Shots fired from Canadian government, the war against marijuana may end in 7 days.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

apollo278:
here is article about the effects of marijuana on driving
http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence
and one about the illnesses it treats
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

While I'm certainly in favour of legalization and taxation of marijuana, I'm going to mention that using the studies provided by either party in an argument usually isn't ideal, because it will generally display bias.

For example, when marijuana and hemp were originally prohibited, the supporters of prohibition used the fact that marijuana was smoked by African-Americans and was a major part of the jazz scene. By playing to the fears of 1940's and 50's conservative, middle class European-descended Americans, that bias was used to criminalize marijuana, and restrict growth and sales of hemp, which is in the same genus.

So now, while I don't dispute that marijuana is far less dangerous than the data of the 40's and 50's would indicate, I don't think using data collected by a publicly vocal pro-legalization group is going to be viewed as unbiased.

It's the same as when people attempt to cite Wiki references in college papers; yes, much of the material in Wikipedia is valid and correct, but because anyone can edit a Wiki page, bias and misinterpretation can creep into the presented information, and most Wiki pages aren't considered valid 1st tier data sources, since none of the data is directly demonstrating extant and documented information.

I guess it's like citing a Bill O'Reilly broadcast as a fair view of a liberal viewpoint on a topic; yes, much of the info will probably be factual, but the presenter will have a specific bias which renders the rest of the presentation somewhat suspect.

BOOM headshot65:

Maybe thats because they are under the misconception that America is a Democracy. We are not now, nor have we ever been, a Democracy. We have always been, and will contuine to be a Republic.

We're a Democratic republic, with the emphasis on Democratic. The power is supposedly more prevalent in the people.

So you are basically just rebelling against your parents. GREEAATT. *rolling eyes*

No. It's much more complex than that. I decided for myself, something it's clear you cannot do without the help of those 40 plus "Above the influence" commercials that are utter bullshit.

And fuck, he even agrees with me. His whole thing is we just need to regulate it before we make it legal.

Oh great, the "ones legal, so they all should be" fallicy. Plus, they are addicted to a drug, thus they deserve rehab.

Fallacy? No, I don't agree with legalizing hardcore drugs. You thought that for me. I'm just curious as to how people like you are fine with alcohol being legal, yet are confused with the concept of allowing something that's less dangerous and addictive in every single way being legalized.

You're pretty adamant on ignoring that little detail.

And no, you're original comment was-

BOOM headshot65:
Well, not a big deal to me as a non-Canadian....but I pray to God nothing like this will ever happen in America. They are illegal for a reason. My heirarchy of how to treat it...

Smokers: Rehab
Pushers: Serious jail time
Lords: Shot and killed by commando team, then stock burned to the ground

People who smoke get mandatory rehab? Pushers get jail time?

Seriously, do you solely watch Fox news or something like that? Do you not know what weed is? It's people who had no idea about what they were talking about, like you, that passed this idiotic law in the first place.

You know why that law was passed? It was passed based off of inaccurate testing. Passed by the very same people who acted so lovingly during the Vietnam war and Civil rights era.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal

For one, you do not get addicted to weed in the same way you get addicted to meth, or heroin. Hell, not even in the same way you get addicted to cigarettes. Those are chemical addictions. Addictions with marijuana are entirely mental. There is no withdrawal from taking it away.

BOOM headshot65:
snip

I've come to the conclusion you're a Troll.

No one can be as insanely sheltered and ignorant as you're pretending to be.

Abandon4093:

BOOM headshot65:
snip

I've come to the conclusion you're a Troll.

No one can be as insanely sheltered and ignorant as you're pretending to be.

ah then you don't have much experience with the real world... trust me they are out their and some are even worse that this tard

makes me want to support eugenics

isometry:

Studies have been surprised to find no link between cannabis smoking and cancer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

2006: "The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer."

I'll all for the legalization of marijuana, but to go around saying it's harmless is pure ignorance.

