Canadian Law: What is the true reason for scheduling plants?

[Coastal]

Last year I was was involved in a debate with Health Canada about its intent to try and schedule Salvia divinorum. Without getting into the biology and chemistry of the plant their reason listed right on the website for wanting to do so were because they felt that hallucinating is dangerous to the youth. They also cited sources that actually claimed the exact opposite of what Health Canada was trying to imply online.


Luckily, and probably based on the fact they hadn't actually read a single thing about the plant other than its hallucinogenic and kids can buy it, it was not scheduled. Though i have this feeling its on the back burner until they can actually find something scientific to give it a bad release.

Though it is quite irrelevant, I am not a drug user/promoter. But i have been quite interested and somewhat involved in "the war on drugs". It is my opinion it is a religious one aimed at conformity.

What i just cannot understand (and I am primarily trying to stick to Canadian Law) is how the government can actually steal (seizures) a persons belonging and torture (jail) them.

So what I am trying to do is find out where, on paper (or online), these laws are discussed in detail as to the reasons for creation and enforcement.

The real debate i suppose once I (we?) have read the official reasons for banning the freedom of mind expression/physical sensation.

Also my primary focus is on natural products, not synthetics. I am talking plants, Cannabis, Psilocybe, Papaver etc.

I appreciate any light you guys could shine on the subject as the Charter of Rights has a nice scape goat right up top rendering it as useful as Americas constitution post 9/11.

[fumster]

Does salvia divinorum (a plant) cause you (not you specifically, but in the general sense) to (note: 1 "O", not 2) overuse parentheses?

[Coastal]

Seen as I do not use it, I very much doubt it (sorry if my brackets offend you).

Any serious thoughts?

[Broomstick]

It would help your credibility if you didn't automatically equate jail with torture. Being locked up isn't pleasant, but it's not (inherently) torture.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

It would help your credibility if you didn't automatically equate jail with torture. Being locked up isn't pleasant, but it's not (inherently) torture.

Actually, I'm not sure about this. I only know a couple of people that have "done time", but they all describe some pretty hideous treatment. Sure, it was done by other inmates, but the system seems to allow it. /hijack


ETA: on topic, the concept of making a plant "illegal" has always seemed ridiculous. Overgrow!!

[Broomstick]

Didn't say torture couldn't happen in jail, just that it's not inherent to jail. Not everyone jailed is abused

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Welcome to the Straight Dope, Coastal! Your OP looks like an interesting idea. Unfortunately, it's a bit muddled, in my opinion. Are you wanting to discuss
-The ethics of imprisonment in general?
-The ethics of imprisonment for possessing specific plants?
-The ethics of imprisonment for possessing salvia?
-Something else?

What might help is if you'd make a single, strong sentence stating your opinion, followed by some facts or arguments that inform your opinion. For example:

"It is my belief that possession of all plants should be legal. Although some plants may be dangerous to consume, it is the individual's responsibility to determine which these are. Parents must help their children make these determinations. Many times it's not the most dangerous plants (belladonna, oleander) that are criminalized, but rather the less-dangerous ones (salvia, marijuana).

If you start with a clear statement of opinion and follow it with facts and arguments, people may have an easier time engaging with you productively.

Edit: while I can certainly see where you're coming from with calling jail "torture," it's dangerous to make controversial asides in your arguments, as they can distract readers from your main point. I suggest confining controversial statements to the main issue you want to discuss .

[Coastal]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, I see where you are coming from.

I do equate jail with torture as it is without consent and ripping you away from your loved ones to be forcefully kept in a cage. Maybe not 100% are abused, but anyway. Yes, not the point. That's a dead topic.

My concern is exactly what is written above:

"It is my belief that possession of all plants should be legal. Although some plants may be dangerous to consume, it is the individual's responsibility to determine which these are. Parents must help their children make these determinations. Many times it's not the most dangerous plants (belladonna, oleander) that are criminalized, but rather the less-dangerous ones (salvia, marijuana).

The idea that someone can have all their material possessions taken (can I say stolen in brackets? ), be taken away from any true human contact with family/friends/regular society, perhaps being raided and physically forced equates assault. Then you are forced to live in cages and undergo untold mental anguish and likely physical as well.

For what? Growing some plants? Getting a buzz that doesn't cause nearly as many health concerns as legal alternatives such as ethanol? This really, in any kind of unbiased view, seems completely wrong. If it were a group of citizens that did this to someone, they would be labeled psychopaths.

So what I first would really like to find is where, in writing, indicates the motives of the government to play such horrendous games on its people, and how exactly they maneuvered their pawns to get away with it.

Salvia divinorum was only the most recent example, not the point entirely. Health Canada tried to ban it based on no actual research done in Canada, and some papers they picked certain paragraphs out of but left out others like the fact the article claimed it likely to not be habit forming but that was one of the worries the Canadian government had yet their only references were to the contrary. That one got smacked down and I have not read about it for a few months now, nor have iI been replied to from the people I was engaging. But many other things are still not OK.


There are other laws that are rather strange as well, such as Ephedra. With all the Asian people in Canada, I am surprised that they tried to control it. As is, you can have it no problem, but cannot transport across the border. Export or import. With all the scare of amphetamines, its an easy win, but the thing is this herb is a real life saver in some cultures, many of which are living in Canada. Its amazing for asthma, immune system etc, but once again huge human rights issues if you are importing it.


So how, when, why did they feel they could actually take everything from us for having a plant? That's the Q. Medicinal or otherwise, what right do I have to tell you what flavour of ice cream to eat?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Coastal

I do equate jail with torture as it is without consent and ripping you away from your loved ones to be forcefully kept in a cage. Maybe not 100% are abused, but anyway. Yes, not the point. That's a dead topic.

Okay, but you keep repeating it, and that's distracting. If your objection is to all imprisonment, that's what we should be talking about. If you think it's okay for a democratically-elected state to have laws and to punish violation of those laws with imprisonment, but that possession of plants should not be so punished, that's an entirely different conversation, and talking about how evil jail is shouldn't show up in that conversation.

FWIW, I tend to agree that possession of plants should not be illegal. There maybe exceptions or good arguments in favor of criminalization of possession, but I can't make them.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Coastal

So how, when, why did they feel they could actually take everything from us for having a plant? That's the Q. Medicinal or otherwise, what right do I have to tell you what flavour of ice cream to eat?

