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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Cannot edit post above, so new psot.
I thought these were of interest to the conversation as well.
And jsut in case we want to argue the fact that majority wins in a democracy:
this might not work well, see link for tables.
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-drogues/learn-renseigne/cannabis-eng.php#d
List of Approved [hemp] Cultivars for the 2011 Growing Season
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/precurs/list_cultivars-liste2011/index-eng.php
and
Applying for med marijuana
anybody? all the quotes above are from the gov of canada.
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.
I know what you mean and agree. Unfortunately it would seem many people have not tried to read my posts with an open mind and often just go straight to “hes a hippy idiot, his points are mute”. No one has come close answering, or really acknowledging, the question i keep asking.
so here it is in few words and less reading:
Where can i find the reasoning and the studies conducted that the decisions made to ban plants were based on (in Canada)?
I will hold off any further comments, no point muddying the water as this questions needs to be addressed before educated conversation can continue.
Nobod is dismissing you for being a hippie or saying your points are moot. With due respect, this has been answered, Coastal; your question proceeds from false assumptions.
The purpose of Canadian drug laws is not to ban living species. It is to ban drugs. The banning of particular plants is a supporting aspect of those laws, not their purpose. To understand why we have drug laws you need to get over this erroneous belief that they’re out to ban species. They’re not. They are out to ban drugs.
The history of drug law in Canada is pretty easily found online, but basically these things were outlawed because people believed the drugs in question had a negative social effect. There is really no other reason. Now, it is highly questionable if these laws are effective or well advised. But that is in fact why the laws exist.
There’s more to it than that of course; that’s the simple version. There is also implicit pressure from other countries to keep drugs illegal, since if they are legal in one place that country would become a nexus of drug trafficking. There were, originally, racist elements to the selection of drugs to ban. But it pretty much comes down to that drugs were perceived as hurting people, so they banned drugs, and to facilitate the banning of drugs they banned the possession of some plants. It’s no more complicated than that.
I hear you, and i agree mostly. Although it has been answered, and I agree, it has not been answered with any kind of reference.
I understand fully the pressure from various governments/agencies (namely USA and UN) oppressing other countries in various ways. They do it to Canada, they do it to Asia. They do it everywhere. Just cause it happens and we all have these assumptions drugs are bad, does not in any form justify it or explain it.
Agreed, but plants are banned as well and are therefor relevant. They are banning “containers” for drugs, something i am very well versed in. There are countless containers for drugs. Thousands of species likely contain DMT, should we control them all?
Also who is to say which drug is acceptable and which isnt? It is a social thing, hence my bringing up Asia before. Kratom, betel nut, coca leaf etc is used by farmers/workers to sustain themselves through shitty work. In some countries kratom is illegal for seemingly no other reasons other than it works on the same receptors as opiates and has thus been lumped in with opiates even though the original ban on it was because Thailand was kicking ass in ware and that wasnt cool, they blamed kratom.
Does everyone remember coffee being banned? Absinthe? Alcohol? How’d that go? Today these drugs are banned and some people seem quite happy in taking away peoples livelihood and freedom because they wanted a mental shift for a few hours. my argument is not this, this is simply reality. My argument is there is no official information here supporting WHY its illegal.
If I arrested you, seized your funds/house/cars etc, told your wife and children to sleep somewhere else, and hold you in jail for 10 months until you even get a trial…for coffee…would that be just? We are doing that now, except for marijuana which is, granted, a stronger drug, but a safe one with huge economic benefits.
They are out to ban more than drugs. They are banning the right to sensation, which is what drugs due: alter your states of being. Many entheogens are deeply spiritual/religious for many people. You know that native Americans to this day cannot grow their own peyote? they have to go, legally, poach wild populations and make them endangered (US Law). Even in Canada peyote is left totally legal due to native people using it and the governments fear of stepping on the human rights of native people. There is a huge lack of logic and an even larger surplus of ignorance and fear.
excellent, I am admittedly not great on the internet, so if you could link me i would REALLY appreciate it. I need links from the government as anything else hearsay without sources.
