Legalize Pot! Says Pat Robertson

[dre]

You don't seem to understand the difference between legalizing, and decriminalizing.

You dont seem to understand anything at all.

[Shady]

I admit it isnt the greatest thing for one's lungs, but beyond that, its silly to ban it for any health reasons.

It isn't banned. If you need it for medical reasons, you can apply for it. Not only that, but cops have better things to do than worry about somebody with a couple of joints. Most of the time they couldn't care less.

[Shady]

You dont seem to understand anything at all.

Another dodge. Sad. Do yourself a favour, and brush up on the differences between legalizing and decriminalizing.

[Shady]

How do you feel about banning cheez whiz?

There's no reason to ban cheez whiz, hence why it isn't banned.

Bubber there's never any excuse to say 'pwned'.

Very good point. My guess is that he's really a 15 year old kid playing World of Warcraft.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is just another in many such other threads about legalizing dope. Why can't they get it done after all these years? Why are they pinning their hopes on a geriatric evangelical in another frickin' country?

Oh wait...I know....they're dopers!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Which ones are you referring to?

I don't know none of the links have given the types of carcinogens, hell they don't even give 50 as a for sure number the CCS says, "as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances" as many as eh? So it may vary or they may just be wrong. It also says stupid thing like "some estimate that smoking 3 to 4 marijuana cigarettes per day is roughly equivalent to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes." How many people here know someone who smoke that many a day? People don't smoke them alone they smoke one or two and share it among their friends.

[BubberMiley]

There's no reason to ban cheez whiz, hence why it isn't banned.

It's very unhealthy. If we have universal health care, by your logic, possession of all things unhealthy must be made illegal.

pwned!

[BubberMiley]

What is your signature trying to prove btw? It's not much of a burn...

I have no idea what it means. I think it's trying to claim that words have different versions, differentiated by their spelling. But it's hard to tell.

[dre]

This is just another in many such other threads about legalizing dope. Why can't they get it done after all these years? Why are they pinning their hopes on a geriatric evangelical in another frickin' country?

Oh wait...I know....they're dopers!

No thats more horse shit. Canadians poll around 65-75 in favor of decriminalization, and have for decades but only about 15% of the pop. are users on any kind of regulatar basis.

What that shows you is that the vast majority of people that realize this is terrible public policy dont even use it (I belong to that majority). They just see it costs way too much money and produces absolutely no useful results.

So this whole "they're dopers"

Like I said... supporters of the policy either...

1. Profit from it.

2. Are stupid.

Even most non-users can see the policy is a failure. The stuff is easier to get than ever before... its a massive industry the entire proceeds of which go not to honest regulated businessmen but to organized criminals that then use these proceeds to expend operations into other areas like human trafficking, sexual slavery, extortion, racketeering, etc. Its no different than how alcohol prohibition benefited mobsters and gangsters and made them rich.

And for what result? When they decriminalized pot in Portugal (the only western case study), usage rates barely even changed. So ALL the money they were spending on prohibition was having no effect at all. If thats the case why bother?

[Jack Weber]

Well... the thing is were a few pages into this thread now, and still no argument has been provided in favor of this policy. Just a bunch of intellectually dishonest fallacy.

Tell me why this is a good policy, and how we get our moneys worth out of it. Back it up with some evidence. Then we could maybe have a discussion about this, but until that happens theres not much to do here but laugh at Shady.

Laughing at Shady (The Professor) is a daily sport around here!

And there's nothing wrong with him "pwning" him...It is simply stating the self-evident.

And waiting for another one of his half baked responses only adds to the ceaseless comedy around him!

Havingg said that,way back when I was in Grade 12 Canadian Law,I did an essay/project on the efficacy of legalizing pot.I should say,I was pro-legalization at the time,not because I puffed (I never have),but because I saw it as a matter of practicality.I felt that many people drink,and drink responsibly,so...What would be the difference if someone smoked a joint after work in the privacy of their own home?

In my studies,I got information from the American Lung Institute,the CDC,the American and Canadian Cancer Societies...

As it relates only to chronic Marijuana use (emphasis on chronic use)...There becomes a dependency,like any other hard drug.That is to say,one is addicted without actually calling it an addiction....

Lung cancer rates were 3 to 5 times more prevalent,because in most cases,no one is using a filter on a joint.It would defeat th purpose!