You need to look into the history of substance abuse a bit. In the US, from the Civil War onwards there was a definite social problem with opiate addiction. In many cases this stemmed from opiates being given as painkillers to wounded soldiers - which was a positive good - but little understanding of appropriate dosing and how to reduce doses in a manner least likely to lead to addiction. As many drugs were available over the counter, such as opiates and cocaine, a lot of people started having problems with use even as children as their parents dosed them with strong drugs with little understanding of what they were giving their kids or how much.

Initial efforts dealt with getting accurate labels on things - patent medicines having to admit they were mostly alcohol and opium, for instance. I don't know anyone who thought, or thinks, that was a bad idea, you SHOULD know what you're consuming, right?

However, addiction and the problems surrounding it were still a social problem at the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th. The last half of the 19th Century saw the rise of Temperance Movements in many nations, movements that promoted reduction or elimination of alcohol consumption based upon the harm done by those substances. US Prohibition is probably the best known of their "successes", which was later repealed when it was decided that the prohibition was causing more harm than legalization did.

Meanwhile, there were still many concerns regarding opiates, cocaine, and marijuana which gradually led to them behind scheduled with the idea that if you only allowed doctors to prescribe and eliminated easy access people would stop using. Which has been about as successful as alcohol prohibition. Hallucinogens were pretty much legal up until the late 1960's when the Establishment freaked out over them and decided banning them would work, even if it hadn't proven terribly effective for anything else.

An important thing to remember is that the prohibitions occurred in response to real problems in society. It wasn't a case of sadist government goons being big meanies. When everything was legal we had people (just like now) who couldn't control their consumption causing all sorts of problems. Prohibition was essentially a big social experiment. Prohibition does reduce consumption - US alcohol Prohibition reduced consumption by about 1/2 - but the side effects arguably cause more damage than the drug/substance itself did. In an effort to enforce Prohibition the government(s) kept upping the penalties thinking that would make it more effective. The result is only marginal gains in compliance and increase in harmful side effects. For some reason, society was willing to accept that in the case of alcohol in the US and re-legalized it, but not on anything else. Why? Now that is a debatable question.

Is that the question you want to debate?

[Ravenman]

First, there is no freedom of "mind expression/physical sensation." Getting high is not a recognized civil right.

Second, the implicit argument in this thread is that if something is natural, it is okay. I see no reason whatsoever to make any distinction between a chemical compound l-letsgetmessedupithol if it is produced by cute bunnies and flowers in a process that has by-products of sunshine and rainbows, or if it is produced through a hazardous and polluting process controlled by the ConGlomCo Corporation.

Third, the reason why the government can seize contraband and lock people up is because of the police power that every. single. government. ever. has exercised as part of its method of enforcing laws. There are of course checks and balances to this power, such as democratic elections of people who can vote to change laws, to the guarantee of qualified representation in court, to rights to a jury trial.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

[elbows]

You do know that opium, over which innumerable lives have been destroyed, wars fought, international relations ruined, causing the rise and fall of governments is a natural drug, right?

Are you saying that no country, ever, has a right to control/stop the distribution of opium? No matter the damage it causes to it's people?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Coastal

So what I first would really like to find is where, in writing, indicates the motives of the government to play such horrendous games on its people, and how exactly they maneuvered their pawns to get away with it.

For the msot part the government did this because the populace wanted it done.

Whatever the value of the war on drugs (and I agree it's stupid) you are falsely characterizing it as something the government has imposed on an unaware or willing populace. That is most assuredly not the case; historically the war on drugs had the enthusiastic support of the voters, especially during the 20th century.

As Broomstick points out, opiate addiction was a not-insignificant social problem in the late 19th century, as was alcohol addiction - people back then drank a LOT more than they do today, to the point that alcohol was a legitimate public problem - and so there was an understandable public outcry for something to be done. Less obviously harmful drugs like marijuana got pulled into the mix largely out of association.

[dropzone]

Scheduling saliva? Isn't that what Pavlov did?

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by elbows

You do know that opium, over which innumerable lives have been destroyed, wars fought, international relations ruined, causing the rise and fall of governments is a natural drug, right?

Are you saying that no country, ever, has a right to control/stop the distribution of opium? No matter the damage it causes to it's people?

Distribution? Maybe. I'd argue against it, but it's arguable.

Possession and/or use? No. They have no right whatsoever.

[elbows]

I'd have to argue when the majority, in a democracy want it, I think they do have a right.

And I don't think you could get a majority to vote to legalize opium!

[BrotherCadfael]

If you don't schedule them, you'll have wayyy too many one day, and nowhere near enough the next...

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by elbows

I'd have to argue when the majority, in a democracy want it, I think they do have a right.

And I don't think you could get a majority to vote to legalize opium!

So the majority that wanted slavery and Jim Crow laws in place? They had the right to oppress people?

In the US, "majority rule" was widely (and rightly) considered akin to anarchy and chaos. The Constitution is mainly a document limiting majority rule and protecting the rights of the minority. Personally, I don't think "majority wants it" is a good justification for anything at all.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by DrCube

In the US, "majority rule" was widely (and rightly) considered akin to anarchy and chaos. The Constitution is mainly a document limiting majority rule and protecting the rights of the minority.

Well, no, actually. First of all, the Founding Fathers weren't worried about "anarchy and chaos," they were concerned about tyranny. How is "majority rule" akin, in any way, to "anarchy and chaos"? That makes no sense at all.

Secondly, the Constitution is designed to prevent tyranny, not majority rule. Sufficient majority rule could and did ban alcohol, in accordance with the Constitution. It then later reversed that ban, again in accordance with the Constitution.

Obviously "most people want it" isn't necessarily right, or good policy. I'm no populist, believe me. The point, though, is that the OP is characterizing drug laws as being some sort of religiously motivated form of dictatorial oppression, and that is just fifty-nine different kinds of false. Drug laws are the law of the land because people want them to be. If you want to change the law, you have to convince people to change their minds about it, because it's NOT being enforced by an iron fist against the will of the people. It's being enforced with the happy cooperation of the people.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrCube

So the majority that wanted slavery and Jim Crow laws in place?

Are you actually saying that legal restrictions on getting high is like a pervasive conspiracy of laws to institutionalize bigotry and racism, or are you just arguing a philosophical point about majoritarianism that we can nod our heads to and move on?

