Decriminalization vs. Criminalization

[Guest eureka]

Overdoses of pure drinking water can also cause kidney failure. Does that mean that marijuani is safer than water?

[newbie]

[err]

Fine, strike hallucinogenic, substitute "f*cks your mind up".

I would suggest that a lot of people's minds are "f*cked up" already, and that maybe a toke or two would help them out... A good dose of introversion never hurt anyone...

The problem I have with banning alcohol is that used in moderation it's harmless. It doesn't screw your mind over like grass and there are no health effects. Unfortunately, a lot of people find themselves incapable of drinking safely or intelligently (Could someone possibly explain the attraction of binge drinking to me?). 

You'll often see people getting drunk and becoming aggressive... often downright abusive to their spouses, families, and anyone else who comes near them. However, it is extremely rare for any violent or aggressive tendencies to come from someone who has smoked a little weed. People drive drunk, think they're invincible, and cause tragic accidents. With weed, you'll probably find that the user doesn't like driving, and if he/she does, it is usually very cautiously (pot has a tenency to make its user a bit paranoid).

However, marijuana isn't something which can be "sipped", as, for example, a nice wine. You smoke it only to get stoned.

Where have you been... you can make delicious, nutricious "snapping cake" or cookies, brownies, and a wide variety of other foods with pot and/or its derivatives. I'm sure that you can get a good book at Chapters on the topic...

[kimmy]

I'll let you in on a secret (I won't divulge my source ).  Many of those on these discussion boards who are now defending the continued criminalization of marijuana

are not being entirely sincere. However, they feel that they have no choice because the leader of the party they support, opposes decriminalization. So their choices are (1) defending Harper or (2) defending a rational position on the issue.  Quite the dilemma and no doubt stressful and possibly emotional.

I don't see why somebody would feel they have to defend every position of the party they support. I know that there are Liberal and NDP supporters (and even MPs) who would have prefered keeping the traditional definition of marriage, for instance. Even people within the parties don't agree on every issue, so I can't imagine why you'd anticipate blind and total agreement from party supporters on a message board.

You don't have to agree with every position your party holds... but if you disagree on the most important ones, you might be supporting the wrong party.

Do I agree with the CPC on marijuana? Yes. Do I consider marijuana to be an important issue? No.

You're right, though: if marijuana was the most important issue to me, I wouldn't vote for the CPC. (then again, if marijuana was the most important issue to me, I probably wouldn't vote for the Liberals either, come to think of it.)

For a CPC supporter to defend Harper's opposition to decriminalization is in some ways the equivalent of a Liberal supporter trying to defend the sponsorship scandal.

And this... this is just sad.

-k

{pass the doritos!}

[BubberMiley]

Why is it sad, Kimmy? There's more corruption and organized crime influence in today's marijuana laws than there is in the sponsorship scandal. Who wants decriminalization taken off the table more than the Hell's Angels?

[Argus]

I'd be in favour of banning cigarettes, frankly. They serve no useful purpose and cause considerable health damage. The problem I have with banning alcohol is that used in moderation it's harmless. It doesn't screw your mind over like grass and there are no health effects. Unfortunately, a lot of people find themselves incapable of drinking safely or intelligently (Could someone possibly explain the attraction of binge drinking to me?). However, marijuana isn't something which can be "sipped", as, for example, a nice wine. You smoke it only to get stoned. I'm not in favour of people getting stoned, frankly. People are prone to acting like morons even without getting drunk or stoned. And that only worsens when they get drugs and too much alcohol into their system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For starters, haven't you figured it out yet (gun control, drugs, whatever) that enacting laws to ban something don't actually ban it? They just create a black market and deregulate access.

Okay, so you're saying we should legalize child pornography then, right?

Second, weed is more harmless than alcohol. Alcohol kills brain cells; weed activates receptors in the brain designed to receive THC--the active drug. It's true. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know.

I guess it's just a coincidence, then, that everyone I know who uses pot regularly is a moron? There are more than a few indications that long-term pot use damages both the brain and lungs. And I don't believe alcohol kills brain cells when consumed in moderation.

