The Conservatives' Unethical Anti-Drug Strategy

[DrGreenthumb]

They made a law banning the possession of marijuana?

I hope you are just playing dumb.

Are you denying that the conservatives are increasing PUNISHMENT for those who possess cannabis and ALL canabis related offences? People are NOT criminals for using plants, no matter what the conservatives think about them. Canadians do not think of cannabis users as criminals, even though you do, and would like others to.

You are trying to distract from the Conservatives unpopular stance of the conitnued criminalization of people who use cannabis. Everyone knows that Harper is the enemy of ANY Canadian that uses cannabis. His policies for cannabis include minimum 6 month sentence for as little as one cannabis plant, and forced rehab for repeat offenders

[Bryan]

Playing Libertarian with respect to drugs and such is nice in theory. In THEORY, I actually support the idea that adults should be able to make their own choices about what they put into their bodies. I'm not a fan of the pending supplements legislation either.

The problem is kids. I support any effort of any kind to protect children from drugs, and I could not care less whose rights are trampled in the process.

[tango]

Again anyone who thinks that the anyone needs rehab for cannabis is out of touch with reality. 90% of drug charges are laid for cannabis, and 90 % of the war on drugs budget goes directly to cannabis law enforcement. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that cannabis is NOT Cocaine or heroin. It is dishonest and unethical to use people's fear of hard drugs to criminalize cannabis users. Tell me how someone growing 1 pot plant is a threat requiring a 6 month manaTORY prison sentence. Explain why or how a person growing a pot plant would benefit from rehab? Can one be addicted to gardening? Again our drug laws should be based on fact and science not fearmongering about "evil" plants. How exactly can a plants be evil, or bad? I think vegetation has always been pretty neutral, morally speaking.

Governments should provide factual information about the dangers of drugs and let ppl decide for themselves what risks are acceptable. If you get high on something and commit a crime the drug use should not able to be used an excuse or to make the punishment harsher. A crime committed is the same crime regardless of the state of mind of the one committing it.

hear!hear!

Pot smokers aren't causing problems for cops, not like drinkers, but pot is a handy 'tool' for police to bust someone they can't get for what they really did.

But why should the rest of us pay for those unrelated crimes? hunh?

Crime stats are inflated with pot 'busts' and if that criminalization was removed, cops are afraid of losing people ... jobs.

-sigh-

logic falters ...

On topic of ... dangerous drugs ...

'Harm reduction' applies to the addicted individual, yes, but primarily protects society.

It is in our interests that dirty needles are not being passed around in the streets, left around in the playgrounds, apartment lobbies, or vacated apts, homes, etc etc etc etc ... the things some communities already deal with, and the diseases that follow, people doing drugs in public on the streets, etc etc

It is a health issue for the people who live in those neighbourhoods, to clean up their neighbourhoods of needles, for one thing. Walk in their shoes.

I don't believe Harper understands this part of the equation - the neighbourhood perspective.

This is not his business to interfere with, on an ideological basis, if he has not walked in the shoes of the people who live in those neighbourhoods, imo.

Besides, it is only part of an entire strategy. There is no need to dictate communities' choices of strategies, and no need to target the most afflicted communities with divisive tactics for political gain.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[Wild Bill]

Playing Libertarian with respect to drugs and such is nice in theory. In THEORY, I actually support the idea that adults should be able to make their own choices about what they put into their bodies. I'm not a fan of the pending supplements legislation either.

The problem is kids. I support any effort of any kind to protect children from drugs, and I could not care less whose rights are trampled in the process.

I remember having this argument with a cop. It was on a fishing trip for my brother's Masonic Lodge. They brought me along to have someone who would actually fish!

Anyhow, around the card table we were listening to a program on the radio about drugs. The cop mentioned how we needed more laws to protect kids in schoolyards. I asked him how if drugs were made legal and the huge profits were removed there would be any incentive to push drugs in school? After all, the only reason it was happening was for the money! Pushers were certainly not going to keep pushing their wares out of some sense of religious fervour!

He was horrified, but had no answer that made sense! He kept arguing that the laws and the police were the only thing keeping drugs out of schools. I told him that made no sense at all, considering that drugs were rampant in virtually ALL schools for any who wanted them!

