Marijuana

[KrustyKidd]

I really don’t see long border waits a problem for very long after C-10 is passed for two reasons. First, the border patrol will realize that the amount of pot coming across the border won’t be increasing much if any. When that happens, I believe they will cut back inspections so they can use the money in other places. Second, American businesses waiting for things from our side of the border will bitch and whine to the government about the extended wait times for things. My field, the automotive sector, relies on just in time deliveries, and longer wait times at the border would screw up production lines which would cost the big 3 plenty of $$$. When that happens, you can be guaranteed the government will hear from their lobbyists...a lot.

They will do whatever they can, however, security and smuggling will be the task they will work against just as they do now. It will increase whether your boss gets pissed or not. Costs for waiting time will go up no matter how hunky dory you feel it will be, costs for increased customs activity will go up and hence costs thrown on the duty of the products crossing the border.

As for saying it mostely comes from Mexico, that may be true however every now and then there is a major bust on our border. Last one I heard of was in February in Detroit, some truker going back home with an 'empty' trailer. It had ten skids of dope on board.

Lobbyists? Get real, we're talking an illegal substance that would be legal in Canada to some degree. If anybody listened to any lobbyist who wasn't willing to put up the bucks for customs increases they might as well stop looking for bombs as they seem to be legal in some societies of the world.

Here is a list of reasons so you don't miss it this time.

1. Trade with the U.S.

2. Causes cancer

3. Inhibits judgment

4. Lowers motivation

5. Effects the brain

6. Reduces perception of harm for kids (the normalizing of pot has a harmless drug is influencing kids trying it)

7. Acts as cognitive depressant that causes psychological dependence

8. Makes for a boring population

Actually, I take back my point where I gave one of the reasons why it should not be legalized 'trade with the US.'

That is not the point. They make sense. They do not make this stuff illegal simply because they are dummies who haven't caught the 'wave.' Red necks they are not. It is a safety issue. Until there is a proven, affordable-roadside test to determine the intoxication level of an idividual, it will remain illegal there, as it should be here. The point of the trade cost is valid, it probably would cost an extra hundred dollars a truck load. At twenty thousand trucks a day along our common border, that adds up PDQ. Add to that the US truckers skipping across to deliver a load knowing they will spend a couple hours in line on the way home, rates go up, in turn, ours will follow. That's a lot of dough so people can get 'legally' high in a country where it is all but legal now.

I think that if we want to make our country progressive, we should do it safely and get the test down before we make it legal, then at least we might lead the world in toxicoligy testing or whatever. Make a few bucks instead of losing them.

[caesar]

Of course we had smugglers from BC selling marijuana in the USA and brininging back hard drugs. BC Bud is the best; Americans want the best. However, due to the tighter borders; BC now has an excess crop here and prices are dropping dramatically.

Canada has no plans to legalize marijuana. They just plan to decriminalize possession of small amounts of the stuff for personal use. Drug dealers and growers will still be prosecuted. In fact, penalties for growers and dealers will be more severe from the information I read.

[KrustyKidd]

Canada has no plans to legalize marijuana. They just plan to decriminalize possession of small amounts of the stuff for personal use. Drug dealers and growers will still be prosecuted. In fact, penalties for growers and dealers will be more severe from the information I read.

Thanks for clearing that up, all I hear is 'legalization' etc. Still though, it appears that there would be little or no legal difference. I mean now, cops look at a kid with a joint and then decide on his guilt or innocence by what other crime called them there in the first place. The dope being incidental. If he does the 'yes sir, no sir' routine and hasen't beaten somebody to a pulp it is probably not even recorded. If I took it up I stronly doubt if anyone would ever invade my home in search of a 'killer gram.'

My point will forever go back to the safety and roadside test. Why give even a quasi official endorsement when you cannot regulate it. it opens doors that should remain closed until they have something they can work with.

[caesar]

It should be decriminalized so that people who wish to use it for medical reasons can do so. Never mind the road side test. I am sure that we drank alcohol for a very long time before a roadside test came up. Do we have a roadside test for prescription drugs that can have side effects that make you drowsy or slow your reactions. There are warnings on the labels for many prescrition or even off the shelf drugs. Do we have a test for those. If you are driving erratically; you can be tested for nearly any drug.

[KrustyKidd]

Caesar, you are making sense. Great point, you are going to make my head hurt for a while. Thanks.

I think this one was out to lunch though:

I am sure that we drank alcohol for a very long time before a roadside test came up.

Simple reason that it was already there and was legal. The laws caught up with the drug, not the other way around.

The rest about the prescription stuff is valid though, very. Off the top of my head I will throw out this easily torn apart thought; The stuff is for temporary use and is not recreational. Shoot, I'll tear it apart myself, half that junk is addictive anyhow and becomes recreational. Well, help me figure that one out or are you one sided?

[caesar]

ne ither is marijuana just a recreational drug for many.

