New Greece Study on Marijuana

[Biblio Bibuli]

How is watching crap like American Idol justifiable? The point is individual choices don't need to be justifiable or even rational: what matters is that they should rightly be left to the discretion of the individual.

Exactly!

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/board/fo...php?forumid=162

[Durgan]

[quote name='Slavik44' date='Mar 21 2006, 04:00 AM' post='104384']

I have a few problems with the study...

Mainly what are the before results, we have none. This doesn't tell me anything other then the fact that a PHD still can;t help you do a good study. For all I know thsi could tell me dumb people smoke pot, not that pot makes people dumb. This could tell me that people who succeed less at school are more likely to do drugs such as pot, they are not successfull at these tests because there are below average. Maybe people with very slight mental handicaps are more likely to do drugs, therefore likely to perform poorly on such tests. Maybe pot smokers are more likely to binge drink and thats why they performed poorly on this test. Maybe Pot smokers are more likely to eat doritoes and that is why they performed poorly on this test, maybe doritoes are the real problem. Based on this study we just don't know, and I personally would not want to spend 40 billion dollars a year based on this study, I would not want to stop housing projects so I can build prisons, I would not want to cut school education so I can fund in prison education programs, I wouldn't want to cut health aid to drug addicts just so I can spend more money to put them in prison. If Pot inhibits your decision making ability then perhaps the DEA needs to stop smoking the pot they confiscate.

Just imagine how terrific you would be in your memory accomplishments if you did not partake. A similar situation might have existed had Winston Churchill been sober during his tenure as PM of the UK during the war. The WWII might have ended in 1943. As with most medical studies, as you duly mentioned, there is no control, which makes most studies suspect.

Durgan.

[BubberMiley]

That didn't look like Times New Roman at all.

[Drea]

That didn't look like Times New Roman at all.

Maybe he's high

[geoffrey]

Why legalise another problem into our society? What benifets would occur if marijuana were to be legalised?

[BubberMiley]

Why legalise another problem into our society? What benifets would occur if marijuana were to be legalised?

1) It would eliminate a primary source of revenue for organized crime. Organized crime only exists when there is a black market for it to exist in.

2) It would save millions of dollars spent on enforcement (police time and prison space) which could be better spent on violent and property crimes.

3) It would gain millions of dollars in taxation revenue.

4) It would regulate distribution so kids wouldn't be able to buy it so easily. With a black market, it's for sale in every high school in the country.

5) It would differentiate it from hard drugs which really are dangerous. Kids think: "This illegal drug was innocuous and fun! What other drugs does this guy have to sell me?"

6) It would stop people who have otherwise never broken a law in their lives from getting criminal records for a crime that hurts no one, not even themselves.

7) And what's the problem? There's no problem here. Mind your own business.

But if legalizing it means having to smoke government-grown ditchweed from an abandoned mine in Flin Flon, I say keep it illegal.

[Slavik44]

Why legalise another problem into our society? What benifets would occur if marijuana were to be legalised?

Pot really is the widespread drug, it is the drug of choice, the drug people use...there clearly is a demand for pot and no legal means to fullfill this demand. In a case like this it has allowed for gangs to pop and supply people with pot, not only is it the drug of choice, but I belive gangs with out pot to sell are like a government with out the ability to collect taxes. Keeping Pot illegal, keep sgangs running at full tilt, pot is their source of funding, I think you would find that you would severly hurt gangs if they lost this source of funding. Law Enforcement Agencies also spend alot of time and resources combating these gangs, and combating grow ops. As well Firemen and electrical workers are often brought in when gorw op's go bad. So I belive there is money to be saved there. Then there is money to be earned, unofficially Marijuana is one of B.C's biggest industries an industry the B.C government gets no money from, by legalising Marijuana the B.C government gets a piece of the pot. More money to fund more services. I don't know how to measure the health costs of pot, I really don't know what they are, but whatever they are under prohibition we are already covering the tab for whatever the health problems may be with out recieving any of the obvious monetary benifiets, or recieving the benifiets of being able to allocate police resources better to combat other crimes. I do belive that in the end there are a number of benifiets to be seen in legalising Pot. Not neccasarily because pot can cure every disease ont eh face of the earth, but because we invest so much loose so much, and forfiet so much in a war against a drug that is relatively speaking, harmless.

[Wilber]

I don't have a big problem in principle with legalizing it, provided the same sort of testing and laws regarding impairment with alcohol could be developed for marijuana.

However. The idea that legalizing it would result in a big drop in crime is not realistic, at least in BC. 80% of the pot grown in BC is exported to the US. The US would never stand for legally grown pot being exported into their country. As long as it is illegal in the US, the majority of pot grown in BC will involve real criminals.