And so goes the hipocrisy we live in. Everyone who spends 5 minutes reading about it will know that Ethanol and nicotine are FAR more dangerous than many other natural occurring drugs. The exceptions are cocaine and opium and related compounds. Other controlled things liek LSD/LSA, psilocybin, THC, mescaline, DMT etc etc are far less harmful to teh physical body. The racist/oppressive people have banned them due to their perception of people that tend to do these are of a certain “class” that is not often considered “normal” or acceptable. I understand that is likely a large part of the drug laws today. But scientific fact should rule these types of laws more than one groups dislike for a certain group of people who wish to see things for a few hours every now and then. Addiction for the ones i mentioned above (not opiates/cocaine) is also slim to none, whereas caffiene, ethanol and nicotine are all quite addictive and vary in degrees of health hazards. I am not saying ban these too, far from it. We have the right to a beer, a coffee or a smoke. We should never lose that right, nor should we have lost the right to use other plants.
Ephedra sinica, one of the 50 essential herbs in Chinese medicine (so is Cannabis!) is not allowed in or out of the country (Canada). Think about the Chinese population in Canada and think about their medical system, far more ancient than the current hospital scenario, but they cannot import it (legally). You dont want a meth addiction, education. People are going to get high if they want to, its genetic i feel. Some people are just drawn to that sort of thing, others are not. At least if safe, clean and non addictive ones are available without the risk of losing everything you have lived for, people may opt for those rather than huffing paint or sticking themselves with needles over and over.
I should also note some countries which have far less oppressive laws have had good results doing so. Portugal for example.
So again, I really want a document name/link or an email or even a name of an agency i can talk to to find out the details. Without knowing the actual law and the technicalities of how it came about, there is no good way to support it or fight it.
PS, if i sound pissy I’m not. I quite enjoy engaging with people, but i do find it frustrating that no one seems to be able to come up with an official reasoning behind a law they blindly follow.
Look, it’s hard to engage with you because you are discussing two topics: 1) the factual question of why the legislature in Canada decided to draft the laws the way they are; and 2) whether those laws are justified.
So far, most of the discussion has been on point #2. To which you complain that you’re not getting an answer to point #1… and then go on for several paragraphs on your views about point #2. Well, which is it? You want debate or answers?
Perhaps this is just a board culture thing, but if you’re looking for a factual answer to something, and then go on to start a debate about it, you’re going to get more attention to the debate than the factual question. You’ve posted this in the Great Debates forum, after all.
As a factual matter, the reasoning behind ANY law is hard to pin down to the specificity that you’re asking for. There can be dozens of reasons why a legislature approves a bill: maybe Elected Official A did an exhaustive scientific survey and came to a well-reasoned conclusion on the law; maybe Elected Official B is a religious tee-teetotaler; maybe Elected Official C hates hippies. Their votes on the bill are all equally valid, and there is no utility whatsoever in thinking that since Elected Official C’s views are not up to your standards that the law can be invalidated.
I’m not sure about Canada, but in the US there’s Federal Repository Libraries at many major universities and public libraries that hold documents that will help explain the legislative history of US laws. You can get reports from committees that drafted the legislation that explain the bills in greater detail, there are hearing transcripts that expose the questions that committees ask of witnesses, there are transcripts of the debates that occur in the legislatures, and so on. Perhaps you want to go to your largest local library wherever you are and ask about whether similar resources are available in Canada.
And one more thing: if the US is any guide, any research you want to do on Canadian laws is up to you. It’s not the responsibility of the government to undertake research projects on behalf of curious citizens.
Good luck with your researching.
This is simply because we need the information from topic 1 to be able to thoughtfully discuss topic 2. Its like arguing about speeding without having any traffic statistics and laws in front of you.
A debate is supposed to breed answers, no? I want to debate and acquire answers. But to debate something we first need the actual facts from the source, something not easily found it would seem, even from Health Canada or the Department of Justice…which leads to an offshoot on why are we following laws that we cannot find information about how they got put in place?
Yes, I see that now. I am not so internet savvy, so I apologize, i see now there is a general question section i should have asked in.
