Happy 420

[Handsome Rob]

My problem with legalization is the blow it in my face crowd.Even now while it is still against the law I have a neighbour and his friends who inflicts it upon me and mine as it wafts over my hedge. What will it be like after it is not against the law? I tried back in the sixties once and I preferred a cold beer. I still can`t figure out what is wrong with reality!

By the same token you may as well complain about auto exhaust, body odor, excess noise, and everything else. Pretty much any activity one's neighbor partakes in could be justified as worth complaining about.

[Handsome Rob]

70% of the Mexican drug cartels income comes from pot alone. If they lost that stream of revenue, they would hurt bad. They would have to down size.

When they legalized alcohol in the states again, much of the crime associated with bootlegging alcohol dissipated. Same would happen with pot and all drugs.

If gangs can't make money they won't exist.

Too say that eliminating millions if not billions of dollars from gangs pockets wouldn't reduce crime is silly.

Gangs only exist because we give a untaxed billion dollar underground market to thrive in.

They'll move on to another profitable venture. The 6 families are a perfect example of that.

[Handsome Rob]

All drugs are for idiots. That includes alcohol and nicotine.

Agreed. But every single one of us possesses a certain degree of idiocracy.

[Handsome Rob]

This topic deserves a poll.

But I strongly suspect it is only a matter of time. Even the yanks are finally coming around.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Handsome Rob

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

As MDcancer pointed out, it's not for sure that it does or doesn't cause cancer. I can accept that. What it means is, if it does cause cancer it can't be an obvious and highly potent carcinogen. Otherwise there would be no doubt.

Having said that, lots of things cause cancer including diesel fumes. In fact there is little doubt about diesel fumes:

"Exposure to diesel exhaust and DPM is a known occupational hazard to truckers, railroad workers, and miners using diesel-powered equipment in underground mines. Adverse health effects have also been observed in the general population at ambient atmospheric particle concentrations well below the concentrations in occupational settings."

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

But trucks and buses just keep on trucking.

All we can say is, if Marijuana is harmful it must be a lower risk than many other things we deal with in society today. That does not mean, no risk.

[Wilber]

As MDcancer pointed out, it's not for sure that it does or doesn't cause cancer. I can accept that. What it means is, if it does cause cancer it can't be an obvious and highly potent carcinogen. Otherwise there would be no doubt.

You may be right but I think that is a pretty broad assumption. We still don't know to how many cancers smoking contributes. Also, the fact marijuana is an illegal substance and there are no controls on how it is produced makes it more difficult to do really good research.

[GostHacked]

Couple things :

If you think people do not notice that you are high, think again.

If you think it does not impair you in some way, think again.

If you think it does not cause cancer, think again (although the possibility of getting cancer from weed is not as high as tobacco).

If you think it interferes with your life in some way, it can, but only if you let it.

I advocate for self control and being conscious and aware of it. But then again, asshats are asshats sober or intoxicated.

For me, weed has changed my life for the better. It does allow me to shut my racing brain off to relax and enjoy myself. It has not impacted negatively on my life. I am debt free, looking to buy a house, great job and good pay, (promoted and 3 raises so far) still single, but working on that part.

Those who have control over their habits no matter what it is, (alcohol, cocaine, E, shrooms ect ect ect.) will live productive and happy lives. Those who have no control over it, well those are the ones that need attention.

[BubberMiley]

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

To quote Seth Macfarlane once again, I can even explain with a citation.

But regarding your position that weed should be criminalized because of health reasons and socialized medicine, are you advocating the criminalization of jelly donuts too?

Seriously?

[BubberMiley]

He will likely already have family problems, just like my geef jerking neighbor.

And how are you aware of your neighbour's masturbation habits?

[Shwa]

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.

Right, police can't enter your "house" unless they have a warrant, permission or they think there is an immediate emergency. Not that cops would ever enter a residence under some pretense of an immediate emergency. (they can be on your "property" to answer the call) However, when the police come to a person's door, they are looking around. They are looking beyond the shoulders of anyone answering the door and they are on alert for anything suspicious or illegal. Sometimes the cop can be aggressive or try to unnerve the person answering the door. The cumulative effect of this sort of behaviour from the police - especially when it is repeated - tends to harsh ones buzz.

That is the "issue" I am talking about.

[Shwa]

GH says,

Those who have control over their habits no matter what it is, (alcohol, cocaine, E, shrooms ect ect ect.) will live productive and happy lives. Those who have no control over it, well those are the ones that need attention.