He accused me of promoting hooking kids on drugs! He asked how I was raising my own children. I told him that I was raising them to make intelligent choices and not to blindly trust in rules and a system that not only didn't work but blew boxcar amounts of money on futility that could have been better spent on treatment and education.

We didn't change each other's mind but I did get him so distracted that I cleaned him out in the game!

[shelphs]

I strongly support the CPC strategy with respect to illegal drugs. While enabling these addicts may well get them off the street, and make their continued habits less risky, it still remains a poor strategy compared to taking action to reduce illegal drug use in the first place.

yes, but how would you reduce illegal drug use? (and please remember that safe-injection sites do help reduce illegal drug use as the video points out). do you suggest we force users into correctional facilities and make them stop using? will that actually work? does that solve the problem that made them first turn to drugs? does that give them control in fighting their drug problem? if they are not receptive, rehabilitation will not work, i.e., force will not work.

please, provide an alternative, for the Conservative's alternative includes force and is strikingly similar to the extremely unsuccessful 'war on drugs' in the USA, which also uses force and little else. ...both ignore harm reduction measures.

[shelphs]

yes, but how would you reduce illegal drug use? (and please remember that safe-injection sites do help reduce illegal drug use as the video points out). do you suggest we force users into correctional facilities and make them stop using? will that actually work? does that solve the problem that made them first turn to drugs? does that give them control in fighting their drug problem? if they are not receptive, rehabilitation will not work, i.e., force will not work.

please, provide an alternative, for the Conservative's alternative includes force and is strikingly similar to the extremely unsuccessful 'war on drugs' in the USA, which also uses force and little else. ...both ignore harm reduction measures.

and excluding all else that has been argued in order to focus on the fundamental point of my videos, which everyone pretty much does not focus on: the obvious disregard of public opinion and public intelligence on the part of the Conservatives. both videos clearly show how the Conservatives attempted to/successfully mislead and deceived the public.

granted, all politicians can be described in this light, which is sad, but the Conservatives have done this on very important issues - domestically and internationally.

please, please, instead of believing everything or anything that comes out of any politician, search for second, third, and fourth opinions, and once you begin to do that, the Conservatives have very little to stand on.

seriously, watch the video again, and confirm everything. confirm facts.

Edited September 24, 2008 by shelphs

[shelphs]

I strongly support the CPC strategy with respect to illegal drugs. While enabling these addicts may well get them off the street, and make their continued habits less risky, it still remains a poor strategy compared to taking action to reduce illegal drug use in the first place.

"it remains a poor strategy compared to taking action to reduce illegal druge use..."

Did you even watch the video, confirm the facts, for harm reduction does just that: reduce illegal drug use.

action? you may very well be confused on the issue of action. action is not people telling you action is taking place, it's when policy actually produces that result, which harm reduction clearly does. does confuse facts with propaganda.

please, please, search for second, third, and fourth opinions that are impartial as they can be, and then you will see the truth.

[shelphs]

I agree with the approach taken by the Conservatives on illegal drug issues.

why? be specific and cite resources when necessary or if applicable.

[BC_chick]

Why do you need an injection site to smoke marijuana?

You don't. It's Stephen Harper who says he no amount of drugs will be tolerated. So in his little world there is no difference between marajuana and say, heroin.

Of course... just like there's no difference between drinking a beer after work with your friends and downing two bottles of vodka every day by yourself.

[DrGreenthumb]

why? be specific and cite resources when necessary or if applicable.

and while you are at it please explain why the same approach should not also be applied to alcohol, which is much more powerful a mind altering drug than cannabis. Alcohol by scientific standards would be classified as a hard drug right up there with cocaine. Also alcohol is the only drug I know of that actually leads to criminality or acts as a gateway to other drugs, so please in your great wisdom, explain why Harper's war on drugs should not be applied as fervently to alcohol as it is for cannabis and other currently illegal recreational drugs.

