Should Marijuana Be Legal?

[Black Dog]

Nothing but more non-science factoids when there is so much junk science within easy reach?

And you've not even offered the pretense of evidence to support your common sense-defying claims. Pitiful.

[jacee]

Nothing but more non-science factoids when there is so much junk science within easy reach?

You are entitled to your opinion, and to your choice of mild intoxicants ... or not.

Trying to present your opinion as fact, however, without supporting evidence or observations, is just hyperbole - weak debate.

[sharkman]

And you've not even offered the pretense of evidence to support your common sense-defying claims. Pitiful.

No I haven't, and for a particular reason. But I feel ashamed now that you've called me pitiful(please note jacee I didn't freak out over the insult). Perhaps some pot would set me right?

[BubberMiley]

The problem with this topic is there is no reasonable argument against legalization and the pro-legalization folks know it. Their opposition is more political than anything, so they just wind up trolling the debate with condescension and name-calling because they have nothing else. It reminds me of the old gay marriage debate.

Edited September 17, 2013 by BubberMiley

[jacee]

(please note jacee I didn't freak out over the insult).

BD didn't say YOU were pitiful - a personal insult.

He said your debating tactics were pitiful.

That's allowed.

[sharkman]

i didn't say he said I was pitiful. I simply called it an insult. Get it?

[jacee]

The problem with this topic is there is no reasonable argument against legalization and the pro-legalization folks know it. Their opposition is more political than anything, so they just wind up trolling the debate with condescension and name-calling because they have nothing else.

Some people will always think their choices should be foisted on everyone.

I think they should lighten up.

Live and let live.

Maybe they'll change their tune when the sin tax money starts rolling in to the public coffers from legal marijuana.

It'll pay for a lot of health care.

Edited September 17, 2013 by jacee

[roy baty]

I know very well someone who has consumed weed every day for 30 years. He is in peak health, has no negative side effects, and is a productive member of society. He is "mentally" addicted in that it gives pleasure and he seeks that pleasure because he enjoys it. But when he has abstained for an extended period of time (usually because of the inability to access it while out of country), he has experienced absolutely no withdrawal symptoms or negative physical or emotional effects.

So you don't know of what you speak and no amount of reasoning will ever change your mind.

Other than the medicinal use of cannabis and putting the law aside, what is the benefit of yet another mind altering drug going to be for society? None of us pro weeders have a definitive answer on this. The truth is that the only positive is the usual selfish excuse for those who drink or smoke: Escape from reality and self mental therapy. With that said, since booze is legal then why not allow another substance that has no real benefit to society legal? It would be hypocritical for us to deny weed the same status regardless of its benefit..

Either ban both harmful substances or legalize them both..

Edited September 17, 2013 by roy baty

[jacee]

Other than the medicinal use of cannabis and putting the law aside, what is the benefit of yet another mind altering drug going to be for society?

Put the criminals out of business, take the profit and use it to pay for health care.

Those are the benefits to society.

[Smallc]

Other than the medicinal use of cannabis and putting the law aside, what is the benefit of yet another mind altering drug going to be for society?

Marijuana is probably one of the most widely available and used substances in society today....so...that's not really an argument.

[BubberMiley]

Other than the medicinal use of cannabis and putting the law aside, what is the benefit of yet another mind altering drug going to be for society?

Yes, your argument is based on the idea that prohibition has worked and reality suggests that you're completely wrong. In the most recent year where data exists, 2004, 16.8% of Canadians smoked marijuana in that year.

http://www.macleans.ca/science/health/article.jsp?content=20070730_107335_107335

This suggests that prohibition is a complete failure in terms of limiting access and in that regard it's completely irrelevant. Those who want it already have access; those who don't want it still won't want it even if it's legal. I believe the most noticeable effect of legalization on consumption will be that kids won't have such ready access as they do now. They'll still get it, but it will be as hard for them to get as alcohol, which (as I see from the kids fishing outside my nearby liquor store) is not so easy. So overall consumption will more likely go down after legalization because the market will be more regulated.

Taxpayers will benefit from not having to spend millions and millions a year in law enforcement and incarceration, and they will enjoy the sin taxes in government coffers rather than Hells Angels' pockets.

It's really a no-brainer, which says a lot about those who still oppose legalization.

Edited September 17, 2013 by BubberMiley

[eyeball]

No I haven't, and for a particular reason.

As pointless as it seems to debate this issue there are moments when deeper underlying problems plaguing our society emerge.

Yesterday scientists across Canada were out protesting the near complete lack of government funding for scientific research and how our fundamental rights and democracy are threatened when there is no scientific evidence to support the official decisions and policies affect our lives.

What sort of drug do you have to drink or pop to imagine that deliberately eschewing evidence, for any reason, is a good idea? How deep and wide does this under current of deliberate and wilful ignorance run through our society? If the actions of our scientists are anything to go by it runs right through the middle of our governments thinking.

[Black Dog]

No I haven't, and for a particular reason.

And that reason is...?

[sharkman]

Because this discussion will not be won by either side with links and studies and medical proof. That much should be obvious if you read the pages of this thread. It's mostly a rah rah thread for fanboys and pot smokers.

At the end of the day, the government is probably going to make it a ticketable offence, and I can live with that. So many are irresponsibly using pot that it's clogging up the justice system, a ticket and a fine is much smaller drain on the system.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

How do you "win" a discussion, and is that really the reason you engage in them?

Wouldn't any discussion on this board be considered "unwinnable?"

Edit: Although this discussion is certainly "winnable" from my end if legalization happens. I guess if you want the status quo to remain, any discussion is a no-win prospect when you have no argument to support your views. It makes me wonder why you repeatedly comment on this topic and then, repeatedly, declare it futile when faced with overwhelming reason.

Edited September 19, 2013 by BubberMiley

[dre]

How do you "win" a discussion, and is that really the reason you engage in them?

Wouldn't any discussion on this board be considered "unwinnable?"

Edit: Although this discussion is certainly "winnable" from my end if legalization happens. I guess if you want the status quo to remain, any discussion is a no-win prospect when you have no argument to support your views. It makes me wonder why you repeatedly comment on this topic and then, repeatedly, declare it futile when faced with overwhelming reason.

IMO the "discussion" was won a long long time ago. People in the country have wanted to end prohibition since the 80's.

The government has resisted it for a few different reasons...

1. Prohibition employs a lot of people (lawyers, police, judges, prison guards, etc, etc)

2. They are worried it will piss of the US.

3. Theres a pretty active and successful lobby by private interests who sell alternatives to pot (pharmy companies, coffee companies, alcohol companies etc).

[dre]

Because this discussion will not be won by either side with links and studies and medical proof. That much should be obvious if you read the pages of this thread. It's mostly a rah rah thread for fanboys and pot smokers.

At the end of the day, the government is probably going to make it a ticketable offence, and I can live with that. So many are irresponsibly using pot that it's clogging up the justice system, a ticket and a fine is much smaller drain on the system.

That would be a mistake in my opinion. They SHOULD normalize the supply side so that its run by tax paying, regulated businessmen.

Also I dont think this has anything to do with potheads, or marijuana "fanboys". Every Canadian is hurt when a very expensive policy achieves absolutely nothing. Most of the people that favor legalization are not users, they are tax payers!

[eyeball]

Because this discussion will not be won by either side with links and studies and medical proof. That much should be obvious if you read the pages of this thread. It's mostly a rah rah thread for fanboys and pot smokers.

At the end of the day, the government is probably going to make it a ticketable offence, and I can live with that. So many are irresponsibly using pot that it's clogging up the justice system, a ticket and a fine is much smaller drain on the system.

What about adults who are using it responsibly? I suppose if you were talking about tickets and fines comparable to those issued to people who drink irresponsibly I'd say sure but you're not. You're a fanboy for intrusive governments that climb on the backs of people you've chosen to dislike - people like you are a far and a way more dangerous to society than any drug could ever be. You are one of the worst effects of prohibition.

[sharkman]

What about adults who are using it responsibly? I suppose if you were talking about tickets and fines comparable to those issued to people who drink irresponsibly I'd say sure but you're not. You're a fanboy for intrusive governments that climb on the backs of people you've chosen to dislike - people like you are a far and a way more dangerous to society than any drug could ever be. You are one of the worst effects of prohibition.

You should try reading my simple post again because you've missed what I infer about responsible use. It's not a problem. Your response typifies why this discussion is of no value.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[eyeball]

You have no problem with responsible use? Why on Earth are you so bent on prohibiting it then?

[sharkman]

Let me get this straight. You say I'm far more dangerous to society than any drug and now that you know I don't have a problem with responsible use, suddenly you want my opinion. If ever there was a time for a face palm, this is it.

Edit: Perhaps you should be asking what my definition of responsible use is, but no, you immediately assume it's exactly the same as yours.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[eyeball]

I say you're definitely dangerous yes, but no I don't want your opinion, I want your evidence.

Maybe you could direct me to the simple post you mentioned.

[jacee]

You have no problem with responsible use? Why on Earth are you so bent on prohibiting it then?

I think I can explain ... sharkman was vehemently insistent on marijuana prohibition and criminalization of users because he thought that's what a good little Harper "fanboy" should think.

When I informed him that Harper's jumping on the potwagon to grab some votes by decriminalizing marijuana possession - make it a ticketing offence instead of a criminal offence - sharkman suddenly thinks that's the divinely decreed right way.

Oddly, neither Harper nor sharkman has explained why they want organized criminals to keep raking in profits, killing people, corrupting youth into dealing in schools, etc.

Of course, the answer is political: Harper would rather continue to support organized crime than admit that Trudeau is right.

Edited September 19, 2013 by jacee

[sharkman]

Firstly, I knew of the idea of ticketing pot smokers about a year ago, and secondly, if you disagree with Harper so strongly I suggest you not support him in the next election.

[Black Dog]

Because this discussion will not be won by either side with links and studies and medical proof. That much should be obvious if you read the pages of this thread. It's mostly a rah rah thread for fanboys and pot smokers.

So what you';re saying is you have evidence to support your claims but you just won't share because no one will listen? Maybe people would listen if (1) you made some attempt to back up your claims and (2) made claims that were not so obviously completely ridiculous on their face (like the claim that crime will increase as a result of legalization).

Also, I have to point out that when people have provided evidence to counteract some of your claims, you've replied with strawmen and ad hominem attacks ("pot fanboys" etc.)

Looks to me like the only person not debating in good faith here is you.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Black Dog