Those that use it for medicinal purposes generally do not use that much nor do they get high enough to really make them dangerous. Like with any other legal drug; it is a matter or whether you use it or abuse it.

I am in the early stages of glaucoma; I prefer to choose my own medications. My husband had serious side effects from eye drops generally used for glaucoma. these eyedrops can be very dangerous for someone with circulation problems. Which he has.

He was supposed to use these drops for a short time but the specialist never told him and marked them repeat. I even questioned the pharmacist and was assured that they were what the specialist ordered. He is recieving long time treatment that requires 2 different eye drop probably forever; due to an eye condition caused by another eye specialist (cataracts). My own glaucoma specialist that I was seeing would tell me nothing.

So, I prefer to be my own doctor; I have very little confidence in doctors. So allow me the availability of a natural medication with fewer side effects. At this time; I require no medication, but I would like to freedom to choose a medication that will be less harmful than many prescription drugs.

[belfred]

CanadaRocks:-

Your university research must have taken you to various sources speaking to the 'pros & cons' of marijuana. I found the following particularly helpful to my appreciation of the subject. This and some excellent reply's to your query should add considerably to your library of information.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteens.html

Good luck in your continuing research on the subject.

[KrustyKidd]

ne ither is marijuana just a recreational drug for many.

true. however, the vast majority of users take it purely for recreational purposes. Hence, while it is legal to use a perscribed narcotic, it is still illegal to drive with it or operate safety sensitive equipment. Same as MJ. The persription point is valid but the difference is that MJ is illegal until it is changed. While driving with a perscribed narcotic is illegal, it is not as common as driving with a MJ high, hence the undue attention given this drug.

In your case (I hope it gets better, does it) there is a legitimate need for it it seems. In this case, with lack of a roadside test, a forfiture of Dl and any permits that have to deal with firearms, pilots, Doctors licenses would be in order then - have at 'er! That to me would be the legal way to go. Of course, I assume that you are as sane as we all seem to be for the most part here and would also assume that like I would never drive under the influence on my own recognesance that either would you. I sAid legal, not moral. Remember, when passing out laws the government always deals with the lowest common denominator and you have to admit, there are some low ones out there.

[Black Dog]

My point will forever go back to the safety and roadside test. Why give even a quasi official endorsement when you cannot regulate it. it opens doors that should remain closed until they have something they can work with.

I think you have to determine what degree of risk is pose dby people driving while high. Knowing a thing or two about pot use ( ), I can say it's not a drug conducive to driving. Eithe ryou're too high to even bother getting behind the wheel or paranoid enough to take it easy. Now, of course your judgement and reaction time are impaired. But I just don't ever see driving while high becoming as big a problem simply because, even if it were legalized, it wouldn't be as common as booze (not to mention lingering social stigmas).

That said, you can usually tell when someone's high, even if there's no breath test. If you run someone through the usual roadside tests for balance, coordination etc., and they're baked, you'll be able to tell.

That is not the point. They make sense. They do not make this stuff illegal simply because they are dummies who haven't caught the 'wave.' Red necks they are not. It is a safety issue. Until there is a proven, affordable-roadside test to determine the intoxication level of an idividual, it will remain illegal there, as it should be here.

Aw c'mon. You must know that pot prohibition goes back to before such concerns were an issue. Drug prohibition is rooted in racism and xenophobia, not to mention the stubborn persistance of the puritanical value of self-denial.

Indeed, even today the "safe driving" argument is a minor one.

[Cartman]

About seven years ago, when my wife was dying from cancer in her 20's and was in constant pain, I bought a bag of dope for pain relief. I thought that it was better than the "legitimate drugs" that ate away at the liver and had several other side effects. I thought that weed would be great because it would also restore her appetite. Unfortunately, as she was so adamant that her child have an honest mother who could legitimately say she never did drugs, she refused the weed. She could just not get over the stigma of drugs and that was very unfortunate. I am still a little pissed today about that.

I just thought that this would be an interesting perspective on the issue. I do not think that all prescription drugs are better than illegal ones because anyone can find a doctor willing to give them any drug they want. I was always raised to be extremely conservative about taking any kind of drug including aspirin.

[caesar]

I prefer using natural medications whenever possible. I even prefer to eat the right foods instead of loading up on man made vitamins, mineral, etc. When something like marijuan can bring relief without the serious side effects that manufactured drugs come with; I think we should be allowed to select the natural medication. There are stronger pain medications but they generally leave you completely knocked out or befuzzle the mind.

Plus it would be much cheaper than these manufactured drugs.

Sorry about your wife. Cartman. I hope you and your children are doing well. It is very sad when someone that young has to suffer with cancer. Sad for you and the kids to lose a wife and mother at such a young age.

[KrustyKidd]

Indeed, even today the "safe driving" argument is a minor one.

I guess then that I am in the minority then as safety is my only concern with the stuff. Nothing zenophobic about that. You make sense with your argument but there is no way our highways and operating rooms should be subjected to anindividual's choice in whether they think they are high or not high. Bring in an accurate and easily administrated test and all my opposition will vanish.