[Coastal]

I thinkk this is not quite the point. I am not arguing natural products, i am arguing nature. The species, as a plant.

I am talking baout how criminal it is to own plants, and use plants. Not manufactured drugs.

Not heroin, but yes Papaver somniferum. Not cocaine, but yes Erythroxylum coca. Not hash, but yes cannabis staiva.

One could call the plants containers for the drugs as they do in Australia. So if you import 1000kg of coca leaves like coca cola would in the states (to be later extracted), they would treat as if you were importing 10000kg of pure cocaine. In many countries they equate a single plant to XX in weight of final product. I believe the USA does this as well, but cant be 100% sure on that.

Despite what social problems refined drugs have, until it starts truly affecting others on a physical level, then i feel they have every right to use them. Just as much as i feel every person has the right to cough syrup or corn.

my bringing up the jail thing is only to put more power behind the word jail. many people just say it and don't even bother thinking how horrible the whole ordeal is. I am trying to make the point that growing some plants, and maybe even using the plants you grew to get high, is not a criminal offence and is (should be) a human right.

Getting high often causes little harm, this depends on species and I wont get into it in great depth as i am well versed in that area. The ones that are dangerous, and which there are many of and ironically are not often/ever controlled, tend not to be habit forming. The most common habit forming ones are probably opiates adn cocaine. Cocaine is a rather involved process and takes a great deal of material that is not easily grown outside semi tropical mountains. Opium is easy to grow/use. I am not going to debate opium addiction as its an addiction and in its current state a bad thing as you have problems when you are addicted to something and cant have it due to XXX reasons.

so, plants should not be controlled aside from conservation status and import status in consern to disease adn noxious weeds (as they already are). Although sometimes you get air heads (Austrlia in one state) that put a slow growing, rot prone cactus (peyote) oin the invasive species list.

These won't likely be legalized and people allowed to self regulate on their own terms anytime soon. But I think medicinally it is really a form of torture to take people away from something that will help them. People need more responisibilty and more rights to be free, we should be done with nannies by our teen years.

What i am trying to find is a canadian book/website/public file stating the reasoning behind each plant that is banned.

here are some links and info for others.
The act in Canada.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/

Controlled plants of canada (note some controls are not outright bans but restrictions of movement)
Sched. 1 Papaver somniferum -Opium Poppy
Sched. 1 Erythroxylon - Coca (that reads the entire genus, many species)

Sched. 2 Cannabis - Marijuana (It's not even a debate anymore how criminal it is to criminalize this incredibly useful plant)

Sched. 4 Catha edulis - khat

Sched. 6 Ephedrine (erythro-2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpropan-1-ol), its salts and any plant containing ephedrine or any of its salts (That is quite a lot of plants actually)



A question for you law folk. When the act states a chemical name, say Mescaline, and states "any salt thereof", does this also by default include teh living plant? I assume not, however in the Mescaline case they also go on to exclude a specific species of plant, implying they are included. see below:


17.
Mescaline (3,4,5–trimethoxybenzeneethanamine) and any salt thereof, but not peyote (lophophora)
So mescaline is controlled, and a specieis of plant (Lophophora) is an exception.

these substances do not exclude any speices:
11.
Psilocin (3–[2–(dimethylamino)ethyl]–4–hydroxyindole) and any salt thereof (Many mushroom species)

5.
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (N,N–diethyllysergamide) and any salt thereof (Many morning glory species)

7.
N,N–Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) (3–[(2–dimethylamino) ethyl]indole) and any salt thereof (DMT is found in thousands of species of plants and animals, including our own)

there are amny more like this, and it seems to leave awide gap for translation.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Coastal

I thinkk this is not quite the point. I am not arguing natural products, i am arguing nature. The species, as a plant.

I am talking baout how criminal it is to own plants, and use plants. Not manufactured drugs.

Irrelevant. People don't have a right to own something just because it is found in nature. Laws restrict the ownership of the plants you mentioned, and they also restrict the ownership of plants or animals that may cause damage to ecosystems (i.e., invasive species that would cause damage to other species like you mentioned). Laws also limit what pets people can own.

Just because something is found in nature doesn't mean there's a right to own it.

ETA: it seems you're kind of making two arguments: you just want to talk about owning plants that could produce drugs, and yet you want to disregard the fact that the plants are sources of drugs. And then you go on about how people should be able to use drugs. Well, which is it? Let's just be straight here, you're saying that people should be allowed to own plants so they can manufacture their own drugs, correct?

[elbows]

But only the ones you think should be delisted, is that right? The others are all okay to control.

It sounds like you just want the line drawn slightly more over that way, so as to accommodate your own proclivities, and the rest is just window dressing.

Guess you'll just have to wait, like the rest of us, until the day comes .... "When I'm king of the universe...."

Till then, keep on tilting at them windmills, someone's got to do it!

[Coastal]

Oy. No all wrong.

I am arguing plants should eb legal to own, period. Plants as far as disrupting the natural balance (weeds/disease carriers) i am fine with the laws because they are not banned. If you import some morning glories, you don't go to jail. If you import hemp, you can.

Just because something is found in nature doesn't mean there's a right to own it.

Fair enough, but we could split hairs as i am not talking about owning it, simply caring for it on land i have legal rights to use. I could argue just because a species in nature has a chemical which can alter our species' perception doesn't mean there is just reason to be jailed either. in fact that's what I am arguing.

Let's just be straight here, you're saying that people should be allowed to own plants so they can manufacture their own drugs, correct?

No....i am saying people should be able to grow plants on their land regardless of whether they want to go further and extract drugs from them.

It sounds like you just want the line drawn slightly more over that way, so as to accommodate your own proclivities, and the rest is just window dressing.

No, I am for the legal right to grow any plant. The thing is the laws restricting invasive species and such do not draw the same penalty as plants such as marijuana. So arguing against those laws (which don't physically and mentally harm people when punished, and do actually serve a purpose) would be less productive.


People are losing their lives for growing these plants, that is wrong. Surely I am not the only one who sees this? And I have yet to find, and no one here has yet to hint at the core of the issue: the information. Where is the original texts that ban these plants? i am not seeing it. I can't believe we are all following this BS without actually having something in paper explaining.

[Ravenman]

I may have been born yesterday, but it wasn't last night.