[M.Dancer]

and while you are at it please explain why the same approach should not also be applied to alcohol, which is much more powerful a mind altering drug than cannabis. Alcohol by scientific standards would be classified as a hard drug right up there with cocaine. Also alcohol is the only drug I know of that actually leads to criminality or acts as a gateway to other drugs, so please in your great wisdom, explain why Harper's war on drugs should not be applied as fervently to alcohol as it is for cannabis and other currently illegal recreational drugs.

You would have a point if:

• Alcohol was illegal
  
• Alcoholics turn to crime t support their $500.00 plus a day alcohol addcition
  

[blueblood]

You would have a point if:

• Alcohol was illegal
  
• Alcoholics turn to crime t support their $500.00 plus a day alcohol addcition
  

you walked right into his trap...

[BC_chick]

I remember having this argument with a cop. It was on a fishing trip for my brother's Masonic Lodge. They brought me along to have someone who would actually fish!

Anyhow, around the card table we were listening to a program on the radio about drugs. The cop mentioned how we needed more laws to protect kids in schoolyards. I asked him how if drugs were made legal and the huge profits were removed there would be any incentive to push drugs in school? After all, the only reason it was happening was for the money! Pushers were certainly not going to keep pushing their wares out of some sense of religious fervour!

He was horrified, but had no answer that made sense! He kept arguing that the laws and the police were the only thing keeping drugs out of schools. I told him that made no sense at all, considering that drugs were rampant in virtually ALL schools for any who wanted them!

He accused me of promoting hooking kids on drugs! He asked how I was raising my own children. I told him that I was raising them to make intelligent choices and not to blindly trust in rules and a system that not only didn't work but blew boxcar amounts of money on futility that could have been better spent on treatment and education.

We didn't change each other's mind but I did get him so distracted that I cleaned him out in the game!

Ironically, in countries where society makes the distinction between hard-drugs and soft-drugs, there is less usage of soft-drugs, less addiction to hard-drugs, and more attempts at rehabilitation by the hard-drug users.

I just tried copying some interesting (and highly referenced) stats about the difference between the US and the Netherlands. The table comes out crooked when I copy and paste it, but here is the link:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

The numbers speak for themselves. The war on drugs is not only ineffective, it's actually counter-effective.

[shelphs]

The very first thing Harper says in the video, "we are committing 2/3 of our funding to prevention and treatment."

Then the video is trying to paint the Conservatives in a negative light by saying they refused to grant the facility another 3 years. One could just as easily pain the Conservatives in a positive light by saying, instead of closing down the facility they granted it a 15 month extension.

The news report then goes on to use innuendo as a device for negatively portraying the Conservatives again, when the AIDS doctor says, "whether it's their political ideology, or their religious beliefs, or their moral standards ... you know, I can't really begin to address those issues ... " Clearly, the doctor here is saying he can't address those things, but they included it in the coverage anyway, why? They included it because they want the viewer to think that the Conservative's decision is a result of political ideology, religious beliefs and moral standards. By having a doctor speak to these things, they're appealing to authority to further drive home the message. What most viewers won't remember from the news story is that the doctor actually said he CANNOT address those things.

The report in the medical journal goes on to tout the benefits of the program and say that there has been no increase in drugs use, etc. If we go back to the beginning and look at the fact that Harper committed 2/3 of the funding to prevention and treatment, why don't we ask what affects those steps have on the indicators the report in the medical journal is using.

At the standing committee meeting, they're trying to show that Tony Clement's points are not valid because his report was not peer reviewed. Of course, they want a quick answer, yes or no in regards to whether it has been reviewed, but no one is actually addressing the valid points Clement has to make. In September, in front of the CMA General Council, Clement has an opportunity to make his point and I think they're worth noting.

He asks, "Is it ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?"

