Marijuana v. Asbestos


As part of a Mark series on what we should ban and what we should legalize, Liberal Keith Martin says decriminalize marijuana, while NDP MP Nathan Cullen says ban asbestos.

Separately, Progressive Conservative Senator Elaine McCoy recently wrote that Canada should consider legalizing marijuana with an eye to the potential revenue generated.


Marijuana v. Asbestos

  1. Another irrelevancy from our wherry busy scribbler.

    • You're a boring little pissant. If you have a problem with the writing, go read FreeDominion instead.

    • And another searing insight from you.

    • Be nice. Dink.

  2. The answer of course is obvious. We must immediately replace all the asbestos with an equivalent quantity of marijuana.

    • Mr. Speaker, I would like to second the motion presented by the Honourable member from Muppet-Avatar-Athabasca

    • Since the motion has been seconded all in favour VOTE NOW! 1 from me ….. whatever happened to NORML? I was a member years and years ago back when I was a Liberal and I seem to remember my hero of the time Chretien and he promised to decriminalize – Even my present Hero Harper states that conservative philosophy right now is proposing having 2 plants at home for personal use – seems to me like all the parties may have ground for cooperation if only we could halt the hyperpartisanship!

      • …I just realized that "Muppet-Avatar-Athabasca " could very well be one of the new ridings in Alberta in a few years…but only if this motion passes the house.

        Hey, ya know what would taste good right now? Doritos….

        • I just realized why most of this board hates conservatives. Bunch of drug-loving hippies.

          • Hey, there are some drug-loving conservatives as well. Like Jaffer :)

      • Even my present Hero Harper states that conservative philosophy right now is proposing having 2 plants at home for personal use…

        Really? I don't recall that proposal, can you post a link? It would seem to go against Harper's "tough on drugs" stance, or at least the more common of the Conservative rhetoric on it, but it would be a step in the right direction (for a change.)

        As for what happened to the previous attempts at decriminalization, this explains the recent history fairly well.

        • I take it you don't read proposed legisaltion – maybe you should pay attention as I dion't have time or energy to educate the ignorant! Bill C-15, An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was introduced by … 'small amounts' of personal possession of marijuana up to 2 plants.

          • Actually, I have read the act and can't find that at all. As a matter of fact, the act would mean a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for growing even one plant "for the purposes of trafficking." That's kind of a key line, since the definition of the purposes of trafficking in a court is based on the opinion of a police expert.

            Also, for the record, providing a reference to a rather strange statement is not "educating the ignorant." It's making an argument. Making a rather strange statement and moaning about having to cite a reference is just lame.

    • It may not stop fires, but it'd make sure people weren't upset about them.

      • And it should virtually eliminate trampling deaths that sometimes occur as panicked hordes rush for the exits.

  3. Man, replacing asbestos with marijuana is the best idea i heard
    in a long time!

    Oh come on, we dont anything fun here anymore! Look at other countries and there city planners, young minds with an eye on the future.

    Canada's like an old man always bitchin' STAY OFF MY LAWN ! And not learning how to be modern but instead doing the same things over and over.

    Long live Geronimo

    • For the current government, it's not so much "Stay off my lawn!" as it is "Keep off the grass".

      Hey Now!
      Try the veal…

  4. If you replaced the asbestos with pot, your house would burn down but you wouldn't care.

  5. Decrim is a cop out. It perpetuates the criminal approach already proven ineffective at best, a promoter at worst. Yet it is a softer approach and will do little to deter and nothing to manage consumption.

    Legalization allows, as McCoy observes, for revenue generation. That revenue can be used to wage public education programs proven far more effective at reducing usage. lso, as she points out, it means distributors can be licensed and regulated so we aren't seeing criminal grow-ops, product produced under dangerous circumstances and garbage getting into the product chain.

    All for a product whose use should be discouraged for the fact that it is an escape and a poor moral choice but which ultimately is not a relative danger to society. The ways that it can be a danger – impaired driving etc… – can be addressed in the same way as alcohol.

Sign in to comment.