Is it time to de-criminalize Pot posession?

[benny]

Regulating the credit market has already proven itself impracticable, imagine if we normalize more of what fragile people end up buying with borrowed money.

[BubberMiley]

Just for the record, I decided not to respond to you on this thread because your attacks on my opinions were quite rude and heavy handed and I have better things to do than submit myself to that.

When was I rude? When I asked you to explain why you felt as you do? Wow. You say I'm the one who's sensitive!

But I see you still can't back up your "opinions" with anything resembling facts.

Edited May 5, 2009 by BubberMiley

[sharkman]

Okay, Bubber, you were rude on these occasions in this thread when asking me to back up my opinions:

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

.

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.

(And I say that not to censor you, but to protect you from further humiliation.)

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.

So lets see, you've called me a fool, lamebrained who repeatedly humiliates myself. I don't have any balls, for some reason and need to be protected.

Please understand, I'm not upset by this display, I only offer it up to demonstrate how unable you are to monitor your own behavior. You actually think you were not rude! I will continue to ignore you and not offer up anything at your childish demands when they come. And I reserve the right to occasionally reference you since you are such a strong pot advocate.

The funny thing is over in the National Post thread I posted after you stating an opinion on the paper, without any data, facts or anything else to back up my opinion. You didn't become obnoxious at me in that instance, I guess because I partly agreed with you. At least you could be consistent.

Edited May 5, 2009 by sharkman

[benny]

So lets see, you've called me a fool, lamebrained who repeatedly humiliates myself. I don't have any balls, for some reason and need to be protected.

Please understand, I'm not upset by this display, I only offer it up to demonstrate how unable you are to monitor your own behavior. You actually think you were not rude! I will continue to ignore you and not offer up anything at your childish demands when they come. And I reserve the right to occasionally reference you since you are such a strong pot advocate.

The funny thing is over in the National Post thread I posted after you stating an opinion on the paper, without any data, facts or anything else to back up my opinion. You didn't become obnoxious at me in that instance, I guess because I partly agreed with you. At least you could be consistent.

Traditional uses of drugs are still legal because these are linked to peace efforts like yours.

[sharkman]

Traditional uses of drugs are still legal because these are linked to peace efforts like yours.

What traditional uses are you referring to and which peace efforts did I make.

[benny]

What traditional uses are you referring to and which peace efforts did I make.

Smoking after talking.

[sharkman]

So smoking after talking is a traditional use or a peace effort? Why must you insist on one line responses that don't fully explain your position?

[benny]

So smoking after talking is a traditional use or a peace effort? Why must you insist on one line responses that don't fully explain your position?

Writing is a friendly sign if only for the time and effort it takes.

[BubberMiley]

Okay, Bubber, you were rude on these occasions in this thread when asking me to back up my opinions:

I never said I wasn't rude. I just asked the question when I was rude in order to prove that you don't "ignore" me and you are happy to provide citations when you feel you're not going to lose an argument. Thank you for so promptly providing that evidence for me.

The funny thing is over in the National Post thread I posted after you stating an opinion on the paper, without any data, facts or anything else to back up my opinion. You didn't become obnoxious at me in that instance, I guess because I partly agreed with you. At least you could be consistent.

You think it's funny (and hypocritical) that I only engage in debates with you when I disagree with you? Gee, I thought that's how the game is played.

Edited May 5, 2009 by BubberMiley

[benny]

I never said I wasn't rude. I just asked the question when I was to prove that you don't "ignore" me and you are happy to provide citations when you feel you're not going to lose an argument. Thank you for so promptly providing that evidence for me.

You think it's funny (and hypocritical) that I only engage in debates where there are two sides to the issue and I'm on one? Gee, I though that's how the game is played.

Enough of psychology in a philosophy section.

[sharkman]

You know, I discovered that communication was not as easy as I had been led to believe when growing up with my buddies. When I got married, it became at times quite difficult to be understood or to understand simple sounding sentences.

In this forum, it ain't gettin' any easier.

Edited May 5, 2009 by sharkman

[benny]

You know, I discovered that communication was not as easy as I had been led to believe when growing up with my buddies. When I got married, it became at times quite difficult to be understood or to understand simple sounding sentences.

In this forum, it ain't gettin' any easier.

"Good cop/bad cop" is an efficient communication strategy; a rotation of two political parties are needed to use it in politics.

[sharkman]

I never said I wasn't rude. I just asked the question when I was rude in order to prove that you don't "ignore" me and you are happy to provide citations when you feel you're not going to lose an argument. Thank you for so promptly providing that evidence for me.

You think it's funny (and hypocritical) that I only engage in debates with you when I disagree with you? Gee, I thought that's how the game is played.

So you trolled me to get me to do something?

You still don't get it. On the subject of pot, I will not debate you. Just like on the subject of religion I will not discuss with certain people. Our little thing here was on rudeness.

There are some people who are so militant on certain topics that no matter what proof or reason or logic you offer, all you get is name calling and foot stomping. Since I do not find those tactics legitimate, I prefer to avoid another go-round with those people.

Your game approach explains a lot, I prefer to not consider it a game.

Edited May 6, 2009 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

There are some people who are so militant on certain topics that no matter what proof or reason or logic you offer, all you get is name calling and foot stomping.

I know. And yet I'm still willing to patiently provide a reasonable, logical counter-argument to any argument against decriminalization. I wonder why I bother too.

[Oleg Bach]

I know. And yet I'm still willing to patiently provide a reasonable, logical counter-argument to any argument against decriminalization. I wonder why I bother too.

Pot smoking is a silly cause - what if we had a huge rally of booze hounds who demanded the right to sip gin on the Subway...or said that passing out on the side walk was a natural spiritual experience and we should be able to be in a stupor in public - that it is a human right? It's like pharma product compared to old fashioned alcohol...You can be stoned on all sorts of prescribed pills and that's just fine - because it does not show - but if you use booze as a medication - they will come and take your children ....Because someone drunk is not pretty ...and someone jacked up on Ativan and Prosac is more cosmetically appealing. Chronic pot smokers are just like drunks or pill heads...there is no difference...If you want to de-crimminalize pot then do the same with public drunkeness...I want to be able to stagger all over the streets without harrassment by the authorities - It's a human right to be impaired - or in a changed state of mind - induced by any chemical - natural or not..

[BubberMiley]

Chronic pot smokers are just like drunks or pill heads...there is no difference...If you want to de-crimminalize pot then do the same with public drunkeness...I want to be able to stagger all over the streets without harrassment by the authorities - It's a human right to be impaired - or in a changed state of mind - induced by any chemical - natural or not..

It's not a human right to make others feel uncomfortable and unsafe in a public place. Public displays of intoxication can be intimidating and unpleasant and are an unfair imposition on the surrounding people who just want to mind their own business. But it's not the drug or alcohol that is the problem in these instances. It's the behaviour of the person who is drunk.

I don't believe pot-smokers should have the right to smoke it in public---nor should they force others to consume second-hand smoke. If their behaviour is beligerent, that can be dealt with accordingly. I think it's a private matter that should stay private.

Now, we just have to find a beligerent pot-smoker.

Edited May 6, 2009 by BubberMiley

[Oleg Bach]

It's not a human right to make others feel uncomfortable and unsafe in a public place. Public displays of intoxication can be intimidating and unpleasant and are an unfair imposition on the surrounding people who just want to mind their own business. But it's not the drug or alcohol that is the problem in these instances. It's the behaviour of the person who is drunk.

I don't believe pot-smokers should have the right to smoke it in public---nor should they force others to consume second-hand smoke. If their behaviour is beligerent, that can be dealt with accordingly. I think it's a private matter that should stay private.

Now, we just have to find a beligerent pot-smoker.

Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment - your retort was very balanced and true. I resent chronic anything use - for instance my wife of 25 years has become a chronic pot user...and that is one of the reasons I am not with her.....it is like being alone - you can not have a meaningful, honest or productive conversation with a stoned person..no more than with a drunk. Pot heads have another type of beligerencey...it's more subtle - and as I said - evil and stupidity are kin. Pot makes you stupid...I am to old to spend the last of my days with a stupid person.