"I believe that greater benefits could be achieved from its $3 million annual cost. ... We have to do more to reach out to our own sons and daughters who are overdosing in [Vancouver's] Downtown Eastside. They need our compassion and they need our intervention, not help simply to shoot up," he says.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/6/...ourcetype=HWCIT

The Standing Committee on Health wants to imply that the safe injection facility has made Vancouver a safer place, but the actual report suggests otherwise. It says, "there were no obvious differences between the two years [the year prior to the opening and the year following the opening of the SIF] with respect to the various indicators of drug-related crime."

http://www.communityinsite.ca/pdf/impact-o...lated-crime.pdf

Kathleen Cummings, the Executive Director of the AIDS Committee of Ottawa, in her own words says, "it is more cost effective to provide prevention". Isn't that exactly what Harper said 2/3 of the funding was going to go towards? The point all along is that perhaps there are taxpayers who feel it is unethical to pay for drug users to be able to get high on the tax-payers' dollars. The Conservative plan, according to the video anyway, is to provide education, prevention, intervention and treatment. Aren't these things vastly more important than simply spending taxpayers' money on a place drug-users to shoot up?

k. Yes, my videos were trying to portray the Conservatives in a negative light with the facts. Yes, with the facts. Please, as I have posted earlier, please confirm that my facts are accurate.

The main argument is not that the Conservatives simply wouldn’t grant the facility another three years of operations; rather, it showed how the Minister of Health said that additional funding was needed and yet, he and the Conservatives cut the additional funding that was needed. That clearly states how the Conservatives feel about research, empirical evidence, and facts.

The doctor cannot address why the Conservatives have done what they have done, be it for their political ideology or their religious or moral standards – correct. He can’t say why the Conservatives have acted as they have, i.e., cut funds from a program that the Minister of Health said “more research was needed.” (if you are confused, please view the original sources, which have been cited). Please review the facts.

No valid and, therefore, arguable points are made until…

Yes, at the Standing Committee of Health, Fry was showing, successfully, how Tony Clement’s points were not valid because his “evidence” was not peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed document is one that is confirmed to be accurate and agreed to by the scientific community, and to do otherwise suggests special interest and manipulation of the public. (always seek confirmation from third-party sources for anything – do you blindly believe everything everyone tells you, especially your government?) As for Clement’s claim” “Is it ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?”

Health care professionals are not supporting such drugs, what they are doing is understanding a fundamental reality: that addicts as vulnerable and marginalized as those that the InSite facility attract are safer when they shoot up under supervision; the community as a whole is safer; and, said addicts are more likely to seek help for their addiction problem in such an environment.

Yes, addicts are still shooting up, but what solution do you have: turn Canada into a police state and force persons on the streets into rehab? Is force your answer? Will force truly address the problems of an addict who is psychologically troubled; that is, addicts’ problems stem from personal, emotional issues, and force and imprisonment will not help.

As for the last portion of the quote you used – you don’t find that it oversimplifies and over-sensationalizes the issue? Yes, I agree with Tony Clement if we lived in an ideal world, but we don’t – we need to look at facts and what actually works. Compassion is allowing addicts to seek our help – the opposite would be force, for, again, force wouldn’t actually address the underlying problem.

as for your quote from the Standing Committee of Health “there were no difference between the two years with respect to the various indicators of drug-related crime”, is rather absurd. The government, the very body in question is the Standing Committee on Health, so their evidence is in question – that’s the whole point of this debate, and so, I’m surprised you would quote them as a point of argument. Besides that, I can’t access the page you referenced, so I can’t give a further damning argument than the fact that you quoted a questionable reference.

And, yes, I am so pleased that the talent of misleading has not been lost on you. bravo! You so expertly took Kathleen Cummings’ quote out of context. Bravo! Yes, bravo, you clearly did not review the facts. Kathleen Cummings’ quote: “it is more cost effective to provide prevention", in context, refers to how the Conservatives’ anti-drug plan is not cost effective, i.e., that the Harper plan does not account for prevention, which is also known as harm reduction, and known to reduce costs for force and… (watch the video again).

Isn’t that more important than providing a place for addicts to shoot up? No, the Conservatives do not have a harm reduction (a preventative) plan, and that’s why people are upset.

Please, please, research second, third, fourth, and fifth independent views. Don’t simply believe what Conservatives tell you. No-one should simply believe what any party leader or party member says. Confirm all statements. Please.

And what is vastly more important than “spending taxpayers’ money on a place [for] drug-users to shoot up?” were you not paying attention. Providing such a place decreased crime and increased the number of addicts who sought help and guidance for their addiction problem. Really, don’t make things so black and white (the world we live in is not black and white). Look at what works. Look at the facts. Morals and ideals and opinions should be based on evidence and facts of proper actions. Do you truly disagree with this?