Further proving you haven't a clue what you're talking about, you say it can't be "sipped." How do you know? (True, it's not a drink.) But I have very moderate amounts all the time. In fact, it's how I always consume it. Just a puff and I'm good to go. Nice buzz and I can express myself better than you ever could.

I see no evidence of this amazing ability of yours to express yourself. Like other drug addicts, including alcoholics, your suggestion that using drugs actually helps you in some capacity is almost a cliche. There is no question in all the literature about using marijuana that it slows down brain activity and distorts judgement.

Maybe that's why you're so impressed with yourself. Most drunks are, too.

Then again, there is no question that those who feel the need to get drugged up regularly are mental weaklings.

[Argus]

Fine, strike hallucinogenic, substitute "f*cks your mind up"...

...The problem I have with banning alcohol is that used in moderation it's harmless. It doesn't screw your mind over like grass and there are no health effects...

... You smoke it only to get stoned. I'm not in favour of people getting stoned, frankly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess you've never heard of medicinal marijuana. Here are some benefits from http://www.mpp.org/medicine.html

I don't care about medicinal use. We're not talking about medicinal use. I can be persuaded to the necessity of all sorts of drugs for medicinal use. Using drugs to get zoned out because you're some kind of mental weakling is something else again.

[Argus]

Why is it sad, Kimmy? There's more corruption and organized crime influence in today's marijuana laws than there is in the sponsorship scandal. Who wants decriminalization taken off the table more than the Hell's Angels?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some of us would rather take the Hells Angels off the table, declare them an illegal criminal organization and arrest all their members.

But I guess that's just too complicated.

[err]

Okay, so you're saying we should legalize child pornography then, right?

Here goes the CPC crowd again... If you're against them, you must be for Child Pornography....

I guess it's just a coincidence, then, that everyone I know who uses pot regularly is a moron?

Maybe you should look outside your close circle of friends ....

There are more than a few indications that long-term pot use damages both the brain and lungs. And I don't believe alcohol kills brain cells when consumed in moderation.

You forgot to tell him how it will turn him into a sex-crazed child-porn addict ....

Then again, there is no question that those who feel the need to get drugged up regularly are mental weaklings.

You might have a point... Picasso, W.B Yeats, Samuel Taylor Colerage, George Washington (dope smoker), John A. McDonald.... If you consider these to be mental weaklings, you may have a point...

[normanchateau]

I guess it's just a coincidence, then, that everyone I know who uses pot regularly is a moron?

It's either a coincidence or perhaps merely a function of who you know.

I know lawyers, structural engineers, one real estate developer, a university dean, a CEO of a software development company, a judge and physicians including a surgeon, who use it regularly. None appear to be morons although two of them voted for Stephen Harper in June, 2004. Neither will this time.

[err]

Who opposes legalizing Marijuana and why (Only minor edits)

Political Issues - Pot

There are many types of people who oppose legalizing Marijuana for a variety of reasons. Many of these groups have some very strange reasons and selfish interests. Many are just ignorant of the facts. Here's some of the opposition:

Religion - Anything fun is sin and of the Devil. Churches might lose members as people figure out that God can't be that stupid.

Moralizers - The morally superior who enjoy looking down their noses at the less fortunate and get a sadistic thrill in putting people in jail.

People who do no Drugs - These people who don't drink, don't smoke, in some cases don't even drink coffee. They just don't understand why anyone would want to smoke anything or do any drug. From their perspective the world would be better off if no one did anything.

The Alcohol Lobby - Legalizing Pot would seriously cut into the sales of Beer. Pot would become the recreational drug of choice because it is safer than Beer.

The Tobacco Lobby - Pot has the ability in some people to help them break the addiction of nicotine. Pot smoking could actually reduce the number of tobacco addicts.

Law Enforcement - There are a lot of people who make a living fighting Pot who would have to go get a real job if Pot were legalized. Police departments get a lot of funding to fight Marijuana and those funds could be returned to the taxpayer if Pot were made legal. Cops would have to chase robbers, rapists, and murderers.

