Young offenders

[Topaz]

The Cons are coming down on the young offenders that do drugs. People who do drugs and get behind a wheel of a car are going to pay dearly. Some of the Green Party won't like that! The Cons say the young people hooked on drugs will have go to treatment. I'm all for that but if the person isn't for it, it won't work and there's no saying they won't start up again later.

[Shakeyhands]

The whole of the new legislation seems to be simple pandering. Plain and simple.

I got in to trouble a s a kid and I thank God for the YOA, what would have become of me without it? There are always exceptions to the rule, and the current YOA makes provisions for those.

[luvacuppajoe]

The whole of the new legislation seems to be simple pandering. Plain and simple.

I got in to trouble a s a kid and I thank God for the YOA, what would have become of me without it? There are always exceptions to the rule, and the current YOA makes provisions for those.

You and me both. I had one brush with the law as a minor and it did its job in setting me straight, which I think is and should remain one of the primary objective of our youth justice system.

Unfortunately there are some kids for whom that doesn't work and they end up before a cop, a judge or a probation officer repeatedly, and the law should reflect that.

My more recent experiences with youth and crime are having witnessed my two stepsons being escorted home by the cops a handful of times. After each incident (nothing major, but a concern to be sure) I would ask the cops what accountability the boys would face and was always told they don't have a record so "we'll just talk to them and hopefully that will be the last we see of them" wink wink.

Well it never was, even the last time the older one was brought home for B & E. In all fairness to the cops I know there is some reluctance to press charges because of the futility once a case finally gets before a judge, but it seems the whole system has more or less given up on kids in trouble until their crimes escalate to violence or they reach adulthood.

The older of my two stepsons is in fact now an adult and is going to court later this month for "careless use, carrying, handling, shipping, transporting, or storage of a firearm". (He's back with his mom btw, whose only real concern seems to be securing legal aid.)

His attitude is that the cops are being mean to him and should just forget about it like they always have, despite us having warned him repeatedly that once he was an adult he would be in a whole new ballgame.

It's overdue that the whole justice system takes youth crime more seriously and if it has to be a top-down effort then bring it on, because it leaves a lot to be desired as it is now.

[marcinmoka]

Unfortunately there are some kids for whom that doesn't work and they end up before a cop, a judge or a probation officer repeatedly, and the law should reflect that.

Good point. Far too often there are kids for whom run-ins with the Police mean nothing, and even worse, are almost a badge of honour, as one kid tries to demonstrate how 'tough/fearless' (a.k.a stupid) they are to their peers. Sadly, many on the left incessantly claim the need for nothing more than counselling and being given a 'second chance', which could work for some, but is just plain naive when they are . given this 'second chance' their fourth or fifth time around.

As per drug offences, while I sort of agree (especially in regards to those dealing with harder substances, and driving intoxicated), they government should focus more on those involved in violence and theft, seeing as those seem to be better indicators of future tendencies (and also frequently stem from involvement with harder narcotics).

[Moxie]

The Cons are coming down on the young offenders that do drugs. People who do drugs and get behind a wheel of a car are going to pay dearly. Some of the Green Party won't like that! The Cons say the young people hooked on drugs will have go to treatment. I'm all for that but if the person isn't for it, it won't work and there's no saying they won't start up again later.

Good, people who get behind the wheel of a vehicle under the influence of drugs deserve to feel the full force of the law brought down apon them. They choose to get stoned and drive, those they kill weren't given a choice. If a minor is hooked on drugs than the law has the right to seek enforced treatment for the youth. It won't work but the do gooders will feel superior to the rest of us for their "Tolerance" blah blah.

It's about time the Government did something about the rise in youth crimes, stealing a car might seem like a soft crime to some but when it's the little scum bags 200th car he's cost the taxpayer visa vie insurance a fortune. I believe in Punitive Punishment, I could careless if we rehabilitate them. Our youth need to know their are consequences for their actions, sadly their parents have raised them to believe they are "Special" and don't have to be accountable for their actions because they are "Special". Some of this generation of parents should hang their heads in shame, they didn't raise their children the schools and society did. They were more concerned with being their childrens "Friend" than being a parent. It's only going to get worse with this "It's all about Me" generation. They've been denied nothing, nor will they accept the deniel of what the deem they should have.