Thats scary, it should be easy public information. I would think most people that get put in jail would want a better explanation than we think its wrong and made it illegal. At least I would.
Great idea, hadn’t thought of that. I will need to email them as I am currently doing field studies in Asia and am not in Canada often anymore. But our gov has spent lots of cash on digitizing, so I will contact the libraries as you mention and ask a family member to go check in person if required.
In Canada we call them civil servants, emphasis on servants. But i agree, and I am not asking them to research for me, but to point me in the direction of information to things they have forced upon us and altered our way of living. If government can take a human right away, I think any citizen has the right, some may argue responsibility, to request the relevant information about why it was taken away. We dont give them 20-40% of all our money to just arrest people without reason.
in some of the quotes i supplied before, by the Canadian govs own admission many of these things are not as problematic as legal alternatives. Which raises the question, why are we being oppressed for something that causes less harm than something that is allowed (marijuana/alcohol example)?
When/If i can ever track down such reasons for said laws, I will post them here and we can bring up the debate again 
Until then, i guess we just have to live in complete ignorance and assume it’s for the best.
Coastal, it’s sort of board policy that we don’t do people’s homework for them, and this is beginning to sound a lot like a homework assignment.
If you want to know why Parliament passed the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, you need to do some primary research. The information is out there.
**Because the voters do not want alcohol banned. ** It is not only that simple, but it’s bleeding obvious. What do you think would happen if the Conservative government proposed banning alcohol? They’d be destroyed. There is no “complete ignorance” here, it’s as plain as day.
The government acts generally in accordance with what will get them votes. You need to read about the economics of political behaviour.
It is public information. There’s LOTS of public information, it’s hard to sift through it all.
I did some checking, and this is what you should be looking for.
Wrong. Government employees are hired to do a job – attorney, receptionist, editor, police, whatever. They aren’t there to cater to whims for people who simply don’t want to put in the effort for themselves.
There is no human right to do drugs or plant weed. Police are arresting people for violating the law, not for “no reason.” You may disagree with the law, but at least be sophisticated enough to understand that the law exists, is consistent with constitutional principles, prosecutions are carried out with recognition that the accused has a bevy of rights… but you just don’t like the law. This hyperbole about “taking people’s lives away” is simply not credible.
Many good points here from Ravenman and RickJay.
I will add that law libraries exist in Canada. Perhaps the best known is the Great Library at Osgoode Hall in Toronto (IIRC, it is run by the Law Society of Upper Canada), though law libraries exist in most Canadian cities, and certainly at any university that has a law school. Naturally, in addition to statute- and caselaw, these libraries also have collections of textbooks that explain the development of Canadian law in all areas. The OP would do well to investigate these.
The law libraries and other resources linked to above will tell you the legislative history of the law, but they certainly won’t tell you why each member of Parliament voted the way he or she did, and may not go tinto any real points of debate. The fact is, there is no requirement I’m aware of in Canada or in any other democracy that there be any particular reason given for a piece of legislation. In the US, there has to be a “rational basis” for the law, but that can be practically anything, it doesn’t have to justify the law, and it doesn’t have to be the reason the law was passed. I’d imagine it’s not dissimilar in Canada.
I’m a little late to this party but here are my two cents (as a lawyer). The Criminal Code and the NCA are federal statutes passed by parliament. They are routinely amended by parliament, usually without much debate, usually at the prompting of Department of Justice staff lawyers who in turn field requests from the RCMP and crown prosecutors about adding a given provision or adding a substance to the “illegal” category. So bottom line: if you’re looking for some kind of public paper trail telling you why a certain substance was banned, you are generally not going to find it. This is the slow grinding of bureaucratic wheels over months, years and decades. There’s no debate, no press conference, no public record. And its the same process for thousands of laws and regulations, in every conceivable area, from what ingredients are allowed in baby food to the type of light bulb you can buy at the hardware store. That’s POGG for you. (For my friends outside Canada, that’s Peace, Order and Good Government.) We have the first two down, not sure about the last one.