Is it time to de-criminalize Pot posession?

DrGreenthumb · April 5, 2009

I should rephrase that, the government should ensure that in the transition those who are selling it aren't tied to organized crime as it is now.
Agreed. The only reason people are supportive of "decriminalization" is because they think it's a nice middle ground between fighting organized crime and allowing a few teenagers to smoke up without getting a criminal record. However it's absurd when you think about it since it could very well allow organized crime to make more money off of that policy. We might as well legalize it and tax it instead of take these baby steps that won't solve anything.

I agree with you that decrim doesn't address the supply side properly, and am against fines, for anything except selling it without a liscence, or not abiding by the rules set out to do that. Also 2 plants is not enough to adequately supply a regular pot user, as 1 plant will need to be kept under 24 hours light to maintain it in its vegetative state and preserve the genetics. This is known as the "mother plant" and it is used to make "cuttings", or "clones", that will be put under a 12 hours light/dark schedule to induce flowering. After 60-75 days of flowering each "clone" will produce about 1.5 ounces of dry buds. 1.5 ounces every 3 months or so is not enough, in my "learned" opinion to supply oneself.

As long as there is no selling on the black market and it is strictly for personal use, or "sharing" with friends, there should be no limit on how much you can grow. I can grow enough potatoes over summer to last me all year. Why shouldn't a person be able to grow their whole year's supply of cannabis in a 3 month period? In fact finding a strain that will grow outdoors and gathering enough to last all year should be encouraged so that people can use the free power from the sun instead of using electricity at all.

The main reason that grow-ops are indoors is for stealth reasons not because it works better that way. The sun is a much better provider of light than any high intensity bulb.

I only support this decrm because the only alternative being offered right now is even worse. 6 months mandaTORY jail time for growing 1 plant???

eyeball · April 5, 2009

Why shouldn't a person be able to grow their whole year's supply of cannabis in a 3 month period? In fact finding a strain that will grow outdoors and gathering enough to last all year should be encouraged so that people can use the free power from the sun instead of using electricity at all.
The main reason that grow-ops are indoors is for stealth reasons not because it works better that way. The sun is a much better provider of light than any high intensity bulb.

I suspect growing outdoors will be frowned upon because of the problems associated with kids stealing pot plants from people's gardens. I remember when we were kids we swiped a stash of home-brewed wine from someone's woodshed. We could see it from the sidewalk, it was like leaving a gun or candy laying around waiting to be picked up. Kids will be kids right? For all I know its still perfectly legal to store booze outdoors.

If the liberalization and legalization of pot is done in a bubble that's isolated from all other drugs it will create a bigger boondoggle than prohibition. The entire issue of people altering their minds recreationally with any substance needs to be addressed starting right from scratch. Do human beings even have an inalienable right to do so if they wish?

If the state's protective reach can extend into people's minds, where can it not go?

ReeferMadness · April 5, 2009

Hard as it may be to believe, Canada's biggest agricultural product is an illegal plant. Various estimates peg this country's cannabis trade at considerably more than $7 billion in annual sales--twice as much as pig farming brings in, and almost three times more than wheat does. Even the mighty cattle industry, at $5.2 billion a year in revenue, lags behind the marijuana business for sheer size. There is no formal market and cultivation has to be done surreptitiously, and still, nothing brings in the green like grass does.

Although somewhat dated, this Macleans article says that marijuana is a cash crop of staggering value. The pretense that prohibition is somehow a positive factor is idiotic and demonstrates denial of reality.

I understand that the US repealed alcohol prohibition during the 30's because they were cash-strapped and needed the tax revenue. Maybe history will repeat itself.

tango · April 5, 2009

Although somewhat dated, this Macleans article says that marijuana is a cash crop of staggering value. The pretense that prohibition is somehow a positive factor is idiotic and demonstrates denial of reality.
I understand that the US repealed alcohol prohibition during the 30's because they were cash-strapped and needed the tax revenue. Maybe history will repeat itself.

We can hope!

I believe someone pointed out somewhere that it was 3M that was behind the original prohibition, because they invented nylon rope and wanted to get rid of the hemp rope competition.

It's all just business.

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2009

I believe someone pointed out somewhere that it was 3M that was behind the original prohibition, because they invented nylon rope and wanted to get rid of the hemp rope competition.

Nonsense....Nylon polymers were first produced by Dupont in the mid 1930's, whereas cannabis regulation in the United States began much earlier at the state level. Canada scheduled cannabis as illegal in 1923, regardless of "nylon".

Edited April 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

ReeferMadness · April 6, 2009

Nonsense....Nylon polymers were first produced by Dupont in the mid 1930's, whereas cannabis regulation in the United States began much earlier at the state level. Canada scheduled cannabis as illegal in 1923, regardless of "nylon".

You're absolutely correct. Canada owes its first cannabis laws to bureacracy. It was added to the list of banned durgs without parliamentary debate.

You're also right that the states banned cannabis even earlier between 1915 - 1925. And it wasn't due to greed and corruption, it ws just good old fashioned racism. Marijuana was the drug of choice of Mexicans and a number of states banned it to control the immigrants.

tango · April 6, 2009

Nonsense....Nylon polymers were first produced by Dupont in the mid 1930's, whereas cannabis regulation in the United States began much earlier at the state level. Canada scheduled cannabis as illegal in 1923, regardless of "nylon".

wiki says ...

Hemp

It is often asserted in pro-cannabis publications that DuPont actively supported the criminalization of the production of hemp in the US in 1937 through private and government intermediates, and alleged that this was done to eliminate hemp as a source of fiber—one of DuPont's biggest markets at the time. Hemp paper threatened DuPont's monopoly on the necessary chemicals for paper from trees, and Nylon, a synthetic fiber, was patented the same year that hemp was made illegal. The company denies these allegations.[14][15]

so it's a toss up?

tango · April 6, 2009

And this ...

Hemp (Cannabis sativa) was first brought to North America by the Puritans.

In the 17th century hemp was encouraged by the government in the production of rope, sails, and clothing; however, hemp use declined in the late eighteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, cannabis became a common ingredient in medicine and was openly sold at pharmacies.[3]

Who knew!! :blink:

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2009

so it's a toss up?

Nah...not even close. 3M is not Dupont and the principal competition for nylon came from silk and cotton, not hemp. This would be true through WW2 and the need for, among other fiber/textile applications, military parachutes.

tango · April 6, 2009

Nah...not even close. 3M is not Dupont

genus ... megacorp

and the principal competition for nylon came from silk and cotton, not hemp. This would be true through WW2 and the need for, among other fiber/textile applications, military parachutes.

"principal", perhaps, but I'm sure they took care of all avenues.

But perhaps it was the papermakers/logging industry?

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

In 1916, USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of cannabis hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres (17,000 m2) of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.

In any case, it's clear it is a kill-the-competition smear job, and hemp for sure should be legalized for paper, etc.

Medicinal already is here, and that's the reason for legalizing, because we need production to fill legitimate supply. People with prescriptions have to take them to a street dealer?

Something wrong there.

And of course, it's all medicinal up here. :lol:

Edited April 6, 2009 by tango

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2009

genus ... megacorp

...don't believe everything you "hear".

"principal", perhaps, but I'm sure they took care of all avenues.

Nope...there were many other options that were not "killed off". In the US. Navy, we used sisal, manila, nylon, and even some polyethylene later on.

Keep working on those hemp conspiracy theories! :lol:

tango · April 6, 2009

...don't believe everything you "hear".
Nope...there were many other options that were not "killed off". In the US. Navy, we used sisal, manila, nylon, and even some polyethylene later on.

Keep working on those hemp conspiracy theories!

Naa ... can't be bothered ...

Point being ... it should be legal ...

Change of topic ... who are the biggest pot smoking countries in the world?

Guesses anybody, before looking?

Adult_lifetime_cannabis_use_by_country

Edited April 6, 2009 by tango

sharkman · April 27, 2009

Who cares which is the biggest pot smoking country? It should be kept illegal, with long sentences for first time grow op infractions, instead of the stern warning they now get.

Sir Bandelot · April 27, 2009

Nope...there were many other options that were not "killed off". In the US. Navy, we used sisal, manila, nylon, and even some polyethylene later on.

Products like nylon and polyethylene, while they may work well are not biodegradable. An important consideration if tons of the stuff must be produced is how to eventually get rid of it.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

bush_cheney2004 · April 27, 2009

Products like nylon and polyethylene, while they may work well are not biodegradable. An important consideration if tons of the stuff must be produced is how to eventually get rid of it.