I fail to believe you for one microsecond that people would grow marijuana, opium poppies, cocoa leaves, or whatever and have no interest in extracting drugs from those plants. It's just not a plausible argument at all.

[elbows]

Well, let me be the first to wade in then, and state outright, I do not want to see Opium production taken up in my country, just so you feel freer and want a hobby. There are social consequences to such things. Have you actually visited any countries where opium production continues, to see the social cost? It ain't pretty.

I, and I believe, the vast majority of people, have no problem with this plant being illegal because of the social costs. As it's a democracy, I think you'll have to do better than, "But it's a naturally occurring plant, dude!"

Not that the majority wouldn't like to see Marijuana delisted. Most probably would. That's a far cry from delisting opium or coca. Because they are plants.

Natural, God provided, blessed by saints - none of it changes that some plants produce horrific social consequences, that the vast majority care not to risk in the name of your personal freedom in pursuit of a hobby.

And now, I believe we're back in ..."When I rule the world..." territory again.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Coastal

People are losing their lives for growing these plants, that is wrong. Surely I am not the only one who sees this? And I have yet to find, and no one here has yet to hint at the core of the issue: the information. Where is the original texts that ban these plants? i am not seeing it. I can't believe we are all following this BS without actually having something in paper explaining.

The law you're looking for is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c 19. In Part:

4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III. . . .

SCHEDULE I

Opium Poppy (Papaver somniferum), its preparations, derivatives, alkaloids and salts, including:

(1)
Opium
(2)
Codeine (methylmorphine)
(3)
Morphine (7,8–didehydro–4,5–epoxy–17–methylmorphinan–3,6–diol)
(4)
Thebaine (paramorphine) . . .

2.
Coca (Erythroxylon), its preparations, derivatives, alkaloids and salts, including:

(1)
Coca leaves
(2)
Cocaine (benzoylmethylecgonine)
(3)
Ecgonine (3–hydroxy–2–tropane carboxylic acid)

SCHEDULE II

1.
Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations, including
(1)
Cannabis resin
(2)
Cannabis (marihuana)
(3)
Cannabidiol (2–[3–methyl–6–(1–methylethenyl)–2–cyclohexen–1–yl]–5–pentyl–1,3–benzenediol)
(4)
Cannabinol (3–n–amyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)
(5)
Nabilone ((±)–trans–3–(1,1–dimethylheptyl)–6,6a, 7,8,10,10a–hexahydro–1–hydroxy–6,6–dimethyl–9H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–9–one)
(6)
Pyrahexyl (3–n–hexyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–7,8,9, 10–tetrahydro–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)
(7)
Tetrahydrocannabinol (tetrahydro–6,6,9–trimethyl–3–pentyl–6H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–1–ol)
(7.1)
3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)

but not including
(8)
Non–viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives
(9)
Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks

There are the bans...they're not original texts...it's a 1995 law, replacing precursors, but it's what's in force now.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Coastal

People are losing their lives for growing these plants, that is wrong.

Right, because it's well-known that Canada has capital punishment for growing marijuana and opium.

[Coastal]

Right, because it's well-known that Canada has capital punishment for growing marijuana and opium.

sorry i should clarify. Not your life as in dead. Your life as in social, financial and family life will be seriously damaged.

The law you're looking for is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c 19. In Par

yes thanks, i have copied some of it above already. But i cannot for the life of me find anywhere describing the reasoning behind the laws. Often they will have a discussion before outright banning, thats what im trying to find. the logic behind their decisions.

Well, let me be the first to wade in then, and state outright, I do not want to see Opium production taken up in my country, just so you feel freer and want a hobby. There are social consequences to such things. Have you actually visited any countries where opium production continues, to see the social cost? It ain't pretty.

Nor do I. the discussion is not about opium but about Papaver somnifera. This is not so i have a hobby, it is so thousands of people can have their lives back and not be forced to live in a cell like a rat for growing plants. I currently live in Asia and have for some years. I have gone all through Asia helping farmers diversify crops to make money to feed their families. I know first hand the social effects of opium, among many others. And this wont be popular or on topic so let it die after this: Opium is not a big pull on society when left to the traditional sort of farmers who grow and use it. IN cities and western areas it becomes a problem. When you see farmers in a town smoking in their huts at night, its less of a problem. The problem is a social one, not strictly a chemical one. thats another debate though, here we are talking about plants, not chemicals.

I, and I believe, the vast majority of people, have no problem with this plant being illegal because of the social costs. As it's a democracy, I think you'll have to do better than, "But it's a naturally occurring plant, dude!"

If your grandmother was arrested for 3 years for her patch of opium poppies in her garden, you might sing a different toon. I would agree that is not likely to happen, as even police tend to have some compassion for freedom, but as the laws is written grandma can go pay her time because she is a hardened criminal.

Not that the majority wouldn't like to see Marijuana delisted. Most probably would. That's a far cry from delisting opium or coca. Because they are plants.

not so much. In Canada cocaine can never be produced from raw plants, its to cold and you need many acres to make anything. Its called just not realistic. Legalizing the plant would do nothing to the industry. Also the raw leaf is not addictive and very much medicinal hence its use as a medicine for a long time in the west. It is an incredibly healthy plant to have in your diet, and cocaine addiction is just not possible with raw material, its a very refined drug. The only plant drug, in respect to being in Canada, that could possibly argued is the opium poppy because when the drugs are extracted they have serious social draws in Canada and it can be grown in sufficient quantity. That said there are many reports of people using poppy pod tea for years with relatively few social costs. We could also bring in ethanol, which clearly has a far greater economic cost than any opium ball could hope for.

Natural, God provided, blessed by saints - none of it changes that some plants produce horrific social consequences, that the vast majority care not to risk in the name of your personal freedom in pursuit of a hobby.

once again, not. I am talking about nature. This is banning a living entity. A living species of life, and being punished severely for having it. And as of yet i have sen little to zero evidence supporting such drastic measures from the government in their decisions (I have asked them repeatedly without an answer, which is why I am even here on a public forum asking).

I fail to believe you for one microsecond that people would grow marijuana, opium poppies, cocoa leaves, or whatever and have no interest in extracting drugs from those plants. It's just not a plausible argument at all.

I never stated that, that's not my business nor is it yours. Nor is it the focus of the debate. the focus on the debate is the legality of a living species, no the intent of a human with given species. There are already plenty of laws not only controlling the chemicals inside these plants, but on some of the chemicals used in extracting them. Ricin, a very nasty chemical, is banned probably worldwide. But the plant here is perfectly legal, you can even sell seeds in walmart where kiddies can pick them up and play with them. one cracked seed and an imperfect digestive system, and you are dead. But they still don't ban it, thankfully. However the processes of making a chemical from it is, and this is what i would consider a good compromise. Although with some drugs, hallucinogens specifically, it is very much oppressive to tell someone they are unable to hallucinate, that is a human right. I say this because hallucinogens tend not to be addictive, they tend to have tolerance periods limiting repeated use, and most of them have no known physical health issues.

This was my issue with the Salvia divinorum thing in Canada. Their argument was that hallucinating is wrong. What right does anyone have over that? In literal terms, dreaming is a hallucination of sorts. If there is no negative impact on society, there is little argument.

I think people really do not realize the sheer number of species with drugs in them. It is seriously huge, and i would bet that even close to half of all flowering plants contain narcotic/psychoactive compounds. Homo sapiens itself is a container for a few controlled substances, as are other animals

[elbows]

the discussion is not about opium but about Papaver somnifera.

and again..."you just want the line drawn slightly more over that way, so as to accommodate your own proclivities".

this wont be popular or on topic so let it die after this:

You get to tell us to drop it? Because it's not where you'd like the discussion to go? Seriously?

When you see farmers in a town smoking in their huts at night, its less of a problem.

Except for his health, his family and the children he'll sell to pay for it, sure. I have lived in Asia as well, and with this sentence, for me, you just flushed any credibility you had, down the drain. It speaks to how your only concern is really yourself, in my opinion.

In Canada cocaine can never be produced from raw plants

Okay then, well we clearly shouldn't be concerned about it at all then, right? How ridiculous!

No one's Gran has been sent to jail for growing poppies in the garden, by your own admission. Do you even understand how such silly points are undermining any point you may have had?

? In literal terms, dreaming is a hallucination of sorts. If there is no negative impact on society, there is little argument.

In your universe perhaps. Tell it to the guy who had his face eaten off by a guy who was hallucinating.

Suddenly I can totally understand why you're not getting any answers. You are deaf to any opinion but your own. It doesn't seem like you want to engage in discussion so much as just an opportunity to convince everyone of your view.

I remain unconvinced by your silly 'it's a living entity' argument.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I may have been born yesterday, but it wasn't last night.

I fail to believe you for one microsecond that people would grow marijuana, opium poppies, cocoa leaves, or whatever and have no interest in extracting drugs from those plants. It's just not a plausible argument at all.

Ok I'll bite on this, assuming you are not considering any method of consumption extraction(obviously the reason for cultivation and possession is consumption).

Why would a law that allowed possession and use of the whole plant, but criminalized extraction and purification of certain compounds be a problem?

[elbows]

Why would a law that allowed possession and use of the whole plant, but criminalized extraction and purification of certain compounds be a problem?

For the same reason it's still a crime to hold up a bank with a fake gun. If you want the law enforced effectively you have to give the police a fighting chance, at least.

Allowing people to grow plants but just not 'extract' is ridiculous from an enforcement point of view. This would be entirely counterproductive to the ends you're trying to achieve, not to mention increase enforcement costs substantially, I should think.

[grude]

Originally Posted by elbows

For the same reason it's still a crime to hold up a bank with a fake gun. If you want the law enforced effectively you have to give the police a fighting chance, at least.

Allowing people to grow plants but just not 'extract' is ridiculous from an enforcement point of view. This would be entirely counterproductive to the ends you're trying to achieve, not to mention increase enforcement costs substantially, I should think.

Codeine products are over the counter in many countries, with the proper equipment that codeine can be extracted and turned into heroin, yet anyone is allowed to purchase it.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by grude

Why would a law that allowed possession and use of the whole plant, but criminalized extraction and purification of certain compounds be a problem?

I can think of several examples of laws against things that, if one were to put blinders on and totally ignore any context whatsoever, you could argue should be legal.

Possession of burglary tools. What is wrong with walking around at night in dark clothing with a prybar and latex gloves? There are already laws against burglary.

What is wrong with owning a fully automatic high-powered rifle with no serial numbers that is not registered with the appropriate officials? There are already laws against assault with a deadly weapon.

Here's another thought: police shouldn't be allowed to harass people buying lots of fertilizer and diesel. There's nothing wrong with either of those commodities, in fact, they are very common. If the government starts getting concerned about every person who rents a U-Haul to move a few hundred pounds of fertilizer and diesel, then we're going to be sentencing farmers to their doom in state-run dungeons (to turn a phrase inspired by the OP).

And why should large cities ban people from holding demonstrations in the streets while wearing masks to conceal their identity? Sure, the US has a long history of hooded white men holding bonfires in residential areas at night, but there are laws against that, and there's nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask, right?

If one is willing to totally ignore the real world, lots of things might be considered harmless activities.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If one is willing to totally ignore the real world, lots of things might be considered harmless activities.

I gave a real world example of codeine(which can be extracted and through chemistry turned into heroin) which is not in itself illegal per se. But show intent or possess other materials involved and that can change and become criminal.

What is the difference?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by grude

I gave a real world example of codeine(which can be extracted and through chemistry turned into heroin) which is not in itself illegal per se. But show intent or possess other materials involved and that can change and become criminal.

What is the difference?

So, some countries see value in allowing codeine to be sold over-the-counter as an analgesic. Wonderful. To my recollection, the places I've been that allow that tend to limit sales to reduce the odds that it will be used for illicit purposes. The US does the same thing for Sudafed. There's a balance that's struck between legitimate use of a product and the risk for abuse.

I'm saying that there is no legitimate reason for someone to claim that they were innocently growing a field of marijuana or opium poppies. Of course they're growing it for illicit purposes. There's no balance to be struck at all. Just because plants are, like, totally natural, man, makes no difference whatsoever.

[Coastal]

Elbows, no offense my friend but you just don't seem to comprehend.

argument: all plants should be legal. I gave examples of other dangerous plants that are not illegal/controlled and i feel they should remain legal.

and again..."you just want the line drawn slightly more over that way, so as to accommodate your own proclivities".

