Happy 420

[Dave_ON]

I am not sure what country you think you are living in, but cops can be on your property if they have suspicion of illegal activity. And in my nice quiet little nighbourhood, the cops generally respond to noise complaints. The first time or two, a warning, subsequently, they shut the party down.

Besides, I have seen this done so many times and yeah, it is a dick move, but if the neightbour is being a dick in the first place, fair is fair.

We're talking about two separate issues.

Can cops shut down a party due to a noise complaint of course they can they're responding to a comaplaint and a legal breech.

Can a cop "snoop" around a residence because they suspect there's Maryjane in the house? Absolutely not. They can only do this with a warrant or with the express permission of the owner.

[Dave_ON]

So is it your opinion that society is better off with more people getting high and/or stoned? If so, please explain.

Please explain why it is your right, or any one else's right for that matter, to tell people what they can and cannot do. How someone chooses to live their life is ultimately none of your concern. If the actions aren't harming anyone, save themselves, leave them in peace.

[Shady]

Please explain why it is your right, or any one else's right for that matter, to tell people what they can and cannot do. How someone chooses to live their life is ultimately none of your concern. If the actions aren't harming anyone, save themselves, leave them in peace.

That doesn't answer my question.

But anyways, generally I'd agree with you. But we as a society tell people what they can and cannot do all the time, through laws and regulation. Why should marijuana be exempt? Because you like to get high?

And I'd also agree, generally that if somebody isn't harming anyone but themselves, it shouldn't be any of our business. Except that socialized medicine takes away that freedom, and makes everyone's lifestyle and health a matter of everyone else's interest, since we're all paying for eachothers care. Another unintended negative consequence of the government run single-payer system.

[GostHacked]

Why do people want to do illegal drugs in the first place? Going back to the memories of the 60's ..to get high man! Its' first used as an escape from reality and its used because of the addiction. It does do harm to your body over time and yes even man-made legal drugs to the same, so why do, if you know its not healthy plus illegal?

The mary jane is hardly a drug. It's a plant!! Drugs you gotta do stuff to it .. just sayin'. Good ol Kat Williams

[eyeball]

We're talking about two separate issues.

Can cops shut down a party due to a noise complaint of course they can they're responding to a comaplaint and a legal breech.

Can a cop "snoop" around a residence because they suspect there's Maryjane in the house? Absolutely not. They can only do this with a warrant or with the express permission of the owner.

Not true. Police where I live drive around town, usually in the trailer parks, looking for the smell of pot. They often take local kids they've busted in the back seat on some sort of police/community-based scare 'em straight program that's used in lieu of a criminal trial and record. Then there's the friendly little neighborhood TIPS committees sticking their noses into other people's business.

I guess they'll have to start reporting the smell of tobacco soon too. Seems fair.

Edited April 22, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

That doesn't answer my question.

But anyways, generally I'd agree with you. But we as a society tell people what they can and cannot do all the time, through laws and regulation. Why should marijuana be exempt? Because you like to get high?

And I'd also agree, generally that if somebody isn't harming anyone but themselves, it shouldn't be any of our business. Except that socialized medicine takes away that freedom, and makes everyone's lifestyle and health a matter of everyone else's interest, since we're all paying for eachothers care. Another unintended negative consequence of the government run single-payer system.

So its health care advocates that are responsible for prohibition? Those on the Left? The bastards, absolutely everything is their fault isn't it?

[Sir Bandelot]

The jury is still out on that...

There's lots of propaganda on the health effects, coming from both sides of the debate. But considering the apparent number of pot smokers in Canada and the US for so many years now, there should be more clear evidence based on number of cases of disease. In other words, where are the dead bodies? Habeus Corpus?

[M.Dancer]

There's lots of propaganda on the health effects, coming from both sides of the debate.

You think the Canadian Cancer society isn't reputable?

[Wild Bill]

There is nothing so popular as telling your neighbour what to do. Except maybe forcing him to pay for one of YOUR pet ideas!

It's just human nature, sadly.

[eyeball]

In other words, where are the dead bodies? Habeus Corpus?

It makes you wonder why no one's thought of marketing tobacco brownies.

[Shady]

I think Chris on The Family Guy said it best:

"The chief ingredient in marijuana is THC, a mild form of acid, prolonged usage of which can cause adverse effects to your sexual potency, short term memory loss, and can also severly damage your brain tissue, central nervous system, and basic motor skills. To put it simply mom and dad, theres a reason they call it dope."

[eyeball]

To put it simply mom and dad, theres a reason they call it dope

I still recall dear old Dad lecturing me on the evils of drugs with a double in one hand and cigarette in the other.

Where I live the courthouse is next door to the liquor store.

[Sir Bandelot]

You think the Canadian Cancer society isn't reputable?

Where have you seen their position on it? I read their position is not based on research, which they admit.

Canadian Cancer Society position

Not all studies have found a consistent relationship between long-term recreational smoking of marijuana and an increased risk of cancer. While recognizing that there are limitations to the current evidence, the Canadian Cancer Society believes there is sufficient research to suggest an increased risk of cancer associated with long-term smoking of marijuana.

It is biologically possible for smoking marijuana to increase cancer risk since marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke. There is also scientific evidence that smoking marijuana may be associated with increased abnormalities in some of the cells in the body, including precancerous changes in the lungs.

We recommend that additional research be conducted to better understand the cancer risks associated with long-term recreational smoking of marijuana and of exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke.

Link

It's "possible" to get cancer from bus exhaust.

