The Conservatives' Unethical Anti-Drug Strategy

[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

Substitute Alcohol for opium in your narcanon quote and the statement is true. It may be true for opium addicts too, but that does not make it any less true for alcohol addicts.

Edited September 24, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[M.Dancer]

There is no risk of fire from growing weeds that is not directly caused by prohibition.

Your opinion is not supported by facts

[Drea]

Your opinion is not supported by facts

Have you got a sprinkler system set up in your greenhouse M. Dancer? You know, in case the tomato plants spontaneously combust.

[Oleg Bach]

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

Illegal drugs? What about the legal variety? That insidious anti-depression industry - the Ritalin abuse industry..not to mention crack and cocaine..for some reason there is no inforcement of the existing laws that should curb and hopefully stop the use of these substances. AND what about the fact that opium production has risen instead of fallen since the conservative involvement in Afghanistan? Money from all drugs - including that generated by big pharma all ends up in the damned banking system that is primarily controlled by conservative supporters. NOW as far as the liberal approach and their stupid "harm reduction" bull shit....this is akin to stabbing someone with a dagger and pushing the blade in an incrimental fashion - one milimeter at a time - in the end death results no matter how incrimental or rapid the decay of the individual is. Harm reduction is a liberal industry - Firmly put - the conservatives should jail and confine all drug addicts - and clean them up...that may sound unethical but it is the only real alternative that will work.

[blueblood]

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!

Prohibition isn't harming anyone, those people who choose to break the law are harming themselves. If people are so selfish that they decide to break the law, I could care less.

There are some people who buy American Satellite TV, should that be decriminilized as well? Should being drunk in public be decriminalized? Should not paying income tax be decriminalized? Wouldn't the public be safer if we did those things?

I fly the prohibition flag when, one of the side effects of pot smoking is laziness which affects my wallet with people having to go on social programs. For example one of my neighbours who high all the time never gets his crop off before it snows, never gets it seeded until the crop insurance deadline and never sprays. He collects crop insurance every year when his crop freezes which affects my premiums. Then there's all the welfare cases in town, all dope smokers.

You seem to be one of the people who can handle that side effect well enough, great. I'm a numbers man.

[Oleg Bach]

Prohibition isn't harming anyone, those people who choose to break the law are harming themselves. If people are so selfish that they decide to break the law, I could care less.

There are some people who buy American Satellite TV, should that be decriminilized as well? Should being drunk in public be decriminalized? Should not paying income tax be decriminalized? Wouldn't the public be safer if we did those things?

I fly the prohibition flag when, one of the side effects of pot smoking is laziness which affects my wallet with people having to go on social programs. For example one of my neighbours who high all the time never gets his crop off before it snows, never gets it seeded until the crop insurance deadline and never sprays. He collects crop insurance every year when his crop freezes which affects my premiums. Then there's all the welfare cases in town, all dope smokers.

You seem to be one of the people who can handle that side effect well enough, great. I'm a numbers man.

So liberal of you to suggest that being drunk in public should be de-crimminalized. Perhaps staggering in front of a street car and inadvertently offing yourself should be decriminalized also? Just like the liberal idea that it is a human right to be insane and wander about the streets in the dead of winter till you are dead......frankly - all I see is a population of coacained thrawls who work for dope...and labourors who work for beer and send the balance of the cheque to the mortage company...all great wealth comes from the selling of addictive substances...as the high end British...who to this day still live off the money generated from the opium trade..who are you kidding - Booze installed the American presidencey as well as the Canadian connection that is now "establishment" - I repeat ...no one is clean!

[marksman]

Prohibition isn't harming anyone, those people who choose to break the law are harming themselves. If people are so selfish that they decide to break the law, I could care less.

I don't think that's a good enough reason to make something illegal. Prohibiting playing baseball wouldn't harm anyone but why should it be against the law?

You seem to be one of the people who can handle that side effect well enough, great. I'm a numbers man.