I can assure you that in such matters, the performance of a hawser is far more important than its environmental impact. For instance, mooring lines for submarines are stored in external (floodable) lockers, giving the edge to manmade materials.

Sir Bandelot · April 27, 2009

I can assure you that in such matters, the performance of a hawser is far more important than its environmental impact.

To those who are concerned with the immediacy of their own needs.

The "me" generations wants it now, and wants it to be convenient and, cheap. Damn the future!

And damn the torpedoes

bush_cheney2004 · April 27, 2009

To those who are concerned with the immediacy of their own needs.
The "me" generations wants it now, and wants it to be convenient and, cheap. Damn the future!

And damn the torpedoes

I would only recommend that the tree hugging reflex might give way to common sense, to wit, a fully loaded Ultra Large Crude Carrier (ULCC) with parted mooring lines adrift and aground can do a lot of "environmental" damage.

BTW....nylon lines are very expensive...not cheap at all.

...is it OK if we still use rat guards...or is that a problem for huggers too?

BubberMiley · April 27, 2009

It should be kept illegal, with long sentences for first time grow op infractions, instead of the stern warning they now get.

Although such an unsubstantiated opinion from an Internet poster leaves much to be desired in terms of the depth of its argument, I can understand your reluctance to state why you feel as you do. Those without the debating chops to back up their lamebrained assertions usually wind up too humiliated to use their anonymous persona ever again.

sharkman · April 27, 2009

Although such an unsubstantiated opinion from an Internet poster leaves much to be desired in terms of the depth of its argument, I can understand your reluctance to state why you feel as you do. Those without the debating chops to back up their lamebrained assertions usually wind up too humiliated to use their anonymous persona ever again.

Oh please, you post an opinion without backing it up with links and such just like the rest of us, only I don't whine about it. I'm not going to waste my time with research and links on a thread with people who have displayed a sheeple like attitude about pot, even if you say pretty please.

BubberMiley · April 28, 2009

I didn't ask for links. I indicated you were afraid to explain why you feel as you do because you know that you can't justify your opinion with any kind of fact, linked or otherwise. Your response is proof of my claim.

Edited April 28, 2009 by BubberMiley

sharkman · April 28, 2009

I didn't ask for links. I indicated you were afraid to explain why you feel as you do because you know that you can't justify your opinion with any kind of fact, linked or otherwise. Your response is proof of my claim.

And like I said, you post plenty of one or two line opinions without any kind of fact to justify your opinion, and I don't whine about it. It's not a big deal, but I'm not going to waste my time having an argument with a kool-aid drinker(or in this case, pot smoker) as if you can be persuaded with reason or logic in matters of pot.

Sir Bandelot · April 28, 2009

Now me, I don't drink or take any drugs, because I live a very healthy lifestyle. But I know someone who smoked pot daily for about 30 years, then he got tired of it and quit. Just like that, didn't seem to have withdrawl problems. He's a pretty smart guy too. Good at technical stuff, and not forgetful. Not like tose cliches you have heard of. In fact you would never know or guess that he was a major "pothead" once.

Even judges, even presidents admit to trying it. And some prime ministers, want to try it. So i would conclude that although its probably not totally harmless, its pretty low down on the list of dangerous substances.

Hey Sharkman, do you ever have a drink after a hard days work, or anyone in your family smokes cigs? Once upon a time, you would be considered a dangerous criminal for taking a drink.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

benny · April 28, 2009

Freedom-expanding or freedom-limiting?

Sir Bandelot · April 28, 2009

How about justice, where jail is for people who are actually dangerous. Is that a concept in your philosophy?

BubberMiley · April 28, 2009

And like I said, you post plenty of one or two line opinions without any kind of fact to justify your opinion, and I don't whine about it. It's not a big deal, but I'm not going to waste my time having an argument with a kool-aid drinker(or in this case, pot smoker) as if you can be persuaded with reason or logic in matters of pot.

I've never in my life formed an opinion without basing it on something, and I've never been afraid to state my reason for forming an opinion. If anyone ever asked me why I have a certain point of view, I'm happy to explain it to them. I can also be persuaded by reason and logic if it exists, but you don't even have the balls to try and offer any.

Simply, an opinion about something is worth absolutely nothing if the person stating it is unwilling to give the slightest indication why they think that way. Perhaps you should consider that before bothering to post on this topic again. (And I say that not to censor you, but to protect you from further humiliation.)