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
 

DailonCmann:
The positives that are gained from legalization, regulation, and taxation seem to vastly outweigh any societal ills you can come up with.

NOOOOOOO

but morals, but jesus, but criminals

Seriously, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics. I'm not sure how I found myself in this thread, but I'm sure I'm dumber for it. I'm going to try to get to sleep instead of continuing with this nonsense.

BOOM headshot65:

You know what? Fine. Destroy any shread of morality and sense that still exist in America, just as long as you dont care that I will not bat an eyelash, shed a single tear, or give a damn when something bad happens from you being on this drug.

You're barely legal and you have such strong opinions. You remind me of my past self. Nothing bad happens to anyone because of weed, save for someone careless getting caught by the cops. Although in most areas real cops don't care much, and a few states in the union have decriminalized it so that being caught with it is no different than getting a parking ticket. In small doses, cannabis is slightly less benign than benedryl, and in extreme doses, it's actually far more benign than benedryl, as a benedryl overdose can kill you.

I win, but I'm still retarded.

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.

Well, if it's legal, they won't be criminals anymore. Just like they weren't 100 years ago.

I support decriminalisation, but I think the Spanish model is probably better than the Dutch model:

The Spanish government decided that it was unconstitutional to regulate people's use or cultivation in private. So you can grow or smoke in a private place but not walk down the street puffing away. Pretty smart in my opinion.

The Dutch system is a little flawed, in my opinion, as it creates drug tourism and intra-European trafficking (thanks to the Schengen agreement, you can drive from Portugal to Estonia without going through customs once) which feed a black market and create profits for organised crime. Not to mention the problem of British and American tourists walking down the street with a foot-long joint shouting "IT'S LEGAL! WOO!", which has been a factor in some Dutch states planning to ban sale to foreign nationals altogether, as well as Dutch people rolling their eyes at stupid tourists...

There's already a massive cross-border trade between Canada and the US in marijuana, which would probably increase with full legalisation unless more resources were used to search vehicles for it. That said, I'd rather have people bringing a non-toxic plant across borders than, say, Anthrax.

sunsetspawn:

BOOM headshot65:

You know what? Fine. Destroy any shread of morality and sense that still exist in America, just as long as you dont care that I will not bat an eyelash, shed a single tear, or give a damn when something bad happens from you being on this drug.

You're barely legal and you have such strong opinions. You remind me of my past self. Nothing bad happens to anyone because of weed, save for someone careless getting caught by the cops. Although in most areas real cops don't care much, and a few states in the union have decriminalized it so that being caught with it is no different than getting a parking ticket. In small doses, cannabis is slightly less benign than benedryl, and in extreme doses, it's actually far more benign than benedryl, as a benedryl overdose can kill you.

I win, but I'm still retarded.

Well, this sums up why I have my "Strong opinions":

Personally, whenever people tell me "Oh, its not as bad as alcohol, so it should be legal." I just facepalm. We DO NOT NEED more people who are high (equivalent of being drunk) behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. You just know there WILL be people dumb enough to get behind the wheel and get themselves and others killed. Again, WE DO NOT NEED THAT!

Benny Blanco:
The Spanish government decided that it was unconstitutional to regulate people's use or cultivation in private. So you can grow or smoke in a private place but not walk down the street puffing away. Pretty smart in my opinion.

If it came down to me being forced to accept legalization, this is the only way I would be OK with it.

BOOM headshot65:

Benny Blanco:
The Spanish government decided that it was unconstitutional to regulate people's use or cultivation in private. So you can grow or smoke in a private place but not walk down the street puffing away. Pretty smart in my opinion.

If it came down to me being forced to accept legalization, this is the only way I would be OK with it.

I would actually be quite ok with this. Growing for personal use is the safe and responsible way to go, the greatest danger in smoking marijuana comes not from the substance itself, but the people you cohort with. I don't trust anybody but myself on what is in the stuff I'm smoking.

BOOM headshot65:
So much condeming argument of me disrespecting the "holy plant"...I cant answer it all. So I will answer some and you can go from there.

This is not about the defence of a "holy plant"

It is about the incredible harm of the drug war that is being prosecuted against something that, when used sensibly, and in moderation, is harmless.

Yes, If they didnt enforce the law, then criminals would start to ask themselves "if I can get away with that one, then what else can I get away with?"

Umm.... That isn't what is being proposed. What would be proposed is regulation of cannabis as a legal item. No different from a liquor store.

One of the major points in favor of legalisation is that it would eliminate violent criminals from the supply chain.

Sorry, they lost any chance of me seeing them as an objective, unbiased, and reliable the second I opened it and a petition calling to "end the drug war" poped up. They want to provide facts, that fine. Calling for an end to the drug war is not.

Okay, well, here is what science has to say about cannabis.

Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users
Harrison G. Pope, Jr, MD; Amanda J. Gruber, MD; James I. Hudson, MD, SM; Marilyn A. Huestis, PhD; Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:909-915.

Conclusion Some cognitive deficits appear detectable at least 7 days after heavy cannabis use but appear reversible and related to recent cannabis exposure rather than irreversible and related to cumulative lifetime use.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/10/909

Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis
Leslie Iversen
University of Oxford, Department of Pharmacology, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3QT, UK

The long-term use of cannabis, particularly at high intake levels, is associated with several adverse psychosocial features, including lower educational achievement and, in some instances, psychiatric illness.

There is little evidence, however, that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment, nor is there is any clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations. There are some physical health risks, particularly the possibility of damage to the airways in cannabis smokers.

Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471489204001973

Long-term effects of frequent cannabis use on working memory and attention: an fMRI study
Gerry Jager, Rene S. Kahn, Wim Van Den Brink, Jan M. Van Ree and Nick F. Ramsey

Conclusion
No evidence was found for long-term deficits in working memory and selective attention in frequent cannabis users after 1 week of abstinence. Nonetheless, frequent cannabis use may affect brain function, as indicated by altered neurophysiological dynamics in the left superior parietal cortex during working memory processing.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7424196656k7161/

Yes, I have, and I would be OK with it being legalized for medical purposes for EXTREME cases. And it would fall under my other defintion of drugs: Use as directed to the letter=good; even 1 pill/once/drop over=bad

What is it you fear? That people might derive pleasure from something? How does that affect you? If people smoke weed and enjoy themselves without harming anybody else; HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOU?

IT DOESN'T. You're like Rick Santorum complaining that non Catholics get to enjoy consequence free sex. It doesn't affect you..... So fuck off.

You know what? Fine. Destroy any shread of morality and sense that still exist in America, just as long as you dont care that I will not bat an eyelash, shed a single tear, or give a damn when something bad happens from you being on this drug.

So from above what do you see as the harms from pot? Unless some one is stupid and drives a car while impaired the worst that will happen to them will be reversible short term memory loss.

Oh, and getting arrested. Well done. Your attitudes and pointless moralising have criminalised otherwise law abiding people.

Jonluw:

Jimmybobjr:

Jonluw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#History

Cannabis was certainly both accepted and integrated in culture long ago. It doesn't say much about the recreational use, but from what I hear, there was no social stigma attached to it as late as the 18th century in the US.

The reason I pointed out that alcohol is a drug is that you said cannabis should be illegal because it is a drug, which just doesn't fly with me.

From what i read in that article, it seemed more of a thing that was used in Cults to get high and (Presumably) see god (Or something)

At no point in that link did it state that Cannabis was something you would go down to a local establishment and smoke.

I find this hardly a example of society being almost reliant on it.

Reliant? No.
Socially accepted? Yes.

Thats the difference im trying to make, but i couldve obviously made it clearer.

DailonCmann:
Snipy snip

You're going on the logical fallacy that because something is legal, it means more people will smoke. Pot is already widely available. Everyone who wants to smoke pot can do so fairly easily. It's actually easier for most kids to get than more legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco. Listen, the fact of the matter is that you are not part of this culture and as such you have no idea what pot, people who smoke pot, or anything you can't glean from the internet is like. From what you've said in your arguments, you seem to have very little firsthand experience. The positives that are gained from legalization, regulation, and taxation seem to vastly outweigh any societal ills you can come up with.

Have you any actual evidence about these "positives", even reliable projections for things like money that could be made with taxation? I've heard people say that before like it means anything without a some decent evidence(I'm genuinley asking, i'm not trying to start an argument here)

Also, i have been a part of that culture, I've done it myself. I am also surrounded by friends and workmates who do it requlary, while in my presence. Don't think because i believe making it legal is a bad idea means i believe anything government scaremongers come up with. My opinion is based on what i beleive and things i have seen, nothing more.

BOOM headshot65:

Personally, whenever people tell me "Oh, its not as bad as alcohol, so it should be legal." I just facepalm. We DO NOT NEED more people who are high (equivalent of being drunk) behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. You just know there WILL be people dumb enough to get behind the wheel and get themselves and others killed. Again, WE DO NOT NEED THAT!

alcohol and pot are about as seperate as you can get with drugs, anyone who has smoked pot will tell you it is completely different from being drunk. While your head and your heart are in the right spot (keeping people safe) the difference is too great. here's an article if you don't believe me.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/06/driving_while_stoned_pot

OT: I really hope the law passes, and not because of my obvious bias. I have a good friend who just finished his treatment of chemo and I'm thankful he was able to get the medication that eases his pain.

not to mention I'd rather have my kids buying weed from a store, than some guy on a street corner.

Take into account that the 'war on drugs' was a failure and has been so since the beginning. Just like the 'war on terror' it's impossible to win, you can't fight a war against ideas or the way people think.

make it legal, again, but this time don't back out of it.

EDIT:

Super Six One:

Have you any actual evidence about these "positives", even reliable projections for things like money that could be made with taxation? I've heard people say that before like it means anything without a some decent evidence(I'm genuinley asking, i'm not trying to start an argument here)

no evidence on money for taxation but it makes sense doesn't it? if pot is a legal good it would need to include GST, which would then go to the government. Buying weed off the street has no GST and all the money goes to a drug dealer.

if that's not enough for you how about paper? for a lot of America's history hemp was a cash crop. It's durable, easily grown and quick (a hemp farm will produce roughly 4 times the paper of the equivalant size tree farm) which is why a lot of countries have started to grow hemp again (by the way hemp can't get you high, it's just too closely related to pot to be grown) this applies to clothing as well.

http://naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html

Marijuanna is less lethal than salt, there are still no deaths attributed to an overdose of Pot. In fact for quite a while scientists argued over whether THC had an LD50 or not (the dosage in which half test subjects die). They found the LD50 but it's incredibly high (about 1/3 your body weight smoked all at once) and I assure you you'd be long passed out.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm

Super Six One:

DailonCmann:
Snipy snip

You're going on the logical fallacy that because something is legal, it means more people will smoke. Pot is already widely available. Everyone who wants to smoke pot can do so fairly easily. It's actually easier for most kids to get than more legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco. Listen, the fact of the matter is that you are not part of this culture and as such you have no idea what pot, people who smoke pot, or anything you can't glean from the internet is like. From what you've said in your arguments, you seem to have very little firsthand experience. The positives that are gained from legalization, regulation, and taxation seem to vastly outweigh any societal ills you can come up with.

Have you any actual evidence about these "positives", even reliable projections for things like money that could be made with taxation? I've heard people say that before like it means anything without a some decent evidence(I'm genuinley asking, i'm not trying to start an argument here)

Also, i have been a part of that culture, I've done it myself. I am also surrounded by friends and workmates who do it requlary, while in my presence. Don't think because i believe making it legal is a bad idea means i believe anything government scaremongers come up with. My opinion is based on what i beleive and things i have seen, nothing more.

Here's some articles saying marijuana lowers cancer rates from a few of many different sources http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/652/78/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332838/Cannabis-raises-risk-cancer-killer-diseases.html and here's a projected tax revenue gain from the states by CNN http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxes_marijuana/revenue.html

Benny Blanco:
Well, if it's legal, they won't be criminals anymore. Just like they weren't 100 years ago.

So they'll miraculously stop killing eachother and all other asociated crimes marijuana dealers involve themselves in? Let me tell you from the Netherlands where we made the mistake of de facto legalising pot decades ago: the trade remains firmly in the hands of organized crime, and the amount of crime even increases because they can work openly and with less resentment.

It's not just drug tourists that create the problem (although your description of the problems was pretty accurate) but also domestic demand. I've seen pot addicts as young as 12 or 13, and the average age seems to be 17-18. I get to see this because I'm one of the security gaurds of an addict care centre, but I have to say, no other drug has a demographic that young. And we only see the cases who are so addicted that school teachers or parents found out, and compelled them to seek help, meaning they must've started at age 10-11 or so in some cases.


The only real reason I've seen people use for legalising pot is basically 'yes, cuz I myself can then get more, easier and cheaper', and that's something I'd gladly give up to never see another minor walk in a report for urine screenings or psychiatric treatment.

Blablahb:

Benny Blanco:
Well, if it's legal, they won't be criminals anymore. Just like they weren't 100 years ago.

So they'll miraculously stop killing eachother and all other asociated crimes marijuana dealers involve themselves in? Let me tell you from the Netherlands where we made the mistake of de facto legalising pot decades ago: the trade remains firmly in the hands of organized crime, and the amount of crime even increases because they can work openly and with less resentment.

It's not just drug tourists that create the problem (although your description of the problems was pretty accurate) but also domestic demand. I've seen pot addicts as young as 12 or 13, and the average age seems to be 17-18. I get to see this because I'm one of the security gaurds of an addict care centre, but I have to say, no other drug has a demographic that young. And we only see the cases who are so addicted that school teachers or parents found out, and compelled them to seek help, meaning they must've started at age 10-11 or so in some cases.


The only real reason I've seen people use for legalising pot is basically 'yes, cuz I myself can then get more, easier and cheaper', and that's something I'd gladly give up to never see another minor walk in a report for urine screenings or psychiatric treatment.

Sorry to disappoint, but prohibition doesn't really make those problems go away.

We have the same problem with underage kids in the UK, both for illegal drugs and alcohol, though I'm unsure if the extent is the same.

Moreover, prohibition gives huge revenues to criminal organisations. Before prohibition in the US, the Mafia in America were small-time and generally limited to protection rackets in Italian immigrant communities. Just a decade of prohibition created a huge source of wealth and gave them a national power base.

In terms of the Netherlands, a large part of the problem comes from the fact that a country with a grey market (it isn't fully legal as I understand it) has open borders with a lot of countries where sale is still prohibited.

As with prohibition of Alcohol in the US, when bootleggers transported spirits across the border from Canada, the same is likely to happen when a parallel situation exists for marijuana.

My main fear is that Harper is going to do something incredibly underhanded to gain the upper hand in the situation.

This is the same man who has prorogued parliament twice during his stay in office, for those who don't know that means he shut down parliament for multiple months, effectively killing everything scheduled to take place in that time.

Then on March 25th 2011 Harper was convicted of contempt of parliament, a federal crime and the first prime minister in history to be convicted. He was effectively impeached shortly after by having the current government dissolved and held up for re-election. Somehow this led to Harper gaining a majority government as opposed to his previous minority government. Yes, let's give more power to the guy just convicted of abusing the system to hell.

here's my two cents: it shouldn't be legalized. now before you start bashing me with the "butitslessharmful" argument, it's a harmful substance. if it does more harm than good then restrct/ban it. we already have enough carp turning our brains to mush, one more will only worsen things.

Tom Milner:
here's my two cents: it shouldn't be legalized. now before you start bashing me with the "butitslessharmful" argument, it's a harmful substance. if it does more harm than good then restrct/ban it. we already have enough carp turning our brains to mush, one more will only worsen things.

Hmmmm I dunno, people in general can only be so messed up. It's not like if it was legalized that drunkards would stay drunkards, smokers would keep on smoking, junkies will keep on abusing meds and a brand new sect of stoners will arise separate from the rest.

A lot of people aren't really addicted to anything more than the escapism factor, so I would imagine a lot of people would switch over to marijuana because even if it's not completely harmless, it's way safer than alcohol or tobacco.

Also countries that have already legalized it haven't shown growth in the amount of people actively using marijuana.

Regnes:

Tom Milner:
here's my two cents: it shouldn't be legalized. now before you start bashing me with the "butitslessharmful" argument, it's a harmful substance. if it does more harm than good then restrct/ban it. we already have enough carp turning our brains to mush, one more will only worsen things.

Hmmmm I dunno, people in general can only be so messed up. It's not like if it was legalized that drunkards would stay drunkards, smokers would keep on smoking, junkies will keep on abusing meds and a brand new sect of stoners will arise separate from the rest.

A lot of people aren't really addicted to anything more than the escapism factor, so I would imagine a lot of people would switch over to marijuana because even if it's not completely harmless, it's way safer than alcohol or tobacco.

Also countries that have already legalized it haven't shown growth in the amount of people actively using marijuana.

Not only is it less harmful, but in many ways it's beneficial. Studies have shown THC slowing down the spread of cancer and may prevent it. The only time it is harmful is after heavy prolonged use over days at at a time, even then it goes away when you stop smoking, and if you're under the age of about 22 it can slow down brain development. Here's my sources. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11630-cannabis-compound-slows-lung-cancer-in-mice.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/health/webmd/main2696726.shtml and http://www.machineslikeus.com/news/adolescent-marijuana-use-hinders-brain-function http://www.livescience.com/5298-marijuana-disrupt-brain-development.html

Well, the cops around here already don't give much of a sh*t about pot, they concentrate on "real" drugs and "real" criminals, which imo is a good thing.

A smokehound won't usually cause much problems, compared to a cokehead or something similar anyways.

Mekado:
Well, the cops around here already don't give much of a sh*t about pot, they concentrate on "real" drugs and "real" criminals, which imo is a good thing.

A smokehound won't usually cause much problems, compared to a cokehead or something similar anyways.

My Mom actually works for the RCMP front desk, she processes all of the typical files/cases opened each shift. She says that when an RCMP finds somebody to be in possession of marijuana, it's mostly treated as a no-case scenario. Meaning they confiscate the goods, but you get to go free.

This is mostly because weed is treated as defacto legal by the general public.

Regnes:

Mekado:
Well, the cops around here already don't give much of a sh*t about pot, they concentrate on "real" drugs and "real" criminals, which imo is a good thing.

A smokehound won't usually cause much problems, compared to a cokehead or something similar anyways.

My Mom actually works for the RCMP front desk, she processes all of the typical files/cases opened each shift. She says that when an RCMP finds somebody to be in possession of marijuana, it's mostly treated as a no-case scenario. Meaning they confiscate the goods, but you get to go free.

This is mostly because weed is treated as defacto legal by the general public.

Yeah, i guess it's a keep the peace vs uphold the law thing and they'd rather keep the peace, good decision :)

BOOM headshot65:

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

I will never go there, and If I could I would try to get them to change thier laws.

LOL Yeah, good luck with that.

Olrod:

BOOM headshot65:

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

I will never go there, and If I could I would try to get them to change thier laws.

LOL Yeah, good luck with that.

He could always join forces with Stephen Harper, like I've mentioned before, he's not exactly the most pro-marijuana guy in the country.

the reason i have such a dim view of cannabis based stuff is becuase of a clique of people at my college that pressure everyone into trying it. (they've since been named weed eaters) that, and the fact that i've had "drugz r bad" hammered into my head since day one of formal education.

Tom Milner:
and the fact that i've had "drugz r bad" hammered into my head since day one of formal education.

Eh, it was pushed on me pretty bad too, D.A.R.E and all, taught us that if you smoke pot you will die.

Amusingly enough there was a brief period when I was in high school where we were to be taught that it's ok to smoke weed, just as long as you don't smoke a lot of it. Imo, that's the better route to go, don't lie about the substance, just try to teach kids some restraint.

I can totally agree with restricting the use of tobacco and marijuana around children, but the overall harm is negligible compared to most other intoxicants.

Honestly, I hate to say it, but in the grand scale, people (in groups) tend to be kind of dumb, and will prize cost and convenience over almost anything else. If marijuana was legalized and regulated, and the regulated price was cheaper, and the distribution points were at least as convenient as calling up the dude you normal score a half from, people would buy the regulated stuff.

And Stephen Harper is a grade A moron if he thinks that all the pot in Canada is actually coming from Central and South America; yes, some of the pot here IS coming from those countries, and some of those countries are in terrible shape. How does he not know that British Columbia is responsible for a ridiculous amount of Canada's weed production, though?

I mean, every second year, some patch of pot from B.C. wins the High Times 'Best in Class' award. That has to mean something.

Hey, there's a notion: If weed is bad, because drugs are bad, maybe we should treat the drug laws like SOPA/PIPA: Rap magazines, marijuana culture magazine, hod rod and related culture mags, sports mags and a whole ton of other forms of print media are, at some time of another responsible for talking to people or endorsing products that might berelated to marijuana. By the SOPA/PIPA logic, they're all open to be eliminated.

/bad idea.

BoomHeadshot65: You're still misinformed, , and unfortunately, you're the only one that can change that; clearly, you're the primary reason why I'm

It's a good thing. Legalizing it makes it a lot easier to do research and improve standards and strains, making it more effective for medical use. Also, duuuuuuuuudddee.

Odbarc:
Man, if people start smoking drugs in front of me, I swear, I'm going to start killing people.
Just because "everyone does it" doesn't mean it should be legal.

I mean, in school, didn't they say that it only 'seems like' everyone does it but 'really it's not like that' except it actually IS like that.

I'm going to be so annoyed if I log in facebook and see everyone cheering for this bullshit. I'm going to unfriend them.

It's not that "everyone does it," it's that it's much less harmful than other things that are currently legal, and regulating it seems like the government stepping too closely into our personal lives. You should be allowed to put whatever chemicals you want in your own body as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

Also, I mean, a government should be influenced by the people; that's what a representative democracy is- the government represents the will of the people. If the population wants something, it's kind of a good idea for the government to capitulate.

Super Six One:

DailonCmann:
Snipy snip

You're going on the logical fallacy that because something is legal, it means more people will smoke. Pot is already widely available. Everyone who wants to smoke pot can do so fairly easily. It's actually easier for most kids to get than more legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco. Listen, the fact of the matter is that you are not part of this culture and as such you have no idea what pot, people who smoke pot, or anything you can't glean from the internet is like. From what you've said in your arguments, you seem to have very little firsthand experience. The positives that are gained from legalization, regulation, and taxation seem to vastly outweigh any societal ills you can come up with.

Have you any actual evidence about these "positives", even reliable projections for things like money that could be made with taxation? I've heard people say that before like it means anything without a some decent evidence(I'm genuinley asking, i'm not trying to start an argument here)

Also, i have been a part of that culture, I've done it myself. I am also surrounded by friends and workmates who do it requlary, while in my presence. Don't think because i believe making it legal is a bad idea means i believe anything government scaremongers come up with. My opinion is based on what i beleive and things i have seen, nothing more.

Pot takes in like 35-45 billion

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179677/How_Big_Is_The_Marijuana_Market

even a 5% tax would fund the FDA

You guys are mad if you think Harper is going to let this go through.

I'm not against legalization/regulation; but I really hate the people who smoke weed on my floor of my building. They're honestly blazing like 24/7. The whole floor just reeks of weed, all day every day. Some days my apartment just smells too unless I open windows; I even bought a $900 air purifier to combat the stench of it. To give you an indication, they're about 5 apartments away. I don't even want to think of how bad it is for people next to them.

If you're going to smoke, I hope you're at least considerate of others just trying to live their lives. I like a beer every now and then but I don't run down the halls smashing bottles on peoples doors.

edit: I also had a friend in high school who robbed my house for money just to buy weed. He was smoking about $200 of weed every day at his worst, dropped out of school (and obviously ran out of money). He went into rehab.

AC10:
He was smoking about $200 of weed every day at his worst

I find that VERY hard to believe.

unless you live somewhere with insanely inflated prices, that's roughly an ounce's worth.

mrdude2010:

Odbarc:
Man, if people start smoking drugs in front of me, I swear, I'm going to start killing people.
Just because "everyone does it" doesn't mean it should be legal.

I mean, in school, didn't they say that it only 'seems like' everyone does it but 'really it's not like that' except it actually IS like that.

I'm going to be so annoyed if I log in facebook and see everyone cheering for this bullshit. I'm going to unfriend them.

It's not that "everyone does it," it's that it's much less harmful than other things that are currently legal, and regulating it seems like the government stepping too closely into our personal lives. You should be allowed to put whatever chemicals you want in your own body as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

Also, I mean, a government should be influenced by the people; that's what a representative democracy is- the government represents the will of the people. If the population wants something, it's kind of a good idea for the government to capitulate.

Of all the people who quoted me, yours is the only one that responded with intelligence.
And while post is probably the best argued point I've heard about the subject.
That doesn't change the fact I'd still vote against legalization.

GrandmaFunk:

AC10:
He was smoking about $200 of weed every day at his worst

I find that VERY hard to believe.

unless you live somewhere with insanely inflated prices, that's roughly an ounce's worth.

He woke up, started smoking weed and just did that all day; joint after joint until he went to sleep.

He'd just go to a bench in a park or something. I'm not sure the exact price, but I think a joint cost him $10? That's 20 a day which sounds about right.

I don't expect you to believe everything you read on the net, but why would I lie? I have no point to prove, I was recounting a troubling incident from my life. I had to call the cops on this guy. I got him arrested. I was the reason he had to go to rehab, and he played a large part in my severe trust issues that I still have to this day.

I don't think marijuana is some devil in disguise, but there are a small subset of people out there who will become mentally addicted to it. Alcohol is worse (as there is a physical component to alcohol addiction) so this fact is not cause to make marijuana illegal. I just dislike that every pot head seems to spout it as perfectly harmless with no ill consequences ever remotely possible. Well, here's a story that presents it isn't incorruptible and perfect.

Super Six One:
If you get high and do the same thing you could easily get someone killed.

It's the same with alcohol but that's still legal.

AC10:
edit: I also had a friend in high school who robbed my house for money just to buy weed. He was smoking about $200 of weed every day at his worst, dropped out of school (and obviously ran out of money). He went into rehab.

Video Games are not the reason we have people dying in internet cafes.
Guns are not the reason we have murder.
Food is not the reason we have morbidly obese people
Alcohol is not the reason we have alcoholics.
Pot is not the reason your "friend" robbed your house.

There are always reasons why people abuse things, and they're always ignored because it's easier to blame something else than face the actual problem.

AC10:

He'd just go to a bench in a park or something. I'm not sure the exact price, but I think a joint cost him $10? That's 20 a day which sounds about right.

I dunno, I get mine a lot cheaper since I grow for myself rather than risk buying tainted shit from a dealer. But 10 dollars for a joint sounds pretty jacked up to me. Last time I bought weed I paid like 80 dollars for a massive amount, I'm bad with weights, but it was a sandwich sized ziploc filled halfway with weed, lasted me for like a month smoking about a bowl every day.

1 bowl should roughly equate to 1 joint.

I probably got a bit of a good deal on the weed though, as I was buying off one of my friends who is friends with the grower himself. The closer you are to the source itself, the better prices you tend to get I suppose.

Still, I don't trust anybody, 1-2 plants is enough to maintain me, overall about 100 dollars a year.

Regnes:
My main fear is that Harper is going to do something incredibly underhanded to gain the upper hand in the situation.

This is the same man who has prorogued parliament twice during his stay in office, for those who don't know that means he shut down parliament for multiple months, effectively killing everything scheduled to take place in that time.

I know you don't want to be bothered by facts, but he can't end a sitting of a court, nor did he do anything in violation of the rules when he prorogued, he is allowed to make that request. And if the GC disagreed, prorogue would not have happened.

Then on March 25th 2011 Harper was convicted of contempt of parliament, a federal crime and the first prime minister in history to be convicted. He was effectively impeached shortly after by having the current government dissolved and held up for re-election.

Once again, not to bring up actual facts, but that's not what happened. All opposition parties were saying at the time they wanted to bring the government down the first chance they got. Of course the public was against that in EVERY poll, including polls of opposition supporters. People wanted them to try and work together.

So, on a technical matter, a committee that was opposition controlled put forward a recommendation that the government (not the PM) was in contempt. Something which on matters like this is NOT a criminal offense/conviction.

The House, which was then majority controlled by the opposition, used that as an excuse to bring down the government thinking it would fool the people. It didn't, resulting in the to leading opposition parties getting their asses kicked in the election.

The PM was most certainly not "impeached". There is nothing in Canadian law that can lead to anything looking remotely like "impeachment".

Somehow this led to Harper gaining a majority government as opposed to his previous minority government. Yes, let's give more power to the guy just convicted of abusing the system to hell.

The majority of the people saw the opposition as the ones abusing the system and acting as hypocrites (the PM can't shut down the house temporarily but they force an election call right after we just had an election?)

BTW, if the PM wanted to ignore the court in a majority situation he could. Not by using some underhanded method, but by the method set out in the constitution. He just has to invoke the "not withstanding" clause. All you tin foil hats that claim he would be an evil dictator when he got a majority seem to forget the fact that he respected the people. By now he could have banned gay marriage, made homosexual sex illegal, banned all immigration, and any other thing he wanted to do. But see, he's working within the system and without invoking any extremes. He's also kept his word more than most politicians of any party. The horrible budget people expected when he got in was 99% the same budget as he presented before the government fell when opposition parties were dancing around trying to make a deal to sign on.

Just stop the silly rhetoric.

I'm not really into pot, but I don't see how a country can classify alcohol and tobacco as completely legal substances, while classifying cannabis as an illict substance. Cannabis is significantly less of a health risk than tobacco and less of a societal risk than alcohol (probably less of a health risk as well). Seems that all three substances should either be completely legal or completely banned, no pick and choose.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked