Vancouver legalizes pot. Adopts plan to distribute.

[firefox]

This is from last week, but it was a very newsworthy development. From Cannabis Culture at http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4573.html

by CC Staff (03 Nov, 2005)

BCMP Urges Immediate Moves Toward Regulated Cannabis Distribution

Today the Vancouver City Council unanimously adopted “Preventing Harm From Psychoactive Substance Use,” a plan that, among other things, calls for an end to prohibition and the regulated distribution of cannabis.

<paragraph omitted>

The Vancouver Plan

The prevention plan covers a wide range of substances. It includes recommendations on legal and currently-illegal substances. Importantly, the plan represents a major push forward on one of Vancouver’s “Four Pillars” of drug policy: prevention. Worthy of note is that the plan’s definition of prevention deems it to be preventing harm, not simply preventing use. In fact, the plan recognizes the human reality that: “Substance use occurs along a spectrum from beneficial, to non-problematic or casual use, through to problematic or harmful use.”

The concept of a spectrum of use is one key part of the underlying philosophy of the plan. Another is the recognition that regulated markets are an essential part of preventing harm to our society. According to the Vancouver Plan: “The intent of creating regulated markets for currently illegal substances is to better control their public availability. Regulated markets support the idea that ‘No drug is made safer left in the hands of organized criminals and unregulated dealers.’(Transform, 2005).”

The Vancouver Plan also recognizes the prohibition has failed: “The results of alcohol prohibition and the current pervasiveness of drug-related harm demonstrate that prohibition has little control over the production, supply and use of illegal substances. There is no indication that prohibition reduces the prevalence or incidence of drug use, decreases drug traffic or stops the production of illegal substances.”

<snipped>

[mike_c]

1. YES! Finally, a rational approach to drug policy in North America....

:toast:

[Midnight Rambler]

2. Now lets see if we can get some of this down in Austin

It'll certainly have a lot of public support. And Willie will definitely be happy.

:smoke:

[wakeme2008]

3. Too late

Willie just moved to Vancouver,, he said something about the air there. :rofl:

[politicaholic]

4. It's only a two hour drive.............. excellent...

talk about a good reason to commute!

My next purchase? James Bond rocket pack. Oh yeah!

[AndyTiedye]

5. Way to Go Van-sterdam!!

:smoke::party::smoke::party::smoke:

[HeeBGBz]

6. What? Is that Vancouver calling my name?

It sounds like her to me.

[tuvor]

7. Uh, no: "Vancouver Adopts Plan Calling For An End To Prohibition"

Legalization wouldn't take place at the municipal stage anyway.

[firefox]

8. Cannabis sales in Dutch coffeeshops are not technically legal either

Prohibition sure gives us a new vocabulary. Full legalization implies having regulated sales as desired by the Vancouver Plan. Federal prohibition warps everything, but when you declare prohibition a failure and call for regulated markets, that is legalization even if you want to put an asterick beside it saying federal law has altered an implementation of a desired policy.

The article talks about calling for making arrest the lowest priority of law enforcement and with Vancouver's situation that is legalization, at least as far as they can go. It is unclear if tourist will be able to openly buy cannabis under a city regulatory plan like in the Netherlands, where it is technically illegal. And of course public use has long gone on at Blunt Brothers and people often smoke openly in the street.

It is all splitting hairs. The Council calls for legalization and has signified that harm reduction, including reducing the harms that come from arrest, is the guiding principle. When they quit arresting that is decriminalization and when they do not issue fines that is defacto legalization.

This is city legalization even if you want to put an asterick beside it. The city calls prohibition a failure and abandons it. I call that city legalization under a federal prohibition.

[tuvor]

9. No, thanks. You can put the asterisk in.

I wouldn't even have posted in the first place if you hadn't made up a headline different from your source.