New Greece Study on Marijuana

Black Dog · March 29, 2006

It's sad that people are so eager to make money off others addictions. So quick to implement another tax instead of dealing with the problem.

What's this rubish about addictions? Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. Only a small minority of people - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana, nor does marijuana cause physical dependence.

BubberMiley · March 29, 2006

And some people smoke it all the time, function perfectly well, and wouldn't ever want to quit. Don't try to turn me into a victim like you would with those people playing VLTs.

Wilber · March 29, 2006

On the contrary, this is just about Canada. We have little or no control over what the US does but have to live with the consequences whether we like it or not.

And how would decriminalizing five or six plants in one's basement (but still keeping it illegal to sell them) affect the U.S. at all?

Sell the plants or what they produce? I'll assume you mean both.

It wouldn't, thats what we do with booze after all, but what does that have to do with legalization?

BubberMiley · March 29, 2006

Sell the plants or what they produce? I'll assume you mean both.
It wouldn't, thats what we do with booze after all, but what does that have to do with legalization?

The plant is what is produced: that's what you smoke. That's not what we do with booze. In fact, it's still illegal to have a still. And I'm not talking legalization; I'm talking decriminalization of a few plants for personal use. Trafficking still illegal; large quantities still illegal; providing it to minors still illegal; cross-border transport naturally still illegal. I think the main effect on society of such a measure would be to cut revenue to large grow-ops and organized crime. That's why I think it will never happen.

Wilber · March 29, 2006

Sell the plants or what they produce? I'll assume you mean both.

It wouldn't, thats what we do with booze after all, but what does that have to do with legalization?

The plant is what is produced: that's what you smoke. That's not what we do with booze. In fact, it's still illegal to have a still. And I'm not talking legalization; I'm talking decriminalization of a few plants for personal use. Trafficking still illegal; large quantities still illegal; providing it to minors still illegal; cross-border transport naturally still illegal. I think the main effect on society of such a measure would be to cut revenue to large grow-ops and organized crime. That's why I think it will never happen.

I don't know about a still but you can legally make beer and wine in your own home as long as you don't sell it. I don't have much problem with pot being treated the same way if you consume it in your own home but if the police find someone in possession outside of their residence they have no way of knowing whether it was grown for personal use or purchased.

Decriminalization the use of something while making it's production for money a crime is the same kind of mentality as throwing the hooker in jail but only fining her customer.

The original quote of mine you used was a response to another post about legalization, not decriminalization.

BubberMiley · March 29, 2006

Decriminalization the use of something while making it's production for money a crime is the same kind of mentality as throwing the hooker in jail but only fining her customer.

I don't see the correlation. I think once you introduce legal production for money, it opens a whole other can of worms that complicate the issue. A few plants in the home that stay in the home and must be consumed in the home, however, is a simple issue of human autonomy and property rights.

Wilber · March 29, 2006

Decriminalization the use of something while making it's production for money a crime is the same kind of mentality as throwing the hooker in jail but only fining her customer.

I don't see the correlation. I think once you introduce legal production for money, it opens a whole other can of worms that complicate the issue. A few plants in the home that stay in the home and must be consumed in the home, however, is a simple issue of human autonomy and property rights.

I think the correlation is quite simple and there are many others. There has been another debate going on here concerning child porn and where you draw the line. Should it be a crime to buy it or only to make it etc. Not trying to put pot smokers in the same moral catagories as johns or people who get off on kiddy porn but the principal is the same.

Other than that I don't disagree.

Slavik44 · March 30, 2006

On the contrary, this is just about Canada. We have little or no control over what the US does but have to live with the consequences whether we like it or not.

I have little control over what Canada does, this is a political board, this is in a sub section titled the rest of the world, My arguement is not that Canada should legalise Pot, my arguement is that Pot should be legailised, that would include the United States of America.

BubberMiley · March 30, 2006

my arguement is that Pot should be legailised, that would include the United States of America.

It's unlikely to ever happen in Canada, but at least there's a chance here. The U.S. would rather legalize nuclear bomb ownership because that falls under their right to bear arms.

PocketRocket · March 30, 2006

It's sad that people are so eager to make money off others addictions. So quick to implement another tax instead of dealing with the problem.

We've been "dealing with" the problem for nigh on seven decades now.

Doesn't seem to have worked so well.

Perhaps it's time we tried "dealing with" it in another way.

And then again, perhaps it isn't a problem at all, except that we've made it into one.

Wilber · March 30, 2006

On the contrary, this is just about Canada. We have little or no control over what the US does but have to live with the consequences whether we like it or not.

I have little control over what Canada does, this is a political board, this is in a sub section titled the rest of the world, My arguement is not that Canada should legalise Pot, my arguement is that Pot should be legailised, that would include the United States of America.