Do you support criminalizing the entire smoking industry?

[Wild Bill]

Your opinion is not supported by facts.

Dancer, I suspect that you yourself have never smoked pot. Although it's been a few decades for this old hippy I still remember how it affected me.

Your comments not only contradict everything I ever experienced about pot but also everything from anyone I ever met, heard, saw or was mentioned.

This is why authorities lost so much respect during the 60's and it still seems happening today. When authorities try to sell you a point of view that totally contradicts personal experience you breed disrepect for all authority.

You're asking me to accept that the sun rises in the West or that Bob Rae was a wonderful premier of Ontario.

You're never going to convince anyone who has ever used pot that you have a valid argument. It is that black and white. You might drag out one burnt out heroin addict who had not only used pot but also aspirin and creme de menthe in his lifetime and try to pass off his example as a negative attribute to marijuana but it would be equally ridiculous.

You sound like a virgin espousing celibacy.

Most of the time I can take your side but on this one your words just don't pass muster, at least to me.

And if the Tories want to convince the millions of Canadians who have used pot that they know what they're talking about they have a very strange way of going about it.

[Smallc]

Dancer, I suspect that you yourself have never smoked pot. Although it's been a few decades for this old hippy I still remember how it affected me.

Your comments not only contradict everything I ever experienced about pot but also everything from anyone I ever met, heard, saw or was mentioned.

Sorry, but what you say that you experienced completely contradicts what I've personally seen.

[M.Dancer]

Dancer, I suspect that you yourself have never smoked pot. Although it's been a few decades for this old hippy I still remember how it affected me.

Your comments not only contradict everything I ever experienced about pot but also everything from anyone I ever met, heard, saw or was mentioned.

This is why authorities lost so much respect during the 60's and it still seems happening today. When authorities try to sell you a point of view that totally contradicts personal experience you breed disrepect for all authority.

You're asking me to accept that the sun rises in the West or that Bob Rae was a wonderful premier of Ontario.

You're never going to convince anyone who has ever used pot that you have a valid argument. It is that black and white. You might drag out one burnt out heroin addict who had not only used pot but also aspirin and creme de menthe in his lifetime and try to pass off his example as a negative attribute to marijuana but it would be equally ridiculous.

You sound like a virgin espousing celibacy.

Most of the time I can take your side but on this one your words just don't pass muster, at least to me.

And if the Tories want to convince the millions of Canadians who have used pot that they know what they're talking about they have a very strange way of going about it.

I have no idea what you are getting at.

[Wild Bill]

I have no idea what you are getting at.

The validity of your links.

[cybercoma]

I have no idea how this thread went from the topic of providing junkies with a place to use hard narcotics to a debate about the prohibition of marijuana.

All drugs are not created equal and there needs to be a clear line drawn between drugs a, b, and c that can be used responsibly in recreation and drugs x, y, and z that should be illegal because of the severe affects they have on people and society.

We can sit here all day debating where that line is. However, judging by the fact that most of the supporters of marijuana have moved away from opiates, methamphetamines and cocaine would indicate that we could possibly find consensus in the restriction of those drugs. If those drugs should be restricted because of all of their ill effects on individuals, their families and society, then there is no reason the government should support a program that gives people access to these drugs. What the government should be doing is promoting education, intervention, prevention and treatment to help people who are walking the path to self-destruction and the destruction of their communities.

That was the original point of the thread, but with that we've gone into the other end of the pool and started discussing marijuana. I don't think you have to accept all drugs if you accept one. By loosening the laws on marijuana and putting regulations in place to ensure quality, to ensure safety, and to restrict access to children, we could produce a large amount of revenue which the government could use to fund the programs that promote education, intervention, prevention and treatment as it pertains to the harder drugs.

Long story short, there's a vast difference between harder drugs and marijuana. Agreeing with decriminalizing one drug does not necessarily mean you have to agree with decriminalizing them all. The government should not provide access to harder drugs and should focus on programs which help people to get off those drugs. Decriminalizing drugs that can be used in recreation without causing any more adverse affects than that of alcohol may be a good revenue generator for those programs that help people.

[marksman]

All drugs are not created equal and there needs to be a clear line drawn between drugs a, b, and c that can be used responsibly in recreation and drugs x, y, and z that should be illegal because of the severe affects they have on people and society.

Don't you know these websites are for all or nothing opinions only??? What're you doing trying to propose a tailored solution???

[M.Dancer]

The validity of your links.

They work fine.

narconon is an organization of good repute, wiki is what it is.

[cybercoma]

Don't you know these websites are for all or nothing opinions only??? What're you doing trying to propose a tailored solution???

Sorry! haha I just thought the pissing match was kind of unreasonable.

[eyeball]

I think the final say on the legality of prohibition will end up in the hands of the supreme court and it'll come down to a charter challenge that our drug laws violate Canadian's rights to equal benefit of the law.

Section 15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Cybercoma hit the nail on the head when he pointed out there is no drug use legislation. It is not a crime to alter your mood recreationally with something. If this specific behaviour was a crime, alcohol (and tobacco) would have to be prohibited. There's certainly no constitutionally enshrined right to get drunk but the laws that govern alcohol clearly allow a person to pursue their liberty interest to become intoxicated if they wish to. No such benefit exists for people to use other substances towards the same end and it appears this benefit is largely being denied on the basis of discrimination.

According to the link below it doesn't appear that anyone has mounted a court challenge on the basis I've outlined but I think its probably only a matter of time before someone does. Perhaps this explains in part why the Court Challenges program was killed. Conservatives know many of their policy directions could lead them onto some very thin ice.

Charter Equality Rights: Interpretation of Section 15 in Supreme Court of Canada Decisions

[blueblood]

I don't think that's a good enough reason to make something illegal. Prohibiting playing baseball wouldn't harm anyone but why should it be against the law?

Do you support criminalizing the entire smoking industry?

Probly the same reason why pissing on the side of a building is illegal. Lawmakers chose to draw a line, I think they are trying to control escalation of what drugs people will do next.

I wouldn't care if the smoking industry was criminalized.

[Wild Bill]

They work fine.

narconon is an organization of good repute, wiki is what it is.

I would never disparage Narconon for their good works. However, considering that they deal with the tiny percentage of users who would find a way to screw themselves up no matter what was banned or legal I would suggest that they have a biased perspective.

The vast majority of those who have smoked pot do not fall into their category, no more than anyone who has ever drank a beer is a candidate for AA.

Again, it's a warped perspective that does not fit the reality. Being "retired" all these years from the halcyon days of hippydom has meant that it is far from the most important issue on my political slate but I sincerely believe that the Tories are taking things too far with their last drug bill. They sound like Priscilla Goodbodies!

They could use every vote. They're coming across on the drug issue as "tres uncool". It makes Harper seem like Ned Flanders rather than an effective leader. Millions of Canadians either smoke pot or used to when they were younger. Hearing "Reefer Madness" talk from a political party makes it harder for them to relate to it, not easier.

Doing nothing would have been more politically expedient than what they have done. It's on a par with the Liberals setting up a supply of marijuana grown for medical purposes that the users find is of terrible quality! A noble intent but the aim of an idiot!

If this election is close in some ridings it could make the difference between a minority or a majority.

[eyeball]

Probly the same reason why pissing on the side of a building is illegal. Lawmakers chose to draw a line, I think they are trying to control escalation of what drugs people will do next.

I wouldn't care if the smoking industry was criminalized.

50$ says you'll be willing to expend an exponential amount of effort worrying about things that are already illegal compared to making a case for also criminalizing tobacco and alcohol. I don't know about you but that's what makes the Conservative's position so unethical. Making the case should be fairly simple and uncomplicated - compared to something like getting people to understand a green shift it should be a snap.