What you are not getting is iI am talking about the plant, the species of living life. Not opium. I am not drawing lines to be more beneficial to me i am talking about how this species of life is actually controlled as a living species, and my thinking of how immoral and wrong that is.

You get to tell us to drop it? Because it's not where you'd like the discussion to go? Seriously?

I said that to present my train of thought, but it is off topic to the debate of living plants. Understand what i mean?

Except for his health, his family and the children he'll sell to pay for it, sure. I have lived in Asia as well, and with this sentence, for me, you just flushed any credibility you had, down the drain. It speaks to how your only concern is really yourself, in my opinion.

Opium use in traditional Asian settings are FAR different than addiction in a city in the west, any idiot can clearly see that. I'm not hear giving out all the pros of drug use, i am well aware of its health risks. People can make that decision on their own, and they do. Make drugs legal would be easy, just make it known they are paying all their own costs. In a nanny state this wont ever work because it would be bad government to let a person rot and die due to their own irresponsibility. Again off topic, I am discussing legality of living plants. Maybe we can make a second thread discussing legality of narcotics, i would love to discuss that elsewhere.

No one's Gran has been sent to jail for growing poppies in the garden, by your own admission. Do you even understand how such silly points are undermining any point you may have had?

Exactly, it is completely ridiculous to think of someone going to jail for growing a plant. IN the word of the law, grandma technically can go to jail just like you could for growing a marijuana plant, or a coca plant. Its no different except for the social acceptance of the situation, duh. This kind of hypocrisy is weird and rampant.

In your universe perhaps. Tell it to the guy who had his face eaten off by a guy who was hallucinating.

Suddenly I can totally understand why you're not getting any answers. You are deaf to any opinion but your own. It doesn't seem like you want to engage in discussion so much as just an opportunity to convince everyone of your view.

I remain unconvinced by your silly 'it's a living entity' argument

then try to read what i am saying. The logic behind many of these plants being controlled is short sighted and lacking. I think no one has answered my question simply because they cant find a logical answer. Nor can I. Guy getting his face eaten off by a tripping person. Thats pretty scientifical, and useful. how many people died in car accidents? tobacco related deaths? ethanol related deaths? dog/pet related deaths? compare that to eating a plant, tripping and dieing. It happens but the numbers are hugely one sided, statics alone prove many things here.

Allowing people to grow plants but just not 'extract' is ridiculous from an enforcement point of view. This would be entirely counterproductive to the ends you're trying to achieve, not to mention increase enforcement costs substantially, I should think.

I wonder how much law enforcement and related costs would be eliminated legalizing just marijuana? Never mind the economic benefits to its production, but that may be not so much given how many other industries it would ruin. Financially speaking, it makes more sense to legalize.


Grude, another very similar example as you state would be ephedrine/pseudo-epehdrine.



so hypothetical situation for those of you lucky enough to live in the real world.

Grandma can grow opium poppies in her garden, and as of yet I have not seen one of them go to jail for it. This is, I am guessing, strictly due to intent of the grower. Granny probably isn't making poppy pod tea (probably).

Now what if granny grew a large marijuana plant in her garden for same reason, its pretty. She didn't smoke it, only grew it. The plants are both scheduled, they are being grown by grandma, but do you think police would drive by and not do anything if it were a marijuana plant? Is marijuana more dangerous than opium? This is the logic i am discussing, and the fact that there is very little of it in regards to drug laws and psychedelics.

[Coastal]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

So, some countries see value in allowing codeine to be sold over-the-counter as an analgesic. Wonderful. To my recollection, the places I've been that allow that tend to limit sales to reduce the odds that it will be used for illicit purposes. The US does the same thing for Sudafed. There's a balance that's struck between legitimate use of a product and the risk for abuse.

I'm saying that there is no legitimate reason for someone to claim that they were innocently growing a field of marijuana or opium poppies. Of course they're growing it for illicit purposes. There's no balance to be struck at all. Just because plants are, like, totally natural, man, makes no difference whatsoever.

no one mentioned a field. There could easily be restrictions on plant quantity. there already is in many places for things like tobacco....why not other things? I don't need a field of opium poppies, but i like a few in my raised beds. And frankly i like the look of Cannabis a s a backdrop, its very fine like bamboo.

and always adding "ya man" type stuff, although effective at discrediting my point of view, is kind of a scape goat for not really wanting to think something out. I'm not a hippy in the sense like that, only in the sense i believe in human rights and freedom.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Coastal

no one mentioned a field. There could easily be restrictions on plant quantity. there already is in many places for things like tobacco....why not other things? I don't need a field of opium poppies, but i like a few in my raised beds. And frankly i like the look of Cannabis a s a backdrop, its very fine like bamboo.

Too bad. Just because one person may like pretty plants that can produce drugs doesn't mean there is any good reason to open a door that would obviously be used for activities that would remain illegal under your proposal (the production of drugs from those plants). I say this in the same spirit in that just because one person may responsibly carry an illegal weapon of some kind (maybe a sawed-off shotgun), is not a sufficient reason to legalize that weapon.

Again, there is nothing unique about plants that make them less subject to regulation. There is no reason to treat plants differently than man-made items, whether the thing in question is a gun, PCP, or anything else.

and always adding "ya man" type stuff, although effective at discrediting my point of view, is kind of a scape goat for not really wanting to think something out. I'm not a hippy in the sense like that, only in the sense i believe in human rights and freedom.

Yes, it is aimed at making light of your point of view, because your point of view has no other support than "plants should be legal because they're natural."

[Ace309]

Coastal, could you explain a bit more clearly why being natural means that something should not be regulated? That would do a lot toward convincing me your position is correct.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I'm saying that there is no legitimate reason for someone to claim that they were innocently growing a field of marijuana or opium poppies. Of course they're growing it for illicit purposes. There's no balance to be struck at all. Just because plants are, like, totally natural, man, makes no difference whatsoever.

I am arguing from the angle that no one is pretending the unrefined plants would not be consumed, that is pretty much implicit.

I don't see why it would be so difficult to say for example that growing and possessing a quantity of opium poppies is legal, processing them mechanically and chemically into heroin is not legal.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by grude

I am arguing from the angle that no one is pretending the unrefined plants would not be consumed, that is pretty much implicit.

The OP seems to be contesting that.