[luvacuppajoe]

Our youth need to know their are consequences for their actions, sadly their parents have raised them to believe they are "Special" and don't have to be accountable for their actions because they are "Special". Some of this generation of parents should hang their heads in shame, they didn't raise their children the schools and society did. They were more concerned with being their childrens "Friend" than being a parent. It's only going to get worse with this "It's all about Me" generation. They've been denied nothing, nor will they accept the deniel of what the deem they should have.

Oh, I just have to comment on this part, this is exactly how my stepsons were raised by their mom, that they were "special" and that's exactly the word they were raised on. Consequently, the older one especially couldn't take out the garbage or scrape his plate without proudly announcing he was "special".

Your use of the word "friend" is right on the mark as well, their mom was quite confident in her idea that it was preferable to be her kids' friend than their parent, saying "I don't tell my kids what to do" like a badge of honor. Believe me, it showed -- and in the end it's the kids who pay for that.

I don't necessarily agree with everything else you said -- I believe the youth justice system should act as a punishment and a chance for rehabilitation and deterrence (for those who are willing to learn the lesson) but your description of the "special" child really resonates with me.

[DrGreenthumb]

I have no problems with getting "tough on crime" as long as we are realistic about what is a "crime". Drug use is not a crime. Drug abuse is not a crime either. These are health issues, not criminal issues. If a kid steals a car, he should go to to jail, just like if an adult steals a car he should go to jail. Same thing for any kind of violent act committed against another person. These things are crimes, drug use/abuse is not a crime. Selling drugs to people who want to buy them is not a crime either, it is a consensual act between two willing participants. If we stoppped chasing non-criminals for committing non-crimes we would have plenty of resources to deal with actual crime.

even hard drug use should not result in ANY criminal charges. Alcohol is a hard drug. Its sad when people have alcohol problems but it does not in any way make them a criminal. The exact same thing is true of drugs. No person should ever be put in a cage or punished in any way for drug use especially if that drug is in reality a plant. The government WAY oversteps its bounds when it presumes it can tell us what we may eat drink or smoke. I own my body, neither you fascist cons or the fascist con government does.

No victim, no crime simple as that.

As for impaired driving we already have laws against that and rightly so. Many things can impair driving, and the fact that a substance is illegal does not mean that impairs you. A cellphone or a sleepless night are far more impairing than smoking a joint. Loud music or screwing with you blackberry, are far more likely to cause an accident than smoking a joint . Lets charge people who bring blackberries in their car with impaired driving too. How bout those fatasses rolling down the street stuffing a double cheeseburger and fries down their throats while driving? People who drink coffee(another drug) while driving?

Before we charge people with impaired driving for having a substance in their system we first need to prove it actually impairs them like we have proven that alcohol impairs.

The impaired driving issue is a total red herring anyway when it comes to the legality of drugs. Someone smoking a bong while sitting in their home is no threat to anyone and will not likely be in any hurry to get behind the wheel anyway. Cannabis raises your inhibitions actually having the opposite effect of alcohol.

[M.Dancer]

Before we charge people with impaired driving for having a substance in their system we first need to prove it actually impairs them like we have proven that alcohol impairs.

That is patently ridiculous. First it is not necessary to prove they impair like alcohol, only that they impair. Secondly I find it beyond belief that someone would even question the fact that drugs like heroin, speed, meth, coke, mushrooms and even weed don't impair. They are plenty of relaible scientific studies, particulary a french study that showed drivers high on weed alone were more likely to be in fatal accident that sober drivers.

Show me a recreational drug that doesn't impair and I'll show you a suger pill.

[Canuck E Stan]

Show me a recreational drug that doesn't impair and I'll show you a suger pill.

Dancer,

I think I found one.

Can Viagra be considered recreational drug?

-CES

[M.Dancer]

Dancer,

I think I found one.

Can Viagra be considered recreational drug?

-CES

Okay...and viagra definately doesn't impair.....

[DrGreenthumb]

That is patently ridiculous. First it is not necessary to prove they impair like alcohol, only that they impair. Secondly I find it beyond belief that someone would even question the fact that drugs like heroin, speed, meth, coke, mushrooms and even weed don't impair. They are plenty of relaible scientific studies, particulary a french study that showed drivers high on weed alone were more likely to be in fatal accident that sober drivers.

Show me a recreational drug that doesn't impair and I'll show you a suger pill.

Show me a link to a credible study done by scientists, not politicians. ( if its paid for by a prohibitionist group like NIDA it isn't credible) I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to prove that a lot of drugs impair, at certain doses. When we have that proof and a reliable testing method , fine. I have read several studies done on cannabis and driving that show Cannabis using drivers drive more slowly and carefully and have less accidents than even sober drivers. Google "speedvision toking and driving" to see an actual demonstration of cannabis and driving. Better yet, try and beat a friend who tokes at anything that requires hand-eye co-ordination and see how well you do against him. The makers of the XBOX car racing game "burnout revenge" found that tokers had better hand eye coordination and faster reaction times than their "straight" counterparts 80% of the time.

I'd hardly recomend driving while on hallucinigens like mushrooms, but i see nothing criminal about eating a handful while sitting at the beach around a campfire with some friends.

No drug impairs driving to the extent that alcohol does and that does not seem to be justification for jailing those who drink or produce alcohol, or sell it to others who wish to purchase it.

Impaired driving is a totally seperate issue from general prohibition. Making something illegal only ever makes it more dangerous. Just because its not safe to do something behind the wheel doesn't mean it is never safe to enjoy it.

I don't think people should be allowed to have sex while driving down the road either , but that hardly makes it the government's business if we do it in the privacy of our own homes.

Legality of a substance has no bearing on wether people will use it either. I don't use alcohol or cigarettes which are legal, but I do enjoy the odd joint while sitting in my jacuzzi, or a couple grams of shrooms while kickin it at the beach. I have tried both legal and illegal drugs and choose the ones I like based on their merits , not on the laws. I've never tried meth or heroin, nor would I try them were they legal.

Just curious, should we pull the driver's liscences of everyone on pharmaceutical anti-depressents too? There is no denying that they are mind-altering substances, it is their very purpose. Also should we apply the same logic to those on muscle relaxants, and legal painkillers?

[Shakeyhands]

Okay...and viagra definately doesn't impair.....

It sure would if your pants were stretched and impaired full mobility of your legs....

[M.Dancer]

Show me a link to a credible study done by scientists, not politicians. ( if its paid for by a prohibitionist group like NIDA it isn't credible)

There have been quite a few already linked on this site on one of the endless grass threads. But I will post it yet again.....might bas well bookmark it given there is someone always new who makes the same tired claim.

“You are more likely to be involved in a crash, probably because of the drug’s effect on your reaction times and concentration,” says Jean-Louis Martin who carried out the research at the Université Claude Bernard in Lyon, France. “But the drug also makes you more vulnerable to the effects of the crash, so you are more likely to die.” The study did not explore why cannabis smokers fair less well in a crash

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8407.html

Conclusions Driving under the influence of cannabis increases the risk of involvement in a crash. However, in France its share in fatal crashes is significantly lower than that associated with positive blood alcohol concentration.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7529/1371

[DrGreenthumb]

There have been quite a few already linked on this site on one of the endless grass threads. But I will post it yet again.....might bas well bookmark it given there is someone always new who makes the same tired claim.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8407.html

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7529/1371

That's what you would call a credible study? You would base taking away a citizens freedom based on THAT? That is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen. Number one, THC is detectable in your system for over a month after your last toke, so at best all this study shows is that 2.5 % of the drivers had consumed cannabis within a month of their accident. You did notice that alcohol was found to be the cause in 29% of the accidents? Alcohol does not stay in your sytem past the point of impairment. Are you uneducated enough to believe that a cannabis high lasts for a month after you smoke a joint?

"The researchers found it was younger drivers, more often male and driving older cars, mopeds or motorcycles, who were most likely to have taken cannabis. "- from your shitty study

Younger drivers have more accidents because of inexperience, the pot has zero relevance. Of course people driving mopeds, motorcycles and old beaters with no air bags etc are more likely to die in a crash, again what does that have to do with pot?

“But the drug also makes you more vulnerable to the effects of the crash, so you are more likely to die.” The study did not explore why cannabis smokers fair less well in a crash."- another gem from your prove nothing propaganda piece.

More vulnerable to the effects of the crash, my ass. More vulnerable to driving a less expensive, less safe vehicle seems more likely.

That is seriously weak dude. This is justification for saddling thousands of young Canadians with a criminal record over every year? And just so you know arrests for simple possession of marijuana have risen by 33% across Canada since Harper the Fascist took over. Got any idea how much money the taxpayers are on the hook for over that bright idea?

[marcinmoka]

Selling drugs to people who want to buy them is not a crime either, it is a consensual act between two willing participants.

Granted, so is the sale of handguns!

Though in support of your argument, I guess that the bulk of crystal meth or heroine users are otherwise responsible individuals who only use recreationally with friends and family, or social gatherings, go to "gourmet meth tasting" events or organize bicycle tours of Afghanistan's beautiful opium growing regions and chateaux (...Riyads????).

Edited November 21, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Oleg Bach]

Granted, so is the sale of handguns!

Though in support of your argument, I guess that the bulk of crystal meth or heroine users are otherwise responsible individuals who only use recreationally with friends and family, or social gatherings, go to "gourmet meth tasting" events or organize bicycle tours of Afghanistan's beautiful opium growing regions and chateaux (...Riyads????).

One person poisoning another person even by consent is a crime. "Gormet meth tasting" - bliippp- I almost fell off my chair - the most insidious drug on the planet that makes cocaine look like mother's milk..as far as opium and the great wealth it STILL generates - I would say that between big pharma wanting the best non-synthetic euphoric - and orgainized crime also in need of this consipation dream drug...well....odd how production has gone up with Canadian envolvement..

.makes you wonder if the old British West Indian Dope shippers are still operating? Dope is bad...so is booze and so are we to profit from them - in the seach for peaceful realease called pleasure and profit.....If for instance - as much force was applied to drying up dope in the nation as is expended militarily in Afgahnistan and Iraq buy Canada and America - I would not have to watch the First Nations Jerk down the street selling crack to a flimsy and twitching little white girl that holds the hand of her "harm reduction worker" - the whole war on dope stinks.

[DrGreenthumb]

Granted, so is the sale of handguns!

Though in support of your argument, I guess that the bulk of crystal meth or heroine users are otherwise responsible individuals who only use recreationally with friends and family, or social gatherings, go to "gourmet meth tasting" events or organize bicycle tours of Afghanistan's beautiful opium growing regions and chateaux (...Riyads????).

I'm wasn't suggesting anything about meth and heroin users. In fact I have never even met anyone who has used Heroin. I've met a few who were into meth, including a couple of younger non-immediate family members, who have since quit and are now both employed and productive citizens. I'm not sure how being arrested and jailed would have improved their chances of success in life. Jail often tends to be a harmful place full of unsavory characters and hardened criminals. They may have ended up violently abused in there and had emotional problems the rest of their lives. They probably would have had a herd time finding work with a criminal record.

I AM suggesting that LESS people would use meth if the profit motive was removed. If an addict could get a maintenance dose by seeing a doctor and recieve a cleaner product for less money from a pharmacist then what would motivate anyone to set up a dangerous meth lab? Even better the person who seeks out that particular substance now comes in contact with at least two health proffessionals who can warn them about the health risks and dangers of addiction, instead of getting it from a black market dealer interested only in increasing his profits.

And the bulk of Cannabis users ARE otherwise responsible individuals who only use recreationally with friends and family, or social gatherings, and we do have connoisseur events like the cannabis cup, where we sample many different strains and have a lot of fun and socialization. Comparing opium to heroin is like comparing a cup of morning coffee to snorting crushed up caffeeine pills, and comparing cannabis to meth and heroin is like comparing a coffee buzz to a drunken stupor.

I'm not sure if you are trying to goad me into saying that handguns should be illegal or what the handgun comment was meant to accomplish.

Here's my take on handguns, take it or leave it. Handguns should be legal and regulated. They are a dangerous weapon, with one purpose , to kill other human beings, from a distance. The same can be accomplished with less vilified weapons like bow and arrow, or a hunting rifle but a handgun is much easier to conceal and use for criminal purposes. I think everyone has a right to protect their home and their property and therefore handguns should be legal to possess but only on your own property. To transport that gun should require a special permit and anyone caught transporting a handgun without a permit should go to jail. Permits should only be available to bring the gun home from the store where you purchase it, and directly to and from a shooting range, no exeptions. A registry should be kept of who owns handguns, and regulations should be in place regarding safe storage of such. Bullets for the guns should have serial numbers that can identify who bought them and when, should they ever be pulled from a human body.

[marcinmoka]

I'm wasn't suggesting anything about meth and heroin users.

Well you didn't discriminate when you used the 'blanket all' sentence :

Selling drugs to people who want to buy them is not a crime either, it is a consensual act between two willing participants.

My take on the issue, if marijuana is to be prohibited in the first place (forget idealism for the sake of argument, law is law is law) is too widely used, too easily grown, and not enough of a social nuisance to be worthy of significant judicial and police resources which could otherwise be allocated to other more pertinent (see meth/crack/smack/date rape drugs + hillbilly heroin a.k.a misused painkillers) issues. And from what I've seen, many police do in fact follow this line of reasoning and pursue the more major social nuisances, and rightly so.

The down side to this approach is that production has become fairly consolidated and concentrated in the hands of powerful and dangerous criminal organizations (pseudo triads, bikers, etc) and these groups musn't be taken lightly. However, since many smaller dealers are simply let to run free without fear of prosecution, it is much harder to work your way up the distribution pyramid and get to those who are a genuine menace to society. This in turn, increases incentives to enter said business, but unlike the regulated world of legitimate business, competition here generally translates into violence, rather than paperwork for the accountant in the mergers & acquisitions dept.

Edited November 21, 2007 by marcinmoka

[DrGreenthumb]

Well you didn't discriminate when you used the 'blanket all' sentence :

My take on the issue, if marijuana is to be prohibited in the first place (forget idealism for the sake of argument, law is law is law) is too widely used, too easily grown, and not enough of a social nuisance to be worthy of significant judicial and police resources which could otherwise be allocated to other more pertinent (see meth/crack/smack/date rape drugs + hillbilly heroin a.k.a misused painkillers) issues. And from what I've seen, many police do in fact follow this line of reasoning and pursue the more major social nuisances, and rightly so.

The down side to this approach is that production has become fairly consolidated and concentrated in the hands of powerful and dangerous criminal organizations (pseudo triads, bikers, etc) and these groups musn't be taken lightly. However, since many smaller dealers are simply let to run free without fear of prosecution, it is much harder to work your way up the distribution pyramid and get to those who are a genuine menace to society. This in turn, increases incentives to enter said business, but unlike the regulated world of legitimate business, competition here generally translates into violence, rather than paperwork for the accountant in the mergers & acquisitions dept.

The down side to this approach is that production has become fairly consolidated and concentrated in the hands of powerful and dangerous criminal organizations (pseudo triads, bikers, etc)"

And you know this because..... the police said it so it must be true right? And they have no vested interest in keeping this prohibition alive do they? No budget increases, no new powers of search and seizure, nothing like that that might motivate them them to lie about cannabis and exagerate the dangers huh? I am so sick of hearing the BS the cops spew about pot regurgitated by people who have no idea. I have been buying and smoking pot for 20 years and I have never had to find a biker or gang member to get it from, isn't that amazing? Not once have I had to talk to someone I didn't already know to find someone who had a little growing in a forest patch or their basement. You'd think I'd have run into at least one biker or gang member after 20 years of making purchases if the production and distribution was so consolidated with the likes of those people wouldn't ya? Get ready for another shock......I've never gotten weed laced with pcp or crystal meth or anything else...ever. The only "bad" pot I've ever gotten was outdoor prairie skunk and it was only bad because it was so weak.

I stand by my statement that selling drugs is not an actual crime. It is a consensual act by two willing participants. That stands true even for hard drugs. The seller is no more a criminal than the user is, he has not forced his will upon the buyer, the buyer chooses to seek out the product and purchase it.

If someone drugs another person without their knowledge and consent then that is a criminal chemical assault and a totally different issue.

The law is the law is the law is crap, and its time the prohibition minded stopped trying to use that excuse to continue the persecution. It also used to be the law that you could own slaves and burn witches, I would hope we live in more enlightened times by now. The lies told by white supremecist emily murphy are still causing pain, suffering and broken families to this day.

Did you know when opium prohibition first started, only Chinese Canadians were prohibited from selling opium? White men were free to sell as much as they wanted. Most prohibition laws were founded on racism, not science, fact, or common sense.

[M.Dancer]

That's what you would call a credible study? You would base taking away a citizens freedom based on THAT? That is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen.

This is probably a good example why pot promoters aren't taken seriously. A peer reviewed scientific study is poo poo off hand ......

[marcinmoka]

I have never had to find a biker or gang member to get it from, isn't that amazing?

Whatever floats your boat. Granted, It would be funny to expect a full patch Nomad to be slangin' joints outside of the UQAM station, Eaton's Center or a local high school.

And you know this because..... the police said it so it must be true right?

The sheer logistics involved in the macro supply side, rather than some worthless anecdotal evidence.

And it is true that numbers can be inflated in order to pursue and agenda, so for that reason let us put a very conservative estimate; that only 70% of Canadian marijuana production heads south, and since you said:

I....know to find someone who had a little growing in a forest patch or their basement

I guess that just means there are a lot of cross border trips being made by independent mom and pop grow houses, selling dime bag by dime bag.

Edited November 21, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Oleg Bach]

This is probably a good example why pot promoters aren't taken seriously. A peer reviewed scientific study is poo poo off hand ......

There is a difficulty dealing with the older ones that actaully promote this weed. Firstly it is not "pot" - every last plant now grown in Canada is of one singular super plant engineered by orgainzed crime. The "clone" approach - which are snippings, have spread across the nation. This plant is not the pot of old that the old smoked back in the 60s and 70s. It is a different animal. The stuff is so powerful that it brings on mental illness - plus the stuff is addictive because of it is overwhelmingly potent.

Those that promote and are even someone proud of the killer pot that trades for it's own weight in cocaine are really not quite with the times. If you have ever been around those that use this stuff you will find all are habitual and all are totally out to lunch. There was a time when you could not tell who was high and who was not. Today the users boarders on someone who has taken half a bottle of scotch. Personally I have no use for the stuff and to promote it in any manner is harmful to society. This is not the giggley seed popping stuff that came out of Mexico in the old days - it is poison. Pot generated through greed can not be good. Originally pot was not a hot commodity that enriched orgainzed crime. It was passed about in benevolence and created a very social atmosphere that was actally not to bad...now it is right up there with cocaine and heroine. Ask any expert plant person..it is not the same - put simply it is evil.

[M.Dancer]

I used to smoke regularly....10 years ago. Since children arrived I used to take a puff or two maybe once a month. But I haven't smoked weed for quite awhile because I get incredibly high (yes impaired). Now if someone was to say to me, hey Morris, I have some really fine hash....I would definately acquire some to enjoy when the kids are having a sleepover somewhere else.

[scribblet]

The crime bill is necessary, and will only affect serious crimes why should we allow a gun toting gang member to go back on the street, bail should be harder to get for these types of crimes.

Too bad that partisan politics ensures that some think more along party lines and opposing anything the CPC puts forward, than the good of the country.

[DrGreenthumb]

I used to smoke regularly....10 years ago. Since children arrived I used to take a puff or two maybe once a month. But I haven't smoked weed for quite awhile because I get incredibly high (yes impaired). Now if someone was to say to me, hey Morris, I have some really fine hash....I would definately acquire some to enjoy when the kids are having a sleepover somewhere else.

You guys are totally out to lunch, and I am specifically speaking to Oleg. Super weed? You believe anything a cop says don't you? Good weed was always available. The more potent it is the safer it is because you need to smoke less. You are so obviously clueless. Hashish has been around for thousands of years and has a concentration of between 60 and 80% THC. Even the very best medicinal strains of pot are topping out at about 20% THC.

Ask any plant expert? I invite you to do the same, a plant expert, not an rcmp propaganda expert. A plant cannot be evil. Traded even for coke? You are totally making yourself look like a dunce to anyone with any knowledge of the drug world. Cocaine is 80 dollars /gram the best pot you can buy is between 10 and 15 dollars a gram, where in the world do you suppose you are going to find someone who makes that kind of trade? If you believe that nonsense i have a great bridge to sell you.

Also pot is absolutely NOT poison, it is non-toxic. There is no LD-50 for pot. You cannot overdose on it. Even if you smoked twice your weight in pot you would not die from it. Try getting your info from somewhere other than cops and the NIDA propagandists .

Scriblet if the crime bill didn't include more drug war spending I WOULD support it. The war on drugs is wrong and as long as the conservatives insist on pushing that idealogical agenda I will continue to oppose them. I used to be a conservative member, but Fascists like Harper offend my Libertarian beliefs. Big drug war =big government. I'm more concerned with a government taking away my freedoms than taking away my money. I also support capital punishment for murderers and castration for rapists. Eye for an eye justice if you will. I am not soft on crime by any means. Drug use is a made up crime, and not a real crime. It is nobodies business how i choose to live my life. Why do some of you care so much how others find their happiness? It really has no effect on your life.