WWWTT Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 This subject has bein a classic topic for debate for many decades. Many people here are itchin to debate it in any related thread and I felt that this subject deserves its own thread. Is the conservative government looking out for its citizens interests by discouraging us from using this product/substance/plant? Or is it any of there business to tell us what we should or should not use? Is this a dangerous plant? Or is it as safe as any other cultivated one? I want to make it clear to everyone hear that I do not use cannabis,alcohol,caffeine,nicotine,cocaine,etc,etc.For me they are all the same and are all equal in toxicity or health benefits! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 For me they are all the same and are all equal in toxicity or health benefits! WWWTT Well, I have a neighbour who figures cannabis is a bazillion times better for him than the narcotics that the healthcare system wants to supply him with (at no charge)... so yeah, cannabis laws are going in a dopey direction. (Nyark nyark. Pun intended. Bad, bad pun.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Well, I have a neighbour who figures cannabis is a bazillion times better for him than the narcotics that the healthcare system wants to supply him with (at no charge)... so yeah, cannabis laws are going in a dopey direction. (Nyark nyark. Pun intended. Bad, bad pun.) I think the problem stems from the seed ideas of morality; we have to weed our way through the legislation and hash out a compromise before the whole thing goes to pot. I find the current attitudes somewhat dooby-us... Hey Molly, you're not a nyarc are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Is this a dangerous plant? Or is it as safe as any other cultivated one? I want to make it clear to everyone hear that I do not use cannabis,alcohol,caffeine,nicotine,cocaine,etc,etc.For me they are all the same and are all equal in toxicity or health benefits! I don't use any of the above either, except for the occassional caffeinated cola soft drink (don't drink coffee, tastes gross). However, despite your claim, they are not equal in their toxicity/health benefits. Doctors claim that drinking coffee every morning has basically no negative impact on life expectancy for the average person. (saw this on 'Doctor Oz' lol). Cannabis is far less harmful than alcohol. You can't OD on marijuana. Just looking at the negative health consequences, alcohol should be illegal and marijuana legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 This subject has bein a classic topic for debate for many decades. Many people here are itchin to debate it in any related thread and I felt that this subject deserves its own thread. Is the conservative government looking out for its citizens interests by discouraging us from using this product/substance/plant? Or is it any of there business to tell us what we should or should not use? Is this a dangerous plant? Or is it as safe as any other cultivated one? I want to make it clear to everyone hear that I do not use cannabis,alcohol,caffeine,nicotine,cocaine,etc,etc.For me they are all the same and are all equal in toxicity or health benefits! WWWTT Is the conservative government looking out for its citizens interests by discouraging us from using this product/substance/plant? Im not sure you can make the case that our marijuana laws discourage use, or have any impact on consumption at all. The only western country thats legalized it is portugal, and usage barely changed at all. Its entirely possible/likely that the zillions of dollars we dump into this policy have absolutely no effect on consumption at all. Is this a dangerous plant? Well its a dumb thing to use, and smoking ANYTHING is bad for you. But the most dangerous thing about pot is our horrendously bad policies that criminalize it. We create a huge black market, and take a relatively large sector of the economy, and prohibit honest, regulated, tax-paying businessmen from participating on the supply side. This has the exact same effect that prohibition of alcohol did. It creates a gigantic black market and puts a massive ammount of money in the hands of organized crime, and the revenue stream is used to fund all kinds of other crimes (extortion, sexual slavery, human trafficing, etc etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 I watch the protests outside Niagara hospitals, a new development in Canada. Previous generations would never take to the streets in that way. The new generations of seniors, however, are the children of the sixties who may have participated in anti-war or anti-nuclear protests and may have been part of the unionization of the professions. Now that the medicinal benefits of pot are being recognized by the mainstream medical professions, it seems ridiculous to be criminalizing it further. I suspect it won't be long before there will be protests, as the new laws kick in and people face charges. I mean really . . . What the hell are they thinking! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 It creates a gigantic black market and puts a massive ammount of money in the hands of organized crime, and the revenue stream is used to fund all kinds of other crimes (extortion, sexual slavery, human trafficing, etc etc). It also enables the state to direct more resources into cops and "tough on crime" policies that are red meat to conservative voters and the law enforcement lobby. Our drug policies are almost completely unrelated to drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 It also enables the state to direct more resources into cops and "tough on crime" policies that are red meat to conservative voters and the law enforcement lobby. Our drug policies are almost completely unrelated to drugs. Agreed Dont know if I can find it but I recall reading that a 'certain countries' budget for fighting imported drugs could buy the entire world supply of coke. Spending $10 to save $5 is stupid. The resources this cuontry donates to fight drugs would easily be freed up and applied elsewhere and we would all save. To me what is funny is I know and grew up in the same neighbourhood as our esteemed PM, know the school he went to very well. I assure you he was around and knew the merits and harmlessness of pot, and he knew the people and parents who abused alcohol and the detrimental effects of same. Why age makes you forget all that is.......well politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 It also enables the state to direct more resources into cops and "tough on crime" policies that are red meat to conservative voters and the law enforcement lobby. Our drug policies are almost completely unrelated to drugs. I will say you are correct here. Keeping the drugs illegal justifies having cops to bust people for drugs. We pay for the illegal drugs and we also pay to have cops bust people for illegal drugs. Legalize it all, and let the cops do their real job and go after the real criminals, their bosses. We have over the counter and prescription drugs that are more dangerous than a good deal of the illegal drugs. But even the illegal drugs are used in prescription drugs. Cocaine and opiates come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 I will say you are correct here. Keeping the drugs illegal justifies having cops to bust people for drugs. We pay for the illegal drugs and we also pay to have cops bust people for illegal drugs. Legalize it all, and let the cops do their real job and go after the real criminals, their bosses. We have over the counter and prescription drugs that are more dangerous than a good deal of the illegal drugs. But even the illegal drugs are used in prescription drugs. Cocaine and opiates come to mind. Not just that, criminalation/enforcement is a large industry that a lot of people benefit from. Everyone from trial lawyers, and prison guards, to companies that sell legal drugs. We dump a gigantic ammount of money into the war on drugs, and it all ends up in SOMEONES pockets. Of COURSE they dont want the gravy train to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 This subject has bein a classic topic for debate for many decades. Many people here are itchin to debate it in any related thread and I felt that this subject deserves its own thread. Is the conservative government looking out for its citizens interests by discouraging us from using this product/substance/plant? Or is it any of there business to tell us what we should or should not use? Is this a dangerous plant? Or is it as safe as any other cultivated one? I want to make it clear to everyone hear that I do not use cannabis,alcohol,caffeine,nicotine,cocaine,etc,etc.For me they are all the same and are all equal in toxicity or health benefits! WWWTT The mental heath benefits of cocaine are fleeting and exremely short lived. Freud actually thought that it was a great drug but did not realize the addictive and toxic effects - not to mention...that crimminality eventually thrives on the substance. Caffine jerks you awake and causes the bowel to twitch helping with a good morning poop - I am all for coffee. Booze - dries out the tissues and the brain and can cause injury - along with nasty people who get drunk and act out their most passionate hates and loves - sometimes via violent actions. It's a so so drug. Nictione at one time was a tribal herb to be used sparingly for rituals much like Chrisian incense -But as modern orgainzed legal crimminals devised a "delivery system" It is not a curse.... No POT or cannabis is no longer cannabis these days it is a genetically altered hybred plant that is so intoxicating that it is up there with booze and coke...Biggest draw back is that the side effects are minimal causing the user to continue using on a daily chronic bases - If the greed weed could be further refined by our oh so smart crimminals - to include a side effect similar to an alcohol hang over it might enhance the safety of the substance that is no longer "natural" I say create some pot that would make you vomit and feel miserable the next day - so I don't have to tolerate the chronic users that walk around being half stupified all day long - day after day and getting nothing done - Just dreaming that things are getting done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 The cons are just looking out for their friends in the various organized crime groups across the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 However, despite your claim, they are not equal in their toxicity/health benefits. Doctors claim that drinking coffee every morning has basically no negative impact on life expectancy for the average person. (saw this on 'Doctor Oz' lol). I disagree!But I also agree! Cofee can be abused very easily because for some people it is very addictive,if so it can severely disrupt your sleep. Lack of sleep has been proven to cause many health problems and impairment issues. In fact the lack of sleep or disruption of sleep issue is much more serious than what you may think it is or what many people may think! In my opinion,it is in only your opinion that cafine is more beneficial than the other substances out there. I agree that there are health benefits.In fact many of these so called taboo drugs were first introduced and became popular for their health benefits. I beleive most of us here can agree that abusing or over consumtion is bad. Another good example is food.Without it we would starve to death.But I am sure there are many people here(including me) that would benefit from skipping a meal or cutting back on portion size! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 History has an important lesson for us on prohibition. FDR lifted prohibition in 1933 and we have all become alcoholics. The importance of prohibition then is evident. The abuse of any drug is unwise and unhealthy. Alcohol and psychotropic drugs are all dangerous if abused. The single redeeming feature of alcohol is that it disappears from your system in 24 hours. Other types of recreational drugs do not and harder drugs than marijuana can be detrimental to one's health in very small amounts. Drugs are akin to governments in that we aren't quite sure where to draw the line on how much we can tolerate before they kill us. Don't worry, economics will win out in the war on drugs. It only takes a bad economy and drop in revenues for government to start seeing the error of their ways and starting the dialogue on the legalization, regulation and taxation of this handy little natural source of revenue. We, as citizens, may have to promise not to grow our own though. The potency and purity must be ensured by a government regulatory body. You will have to grow it under the auspices of certified professionals at the local grow op. ....and phooey on those that wish to rob the government of their just revenues by not indulging in this entitlement so benevolently bestowed upon them. As usual, I enjoyed Oleg's post. Almost Miller time! yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 The cons are just looking out for their friends in the various organized crime groups across the country. Drug induced Paranoia strikes again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) I think what it amounts to is that there are different types of people with different values. The ones willing to prohibit access to specific types of drugs are the ones who hold the most votes in Government. Frankly lots of the obese people out there really value food and lack of exercise over "perfect health". This same vice exists for people who prefer to smoke pot rather than air mixed with carfumes that so many in their daily commute take in - perhas some of those same people smoke, take in car fumes and smoke. The government isn't banning rushhour, but it has taken progressive steps to limit access to pot legally and even cigarettes. Direction - it has more or less been the same place for decades. It is not a personal issue for me, but it is for many people I have spoken with over the years, some who feel very strong about the issue. For the next four years however, there is not likely to be any liberalization of pot, on the contrary the current crime agenda is to make drug laws more severe. It is anyones geuss what will happen in 4 years or where the world will perhaps be by then. I really think the government has gone overboard with "health policing". I really think policing should be centered around de-victimization. I don't think pot is inately evil,I don't think it is the work of the devil, and it has been part of culture and for most of that time not illegal for millenia. Now I do think there should be protections for the public, much like I think there should be a move to cleaner vehicles and factories, ones that don't dump their waste into the general publics lap while they have the gain. While I can agree that smoking of marijuana shouldn't be permited in public places much like cigarettes, I do think there should be places in which the property owner grants permission to allow smoking to happen on the premises and that certain zones in a city such as a smoking park be allocated for cigarettes and pot. This might be more severe than current laws in some ways, but I think environmental polution and contamination of individuals who do not wish to have it in them, should have that right. I just know there are circumstances that individual exposure to the stuff can be devestating due to potential fails of drug tests which have gained a lot more weight in peoples lives. I really think that witha public health system, drugs need to be controlled, but not prohibited, and those controls and measures should aim to prevent reckless behaviour that endangers other peoples lives. I have my own model drug strategy. I think decriminalization is important but lets face it meeting that requirement is going to have people wear butplugs so if it is yes or no, it might as well just let it be. The factories and toxic chemicals being dumped into the water are killing us anyway. Edited July 8, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 I think what it amounts to is that there are different types of people with different values. I disagree. Its only "conventional wisdom" that suggests criminalization reduces consumption and the only case studies there is show that isnt true. So even if youre very anti drug and you think nobody should it, theres just no reason to support prohibition. People who support criminalization are the biggest supporters of crime in the country... they just dont know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 I think what it amounts to is that there are different types of people with different values. The ones willing to prohibit access to specific types of drugs are the ones who hold the most votes in Government. For the next four years however, there is not likely to be any liberalization of pot, on the contrary the current crime agenda is to make drug laws more severe. It is anyones geuss what will happen in 4 years or where the world will perhaps be by then. I really think that witha public health system, drugs need to be controlled, but not prohibited, and those controls and measures should aim to prevent reckless behaviour that endangers other peoples lives. I have my own model drug strategy. I think Wild Bill will disagree with you on your first point here. I disagree about your statement about pot laws becoming more harsh in the next few years due do the conservative government. If I am correct it was provincial and/or federal judges and the people who have bein charged(ultimately) in Canada who have been responsible for the relaxing of restrictions. The previous liberal government was just acting according to demands being made from the courts. If the conservative government continues to take a harsh stance,there could be a backlash and the reverse could be the result. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Marijuana can have other negative side effects other than poisoning of the lungs, but there is nothing so great I think that it bears prohibition. Prohibition should be saved for things that screw you up badly, like crystal meth and other things which physically warp you. Ideally it would not be illegal to possess the natural, unprocessed parent of some drugs, like coca leaves, though I am not sure that could be done without giving a boost to the cocaine industry. In any case, given that something like 50% of Canadians have tried marijuana, I have to wonder where the other 50% thinks its authority to make the first 50% criminals comes from... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Marijuana can have other negative side effects other than poisoning of the lungs, but there is nothing so great I think that it bears prohibition. Prohibition should be saved for things that screw you up badly, like crystal meth and other things which physically warp you. Yes, hard drugs are much more harmful and attract the worst of the criminal element, preying on addicts. The problem I see is that a lot of people see marijuana as a gateway drug. It seems to me that is a false assumption. Pot activists should work harder at educating people that casual use does not predispose users to seek out hard drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Marijuana can have other negative side effects other than poisoning of the lungs, but there is nothing so great I think that it bears prohibition. Prohibition should be saved for things that screw you up badly, like crystal meth and other things which physically warp you. Ideally it would not be illegal to possess the natural, unprocessed parent of some drugs, like coca leaves, though I am not sure that could be done without giving a boost to the cocaine industry. In any case, given that something like 50% of Canadians have tried marijuana, I have to wonder where the other 50% thinks its authority to make the first 50% criminals comes from... What I find odd is that it is legal to buy all those poisinous house hold products some of which will kill you instantly, and yet people want to control if I wanna get high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Where the 50% came from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 What I find odd is that it is legal to buy all those poisinous house hold products some of which will kill you instantly, and yet people want to control if I wanna get high? If you poison yourself other drivers will be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 If the conservative government continues to take a harsh stance,there could be a backlash and the reverse could be the result. WWWTT It depends. If the rest of their policies continue to have a wider acceptance than those of other parties, voters could overlook their tough position on pot. A 2010 poll shows most want pot decriminalized. The problem is that many who answered this poll probably don't vote. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/04/14915646.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) I want to make it clear to everyone hear that I do not use cannabis,alcohol,caffeine,nicotine,cocaine,etc,etc.For me they are all the same and are all equal in toxicity or health benefits! WWWTT The real problem though is that marijuana makes nice white kids want to dance and act like Negroes. Talk about going in the wrong direction. But seriously, I'm not being that facetious really, a good part of the original reasons people had for prohibiting narcotics was racism. Notice when our governments still get their ginch in a knot over drugs it's always about the children? Notice however the drugs the government sells causes so many unborn children to become criminals? If I ever become a victim of a drunk driver or a criminal who suffers FAS I'm suing the government for violating my section 15 rights to equal protection. Amongst many of the reasons things like pot are prohibited is the protection of society from people that are impaired. The Liquor Control Act has failed to do that for many tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Assuming prohibition actually is protecting society by preventing millions of Canadians from becoming drug-crazed homicidal maniacs then what does that say about the section 15 rights of victims of alcohol use? Can we honestly say they were protected equally by the laws of the land? It sure doesn't seem like it to me. It's just a good thing for the state that fetuses don't have rights. I can only imagine what might happen in the event of a class-action section 15 Charter challenge by FAS victims. Right now most of them are overcrowding our prisons. Edited July 9, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.