Regardless of what one may think of the US policy toward marijuana, there is no doubt the legalization of pot in Canada would make cross border commerce and travel more difficult. As one who lives close to the border, has recreational property and friends on the other side of it, I have reason to cross it often. Being a pragmatic sort, I have no wish to have that made more difficult just because some people like to get stoned.

[geoffrey]

1) It would eliminate a primary source of revenue for organized crime. Organized crime only exists when there is a black market for it to exist in.

That is fundamentally false. All these drug dealers and grow op people are just going to put on suits, give up crime and enter the workforce tomorrow? Not happening. They will move on to distributing other substances or get involved in other aspects of organized crime. The criminals are still there, they are just going to move somewhere else.

2) It would save millions of dollars spent on enforcement (police time and prison space) which could be better spent on violent and property crimes.

See above. The criminals don't go away, they move on to dealing in other adventures. That's the lesson we learnt from the end of prohibition, the mobsters just got in on other adventures... like drugs!

3) It would gain millions of dollars in taxation revenue.

True. So do VLT's which cause alot of grief for our society.

4) It would regulate distribution so kids wouldn't be able to buy it so easily. With a black market, it's for sale in every high school in the country.

So is alcohol. This fundamentally false. The high school drug dealers will still deal. Why would they stop?? That argument makes no sense. The grow ops don't just pack up, they sell for half the profit (which is still a killing) UNDER the government price.

5) It would differentiate it from hard drugs which really are dangerous. Kids think: "This illegal drug was innocuous and fun! What other drugs does this guy have to sell me?"

Aren't you saying its a gateway drug? I thought that was false? That is actually such crap. I don't even think people think that stupidly, even if they smoke pot.

6) It would stop people who have otherwise never broken a law in their lives from getting criminal records for a crime that hurts no one, not even themselves.

Buying drugs benifets organized crime and that is a crime that hurts EVERYONE. Making it legal won't end this either like I previously stated.

7) And what's the problem? There's no problem here. Mind your own business.

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

[Slavik44]

That is fundamentally false. All these drug dealers and grow op people are just going to put on suits, give up crime and enter the workforce tomorrow? Not happening. They will move on to distributing other substances or get involved in other aspects of organized crime. The criminals are still there, they are just going to move somewhere else.

No of course they are not going to put on suites, but the fact remains pot is something people buy, people don't run around buying heroine in large numbers, in B.C it is a 4 billion dollar industry...you cannot replace 4 billion dollars with the snap of your fingers. Yes legalising Pot would be a huge blow to gang funding, because 4 billion dollars is a ton of cash and it cannot be replaced so easily. Pot is such a great source of funding because it is widley used, when you eliminate Pot, you push these gangs to the fringes, there is not a 4 billion dollar market for guns and heroine in British Columbia. While they will move somewhere else they wilbe moving from a 4 billion dollar industry to a minor million dollar industries.

See above. The criminals don't go away, they move on to dealing in other adventures. That's the lesson we learnt from the end of prohibition, the mobsters just got in on other adventures... like drugs!

No the lesson we learned from prohibition was that it created gangs, or thats the lessonw e shoudl ahve learned gangsters move on but when they loose major sources of funding they are hurt. A 4 billion dollar industry in a province of 4 million people cannot be so easily replaced. Yes it would hurt gangs imensley to take away 4 billion dollars yearly.

True. So do VLT's which cause alot of grief for our society.

Yeah cars provide alot of grief to. The fact is we spend billions combating a billion dollar industry, we forfiet billions of revenue and waste billions of revenue, Pot is a burden to our society right now, but if we legalised it, pot would become less of a burden probabley even a source of wealth.

So is alcohol. This fundamentally false. The high school drug dealers will still deal. Why would they stop?? That argument makes no sense. The grow ops don't just pack up, they sell for half the profit (which is still a killing) UNDER the government price.

Exaclty, its just like alcohol...tell me how many gangsters sell alcohol? Young people will probabley be able to get pot if they want it, like alcohol and cigarettes but like alcohol and Cigarettes they will get it from older friends.

Buying drugs benifets organized crime and that is a crime that hurts EVERYONE. Making it legal won't end this either like I previously stated.

What you previously stated is wrong

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

not if it was legalised.

[BubberMiley]

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

But you just finished saying that organized crime will find its revenue no matter what. If that's the case, maybe it's better they be funded with something innocuous like weed.

