[andyt]

58,000 people arrested last year for pot possession.

[Lemmy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

A single plant is right at the threshold of posession for the purposes of trafficking (30 gms or more), which currently carries a maximum penalty of 5 yrs less a day in prison.

It's no secret which side of the debate I'm on, but that's not true. Trafficking and possession are two completely separate offences. There is no quantity-based line that divides possession from possession for the purposes of trafficking.

Possession of narcotics is a hybrid offence, which means the Crown can choose to pursue the case by indictment or by summary conviction. Summary conviction offences have a maximum penalty of $2000 fine and/or 2 years in jail. The CDSA stipulates that up to 30g in one's possession is always a summary conviction offence. Over 30g, it's up to the Crown to decide whether to proceed by indictment or summary conviction. Likewise, you could be charged with trafficking while possessing less than 30g. It doesn't instantly become trafficking if you've got more than 30g. The Crown still must prove that possession was for the purposes of trafficking, regardless the quantity, if they choose to lay that charge instead of possession.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/

[BeaverFever]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

A single plant is right at the threshold of posession for the purposes of trafficking (30 gms or more), which currently carries a maximum penalty of 5 yrs less a day in prison.

It's no secret which side of the debate I'm on, but that's not true. Trafficking and possession are two completely separate offences. There is no quantity-based line that divides possession from possession for the purposes of trafficking.

Possession of narcotics is a hybrid offence, which means the Crown can choose to pursue the case by indictment or by summary conviction. Summary conviction offences have a maximum penalty of $2000 fine and/or 2 years in jail. The CDSA stipulates that up to 30g in one's possession is always a summary conviction offence. Over 30g, it's up to the Crown to decide whether to proceed by indictment or summary conviction. It doesn't instantly become trafficking if you've got more than 30g. The Crown still must prove that possession was for the purposes of trafficking, regardless the quantity, if they choose to lay that charge instead of possession.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/

The max penalty for posession of 30g or more (< 3 kg) is 5 yrs, even without intent to distribute.

[Lemmy]

The max penalty for trafficking is 10 years. The 30g line has nothing to do with trafficking.

[BeaverFever]

trafficking and posession with intent to traffic are two different crimes. Intent to traffic comes into play with 30g+ but as you said earlier, is not automatic due to quantity.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

trafficking and posession with intent to traffic are two different crimes. Intent to traffic comes into play with 30g+ but as you said earlier, is not automatic due to quantity.

What generally brings on the intent charges is the existence of scales in one's possession OR, if a said amount is broken down into smaller amounts.
For example, if you have an ounce of weed on you, it's possession. But if you have an ounce of weed broken up into, for example grams and/or quarters, chances are you'll get an intent charge tossed your way.

[Lemmy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

trafficking and posession with intent to traffic are two different crimes. Intent to traffic comes into play with 30g+ but as you said earlier, is not automatic due to quantity.

No. You're not getting it. Having 30g+ means "possession" could be an indictable offence. Intent to traffic is something completely fucking different. Quantity can be used as evidence of trafficking. And, as PA9 said, things like scales, bags, cash can be evidence of trafficking. But 30g has nothing to do with it. The 30g-thing only relates to the offense of possession. Intent to traffic comes into play when there is intent to traffic.

[ShepherdsDog]

Just make one monster joint...personal use and carry a couple pounds of M&Ms with you as well

[CanadianJeff]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Duh. Because the penalties for cultivation are MUCH more severe than for simple possession.

Yea, because we have cops randomly searching through gardens all over the City looking for marijuana, right? It's really not that hard to grow a few plants for personal use. We had a neighbor with a nice garden and had a couple plants mixed within.

Let's get some actual numbers and look beyond the speculation.

Unsound Unsound:

If it truly is all opinion with no proven facts on either side of the argument, the moral thing to do is go in the direction that allows more freedom rather than less. That is, legalize it.

In order to do things right, you get facts on both sides and make your decision. We don't make major policy and law changes based on speculation and a subjective moral compass.

No your right we make decisions based on values.

Values like freedom. If you can't show demonstrable harm from someone engaging in an activity you shouldn't be able to limit another persons freedom to fit your preferences.

For example I don't agree with abortion. I think it's a tragedy everytime a woman has an abortion but under no circumstance would I even think of somehow restricting their freedom to live their own lives as they see fit. Controlling when and if they have children when confronted with difficult or unforeseen circumstances is like saying I know better then they do.