I don't see why it would be so difficult to say for example that growing and possessing a quantity of opium poppies is legal, processing them mechanically and chemically into heroin is not legal.

Because I think it's pointless, because of what you concede, in that it is obvious the plants will be consumed. If its obvious the plants would be consumed for their psychoactive qualities, there's no reason to pretend that the raw plant should be permitted.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The OP seems to be contesting that.

Because I think it's pointless, because of what you concede, in that it is obvious the plants will be consumed. If its obvious the plants would be consumed for their psychoactive qualities, there's no reason to pretend that the raw plant should be permitted.

Well that is just silly then, if he is arguing that it should be legal to possess but illegal to consume. It is a paper thin fiction and everyone will know it.

However I still don't see a problem with limited quantities of raw plant material being legal, while chemically different refined substances are not.

For an example beyond codeine, coca leaves are a traditional drug in parts of South America and their use is culturally accepted. Not so if they have their cocaine extracted and purified.

http://www.tni.org/primer/coca-leaf-myths-and-reality

In March 2009, the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, sent a letter sent a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, requesting the suspension of the paragraphs 1c and 2e of Article 49 of 1961 UN Single Convention that prohibit the chewing of coca leaf. He also announced that he would start the process to remove the coca leaf from the 1961 Single Convention.

On July 30, 2009, the Bolivian proposal to amend the 1961 Single Convention by deleting the obligation to abolish the chewing of coca leaf was on the ECOSOC agenda (UN Social and Economic Council). Parties have 18 months to express objections or comments on the Bolivian request, until January 31, 2011.

From Bolivia’s point of view, the international community holds in its hands a historic opportunity to correct a misconception regarding coca leaf chewing by eliminating both paragraphs of the Single Convention. This action will restore the dignity and lawful right to the people that consume coca leaf for traditional and medicinal purposes to legally exercise this cultural and harmless practice.

[Coastal]

Coastal, could you explain a bit more clearly why being natural means that something should not be regulated? That would do a lot toward convincing me your position is correct.

I am not contesting the word natural, in this thread i am hating that word. I am contesting the banning of an entire species of life.

Because I think it's pointless, because of what you concede, in that it is obvious the plants will be consumed. If its obvious the plants would be consumed for their psychoactive qualities, there's no reason to pretend that the raw plant should be permitted.

Speculation and assumptions run rampant in drug laws. Like mentioned above with gun laws, we could assume that every hand gun solid is going to be used by a gang banger, but we don't. we could assume that every person that has a computer is going to hack the government, but we don't.We could assume every person growing a poppy is manufacturing opium.....and we do. why? in fact with opium as a great example, it is grown a LOT as an ornamental and people don't use it for opium (sure some do). So why try to eliminate a creation of nature, a living species and do away with any chance of owning/growing it (legally)?

What if we made puffer fish illegal to aquarium hobbyists? why not toads to reptile enthusiasts?

Well that is just silly then, if he is arguing that it should be legal to possess but illegal to consume. It is a paper thin fiction and everyone will know it.

I am not arguing it, but if I were why would it be silly. Intent is another subject. Only drug laws seem to include assumptions and intent. Like gun laws mentioned above, it just doesn't happen that much in other areas. For the record i do not think it should be illegal to consume, that is a freedom of choice and expression as far as I am concerned. But that's not what this topic is about really.

For an example beyond codeine, coca leaves are a traditional drug in parts of South America and their use is culturally accepted. Not so if they have their cocaine extracted and purified.

great example. UN drug laws are just as ass backwards as any national ones are, so i doubt they will get far on that front despite thousands of years of traditional use....They know best, don't ya know?





once again, I am looking for anyone to help me find the discussions that went on when banning these plants in Canada. Does this information exist? or are these laws all based on senseless assumptions and had no real study/discussion conducted to take these freedoms away? If it were a different topic with the same situation, people would be more angry about it. It just happens psychoactive plants have long been demonized and raise little attention to the general public.

[elbows]

I think you'll find that most people, in fact, a majority, both understand why, these plants are scheduled, and are content to have them be so. For obvious reasons.

I don't foresee a sudden swing to people believing there would be no societal impact to descheduling these plants. Easier access to addictive substances, seems highly unlikely to become a popular rallying point, in my opinion.

You feel otherwise clearly, but you haven't done much to convince anyone beyond waving away their concerns as unfounded and hysterical.

[Coastal]

I think you'll find that most people, in fact, a majority, both understand why, these plants are scheduled, and are content to have them be so. For obvious reasons.

I sure hope Canadian law isnt based on such things. Law is generally supposed to be unbiased and clear and factual. I know it isnt always the case, but somewhere and sometime there must have been some form of educated discussion available to the public as for the reasoning behind controlling a living species (and probably included with the drug).

I don't foresee a sudden swing to people believing there would be no societal impact to descheduling these plants. Easier access to addictive substances, seems highly unlikely to become a popular rallying point, in my opinion.

Sure, I agree. I'm not blind, but im not a pushover either, sometimes i want answers. Clear answers that actually tell me something, not "most people think is should be this and for obvious reason" which tells me nothing but people don't like it for reasons that are not stated.

lets go back to the basics. these plants are controlled. the only concern to Canada as an addiction possibility here is opium poppy, ironically its also the only one commonly grown in Canada by damn near anyone....All the others are HIGHLY medicinal and of great economic importance, although on that list only Cannabis and Papaver can be grown reliably in Canada, this is fact and I am a botanist so can say this with 100% certainty.

Sched. 1 Papaver somniferum
Sched. 1 Erythroxylon species
Sched. 2 Cannabis
Sched. 4 Catha edulis - khat
Sched. 6 Ephedra species (and any other plant that has ephedrine).

You feel otherwise clearly, but you haven't done much to convince anyone beyond waving away their concerns as unfounded and hysterical.

I am trying less to convince people of my view and trying more to open up some information because this thread is 95% opinion and lacking true information. This is why i am trying to find where we can see the reasoning behind the control of plant species in the first place, from the horses mouth. It is hard to argue fact when all you have is belief.

I have emailed the DOJ many times, and not gotten anywhere with them either (requesting publications/ejournals/websites etc describing the process of banning. IM starting to wonder if it is just a copy paste/slight edit form UN and USA regulations.

[Coastal]

Cannot edit post above, so new psot.