I think the whole substance use thing needs to be re-legislated from the bottom up and the very first question Canadians need to address is; should it be a crime to alter your mind recreationally, yes or no? Everything else should flow from the plain premise of a plain answer.

Perhaps the original poster could put a poll that asks this question at the head of the thread.

[M.Dancer]

I would never disparage Narconon for their good works. However, considering that they deal with the tiny percentage of users who would find a way to screw themselves up no matter what was banned or legal I would suggest that they have a biased perspective.

The vast majority of those who have smoked pot

The link was in reference to opium addiction, which Greenthumbs says is not very addictive.

Here's another

JOSEPH WESTERMEYER M.D., PH.D.1

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 55455

An intensive survey of 40 opium addicts in Laos showed that opium smoking, like narcotic usage in general, can be powerfully addicting.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...tract/131/2/165

Edited September 24, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Wild Bill]

The link was in reference to opium addiction, which Greenthumbs says is not very addictive.

Ah, mea culpa!

Still, while your point may have been solely about opium the Tory drug approach is decidedly not!``

Perhaps I was too hasty and misread your posts as support for the Tory Bill as regards marijuana. If so, my apologies. I'm simply paranoid that Harper and his crew are going to sit there in their Calgary HQ and do something really DUMB to lose Ontario! Their attitude towards marijuana seems to "waft" in that direction...

It's always seemed to me that the biggest mistake political leaders can make is to assume that their own personal values or that of their own immediate personal circle are truly mainstream.

If Stockwell Day had checked it out instead of running things the way he did he might be in Harper's shoes today...

Edited September 24, 2008 by Wild Bill

[DrGreenthumb]

The link was in reference to opium addiction, which Greenthumbs says is not very addictive.

Here's another

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...tract/131/2/165

A study of 40 users...CAN be addicting?? not very convincing Dancer. The study group is too small to draw any conclusions, and even if you believe their findings, ANYTHING CAN be addicting. Alcohol IS addicting. Nothing you have posted in this thread is any kind of logical reason for prohibition, or at least not for a prohibition that does not include alcohol. Why should alcohol be so special that it gets a free pass?? Is it because Dancer likes alcohol? Because Harper likes Alcohol? You'll have to do better than that.

[M.Dancer]

A study of 40 users...CAN be addicting?? not very convincing Dancer. The study group is too small to draw any conclusions, and even if you believe their findings, ANYTHING CAN be addicting. Alcohol IS addicting. Nothing you have posted in this thread is any kind of logical reason for prohibition, or at least not for a prohibition that does not include alcohol. Why should alcohol be so special that it gets a free pass?? Is it because Dancer likes alcohol? Because Harper likes Alcohol? You'll have to do better than that.

Sorry, was it too complicated for you? Perhaps the author washed too often?

[DrGreenthumb]

Sorry, was it too complicated for you? Perhaps the author washed too often?

Its not complicated its simple which is why its hard to beleive you can't(won't) understand it.

Supply and demand

Alcohol is a drug

If a war on drugs is worthwhile, then it must be worthwhile for alcohol.

simple concepts for most people.

which part is giving you trouble?

I really want to help you.

[M.Dancer]

Its not complicated its simple which is why its hard to beleive you can't(won't) understand it.

Supply and demand

Alcohol is a drug

If a war on drugs is worthwhile, then it must be worthwhile for alcohol.

simple concepts for most people.

which part is giving you trouble?

I really want to help you.

False premise. If it is wrthwhile for drugs, then it must be worthwhile for cheese.

Cigarettes are legal, yet there is a growing a dangerous smuggling problem. Legality doesn't affect the criminality. Software is legal yet bootlegging and piracy are rampant. The idea that legalizing drugs, especially the high end drugs will alleviate the criminality and not produce greater problems is simply idiotic and the main reaon why it has no legs politically.