Here's the link to pubmed on the study that article references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389

The actual quote from the study
Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits

The problem with this study is they adjusted for the confounding factor of smoking tobbacco. Removing confounding factors is a very important part of doing a study but in this case a lot of marijuana with cut with tobbacco and a lot of marjuana smokers do smoke, so the two effects blend together.

Here's another more recent study from New Zealand, it has a smaller sample size but is interesting as it is uncommon over there to mix cannabis and tobbacco in a joint.

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full

This shows quite a positive link between lung cancer and cannabis use.

Though most of these problems go away if you bake it into a brownie.

Liquidacid23:

Abandon4093:

BOOM headshot65:
snip

I've come to the conclusion you're a Troll.

No one can be as insanely sheltered and ignorant as you're pretending to be.

ah then you don't have much experience with the real world... trust me they are out their and some are even worse that this tard

makes me want to support eugenics

I've met some ignorant people in my time but he takes the cake. If he really believes the world is as black and white as he's making it out to be, I think he needs to go to a special needs program and get tested.

Kendarik:

Oh, and the Vietnam war really was never a good idea.

Most of the soldiers I have talked to that fought in it were in favor of it. Same goes for Iraq. I have talked to veterans of every war since WW2 and literally everything in between.

Abandon4093:

BOOM headshot65:
snip

I've come to the conclusion you're a Troll.

No one can be as insanely sheltered and ignorant as you're pretending to be.

Oh, well excuse me, I didnt know that insulting the the "Godly plant that can do no harm" instantly made me a troll. Youre also not the first to call me a troll because of my frankness

Liquidacid23:

makes me want to support eugenics

I will pretend I didnt see that.

JoesshittyOs:
No. It's much more complex than that. I decided for myself, something it's clear you cannot do without the help of those 40 plus "Above the influence" commercials that are utter bullshit.

And how, exactly, are they "bullshit." Because the government made it? Because you are trying to be rebelleous? Because you are infected with "you cant tell me what to do!" syndrome?

And fuck, he even agrees with me. His whole thing is we just need to regulate it before we make it legal.

Wierd, most of the cops I know are against legalization and have more then once take people in for mere possestion, because if they realized if they didnt, it would set a precident that your could get away with breaking a law. What is too stop them from doing it again, because "Hey, I just got off Scott-free."

Fallacy? No, I don't agree with legalizing hardcore drugs. You thought that for me. I'm just curious as to how people like you are fine with alcohol being legal, yet are confused with the concept of allowing something that's less dangerous and addictive in every single way being legalized.

Marijuna is a hard drug. Any drug that is not for expcitly medical purposes is a hard drug. OTC can turn into a hard drug when it is abused. What what UNBIASED, SCIENTIC resoures SAYS that marijunia is not that bad. And what exactly would you gain from this. Being "cool?" The "edgey" feeling that comes with being rebellious? "Freeing your mind, Man?" Why would you WANT to.

Seriously, do you solely watch Fox news or something like that? Do you not know what weed is? It's people who had no idea about what they were talking about, like you, that passed this idiotic law in the first place.

No, I do not watch Fox News...well, seldom, and I usually watch CNN and read USAToday. What I DO listen to is:
My Parents
My Teachers
My Coaches
My Law Enforcement Officers
My Elected Officials
The Military
Business Leaders

And the last people I would listen to:
Other teenagers
Hippies
Commies
War Protesters
The Tabliods
Anti-Consumerist
Anarchist
Anti-autoritarians
People who says drugs are not bad for you

I also show no sympathy to people who try to make drugs and end up hurting themselves or destroying property. Thats just Karma talking. Someones house burns down: I will give a damn. Someones house burns down because they had a meth lab in it: Given Damn is retracted

Abandon4093:
I think he needs to go to a special needs program and get tested.

Except I already am. I was Diagnosed with Aspergers in 3rd grade. What was that, about 11 years ago now?