This can apply to most anything, but sadly, I have seen too many people go from the control state to the no-control state in a very short span of time, without them being aware of it, and it costing them their family, their homes and their jobs. Denial is a very powerful psychological condition as are recreational drugs. Both should be carefully considered.

[Wild Bill]

GH says,

This can apply to most anything, but sadly, I have seen too many people go from the control state to the no-control state in a very short span of time, without them being aware of it, and it costing them their family, their homes and their jobs. Denial is a very powerful psychological condition as are recreational drugs. Both should be carefully considered.

And if they can't get illegal drugs they will become alcoholics. An addict always needs SOMETHING!

[Dave_ON]

Those who have control over their habits no matter what it is, (alcohol, cocaine, E, shrooms ect ect ect.) will live productive and happy lives. Those who have no control over it, well those are the ones that need attention.

Agreed though I would extend that to all areas of life; all things in moderation. The same applies to alcohol, eating, smoking whatever, too much of anything isn’t good.

[BubberMiley]

And if they can't get illegal drugs they will become alcoholics. An addict always needs SOMETHING!

Fortunately the only thing that would ever prevent someone from getting illegal drugs is if they became legal (see Oxycontin). And I'm not too worried about that happening. Status quo forward.

Edited April 23, 2010 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

And if they can't get illegal drugs they will become alcoholics. An addict always needs SOMETHING!

I find it interesting that even getting the illegal drugs is acceptable "moderation". Since when is trafficking in contraband considered healthy, even in Canada? Dopers rationalize this away by blaming existing law.

[eyeball]

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

Your list is conspicuously short on details but it does clearly say police can enter a residence if,

they have reasonable grounds to believe that there are drugs, drug-related things, or evidence of another offence in your home, which might disappear or be destroyed if they took the time to get a search warrant.

They're definitely sniffing around neighborhoods filled with private residences and I know they've busted people toking up on when out on their back-decks etc.

I can see a Vancouver cop shrugging off the smell of burning pot in Kitsilano but not our small town cops. We're in a Conservative riding and our MP has promised to get rid of drugs and clean up our streets. These are zealous times we live in and in some situations I have little doubt police could in fact bust people after insisting they be allowed into their homes on the basis of having smelled it burning as they were driving past.

Just wait until they start sniffing around for tobacco.

Edited April 23, 2010 by eyeball

[Handsome Rob]

^

That's a fine line against the charter and unreasonable search and seizure.

[Wild Bill]

I find it interesting that even getting the illegal drugs is acceptable "moderation". Since when is trafficking in contraband considered healthy, even in Canada? Dopers rationalize this away by blaming existing law.

Just because a drug is illegal does not mean its harmful, or at least no more harmful than alcohol or some other intoxicant.

The state can make anything illegal for good or bad reasons. It has the power but all too often it is either ignorant or corrupt. Government intelligence is an oxymoron. As I said before, government produced movies like "Reefer Madness" are sadly typical.

Show me a citizen who blindly accepts the necessity for ALL laws and I'll show you a politician's delight!

Nobody should grant their government carte blanche approval. They should examine everything for themselves. Government has proved too many times that it can be incompetent.

So if it declares a drug illegal in the name of "protecting us" and has nothing but inane reasoning to back it up then a citizen has every right to ignore the law!

Mind you, it's only prudent to respect the power of their government. Smoking pot in front of a cop is not a smart idea. The state has the power to punish. It's just that the state can often be a bully with its power. In those cases it has no right to a citizen's respect or voluntary compliance.

A government has a right to absolute compliance only if it is absolutely right! An imperfect government deserves only imperfect compliance. In the final analysis, we are all responsible for our OWN decisions!

[eyeball]

Mind you, it's only prudent to respect the power of their government. Smoking pot in front of a cop is not a smart idea. The state has the power to punish. It's just that the state can often be a bully with its power. In those cases it has no right to a citizen's respect or voluntary compliance.

A government has a right to absolute compliance only if it is absolutely right! An imperfect government deserves only imperfect compliance. In the final analysis, we are all responsible for our OWN decisions!

It's gone beyond that however. Police have encouraged people to form little committees to watch for and report suspicious activity in their neighborhoods for years but now neighbors are also feeling empowered by civil by-laws against certain undesirable behaviors.

So what will tobacco advocates use as the clarion call to liberate themselves from the shackles of injustice and prejudice? I guess it depends on what police use as the code for the suspected illegal use of tobacco.