GostHacked Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 I don't ever want to get into a car with a person who thinks that pot does not impare driving. 5 minutes after your beer you should be fine to drive. 1 Beer will not impair your ability to drive enough to make it dangerous. You will not be charged with impaired driving after 1 beer. Your blood alcohol will be below .08 which is generally accepted as the ammount of alcohol in your system that will make you too impaired to drive a motor vehicle. After 3 beers 1 hour probably wouldn't be enough time for your blood alcohol to drop below .08. Depends on how fast you drank that beer. I know if I chug a beer 5 minutes later I am going to feel the effects of it. Plain and simple. If I sip the beer for the entire hour, then you would be correct. But many of us rarely make a beer last an hour. Mine last 20 minutes ..tops. After 6 beers you are even more impaired and it will take even longer before you are ok to drive. Lots of times people who drink a lot wake up still impaired the next day. Normaly it takes about an hour for the liver to counteract the effects of alcohol. This is why people wait an hour before they drive. Now if someone had 6 beers in 6 hours, and paced themselves. Chances are they will be fine to drive. If I smoke a lot in a night, I can still feel the effects the next day when I wake up. This is not the case with cannabis. It makes no difference wether I smoke 1 joint or 10, in a hour after the last puff, I will be completely straight again. Absolute bullshit. I can smoke a small joint and feel fine in an hour. I can smoke a cannon and be meesed up for a couple hours. It can and does last more than an hour depending on your intake, just like alcohol. You do not get more and more high if you keep smoking more. Once you are high, smoking more will not continue to get you progressively more high the way drinking more alcohol will continue to get you more wasted. I have smoked to the point where I have to lie down for some time. My head was feeling really light. All actual studies done on cannabis and driving have shown that cannabis users do not cause increased accidents on our roadways the way drunks do anyway. In fact quite the opposite is shown. Cannabis enhanced drivers most often drive more slowly and carefully and are in fact LESS likely to cause an accident than even completely straight people who have a tendency to road rage and take unnecessary chances. Actually, I don't think this has anything to do with pot but more with the persons driving ability in the first place. Calm drivers are calm drivers all around. I am one of them. Idiot drivers will be idiot drivers and more so with alcohol or pot. There is absolutely no agreed upon level of THC in one's system that seems to indicate impairment for most people, in fact there is no scientific proof that cannabis impairs people at all. There is no scientific proof because the scientists cannot agree on a standard level of intoxication. I am guessing alcohol had those same problems in the beginning. There is no easy way to test for pot impared driving. Cannabis users tend to be better at video games that require good eye/hand co-ordination, and fast reflexes, and also tend to be better at making music, just because you feel that you are impaired from using it certainly can't be taken as scientific evidence that everyone gets impaired when they do. Well I tell you, I love to smoke and play video games. It does provide some focus and you ignore many things that would normaly distract you. However. one only say 'wow, am I ever stoned' when someone says they are really stoned. I think that is evidence enough. You don't need science to know that it does impare you.Ever heard of the term wheelchair weed?? You don't want to move. But that is not imparement right? The drug impaired driving roadside test is nothing but a continuation of the witchhunt against cannabis users, and THC in somebodies system is not at all and indicator of impairment, it is only an identifier of a person who has used cannabis within a couple of months of the test. A high level of thc in the system, no matter how high it is does not indicate impairment. This is just about the conservatives hating people who use cannabis and this is their way of persecuting us some more. They are mad that we keep disobeying their Harper/daddy. This paternalistic government needs to be booted out. I don't need a Harper daddy to protect me I'm a grown man for christ sake. I agree that pot testing will be tough to do. So why should the government put a testing procedure in place when testing is not reliable giving all sorts of results. Since testing cannot be pinned down, it is hard to prosecute. One a base has been established, like that of alcohol, then you can impliment road side tests. If you test for one drug, you should be testing for all drugs for driving imparement. Hell even over the counter pharmacuticles can cause driving imparement. Most of them have warnings on the labels indicating so. What it comes down to is having responsibility when you drink/smoke pot/take other drugs. If you have no common sense about it. Then you deserve the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 Secondly, your argument (that I should be willing to actually get arrested in order to justify my sense of free rights) is a bogus argument. Go tell it to Rosa Parks. The fact is, I actually do take steps to try to advance the cause of freedom... So what did you make of the police refusal to arrest Emery? Seems odd that they just let him flaunt the law not just once but 18 times don't you think? What do you think would have happened if the police ignored Rosa Parks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 So what did you make of the police refusal to arrest Emery? Seems odd that they just let him flaunt the law not just once but 18 times don't you think? What do you think would have happened if the police ignored Rosa Parks? Rosa Parks disobeyed a bus driver, not the police; she did not reside in Canada. She was convicted for her misdemeanor crime and fined $10 and court costs ($4). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted July 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 I don't ever want to get into a car with a person who thinks that pot does not impare driving. Depends on how fast you drank that beer. I know if I chug a beer 5 minutes later I am going to feel the effects of it. Plain and simple. If I sip the beer for the entire hour, then you would be correct. But many of us rarely make a beer last an hour. Mine last 20 minutes ..tops. Normaly it takes about an hour for the liver to counteract the effects of alcohol. This is why people wait an hour before they drive. Now if someone had 6 beers in 6 hours, and paced themselves. Chances are they will be fine to drive. If I smoke a lot in a night, I can still feel the effects the next day when I wake up. Absolute bullshit. I can smoke a small joint and feel fine in an hour. I can smoke a cannon and be meesed up for a couple hours. It can and does last more than an hour depending on your intake, just like alcohol. I have smoked to the point where I have to lie down for some time. My head was feeling really light. All actual studies done on cannabis and driving have shown that cannabis users do not cause increased accidents on our roadways the way drunks do anyway. In fact quite the opposite is shown. Cannabis enhanced drivers most often drive more slowly and carefully and are in fact LESS likely to cause an accident than even completely straight people who have a tendency to road rage and take unnecessary chances. Actually, I don't think this has anything to do with pot but more with the persons driving ability in the first place. Calm drivers are calm drivers all around. I am one of them. Idiot drivers will be idiot drivers and more so with alcohol or pot. There is no scientific proof because the scientists cannot agree on a standard level of intoxication. I am guessing alcohol had those same problems in the beginning. There is no easy way to test for pot impared driving. Well I tell you, I love to smoke and play video games. It does provide some focus and you ignore many things that would normaly distract you. However. one only say 'wow, am I ever stoned' when someone says they are really stoned. I think that is evidence enough. You don't need science to know that it does impare you.Ever heard of the term wheelchair weed?? You don't want to move. But that is not imparement right? I agree that pot testing will be tough to do. So why should the government put a testing procedure in place when testing is not reliable giving all sorts of results. Since testing cannot be pinned down, it is hard to prosecute. One a base has been established, like that of alcohol, then you can impliment road side tests. If you test for one drug, you should be testing for all drugs for driving imparement. Hell even over the counter pharmacuticles can cause driving imparement. Most of them have warnings on the labels indicating so. What it comes down to is having responsibility when you drink/smoke pot/take other drugs. If you have no common sense about it. Then you deserve the consequences. I can agree that it comes down to responsibility whenever you get into a couple of tons of steel and glass and hurtle down the highway. Driving a car is one the most dangerous things an individual will do in their lifetimes. I don't take that lightly and neither should anyone else. Nobody should drive when their ability to do so has been compromised by anything, from drugs/alcohol, to too little sleep, or while in an emotional state. You say that pot impairs you because you feel high, but you aknowledge that you like to get high and play video games and that you can focus better on the game while high. While you may feel impaired your actual ability to do the tasks you would normally do really isn't affected negatively, or not noticeably to other people. What I mean is that even though your personal experience is that you feel impaired doesn't mean you actually are, only tests of your actual ability to perform complex tasks can determine that. I am often a passenger of people who smoke pot while driving and even though I don't smoke it the car I do not notice any effect on their driving other than a more strict adherance to posted speed limits. I wouldn't get in a car with a person who had any more than 2 drinks EVER, even that many is too much, people who drive aftere a few drinks are terrible drivers, and they think they are totally unimpaired. Add to that that alcohol lowers inhibitions and you have impaired people who are more likely to behave carelessly and take stupid chances behind the wheel. Your personal