Fair enough but when you used BC as an example, I thought it appropriate to point out that the domestic market is a minor part of the BC pot industry and legalization in Canada would have little effect on it.

BubberMiley · March 30, 2006

Fair enough but when you used BC as an example, I thought it appropriate to point out that the domestic market is a minor part of the BC pot industry and legalization in Canada would have little effect on it.

It's true that legalizing small amounts wouldn't eliminate smuggling into the U.S., but it's also a stretch to say that it would make that situation worse.

Wilber · March 31, 2006

Fair enough but when you used BC as an example, I thought it appropriate to point out that the domestic market is a minor part of the BC pot industry and legalization in Canada would have little effect on it.

It's true that legalizing small amounts wouldn't eliminate smuggling into the U.S., but it's also a stretch to say that it would make that situation worse.

Tell that to anyone who depends on easy access to the US for their living or recreation. You keep switching from legalizing to decriminalizing and back. Which is it?

BubberMiley · March 31, 2006

Tell that to anyone who depends on easy access to the US for their living or recreation. You keep switching from legalizing to decriminalizing and back. Which is it?

Yeah, I usually say decriminalizing but I'm not really sure of the difference anyway. It seems like semantics to me.

But I accept that the U.S. might try to make it hard for us to pass laws they don't agree with and threaten to make it more difficult to cross the border, but I don't see why they should care. Decriminalizing (legalizing, whatever) small quantities wouldn't affect the border because no smuggler would be dealing in a few plants, and it would be as illegal as ever to take it across.

Given that California has more liberal marijuana laws than anything Canada has proposed, I resent that we would give up our sovereignty on this issue because of a half-hearted threat from a former ambassador. People who argue that Ezra Levant was correct in standing up to the Muslim hordes and printing those crappy cartoons would, on this issue, cave at the first threat of trouble from the U.S.

Wilber · March 31, 2006

Decriminalization means it is still illegal, it is just not a crime. Like a speeding ticket, you will get a fine but not a criminal record.

It is not a matter of caving in to the US. They have a perfect right to determine who enters their country and under what conditions. Just like we do. Our border officials often turn back Americans who have impaired driving convictions even though they have no criminal record in the US because it is a misdemeaner in many states. It is a crime in Canada and that is all they consider. You can bet US officials will apply the same criteria to Canadians trying to cross the border whetther we decriminalize it or not.

Drea · March 31, 2006

Decriminalization means it is still illegal, it is just not a crime. Like a speeding ticket, you will get a fine but not a criminal record.
It is not a matter of caving in to the US. They have a perfect right to determine who enters their country and under what conditions. Just like we do. Our border officials often turn back Americans who have impaired driving convictions even though they have no criminal record in the US because it is a misdemeaner in many states. It is a crime in Canada and that is all they consider. You can bet US officials will apply the same criteria to Canadians trying to cross the border whetther we decriminalize it or not.

Well of course, if one tries to cross the border into the states with even one gram.

The US border could just have marijuana sniffer dogs. If you've got pot, you're turned away and cannot cross. Simple IMO.

Back in the early 90's (when I still travelled there weekly) I found some old roaches in a film container in the trunk of my boyfriend's car -- it had probably been there for years. Aaaack! Lucky we didn't get caught with it.

Wilber · March 31, 2006

A few years ago a nice upstanding young fellow who worked with my wife decided to take his wife and two kids to Disneyland. They pre-cleared US customs at Vancouver airport and away they went. While they were on their way I guess they ran checks on some of the passengers and found he had conviction for possession that was over ten years old. When they arrived in LAX he was cuffed in front of his family, put in a cell over night and shipped back on the first flight. Overkill? I sure think so but you have to bear these things in mind if you plan on traveling outside Canada some day.

They could have sniffer dogs and turn you away but what they will do is throw you in jail and charge you with a crime.

Drea · April 1, 2006

I know of a fellow who tried to go across in his mom's new pickup truck ($30,000 truck btw). Well just so happens he had an old conviction of possession from years back. He had a Canadian pardon but US customs said "We spit on Canadian pardons". He was strip searched and harassed and then the truck was confiscated. No more truck, gone, see yah later, never to be seen again; and it wasn't even his truck! Meanwhile, his mom is sitting in Seattle with no way home.

Rather than doing all this to the guy why didn't they just make him turn around and go back? Because they LOVE to harass people. Gives them a real feeling of power.

Apparently though, if one is brave enough one can get a "waiver" to cross.

Then again, they probably "spit" on waivers too -- even though they are issued by their govt.

Geeez it's like friggin' east and west Germany before the destruction of the wall -- people afraid even to be near the border for fear of being "detained".