Nonetheless, I haven't bought weed from a biker in over 10 years. Instead, I patronize mom&pop grow-ops. Hydroponic technology has allowed us to pick and choose our dope sellers.

[sharkman]

Why legalise another problem into our society? What benifets would occur if marijuana were to be legalised?

Pot really is the widespread drug, it is the drug of choice, the drug people use...there clearly is a demand for pot and no legal means to fullfill this demand. In a case like this it has allowed for gangs to pop and supply people with pot, not only is it the drug of choice, but I belive gangs with out pot to sell are like a government with out the ability to collect taxes. Keeping Pot illegal, keep sgangs running at full tilt, pot is their source of funding, I think you would find that you would severly hurt gangs if they lost this source of funding. Law Enforcement Agencies also spend alot of time and resources combating these gangs, and combating grow ops. As well Firemen and electrical workers are often brought in when gorw op's go bad. So I belive there is money to be saved there. Then there is money to be earned, unofficially Marijuana is one of B.C's biggest industries an industry the B.C government gets no money from, by legalising Marijuana the B.C government gets a piece of the pot. More money to fund more services. I don't know how to measure the health costs of pot, I really don't know what they are, but whatever they are under prohibition we are already covering the tab for whatever the health problems may be with out recieving any of the obvious monetary benifiets, or recieving the benifiets of being able to allocate police resources better to combat other crimes. I do belive that in the end there are a number of benifiets to be seen in legalising Pot. Not neccasarily because pot can cure every disease ont eh face of the earth, but because we invest so much loose so much, and forfiet so much in a war against a drug that is relatively speaking, harmless.

This argument is missing one element: there is no deterent for growing or using it. In Canada the justice system(read: judges) nod and wink at grow op opertors, giving them rarely any jail time. Users get nothing. When the Tories get more prisons built and force manditory sentences for grow operators and dealers, then people will change their behaviour. Simple as that.

[JerrySeinfeld]

All I know is that when I drink...it takes a while to get tipsy and then its bedtime or 2am and noone cares.

WHereas when I smoke pot (VERY rarely), it takes like one puff and I'm wasted.

my two cents.

[BubberMiley]

All I know is that when I drink...it takes a while to get tipsy and then its bedtime or 2am and noone cares.

I'm sure no one cares regardless.

[Slavik44]

This argument is missing one element: there is no deterent for growing or using it. In Canada the justice system(read: judges) nod and wink at grow op opertors, giving them rarely any jail time. Users get nothing. When the Tories get more prisons built and force manditory sentences for grow operators and dealers, then people will change their behaviour. Simple as that.

What is it with conservatives and throwing money at problems....

If you like we can do both, we can control who grows it in a stringent licensing system and we can impose harsh penalties on those who illegaly grow the stuff. That way the left gets their pot and the right gets to throw someone in Jail...everyone is happy.

[PocketRocket]

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.

[BubberMiley]

I'm sure the Hell's Angels would be pissed off if that personal grow room ever became legal. Fortunately for them, the CPC would never cut into their operations like that. I suppose they understand the importance of (and rely upon) the black market economy.

[Black Dog]

That is fundamentally false. All these drug dealers and grow op people are just going to put on suits, give up crime and enter the workforce tomorrow? Not happening. They will move on to distributing other substances or get involved in other aspects of organized crime. The criminals are still there, they are just going to move somewhere else.

But you're taking away one widespread and very lucarative revenue stream. Sure there'll still be other substances to deal and avenues for criminal elements to profit from, but you've knocked one major pillar out from under them.

See above. The criminals don't go away, they move on to dealing in other adventures. That's the lesson we learnt from the end of prohibition, the mobsters just got in on other adventures... like drugs!

So why did the crime rate (including crimes such as robbery, burglary, murder, and assault) plummet after prohibition ended?

So is alcohol. This fundamentally false. The high school drug dealers will still deal. Why would they stop?? That argument makes no sense. The grow ops don't just pack up, they sell for half the profit (which is still a killing) UNDER the government price.

So? Isn't that just the free market in action? Frankly "think of the children!" arguments don't hold much water with me. kids will always find ways to rebel and buck authority. I have little doubt that weed's taboo status drive much of its appeal.

This argument is missing one element: there is no deterent for growing or using it. In Canada the justice system(read: judges) nod and wink at grow op opertors, giving them rarely any jail time. Users get nothing. When the Tories get more prisons built and force manditory sentences for grow operators and dealers, then people will change their behaviour. Simple as that.

Except they don't. Punishment is not a deterrent for crime.

[Wilber]

"No the lesson we learned from prohibition was that it created gangs, or thats the lessonw e shoudl ahve learned gangsters move on but when they loose major sources of funding they are hurt. A 4 billion dollar industry in a province of 4 million people cannot be so easily replaced. Yes it would hurt gangs imensley to take away 4 billion dollars yearly."

It won't hurt gangs much at all because most of their production heads south. Prohibition taught us that making a thing illegal on one side of the border made criminals on both sides of the border very rich. Some of the richest families in Canada got their start running illegal booze across the border.

Argue legalization from a philosophical point of view all you want but don't argue that legalizing it in Canada alone will take organized crime out of the pot business. Prohibition of booze in the US proved otherwise.

[Slavik44]

"No the lesson we learned from prohibition was that it created gangs, or thats the lessonw e shoudl ahve learned gangsters move on but when they loose major sources of funding they are hurt. A 4 billion dollar industry in a province of 4 million people cannot be so easily replaced. Yes it would hurt gangs imensley to take away 4 billion dollars yearly."

It won't hurt gangs much at all because most of their production heads south. Prohibition taught us that making a thing illegal on one side of the border made criminals on both sides of the border very rich. Some of the richest families in Canada got their start running illegal booze across the border.

Argue legalization from a philosophical point of view all you want but don't argue that legalizing it in Canada alone will take organized crime out of the pot business. Prohibition of booze in the US proved otherwise.

well this is not just about Canada, I have mentioned U.S stats and agencies in my posts...

[Nocrap]

"No the lesson we learned from prohibition was that it created gangs, or thats the lessonw e shoudl ahve learned gangsters move on but when they loose major sources of funding they are hurt. A 4 billion dollar industry in a province of 4 million people cannot be so easily replaced. Yes it would hurt gangs imensley to take away 4 billion dollars yearly."

It won't hurt gangs much at all because most of their production heads south. Prohibition taught us that making a thing illegal on one side of the border made criminals on both sides of the border very rich. Some of the richest families in Canada got their start running illegal booze across the border.

Argue legalization from a philosophical point of view all you want but don't argue that legalizing it in Canada alone will take organized crime out of the pot business. Prohibition of booze in the US proved otherwise.

well this is not just about Canada, I have mentioned U.S stats and agencies in my posts...

I guess I can weigh in from a different perspective. I was a teenager in the late 60's and early 70's and saw many people suffer as the result of drug abuse. I also lived with an alcoholic father (five years sober before he died) and saw what alcohol abuse did to our family.

I support the legalization of marijuana for different reasons.

People have already spoken of the fact, that it would produce revenue through taxation, and I believe that some of that revenue could be used to educate young people on the risks of drug and alcohol abuse.

If it were legalized, it would have to be inspected, so would not contain any of the sludge (hopefully) that some of the black market drug does, and cash strapped farmers could grow it legally.

It would remove the criminal element. If your son or daughter is going to smoke pot, wouldn't you rather they could obtain it the same way they do alcohol, and not from a low life on the corner?

Most domestic abuse stems from alcohol abuse. A man who drinks heavily may go home and beat up his wife. If he has smoked pot instead, he will probably just want to go home and dance with his wife. Silly is better than violent.

The big thing here is USE, not ABUSE; and for anyone who becomes an addict, it is simply a drug of choice.

As for me, I have smoked one joint in my life, back when I was in highschool. I didn't like it, and I rarely drink alcohol.

Educate not Legislate

Inspect and tax rather than waste tax dollars

Remove the criminal element

[BubberMiley]

But if they decriminalized PocketRocket's five or six plants for personal use, that's not enough for any kind of cross-border trade but just enough to eliminate the need for him to buy it from someone else. He can mind his own business and get high and the Americans needn't even be interested. But no, that would probably cut into organized crime profits too much, and too many people rely on that money.

[Wilber]

"No the lesson we learned from prohibition was that it created gangs, or thats the lessonw e shoudl ahve learned gangsters move on but when they loose major sources of funding they are hurt. A 4 billion dollar industry in a province of 4 million people cannot be so easily replaced. Yes it would hurt gangs imensley to take away 4 billion dollars yearly."

It won't hurt gangs much at all because most of their production heads south. Prohibition taught us that making a thing illegal on one side of the border made criminals on both sides of the border very rich. Some of the richest families in Canada got their start running illegal booze across the border.

Argue legalization from a philosophical point of view all you want but don't argue that legalizing it in Canada alone will take organized crime out of the pot business. Prohibition of booze in the US proved otherwise.

well this is not just about Canada, I have mentioned U.S stats and agencies in my posts...

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.

[BubberMiley]

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?

[geoffrey]

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.