Prince of Pot extradited

[eyeball]

As far as restricting marijuana as we do with tobacco, I've never agreed with the war on nicotine either. I'll go so far as allowing VOLUNTARY smoking and non-smoking areas or clubs/restaurants but I consider the present status quo just social engineering fascism.

When you start removing an adult citizen's personal choices you lose both my support and my respect.

I hear you but lets face it, if everyone who takes tobacco and alcohol was treated the same way as anyone else who does drugs...It should be like your story in that Texas bar, the minute some dillhole of a state points its guns at one group of druggies... all you should here is....click click click click click.

We're all involved in the state's War on Liberty and you're either with us or you're with the state. Dillholes like Shady are clearly with the State.

[Smallc]

Wild Bill is...a bit off. Your rights to extend your fist doesn't go as far as my face. The same goes for weapons, cigarettes, etc. We can't do whatever we want wherever we want, because it affects others.

[Shady]

We're all involved in the state's War on Liberty

Of course you are. You're all Johnny-come-lately, one issue liberty warriors. Other than this one exception, you and the rest love your government intrusion and regulation. You love telling people how much of their own income they're allowed to keep. You love banning private health insurance. You love telling people where and when they're allowed to smoke (as long as it's not pot). You love telling people what kinds of energy we produce. You love telling people what energy we shouldn't produce, and where we shouldn't produce it. You love telling people what kind of car they should drive. You love telling people how much carbon they can produce. You love telling people what kind of food they should eat, etc, etc, etc.

And you really love creating laws to enforce it all.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Shady

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill is...a bit off. Your rights to extend your fist doesn't go as far as my face. The same goes for weapons, cigarettes, etc. We can't do whatever we want wherever we want, because it affects others.

Sorry, Smallc, I consider that to be a specious argument.

If protecting non-smokers from passive smoke was the TRUE basis for anti-nicotine laws, then there's no reason why a club or restaurant couldn't choose to be totally smoking, with clear notices above their doors! Any non-smoker who was concerned could simply choose another establishment.

That's not the way things work. NO club and NO restaurant ANYWHERE can allow smoking! This is far and beyond what is necessary to protect non-smokers. It simply means that there are very few places for smokers to smoke. Now we have laws preventing people from smoking in their own apartments and movements toward banning it in your own home if you have children. Already smoking is illegal in Ontario in your won car if you have children with you, EVEN IF THE WINDOWS ARE WIDE OPEN OR EVEN IF YOU'RE DRIVING A CONVERTIBLE!

There is so much overkill that the idea that it's all about protecting others becomes trivial. It is just another lever to try to discourage smoking. I might at least respect the people behind such measures if they were honest enough to admit they are trying to force others to choose as they want them to do but instead they outright lie and claim to be merely "protecting non-smokers".

Incidently, I haven't smoked in years so please, could others refrain from making claims that nicotine addiction has rotted my brain past the ability to think clearly or other ridiculous bunf!

[Smallc]

Sorry, Smallc, I consider that to be a specious argument.

If protecting non-smokers from passive smoke was the TRUE basis for anti-nicotine laws, then there's no reason why a club or restaurant couldn't choose to be totally smoking, with clear notices above their doors! Any non-smoker who was concerned could simply choose another establishment.

Smoking isn't a right...security of person is. Whether you choose to believe it or not, second and third hand smoke are very dangerous. You may not wan to admit it, but there are clearly defined and laid out studies that show what second and third hand smoke do.

[normanchateau]

But once again, the pro-dope advocate position seems to be, those things are bad, so we should promote another bad thing as well. Actually, no we shouldn't. Tobacco and alcohol were introduced into society centuries ago. It's not like those things were just allowed, and marijuana's being discriminated against.

You pro-dopers don't seem to understand.

Do you seriously believe that marijuana was only recently introduced to society? It's been around for thousands of years. In 1923, without any parliamentary debate or medical evidence whatsoever, marijuana became illegal in Canada. In 1937, marijuana became illegal in the United States.

Despite being a far more dangerous substance, alcohol was not prohibited at any time by the Government of Canada even though a 1898 referendum revealed that a majority of voters in all provinces (except Quebec) favoured alcohol prohibition. Various Canadian provinces introduced alcohol prohibition laws between 1900 and 1919. Those laws were repealed shortly after marijuana became illegal in Canada.

So in the early part of the twentieth century, the status quo in most of Canada was that marijuana was legal but alcohol was illegal. If a social conservative like Stephen Harper could be transported back 100 years to 1910, would he support the status quo and the Women's Christian Temperance Union?

[Shady]

Do you seriously believe that marijuana was only recently introduced to society?

I never said that. I said that tobacco and alcohol have been accepted in our soceity for decades and decades. Marijuana has not.

It's been around for thousands of years. In 1923, without any parliamentary debate or medical evidence whatsoever, marijuana became illegal in Canada.

Well, we have medical and scientific evidence now. Plenty of it.

