Is it time to de-criminalize Pot posession?

[sharkman]

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.)

Nice of you to think of me in that way, perhaps you could do yourself a favour then to avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with such worthless posts. Don't read them, because I counted 10(before I stopped counting) such posts in this thread by others which you ignored. Ahh, but most of them were pro-pot.

Or you could simply realized that I've posted much in the past on grass and I am reluctant to go over the same ground unless I was to see something new in a pot thread. Remember when you used to pretend you were a real stoner in this forum to get a reaction on such pot threads, and then later admitted you were some kind of editor or something? Although with the pot usage you admitted to I'd be surprised if you can remember anything.

[sharkman]

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.

But one can not base laws or national policies based on stories about someone whom somebody knew who swears he smoked it for 30 years.

I could repeat my arguments from past years about the untold damage liquor has done to our societies, the addictions, the FAS babies, the beaten wives, drunk driving victims, the wrecked lives of the abusers. I could then ask how can we legalize another substance that alters our minds and not expect more of the same, plus the added bonus of gangs reaping the profits of growing pot legally and doing illegal things with their profits like street shootings and increased illegal drug production. I could go on and on for about 3-4000 words, but what's the point? Those who support legalizing pot typically will not listen to any reasoning, logic or facts. I know better than to waste my time on yet another pot thread. No offense to you Sir Bandelot, I don't know your particular leanings, I'm just saying generally why I don't bother.

[benny]

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

Philosophically, it is still the same question: Is jail (pot, laws, etc.) freedom-expanding or freedom-limiting for a society?

[BubberMiley]

Nice of you to think of me in that way, perhaps you could do yourself a favour then to avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with such worthless posts. Don't read them, because I counted 10(before I stopped counting) such posts in this thread by others which you ignored. Ahh, but most of them were pro-pot.

All I did was ask you to explain your line of thinking. Rather than ask people not to read your posts, you should have the courage to back up what you say.

Or you could simply realized that I've posted much in the past on grass and I am reluctant to go over the same ground unless I was to see something new in a pot thread.

If you have nothing to say, don't say anything at all. If you have something to say, have the cojones to defend it.

Remember when you used to pretend you were a real stoner in this forum to get a reaction on such pot threads, and then later admitted you were some kind of editor or something? Although with the pot usage you admitted to I'd be surprised if you can remember anything.

I think marijuana usage is common enough in our society that a chronic anonymous internet poster identifying himself would result in no reaction whatsoever, so I don't think I provided that tidbit of personal information "to get a reaction." I did so to provide background and personal experience on the matter. I also continue to be "some kind of editor." I think my memory is fine, but I can't recall how these two facts might conflict in any way.

But one can not base laws or national policies based on stories about someone whom somebody knew who swears he smoked it for 30 years.

No, but you can base laws on scientific studies, the recognition that the status quo is not working, and a belief in personal freedom.

I could repeat my arguments from past years about the untold damage liquor has done to our societies, the addictions, the FAS babies, the beaten wives, drunk driving victims, the wrecked lives of the abusers. I could then ask how can we legalize another substance that alters our minds and not expect more of the same

If you had repeated those arguments, I would have repeated my unanswered response---that is, my question to you why are you not calling for alcohol to be criminalized, rather than attributing its negative effects to an entirely different substance. True, they are both "mind altering" but they are mind altering in entirely different ways that lead to entirely different social effects. Your premise also assumes that legalization would increase consumption, whereas there is no evidence to indicate that is the case. If anything, legalization would hinder access to a signifant pot-smoking demographic: children.

Do you know of anyone who is not currently a chronic weed-smoker who likely would be if it were only legalized? It's not as if criminalization has reduced access---anybody who wants it can easily get it. I've certainly never had to go without. So you have two strawmen going now: one, that weed is like alcohol and alcohol is bad; two, that criminalization prevents people from getting the product.

…plus the added bonus of gangs reaping the profits of growing pot legally and doing illegal things with their profits like street shootings and increased illegal drug production.

"Reaping the profits of growing pot legally and then doing illegal things with their profits?" With this reliance on the strawman, I wonder if you didn't misspell your avatar. I can see why you were too embarassed to try to present an argument if that's the best you can do. Legalization would eliminate the black market trade, removing a powerful revenue stream for gangsters. This is what happened when prohibition ended. There is no big money for gangsters in legal things. That's why they only focus on the illegal ones. The more regulation hinders the free market, the more organized crime picks up the slack on the black market.

I could go on and on for about 3-4000 words, but what's the point?

True. If your arguments are as good as these, there is no point.

Those who support legalizing pot typically will not listen to any reasoning, logic or facts.

I listened to all of your reasoning and provided counter-arguments. If you do not care to dispute them or to at least try and prop up your strawmen, I will assume you are indeed the one unwilling to listen.

Edited April 28, 2009 by BubberMiley

[benny]

If anything, legalization would hinder access to a signifant pot-smoking demographic: children.

THC was also to hinder access of cannabis to animals.

[sharkman]

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.

BTW, I'm afraid I grew up without the benefits of 'taking a drink' or smoking. My grandmom smoked until the day she died, and my brother smoked until his health got so bad that smoking was going to contribute to an early demise, said the doc, so he quit.

The strongest drink I have is coffee, I'm afraid!

[benny]

Forbidding overwork and helping dysfunctional families would be dealing with the problem at its source.

[BubberMiley]

The strongest drink I have is coffee, I'm afraid!

Well, goodness. That’s stronger than weed. It is both physically and psychologically addictive, it can lead to ulcers, vitamin b1 insufficiency, and it can lead to dehydration and prevent the absorption of some nutrients. It contains a large concentration of the chemical Trichloroethylene, which is related to the plastic chemical vinyl chloride, which has been linked to certain types of liver cancer. And since it's legal, organized crime can use profits from selling it to bolster their illegal activities.

Why would you support such a dangerous drug being legal?

Oh, I forgot. You come just to speak of you and your family's consumption habits, and not to actually engage in a relevant debate.

Edited April 28, 2009 by BubberMiley

[benny]

Before the Greeks invented political philosophy, drugs were used only to communicate with spirits.

[BubberMiley]

Forbidding overwork and helping dysfunctional families would be dealing with the problem at its source.

No it wouldn't. Most people like getting high just because it's fun. They can have perfectly functional families and not be overworked at all. It's not an escape or a crutch or a symptom of anything greater. It's just something to do when you're bored and there's nothing good on TV.

[benny]

No it wouldn't. Most people like getting high just because it's fun. They can have perfectly functional families and not be overworked at all. It's not an escape or a crutch or a symptom of anything greater. It's just something to do when you're bored and there's nothing good on TV.

Boredom is also what push people on forum to have fun at the expense of all those proposing solutions.

[sharkman]

No it wouldn't. Most people like getting high just because it's fun. They can have perfectly functional families and not be overworked at all. It's not an escape or a crutch or a symptom of anything greater. It's just something to do when you're bored and there's nothing good on TV.

You get to understand much, benny, when you analyze Bubber's defensive answer to your benign comment on families. His assuming to answer for all drug users and ignoring the multitude of problems that drugs provide speaks volumes. Also, he rationalizes that coffee is 'just as bad', therefore I am a hypocrite and anything I say on the matter can be safely ignored.

[benny]

To me, nothing can be more politically unwise than repeating that the government has no right to tell citizens what they can do.

[BubberMiley]

You get to understand much, benny, when you analyze Bubber's defensive answer to your benign comment on families. His assuming to answer for all drug users and ignoring the multitude of problems that drugs provide speaks volumes. Also, he rationalizes that coffee is 'just as bad', therefore I am a hypocrite and anything I say on the matter can be safely ignored.

Though I guess you will never indicate what "volumes" that "speaks" because you've already made clear you won't elaborate on your opinions because that just puts you at risk of being made a fool again.

Also, I didn't say coffee is "just as bad"; I said it's worse.

I also didn't call you a hypocrite. I just asked you why you consider your vice more worthy of legalization than my vice.

Perhaps it is your unwillingness to even answer the question that makes you think you're a hypocrite. I don't know. I'm not the expert anonymous internet psychoanalyst you are.

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[sharkman]

Bubber, in case you don't quite get it, I am ignoring you. That is why I don't address you when I post in this thread. I am waiting to see if Benny has anything to add to my analysis of your defensive responses.

Edited April 30, 2009 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

Bubber, in case you don't quite get it, I am ignoring you.

If you're ignoring me, why do you refer to me in your last post? You can't have it both ways.

