Four former Vancouver mayors back call for an end to pot prohibition
 

vansterdams finest ;)

Four former Vancouver mayors back call for an end to pot prohibition

Four former Vancouver mayors of varying political stripes have endorsed a coalition calling for an end to pot prohibition in Canada, which they blame for rampant gang violence.

Larry Campbell, Mike Harcourt, Sam Sullivan and Philip Owen all signed an open letter to politicians in B.C. Wednesday claiming a change in the law will reduce gang slayings on public streets.

The former mayors support the position of the Stop the Violence B.C. coalition, which recently released a survey showing most B.C. residents favoured an end to the current marijuana laws.

The letter says “marijuana prohibition is — without question — a failed policy.”

“It is creating violent, gang-related crime in our communities and fear among our citizens, and adding financial costs for all levels of government at a time when we can least afford them. Politicians cannot ignore the status quo any longer, and must develop and deliver alternative marijuana policies that avoid the social and criminal harms that stem directly from cannabis prohibition,” the letter says.

The letter was sent to MPs, MLAs and city councillors, and is designed to drive debate on changing marijuana laws.

“It is unconscionable, unacceptable and unreasonable that the criminal element in B.C. is allowed to grow and thrive due to inaction on the part of the politicians,” said Sullivan, who served 12 years as a city councillor before being elected mayor of Vancouver in 2005. “Politicians must play a key role in the development of new policies that can really provide safer, stronger communities.”

But a police expert on organized crime said Wednesday that gang violence is extremely complex and not directly linked to any one product marketed by crime groups.

“It’s not our place to argue whether marijuana is good for you or bad for you, or that it should or shouldn’t be legalized … But we do have expertise in gangs and organized crime,” said Sgt. Bill Whalen, of the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit.

“What we know is, gang violence has many components to it, most importantly, organized crime is profit-motivated and that is a huge contributor to gang violence. Secondly, the commodities change. In recent years, our investigations have shown that violence is tied to money, and more prevalent commodities like cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy.”

He said legalizing marijuana “won’t solve the problem of gang violence.”

The Stop the Violence coalition said that a September poll showed B.C. residents don’t have faith that politicians can design policies to reduce criminal, health and social harms stemming from the illegal marijuana trade.

The Angus Reid online survey of 800 people showed that only 32 per cent of British Columbians trust municipal politicians to develop effective marijuana policy. Trust in federal and provincial politicians was even lower – at 28 per cent and 27 per cent respectively.

Harcourt, who was both mayor and B.C. premier, said politicians should be working on “developing an alternative to marijuana prohibition.”

“British Columbians clearly say that prohibition does not work and new policies have the potential to generate widespread public support,” he said.

Owen agreed, saying: “It’s time politicians listened to their constituents and woke up to the possible benefits of a new legalization, regulation and taxation regime.”

Campbell, who is now a senator, challenged politicians to “prove the public wrong.”

“Politicians have tremendous access to information, expertise and the levers of power, and must use all of the tools at their disposal to fight gang violence by implementing rational marijuana policies,” Campbell said.

The poll was commissioned by the new coalition, made up of academic, legal, law enforcement and health experts.

“These poll results reinforce the fact that British Columbians are way ahead of those they have elected in recognizing the destructive outcomes from marijuana prohibition,” said Dr. Evan Wood, a coalition member and director of the Urban Health Research Initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

“It’s time politicians of all stripes consider the gang violence and criminal activity resulting from marijuana prohibition, and enact policies that reflect the desire of British Columbians for change.”

kbolan@vancouversun.com



Read more: Four former Vancouver mayors back call for an end to pot prohibition

Saw this on Global @ 6pm last night.. they asked Sam Sullivan why he didn't try to get this through when he was mayor.. his reply:

"Because I wanted to be re-elected" :fuckthatshit: hahahhahaha

So, of you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
Posted via RS Mobile

im not against making weed legal, in fact it can convert millions of dirty dollars into clean ones.

however legalizing weed putting an end to the gang problem? please. sure weed is big business, but so is exstacy, guns, heroin, illegal gambling brothels etc. unless they plan to legalize all that and more there will be no end to any gang problems. in fact forcing the gangs to focus on their other products and diversify may cause MORE violence as they now see themselves battling for new turf that they had no interest in in the past.

like i said there are many reasons why pot shud be legal that are god ones. the one theyre using however is complete short term thinking with no real insight into the complexities of the situation. i guess theyre vancouver politicians after all...
Posted via RS Mobile

Fuckin cowards.

