, after 5 years of good behaviour, a person in that situation can apply for a pardon, clearing their criminal record and again allowing them to take their kids to Disneyworld (US Customs takes a dim view on criminal records). His point was that rather than loosening our standards on bad behaviour, we should instead encourage those who made a mistake and have spent their time in the penalty box to apply for a pardon. Makes sense to me, leave things as they are and those who don't go on to lead a life of crime caused by reefer madness can rejoin society.

Frank, "why" is pot illegal? Do some research on Canada's first female judge, often regarded as a Canadian hero.. Emily Murphy. Murphy, a judge in Edmonton, was also a racist, and seemed to believe that pot promoted violence among the dark skinned folks. Back then, pot was just not done much by the superior white folk, in general.

Also ever wonder why Opium was made illegal? Try doing some research into it's origins.. again, something that generally speaking, the good white folk didn't do, but those untrustworthy Chineeeeese slant eyes people did. If they did it, well, you know.. it just couldn't be trusted! It must be eeeevil.

In Canada, prior to the illegalization of mary wana, medical doctors prescribed the stuff!

What many will not tell you is that there was a bit of a hullabulloo back in those days, as the gubermint used a different word to describe this substance that they were banning than what the good medical folks used.. and once the good doctors discovered that pot had been banned, some were quite upset.

Of course, you won't hear that much from folks who claim to speak of your best interests regarding the criminilization of pot.

And before anyone gets ideas, I don't grow pot and I am not a proponent of the use of pot. But from a law enforcement background, I can tell you that there is far far too much emphasis on this "drug war" that is an utter waste of money.

"I'm pointing out that legalization does nothing to curb organized crime - they simply redouble efforts in other activities to make up for the lost profit and the end result is the same."

They won't have BILLION$$$$!
That will make it very difficult for them to redouble.
No organization legal or not can take such a hit and still function in the way they, and all narco terrorists do presently.

Don't be so pessimistic
Not all crook rum runners from prohibition years continued on in their scoundrelly ways .
Joe Kennedy went right into democrat poltics state side and er uh ,.... never mind.

Organized crime would be greatly deflated when they are forced out of the weed business.
Companys go out of business everyday for just the same reasons.

What burns me is that lieberal lightweights like Ann McLeelan are scoring slam dunks with the same tired pre "gun registry" hype using a "suspected" grow op and 4 dead law enforcement people as witness.

"Joe Kennedy went right into democrat poltics state side and er uh ,.... never mind."

*snort*

Yeah.. Let's talk about them Kennedy's. Anyone wonder why some folk celebrated in N. Ireland when John F. was killed?

His death was indeed tragic. To many. I'm sure the death of many Iraqis is tragic to some, as well.

Let's drop the "victimless" charade. Pot smokers can turn the key in an ignition - the represent as much a hazard as drunk drivers. At the very least, there should be no consideration for loosening marijuana laws until a reliable roadside test exists to help keep them off the roads.

Word of warning - I've ingested enough banned substances in my younger years to call a procedural foul on any arguments about the ability of stoners to drive.

Been there, saw the glowing neon power lines.

By the way, if you do a little research into tobacco, you'll find that everything old is new again - the list of diseases it was claimed to cure or alleviate rings like a medical marijuana wish list.

Sure, Kate. And let's not let diabetics drive until police officers have the ability to do roadside tests for blood sugar levels. Let's not allow high risk stroke drivers drive until police can have roadside tests to determine HDL and LDL levels. Let's test everybody!

As far as the searching for medicinal tobacco and marijuana, etc.. wonder what they will be discovering about aspirin, zoloft, and any multitude of other drugs, in the future. Hell, even tylenol can affect some people weirdly and dangerously to others. Let's have a roadside test for them all.. and be damned with actual ability to control a vehicle! It's the blood level numbers that are important.

Impaired driving is impaired driving.. some folks over the "limit" drive better than those impaired by fear.

I wonder how many "fear impaired" drivers are out there, causing accidents that are otherwise preventable?

With all the arguments presented above, one has to stop and ask why all the laws were put there in the first place. If we legalize drugs, SSM, etc., etc., were are we going as a society, and what are we telling our young?

Were all these laws put in place to influence the young of society so that they could grow up and maybe have a chance at success due to there negative influence?

Do I really want my neighbours kids watching me toke a big one in the hallway while watching to guys makin it on the lawn? Basically, no, due to my upbringing, and what I was taught was right and wrong as a kid.

Does legallizing these items lead to the degradation of other issues that are currently not acceptable, probably.

Some things are best left illegal or hidden from society, and they were put in place long ago for a reason. Probably because they had caused conflict or issues in a previous or existing society.

If you want to relate all this to the past, you have to relate it to all of history to formulate a conclusion, not just what's better for you personally, or what advances your argument.

"If you want to relate all this to the past, you have to relate it to all of history to formulate a conclusion, not just what's better for you personally, or what advances your argument."

Agreed, Rob. Now go and look up the history of marijuana criminalization in Canada. Specifically check out the racist works of one Emily Murphy, Edmonton judge.

Then come back and talk about "reasons why" marijuana laws were put in place.

Ian

You missed the point. I ment everywhere, not just Canada.

What I'm trying to say is, give me the reason the drug was not accepted in the first place. Not just in Canada, as that does not prove your point due to the age of the nation, but the founding reason for making it a band substance. Only then can we argue your point about making it legal.

Rob, it was banned around the same time in the US as well. Prior to that, it was a perfectly legal crop.

Soo.. now where do you want to go?

Rob, here's an interesting link to peruse re marijuana in the US:
http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_5.shtml

Hey Ian,

How about here for a start:

http://www.personalhealthzone.com/marijuanasideeffects.html

So with a move to a healthier society, you want us all to legalize something that has far worse outcomes then tobacco or is more unhealthy then alchohol when used in moderate consumption?

Then let me guess, were going to tax the shit out of it to offset health care costs?

Besides all that, you missed the point of what making it legal does to society as a whole verses keeping it discrete.

Ian, one more thing.

Some of the latest weed found around here has been laced with meth, which is highly additive. How do you propose to control that issue, or is it a legalize it at all costs situation.

And know after warching Global Sunday, I'm totally confused at the message the liberals are sending, witch is normal.

Mclellan is not advocating legalization at all, only decriminalization, which means it will be moved to a ticketed offense.

Do these guys actually know what day it is?

http://www.personalhealthzone.com/marijuanasideeffects.html

Interesting that no studies are actually cited - just their claims about studies. Did they take the studies out of context? How did they come up with a median use of "29?" Does that mean some of those in the study smoked 15 in one day, while the rest of the month, just one per day?

There are many studies that can be cited that refute what this website claims.

What is moderate use?

With respect to meth being found in some joints.. well, that has more to do with the fact that one can't buy marijuana from a reputable source, right? I guess like anything else, including possible glass fragments in prepared food that sometimes happens in food purchased from a grocery store, bad things happen.

Where do you want to draw the line?

Rob, for an article which actually cites studies it refers to, please read this:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

"Keeping it Discrete" should be the natural "cool" response by liberals to the call of marijuana legalization
Didn't Anne McLielan also say that she knew Kyoto wouldn't work but it "sends the right optics"

"Send the right optics"!!!!... now how do you shout that from the roof tops ,... come on, as if!!!
It would be so much easier if we could work out some sort of cool hip buzzword to stucco over our hypocritical cake eating and having.

I move "Keeping it Discrete " is the new buzzword thingy!
However, you still can't cross the border or become a law enforcement officer if in your past you were'nt "keeping it discrete".

Or

We could legalize it and trust the citizenry to be appropriatly discrete.