The one that really shocked me was the male and female streility rates AND the chomozomal damage done with chronic daily use.This related to birth defects,immune system problems, and, babies being born mentally retarded.These rates skyrocketed with chronic users.

I concluded that as a matter of practicality in a country with a sicialized health care system that out and out legalization was probably a bad idea.I realize that it is a double standard because of the issue with alcohol,but it was my project,so...Screw all of you...

Anyway...Decriminalization is another issue.Mainly because I don't think if someone is caught with a small amount of pot that they are really doing anyone any harm,other than to themselves.I think it would also greatly curtail the criminal element that is involved in the cultivation and distribution of the weed.That's where the problem,and public saftey issue really is,at least to me.Criminal gangs don't care who they hurt as long as they continue to make money.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Jack Weber

[dre]

Laughing at Shady (The Professor) is a daily sport around here!

And there's nothing wrong with him "pwning" him...It is simply stating the self-evident.

And waiting for another one of his half baked responses only adds to the ceaseless comedy around him!

Havingg said that,way back when I was in Grade 12 Canadian Law,I did an essay/project on the efficacy of legalizing pot.I should say,I was pro-legalization at the time,not because I puffed (I never have),but because I saw it as a matter of practicality.I felt that many people drink,and drink responsibly,so...What would be the difference if someone smoked a joint after work in the privacy of their own home?

In my studies,I got information from the American Lung Institute,the CDC,the American and Canadian Cancer Societies...

As it relates only to chronic Marijuana use (emphasis on chronic use)...There becomes a dependency,like any other hard drug.That is to say,one is addicted without actually calling it an addiction....

Lung cancer rates were 3 to 5 times more prevalent,because in most cases,no one is using a filter on a joint.It would defeat th purpose!

The one that really shocked me was the male and female streility rates AND the chomozomal damage done with chronic daily use.This related to birth defects,immune system problems, and, babies being born mentally retarded.These rates skyrocketed with chronic users.

I concluded that as a matter of practicality in a country with a sicialized health care system that out and out legalization was probably a bad idea.I realize that it is a double standard because of the issue with alcohol,but it was my project,so...Screw all of you...

Anyway...Decriminalization is another issue.Mainly because I don't think if someone is caught with a small amount of pot that they are really doing anyone any harm,other than to themselves.I think it would also greatly curtail the criminal element that is involved in the cultivation and distribution of the weed.That's where the problem,and public saftey issue really is,at least to me.Criminal gangs don't care who they hurt as long as they continue to make money.

I concluded that as a matter of practicality in a country with a sicialized health care system that out and out legalization was probably a bad idea.I realize that it is a double standard because of the issue with alcohol,but it was my project,so...Screw all of you...

But that MUST be predicated on the assumption that usage would go UP, and that the current policies were keeping usage DOWN. And thats the conventional wisdom, but it needs to get revisited.

The only case study we have is portugal, and the conventional wisdom was not borne out there. Usage of most drugs went DOWN after decriminalization, in almost all age groups. Drugs became way less of a problem, not more of one.

But your argument that usage would go UP if prohibition was relaxed or ended, IS the only intelligent argument posted in the thread to date, and its also the argument that TimG posted. And it "seems" right... and I used to believe it but now Im not so sure. What we saw in portugal is that when the money spent on enforcement/prohbition/court/lawyers/prison was instead used to make TREATMENT programs easily available to addicts the number of people seeking treatment went through the roof.

And it makes perfect sense if you think about it. Addiction is a treatable medical condition... why on earth would you expect lawyers, courts and prisons to help? Chances are that dragging users through the legal system makes the MORE likely to use drugs, and meet other people who use and sell drugs, and further immerse them in the drug culture.

Imagine if we put people with bacterial infections in PRISON instead of giving them ANTI-BIOTICS? My guess is that the rates of bacterial infection would go WAY WAY UP. And thats exactly what we do with addicts.

We should follow the root taken by the Portugese. Lets try basing our laws on EVIDENCE for a change.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

(See the world's most influential people in the 2009 TIME 100.)

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz19dp0dD3b

But we wont. Here in STUPID LAND, well keep trying to treat addiction using lawyers and prisons. We deserve exactly what we get.

Edited December 30, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

No thats more horse shit. Canadians poll around 65-75 in favor of decriminalization, and have for decades but only about 15% of the pop. are users on any kind of regulatar basis.