[M.Dancer]

Where have you seen their position on it? I read their position is not based on research, which they admit.

Link

Which is why I said the jury is still out and the unequivical ...

Smoke from Mary Jane smells bad, might even get you a bit high, but doesn't causes no cancer

Is not proven.

[Sir Bandelot]

I think Chris on The Family Guy said it best:

Is that where you get your facts and opinions?

Despite what Seth Macfarlane thinks about it, I note some prominent and intelligent people also smoke the weed, including Carl Sagan

[Wilber]

The mary jane is hardly a drug. It's a plant!! Drugs you gotta do stuff to it .. just sayin'. Good ol Kat Williams

There are a lot of plants that will kill you if you consume them, some a lot faster than others and in different ways. The fact that it is a plant is neither here nor there when considering its effects on the human body.

[Shady]

Is that where you get your facts and opinions?

Are you denying that marijuana contains THC?

Despite what Seth Macfarlane thinks about it, I note some prominent and intelligent people also smoke the weed, including Carl Sagan

So what? Prominent and intelligent people also use cocaine, heroin, and sometimes kill themselves. What's your point?

[Sir Bandelot]

Which is why I said the jury is still out and the unequivical ...

Is not proven.

not really. What I wrote was a purposely grammatical error, and double negative, to boot. Nothing unequivical about it

Edited April 22, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Dave_ON]

Not true. Police where I live drive around town, usually in the trailer parks, looking for the smell of pot. They often take local kids they've busted in the back seat on some sort of police/community-based scare 'em straight program that's used in lieu of a criminal trial and record. Then there's the friendly little neighborhood TIPS committees sticking their noses into other people's business.

I guess they'll have to start reporting the smell of tobacco soon too. Seems fair.

Did this happen in a private residence? Did the police enter the premises because they smelled pot? Police are unable to enter a residence and search it unless they have a warrant or express permission of the owner.

There are certain extenuating/emergency situations where this can be bypassed. Suspician of pot smoking is conspicuously absent from that list.

Source

http://www.cleo.on.ca/english/pub/onpub/PDF/criminal/polpower.pdf

[Dave_ON]

That doesn't answer my question.

But anyways, generally I'd agree with you. But we as a society tell people what they can and cannot do all the time, through laws and regulation. Why should marijuana be exempt? Because you like to get high?

And I'd also agree, generally that if somebody isn't harming anyone but themselves, it shouldn't be any of our business. Except that socialized medicine takes away that freedom, and makes everyone's lifestyle and health a matter of everyone else's interest, since we're all paying for eachothers care. Another unintended negative consequence of the government run single-payer system.

Your question is immaterial to the point and is strictly opinion. One could argue any number of things isn’t particularly good/beneficial for society. Sugar can lead to tooth decay, smoking can cause cancer. Fact remains people should be free to do what they want regardless of the benefit or lack thereof to society. My central point is we shouldn't be imposing any societal or social "opinions" on others. Just let people live the way they want, so long as we don't obfuscate the potential consequences of the choices they make.

As for universal healthcare that is another can of worms that I also addressed in another thread. That's the way universal health care works. I exercise, I don't smoke anything, and drink only occasionally, I haven't been to the hospital in well over 12 years, yet I pay the same taxes as someone who has self induced health issues. That's the way the system works, and I'd rather put up with this and pay for something I don't need/might never use then to run the risk of not having it when I need it.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Dave_ON

[Sir Bandelot]

So what? Prominent and intelligent people also use cocaine, heroin, and sometimes kill themselves.

I'm not so sure how intelligent it is to use heroin and cocaine, both of which can kill on an overdose but Carl sagan did not kill himself. The use of marijuana did not destroy him. It did not damage his intelligence in any of the seemingly obvious ways you described either.

What's your point?

I know, it must all be very complicated

[Wilber]

I'm not so sure how intelligent it is to use heroin and cocaine, both of which can kill on an overdose but Carl sagan did not kill himself. The use of marijuana did not destroy him. It did not damage his intelligence in any of the seemingly obvious ways you described either.

So, Churchill smoked cigars for longer than Sagan was alive but that is hardly an endorsement for cigar smoking being a healthy lifestyle. I don't really have an issue with people getting stoned on marijuana or booze as long as their actions don't inconvenience or endanger others, but anyone who believes that consistently lighting anything on fire and breathing the smoke isn't going to have some kind of impact on their long term health is an idiot, IMO.

[Sir Bandelot]

So, Churchill smoked cigars for longer than Sagan was alive but that is hardly an endorsement for cigar smoking being a healthy lifestyle. I don't really have an issue with people getting stoned on marijuana or booze as long as their actions don't inconvenience or endanger others, but anyone who believes that consistently lighting anything on fire and breathing the smoke isn't going to have some kind of impact on their long term health is an idiot, IMO.

Lets be clear on this- everything kills you. No "reasonable person" could believe that something like smoke is completely harmless. Tobacco, alcohol, even vitamins can kill. The question is, HOW dangerous is a substance relative to others, and secondly is incrimination the right approach to solving the problem.

Why do I have to keep saying these things?

[Wilber]

Yet you say it doesn't cause cancer. No one knows that, we don't know the causes of many cancers. The type of leukemia that killed Sagan is one of them. I think there is a case for decriminalization but making ridiculous claims doesn't help it.

[Handsome Rob]

We want our drugs, people may find it morally wrong so don't do them, let the ones who want to do them do them.

While the rest of us suffer the cost?