Gregor is vocally pro-legalization and he was just re-elected...

Very true. Yet legalizing weed will give police a better oppurtunity to focus on other crimes. Yes that's a very vague statement.. but it's true. If the police took all the efforts from trying to stop people from production/distribution/consumption of marijuana, I can see a lot of good coming from it. It's again, a big business for the government to put their hands into, and tax marijuana just like anything else.

We could see some good coming from it. That's no doubt.

Legallizing pot will have so many reprecautions to it. For one the government will probably and most likely impose a tax on it like alcohol and tobacco, thus taking more money away from gangs. However it would help our economy (ie: paying off the olympics). Secondly make pot legal would mean a huge chunk of revenue from the gangs being taken away and they will be upset because now they have to fill that taken away revenue with something else. That being said gangs will most likely have to push their other products to sell on the streets being exposed to the younger generation (exstacy, meth, etc).

You have to think about tourism as well. So many Americans and tourists will come up here to spend money so they can smoke the best and not have to worry about what could happen.

A little while ago I read an article about Portugal decriminalizing marijuana and it seemed to work out well for them so far. That's not to say Vancouver is like cities Portugal but until a bill is passed and data has been analyzed, all of this is just conjecture. I'd like to see a bill passed for it and we'll see how it goes.

found the article
Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

tax benefits i agree

but i think the pot dealers will start dealing something else. Or involved in other crimes. Or will start fueds to take territory away from others who deal somethign else. Not to mention the robberies of legal pot places that are to follow. I think police will have MORE to do!

whether there will be more crim or less crime i don't know. I just know that if you subtract the crime from dealing weed you're getting rid of and then add on all the spillover crimes that result from legalizing, you're not looking at a very big decrease or increase in crime...it'll stay more or less the same, will just shift in its nature. So in that regard i think the mayors' stance is bullshit. It's also the reason i think it should be legalized potentially - not too much more crime, with a lot more profits that could go towards helping take kids off the street

Watched it on global last night and this doctor was being interviewed by squire and another woman and he handled each question lke a baws convincing that legalizing would be a good idea while taxing the users. Hahaha...

Although its frowned upon by many that a drug shouldnt be legalized, there are some valid points for legalizing too. Seesaw effect...

as long as the United States oppose pot,
BC will never legalize it

This is going to sound nuts, but they need to have draconian penalties for drug traffickers. I think pot should be legalized, but the fuckers who make/bring in REALLY harmful shit like crack, heroin, etc. should be sentenced to 30+ years to life, or like Singapore, mandatory death penalty carried out within a year.
If the gangs started getting busted and their gangster buddies began getting executed left and right within months of being busted, I'm CERTAIN our drug problem would be drastically reduced.

EDIT: Even better than the death penalty would be like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where you get a whole arm chopped off so everyone knows you were a drug dealer for life.

^ yea problem is most ppl that get caught are usually drug mule.

Gang problem = social problem

Punishing individuals with harsh sentence really does nothing. Even if you do manage to get the top guy and put him down another will ALWAYS take his place. What usually happen with harsh trafficking laws is the drug mule gets caught and the poor guy who is probably only doing this to survive gets sentence to death and the gang will find another Unfourtnate person to take his place.

If you don't get at the grassroot problem of why ppl join gangs in the first place there will always be a gang problem no matter how harsh u make the punishment to be.

Jail only deter good honest folks who may never end up there in the first place. Go tell a institutionalize thug he will get 15 year for doing the shit he does and he will laugh in face, been there done that.
Posted via RS Mobile

meanwhile amsterdam is tightening up their loose marijuana laws. go figure

^ thought they are doing that Becuz of tourist going there to blaze and than make a mess.

Actually speaks alot about other countries prohibition.
Posted via RS Mobile

I kinda disagree.

He didn't really answer any of the questions except for the monetary gain for the province.

When it came to how to deal with the current dealers going underground, he deflected the question and talked about taxing again. Said the underground was something we could not really regulate or solve.

