Prince of Pot extradited

DrGreenthumb · May 20, 2010

Despite our silly laws and the USAs sillier laws, I agree with Marc being extradited in this case. That is assuming that for this level of crime (Wither pot or not) would justify extradition.

You support a Canadian being shipped off to a foriegn prison for a law you believe is "silly"? That pretty messed up. The DEA admitted in a press release that the arrest was meant to deal a blow to the legalization movement, and is therefore politically motivated which is supposed make extradition unavailable. He should be charged and tried by a jury of his peers, in his own country, not shipped off to a jurisdiction where the government prefers the harsher penalties. The last person convicted of selling pot seeds in Canada ended up with a 200 dollar fine. Shows how serious our courts see this "crime".

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

...You know many dopers yourself, but are unaware that they are dopers. This is because they have control over it.

But why should an employer tolerate the additional risk? They already spend millions screening for substance abuse because insurance policies and workplace liability demand it. Even legal products are banned in the workplace regardless of one's "control".

Druggies / alcoholics of any kind are bad news, and I remember how much better the military was after urinalysis and gas chromatography tests sent them packing back in the early 80's, along with a bunch of their other pain-in-the-ass behaviors to worship the whacky weed. Cleaning out the dopers cleans out a lot of other associated problems.

DrGreenthumb · May 21, 2010

But why should an employer tolerate the additional risk? They already spend millions screening for substance abuse because insurance policies and workplace liability demand it. Even legal products are banned in the workplace regardless of one's "control".

Druggies / alcoholics of any kind are bad news, and I remember how much better the military was after urinalysis and gas chromatography tests sent them packing back in the early 80's, along with a bunch of their other pain-in-the-ass behaviors to worship the whacky weed. Cleaning out the dopers cleans out a lot of other associated problems.

Flawed logic. So why should they have to tolerate the additional risk of caffeine jumpiness? Prozak zombification, sleeping pills, alcohol, or any number of other LEGAL things that people use? Your argument is invalid.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

Flawed logic. So why should they have to tolerate the additional risk of caffeine jumpiness? Prozak zombification, sleeping pills, alcohol, or any number of other LEGAL things that people use? Your argument is invalid.

They don't, and they take steps to intervene as I have already stated. So why would they embrace yet another risk just so dopers can think the world is "fair"? This is a childish exercise in rationalization where none exists in the face of actual workplace loss experience, reduced productivity, theft, time/attendance issues, etc. Legalizing dope would do little to remove existing employment barriers to substance abuse. Stoners, just like drunks, do not have a right to a job.

DrGreenthumb · May 21, 2010

They don't, and they take steps to intervene as I have already stated. So why would they embrace yet another risk just so dopers can think the world is "fair"? This is a childish exercise in rationalization where none exists in the face of actual workplace loss experience, reduced productivity, theft, time/attendance issues, etc. Legalizing dope would do little to remove existing employment barriers to substance abuse. Stoners, just like drunks, do not have a right to a job.

I actually don't care if employers want to drug test people, and deny them jobs if they test positive, in fact I support that they have that right. That doesn't mean it should be illegal however. "stoners" and "drunks" can find work elsewhere, and boycott business who they think treat people unfairly. I reserve the right NOT to hire anyone who DOESN't smoke pot. Thats MY right.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

I actually don't care if employers want to drug test people, and deny them jobs if they test positive, in fact I support that they have that right. That doesn't mean it should be illegal however. "stoners" and "drunks" can find work elsewhere, and boycott business who they think treat people unfairly. I reserve the right NOT to hire anyone who DOESN't smoke pot. Thats MY right.

Sure they could, but mostly they don't. The proud dopers are far more likely to try and dodge screening tests, buy "clean" urine, or try masking agents. They want it both ways....choice employment and the right to smoke, inject, snort, or ingest dope.

I can legally carry a concealed firearm, but that right stops at my employer's parking lot (private property).

Sir Bandelot · May 21, 2010

It wouldn't be more of a burden on employers than it already is. Many employers already test for drugs now, including pot.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

It wouldn't be more of a burden on employers than it already is. Many employers already test for drugs now, including pot.

Sure it would....the legalization of illicit drugs would have a pronounced effect on employers, campuses, hospitals, military, etc. for not only use, but abuse at higher levels than currently experienced.