BOOM headshot65:

Liquidacid23:

makes me want to support eugenics

I will pretend I didnt see that.

pretend you didn't see it all you want... seems to be what you do with most of reality... not to mention you probably don't even know what the word means

Liquidacid23:

BOOM headshot65:

Liquidacid23:

makes me want to support eugenics

I will pretend I didnt see that.

pretend you didn't see it all you want... seems to be what you do with most of reality... not to mention you probably don't even know what the word means

Eugenics is the process of keeping people you feel are less than human from breeding. Yah, I know what it is, because in the Past, Me, my girlfriend, and around 70% of my friends would have been affected by it, considering we all have some for of Autism, and I makes me sick when people even suggest it.

BOOM headshot65:

Abandon4093:

BOOM headshot65:
snip

I've come to the conclusion you're a Troll.

No one can be as insanely sheltered and ignorant as you're pretending to be.

Oh, well excuse me, I didnt know that insulting the the "Godly plant that can do no harm" instantly made me a troll. Youre also not the first to call me a troll because of my frankness

It's got nothing to do with your frankness and everything to do with your ridiculously uneducated opinions.

BOOM headshot65:

Abandon4093:
I think he needs to go to a special needs program and get tested.

Except I already am. I was Diagnosed with Aspergers in 3rd grade. What was that, about 11 years ago now?

I hate it when people with Aspergers shove it in peoples faces as if it's some sort of all powerful get out of responsibility free card.

Your Aspergers is not responsible for your incredibly ignorant view points. Nor is it responsible for anything else you undoubtedly blame on it.

BOOM headshot65:

Liquidacid23:

BOOM headshot65:

I will pretend I didnt see that.

pretend you didn't see it all you want... seems to be what you do with most of reality... not to mention you probably don't even know what the word means

Eugenics is the process of keeping people you feel are less than human from breeding. Yah, I know what it is, because in the Past, Me, my girlfriend, and around 70% of my friends would have been affected by it, considering we all have some for of Autism, and I makes me sick when people even suggest it.

ahh you are Autistic.. that explains a lot

Abandon4093:

It's got nothing to do with your frankness and everything to do with your ridiculously uneducated opinions.

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

I hate it when people with Aspergers shove it in peoples faces as if it's some sort of all powerful get out of responsibility free card.

Except I am not using it in that way. You think I am because you dont like. I was simply replying to the statement "I should be tested and put in special services." Saying that I in fact all ready was.

Your Aspergers is not responsible for your incredibly ignorant view points. Nor is it responsible for anything else you undoubtedly blame on it.

I dont us my Aspergers as blame for anything. I was simply replying to what you said. I actually find have Aspergers to be interesting. It makes me who I am, and I know that it puts me in company with some incrediabley brilliant minds such as Ms. Temple Grandin.

BOOM headshot65:

Abandon4093:

It's got nothing to do with your frankness and everything to do with your ridiculously uneducated opinions.

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

Your uneducated opinions aren't limited to drugs.

Abandon4093:

BOOM headshot65:

Abandon4093:

It's got nothing to do with your frankness and everything to do with your ridiculously uneducated opinions.

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

Your uneducated opinions aren't limited to drugs.

Really? Care to point out the others?

Aerodyamic:

apollo278:
here is article about the effects of marijuana on driving
http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence
and one about the illnesses it treats
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

While I'm certainly in favour of legalization and taxation of marijuana, I'm going to mention that using the studies provided by either party in an argument usually isn't ideal, because it will generally display bias.

For example, when marijuana and hemp were originally prohibited, the supporters of prohibition used the fact that marijuana was smoked by African-Americans and was a major part of the jazz scene. By playing to the fears of 1940's and 50's conservative, middle class European-descended Americans, that bias was used to criminalize marijuana, and restrict growth and sales of hemp, which is in the same genus.

So now, while I don't dispute that marijuana is far less dangerous than the data of the 40's and 50's would indicate, I don't think using data collected by a publicly vocal pro-legalization group is going to be viewed as unbiased.