Edited April 30, 2009 by BubberMiley

[BubberMiley]

Nevertheless, the reason one is forced to provoke debate on this topic is there are no good arguments for criminalization of weed. Each and every argument in favour of criminalization is based on a strawman.

When they say it will increase access and, therefore, consumption, they ignore all the evidence that 100% of the population already has access to the product, and that decriminalization would allow for reasonable regulation that could control access, if need be, and restrict access to children.

When they say it's dangerous and it could destroy a person's life, not only do they ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary, their solution is to destroy a person's life by imprisoning them or giving them a criminal record. So clearly they aren't concerned with these people's well-being at all.

When they talk of driving while impaired, they forget that this is an entirely different issue that would still be illegal.

When they say organized crime would prosper from decriminalization, I wonder what planet they live on.

In short, I welcome debates on this topic because they're fun and easy. Unfortunately, there are few comers because they know they won't last the first round.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nevertheless, the reason one is forced to provoke debate on this topic is there are no good arguments for criminalization of weed. Each and every argument in favour of criminalization is based on a strawman.

Marijuana was first banned in Canada in 1923 under the Opium and Drug Act. Since 1997 marijuana has been covered by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances

and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

...

SCHEDULE II

(Sections 2, 3, 4 to 7, 10, 29, 55 and 60)

1. Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations, including

(1) Cannabis resin

(2) Cannabis (marihuana)

(3) Cannabidiol (2–[3–methyl–6–(1–methylethenyl)–2–cyclohexen–1–yl]–5–pentyl–1,3–benzenediol)

(4) Cannabinol (3–n–amyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)

(5) Nabilone ((±)–trans–3–(1,1–dimethylheptyl)–6,6a, 7,8,10,10a–hexahydro–1–hydroxy–6,6–dimethyl–9H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–9–one)

(6) Pyrahexyl (3–n–hexyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–7,8,9, 10–tetrahydro–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)

(7) Tetrahydrocannabinol (tetrahydro–6,6,9–trimethyl–3–pentyl–6H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–1–ol)

(7.1) 3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)

but not including

(8) Non–viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives

(9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks

1996, c. 19, Sch. II; SOR/98-157; SOR/2003-32, s. 1.

Edited April 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[benny]

(3) Cannabidiol (2–[3–methyl–6–(1–methylethenyl)–2–cyclohexen–1–yl]–5–pentyl–1,3–benzenediol)

(4) Cannabinol (3–n–amyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)

(7) Tetrahydrocannabinol (tetrahydro–6,6,9–trimethyl–3–pentyl–6H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–1–ol)

Cannabinol, also known as CBN, is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. It is an oxidation product of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

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

[BubberMiley]

SCHEDULE II

(Sections 2, 3, 4 to 7, 10, 29, 55 and 60)

One of the better arguments is "The law should be so because it is so."

Those who use it are never consistent, however. There is always some legislation out there they feel should be changed.

[benny]

One of the better arguments is "The law should be so because it is so."

Those who use it are never consistent, however. There is always some legislation out there they feel should be changed.

I'm afraid that after decriminalizing pot possession, more and more people, when facing unjust laws, will increase their consumption of pot instead of insisting for changes.

[BubberMiley]

I'm afraid that after decriminalizing pot possession, more and more people, when facing unjust laws, will increase their consumption of pot instead of insisting for changes.

It breeds complacency! is one popular argument. But, again, if you're worried about a person's overall well-being, ruining their life with a criminal record probably isn't going to help much.

There is anecdotal evidence that stoners don't amount to much, but that is just because the successful stoners keep themselves perfectly anonymous for their own financial well-being. Also, if you're the type who doesn't feel much like amounting to anything, it's a terrific pastime. And sadly, for some, they would have amounted to plenty, but they wound up with criminal records that extinguished any hope of anything better than a shit job.

Obama should be very thankful he was never caught.

[benny]

It breeds complacency! is one popular argument. But, again, if you're worried about a person's overall well-being, ruining their life with a criminal record probably isn't going to help much.

When one cares deeply about humanity's wellbeing, s/he doesn't care to be jailed for her/his convictions.

[BubberMiley]

When one cares deeply about humanity's wellbeing, s/he doesn't care to be jailed for her/his convictions.

That's true. I don't think I would care to be jailed. I prefer freedom.

[benny]

That's true. I don't think I would care to be jailed. I prefer freedom.

Look at Nelson Mendela then.