93% of Canadians want pot legal & Charter Rights are actually privileges
Posted on November 24th, 2011 in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Last year, I wrote a paper on why marijuana should be legalized in Canada. The public sentiment at school was arguably neutral, and I was without a high level of explicit public backing for the idea–or so it seemed. An interesting poll that I noticed surface early this morning of Nov 24 was done by CBC, and they asked Canadians exactly that: Should marijuana be legalized?
The results have been astounding, at least to me. At the time of writing, those answering ‘Yes’ to the question of legalization clocked in at 93.06% with currently 7,886 votes. This is compared to ‘No’ with 5.53%, (469 votes) and ‘I’m not sure’, 1.4%, 119 votes).
Now any student of statistics will tell you that this is not a scientific poll, and it is definitely not that. Framing of the article, audience, and wording of the question all play a role in those results. However, even with insane statistical discrepancy, it would be hard to argue that it could overcome a difference of over almost 17 votes to 1.
I think Canadians are beginning to make their mind up. Their sentiments, however, are going against the direction the government is going. The Conservative Government helmed by Harper is trying to introduce a crime bill which contains new mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences – including marijuana. Crown prosecutors in BC have been quoted as saying it will cause a massive financial strain on the judicial system.
This all reflects a government which is run in a way that is out of touch with the people’s demands. We have seen major prisons being planned for construction, which now will engulf more innocent nonviolent people. This is the same flawed thinking that keeps marijuana illegal and funds the gang war in British Columbia. The people know that, but Ottawa cares not.
At the same time, people who call for government accountability in these matters are chastised. We’ve seen the Occupy movement been called by our premier Christy Clark as “nonsense” speaking on behalf of the public saying they were “fed up with [Occupy]“. At the same time, we have seen cities all over Canada granted injunctions to clear out the protesters with ease.
Toronto, Ottawa, Victoria, Nova Scotia, Calgary, Edmonton, Vacouver, Regina–all these places had physical occupations. And all these cities, within a day or two of eachother, all were granted injunctions and sent the police to evict the people nearly the exact same day. What we saw, in essence, was a nation-wide stepping over the constitution on a case by case basis. The saddest thing is: Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto–each of the places mentioned–they were all taken to court on an individual basis, citing different reasons (Other people want to use the Art Gallery! was a site specific reason), and yet EVERY single city won their case.
It has really made me question, what is the significance of the constitution? We have the Charter of Freedom and Rights, but what is it really besides a piece of paper that is presumably kept on hand somewhere. Or just some text on a website. We saw Occupy Nova Scotia raided on Remembrance Day. As we remembered those who died for our freedom, there were police with their knees on peoples necks, arresting 14 in the raid. This is after Occupy Nova Scotia came to consensus to leave their initial location so Remembrance Day ceremonies could be held there. After they moved to a park, and in the rain, they were tackled and arrested by Halifax police. This led to uproar, even in the mainstream media. The mayor said they had agreed earlier to evict and he has no idea who gave the orders for them to move in on Remembrance Day–no one was held accountable, and life went on.
Even the corporate media takes a kick the mayor for his stupid move
And as you watch campus police pepperspraying non-violent students, sitting with arms linked at UC Davis, it makes one wonder if those who control us ever really will care about us.
Learn more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/braces+Tories+crime+bill/5643658/story.html#ixzz1eg7Yd9sH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW7t5l_PKgg Christy Clark
And may I recommend checking out
Occupy UBC
I’m posting this photo in response to one of my comments, about someone asking ‘What are they even protesting?!’
Just because you don’t know, doesn’t mean they don’t know.=]
Anthony
3 Responses
I’d say that the poll was not scientific. The majority of people that I talk to would never say that pot should be legalized, only a few agreed, of which 2 were (admited) stoners and one wanted the tax revenue that legalizing pot would bring in. As to the ‘Occupy’ movements, I totally agree. They are a complete waste of time. What are they even protesting? As far as I can see, they are camping out on public property, stoping people from enjoying public space, and protesting against the policies that allow them to skip work and protest in the first place. Ridiculous.
Hey, if you don’t know what they’re protesting, maybe you should spend less time complaining in my blog and more time finding out for yourself. =] Just a suggestion
I tried to post a picture in response, but I guess you can’t post images in comments–so check the bottom of my blog for the picture I want you to see
I have a feeling that the real opinions of Canadians aren’t so extreme to that one side. My guess is that the only reason there were so many Yes votes simply because those supporting the legalization of pot have a special interest to get their votes in… Most other people simply don’t care–it’s just another poll to them.
“The saddest thing is: Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto–each of the places mentioned–they were all taken to court on an individual basis, citing different reasons (Other people want to use the Art Gallery! was a site specific reason), and yet EVERY single city won their case.” Why are you calling this the saddest thing? I think it’s appropriate for them to have been taken to court each on an individual basis since each encampment was a different situation. It would be difficult to do it differently since each one was quite unique. I also don’t know why it’s bizarre that every city won their case. Maybe it’s just that Occupy simply wasn’t justified to occupy that specific location…?
I don’t know why it was necessary for you to mention Remembrance Day in such detail. Ultimately, I don’t see what difference it makes that this occurred on Remembrance Day. To me it seems irrelevant; I read it as if it was presented only as an appeal to pathos where an appeal to logos would not be sufficient.
And since you brought it up again with UC Davis, I’d like to recall a point that was emphasized at “Occupy What?!” That is, the point that “people have a right to peaceful protest.” My question is, do they? There is a big difference between peaceful protests and protests that don’t cause harm: the former suggests no violence, whereas the latter necessitates that no harm is done. I think this difference is too often overlooked. And now that I bring it up, do people truly have a right to peaceful protest? I understand that what happened at UC Davis was in response to a peaceful protest; however, I don’t think the media ever presented the whole story, and thus I still question whether the protest was one causing no harm.
As for the comic, I think it abuses language a bit. You can read “they don’t really seem to know why they are protesting” in at least two different ways. The first is that they don’t really seem to know the reasons that brought them to the protest. The second is that they don’t really seem to know what they specifically want to achieve by protesting. I believe that this cartoon is making fun using the first interpretation, despite the fact that I feel that the media and the general population tend to be actually asking more about the second interpretation. I don’t think the comic accurately represents the issue of “Why?” with Occupy.