[benny]

Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment - your retort was very balanced and true. I resent chronic anything use - for instance my wife of 25 years has become a chronic pot user...and that is one of the reasons I am not with her.....it is like being alone - you can not have a meaningful, honest or productive conversation with a stoned person..no more than with a drunk. Pot heads have another type of beligerencey...it's more subtle - and as I said - evil and stupidity are kin. Pot makes you stupid...I am to old to spend the last of my days with a stupid person.

Chronic pot use to be legitimate if it is allied to chronic pain though.

[Oleg Bach]

Chronic pot use to be legitimate if it is allied to chronic pain though.

If you are suffering some sort of mental pain - perhaps you have to finally deal with the environment..the human one - stand up for your rights as a person - what we have now is a situation where if there is a toxic social human environ..instead of changing what is making you sick you change the person instead of changing society in general...It's like the over use of anti-depressants (no such thing as a happy pill) - INSTEAD of cleaning up the human social pollution - we blame the victim and rewire the persons head chemically...pot head are self prescribers and medicators - they should get off their asses and change the world instead of hiding in a fog...as for the medicinal value of pot - Yes - allow the sick to use what they must - BUT as with all medications...if you are sick..they help - if you are not sick the medication will make you sick! Chronic or habitual pot or cocaine use will make you demented.

[benny]

If you are suffering some sort of mental pain - perhaps you have to finally deal with the environment..the human one - stand up for your rights as a person - what we have now is a situation where if there is a toxic social human environ..instead of changing what is making you sick you change the person instead of changing society in general...It's like the over use of anti-depressants (no such thing as a happy pill) - INSTEAD of cleaning up the human social pollution - we blame the victim and rewire the persons head chemically...pot head are self prescribers and medicators - they should get off their asses and change the world instead of hiding in a fog...as for the medicinal value of pot - Yes - allow the sick to use what they must - BUT as with all medications...if you are sick..they help - if you are not sick the medication will make you sick! Chronic or habitual pot or cocaine use will make you demented.

Sadly, I must contradict you once again. The environmental mess we are in is caused, I think, by the kind of hyperactivity that pot prevents.

[Oleg Bach]

That's very clever and might be true. Are you telling me that someone stoned on pot is more likely to give you a bite to eat and a cool glass of water...as compared to some ambitious hyperactive fortune hunter?....back to my point...medication is not the way to go here...pot or pharma....no one is facing reality ---- but in the alternative...If for instance we have a corrupt and monopolized judical system - pot heads might just boycott it our of sheer relaxedness - and no one would show up to play the game. I see what you are getting at...but hyperness or hypervigilance is useful - depends on what motivates the character....so what you are saying is that our collective of human insects needs to be slowed down? Sure they do - but it must be temporary like all medications and not a permanent state of mind...Look at the opportunity the Asian math student who is sober will have in the future...all the aging pot heads (mostly white) will be happily cleaning their toilets and singing Cold Play tunes...

[benny]

Look at the opportunity the Asian math student who is sober will have in the future...all the aging pot heads (mostly white) will be happily cleaning their toilets and singing Cold Play tunes...

I think we should concentrate on what, most specifically, distinguish the Western world from Asia: they have religious traditions where emptying oneself is the goal.

Edited May 6, 2009 by benny

[sharkman]

How about this thought from Hu Shih:

The most outstanding characteristic of Eastern Civilization is to know contentment whereas that of Western civilization is not to know contentment.

It seems to me that contentment is better than any drug because it comes from within.

Edited May 6, 2009 by sharkman

[benny]

How about this thought from Hu Shih:

The most outstanding characteristic of Eastern Civilization is to know contentment whereas that of Western civilization is not to know contentment.

It seems to me that contentment is better than any drug because it comes from within.

For Hu Shih, contentment comes from a whole specific civilization.

[sharkman]

If we in the west were more content, there would be much less drug use.