experience with cannabis is not everyone's experience. Especially for regular, daily users like people who use pot for medicinal purposes the effects are quite dissimilar to the effects a casual , or recreational user experiences. I would also suggest that if you stayed up late smoking pot the after-effects you feel the next day is more from lack of sleep than residual THC in your system. The effects can and do last longer than 1 hour for some people, I never suggested that they don't. It is not however dependant on time and the level of THC present in one's system. So it is defenitely NOT JUST LIKE ALCOHOL. That is the biggest fallicy that plagues cannabis is that it is just like alcohol only it must be even worse because its illegal. Cannabis' effects have NOTHING in common with alcohol. In fact cannabis tends to have almost polar opposite effects to the effects of alcohol. In any case you seem to agree that the roadside pot tests will not offer any evidence as to impairment yet you accept that agents of the state should be able to hold you and demand samples of your blood so they can do tests that prove nothing? Even if you smoke pot once a month you will fail the test, then what? Mandatory liscence suspension for a least 1 year in most provinces. See how that affects your "economic" freedoms. It will probably affect your economic freedom about the same as a criminal record for pot possession does. I know you conservatives are blindly loving these goofs in ottawa cuz they finally won an election but if you really love freedom remember that these REFORM party clowns are proposing laws on a variety fronts that are a direct removal of liberty. We will continue to lose our freedoms until we get rid of the Conservative(REFORM) party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 I know you conservatives are blindly loving these goofs in ottawa cuz they finally won an election but if you really love freedom remember that these REFORM party clowns are proposing laws on a variety fronts that are a direct removal of liberty. We will continue to lose our freedoms until we get rid of the Conservative(REFORM) party You are admitting we are losing our freedoms, and we will continue to lose our freedoms if socialist policies are adopted. They mean the growth of the welfare-warfare state. We cannot deny that all parties are growing the nanny state. There are no parties that the electorate will vote for that will trim the size of government. I believe that the variety of fronts you are worried about have been mentioned and I agree they they are part of the growth of the socialist democratic state, that doesn't mean we should jump in the fire and vote NDP. Marc Emery supported the Libertarian party before jumping to the NDP after Jack Layton posted his platform which included the decriminalization of Marijuana. He made the Libertarian party look like a single issue party, when it was him that was a single issue person that loved the limelight. He decided to take his single issue to the NDP because he is not concerned with freedom or Liberty. He is concerned with smoking pot. Put him in jail, the Gulag, put him anywhere, as long as everyone can have a fatty if they want, end of story. I long for the day when politicians start filibustering about how little they are going to do for us all and the crowd cheers. Just more dreaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 Rosa Parks disobeyed a bus driver, not the police; she did not reside in Canada. She was convicted for her misdemeanor crime and fined $10 and court costs ($4). She disobeyed something far more subsatntial than the servants of the law. She disobeyed the legislators and the government. Goodness Gracious, is this woman being compared to someone whose only interest is to make money off of pot? Emery would happily be confined to the back of the bus if that is where he can sell and smoke dope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 You are admitting we are losing our freedoms, and we will continue to lose our freedoms if socialist policies are adopted. They mean the growth of the welfare-warfare state. We cannot deny that all parties are growing the nanny state. There are no parties that the electorate will vote for that will trim the size of government. I believe that the variety of fronts you are worried about have been mentioned and I agree they they are part of the growth of the socialist democratic state, that doesn't mean we should jump in the fire and vote NDP. Marc Emery supported the Libertarian party before jumping to the NDP after Jack Layton posted his platform which included the decriminalization of Marijuana. He made the Libertarian party look like a single issue party, when it was him that was a single issue person that loved the limelight. He decided to take his single issue to the NDP because he is not concerned with freedom or Liberty. He is concerned with smoking pot. Put him in jail, the Gulag, put him anywhere, as long as everyone can have a fatty if they want, end of story. I long for the day when politicians start filibustering about how little they are going to do for us all and the crowd cheers. Just more dreaming. I admit we are losing our personal individual freedoms, how you can blame that on the NDP who have never held power federally is beyond me. The rights we are losing are being taken away by a right wing