I thought these were of interest to the conversation as well.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p1.html

Incorporates some changes triggered by decisions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - for example, the minimum sentence under the NCA for importing and exporting narcotics was seven years. The Supreme Court ruled that such a high minimum sentence of imprisonment violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p3.html

In a poll conducted in March 2002 by Gallup, 37% of Canadian were in favour of decriminalizing possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Four-in-ten (40%) believed that possession should result in a fine, while 22% believed that possession should be a criminal offence. While the proportion of respondents who believed that possession should be a criminal offense decreased 13 percentage points since the first time the question was asked by Gallup in 1977, the proportion of respondents who are in favor of decriminalization has significantly increased by 14 percentage points from 1977 to 2002. The proportion of Canadians who agree that possession should result in a fine has decreased from 48% in 1999 to 40% in 2002.

And jsut in case we want to argue the fact that majority wins in a democracy:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p4.html

Eight-in-ten Canadians are in favour of the legalization of marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

There is considerable support for the medical use of marijuana in all age groups and men and women support legalization in similar proportions.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p5.html

Of the 3.2 million admissions to hospitals and deaths recorded in Canada in 1998/1999, less than 1% involved illicit drug poisoning.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p5.html

Of the 30,423 hospitalizations for illicit drug poisoning in Canada in 1998/1999, the majority of hospitalizations were related to a suicide attempt (57%). Poisoning and accidental poisoning constituted a little over one-fifth (22%) of hospitalizations while one-in-ten (9%) individuals admitted to a dependence or abuse of illicit drugs. Drug psychosis constituted 7% of all hospitalizations for illicit drug poisoning while less than 5% of hospitalizations were for non-dependent abuse of drugs.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p6.html

The majority of drug offences (62%) reported by the police were for possession, while 25% were related to drug trafficking5. The remaining 13% consisted of drug importation and drug production offences (see Appendix B, Table 4 for more information). This has remained consistent with the numbers reported in 1998.

Overall, three-quarters of all drug offences involved cannabis, 15% involved cocaine, 9% involved other drugs, 1.4% involved heroin and less than 1% involved restricted and controlled drugs. This is consistent with drug consumption patterns examined earlier in Question 2 (see Appendix B, Table 5 for more information).

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p7.html

Low ratio for drug trafficking Of the different types of drug charges reported by the police, importation/production is the least likely offence to result in the laying of a criminal charge (3:1) while virtually all trafficking offences result in a charge (1:1) (see Appendix B, Table 7 for more information). Source: Uniform Crime Reporting Survey 2000, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...qr02_2/p8.html

A correlation analysis was done to determine the influence of other offence types on the overall drug trend. The results obtained were statistically significant, meaning that there is a negative correlation between police reports of violent or property offences and police reports of drug offences, that is, drug offence rates increase with the decrease of violent offence rates, and vice versa. The correlation coefficient was -0.49697, out of maximum of 1.0. More specifically, from 1980 to 2000, violent offence rates slowly increased from 636 per 100,000 population to a peak of 1,084 per 100,000 population in 1992 only to decrease consistently until the last year to a rate of 982 per 100,000 population. During that same period, drug offence rates decreased from 303 offences per 100,000 population to a low of 198 per 100,000 population in 1993, only to increase significantly since to 286 drug offences per 100,000 population in the year 2000.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...r02_2/p12.html

The most frequent sentence imposed on adult offenders was a fine (45%), followed by prison (23%) and probation (19%). In youth courts, the most common sentences were probation (56%), open or secure custody (19%) and fines (12%).

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...r02_2/p13.html

Eight-in-ten adults sentenced to a prison term for a possession offence received a sentence of less than 6 months and less than 1% were sentenced to more than 12 months. Two-thirds (66%) of adults charged with drug trafficking received a sentence of less than 6 months while 17% received a sentence of more than 24 months. The median prison sentence for adults convicted of drug trafficking was five times higher than the median sentence for adults convicted of drug possession (87 days versus 19 days respectively) (see Appendix B, Table 17 for more information).

this might not work well, see link for tables.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/r...-qr02_2/b.html

Table 3: Deaths attributed to illicit drug poisoning, Canada 1996 - 1998
1996 1997 1996-1998 % Change 1996-1998
Drug psychosis 1 2 - -
Dependence / abuse 11 14 24 +118 %
Accidental poisoning 215 217 375 +74 %
Suicide1 525 456 487 -7 %
TOTAL 752 689 886 +18 %

From health canada, surely cannabis isnt controlled based on this alone....? half of my medicine cabinet has worse side affects.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-d...abis-eng.php#d

Long-Term Effects

Cannabis smoke irritates the respiratory passages. This can lead to bronchitis, especially if used regularly. Cannabis smoke has some of the same toxic substances that are found in tobacco smoke that can cause cancer.

Frequent cannabis use affects motivation and concentration. It can interfere with school and job performance.

Long-term heavy use may also precipitate psychosis or schizophrenia in individuals with a genetic predisposition. Schizophrenia is a psychiatric disorder. People with schizophrenia lose touch with reality and may:

experience paranoia
have delusions
hallucinate

Cannabis use can complicate the course and treatment of this disorder, for example it can enhance the symptoms of schizophrenia.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-d...ire-eng.php#a3

In 2011, 78.0% of Canadians reported drinking in the past year,

The prevalence of past-year cannabis use among Canadians 15 years of age and older was 9.1% in 2011

List of Approved [hemp] Cultivars for the 2011 Growing Season
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/pr.../index-eng.php
and
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/substan...lusion-eng.php


Applying for med marijuana
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marih.../index-eng.php

[Coastal]

anybody? all the quotes above are from the gov of canada.

[Coastal]

Does anyone know a similar type message board where lawyers tend to hang out? It is rather frustrating never getting an answer other than opinion and being told im wrong with no facts or references to back it up. As of yet, the government has not been able to answer my question either. Which leads one to assume they are banned because of a belief not due to fact.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Coastal

Does anyone know a similar type message board where lawyers tend to hang out? It is rather frustrating never getting an answer other than opinion and being told im wrong with no facts or references to back it up. As of yet, the government has not been able to answer my question either. Which leads one to assume they are banned because of a belief not due to fact.

If you find you do not like the answers you're getting, you may want to ask yourself if you're doing a good job asking the questions.