So what....why isn't it legal yet? Let me guess...your next lame excuse will be Pat Robertson and the United States, even though Canada banned cannabis before the US did.

What that shows you is that the vast majority of people that realize this is terrible public policy dont even use it (I belong to that majority). They just see it costs way too much money and produces absolutely no useful results.

Then stop whining and change the goddamn law.

And for what result? When they decriminalized pot in Portugal (the only western case study), usage rates barely even changed. So ALL the money they were spending on prohibition was having no effect at all. If thats the case why bother?

You don't live in Portugal. Stop making excuses....git 'er done....maybe pray to Pat Robertson!

[bush_cheney2004]

....Imagine if we put people with bacterial infections in PRISON instead of giving them ANTI-BIOTICS? My guess is that the rates of bacterial infection would go WAY WAY UP. And thats exactly what we do with addicts.

Bullshit...dopers go to prison for possession of significant quantities and trafficking, not to mention the other social ills, robberies, burglaries, etc. Poor poor addicts!

We should follow the root taken by the Portugese. Lets try basing our laws on EVIDENCE for a change.

Then move to Portugal.

[wyly]

The one that really shocked me was the male and female streility rates AND the chomozomal damage done with chronic daily use.This related to birth defects,immune system problems, and, babies being born mentally retarded.These rates skyrocketed with chronic users.

without looking at the stats I'm willing to bet that all the birth defects combined from "chronic" marijuana use comes nowhere near that of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome(FAS), where even moderate drinking endangers the unborn child's health...and I suspect chronic smokers are nowhere near in numbers than those with an alcohol addiction...

[Shady]

It's very unhealthy.

Complete nonsense. Go back to levelling your World of Warcraft character.

In my studies,I got information from the American Lung Institute,the CDC,the American and Canadian Cancer Societies...

As it relates only to chronic Marijuana use (emphasis on chronic use)...There becomes a dependency,like any other hard drug.That is to say,one is addicted without actually calling it an addiction....

Lung cancer rates were 3 to 5 times more prevalent,because in most cases,no one is using a filter on a joint.It would defeat th purpose!

The one that really shocked me was the male and female streility rates AND the chomozomal damage done with chronic daily use.This related to birth defects,immune system problems, and, babies being born mentally retarded.These rates skyrocketed with chronic users.

I concluded that as a matter of practicality in a country with a sicialized health care system that out and out legalization was probably a bad idea.I realize that it is a double standard because of the issue with alcohol,but it was my project,so...Screw all of you...

Well said. And completely right.

Anyway...Decriminalization is another issue.Mainly because I don't think if someone is caught with a small amount of pot that they are really doing anyone any harm,other than to themselves.

Well said. Some people in this thread are conflating two seperate issues. Legalization vs decriminalization. I'm fine with decriminalization. Some in this forum keep shifting back and forth, using both terms interchangably. Probably not know the difference. Dre is a perfect example.

[Jack Weber]

without looking at the stats I'm willing to bet that all the birth defects combined from "chronic" marijuana use comes nowhere near that of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome(FAS), where even moderate drinking endangers the unborn child's health...and I suspect chronic smokers are nowhere near in numbers than those with an alcohol addiction...

The stats I used came from studies done in the late '60's and early '70's.I was in finishing up high school in the fall of '88,so that was all the information that was available to me at that time...

I think it's safe to say that the acceptability of MJ use in society has gone up in 23 years.I think it's also safe to say that the potency of the MJ available has gone wwwaaaaayyyy up since the late '60's and the potential health risks must have certainly increased,as well...

I don't think it should be legalized...I think that's a disastrous idea knowing what's become of some of the potheads I knew in high school.The usageof the stuff seems to have brought out ,or brought on,some sort of mental illness.I've seen this more than a few time to think that it's more than a coincidence.

As I said before,decriminalization is another matter.I just think cops have better things to do than pinch someone who's smoking a joint...Including the cops I know who might occassionally puff!!!

As far as birth defects go..I'm not getting into this pot vs alcohol arguement because individuals are affected by things differently based on ones metabolism.But I would say that,as the societal acceptance of MJ increases,so will the use by idiotic women while pregnant.Perhaps we have'nt seen the full brunt of this effect yet?