government with an authoritarian moralistic bent. I'm not asking anyone to become a lifetime socialist, I am and always have been a libertarian. A lot of us have come to realize that it is best to affiliate ourselves with the NDP currently because they have a large grassroots and support libertarian drug policies. If it ever becomes necessary to abandon the NDP to further the cause of Liberty I will be the first one to jump ship. However until the right wing learns to stay out of people's private personal affairs we can best further the cause of freedom by supporting the NDP. If nothing else the Liberal party will learn that they cannot promise something forever and never produce results for us. I was a member of the PC party for quite a while, but i will will never support a party that supports jail time for an activity that I and millions of my fellow Canadians enjoy engaging in. Anyone who smokes pot and votes conservative is a masochistic idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 She disobeyed something far more subsatntial than the servants of the law. She disobeyed the legislators and the government. Goodness Gracious, is this woman being compared to someone whose only interest is to make money off of pot? Emery would happily be confined to the back of the bus if that is where he can sell and smoke dope... She also paid her fine. Emery doesn't even have the nuts to hold Parks' brassiere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Goodness Gracious, is this woman being compared to someone whose only interest is to make money off of pot?... Why not? One of the most endangered freedoms in many minds in this thread is the threat posed to people's economic freedom. Emery should be their hero. I think the biggest threat to my freedom is the sheer number of bozos there are who are so quick to hand over their's on a silver platter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I admit we are losing our personal individual freedoms, how you can blame that on the NDP who have never held power federally is beyond me. The rights we are losing are being taken away by a right wing government with an authoritarian moralistic bent. I'm not asking anyone to become a lifetime socialist, I am and always have been a libertarian. A lot of us have come to realize that it is best to affiliate ourselves with the NDP currently because they have a large grassroots and support libertarian drug policies. If it ever becomes necessary to abandon the NDP to further the cause of Liberty I will be the first one to jump ship. However until the right wing learns to stay out of people's private personal affairs we can best further the cause of freedom by supporting the NDP. If nothing else the Liberal party will learn that they cannot promise something forever and never produce results for us. I was a member of the PC party for quite a while, but i will will never support a party that supports jail time for an activity that I and millions of my fellow Canadians enjoy engaging in. Anyone who smokes pot and votes conservative is a masochistic idiot. They don't support Libertarian drug policies. They support the decriminalization and regulation of marijuana. The NDP have never been in power federally. They ruined the BC economy when they were in power provincially and I don't think Bob Rae faired much better in Ontario. God help us if they get elected federally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 They don't support Libertarian drug policies. They support the decriminalization and regulation of marijuana. And yet, you regard the NDP to be more anti-freedom than parties that are even farther away from ever supporting Libertarian drug policies. Libertarians are definitely amongst the oddest ducks on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Secondly, your argument (that I should be willing to actually get arrested in order to justify my sense of free rights) is a bogus argument. Go tell it to Rosa Parks. What's your point? I never claimed that civil disobedience was not effective, or that its morally wrong. What I said was: - Civil disobedience is not the ONLY method for enacting changes in the law. For every Rosa Parks, there are probably a dozen important figures (and hundreds of minor figures) who didn't draw the same attention, but worked behind the scenes to enact changes. - Emery shouldn't be lumped in with people like Parks (based on the fact that he was willing to take a plea), nor should the majority of drug users (since most drug users prefer to keep their activities hidden) Once again, why exactly does someone have to be willing to get arrested in order to claim they 'support' certain rights? Oh, and by the way.... just how much crack do you sell? Since you criticized ME for not going around to shout racist statements, and you support the right to use drugs, then you should be willing to use/sell all sorts of drugs (like crack). Furthermore, you should also be willing to report yourself to the cops so that you can get arrested in order to publicize your ideas. So what did you make of the police refusal to arrest Emery? Seems odd that they just let him flaunt the law not just once but 18 times don't you think? I have no idea why the cops refused. Of course, there are probably a lot of laws on the books that the cops don't bother enforcing (jaywalking, speeding if people are only going 10 