Pot Dealers - If Pot were legalized then people making money off of selling Pot illegally would be out of business. Pot prices would drop to $10 a bale. Crime relating to illegal Pot money would vanish.

Wood Industry - Hemp would become the primary source of fiber for paper products as well as a new source for building materials. We wouldn't have to cut down every big tree in the world.

Trial Lawyers - Normal people caught with a joint spend billions each year on lawyers to get them off of criminal charges after getting caught with a joint. Lawyers get rich off of the Marijuana laws. If Marijuana were legal this money could be spent sending your kids to college.

Republicans/CPC - Pot helps you see reality the way it really is. It's harder to con a Pot smoker on political issues. Once you get stoned it's harder to want to hate Liberals, Queers, Blacks, Pregnant Teens, Draft Dodgers, President Clinton, Feminists, Lesbians, Pot Smokers, and other people the Republicans want you to hate.

When you're stoned it's harder to like Newt Gingrich, John Ashcroft, the KKK, the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, People who beat Gay's to Death, People who blow up Abortion Clinics, and the morally superior in general.

Political Cowards - Politicians like to pose with police as somebody who is "against drugs" promising to lock up all the pot smokers and throw away the key. These people need an artificial issue to be against so they don't have to face real issues like how to protect the public from crooked lawyers and crooked judges. Political cowards cross all party lines when it comes to pot and includes President Clinton.

[normanchateau]

There is no question in all the literature about using marijuana that it slows down brain activity and distorts judgement.

All central nervous system depressants reduce brain activity and distort judgment. This includes alcohol, tranquilizers, both prescription and nonprescription sleeping pills, and a long list of other legal substances. None of these substances, whether used in moderation or used in excess, result in a lifetime criminal record and a 5% chance of jail time for possessing less than 30 grams.

But Stephen Harper thinks it's rational to jail people for possession of less than 30 grams. Perhaps he's using some pharmaceutical substance to arrive at this irrational conclusion or even worse, his brain, in a nonmedicated state, actually perceives this position as rational.

[normanchateau]

Pot helps you see reality the way it really is.

Err, I agree with most of that post but not the above statement. It implies that you need to be on marijuana to see through Stephen Harper. I can assure you that most Canadians are not regular users of marijuana yet most Canadians will vote against him by voting NDP, BQ, Liberal or Green. You don't have to be a marijuana user not to want your son, daughter, grandson, nephew or niece given a permanent criminal record and possibly jail time for possession of a few grams of marijuana. But that's what Stephen Harper wants.

When marijuana was criminalized in the 20's in Canada and alcohol was decriminalized in the 20's, the decision was not evidence-based. Harper still buys the 1920's attitude. But now there's plenty of scientific and medical evidence which is why Conservative Senator Nolin's Special Committee recommends legalization. So does the conservative Fraser Institute:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/09/canada/pot_fraser040609

And so do half the people of Canada:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/publicop...canadalegal.cfm

Yet Harper not only opposes legalization, he even opposes decriminalization which puts Harper completely out of the mainstream of Canadian opinion.

[sharkman]

There is no question in all the literature about using marijuana that it slows down brain activity and distorts judgement.

All central nervous system depressants reduce brain activity and distort judgment. This includes alcohol, tranquilizers, both prescription and nonprescription sleeping pills, and a long list of other legal substances. None of these substances, whether used in moderation or used in excess, result in a lifetime criminal record and a 5% chance of jail time for possessing less than 30 grams.

But Stephen Harper thinks it's rational to jail people for possession of less than 30 grams. Perhaps he's using some pharmaceutical substance to arrive at this irrational conclusion or even worse, his brain, in a nonmedicated state, actually perceives this position as rational.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Normie, hows it going? Still campaigning hard I see. Good zingers on Harper, but I recommend the occasional happy or confused face to further make your points. Keep up the good work!

[Argus]

Okay, so you're saying we should legalize child pornography then, right?

Here goes the CPC crowd again... If you're against them, you must be for Child Pornography....

I know it's difficult for you to understand the logical progression of a discussion, Err, but perhaps if you wave aside the smoke in front of you and try to focus you would understand why this is a perfectly logical reply to someone who says banning things only encourages a black market.

There are more than a few indications that long-term pot use damages both the brain and lungs. And I don't believe alcohol kills brain cells when consumed in moderation.

You forgot to tell him how it will turn him into a sex-crazed child-porn addict ....

I'm sorry, but did you actually consider that to be an answer?

Then again, there is no question that those who feel the need to get drugged up regularly are mental weaklings.

You might have a point... Picasso, W.B Yeats, Samuel Taylor Colerage, George Washington (dope smoker), John A. McDonald.... If you consider these to be mental weaklings, you may have a point...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Picasso was a nasty, bad tempered man who treated his women like dogs and his children like animals. He also was great fan of Joseph Stalin. Yeats was obsessed with the occult and eugenics. STC took opium as a pain reliever. In any event, pointing to an occasional success who was also a drug addict does nothing to sustain an argument in the benefits of regularly getting stoned or drunk.

[normanchateau]

  Good zingers on Harper, but I recommend the occasional happy or confused face to further make your points.  Keep up the good work!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your sincerity, like that of Stephen Harper, is much appreciated and acknowledged.

What makes Harper's opposition to decriminalization so irrational is that unlike his opposition to ssm or his opposition to including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation, even his supporters can't drag up a bogus reason from either the Bible or a contemporary, evidence-based scientific source to explain it.

[kimmy]

For a CPC supporter to defend Harper's opposition to decriminalization is in some ways the equivalent of a Liberal supporter trying to defend the sponsorship scandal.

And this... this is just sad.

-k

{pass the doritos!}

Why is it sad, Kimmy? There's more corruption and organized crime influence in today's marijuana laws than there is in the sponsorship scandal. Who wants decriminalization taken off the table more than the Hell's Angels?

Of course.

But what's sad is that someone would be willing to make the leap in logic to equate the two issues. Associating the Liberal Party with the sponsorship scandal is, well, obvious. Associating the Conservative Party with the Hell's Angels is, well, sad. A desperate, pathetic effort, really.

See, it's been established that the Liberal party received direct financial benefit from its own criminal activity in the sponsorship scandal. Is anybody willing to make the claim that the Conservative party is receiving direct financial benefit for criminalization of marijuana? Are they selling drugs? Are they receiving cash from the Hells Angels? Maybe if I saw James Rajotte or Rahim Jaffer bumping around on Whyte Ave taking twenties in exchange for little baggies, I'd buy into the argument. Maybe if I saw Stephen Harper and Rona Ambrose sitting at a private table in a strip club getting lappies from a bunch of skanks I'd start wondering. But unless I see some credible evidence on the subject, I will remain skeptical. There's only one political party in Canada that I suspect might have any relationship with organized crime. Two words: Joe Morselli.

Pot helps you see reality the way it really is.

And this... this is just funny.

I suspect that anybody who believes this is true has either never been stoned at all, or spends so much time stoned that they're no longer acquainted with reality.

-k

[normanchateau]

For a CPC supporter to defend Harper's opposition to decriminalization is in some ways the equivalent of a Liberal supporter trying to defend the sponsorship scandal.

And this... this is just sad.

What's sad? I specifically stated that they're equivalent in "some ways"? One way they're equivalent is that both positions are irrational and defy common sense. Another way they're equivalent is that a majority of Canadians disagree with Harper's stance just as they would certainly disagree with the stance of a Liberal supporter foolish enough to defend adscam.

[BubberMiley]

I know it's difficult for you to understand the logical progression of a discussion, Err, but perhaps if you wave aside the smoke in front of you and try to focus you would understand why this is a perfectly logical reply to someone who says banning things only encourages a black market.

Actually, Argus, it's not a logical argument at all. You demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between making something illegal and banning it. My point was that "banning" something simply doesn't work. It just creates a black market and changes the means of distribution. From that, you extrapolate that this argument would lead to legalizing child pornography. Child pornography laws as they exist have sadly done nothing to eliminate child pornography, but they are necessary to enforce negative consequences to the dirtbags who consume/create it. It's the same with all crimes. The thing with weed is it is a VICTIMLESS crime, and there is no logical (or even moral) argument for legal consequences. Therefore, we wind up with a situation where the laws do nothing but hurt people who never hurt anyone else. The laws don't prevent distribution; in fact, they just make it easier for kids to have access.

