Legalize Pot! Says Pat Robertson

[Saipan]

Hundreds of thousands of people profit from criminalization including some powerful groups such as trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

I never knew lawyers and pharmacies were pushing MJ.

[dre]

I never knew lawyers and pharmacies were pushing MJ.

Thats not what I said.

[eyeball]

Thats not what I said.

Give him a few minutes and it won't be what he said either.

[Saipan]

Thats not what I said.

You said: "Hundreds of thousands of people profit from criminalization including some powerful groups such as trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, etc."

HOW?

[Battletoads]

I believe that this government has made the statement... that we are bound by some sort of treaty obligations... under the UN...

in other words want to change it now? No chance.

Really, this goes beyond federal.

Globalization means, you are bound to obey the will and purpose of others.

Oh, a UN treaty, well we better not break that. The consequences would be dire

As a British Columbian I can tell you anyone against the legalization of pot is either:

a: A Criminal

b: An Idiot

Edited December 29, 2010 by Battletoads

[Sir Bandelot]

Oh, a UN treaty, well we better not break that. The consequences would be dire

As a British Columbian I can tell you anyone against the legalization of pot is either:

a: A Criminal

b: An Idiot

And yet strangely, we have 53% against proposition 19 in California. Thats a lot of people.

So which are they, by your reckoning

[Battletoads]

And yet strangely, we have 53% against proposition 19 in California. Thats a lot of people.

So which are they, by your reckoning

Mostly b.

[BubberMiley]

You said: "Hundreds of thousands of people profit from criminalization including some powerful groups such as trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, etc."

HOW?

Uh...trial lawyers from, uh, trials. Pharmaceutical companies by pushing dangerous, lethal, addictive drugs like ativan and xanax to people who would be better remedied by one small nonaddictive puff of weed.

[Saipan]

Uh...trial lawyers from, uh, trials. Pharmaceutical companies by pushing dangerous, lethal, addictive drugs like ativan and xanax to people who would be better remedied by one small nonaddictive puff of weed.

There were no trial lawyers before pot? How do harmaceutical companies benefit from pot either way.

[bush_cheney2004]

There were no trial lawyers before pot? How do harmaceutical companies benefit from pot either way.

The dopers think/hope we would all abandon pharmaceuticals and smoke pot instead for pain relief, stress, mental disorders, etc....you know, just like dopers do today!

Edited December 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

There were no trial lawyers before pot? How do harmaceutical companies benefit from pot either way.

Uh...more people getting charged equals more work equals more money.

And pharmaceutical companies benefit because antidepressant use is increasing rapidly and is now at 10% of the population. If people were able to grow a plant in their basement rather than shell out thousands of dollars a year for a more dangerous, addictive product, don't you think they would?

And don't you think pharmaceutical companies would work to prevent that?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If people were able to grow a plant in their basement rather than shell out thousands of dollars a year for a more dangerous, addictive product, don't you think they would?

Not in exchange for lung cancer.

And don't you think pharmaceutical companies would work to prevent that?

No....they would just grow better dope.

[BubberMiley]

Not in exchange for lung cancer.

No....they would just grow better dope.

No evidence that weed causes lung cancer. If that's all you got, you're as impotent as a weed addict.

But dope is dope. It's a plant. It can be bred in the basement to better quality than the feds can do in the mine in Flin Flon.

[Saipan]

No evidence that weed causes lung cancer.

Too bad. It would be safer to get all the dopes out of the roads and highways sooner.

[BubberMiley]

I appreciate it when people on this forum are upfront about their level of intelligence, and don't try to weasel around with wishy-washy language, trying to sound smarter than they are.

[bush_cheney2004]

No evidence that weed causes lung cancer. If that's all you got, you're as impotent as a weed addict.

But dope is dope. It's a plant. It can be bred in the basement to better quality than the feds can do in the mine in Flin Flon.

If you say so...can you make better aspirin too?

(Tsk...tsk...this is why it is called dope.)

[BubberMiley]

Still waiting for evidence on the cancer claim.

I guess, once again, you don't know what you're talking about so you'll have to quickly change the subject to something irrelevant to deflect from that fact.

In the meantime, only god can make a tree.

Edited December 30, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Saipan]

Only man can turn it into lumber.

[BubberMiley]

But you don't find any lumber anymore in the basement stuff.

No stress, no seeds, no stems, no sticks.

Some of that real sticky icky.

Ooo Wee, put it in the air.

[Shady]

No evidence that weed causes lung cancer.

Are you an idiot? You think breathing smoke into your lungs is healthy? You think inhaling some of the same ingredients found in tobacco is healthy?

[Shady]

Still waiting for evidence on the cancer claim.

How about the Canadian Cancer Society? Shithead drug pusher.

marijuana and cigarette smoking contain as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances and the resulting probability of harm associated with long-term use of marijuana and with exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke, the Canadian Cancer Society recommends that exposure to marijuana smoke should be avoided.

CCS

[dre]

You said: "Hundreds of thousands of people profit from criminalization including some powerful groups such as trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, etc."

HOW?

Trial lawyers bill out billions of dollars for marijuana cases. I have a freind thats a criminal defense lawyer here in town and he told me marijuana cases account for more than 15% of his income. Were talking billions of dollars. Pharmy companies profit because they provide alternative substances... like THC pills and many drugs that do things pot can also do for people in chronic pain, people with epilepsy, cancer, etc.

Then you have organized crime, and black market activity. In BC where I live the marijuana trade is a bigger industry than FORESTRY. Proceeds are in the millions of dollars.

In general the people that support prohibition are either part of one of these groups that profit from it, or theyre just stupid.

Edited December 30, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Are you an idiot? You think breathing smoke into your lungs is healthy? You think inhaling some of the same ingredients found in tobacco is healthy?

Who cares if its healthy or not?

Do you want the government to decide which choices are healthy, and throw you in jail if you choose different?

[TimG]

In general the people that support prohibition are either part of one of these groups that profit from it, or theyre just stupid.

I think you are assuming too much about what people oppose and why the do it. From my perspective, I could support the complete decriminalization of the production, distribution and sale of weed. i.e. treat it like alcohol. The trouble is no one is actually proposing that because Canada is locked into international agreements that require it to keep weed production and distribution criminalized. This means the only changes being discussed are half measures that would make it legal to possess weed but not produce it. These half measures would make the organizaed crime problem even worse by increasing demand for the product that only criminals can produce. For that reason I oppose the half measures.

That said, I would be really like to see Canadian politicians take this issue to international forums and try to eliminate the need to keep production criminalized. If opinion leaders like Pat Robertson are showing signs of flexibility this might be the right time to move this issue forward on the international stage.

Edited December 30, 2010 by TimG

[BubberMiley]

How about the Canadian Cancer Society? Shithead drug pusher.

Yes, and they say in your link: "To date, no epidemiological studies have consistently confirmed an association between long-term marijuana use and cancer risk."

I accept your apology.