It's the same as when people attempt to cite Wiki references in college papers; yes, much of the material in Wikipedia is valid and correct, but because anyone can edit a Wiki page, bias and misinterpretation can creep into the presented information, and most Wiki pages aren't considered valid 1st tier data sources, since none of the data is directly demonstrating extant and documented information.

I guess it's like citing a Bill O'Reilly broadcast as a fair view of a liberal viewpoint on a topic; yes, much of the info will probably be factual, but the presenter will have a specific bias which renders the rest of the presentation somewhat suspect.

The problem is that you generally don't find research being done into things like marijuana's health effects etc unless the party doing the research has some reason to do it.

It's hard to get non-biased information on the subject because most people doing research are either pro or anti legalisation.

I will say however, David Nutt certainly didn't have anything to gain from the pamphlet he released on his findings into dangerous substances.

And he's not an isolated case.

BOOM headshot65:

Abandon4093:

BOOM headshot65:

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

Your uneducated opinions aren't limited to drugs.

Really? Care to point out the others?

Off the top of my head, your stance on war (all of them involving America it seems.) Your opinion of law enforcement and government. And your understanding of anyone who isn't American.

There's nothing wrong with standing by your government, your military or your police. But to assume that their actions are always the right ones, that they are somehow infallible. Well that's just plain dumb.

You seem to view the world in stark black and white. "These are good people, these are bad people." But that's seldom ever the case.

BOOM headshot65:

Abandon4093:

It's got nothing to do with your frankness and everything to do with your ridiculously uneducated opinions.

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

lol ... god it's funny when someone admits to being uneducated on a subject and yet still argues about said subject... then doesn't understand why everyone thinks they are an idiot

BOOM headshot65:

Kendarik:

Oh, and the Vietnam war really was never a good idea.

Most of the soldiers I have talked to that fought in it were in favor of it. Same goes for Iraq. I have talked to veterans of every war since WW2 and literally everything in between.

Well we know for a fact not all vets felt that way based on the historical record. We also know that soldiers generally end up feeling any war and action on their part is justified, its a basic survival technique. The ones who don't often end up as emotional wrecks.

Also what a soldier felt does not mean that it really was the right strategy. Much of the US was caught up in a "better dead than red" propaganda wave and so of course many bought in.

The reality is the french left for a reason. They were right to do so. Continuing to try and enforce an old empire's control of a colony by force is generally seen as a bad idea. It pretty much always turns out badly no matter who wins.

Th3Ch33s3Cak3:
Guess I'm never going to Canada again :/.

Seriously, what goverment would have such disrespect and lack of dignity to pass something like this? If my goverment were to do such a thing, I would leave the country.

You do not compromise with criminals, you arrest them. Such scum in humanity should be severly punished.

What exactly do you fear would happen if pot were legalised?

I just want to know. Do you just disapprove of drug use or do you think that there would be real social repercussions?

You do know that in most countries where drugs are legalised/decriminalised the rate of use goes down?

BOOM headshot65:

Abandon4093:

It's got nothing to do with your frankness and everything to do with your ridiculously uneducated opinions.

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

*chuckles*

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on sex? So that I don't descend into the web of lies that IS sex.

I also find not knowing things in general is the best way so that I am not tricked by facts and can freely reach my own correct conclusion without any facts getting in the way.

BOOM headshot65:
Well, not a big deal to me as a non-Canadian....but I pray to God nothing like this will ever happen in America. They are illegal for a reason. My heirarchy of how to treat it...

Smokers: Rehab
Pushers: Serious jail time
Lords: Shot and killed by commando team, then stock burned to the ground

Chris Rock:

Sellers don't 'push' drugs, they 'offer' drugs. They say "Do you want some drugs?" And you say "No, thank you." to which they reply "Have a nice day." because they figured out about twenty years ago that if they actually get pushy there's a bigger change of going to jail.