If a social conservative like Stephen Harper could be transported back 100 years to 1910, would he support the status quo and the Women's Christian Temperance Union?

I don't care about Stephen Harper. I also don't care about the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

[normanchateau]

I never said that. I said that tobacco and alcohol have been accepted in our soceity for decades and decades. Marijuana has not.

Your logic makes no sense. If marijuana has been around for thousands of years and only became illegal in the twentieth century, it's use was accepted for centuries.

[Shady]

Your logic makes no sense. If marijuana has been around for thousands of years and only became illegal in the twentieth century, it's use was accepted for centuries.

Not in our society. Canada isn't centuries old.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Not in our society. Canada isn't centuries old.

But it was accepted in the societies that formed Canada. All of which are centuries old.

[ZenOps]

Entertaining ADD version of a brief history of weed (also don't miss part II)

Christoper Columbus did actually have a full shipload of Cannabis for the ridiculously long and boring voyages. It helped to keep mutinies down, lol.

[Smallc]

Not in our society. Canada isn't centuries old.

Canada is in fact centuries old, if not officially...unless you think that this place didn't exist leading up to 1867.

[Shady]

But it was accepted in the societies that formed Canada. All of which are centuries old.

No it wasn't. But even if we accept your premise as correct. It doesn't mean that it should be legalized now. Especially with all of the scientific and medical evidence we have. Especially when we're already in the process of restricting and getting rid of tobacco.

Society has made its decision.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wild Bill is...a bit off. Your rights to extend your fist doesn't go as far as my face. The same goes for weapons, cigarettes, etc. We can't do whatever we want wherever we want, because it affects others.

Agreed....and this is an excellent example of a skewed perspective that worships the right to smoke pot, regardless of the consequences. Smoking (anything) is being outlawed in many public and private places because of the health impact on others, health care costs, and workplace productivity.

Quite literally....smokers suck!

[ZenOps]

Agreed....and this is an excellent example of a skewed perspective that worships the right to smoke pot, regardless of the consequences. Smoking (anything) is being outlawed in many public and private places because of the health impact on others, health care costs, and workplace productivity.

Quite literally....smokers suck!

If you mean a health impact like being able to win 14 gold medals at the olympics or become a democratic president, then sign me up!

Tobacco isn't really the same thing - every drug is different. Alcohol is a depressant, Caffiene is a stimulant. Derivatives of caffiene are banned at the olympics because they give an unfair advantage.

A lot of people I know - all Cannabis does is make them sleepy, lol.

Edited May 23, 2010 by ZenOps

[eyeball]

Of course you are. You're all Johnny-come-lately, one issue liberty warriors. Other than this one exception, you and the rest love your government intrusion and regulation. You love telling people how much of their own income they're allowed to keep. You love banning private health insurance. You love telling people where and when they're allowed to smoke (as long as it's not pot). You love telling people what kinds of energy we produce. You love telling people what energy we shouldn't produce, and where we shouldn't produce it. You love telling people what kind of car they should drive. You love telling people how much carbon they can produce. You love telling people what kind of food they should eat, etc, etc, etc.

And you really love creating laws to enforce it all.

Nope. What I really love are laws that are consistent with our stated principles. If they're not then screw them and the state that tries to enforce them, I'll take anarchy over that type of state any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[normanchateau]

Not in our society. Canada isn't centuries old.

Approximately a century ago, a majority of Canadians voted for alcohol prohibition in a national referendum. Does that indicate social acceptance of alcohol?

[Guest TrueMetis]

No it wasn't. But even if we accept your premise as correct. It doesn't mean that it should be legalized now. Especially with all of the scientific and medical evidence we have. Especially when we're already in the process of restricting and getting rid of tobacco.

Society has made its decision.

I've got a question why do you ignore the medical properties of canabis?

[Wild Bill]

Smoking isn't a right...security of person is. Whether you choose to believe it or not, second and third hand smoke are very dangerous. You may not wan to admit it, but there are clearly defined and laid out studies that show what second and third hand smoke do.

Non sequitur. I thought my point was clear. If non-smokers were clearly warned that a restaurant allowed smoking they could stay out. How on earth would they then be at risk?

If a mother has her car windows down as she drives her kids to school, realistically to how much smoke would her children be exposed? What if it were a convertible?

I made no comment whatsoever about the dangers of passive smoke and yet that's what you bring up, ignoring the point I actually DID make! Do you wonder why I keep putting you on 'ignore'?

[Wild Bill]

Not in our society. Canada isn't centuries old.

Who do you mean by "our society"? Yourself and your friends down at Timmy's?

Millions of Canadians disagree with you. I guess they're NOT "our society"! Perhaps we should put the issue to a national referendum? I think you might be quite surprised.

You sound like a member of the Christian Right, who believes that they actually are the majority, it's just that the majority tends to be silent. Stockwell Day found out he was dead wrong on that perception when he won the leadership of the old Reform Party. I've no doubt he cringes even today at the sight of a Barney the Dinosaur stuffed doll.