He compared it to tobacco and liquor, but Squire and Randeen pointed out that it is a lot easier to grow a few pot plants in your closet....its a bit of a different story when it comes to tobacco and alcohol (can't have a tobacco field or a distillery in the back yard).

That is my argument too...I don't think that de-criminalizing it or making it legal is going to solve the overall problem of dealing it. Who is going to go to the store to pick up a pack of gov't issued joints when I can call up my buddy and buy some for cheaper.

I just don't see how it is going to work....I think we will still have the same grow-up busts...the only thing it will do, is drive the price down.

I see what you're saying.
But, most people wouldn't buy from a dealer anymore. I know I wouldn't.
Why would I when I can go into a legal marijuana shop and get grade A stuff of every type. I've always wanted to try different strains and variations of marijuana, but I just get the same old shit (albeit good shit) from my buddy.

And yeah, the price would be driven down hopefully. And I know that the marijuana shop will be regulated etc. So there will be standards etc.

It just doesn't make sense that a drug that is proven to be less dangerous to our body than tobacco and alcohol is illegal. What I want to see are reports from Amsterdam. Was marijuana always legal there? How did they deal with it. And what are the after maths of it? How have they not turned into a druggy infested shit hole.

Yeah, I totally see that side. There are a lot of normal, everyday people who do not want to buy from the drug dealer or be involved in that scene. There would (maybe) be access to different stains and variations like you said, everything would be legit...you would know what you were buying and not have the fear that there may been something added (I was once given a joint laced with coke). I totally dig the logic.

My fear, is that it is so easy to grow/manufacture, this will not really solve the problem like people are promoting. Our drug problems won't go away, the province won't be rolling in the millions, and I don't think our street will be that much safer.

I'm not saying that everyday normal people are thinking this way, but it seems to be the way that a lot of advocates for the de-criminalization movement are advertising it as such.

As I have stated in other threads on the same subject...I am not in favor of de-criminalizing it as I have to deal with it in my job. I was a HUGE pothead in my late teens/early 20s and I have touched the stuff in years. I hate the smell, I hate dealing with it, the the whole pot culture annoys me -I'm not talking about the normal dude who sparks one after a long day of work or at a party not unlike having a nice cold beer, I'm talking the wake-and-bake stoner hippies.

I have also mentioned in other thread regarding the law of smoking it in public and maximum intoxication levels for driving, etc. I see a lot of problems with that whole aspect as well. Do we adapt the smoking tobacco by-law to pot as well? How to we deal with road-side testing?

I get that heath-wise it is not as harmful as tobacco and really no different than alcohol, and I really don't think there is an argument that can be made regarding that and that is not my concern.

I just think we are so far from ever having it de-criminalized, that in the political realm, it is a waste of an issue.

The quality of weed will go down
Posted via RS Mobile

You would think that with regulation and funding that the quality would actually go up.

Saying the quality of weed will go down is like saying alcohol quality went up during the prohibition.

:fulloffuck:

This won't get my support until we have viable, portable, machine to test for marijuana in the body. A system that tells you when someone is under the influence, not just that they've had marijuana within some period of time.
I have no problem with marijuana, but I do not want anyone under the influence driving or on the job.

I must admit that I'm starting to come around to the idea. I guess the idea of my being for personal freedom is winning over the "I hate pot" side in me.

The prohibition on pot has such a jaded background with the goals being to protect the cotton industry as opposed to it having anything to do with its recreational use.

In fact the whole war on drugs thing only really kicked into high gear once the american government was found to be involved in the cocaine trade.

We all know that dealing with drug addicts by putting them in prison is not going to fix the problem, as there is more access to heroin in prison, than out of it.

So, to get my vote, we just need a detection method, and a system for keeping it from proliferating everywhere. I kind of like its secrecy, it keeps me from having to smell it everytime I go out the door. Mostly :)

I think the notion that marijuana usage will proliferate everywhere is overstated.

I've said this before, but there's bylaws to deal with Tobacco smoking in public and those same bylaws would apply to marijuana smoke.

Likewise people who don't currently smoke marijuana aren't going to be like "Hey man weed's legal now, lets take it up!" and start becoming regular users.

I don't like the wake and bake stoner types either, and they give guys like me a bad name, but as long as they're not bothering anyone else who am I to tell them what they can't do. Personal preferences aren't good enough justification. I don't like smelly ethnic foods, can I ban that?