If pot, one of the most common drugs offered was legalized that'd be one less drug offered. Prohibiting the stuff today is about as smart as prohibiting booze was back in the day, and the only real reason it is prohibited is because of America's War On Drugs (which is going as well as any of the other half-dozen wars those not-warmongers have going; terror, poverty, raciscm, etc, etc. I think 'inciminal wather' was on the list at one point).

BOOM headshot65:

And how, exactly, are they "bullshit." Because the government made it? Because you are trying to be rebelleous? Because you are infected with "you cant tell me what to do!" syndrome?

Did I not just say it wasn't because I was being rebellious? Or did you miss that part? No, I got educated. I got smart. I realized that the government isn't always looking out for my best interest. It's not because I "think it's cool". It's because I can decide for myself. I look up facts, and the facts point to it being almost entirely docile.

And really? I was sort of joking around with the Above the Influence commercials, because anyone with an ounce of sense can see straight through them.

Yeah. Pot turns you into a dwarf. Your dog doesn't like it when you smoke pot. Honestly? For one, they never even try to say what's dangerous about weed. They're against pot for... they never really say. Apparently it just makes us lazy. And that's fucking insane to them. Hell, in the couch one, they end up saying it's not even dangerous.

And you really can't see the problem with those?

Wierd, most of the cops I know are against legalization and have more then once take people in for mere possestion, because if they realized if they didnt, it would set a precident that your could get away with breaking a law. What is too stop them from doing it again, because "Hey, I just got off Scott-free."

So basically what you're saying is they should enforce weed laws merely because it's a law? Not because it's dangerous, which you seem to be avoiding, but merely because it's a law? Because it would look bad if they didn't?

And my Dad was against it at first, before I started talking to him about weed. Over the course of about a year, we've had some serious debates about it being legalized. He's still uncomfortable with the idea, merely because that was his life up until he retired. But, lucky for him, he's not an idiot. He realizes that in reality, it being illegal is much worse than it being legal. Cartel is making a large profit, the police shootings on people who end up having a few ounces of weed, all of that. And, not to mention it's not remotely bad for you once you've gone through puberty.

Marijuna is a hard drug. Any drug that is not for expcitly medical purposes is a hard drug. OTC can turn into a hard drug when it is abused. What what UNBIASED, SCIENTIC resoures SAYS that marijunia is not that bad. And what exactly would you gain from this. Being "cool?" The "edgey" feeling that comes with being rebellious? "Freeing your mind, Man?" Why would you WANT to.

No. Marijuana is not a hardcore drug. It never has been. Ever heard of Medical Marijuana?

Not to mention it's not my responsibility to provide sources for it not being bad. It's your responsibility to tell me exactly how it is bad. But hell, I'll do it anyways.http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/drug-facts/marijuana-facts

They're probably the most reliable source out there. They compile data and test against some of the myths.

Now you keep saying I do it because I'm "rebellious" or "edgy". You're wrong. Hell, my closest friend doesn't even know that I smoke. So who am I trying to prove it too? My last girlfriend? No idea.

I did it because I was curious about it. I made sure I was in a safe environment, with a few friends, got all the facts, and tested it out. It was over rated. Enjoyable and extremely relaxing, but over rated. I liked it. I now do it every once in a while.

I smoke maybe once every three months. Purely when I feel like it. And guess what? Nothing bad's ever happened, besides getting a little paranoid.

No, I do not watch Fox News...well, seldom, and I usually watch CNN and read USAToday. What I DO listen to is:
My Parents
My Teachers
My Coaches
My Law Enforcement Officers
My Elected Officials
The Military
Business Leaders

That... honestly tells me a lot. Because they're pretty much the ones that have an agenda, and they're also ones that are gonna ignore the facts. Military? Elected officials? Business- How old are you?

And why are you literally just singling out people who you listen to. I understand listening to a few select people you trust, but you aren't paying attention to people. You're listing their titles. As if somehow some being a law enforcement officer or a teacher manages to actually have the right facts. What if they're wrong? (and from the sounds of it, they are). What if they're just as uninformed as you are?