Hell, "our society" as a general rule couldn't explain how an electric lamp works, even though it's a simple device over a century old. Wasn't that long ago "our society" thought the Sun orbited around the Earth. Wouldn't surprise me if a majority still did!

Anyhow, when you make a claim as to how "our society" thinks on an issue you might consider getting outside of your own Walter Ostanek Polka Fan Club and asking a reasonable number of people how they really feel!

Edited May 23, 2010 by Wild Bill

[DrGreenthumb]

I don't know who these pro-pot advocates are the Shady thinks support criminalizing tobacco use or even the current fascist laws against allowing private business owners to allow it in their establishments. It is certainly not about protecting non-smokers. Private owners would surely open non-smoking bars for the whiny non-smokers and those whiners could use their own free will not to frequent establishments that allow smoking. The market would take care of this on its own without state interference into people's private decisions. I don't need a state babysitter, I'm a grown man and do not need Health Enforcement Officers running around making sure I don't make any unhealthy choices. THAT is not freedom. Sports injuries cost the health care system millions per year, using Shady's logic we should ban sports , cheeseburgers and anything else that could have even a remote possibility of causing harm to anyone. Why does Shady hate freedom?

[Smallc]

If a mother has her car windows down as she drives her kids to school, realistically to how much smoke would her children be exposed? What if it were a convertible?

Look up third hand smoke. You ma be surprised.

I made no comment whatsoever about the dangers of passive smoke and yet that's what you bring up, ignoring the point I actually DID make! Do you wonder why I keep putting you on 'ignore'?

I'm not ignoring any point you made, and quite frankly, it doesn't bother me if you put me on ignore. I'll debate the points that I want to and you can choose whether or not to respond. That's up to you. I disagree with you that people should have to suffer in public because other people think they have a right to wave around their dirty habit. I think that people should be able to do what they want, in privacy, as long as there is not much of a risk to others. In public, I think that goes out the window.

[normanchateau]

Society has made its decision.

I assume you are referring to Canadian society. A majority of Canadians support the legalization of marijuana:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canadian_majority_would_legalize_marijuana1/

Remarkably, the percentage of Albertans supporting legalization is even higher:

http://endprohibition.ca/group/endprohibition/reefer-madness-automatic-jail-six-pot-plants-too-harsh

On this issue, Harper is even out of step with his strongest supporters. No wonder, a Harper majority is a frightening prospect. If Harper can ignore the opinion of most Canadians while holding a minority in Parliament, what will he do with a majority?

[DrGreenthumb]

Look up third hand smoke. You ma be surprised.

I'm not ignoring any point you made, and quite frankly, it doesn't bother me if you put me on ignore. I'll debate the points that I want to and you can choose whether or not to respond. That's up to you. I disagree with you that people should have to suffer in public because other people think they have a right to wave around their dirty habit. I think that people should be able to do what they want, in privacy, as long as there is not much of a risk to others. In public, I think that goes out the window.

A private business or club is not "public", nor publicly owned. Their right to be free from smoke exposure ends with the right not to enter said establishment. If I want to open a restaurant or bar called "smokers only" non-smokers can protect themselves by staying the F$%k out. As for outdoor smoking give me a break, when they ban car exhaust in public then talk to me. The minute amount of exposure outside isn't going to give anyone cancer. It is only a loud minority of whiners who don't like the smell, who want to force their will on others. Mostly ex-smokers are the loudest whiners who complain mostly because smelling it makes it harder for them to resist their own cravings, because they are weak.

[Shady]

A lot of people I know - all Cannabis does is make them sleepy, lol.

A lot of people I know - all cocaine does is make them alert.

What I really love are laws that are consistent with our stated principles.

Me too. And our current marijuana laws serve that purpose.

Approximately a century ago, a majority of Canadians voted for alcohol prohibition in a national referendum. Does that indicate social acceptance of alcohol?

No. But the fact that it was short-lived definitely does.

I've got a question why do you ignore the medical properties of canabis?

I don't. But you don't need to legalize marijuana to take advantage of them.

I don't need a state babysitter, I'm a grown man and do not need Health Enforcement Officers running around making sure I don't make any unhealthy choices. THAT is not freedom. Sports injuries cost the health care system millions per year, using Shady's logic we should ban sports , cheeseburgers and anything else that could have even a remote possibility of causing harm to anyone. Why does Shady hate freedom?

Generally I agree with you. You make a good point regarding sports, or cheeseburgers, etc. But what this whole discussion illustrates is how unbelievably liberty stealing socialized medicine is. We should definitely have the freedom to smoke tobacco, or smoke pot, or eat cheeseburgers, or play sports. And we should definitely have the freedom to face the consequences of our actions. We should be providing for our own healthcare and our own health insurance. That way your actions, or my actions don't become my business or yours. But unfortuantely, that isn't the case. And since everyone pays for everyone else, our lifestyles and health habits become everyone's business and/or concern.