cannabisnews.com: Feds Moving Too Fast on Marijuana, MADD Says





Feds Moving Too Fast on Marijuana, MADD Says
Posted by CN Staff on May 11, 2003 at 08:19:45 PT
By Bill Rodgers, Sun Ottawa Bureau
Source: Edmonton Sun
Ottawa -- Two influential lobby groups say the Chretien government is putting the cart before the horse in its rush to decriminalize small amounts of pot for personal use. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is to introduce the legislation along with a national drug strategy as early as next Tuesday, a senior official has told Sun Media. Under the proposed legislation, possession of small amounts of marijuana would remain banned in the Criminal Code, but someone caught on a first offence would face the equivalent of a traffic ticket. 
As with any traffic or parking ticket the choice would be to plead guilty and pay a fine within 30 days or take a chance with the courts. And while there would be a record of the offence, the accused would not face a criminal record. "We're very concerned that decriminalization will be perceived, especially by our young people, as legalization. Even though that's not really what's happening, it's the public perception and yet Parliament hasn't dealt with the whole drugs and driving issue," said Andrew Murie, the executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). A recent survey of Ontario high school students by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health showed that 20% of students drove a vehicle within two hours of using cannabis, while 15% drove after drinking alcohol. David Griffin, the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, said: "Kids are getting a message time and time again from our elected officials that smoking marijuana is not a big deal. Yet their parents and everybody else is trying to encourage them to make healthy choices." Griffin accused the Liberal government of changing the law before putting the proper tools in place. "What we're seeing is a political rush to introduce legislation but police officers don't have the tools to deal with such issues as impaired driving by drugs and we're seeing more problems with marijuana use in our schools than we are with alcohol." Police can't demand the roadside test for marijuana use like they can demand the breathalyser test for alcohol. Any change would allow police to demand a saliva, urine or blood test. "It's a very easy process for Parliament to put those things in (the Criminal Code). And we're very disturbed that there's all this talk about decriminalization but (the government) hasn't done the fundamentals yet," said MADD's Murie. The federal Justice minister admitted in a recent interview with Sun Media that his department hasn't dealt in a detailed way with the issue of driving while under the influence of pot. Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB) Author: Bill Rodgers, Sun Ottawa BureauPublished:  Sunday, May 11, 2003  Copyright: 2003 Canoe Limited PartnershipContact: letters edm.sunpub.comWebsite: http://www.fyiedmonton.com/htdocs/edmsun.shtmlRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmNow, They Don't Like Our Marijuana Planhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16245.shtmlOttawa's Marijuana Plan Irks US http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16241.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by aocp on May 11, 2003 at 13:41:46 PT
quips
"What we're seeing is a political rush to introduce legislation but police officers don't have the tools to deal with such issues as impaired driving by drugs and we're seeing more problems with marijuana use in our schools than we are with alcohol."So, you're saying the full legalized regulation of cannabis (a la booze) will help keep it away from the kids? Quick, tell Ottawa!Police can't demand the roadside test for marijuana use like they can demand the breathalyser test for alcohol. Any change would allow police to demand a saliva, urine or blood test.That's nice, but cannabis is notorious for staying in detectable levels (read: not IMPAIRED) for 3-4 weeks. Maybe the cops should get high a few times to know what to look for since roadside saliva, urine, and blood will not show impairment. Oops. Go do your homework, nark.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by afterburner on May 11, 2003 at 13:26:17 PT:
80 years ago prohibition was declared w/o debate 
...and they say the current government is moving too fast! Canada -- marijuana (cannabis) laws -- history http://www.cfdp.ca/giffen.htm"In 1972, the Le Dain Royal Commission extensively studied the non-medical use of drugs in Canada and unanimously recommended the decriminalization of cannabis based on public health and social cost/benefit analyses." JHS Canada - Canadian Cannabis Policy http://www.johnhoward.ca/document/drugs/fact/1.htm31 years later the federal government is taking halting half-steps...and they say the current government is moving too fast!David Griffin is a stauch prohibitionist. "We are appalled but not surprised," said David Griffin, the association's [Canadian Police Association] executive officer. The committee report "is nothing more than a back-to-school gift for drug pushers." -Police Chief Slams Legal Pot Plan http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13999.shtml
The word griffin means "a mythical animal typically having the head, forepart, and wings of an eagle and the body, hind legs, and tail of a lion." -Merriam-Webster OnLine http://www.m-w.com/home.htm An eagle, eh? What a coincidence! [griffin illustration] http://www.m-w.com/mw/art/griffin.htmego transcendence follows ego destruction, heart by heart, vote by vote, until eventually there is no problem.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by prop203 on May 11, 2003 at 11:52:40 PT
blah
Two influential lobby groups say the Chretien government is putting the cart before the horse in its rush to decriminalize small amounts of pot for personal use.60 years!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by observer on May 11, 2003 at 11:10:22 PT
Adults Jailed Because Kids May be Confused ?
''"We're very concerned that decriminalization will be perceived, especially by our young people, as legalization. Even though that's not really what's happening, it's the public perception ...''I see ... so, let me get this straight. Adults may be jailed, whenever government officials claim that children would otherwise be confused. Adults must be jailed, because otherwise kids might get confused.That's a bogus reason for jailing adults, and typical of the gnat-straining these prohibitionist hucksters engage in. Can you think of any other instance when adults are jailed not because of any actual harms or wrongs adults commit, but are jailed merely because (government asserts) "the child" might be "confused"?Oh, that's right: the author of this little piece, Bill Rodgers of the Edmonton Sun "just accidently happened" to "forget" (just by happenstance, you see!) to mention the "JAIL" part, didn't he? No need to panic the herd with unpleasant thoughts of arrest and jail. Mentioning the facts about jail would be tres gauche! 
the very latest breaking drug news: http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment