normanchateau

I have a feeling that you aren't the only CPC supporter who opposes permanent criminal records for possession of a few joints. But alas, that's the position of your leader and he said so in British Columbia of all places. On a per capita basis, I can't imagine any part of North America with more users or more people wanting it legalized, never mind decriminalized. As far as driving under the influence goes, Australia already has in place a simple and effective saliva test for the detection of even small trace quantities of marijuana. Such a system should be in place in Canada even if we don't decriminalize or legalize it since impaired driving is hazardous to everyone, not just the impaired driver. Although I personally favour legalization, I don't think it would pass in a plebiscite. But I suspect decriminalization would. Here are some stats on how Canadians feel about the issue: http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html

Seat Projections Based on Rolling Poll Average, December 12, 2005 http://www.democraticspace.com/canada/2005.../national.shtml Liberals 130 CPC 92 NDP 24 BQ 62

BM, thanks for bringing up the issue of cannabinoid (CB) receptors. To people who know nothing about drugs, it must seem very confusing if not unbelievable that the brain would have receptors for THC, one of the active ingredients in marijuana. Well there's a good reason why those receptors are there. The brain produces it's own cannabinoids known as endocannabinoids. For example, the brain substance anandamide is an endocannabinoid. Because anandamide and THC are structurally similar, they both bind to the CB receptor. So what do CB receptors do in the brain? They regulate functions such as sleep, hunger (surprise, surprise), mood, memory, etc. Currently a number of drug companies are developing drugs which either stimulate or inhibit the CB receptor. For example, the drug Rimonabant has been shown effective for weight loss and cessation of cigarette smoking. Don't believe me? Google Rimonabant. I know that Canadian neuroscientists are working on effective CB receptor drugs that would reduce depression. What's interesting about all of this research is that the drugs which stimulate the CB receptor are perfectly legal because they're sold by multibillion dollar, international pharmaceutical companies. But marijuana's THC, which stimulates the same CB receptor, is illegal. The law is completely irrational on this and it's yet another reason why marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized. I suspect if marijuana were a pharmaceutical product pushed by the powerful drug lobby that pushes antidepressants and other mind-altering drugs, rather than a plant, it would have become legal years ago.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that reversing the effects of marijuana can take years. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been reported in any medical or neuroscience publlication. Please provide your source.

When they can't win an argument based on logic or facts, out comes the CPC's favourite accusation.... Child Porn.... It's probably just a coincidence that CPC's acronym could stand for something like Child Porn Crusaders..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It seems that Argus would rather defend his position on kiddie porn than his "drug" position, which he shares with Stephen Harper, of giving permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences to people who possess a few grams of a plant.

Ah, but the probability that CPC will form a government without a single seat in Quebec is extremely low. When the Progressive Conservatives were in power, e.g., Diefenbaker, Mulroney, Clark, they always had seats in Quebec, in some cases more than 50 seats. CPC supporters are going through the motions and trying to maintain their morale but they know that they'll never win a majority without Quebec seats. And while they can theoretically win a slim minority without Quebec, they'll then be governing at the whim of three parties to their left, i.e., the BQ, NDP and Liberals. Either way, they're doomed without Quebec seats.

Yes, it's minor, because in a lot of cases he's probably right. One of the main reasons a lot of poor families are poor is that they don't understand how to handle money. One of the main reasons I don't hand out cash to panhandlers is that I suspect that a lot of them are more likely to use the money to try and buy a bottle of "Big Bear" rather than food. For a while I carried around grocery store coupons to give to panhandlers... I quit doing that because the panhandlers did not seem very pleased with the idea. Some of them became downright agitated; others just crumpled up the coupons and threw them back at me. I thought the Liberals were being politically correct when they made reference only to popcorn and beer. A US Republican politician might have said cigarettes and lottery tickets. Isn't that why in the US, those in need receive food stamps rather than cash? Kimmy's experience with panhandlers suggests that food stamps rather than cash might be more appropriate.

You don't think alcohol is a drug? Why, because it's legal? Or because it's a liquid? How about nicotine? Is that a drug? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I use the term alcohol to differentiate liquor, which is legal, from illegal narcotics, much as the original poster decried alcohol being legal but drugs being illegal. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So by your completely arbitrary and ill-informed definition, drugs are illegal narcotics. Therefore, I presume you view antidepressants, antianxiety drugs, antischizophrenic drugs, indeed anything manufactured by the multibillion pharmaceutical industry as not being a drug. OK, let's ignore yet another of your mistakes and/or lack of knowledge and focus on your term "illegal narcotics". What about legal narcotics? Physicians regularly prescribe them. Should we criminalize them as well and if so, why? And what about illegal drugs which are not even remotely narcotic in their pharmacological action? Should we decriminalize them? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here you are Argus. In your own words, drugs are "illegal narcotics". That would explain why you are unable to answer simple questions such as should we criminalize legal narcotics? And it would explain why you are unable to answer the question of should we decriminalize illegal drugs which are non-narcotic. And you accuse me of "confused drivel"? To paraphrase Freud, projection is one of the first defense mechanisms to be employed.

In retrospect, I've been accused of far greater personal flaws than being "barely literate". Notwithstanding those flaws, this is a novel accusation. Given that my accuser resorts to morality-driven rather than evidence-based arguments to support his and Harper's position that permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences are appropriate for simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, I'm curious as to whether his accusations against me are based on fantasy or evidence. I look forward to my accuser posting the evidence. :angry: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the sputtering, confused drivel you post daily is more than sufficient evidence, along with your inability to understand fairly basic concepts and explanations. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweeping generalizations unsupported by evidence are unconvincing. I had hoped you would do better but then again, the ability to debate and respond to challenges are not among your strengths. However, it is understandable that you employ terms like "confused" and "inability to understand fairly basic concepts" . These descriptors accurately portray your knowledge of elementary pharmacological principles. Perhaps one day you will learn what a drug is as you still appear confused about how to define this simple term.

This comment probably especially enraged Duceppe. Separatists like to foster the delusion that Quebec is not a have-not province.

Who cares about facts when you know that your traditional beliefs are far more important?

Dumb Remark of the Day CPC MP Brian Palliser on CBC December 9, 2005 "I am copping what's known as a woman's answer, isn't it? It's a sort of fickle kind of thing..."

You might want to look at the history of alcohol prohibition. Early in the 20th century, alcohol was illegal in both Canada and the US. In the 1920's, Canada legalized alcohol. In the 1930's, the US did. Canada has long been ahead of the US in acquiring wisdom. If Canada legalizes or decriminalizes marijuana, the US will likely do so a decade later.

Nothing here to suggest marijuana is MORE harmful than alcohol. No one is claiming that marijuana has no effects. The point is that a more harmful substance remains legal while possession of a less harmful substance results in a permanent criminal record and potential jail sentence. This is irrational but it's Stephen Harper's position.

Your statement suggests that your source of information is Stephen Harper, a well-informed scientist and medical authority.

Shoopie, actually there are only two posters here who I don't respect. I do respect all the others I've encountered here including the many who appear to hate, loathe or abhor the Liberals and NDP. But according to your "logic", only antipathy towards CPC is sufficient for banishment.

Sparhawk, where did you get the idea that it can take years to reverse the effects of THC? If you have evidence or a published citation, I'd certainly like to have it. Neither the medical establishment nor even neuroscientists who specialize in cannabinoid research are aware of this. Please share your source with the world.

Marijuana smoke irritates the lungs. Heavy exposure of the lungs toirritation such as smoke increases the likelihood of lung cancer and other lung problems. Marijuana speeds the heartbeat and is unhealthy for people with high blood pressure or other cardiovascular ailments. Marijuana does reduce the sperm count and obstruct sperm mobility in males within the normal range. These side-effects do not seem to affect human fertility, and are completely reversible thirty days after cessation of use. Marijuana, like other drugs, crosses the placenta. While the effects of this are unknown and there is no evidence that marijuana causes chromosome damage, we advise women to avoid the use of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs not prescribed by their physician during pregnancy and nursing. Stan, thanks for providing the link. Much of the information in it is accurate. However the author, probably in the interests of brevity, did not provide complete information. Let's take each point in sequence: LUNGS: Marijuana smoke does indeed irritate the lungs. However, there has not been a single reported case of marijuana-induced lung cancer in any national or international medical publication. I challenge you to find a single case. Furthermore, marijuana only causes lung irritation when smoked, not when ingested orally, e.g., in cookies. Smoke generally irritates the lungs. HEART: Yes, marijuana does increase heart beat initially. So do caffeine and numerous other legal substances. However, there has not been a single reported case of death attributable to an effect of marijuana on the cardiovascular system. SPERM COUNT AND SPERM MOTILITY: As pointed out in your link, the effect on sperm count and motility is fully reversible within 30 days. Therefore, a man seeking to impregnate his partner would be wise not to use the drug. In fact, prospective parents, male and female, would be wise not to use any drug, legal or illegal. This is general knowledge. And by the way, guess what else reduces sperm count and impairs motility? Either wearing tight underwear or taking long, hot baths. Neither is conducive to maximal fertility. Now, let's consider alcohol which you think is less harmful than marijuana. Off the top of my head, here are a few effects of long-term, heavy alcohol use that come to mind: Korsakoff''s Syndrome: this alcohol-triggered disease is characterized by permanent memory deficits and permanent brain damage. Internal Organs: chronic use causes irreversible liver damage, irreversible kidney damage, as well as temporary damage to other organs. Death: an overdose of alcohol is lethal. To the best of my knowledge, no deaths due to an overdose of marijuana have ever been reported. Withdrawal Death: in cases of treatment for chronic, heavy alcohol use, institutionalization is often necessary to monitor withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms can include seizures, delirium and death. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: pregnant women consuming even small amounts of alcohol can cause mental retardation in the developing fetus. This is accompanied by irreversible brain damage and numerous other physical symptoms. I could go on but I suspect I'm already boring anyone who has read this far. I stand by the point I've raised repeatedly which is that it's irrational for a harmful substance like alcohol to be decriminalized while a less harmful substance like marijuana is criminalized.

Accusations of tax fraud and influence are among the best weapons in the CPC arsenal just as Stephen Harper is the best weapon in the Liberal arsenal.

"It doesn't matter even if they are accurate..." Thank you for acknowledging that my points about marijuana are accurate and if ever you find evidence to the contrary, feel free to inform others on the discussion board.

How does giving my son or daughter a criminal record and potential jail sentence for possession of a few grams of marijuana uphold traditional moral values and show respect for families? Alcohol was decriminalized in Canada in the 1920's and in 1933 in the US. Did that put an end to traditional moral values and respect for families? Or did it result in increased respect for the law and the eradication of organized crime as a purveyor of alcohol? Why is it rational to jail people for possession of marijuana while continuing to permit legal sales of a far more harmful substance like alcohol? If one did want to consider the issue of morality, consider the following question: Is it moral to jail people for possession of marijuana while continuing to permit legal sales of the far more harmful substance alcohol? If your answer is yes, then I have a followup question. Why do the police often not enforce the law on possession? If the law is reasonable, then why is it infrequently enforced?

I can understand why a political party would want to use their people to write letters to the editor or appear in television advertisements. It might swing a few undecided voters in their direction. However, it strikes me as a very inefficient and near-pointless effort to employ such people on discussion boards such as this one. It's my impression that there are relatively few undecided voters on political discussion boards. Most people on discussion boards aren't easily swayed. How many of you on this discussion board switched from Liberal supporter to CPC supporter, or vice versa, as a result of something you read on this board? My guess is that the number would be in the single digits. In my opinion, most of us here know which party or parties we loathe and we're not about to change our views no matter what evidence we acquire on this board. Perhaps I'm just speaking for myself when I say that there's no party that I especially like but there's one I loathe more than the others. That might describe others as well. If others agree with my point that none of us here are influencing the others, then why are we here? My theory is that it's simply because we enjoy it...but there are probably alternative theories.

In retrospect, I've been accused of far greater personal flaws than being "barely literate". Notwithstanding those flaws, this is a novel accusation. Given that my accuser resorts to morality-driven rather than evidence-based arguments to support his and Harper's position that permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences are appropriate for simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, I'm curious as to whether his accusations against me are based on fantasy or evidence. I look forward to my accuser posting the evidence. :angry:

I'm glad they banned murder. I can rest easy it will never happen again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BM, you misattributed the quote above to me. Error I assume.

You don't think alcohol is a drug? Why, because it's legal? Or because it's a liquid? How about nicotine? Is that a drug? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I use the term alcohol to differentiate liquor, which is legal, from illegal narcotics, much as the original poster decried alcohol being legal but drugs being illegal. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So by your completely arbitrary and ill-informed definition, drugs are illegal narcotics. Therefore, I presume you view antidepressants, antianxiety drugs, antischizophrenic drugs, indeed anything manufactured by the multibillion pharmaceutical industry as not being a drug. OK, let's ignore yet another of your mistakes and/or lack of knowledge and focus on your term "illegal narcotics". What about legal narcotics? Physicians regularly prescribe them. Should we criminalize them as well and if so, why? And what about illegal drugs which are not even remotely narcotic in their pharmacological action? Should we decriminalize them?