Nothing could make me cross that border these days... no way hosay. If I ever get to take a tropical holiday, it will be a direct flight to Cuba or Mexico.

BubberMiley · April 1, 2006

They took the truck even though he wasn't trying to bring anything across?

Drea · April 1, 2006

They took the truck even though he wasn't trying to bring anything across?

Apparently, yes.

He didn't mention whether or not his mom got the truck back,

LOL

He looks like a bad biker type guy... but he's not... he has long black hair worn in a ponytail, a goatee and he is a big man... so the border guards probably wanted to "make an example" of him. They probably had a hoot harassing him -- made them feel sooooo powerful. *insert puking icon here*

BTW, this occurred in the early 90's -- about the same time I used to cross weekly.

geoffrey · April 1, 2006

I don't know why everyone expects other countries to follow Canadian laws.

It's the number one rule in travelling abroad. Understand the powers and laws of the country hosting you... BEFORE you go.

It probably didn't help that he was driving his mom's truck... you need documentation (possibly notarized, though I'm not sure) to bring someone else's vehical across the border, thats common sense.

Please people, too much sympathy for ignorance.

I've only been treated with the highest respect by both border guards, and US law enforcement people when I've been south.

Including a 20mph over ticket in Montana, the State Trooper chatted with me about the States and provided some ideas of places to check out for some good rock climbing. Didn't rip up the ticket though.

American's are super friendly people, if you treat them with respect and don't go out of your way to make them miserable to prove a point.

Drea · April 2, 2006

I certainly don't (didn't) expect Canadian law... hence I was pretty freaked when we got back home and found those old roaches.

I do expect, however, to be treated with some amount of dignity and respect. After all, if I'm on my way down there I'm obviously going to spend some money and benefit their country.

Currently, with Bush in power, I'll stay away. If things change, perhaps I will resume my weekly visits. I live practicallly within spittin' distance from the border.

GostHacked · April 2, 2006

There are problems here. Those that use marijuana are supporting organized crime, and thats not something I tend to be favourable to.

I only support unorganized crime in my pot use.

The crime is the small grow room in my basement, which houses about 5 or 6 plants at any given time.

The unorganized aspect is simply my life in general

What I grow is never sold. It is for my personal use, and that of my ex-wife, who is a manic depressive and smokes for therapeutic reasons. Her doctor agrees with this usage.

I would love to have the freedom to do just this. Some personal stash stuff. You would become a greenthumb real fast. Since you want to have some fine plants to smoke.

Legalizing takes money away from crooks(felons) and gives it to crooks(government lol). The tax revenue on this would fund drug/alcohol abuse centers across the country. I can't see tht as a bad thing. Ok so the guy who sold pot before was a criminal now he has a legal GST number. At least he is in the fold and the government has more control over the operation. How is this a bad thing? Maybe selling it in the LCBO would be a start. Limiting the sources of it, or through proper channels.

I started smoking pot after I got of anti-derpressants. And I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO ANTI-DEPRESSANTS!!!! I felt like a zombie more on the meds than I ever have on pot. Personaly it works for me. Being somewhat bipolar (manic -depressive) it has helped me (along with self therapy, reading learning about myself) to get out of depression. It allows me to shut my brain off when I need to. Overall my life is more stable due to pot.

Oh but you say I am addicted? Well guilty as charged then. I do not drink much alcohol and would give it up totaly if pot was legal. Alcohol makes me a very very bad man.

Wilber · April 2, 2006

I certainly don't (didn't) expect Canadian law... hence I was pretty freaked when we got back home and found those old roaches.
I do expect, however, to be treated with some amount of dignity and respect. After all, if I'm on my way down there I'm obviously going to spend some money and benefit their country.

Currently, with Bush in power, I'll stay away. If things change, perhaps I will resume my weekly visits. I live practicallly within spittin' distance from the border.

Don't expect much to change. When that work mate of my wife's got cuffed in front of his kids and shipped home, the guy that didn't inhale was running the place.

mcqueen625 · April 3, 2006

Alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly, marijuana must be abused.
Marijuana and alcohol are two different drugs that have different effects on the human nervous system. The only difference is getting typsy from alcohol is social accetable but getting stoned is not. There is no medical rational for saying being drunk is better than being stoned.
Futhermore, the medical studies that show alcohol is 'good' for you are so full of caveats and exclusions that they are virtually meaningless. Marijuana, on the other hand, has a number of well documented medical uses for people with certain diseases.

A person can go out for an evening and have a couple of drinks socially, and not be impaired, while the only way one knows they've had enough Marijuana is when they are stoned. That is the only purpose for smoking the stuff.