If I was willing to say I should control someones freedom to make their own life-choices simply because I hold a particular viewpoint then can I really say I beleive in freedom? Could I really complain if someone did the same thing with another portion of my life they found morally objectionable?

The arguments against pot are many the same arguments people likely used against drinking. At the end of the day you should have no more say over if I have a relaxing joint after work then I should have say over your enjoyment of a beer after a long day.

[OnTheIce]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

No your right we make decisions based on values.

Values like freedom. If you can't show demonstrable harm from someone engaging in an activity you shouldn't be able to limit another persons freedom to fit your preferences.

For example I don't agree with abortion. I think it's a tragedy everytime a woman has an abortion but under no circumstance would I even think of somehow restricting their freedom to live their own lives as they see fit. Controlling when and if they have children when confronted with difficult or unforeseen circumstances is like saying I know better then they do.

If I was willing to say I should control someones freedom to make their own life-choices simply because I hold a particular viewpoint then can I really say I beleive in freedom? Could I really complain if someone did the same thing with another portion of my life they found morally objectionable?

The arguments against pot are many the same arguments people likely used against drinking. At the end of the day you should have no more say over if I have a relaxing joint after work then I should have say over your enjoyment of a beer after a long day.

Respectfully Jeff, freedom only goes so far.

We're not allowed to do whatever we want when we want in the name of freedom. There are tons of laws that prevent us from doing things that aren't harmful to others, they're just there for the sake of general decency and to protect us from ourselves.

If some homeless guy wants to walk around in downtown Winnipeg without pants, who are we to say that he can't? After all, besides the gross factor, he's not harming anyone.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

No your right we make decisions based on values.

Values like freedom. If you can't show demonstrable harm from someone engaging in an activity you shouldn't be able to limit another persons freedom to fit your preferences.

For example I don't agree with abortion. I think it's a tragedy everytime a woman has an abortion but under no circumstance would I even think of somehow restricting their freedom to live their own lives as they see fit. Controlling when and if they have children when confronted with difficult or unforeseen circumstances is like saying I know better then they do.

If I was willing to say I should control someones freedom to make their own life-choices simply because I hold a particular viewpoint then can I really say I beleive in freedom? Could I really complain if someone did the same thing with another portion of my life they found morally objectionable?

The arguments against pot are many the same arguments people likely used against drinking. At the end of the day you should have no more say over if I have a relaxing joint after work then I should have say over your enjoyment of a beer after a long day.

Respectfully Jeff, freedom only goes so far.

We're not allowed to do whatever we want when we want in the name of freedom. There are tons of laws that prevent us from doing things that aren't harmful to others, they're just there for the sake of general decency and to protect us from ourselves.

If some homeless guy wants to walk around in downtown Winnipeg without pants, who are we to say that he can't? After all, besides the gross factor, he's not harming anyone.

Thanks for lightening the mood.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Wow, comparing racism to the use of drugs being "unjust". Talk about a stretch....

Says the guy who just compared someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own home to a homeless guy wearing no pants in public.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Says the guy who just compared someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own home to a homeless guy wearing no pants in public.

It was in relation to his general comment about freedom. Notice how you didn't take exception to his comparison about abortion but did latch onto my comment about the homeless man?

It was a general conversation about "freedom".

Try and keep up, Curt.

[Curtman]

It's a much better comparison. What a woman does with her own body, and what a pot smoker does is the same thinking. None of your business, and it can't be legislated away - it only causes more harm if you try.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Respectfully Jeff, freedom only goes so far.

We're not allowed to do whatever we want when we want in the name of freedom. There are tons of laws that prevent us from doing things that aren't harmful to others, they're just there for the sake of general decency and to protect us from ourselves.

Laws to protect us from ourselves? That's one of the most odious things I've ever heard on these boards, sorry. You have no concept of freedom. You shouldn't even be allowed to talk about it. Maybe we should pass a Canadaka by-law that Out To Lunch can't talk about freedom anymore. For the "sake of general decency."

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Respectfully Jeff, freedom only goes so far.

We're not allowed to do whatever we want when we want in the name of freedom. There are tons of laws that prevent us from doing things that aren't harmful to others, they're just there for the sake of general decency and to protect us from ourselves.

Laws to protect us from ourselves? That's one of the most odious things I've ever heard on these boards, sorry. You have no concept of freedom. You shouldn't even be allowed to talk about it. Maybe we should pass a Canadaka by-law that Out To Lunch can't talk about freedom anymore. For the "sake of general decency."

If only you were as smart and witty as you think you are.