DrGreenthumb · May 21, 2010

Sure it would....the legalization of illicit drugs would have a pronounced effect on employers, campuses, hospitals, military, etc. for not only use, but abuse at higher levels than currently experienced.

and we should accept that this will happen because YOU say so? Sorry not buying it. Everybody who wants to smoke pot already ignores the law . Legalization would provide a share of the profits to government instead of organized crime, and help pay for our social safety net. When pot use is tolerated usually alcoholism and hard drug use go down.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

and we should accept that this will happen because YOU say so? Sorry not buying it. Everybody who wants to smoke pot already ignores the law . Legalization would provide a share of the profits to government instead of organized crime, and help pay for our social safety net. When pot use is tolerated usually alcoholism and hard drug use go down.

You are persisting a hazy rationalization. I am persisting the practical realities of employment, liability, insurance, performance, attendance, human resources, etc. You can't just wave a magic joint and declare all the benefits of dope from heaven without also recognizing the real issues presently experienced and magnified with legalization.

People who buy illicit drugs are hardly worried about the law or "our social safety net". They are consumers and traffickers of contraband.

Edited May 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

DrGreenthumb · May 21, 2010

You are persisting a hazy rationalization. I am persisting the practical realities of employment, liability, insurance, performance, attendance, human resources, etc. You can't just wave a magic joint and declare all the benefits of dope from heaven without also recognizing the real issues presently experienced and magnified with legalization.

People who buy illicit drugs are hardly worried about the law or "our social safety net". They are consumers and traffickers of contraband.

I don't deny that there can be some negatives for some people, but the prohibition lovers exagerate the hell out those possible negatives, and I havn't seen anything to suggest that legalization would make anything worse. When its not contraband anymore they will be tax paying consumers, helping to support the legitimate ecomomy. Their motivations are irrelevant

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

I don't deny that there can be some negatives for some people, but the prohibition lovers exagerate the hell out those possible negatives, and I havn't seen anything to suggest that legalization would make anything worse. When its not contraband anymore they will be tax paying consumers, helping to support the legitimate ecomomy. Their motivations are irrelevant

That is your argument? A new source of tax revenue? Using that logic, we could do away with many other inconvenient laws, from speeding to kiddie porn. California is already seeing the value of its "cash crop" drop dramatically with legalization of medical cannabis.

How are the "tax paying" consumers going to remain gainfully employed ?

DrGreenthumb · May 21, 2010

That is your argument? A new source of tax revenue? Using that logic, we could do away with many other inconvenient laws, from speeding to kiddie porn. California is already seeing the value of its "cash crop" drop dramatically with legalization of medical cannabis.

How are the "tax paying" consumers going to remain gainfully employed ?

The same way we do now.

Another Moron who is going to compare pot smoking to kiddie porn? If you are going to make such stupid arguments you will be added to my ignore list as you are not worth my time.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

The same way we do now.

Another Moron who is going to compare pot smoking to kiddie porn? If you are going to make such stupid arguments you will be added to my ignore list as you are not worth my time.

Be my guest...stamp your feet and run away because yet another person doesn't agree with your position. This is why dopers haven't been successful in legalization efforts to date. Just because you want legal receational drugs which are presently banned, all other considerations are meaningless and not "worth your time".

DrGreenthumb · May 21, 2010

Be my guest...stamp your feet and run away because yet another person doesn't agree with your position. This is why dopers haven't been successful in legalization efforts to date. Just because you want legal receational drugs which are presently banned, all other considerations are meaningless and not "worth your time".

Nope, ignorant people who equate something as victimless as pot smoking with child molestation and kiddie porn, abhorrent crimes with clear victims, are not worth engaging because they are just to stupid to unsterstand logic no matter how many times you present it to them. So I can't be bothered with your type anymore, better more constructive things to do, sorry.

BubberMiley · May 21, 2010

Sure it would....the legalization of illicit drugs would have a pronounced effect on employers, campuses, hospitals, military, etc. for not only use, but abuse at higher levels than currently experienced.

Actually, it would have no effect. You just don't know what you're talking about again.

Unless, of course, you think the only thing keeping you from becoming a doper is the law against it. :lol:

Edited May 21, 2010 by BubberMiley

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

.... So I can't be bothered with your type anymore, better more constructive things to do, sorry.

Good luck with that....pot is still illegal after all your "constructive" things to do.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

Actually, it would have no effect. You just don't know what you're talking about again.

Unless, of course, you think the only thing keeping you from becoming a doper is the law against it.

And what makes you an expert? The dope? LOL! You know, it really isn't a fair fight arguing with dopers.

ZenOps · May 21, 2010

There is a bigger issue here too.

He is a Canadian citizen kicked out of Canada at the request of the US. Whos the bitch in this case? Are we so weak that we cannot find justice for our own citizens?

Can we kick Rob Anders out of Canada too?

Side notes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325

Calfornia readys legalization in November, 694,248 verified signatures, 44% favour legalization in gallup.

If it passes - will significantly drop the street price of marijuanna around the world, much to the dismay of many current growers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28354324/ns/business-cnbc_tv/

20 foot high plants - yowza. Use Emerys pot knowledge and expertise and BAM - instant 4 or 5 Billion dollars extra each year. Like growing Monsanto canola. And we extradited this guy? Geez I hope we got a few billion for him.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ZenOps

BubberMiley · May 21, 2010

And what makes you an expert?

Do you have data that would indicate consumption would increase with decriminalization? I didn't think so.

Damn, it's easy debating with trolls. They spout off about things they don't understand, and when you point that out, they try and claim to be a nuclear scientist or something. :lol:

GostHacked · May 21, 2010

Do you have data that would indicate consumption would increase with decriminalization? I didn't think so.

Damn, it's easy debating with trolls. They spout off about things they don't understand, and when you point that out, they try and claim to be a nuclear scientist or something.

Amsterdam even legalized prostitution, the Dutch seem to be doing just fine. Society has not collapsed there since pot and prostitution was legalized. And for the record it's not exactly legal in Amsterdam either, but it's tolerated and there are places for that type of thing. Seems like a decent system.

Take away the illegal element here and you could find a huge reduction in consumption. Most people do illegal things for the thrill of doing something illegal and getting away with it. Take that away, and the 'fun' goes with it. And if it means cheaper pot for me, then legalize away.

If it is ever legalized, I may not buy it ever again, instead i'll be able to grow a few plants for my personal use. I'll probably fail at it because I suck at gardening, hell I can't even keep a cactus alive in my house. And they are the easiest plants to take care of.

Sir Bandelot · May 21, 2010

The data is to the contrary, there wouldn't be a massive increase in long term use of marijuana if it became legal. And most people are responsible with their substances, eg. alcohol. Given the choice to be drunk or high on the job, and get fired the vast majority will be wise enough to keep it at home.

GostHacked · May 21, 2010

The data is to the contrary, there wouldn't be a massive increase in long term use of marijuana if it became legal.

I would tend to agree.

And most people are responsible with their substances, eg. alcohol. Given the choice to be drunk or high on the job, and get fired the vast majority will be wise enough to keep it at home.

Indeed. People who are smart won't ever have a problem with it. If you are drunk or high on the job, I don't want you around at all and that would indicate you have more problems than just the booze or pot. I work around lots of heavy machinery, if you are not on your game, I don't want you driving that 8 tonne forklift.

Wild Bill · May 21, 2010

Be my guest...stamp your feet and run away because yet another person doesn't agree with your position. This is why dopers haven't been successful in legalization efforts to date. Just because you want legal receational drugs which are presently banned, all other considerations are meaningless and not "worth your time".

I'm missing something here, BC. I can understand how you might disagree with the good Dr. but is it your position that Prohibition IS a successful and cost-effective policy?

I would REALLY like to hear how you could defend that one! Drug lords making fortunes because of their products being illegal will be cheering for you!

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2010

I'm missing something here, BC. I can understand how you might disagree with the good Dr. but is it your position that Prohibition IS a successful and cost-effective policy?

Compared to what? The legal production, distribution, and sale of scheduled substances occurs on a regular basis but there are still problems associated with addiction, crime, rehab, etc. Decriminalization and legalization are two very different ideas.

I would REALLY like to hear how you could defend that one! Drug lords making fortunes because of their products being illegal will be cheering for you!

And I would like you to make the case for legal and open sale of opiates, synthetic drugs, etc.