[DrGreenthumb]

You would have a point if:

• Alcohol was illegal
  
• Alcoholics turn to crime t support their $500.00 plus a day alcohol addcition
  

are you purposely trying to make my point for me Dancer? If we follow drug war logic and prohibit alcohol it WOULD be illegal. Saying its different because its legal is exactly the point, we were smart enough to repeal alcohol prohibition years ago. If we were really smart we would follow that logic to its logical conclusion and repeal the prohibition of cannabis, and eventually other drugs. Then they would be legal too.

If we prohibited alcohol again we would have all the problems we currently have with other drugs, like alcoholics turning to crime to support a $500 a day alcohol addiction. Anyone who cannot see that this is the irrefutable truth is intellectually challenged or just willfully ignorant, so which is it?

Ever hear of a guy called Al Capone? What drug did HE traffic to make HIS money?

[blueblood]

are you purposely trying to make my point for me Dancer? If we follow drug war logic and prohibit alcohol it WOULD be illegal. Saying its different because its legal is exactly the point, we were smart enough to repeal alcohol prohibition years ago. If we were really smart we would follow that logic to its logical conclusion and repeal the prohibition of cannabis, and eventually other drugs. Then they would be legal too.

If we prohibited alcohol again we would have all the problems we currently have with other drugs, like alcoholics turning to crime to support a $500 a day alcohol addiction. Anyone who cannot see that this is the irrefutable truth is intellectually challenged or just willfully ignorant, so which is it?

Ever hear of a guy called Al Capone? What drug did HE traffic to make HIS money?

I'd sooner have the drunks dodging the cops like in the 30's than the coke heads we have today, oh well.

The law is aimed to keep law abiding citizens off of pot and other drugs, believe it or not, there are some people who won't smoke up because it is illegal. Emphasis on some. If booze were illegal, there would be some people who wouldn't drink due to the fact they don't want to go to jail. The number that would drink would go down slightly. Pot however, as you have correctly pointed out is extremely popular, making it legal would have a small rise in users. And judging by some of my pot head lazy neighbours, that could potentially cause problems.

[tango]

I'd sooner have the drunks dodging the cops like in the 30's than the coke heads we have today, oh well.

The law is aimed to keep law abiding citizens off of pot and other drugs, believe it or not, there are some people who won't smoke up because it is illegal. Emphasis on some. If booze were illegal, there would be some people who wouldn't drink due to the fact they don't want to go to jail. The number that would drink would go down slightly. Pot however, as you have correctly pointed out is extremely popular, making it legal would have a small rise in users. And judging by some of my pot head lazy neighbours, that could potentially cause problems.

Do you have a source for "The number that would drink would go down slightly." and "Pot ... would have a small rise in users" ...?

It is interesting to note that prohibition brought the ROARING '20's ... speakeasies, culture, creativity, crime ...

And this interesting tidbit ...

Warren G. Harding ... On the scandals, he commented, "My God, this is a hell of a job!" and, "I have no trouble with my enemies, but my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floors at night."

I expect Harper can identify with that these days!

(It's technically very difficult to muzzle an asshole. )

Harper has tunnel vision. He's trying to satisfy his obscure core constituency, who know nothing of the people about whom they choose to make judgments, imo.

Edited September 24, 2008 by tango

[blueblood]

Do you have a source for "The number that would drink would go down slightly." and "Pot ... would have a small rise in users" ...?

It is interesting to note that prohibition brought the ROARING '20's ... speakeasies, culture, creativity, crime ...

And this interesting tidbit ...

Warren G. Harding ... On the scandals, he commented, "My God, this is a hell of a job!" and, "I have no trouble with my enemies, but my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floors at night."

I expect Harper can identify with that these days!

(It's technically very difficult to muzzle an asshole. )

Harper has tunnel vision. He's trying to satisfy his obscure core constituency, who know nothing of the people about whom they choose to make judgments, imo.

it's simple logic, if tax evasion was legal, there would be a large amount of people that would not pay taxes.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'd sooner have the drunks dodging the cops like in the 30's than the coke heads we have today, oh well.

The law is aimed to keep law abiding citizens off of pot and other drugs, believe it or not, there are some people who won't smoke up because it is illegal. Emphasis on some. If booze were illegal, there would be some people who wouldn't drink due to the fact they don't want to go to jail. The number that would drink would go down slightly. Pot however, as you have correctly pointed out is extremely popular, making it legal would have a small rise in users. And judging by some of my pot head lazy neighbours, that could potentially cause problems.

So do you think that in keeping with the conservatives anti-drug strategy we should immediately resume the prohibition of alcohol? By your own admission it would only stop some people from using it, and since there will no longer be any legal, government inspected supply, the majority of people would just find somewhere else to buy it (trafficking), or produce it themselves(production of a controlled substance). You do admit that somebody would still produce and sell alcohol do you not? People who want it will probably be willing to pay quite a bit for it if the supply became scarce. Probably the more strongly the prohibition was enforced the more people would be willing to pay. There was some law I heard of once, something about supply and demand? You ever hear of that law? The more the product is worth, the more people will want to go into that business so they can cash in on this lucrative market. Hell its really easy to distill alcohol, almost as easy as growing weeds, but a little more dangerous. Do you deny that any of this would occur if the government attempted to prohibit alcohol? (or any other popular product that a lot of people wanted to buy?)

Do you suppose that the supply of alcohol would became safer if the government stopped regulating the product, and setting standards for what could be sold? Do you think people would buy their alcohol diluted like in wine or beer, or in concentrated form that would take up less room when smuggleing it home from their dealers house?

How would people settle their disputes over money or how would an illegal alcohol dealer recover his loss if robbed by an alcohol addict or rival dealer? Probably couldn't call the police or use small claims court could he? Might have to take the law into his own hands maybe?

When somebodies kid overdoses on alcohol with his friends and is in need of medical attention will the friends call the ambulance right away? Or will they be afraid to call the ambulance with evidence of alcohol around? Might they fear that the ambulance driver might report them for their illegal alcohol use, and waste precious time trying to sober up and hide the evidence?

I could go on and on like this but you are too blinded by your hatred or jealousy of your fellow human beings to let any of this sink in. If Harper proposed putting webcams in all our houses so the government could make sure nobody was doing anything sinful you would cheer for him even harder, as long as it means your neighbor can't sit back, relax and enjoy his short time on this earth as he sees fit. If he wants to take life easy and smoke a phatty in the back yard what's it to ya?

The very very vast majority of pot smokers have good steady jobs, and are middle class Canadians, we have to work so we have the money to buy weed. Prohibition makes weed pretty expensive.

[blueblood]

So do you think that in keeping with the conservatives anti-drug strategy we should immediately resume the prohibition of alcohol? By your own admission it would only stop some people from using it, and since there will no longer be any legal, government inspected supply, the majority of people would just find somewhere else to buy it (trafficking), or produce it themselves(production of a controlled substance). You do admit that somebody would still produce and sell alcohol do you not? People who want it will probably be willing to pay quite a bit for it if the supply became scarce. Probably the more strongly the prohibition was enforced the more people would be willing to pay. There was some law I heard of once, something about supply and demand? You ever hear of that law? The more the product is worth, the more people will want to go into that business so they can cash in on this lucrative market. Hell its really easy to distill alcohol, almost as easy as growing weeds, but a little more dangerous. Do you deny that any of this would occur if the government attempted to prohibit alcohol? (or any other popular product that a lot of people wanted to buy?)

Do you suppose that the supply of alcohol would became safer if the government stopped regulating the product, and setting standards for what could be sold? Do you think people would buy their alcohol diluted like in wine or beer, or in concentrated form that would take up less room when smuggleing it home from their dealers house?

How would people settle their disputes over money or how would an illegal alcohol dealer recover his loss if robbed by an alcohol addict or rival dealer? Probably couldn't call the police or use small claims court could he? Might have to take the law into his own hands maybe?

When somebodies kid overdoses on alcohol with his friends and is in need of medical attention will the friends call the ambulance right away? Or will they be afraid to call the ambulance with evidence of alcohol around? Might they fear that the ambulance driver might report them for their illegal alcohol use, and waste precious time trying to sober up and hide the evidence?

I could go on and on like this but you are too blinded by your hatred or jealousy of your fellow human beings to let any of this sink in. If Harper proposed putting webcams in all our houses so the government could make sure nobody was doing anything sinful you would cheer for him even harder, as long as it means your neighbor can't sit back, relax and enjoy his short time on this earth as he sees fit. If he wants to take life easy and smoke a phatty in the back yard what's it to ya?

The very very vast majority of pot smokers have good steady jobs, and are middle class Canadians, we have to work so we have the money to buy weed. Prohibition makes weed pretty expensive.

We've been over this time and again. I wouldn't have a problem if alcohol was made illegal. You can't nail me for picking and choosing.

What your not willing to see is that there are law abiding citizens who won't engage in mind altering substances due to legalities, those are the people I have interests in, not a bunch of skids.

What your also not willing to see based on your law of supply and demand is that there is a huge supply of mind altering substances legal or not. They aren't bloody diamonds. That large supply drops prices. I mean 10 bucks a gram is a cheap way to mess yourself up. Your economic argument holds as much water as a wicker basket. Your NDP style of economic logic is doing wonders again. Last time I checked booze is more expensive than pot.

Do I care if the supply is safer, no. Remember I`m a heartless conservative, I could give two shits if law breakers rot in jail. Ditto for the two rival dealers killing each other, one less dealer woohoo!!

Like I`ve said time and again, i`d rather the problems you bring up arise with alcohol than cannabis and the next ones up the chain.

If a steady job is flipping burgers at McD`s or running a 2 quarter farm that they`re too lazy to work at then I guess your right.

If you can`t afford 10 bucks for your fix, I suggest changing your financial priorities because it sounds like your in financial kaka.

[DrGreenthumb]

We've been over this time and again. I wouldn't have a problem if alcohol was made illegal. You can't nail me for picking and choosing.

What your not willing to see is that there are law abiding citizens who won't engage in mind altering substances due to legalities, those are the people I have interests in, not a bunch of skids.

What your also not willing to see based on your law of supply and demand is that there is a huge supply of mind altering substances legal or not. They aren't bloody diamonds. That large supply drops prices. I mean 10 bucks a gram is a cheap way to mess yourself up. Your economic argument holds as much water as a wicker basket. Your NDP style of economic logic is doing wonders again. Last time I checked booze is more expensive than pot.

Do I care if the supply is safer, no. Remember I`m a heartless conservative, I could give two shits if law breakers rot in jail. Ditto for the two rival dealers killing each other, one less dealer woohoo!!

Like I`ve said time and again, i`d rather the problems you bring up arise with alcohol than cannabis and the next ones up the chain.

If a steady job is flipping burgers at McD`s or running a 2 quarter farm that they`re too lazy to work at then I guess your right.

If you can`t afford 10 bucks for your fix, I suggest changing your financial priorities because it sounds like your in financial kaka.

Basically you are saying that as long as a few less people drink alcohol or smoke weed that justifies all the harm and related crime that prohibition causes? I might have some respect for the conservatives if they were honest about that being the intention and expected result. They are however lying when they say that cracking down on the supply of drugs will reduce crime or keep the public safer. Every time this method has been tried it has produced the exact opposite effect.

How does my supply and demand argument not hold water? That is one law that is unbreakable. Yes there is a lot of supply despite the 80+ years of prohibition, that should tell you something. Passing laws against substances does not end the demand for those substances and when there is a demand there will be someone to fullfill it. It is your argument for prohibition that does not hold water. And BTW cannabis is a soft drug and alcohol is a hard drug. Alcohol by ANY measure is more harm potential than cannabis.

A steady job that allows them to live and pay their bills and maybe buy a few bags of weed might be fine for some people, who are you to tell them how to live? If they are happy and self-supporting why can't they be free to spend their leisure time how they want to? BTW cannabis users are in all types of jobs, stereotyping us as lazy McDonalds employees only shows your ignorance.

You have no idea what I can afford buddy, get off your high horse, I probably am probably better off financially than you are. I could quite easily retire by the time I'm 40 but I probably won't. I work when I want to and because I enjoy it. My wife smokes more pot than I do and she manages a company with over 60 employees. Wake up Ward Cleaver its 2008!

[M.Dancer]

If we prohibited alcohol again we would have all the problems we currently have with other drugs, like alcoholics turning to crime to support a $500 a day alcohol addiction. Anyone who cannot see that this is the irrefutable truth is intellectually challenged or just willfully ignorant, so which is it?

No one would have $500.00 a day booze habits, even if it were illegal. Booze is too easy to distill while cociane and heroin take vast criminal networks to supply the addicts

As well, alcohol can be enjoyed without getting inebriated and cocaine and heroin cannot so there is no comprison between the two.

[DrGreenthumb]

No one would have $500.00 a day booze habits, even if it were illegal. Booze is too easy to distill while cociane and heroin take vast criminal networks to supply the addicts

As well, alcohol can be enjoyed without getting inebriated and cocaine and heroin cannot so there is no comprison between the two.

Cannabis can be used without getting inebriated, yet you support the war on cannabis. Also growing weeds is even easier than distilling alcohol.

Your opinion is not supported by facts.

Cocaine and Heroin are a product of the drug war. Before prohibition people were using much safer forms of opiate and chewing coca leaves. Real natural opium is not dangerous or anywhere near as addictive as the concentrated forms created for easier smuggling.

Again there is no logical reason to exclude alcohol from any drug war, if you think drug wars are a good idea. Alcohol is more addictive and dangerous than most illegal drugs. Most incicents of violence are alcohol related, not related to other drugs. Anyone who works in emergency rooms will tell you that. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, causes people to act impulsively and raises aggression, no other drug I know of is as likely to cause harm to others as drinking alcohol.

[M.Dancer]

Cannabis can be used without getting inebriated, yet you support the war on cannabis. Also growing weeds is even easier than distilling alcohol.

Your opinion is not supported by facts.

http://revision3.com/systm/distillation/

Cocaine and Heroin are a product of the drug war. Before prohibition people were using much safer forms of opiate and chewing coca leaves. Real natural opium is not dangerous or anywhere near as addictive as the concentrated forms created for easier smuggling.

Your opinion is not supported by facts

Opium is highly addictive. Tolerance (the need for higher and higher doses to maintain the same effect) and physical and psychological dependence develop quickly. Withdrawal from opium causes nausea, tearing, yawning, chills, and sweating.

http://www.narconon.ca/opium.htm

Alcohol is more addictive and dangerous than most illegal drugs.

Your opinion is not supported by facts

While the ingestion of alcohol is, by definition, necessary to develop alcoholism, the use of alcohol does not predict the development of alcoholism. The quantity, frequency and regularity of alcohol consumption required to develop alcoholism varies greatly from person to person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

[DrGreenthumb]

Your opinion is not supported by facts.

http://revision3.com/systm/distillation/

Your opinion is not supported by facts

http://www.narconon.ca/opium.htm

Your opinion is not supported by facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

I don't see anything in there that refutes anything I said, and while you are sending links to narcanon, why don't you send me a link to your pastor's opinion too, it would be about as credible.

There is a big difference between opium and synthetic opium. The alcoholism statement is true of any addictive substance and does not change anything. Scientific evidence shows that alcohol is more addictive and dangerous than MOST illegal drugs. Note I said MOST, not ALL.

I have tried coke and opium, a handful of times and certainly did not develop any addiction, nor did I harm myself or anyone else in the process. I also enjoy the odd tanqueray and tonic. Everything in moderation.

And BTW I don't need a link to know how to distill alcohol, I have made wine, beer and homebrew before so I am quite familiar with the process, its easy but not as easy as growing weeds. Also distilling alcohol can be dangerous as there is risk of fire and explosions. There is no risk of fire from growing weeds that is not directly caused by prohibition. Nothing could be easier than dropping a few seeds into the mud and then covering them up, maybe watering a few times over the summer then cutting down your crop in the fall. The worst risk is that you might cut yourself with the scissors while trimming the leaves away from the flowers.

Edited September 24, 2008 by DrGreenthumb