km/h over the limit, etc.) Perhaps many cops agree that using drugs is not significant. Perhaps they may disagree with drug use, but assume that the penalty that he would get would be so minor that it wouldn't be worth the time/effort to arrest him. Or perhaps they want to stop drug use but recognize Emery's actions as some sort of cheap publicity stunt. What do you think would have happened if the police ignored Rosa Parks? A couple of possibilities.... - Some other individual may have been arrested in some other city, for laws involving racial segregation, resulting in very similar court cases and precidents - Segregation probably would have ended anyways, through a combination of multiple smaller legal changes, and the cops simply ignoring existing laws (Remember, the parks case wasn't the first one to challenge racism in the U.S.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 What I said was:- Civil disobedience is not the ONLY method for enacting changes in the law. That's right. Another method is to put principle before self interest and trump economics with virtue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 (edited) What a stupid thread. Self-righteous whining about interference in your ability to smoke pot turns into some kind of asshat denunciation of the "thread to freedoms" of a tory government which has done nothing about pot use anyway. Here's a clue, potheads, the government is NEVER going to legalize your weed unless and until the Americans do. The US government has already made it very clear what their response would be, and if you think the long waits at the border are bad now you ain't seen nothing yet. There is no overriding public interest in legalizing pot use. And while the NDP might call for it they do so because they know they'll never have to worry about backing it up. In the unlikely event they ever got elected you can be sure legalizing pot would be so far down their list of priorities they would never get near it. Mind you, there could be other reasons behind NDP policies. NDP policy convention Most people, as long as they're not stupid about it, have very little to worry about from the cops anyway. The cops have more important things to deal with, and the courts are pretty slack with regard to prosecuting pot smokers. As for the argument that pot doesn't cause impairment; I would personally think anyone making such an argument is too stupid to be hired for any job anyway, much less entrusted with a motor vehicle licence. Edited July 28, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 There are bigger fish to fry. Legal weed doesn't even rank as a concern for a vast majority of citizens. The damned government spends far too much time on issues of little relevance to citizens as it is, this effort is of that very nature and it is time for legislators to get their crap together and do something that actually either benefits citizens or solves some problems. It is not as if there are no problems to solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I know you conservatives are blindly loving these goofs in ottawa cuz they finally won an election but if you really love freedom remember that these REFORM party clowns are proposing laws on a variety fronts that are a direct removal of liberty. We will continue to lose our freedoms until we get rid of the Conservative(REFORM) party Still waiting to hear about all those freedoms (apart from drug use) that are going to be taken away by the conservatives. You've been challenged multiple times to explain which freedoms. Still haven't seen you respond. I'm sure you've got such an awesome list that its just taking you a long time to actually compile your response. Is that it? Or is it that you've become so focused on that one issue (drug use) that you'd be just has happy if all Canadians were rounded up into concentration camps, as long as they could continue to use drugs? Also waiting to see some sort of evidence that people actually perform better on video games when they are under the influence of marijuana. You do have evidence for that, don't you? Its not just some urban legend or fairy tail based on something that you've misheard at some time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 What I said was:- Civil disobedience is not the ONLY method for enacting changes in the law. That's right. Another method is to put principle before self interest and trump economics with virtue. You know, I have no idea what exactly you're trying to argue here. Are you still trying to claim that unless I am willing to actually willing to 'break the law' then I have no right to complain about my freedoms being infringed? By your logic, any black person prior to 1955 who actually complied with any segregation laws didn't really have any right to complain. Anyone who "went to the back of the bus" deserved to be there just because they weren't willing to be arrested. By the way, still haven't heard just how much crack you sell. You turn yourself over to the cops yet? Or are you a hypocrite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 And yet, you regard the NDP to be more anti-freedom than parties that are even farther away from ever supporting Libertarian drug policies. Libertarians are definitely amongst the oddest ducks on the planet. The NDP needs votes, it probably, as Argus mentions won't follow through - they are not a freedom party. They are a Statist party. Libertarians are individualists. Some people, Marc Emery being one, mistake Libertarianism as a special interest party and have no real concept of Libertarianism. A lot of odd ducks, like Marc Emery, do gravitate there because they wish to legitimize their own special interest and are not terribly concerned with anything else. When Marc Emery supported Libertarianism a lot of potsmokers supported Libertarianism. So you see how special interests draw all these odd ducks to Libertarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 And yet, you regard the NDP to be more anti-freedom than parties that are even farther away from ever supporting Libertarian drug policies. That's because Libertarians are concerned with more than just a single issue. They believe in minimal government intervention in both social issues (where the NDP would be a mixed bag, supporting some freedoms but taking away others) and in economic issues (where NDP financial policies would definitely be seen as a threat to 'freedom'.) I've met Libertarians before. They aren't a one issue party. (I'm not a member myself, since I believe some of their ideals go too far, but I support the general concept.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 (edited) Are you still trying to claim that unless I am willing to actually willing to 'break the law' then I have no right to complain about my freedoms being infringed? No, but do I think the manner in which freedom is not being defended is the real issue here. Its been pointed out that the state and the police are pretty lackadaisical about enforcing the prohibition of pot and its fairly obvious many people have no problem just shrugging this off. To me this seems like a really sloppy way of treating the very concept of individual freedom and I think its this sloppiness that threatens us all the most. The door has been left wide open for bias, be it for racial, economic or ideological resaons and the abuse of power at the hands of police and the justice system. The incarceration rates for blacks vs whites for marijuana in the US are a good example of what I mean. A public that is indifferent to this leaves the door wide open for the state to extend this capricious attitude to other people and things, like race, money or whatever. So...like I asked above, if they come for the 'insert-blank-here' and no one gives a shit, who'll give a rat's ass when they come for you? More to the point, why should anyone even care what the state does to you in the first place? Edited July 29, 2008 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted July 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 There are bigger fish to fry. Legal weed doesn't even rank as a concern for a vast majority of citizens. The damned government spends far too much time on issues of little relevance to citizens as it is, this effort is of that very nature and it is time for legislators to get their crap together and do something that actually either benefits citizens or solves some problems. It is not as if there are no problems to solve. If legal or illegal weed doesn't even register as a concern for "the vast majority of citizens" then isn't incredibly stupid to keep wasting our money and resources selectively persecuting people for posessing, growing , or selling it? We really shouldn't be wasting our time and money on something that is such a "non-concern" its not as if there are no problems to solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 "Suzy! Suzy Creamcheese!" ---Mothers of Invention Willy the Pimp is my guess. Love the Mothers reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 If legal or illegal weed doesn't even register as a concern for "the vast majority of citizens" then isn't incredibly stupid to keep wasting our money and resources selectively persecuting people for posessing, growing , or selling it? We really shouldn't be wasting our time and money on something that is such a "non-concern" its not as if there are no problems to solve. Violating fishing regulations doesnt register as a concern for "the vast majority of citizens" either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted July 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 Still waiting to hear about all those freedoms (apart from drug use) that are going to be taken away by the conservatives. You've been challenged multiple times to explain which freedoms. Still haven't seen you respond.I'm sure you've got such an awesome list that its just taking you a long time to actually compile your response. Is that it? Or is it that you've become so focused on that one issue (drug use) that you'd be just has happy if all Canadians were rounded up into concentration camps, as long as they could continue to use drugs? Also waiting to see some sort of evidence that people actually perform better on video games when they are under the influence of marijuana. You do have evidence for that, don't you? Its not just some urban legend or fairy tail based on something that you've misheard at some time? I have already mentioned some of the other freedoms that are at risk, like the risks posed by c51 to the natural health product industry and those who produce their own herbs and therapeutic foods. You can try and bullshit people all you want that it is only about accurate labeling and food safety but it is not and you damn well know it isn't. Ask people in the industry and they will tell you different. Then we have the sneaky backdoor fetus's rights bill that is supposedly to allow police to charge someone with the murder of an unborn fetus. It is no surprise to me or anyone else that anti-abortion groups are its biggest supporters and pro-choice groups are against it. It aims to sneakily have a fetus declared a person so that abortion can be declared murder. I could go on but i have made this list over and over elsewhere in this forum. Yes idiot I would support giving the police to put citizens in detention camps as long as they could smoke pot there. I'm always going on about how the police and state don't have enough powers to harass citizens. The makers of the game Burnout Revenge (a racing game, not a game about a stoner giving conservatives what they deserve), repeatedly ran "heads vs straights" contests to see who would perform better and the "heads" beat the straights over 80% of the time. I'm not going to waste my time finding links that are not going to change your stubborn conservative mindset anyway. I also know from personal experience. My friends and I like to get high and we like to compete at video games. Getting high on pot increases your focus and allows you to do better at games that require fast reflexes and concentration. Its not just for videogames either, pot can improve performance in many tasks. We have found that when high we can keep 4-5 balls going on the pingpong table, while straight we are lucky to keep 2-3 going. Basically anything that requires careful timing is easier under the effects of cannabis, thats why so many of the world's most talented musicians are cannabis users. The show speedvision did a show on toking and driving and found that on a closed course people who smoked pot just prior to the driving test performed better than people who had 2 drinks or people who were completely sober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 I have already mentioned some of the other freedoms that are at risk, like the risks posed by c51 to the natural health product industry and those who produce their own herbs and therapeutic foods. You can try and bullshit people all you want that it is only about accurate labeling and food safety but it is not and you damn well know it isn't. Ummm... have you actually read the bill? I have. Nothing about banning products there. Ask people in the industry and they will tell you different. Ummmm... did you actually think that perhaps the people 'in the industry' might actually have an incentive to, I don't know, lie? After all, if I make herbal viagra laced with rat poison, its in my best interests to try to claim the government is trying to surpess my freedoms, rather than risk loosing customers. Lets see, if you read what the bill includes: - restrictions against tampering with products - Prevents people from selling harmfull products - Prevents people from making misleading claims - Ensures products are prepared in a sanitary manner - Ensures licensed pharmacists dispense prescription medication I've read this bill from start to finish... there is nothing about banning any products. Please point to any section that would prevent the sale of something that A: Posed no health risk, and B: did not make false claims. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...8126&file=4 Then we have the sneaky backdoor fetus's rights bill that is supposedly to allow police to charge someone with the murder of an unborn fetus. Again, try reading the text of the bill. Bill C-484 specifically states: 238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant, Notice that section mentioning "committing an offense against the mother"? Guess what... a legal abortion wouldn't count... shooting a pregnant woman in the belly would. The law is written to specifically punish people who abuse pregnant women who actually want their children. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...1&File=27#1 The makers of the game Burnout Revenge (a racing game, not a game about a stoner giving conservatives what they deserve), repeatedly ran "heads vs straights" contests to see who would perform better and the "heads" beat the straights over 80% of the time. I'm not going to waste my time finding links that are not going to change your stubborn conservative mindset anyway. You made the claim, it is your responsibility to provide references. Frankly, I figure the reason you won't provide references is because you don't have any, and if you did they would probably show you taking their 'study' out of context. Makers of "Burnout revenge"? That doesn't exactly sound like a group that would actually be making a controlled, scientific study now, does it? You see, I have a scientific background... I like to know that data I'm working with is collected in a proper manner. Of course, I do find it very ironic that you would complain about someone not wanting to change their "stubborn" mind set... given the fact that you've been given multiple references, none of which have changed your opinions. I also know from personal experience. Now, repeat after me... "The Plural of anecdote is not data". Got it? You know, I had a friend who saw big foot. It was his personal experience, so it must be true, is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.