[caesar]

It will not make an big difference; legal or not. Just like alcohol or drugs; it will depend on the individual person's discretion and not to drive while impaired. Anyone seen driving without due care whether they are drunk, high on prescription drugs or marijuana. or even sober; should be charged. Whether small quantities are decriminalized or legalized for medical use will actually make little difference.

[caesar]

quote; ' Bring in an accurate and easily administrated test and all my opposition will vanish"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really believe that the test for alcohol makes us safer? That is more about fines (money maker) for the government. I think less drinking and driving has been accomplished by the cost of drinking in pubs increased costs versus drinking at home. Local pubs where one can walk home has also helped.

If preventing people from driving while drunk was a priority; more cops would be sitting in pub parking lots stopping anyone from driving away while intoxicated. But there is no money in that. cynical; you bet

[KrustyKidd]

Do you really believe that the test for alcohol makes us safer?

Yes. With no test it can be refuted in court and less people charged and punished. Therefore less chance of being aprehended as police know they stand little chance of making any charge stick. If you think that the lessening of DWIs is because of individuals good graces rather than aggressive law enforcement then you why have police at all? Put every human on the planet on the honor system. LOL, what a world no speed limits, murderers free until they turn themselves in, rapists never being aprehended, all of us running around with pump action shotguns to protect ourselves. Yes, I certainly do think that the test for alcohol makes us safer, just as a test for MJ would as well, a lot of humans will do whatever they figure they can get away with .

Local pubs where one can walk home has also helped.

Sure, because they are scared shitless they will lose their license if they get caught drunk while driving. Remove that threat and your DWIs will skyrocket. Your comment about putting money in the pocket of society by catching drunks is laughable. For the amount of effort in giving a roadside test, transporting the individual to the station for a breathalizer, then time spent charging him and returning the officer to duty after writing the report is immense. Not to count the court appearance with judge, filing, recorder and security and all. Twenty uncontested speeding tickets doubling or tripling the fine amount could have been handed out.

[caesar]

Oh drunk driving laws do help but stopping a drunk would be more helpful. Why are they not in the parking lots. no money in it.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We as a society must clearly say what is right and wrong.

Why?

Rather, let me be more precise. In our free society we do indeed define what is 'wrong', but we do not define what is 'right'. I our system, whatever is not prohibited is permitted. Thus, to prohibit something is to deprive us each of some element of liberty. Thus it is important that such imposition have a valid social purpose. The prohibition of marijuana has yet to have a valid social purpose offered in support of it.

[Black Dog]

By the way, KK, I found this tidbit while searching for more stuff to counter some of the persistant claims regarding pot:

Marijuana and Driving

In high doses, marijuana probably produces driving impairment in most people. However, there is no evidence that marijuana, in current consumption patterns, contributes substantially to the rate of vehicular accidents in America.

A number of studies have looked for evidence of drugs in the blood or urine of drivers involved in fatal crashes. All have found alcohol present in 50% or more. Marijuana has been found much less often. Furthermore, in the majority of cases where marijuana has been detected, alcohol has been detected as well.

"For example, a recent study sponsored by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) involving analysis of nearly 2000 fatal accident cases, found 6.7 % of drivers positive for marijuana. In more than two-thirds of those, alcohol was present and may have been the primary contributor to the fatal outcome. "

To accurately assess marijuana's contribution to fatal crashes, the positive rate among deceased drivers would have to be compared to the positive rate from a random sample of drivers not involved in fatal accidents. Since the rate of past-month marijuana use for Americans above the legal driving age is about 12 percent, on any given day a substantial proportion of all drivers would test positive, particularly since marijuana s metabolites remain in blood and urine long after its psychoactive effects are finished.

A recent study found that one-third of those stopped for "bad driving" between the hours of 7 p.m. and 2 a.m. - mostly young males - tested positive for marijuana only. To be meaningful, these test results would have to be compared to those from a matched control group of drivers.

A number of driving simulator studies have shown that marijuana does not produce the kind of psycho-motor impairment evident with modest doses of alcohol. In fact, in a recent NHTSA study, the only statistically significant outcome associated with marijuana was that drivers drove more slowly.

The rest is worth a look as well:

Drug war myths.

[Cartman]

Oh drunk driving laws do help but stopping a drunk would be more helpful. Why are they not in the parking lots. no money in it.

A good point. Back home in smallhicktown BC, the cops used to offer us alcohol tests outside the local pubs. If we were over, he would obviously make us walk home, get a ride from someone sober or even give us a ride home. If we were under, he would then tell us that he was watching b/c we were not sure whether we were over in the first place.

I think that the police should have the right to test people leaving bars. Hell...make bars include it in the cover charge or something. Seems dumb to wait until people are already driving and exposing others to risk. BTW...can we eliminate cell phone users too...PLEASE!