You wanna know who I listen to? Not people who have political backings, or fancy titles. People who have an idea of what they're talking about. It's my obligation to find out if they're telling me the truth. I don't just blindly accept it.

And the last people I would listen to:
Other teenagers
Hippies
Commies
War Protesters
The Tabliods
Anti-Consumerist
Anarchist
Anti-autoritarians
People who says drugs are not bad for you

Why the fuck did you list communists in there? And War protesters? I'm getting a pretty good idea of what type of person you are. And I'm realizing just how close minded you are. Let me guess... You're still waiting for Obama to show his birth certificate?

Also, guess which one of the categories I fit into? Not one of them. Besides maybe War Protester, but hell, I got a brother in the army. Even considering joining myself.

I also show no sympathy to people who try to make drugs and end up hurting themselves or destroying property. Thats just Karma talking. Someones house burns down: I will give a damn. Someones house burns down because they had a meth lab in it: Given Damn is retracted

Sure. I honestly don't give a damn about people who smoke meth or have meth labs in the first place, regardless of if they burn it down or not. Because meth is not comparable to weed.

Now I doubt any of my words are getting through to you, but I do know something for a fact. You are against marijuana because someone else told you it's bad for you. Someone else decided for you.

Learn to take things with a grain of salt. Get educated.

People, it would be much faster and less of a headache to click on BOOM headshot65's name on one of his posts then hit that little red X at the bottom of the menu that opens up. Just a thought.

He very clearly doesn't want to actually learn anything, seems perfectly fine staying ignorant(he pretty much said this himself) and is contributing nothing but BS to the conversation.

BOOM headshot65:

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

I mean, hell this is tantamount to admitting he doesn't want to be educated. May go down as one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted ever.

BOOM headshot65:

CobraX:

BOOM headshot65:

-_- Uh oh, we have someone here who is under the inaccurate convition "them evil corperations" control our government. Huhh...

The United States governments structre is that of a republic: multiple semi-soveriegn entities (states) who have the people elect representatives (Senators) and are under the command of a central government (Washington DC)

I mean, this is why it says "...to the REPUBLIC..." in the pledge of alligence.

I like how you don't try to argue with me or tell how I'm inaccurate. At least put some effort in!

Also I wouldn't go as far as to say "Them evil corporations control the government", although I'm not sure I'd argue against someone who did say that about the US government

Well, how CAN we be a plutocracy? Anyone who says we are is woefully ill-informed and/or hates America. As it stands, America is VERY low on the corruption ratings. Yes, we have corruption, but every government does and ours PALES in comparison to the likes of China, Russia, and pretty much the entire middle east and africa. A plutocracy would imply that only a few people hold the power, but thats not true. We have over 500 senators and representatives. We still have elections. We still have a change of power.

But I dont want to turn this into an argument over what government the US does/doesnt have; I must continue my crusade against any and all drugs/hippies.

But you have a Two Party system as a result of your first past the post voting system disenfranchising large sections of the population who would rather vote for alternative parties.

You have rampart Jerrymandering that enforces this two party system.

You allow unlimited anonymous donations to Political Action Committees allowing large corporations to donate to political candidates with laughable separation rules between PAC and candidate and then hire lobbyists to demand political favour.

These things are not corruption only because they are legal.

Chevalier noir:
People, it would be much faster and less of a headache to click on BOOM headshot65's name on one of his posts then hit that little red X at the bottom of the menu that opens up. Just a thought.

He very clearly doesn't want to actually learn anything, seems perfectly fine staying ignorant(he pretty much said this himself) and is contributing nothing but BS to the conversation.

BOOM headshot65:

Do you know WHY I keep myself uneducated on drugs? So that I dont desend into the web of lies that IS drugs.

I mean, hell this is tantamount to admitting he doesn't want to be educated. May go down as one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted ever.

Why would you want to ignore that kind of entertainment?

So.. there was this one time.. when Canada decided to vote on legalizing marijuana, and the internet exploded over it. There's benefits and setbacks to it being legalized, but, and this is just a small-town perspective, everyone here in my town besides me has smoked it, and I used to, I'm pretty sure it's gonna at least be de-criminalized, and food sales will go up because of any legalization, plus it can be taxed and regulated, so it's not like there's no economical benefits, and if it passes, the government isn't gonna go "YAY, EVERYONE HAVE AS MUCH POT AS THEY WANT!!!!" It'll be okay guys, just chill

Shumiry:
Cool. Hope it gets passed. Something that doesn't inherently harm other people has no business being illegal, all that will do is create a black market for it which endangers everyone.

Your post makes too much sense, please remove it from the internet, it clearly doesn't belong here. Thank you.

OT: I have nothing more to say, the quoted poster said it WAY before I had a chance. Not that anyone will read this thread to page 10 before posting, anyway; I know I didn't.

mikeybuthge:
if it passes, the government isn't gonna go "YAY, EVERYONE HAVE AS MUCH POT AS THEY WANT!!!!" It'll be okay guys, just chill

Once again, it's not really a bill, it's a question of constitutional correctness in prohibition of marijuana. The laws are currently defined as violating the constitution and thus are a human rights violation. You can't exactly regulate human rights to that degree. What if the government said you're only allowed so much freedom of speech, you're only allowed to vote if we agree with your reasoning, or you're not allowed to refuse a cop to search your property if he really wants to.

BOOM headshot65:

I guess not. But my thing is that I am against Marijania. Period. But that is also the same thing for other illegals and smoking tobacco. I am somewhat against Alchohol and smokeless tobacco too, but alchohol, if taken in small amounts, has little to no effect on the drinker and with smokeless, well, at least your the only one poisoning yourself.

You do know that pot can be baked and eaten; somewhat deflating your smokeless tobacco argument.

And if you think that alcohol in small amounts has no effect on people then what about large amounts where it does serious harm. Compared to chronic alcoholism (Cancer, diabetes, car crashes and violence.) pot smoking has little chronic impact (Maybe some car accidents.)

Pot makes people happy, sleepy and hungry and maybe sometimes a little paranoid that everybody knows that you are stoned and that's it. If you think it is poison then you are ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Drug laws in America were concocted to provide an excuse to oppress minorities and they should be dismantled.

Regnes:

mikeybuthge:
if it passes, the government isn't gonna go "YAY, EVERYONE HAVE AS MUCH POT AS THEY WANT!!!!" It'll be okay guys, just chill

Once again, it's not really a bill, it's a question of constitutional correctness in prohibition of marijuana. The laws are currently defined as violating the constitution and thus are a human rights violation. You can't exactly regulate human rights to that degree. What if the government said you're only allowed so much freedom of speech, you're only allowed to vote if we agree with your reasoning, or you're not allowed to refuse a cop to search your property if he really wants to.

Don't those examples happen around the world anyways? What ifs don't really count in this situation I don't think

BOOM headshot65:
Well, not a big deal to me as a non-Canadian....but I pray to God nothing like this will ever happen in America. They are illegal for a reason. My heirarchy of how to treat it...

Smokers: Rehab
Pushers: Serious jail time
Lords: Shot and killed by commando team, then stock burned to the ground

They are illegal for what reason?

Name one serious social harm from cannabis that isn't also true of alcohol? Because I can name several that are true of alcohol that are not true of cannabis.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that people should sit around smoking pot all day; but just because you disapprove of something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

But that seems to be your justification. Or because you think that the people that do it are criminals, which is a circular argument; they're only criminals because it's illegal. This causes the clogging up of the legal system of otherwise law abiding citizens.

People like you and Th3Ch33s3Cak3 are what's wrong with America.

mikeybuthge:

Don't those examples happen around the world anyways? What ifs don't really count in this situation I don't think

Hmmm, you do see that sort of thing in other countries, but this is Canada, we are known for being one of the most free countries ever, and we have that reputation to uphold.

It is true that there are rules for every right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they're all regulated within sound reasoning.

