eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) Right. Your purchases of illicit drugs on the black market has nothing to do with it. You are an integral part of the problem. Without your support, pot growers would have nowhere to sell. Welcome to reality. So why hasn't Harper proposed mandatory jail sentences for possession for the purpose of using? His supporters in my community certainly want to see this and some have started to run for office themselves. These folks also reminisce about Stalin and using neighbourhood snitch groups, and they've also made it clear they want alcohol treated the same way one day. Why go after drugs that are already illegal when there are only two more to go? Edited March 2, 2009 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 So the bottom line is, you absolutely insist that everybody be forced to buy their drugs from gangs? Its your way or the highway? The decision to buy or not to buy something rests solely with the purchaser. If you are "forced" to buy drugs it is because you are addicted and should get help. That's like an alcoholic complaining that they are "forced" to buy alcohol from the government which is 85% tax. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 By the way Wilber, what's your redeeming vice? I have a few and take responsibility for all of them. If I chose to do something illegal and get caught, I accept the consequences. It's part of being a grownup. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 If you are "forced" to buy drugs it is because you are addicted and should get help. That's like an alcoholic complaining that they are "forced" to buy alcohol from the government which is 85% tax. I'm not talking about addicts. Casual drinkers are forced to buy from a government approved source, where are casual tokers supposed to go? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 I'm not talking about addicts. Casual drinkers are forced to buy from a government approved source, where are casual tokers supposed to go? Amsterdam. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 I have a few and take responsibility for all of them. If I chose to do something illegal and get caught, I accept the consequences. It's part of being a grownup. You think the relationship between the state and the individual is equal to the relationship between a parent and a child? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Amsterdam. I meant where in Canada. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 I'm not talking about addicts. Casual drinkers are forced to buy from a government approved source, where are casual tokers supposed to go? Casual tokers aren't "forced" to buy anything. They don't have to buy from gangs, they can grow their own. Still technically illegal maybe but this thread is about the gangs they support by their choices. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 I meant where in Canada. No kidding? OK...I have been giving this issue some serious thought and I would like to propose a solution that not only permits casual tokers to smoke at will without fear of prosecution, but also bolsters Canadian claims in the Arctic. Accordingly, all casual tokers in Canada should report to Ellesmere Island for pot smoking duty. ...but Amsterdam is a lot more fun! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 You think the relationship between the state and the individual is equal to the relationship between a parent and a child? Not equal but like a parent, the state has responsibilities that children do not. Act like a child, expect to be treated like one. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Casual tokers aren't "forced" to buy anything. They don't have to buy from gangs, they can grow their own. Still technically illegal maybe but this thread is about the gangs they support by their choices. Who's choices again, the casual toker who grows their own? How does growing their own support gangs? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Who's choices again, the casual toker who grows their own? How does growing their own support gangs? It doesn't, so don't tell me they are "forced" to buy from gangs. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 It doesn't, so don't tell me they are "forced" to buy from gangs. So lets go back to casual drinkers, the government clearly uses force to limit their choices, why should they be treated differently then casual tokers? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 So lets go back to casual drinkers, the government clearly uses force to limit their choices, why should they be treated differently then casual tokers? Again, this thread is about gangs. My issue is that legalization in Canada alone will not get rid of the gang problem. The only reason casual tokers are part of this conversation is because their money in part, supports these gangs. Otherwise, I really don't care about casual tokers so long as they obey the laws that apply to other smokers and don't operate machinery or do other sensitive work under the influence, same as casual drinkers. Your argument regarding drinking and toking relies on the premise that because one thing can be bad for you and is legal, all things that can be bad for you should be legal as well. In theory, that may be true but perhaps you should examine what that could lead to beyond pot. That is not an argument against legalization of marijuana but be careful how you try and justify it. You may end up getting much more than you bargained for. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Pointless to not follow the U.S.? Why is that? The U.S. isn't even metric yet! ' Oh ya! Just try and take apart your new Ford, GM or Chrysler without a set of metric wrenches. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