Sadly, you're other simplistic moralistic arguments that all your friends are morons and that I can't express myself properly aren't really worth responding to.

[BubberMiley]

But what's sad is that someone would be willing to make the leap in logic to equate the two issues. Associating the Liberal Party with the sponsorship scandal is, well, obvious. Associating the Conservative Party with the Hell's Angels is, well, sad.  A desperate, pathetic effort, really.

My point, Kimmy, is you have to ask the question WHY are these people opposed to decriminalization, when the present system of laws doesn't work, when it facilitates access to kids, when it only hurts people who have not hurt anyone else, and when there is a huge, expensive underground economy profiting off of it. I'm not saying they are making money off the current system, but someone is and their actions certainly suggest they don't want to change that.

[normanchateau]

WHY are these people opposed to decriminalization, when the present system of laws doesn't work,  when it only hurts people who have not hurt anyone else, and when there is a huge, expensive underground economy profiting off of it. I'm not saying they are making money off the current system, but someone is and their actions certainly suggest they don't want to change that.

BM, in my opinion, Harper opposes decriminalization for one reason and one reason only. He opposes change. That's what social conservatives do. If abortion were currently against the law, he'd want it kept illegal. If lesbians today couldn't marry, he'd want to keep denying them the right to marry. If alcohol today were illegal, he'd want it kept illegal. Social conservatives believe in traditional values even when those values clash with human rights or common sense.

[BubberMiley]

Picasso was a nasty, bad tempered man who treated his women like dogs and his children like animals. He also was great fan of Joseph Stalin. Yeats was obsessed with the occult and eugenics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is it with conservatives that they are so quick to resort to character assassination when they can't win an argument? This from someone who claims his poorly constructed arguments are "logical" and that he, unlike is pot-smoking friends, isn't a moron.

[sharkman]

But what's sad is that someone would be willing to make the leap in logic to equate the two issues. Associating the Liberal Party with the sponsorship scandal is, well, obvious. Associating the Conservative Party with the Hell's Angels is, well, sad.  A desperate, pathetic effort, really.

My point, Kimmy, is you have to ask the question WHY are these people opposed to decriminalization, when the present system of laws doesn't work, when it facilitates access to kids, when it only hurts people who have not hurt anyone else, and when there is a huge, expensive underground economy profiting off of it. I'm not saying they are making money off the current system, but someone is and their actions certainly suggest they don't want to change that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay Bubber I can't resist. The present laws are working just fine, remember 95% possession charges get no jail time and lots just get fines. If you legalize pot, any kid will be able to still get his hands on it just like cigarettes and booze. The huge underground economy will still make out like bandits shipping it south. And this conspiracy theory that 'someone' doesn't want to change the status quo is baseless.

Listen, you want to smoke pot, go ahead. No one's going to bust in on you in the privacy of your own home. Kimmy cited examples of cops merely asking people to smoke elsewhere, they didn't even arrest them! The cops aren't dumb, they are not going to waste their time arresting someone and dragging them into court only to have the judge shrug his shoulders 95% of the time. Be happy for what you do have, if you lived in the States, they'd lock you up for a long time.

[BubberMiley]

It just promotes disrespect for the law, and that's a shame, because most laws make a lot of sense.

I think all smoking habits are ultimately bad, and I don't like seeing a thriving black market system where drugs are sold in school. Alcohol is not sold in school nearly as often (when I went, there was virtually none available). Why do you suppose that is? I think it's because the underground economy for it doesn't exist anymore, now that it's decriminalized and regulated.

And BTW, yes, I'm very very happy I don't live in the States.

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Canuck E Stan]

The thing with weed is it is a VICTIMLESS crime, and there is no logical (or even moral) argument for legal consequences. Therefore, we wind up with a situation where the laws do nothing but hurt people who never hurt anyone else.

Good arguement.....let's decriminalize/legalize Crystal Meth.