Edited December 31, 2010 by Jack Weber

[eyeball]

If you use the right kind of filter, then you should be alright. It's not so much the smoke, but the tar that one takes in, that is the main issue. But there are filters out there for that that will help in those cases. Most pot smokers don't use a filter like the one on the end of a cigarette.

Pure natural tobacco is not so much an issue either. It is the chemicals that are put into it during the manufacturing process that are the real problem. The chemical content are on the packs of smokes when you buy them.

http://www.helium.com/items/271259-the-contents-of-a-cigarette

Aside from ammonia, you got lead, copper, aluminum, mercury, arsenic, butane... just to name a few. The reason they are present is because of the manufacturing process. None of this stuff is in pot. And none of these items are naturally in tobacco when grown.

I think the issue of our physical health is utterly moot and a red herring no matter who try's to run with it. You can safely eat pot to get all the desired recreational effect, assuming of course you don't saturate the stuff in grease and sugar and any of the other crap you mentioned in the process. But who cares? Although the law doesn't seem to explicitly say so, it's the recreational effect that the state has actually criminalized.

What amazes me about the whole issue is that in the face of legal liquor and tobacco no one has come up with a successful charter challenge against the prohibition of pot.

I would think our section 15 rights to equal benefit before or under the law should do it. Drinkers and smokers should provide all the comparators one would need to base a discrimination case on.

I don't get it, what's the hold up here?

Edited December 31, 2010 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

...I don't get it, what's the hold up here?

Apparently it was Pat Robertson and The 700 Club.

[eyeball]

Complete nonsense. Just because other bad things exist in society, doesn't mean we should allow even more. If cigarettes were a new product being introduced today, they'd never be made legal. In fact, society keeps regulating them, and regulating them. Soon, they'll be regulated out of existence. It doesn't make sense that we're trying to get rid of one harmful substance, while at the sametime making another one legal.

You do realize of course how attitudes like your's only contribute to the state's sense that it has the right to intrude as far as it wants into whatever facet of our lives it chooses too?

"Look, the people want to be cracked down on".

Of all the bad things that exist in society people like you take the real cake.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think it's safe to say that the acceptability of MJ use in society has gone up in 23 years.I think it's also safe to say that the potency of the MJ available has gone wwwaaaaayyyy up since the late '60's and the potential health risks must have certainly increased,as well...

Well you may be right that will be difficult to prove as there is no set standard to measure. Weed from different sources will vary considerably.

[Jack Weber]

Well you may be right that will be difficult to prove as there is no set standard to measure. Weed from different sources will vary considerably.

That's the problem with its illegality...No one can really prove how it affects people longterm because it remains in the shadows.Anecdotally,I have heared from longtime smokers that the stuff they use now,because of better growng techniques,is wwwwaaaayyy more potent than anything from 30 to 40 years ago.

But you're right..If someone makes their own hooch at home,they don't really know the amount of alcohol in it.They might hav a pretty good idea,but not an exact one.

[dre]

So what....why isn't it legal yet? Let me guess...your next lame excuse will be Pat Robertson and the United States, even though Canada banned cannabis before the US did.

Then stop whining and change the goddamn law.

You don't live in Portugal. Stop making excuses....git 'er done....maybe pray to Pat Robertson!

So what....why isn't it legal yet?

I already explained exactly why its still illegal. Why dont you try reading the posts?

Let me guess...your next lame excuse will be Pat Robertson and the United States, even though Canada banned cannabis before the US did.

Thats just a moronic strawman.

Then stop whining and change the goddamn law.

I cant unilaterally change laws.

You don't live in Portugal

Utterly irrelevant. Laws should be based on real evidence, and that is the only test case we have so far.

[BubberMiley]

Complete nonsense. Go back to levelling your World of Warcraft character.

Yes, of course. Everything that is unhealthy is already banned. It must be nice to be able to alter reality to suit your beliefs. I wish there was a drug that did that.

[eyeball]

Apparently it was Pat Robertson and The 700 Club.

That's certainly been the case since the state let the case for prohibition based on racial issues go by the wayside and they replaced these with issues more peculiar to morality.

Prohibition really does seem to be just going on inertia notwithstanding the efforts of Rob Nicholsons and Vic Teows of the world to keep pushing it.

[Jack Weber]

Yes, of course. Everything that is unhealthy is already banned. It must be nice to be able to alter reality to suit your beliefs. I wish there was a drug that did that.

Salt is'nt banned...