You have the right to life, but if you're endangering that right for other people, that right may be lawfully waived in your case for example. I don't really see any situation where they could say you're not allowed to smoke weed if it's a right.

I'd hate to think what BOOM's opinion of the Netherlands is...

Let me guess, we should just nuke them, right?

Also here's Prime Minister Stephen Harper's views on the matter.

Granted he doesn't have all the time in the world to talk about it in this video, but it was a pretty poor response to the number one question addressed to him.

Interviewer:...it's about marijuana.

Harper: Oh really...(sarcasm)

A poll is cited that shows the majority of citizens being in favour of legalization.

Harper: I'm not sure I've seen this particular poll, there are different polls on this subject that show different things.

This is coming from the man who abolished the long-form census, Canada's most important statistical tool in making decisions based on collective information.

(Paraphrasing) Harper: Children are now at an age where they will come into contact with drug use.

Ok...

Harper: I don't meet many people who've lived a drug free life and regret it.

Skating around the issue

Now here's the big one.

When people are buying from the drug trade, they're not buying from their neighbor, they're buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe.

Now I know some people say if we just legalized it you would get the money and all would be well. But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they're illegal, the reason drugs are illegal is because they're bad.

Look at Latin America, some of the countries there and the damage the drug trade is doing, not just to people's lives as drug users. Look at the violence it's creating in neighborhoods, the destruction of social systems of families, of governmental institutions, the corruption of police forces, these are terrible terrible organizations.

We should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stop trying to deal with it, it would turn into a nice wholesome industry.

So, Stephen Harper acknowledges that the drug trade is run by criminal and violent organizations. He acknowledges what it's done to other countries in Latin America. And he claims that if we simply legalize it, that won't have an impact on the criminal organizations.

I also like how he ties to simply pass off the law as infallible, "drugs are illegal because they're bad". Of course we shouldn't debate the ethics of a law passed in an era where we didn't understand what we were even banning.

Regnes:
Also here's Prime Minister Stephen Harper's views on the matter.

Granted he doesn't have all the time in the world to talk about it in this video, but it was a pretty poor response to the number one question addressed to him.

Interviewer:...it's about marijuana.

Harper: Oh really...(sarcasm)

A poll is cited that shows the majority of citizens being in favour of legalization.

Harper: I'm not sure I've seen this particular poll, there are different polls on this subject that show different things.

This is coming from the man who abolished the long-form census, Canada's most important statistical tool in making decisions based on collective information.

(Paraphrasing) Harper: Children are now at an age where they will come into contact with drug use.

Ok...

Harper: I don't meet many people who've lived a drug free life and regret it.

Skating around the issue

Now here's the big one.

When people are buying from the drug trade, they're not buying from their neighbor, they're buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe.

Now I know some people say if we just legalized it you would get the money and all would be well. But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they're illegal, the reason drugs are illegal is because they're bad.

Look at Latin America, some of the countries there and the damage the drug trade is doing, not just to people's lives as drug users. Look at the violence it's creating in neighborhoods, the destruction of social systems of families, of governmental institutions, the corruption of police forces, these are terrible terrible organizations.

We should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stop trying to deal with it, it would turn into a nice wholesome industry.

So, Stephen Harper acknowledges that the drug trade is run by criminal and violent organizations. He acknowledges what it's done to other countries in Latin America. And he claims that if we simply legalize it, that won't have an impact on the criminal organizations.

I also like how he ties to simply pass off the law as infallible, "drugs are illegal because they're bad". Of course we shouldn't debate the ethics of a law passed in an era where we didn't understand what we were even banning.

Funny part is that government scientist is not allowed to give interviews without the government consent :/ (In canada)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468

"The protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories."

""The more controversial the story, the less likely you are to talk to the scientists. They (government media relations staff) just stonewall. If they don't like the question you don't get an answer.""

""You have a government that is micromanaging the message, obsessively. The Privy Council Office (which works for the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper) seems to vet everything that goes out to the media," she said."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked