Pot profits pay for guns!

[capricorn]

I find it amazing that the myth of marijuana creating "reefer madness" still exists. Especially in light of the numbers of people who have smoked it and know that it does not induce "madness", but induces introspection.

I get it now.

Introspection: 'a reflective looking inward : an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings".

Smoking pot is a lot cheaper than paying a shrink 100 bucks an hour to acquire introspection. Where can I get me some of that weed?

[BubberMiley]

Where can I get me some of that weed?

Any junior high in the country so long as organized crime's control of the market is maintained by the conservatives.

[MontyBurns]

Legal marijuana isnt going to benefit society at all. We have enough druggies now as it is. We dont need widespread reefer-madness to deal with on top of it all. Dope smoking hippies have caused us enough damage already.

[Wild Bill]

Legal marijuana isnt going to benefit society at all. We have enough druggies now as it is. We dont need widespread reefer-madness to deal with on top of it all. Dope smoking hippies have caused us enough damage already.

You're implying that the law is effective. It's not. It's just a tragic joke. It's about as effective as Prohibition and simply serves to ensure obscene profits for drug lords.

Which would lead one to wonder why some folks seem to think the status quo is a good idea...

[Wild Bill]

Any junior high in the country so long as organized crime's control of the market is maintained by the conservatives.

There are conservatives and there are conservatives. The problem with our system is that when we vote for a party we have to swallow the entire platform, including the bad with the good. In effect, THEY tell US!

Reform was the first and only party to ever champion the idea of the people telling the PARTY what we want, on an issue by issue basis. So you could be a fiscal conservative in favour of marijuana legalization.

This concept scares the hell out of the typical politician, of any party. Notice how after the new Conservative Party was formed they couldn't bury this Reform idea fast enough!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This one's just a little easier on us, that's all.

[White Doors]

I disagree. You vote in the party/person that best meets your values on all things in life and let them take the lead. You give them their report card at the next election. The people we elect need to be leaders. The public can't always know all of the intricacies of everything. 'grass roots' leadership is a pipe dream and not a realistic one at that. Kind of sounds like communism to me.

[Wild Bill]

I disagree. You vote in the party/person that best meets your values on all things in life and let them take the lead. You give them their report card at the next election. The people we elect need to be leaders. The public can't always know all of the intricacies of everything. 'grass roots' leadership is a pipe dream and not a realistic one at that. Kind of sounds like communism to me.

Well, that's your POV and you're entitled to it! All I can say is that Reform at least had some practicality in the methods they were developing to inject some populism into the system. I also find the idea of calling Reform a communist party kinda funny!

I suggest you look closely at your description of "the way things are SUPPOSED to work"! What happens if NONE of the parties take the stand that you wanted? Who do you vote for then? If you're a Tory type of voter do you vote NDP just to punish your party for one or two issues? No, you just grumble quietly. There's really nothing else you can do.

The Reform concept of MP's representing their constituents instead of the party was really an attack on party solidarity. Under our traditional system the party whip tells the caucus how to vote. If an MP knows that this would be very unpopular in his own riding then he's trapped between a rock and a hard place. If he goes against his party he stands the risk of being booted out. We've seen lots of examples of this happening. Sometimes the whip will do a quick nose count and allow him a dissenting vote if there's no danger of the government being defeated. In effect, the MP gets a "token" vote and the party will trumpet this as proof of caucus "freedom"!

There was even a term for this situation back in the 80's during the Mulroney years. They spoke of a "disenfranchised conservative". This meant a conservative who didn't really agree with lots of what the party was doing but had no other choice for his vote. The "back room boys" were well aware of this term but didn't care. They were openly quoted as saying "the troops will go along with it. What choice do they have? We don't have to worry!". Of course, when Reform came on the scene and stole literally millions of their votes almost overnight they ended up with worries indeed. It's historical fact that by the time the Tories woke up they had lost not their generals but all their sargeants, corporals and privates. By that I mean that all the loyal troops that did all the grunt work and had been taken for granted finally got a chance to vote with their feet!

Any sales person understands that you can rig the market to limit customer choices and be successful. However, you run the risk of creating a resentful customer base that if they ever do get a more attractive choice will not only drop you on the spot but bear a grudge that may take you generations to overcome. This was the position that the old Tories found themselves in before they finally gave in and merged with the Alliance Party.

I'm just suggesting that the wheel has gone full circle. We are back in an identical situation to the mid 80's only many tasted a more attractive way. I'm surprised that no politico has tried to tap into that demographic but in historical terms it's relatively recent. It may happen yet. Many of those old Reform voters aren't sticking with the new CP out of inspiration but out of a lack of real choice. It would be very interesting what would happen if someone came along and gave them one...

[Drea]

Legal marijuana isnt going to benefit society at all. We have enough druggies now as it is. We dont need widespread reefer-madness to deal with on top of it all. Dope smoking hippies have caused us enough damage already.

"Widespread reefer-madness"?

Have you ever been around a person who has smoked pot? One does not become "mad", one becomes "mellow".

And, what damage, exactly, has anyone (letalone a "hippy") smoking pot caused?

You are afraid that everyone in the country will start smoking it once it's legal -- are you going to become a pot smoker when it becomes legal?

No?

So why the big "we have enough druggies now, we don't want to create more"... These are simply scare tactics from those who still believe the antiquated propaganda, "reefer-madness". Those who smoke it will do so whether or not it is deemed "legal" by the govt.

[MontyBurns]

Why stop at marijuana? Might as well legalize cocaine, opium, amphetamines, etc. as well. Probably we should get all drugs free from a public drug plan also. That way I can pay taxes to support the druggies.

[Drea]

Why stop at marijuana? Might as well legalize cocaine, opium, amphetamines, etc. as well. Probably we should get all drugs free from a public drug plan also. That way I can pay taxes to support the druggies.

Why stop at marijuana? Are you aware that the effect of marijuana is not the same as the other drugs you mentioned? Are you aware of the effect of marijuana at all? Have you ever smoked it, or had someone smoke it around you?

Have you ever had a drink of alcohol?

Did you go "mad"?

[Michael Bluth]

"Widespread reefer-madness"?

Have you ever been around a person who has smoked pot? One does not become "mad", one becomes "mellow".

Now Drea, it is known that one of the effects for chronics is pronounced mood swings.

I have been around a number of heavy, habitual users who get pretty violent when things are a little dry for them.

[Drea]

not unlike the alcoholic...

Unlike alcohol however, the body does not physically "need" the drug. Although the marijuana user may get cranky if he doesn't get his weed, he does not get the "ddt's" like with booze. Psychologically he may feel he needs it, but physically he can do without and be just fine --unlike the alcoholic or crack addict, or heroin user, all of who can die from withdrawl symptoms.

Too much booze/crack/heroin/cocaine/mushrooms/lsd/ecstacy and you die. Too much pot... and you become immune and no longer get high at all. But you don't die.

[Michael Bluth]

not unlike the alcoholic...

Unlike alcohol however, the body does not physically "need" the drug. Although the marijuana user may get cranky if he doesn't get his weed, he does not get the "ddt's" like with booze.

I've seen lots of angry drunks, but not angry people because they can't get booze. More of an availability issue I guess.

Chronics get a lot more than 'cranky' if things are really dry...

[guyser]

How many jail sentences?

A quick search did not get me exactly, so I am afraid I cannot difintively say. I will look further. But if the new laws go thru.....

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...5ed&k=72082

....then too many more will be.

[capricorn]

Cannabis smoke is just as toxic as tobacco smoke.

Inhaled cannabis smoke has more harmful toxins than tobacco, scientists have discovered.

The Canadian government research found 20 times as much ammonia, a chemical linked to cancer, New Scientist said.

The Health Canada team also found five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to heart and lung damage respectively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm

We have and are taking drastic steps to reduce smoking primarily because society does not want to pay the health care costs associated to tobacco related diseases.

Why should my tax dollars be spent on health care costs associated to cannabis related diseases? If cannabis is legalized more people would smoke it and there would be an increase in related illnesses.

[guyser]

Why should my tax dollars be spent on health care costs associated to cannabis related diseases? If cannabis is legalized more people would smoke it and there would be an increase in related illnesses.

Agreed ! But first lets get rid of alcohol and save billions.

[DrGreenthumb]

If you want to reduce smoking prohibition is the worst way to go about it. More people under 40 smoke pot than tobacco. That is because it has be become "uncool" or socially unacceptable to smoke tobacco. Pot definitely has the "cool " factor, which is amplified 1000 times because of its legal status, forbiddin fruit and all that. Cranky when its dry, maybe a little, nothing like a tobacco smoker without a cigarette tho. I have never seen lack of pot cause violence however and I think you are making that up. The only way a lack of pot would lead to violence is if the pot smoker decided to drink some alcohol instead, we all know that alcohol abuse does lead to violence and is often associated with criminality.

That said, there is no proof anywhere that pot causes any type of Cancer. In fact it has been shown to be very effective at destroying cancer cells and stopping the progression of many incurable diseases. If pot is so deadly where are all the bodies? I bet I could open the paper right now and find at least 3 alcohol or tobacco related deaths just today. What does it say on the smoke packs? The equivelant of a small city dies every year frm tobacco related illness. If this were true about pot the right would be running to tell it on the mountain, over the hills and everywhere. There has never been a death in history attributed to pot. I know quite a few people who have died in alcohol related accidents or suicides.

Also try to remember that this is Canada, and wether or not pot is legal, if it caused someone a health problem it would still be covered by taxpayers through our health system. We don't deny people care because of unhealthy choices they may have made. If we did there would be a lot of fatass cheeseburger munching diabetics, heart attack victims, and hip, knee replacements that wouldn't be covered.

If we are going to criminalize people for unhealthy choices then I say lets line up all the fat slobs for jail cells first since they cost our health care system the most. So what percent body fat should be acceptable? We are going to need a roadside test, excessive blubber can make it harder to steer, also the added inertia from the 300 pound ass in the driver's seat could lead to injury of a third party in an accident.

[BubberMiley]

I have been around a number of heavy, habitual users who get pretty violent when things are a little dry for them.

Wow. Unsubstantiated, anecdotal evidence that it subdues otherwise violent people. I guess it does make you more mellow. Maybe the CPC is keeping it illegal because they find they have a higher level of support among nasty, humourless, angry people.

Too bad criminalization has little to no effect on consumption. People often like to argue that decriminalization would lead to more people smoking weed, but they never provide any evidence to support their theory. Decriminalization would allow for regulation of supply, restricting its sale to minors and thereby considerably decreasing consumption.

And since no one who wants weed is unable to buy it in the current environment, you're already paying their healthcare costs from their use, if there are any.

If your motivation was tax savings, you would be creamy at the windfall from the one-two punch of decreased enforcement and incarceration costs and tax revenue from its sale. But motivation for criminalization comes from two areas: those who profit from the black market, and those who have contempt for others having any fun. If you are not one, you are the other.

Edited December 19, 2007 by BubberMiley