WestViking Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 I'm not talking about addicts. Casual drinkers are forced to buy from a government approved source, where are casual tokers supposed to go? Why stop there? If you like the mellow buzz of Valium, why should you have to get a prescription and visit a pharmacy? The notion that some people like to indulge in Marijuana, therefore it should be legal is silly. People in need can now get a prescription for medial use of pot, but like Valium, pot is a controlled substance. So is morphine and numerous other narcotics and narcotic derivatives. Quote Hall Monitor of the Shadowy Group
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 You may end up getting much more than you bargained for. You might too if the state can get away with its unequal treatment of responsible casual substance users who use different substances for the same reason. This is no different than having different rules for people who use buses for the same reason. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Argus Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Again, this thread is about gangs. My issue is that legalization in Canada alone will not get rid of the gang problem. The only reason casual tokers are part of this conversation is because their money in part, supports these gangs. Do we even know how much of the gangs' income derives from pot as opposed to coke, crack, heroin, meth or whatever? There is already another thread to discuss the government's proposed changes to the drug act. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 DG When the arguer may have alterior motives for taking the position he has taken, it is necessary to point that out. If an arms dealer is argueing that we need to expand our military, don't you think people should be aware of the fact that his positions stem from the fact that he wants to sell us weapons? Firstly, I think it`s pretty weak to say that pot smokers benefit less from legalization than police officers do from prohibition. Secondly, I think the benefit of MLW is that it takes people from different backgrounds, where they wouldn`t otherwise be able to discuss issues, and allow them to debate issues on their own merits. If every argument is going to include a sidebar discussion on the personal interests of the debaters, then it detracts from the discussion. You can do as you like, obviously, but if I am arguing with a lobbyist, I would like to think that I could defeat their argument on its own merits rather than just implying that their argument is couched in self-interest. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Why stop there? If you like the mellow buzz of Valium, why should you have to get a prescription and visit a pharmacy? The notion that some people like to indulge in Marijuana, therefore it should be legal is silly. People in need can now get a prescription for medial use of pot, but like Valium, pot is a controlled substance. So is morphine and numerous other narcotics and narcotic derivatives. Why shouldn't a casual drinker be required to get a prescription? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Argus Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Apparently, rightwing moralists prefer a nearly omnipotent Al Capone to be in charge of the Cannabis industry.That's where their blind ideology puts them in the exact same political policy spot as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter and Rumsfeld. They blindly accept and assert the same policy dogma, and fail to look at the reality of the situation. Of course, if it weren't for the extreme selfishness of potheads, who literally do not care who dies as long as they get their little mental relaxation, there wouldn't be a pot industry, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Do we even know how much of the gangs' income derives from pot as opposed to coke, crack, heroin, meth or whatever?There is already another thread to discuss the government's proposed changes to the drug act. This is just as appropriate a place to discuss this, the state has made it abundantly clear that ramping up the laws against pot is part and parcel of its anti-gang strategy. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Argus Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 So why hasn't Harper proposed mandatory jail sentences for possession for the purpose of using? His supporters in my community certainly want to see this and some have started to run for office themselves. These folks also reminisce about Stalin and using neighbourhood snitch groups, and they've also made it clear they want alcohol treated the same way one day.Why go after drugs that are already illegal when there are only two more to go? Why is this post in this topic when it's got nothing to do with the topic? This post, and most of the others should be deleted or moved to the pothead topic. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Of course, if it weren't for the extreme selfishness of potheads, who literally do not care who dies as long as they get their little mental relaxation, there wouldn't be a pot industry, right? What about the extreme selfishness of people who like to drink? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Argus Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 This is just as appropriate a place to discuss this, the state has made it abundantly clear that ramping up the laws against pot is part and parcel of its anti-gang strategy. But you're not talking about it in the context of gangs, you're talking about it in the context of morality and comparison to other drugs. What about what you're saying would not be better suited to the pot topic? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.