Marijuana In Canada

gc1765 · July 9, 2007

Lucky you.
(no sarcarsm. He really is lucky)

If he's so lucky, why don't you move to the U.S.? No sarcasm. Really, move to the U.S.

KO2 · July 10, 2007

So, can anyone actually supply scientific replicatable evidence that Marijuana impairs someone,

or,

is this only another lie , promoted by repetition from those with an agenda and accepted blindly by the bovine believers?

I've never met anyone who used pot regularly that was impaired to any degree after using it.

No one I know makes irrational decissions when under the influence as those using alcohol do.

The fact is the Prohibisionist use this bit of logic to confuse people"

""It's illegal, a dangerous drug, it must impair you.""

The fact is that a lie, based on a lie, does not equal the truth, but only a mountain of lies.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n772/a09.html

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2007

The principle opposition to the legalization of marijuana in the USA comes not from the fact that people smoke it. That's part of it, but the primary impetus came from the oil industry (hemp-ethanol as a competitor to oil) and the pharmaceutical industry (pot as a competitor to big pharma for selling happiness).
It was big oil that got pot made illegal in 1927.

That interesting, because Canada banned cannabis at the federal level before the United States. Must have been "Big Oil" in 1927 Canada...LOL!

KO2 · July 10, 2007

"Must have been "Big Oil" in 1927 Canada...LOL!"

One size fits all. eh?

Never hear of Emily Murphy? Janey Cannuck?

Are you guys really this naive on this topic?

Must be Americans, eh?

Edited July 10, 2007 by KO2

Riverwind · July 10, 2007

So, can anyone actually supply scientific replicatable evidence that Marijuana impairs someone

Have you even been sober when surrounded by bunch of people who are high? I would never get in a vehicle driven by people that can't concentrate long enough to finish their sentence.

GostHacked · July 10, 2007

I am a pot smoker, daily.

I posted here recently in another pot thread that I had gotten 3 people fired at work for getting high on lunch break then getting back on heavy equipment. I do not tolerate that shit at all. And just like driving a car, you don't drink while driving, you don't smoke pot while driving.

I can tell you from experience that pot can affect you in different ways, but can still manage to impare you when you are drivng and needing some quick reflexes (do you know how many sober idiots are there out on the roads along with you????????) So stay alert.

Pot was decriminialized for a couple years, but never legalized. It meant the fine was not as heavy for posession, and the amount you can have on you before you could be busted for went up. So you could have a 1/4 ounce (7 grams) and would not get busted. Now it is back to what it was before. You can get busted for any amount of pot on you.

I've never met anyone who used pot regularly that was impaired to any degree after using it.

Come hang out with me and my pals. We cannot even get off the freakin chair most of the time. I smoke after work to chill out, and I use it in place of prescribed anti-depressants (they made me feel more stoned out than pot, and I would have rather dealt with the depression without it).

What it comes down to is personal responsibility and fucking common sense. Most people do not have either, so therefore it is illegal.

Only 5th place?
That's insulting! Canada can do better than that! We ought to be first place since we grow some of the very best stuff on the planet these days.

You know it. I know it.

KO2 · July 10, 2007

I don't know what subspecies of humans are in your circle, but up here in BC we have guys that test positive (same test as is used for impairment on marijuana today) and win the Olympic Gold Medal in Snowboarding!

That my freind is a fact, unlike your trivial, biased opinion, coloured by decades of government propoganda.

Ross Revliati, was his name.

He beat the entire field who were stone cold sober!

If you call that impairment, I want to be high!

All you do is spout propaganda and BS.

I asked for scientific evidence , perhaps you don't understand the definition of that term?

Edited July 10, 2007 by KO2

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2007

I don't know what subspecies of humans are in your circle, but up here in BC we have guys that test positive (same test as is used for impairment on marijuana today) and win the Olympic Gold Medal in Snowboarding!

Well hell, in that case, the matter is settled. All commercial airline pilots, brain surgeons, and school bus drivers should smoke the ganja Mon!

Edited July 10, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

Riverwind · July 10, 2007

I asked for scientific evidence , perhaps you don't understand the definition of that term?

Do you have any scientific evidence that people high on pot are never too impaired to drive a car?

Evidence of impairment is obvious to anyone who has ever seen someone high on pot. If you disagree with that anecdotal evidence then you must provide the contrary evidence. The onus is not on the government to prove the self-evident.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Riverwind

mikedavid00 · July 10, 2007

Lucky you.

(no sarcarsm. He really is lucky)

If he's so lucky, why don't you move to the U.S.? No sarcasm. Really, move to the U.S.

Because their immigration policy does not allow anyone who just 'wants to come live there'.

KO2 · July 10, 2007

GhostHacked sounds severely opinionated but extremely shy of facts as all these know it all puindits with loud mouths are.

"Because I know it impairs you, therefor it is dangerous."

Your type of thinking is the cause of our current dilemma, violence, organized crime, crime driven addiction and addiction driven crime. the viscious circle of insanity thrust upon the world.

"Every other living thing does fine as we have until recently without prohibition laws"

Every single one of my ancestors, right back to the first thing that wiggled, did fine without Prohibition laws.

In fact until these legal abominations against man and nature were brought into existence we had no problems with huge criminal organizations and Crime drivel Global addiction.

You are plain wrong when you think that marijuana prohibition was brought in Big Oil.

These laws were brought in as an aid for racial discrimination. The lies of these KKK offshoots still ring strong in this forum. Big OIl? What are you smoking buddy?

It was the friggin Temperance movements that brought in the concept of Prohibition. Those early dogooders and oppressors of niggers, spic, and chinks (read Janey Cannuck) met often in their church basements.

You are either poor in your knowledge, or clever propagandists disseminating ancient fodder.

http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/site...tname=Editorial

Edited July 10, 2007 by KO2

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2007

It was the friggin Temperance movements that brought in the concept of Prohibition. Those early dogooders and oppressors of niggers, spic, and chinks (read Janey Cannuck) met often in their church basements.

You know, I've always wondered why today's pot heads invoke such images of real oppression, as if it will sway opinion and the law in their favor. Ganja = Civil Rights!

mikedavid00 · July 10, 2007

I asked for scientific evidence , perhaps you don't understand the definition of that term?
Do you have any scientific evidence that people high on pot are never too impaired to drive a car?

Yes.

I heard on the radio once when Harped decided to fund breathalizers for pot intoxication that stoned driving related deaths are about the same likeliness as alchohol related deaths. I immagine there are more net deaths with alcolhol seing as far many more more people drink.

Also, on side note,

-I used p ot for about a month or so and developed bad insomnia. At this time I never even drank.

-I've lived completely sober taking about a year or two between maybe having 1 drink.

-And of course I've drank.

I've had the best and worst of all and remember them vividly. The best of my abilities were reached through being completely sober. I'm not saying that to make any kind of statement, that's just the truth. I look back at some of the things I accomplished when I was young and sober and think 'did I do that?'

Now I drink and get tipsy.. and post on this forum. I'm not at my potential I know. But I have to say that I really enjoy coming back from work and having some drinks and watching TV. Things become more entertaining and I enjoy my night much more. Being sober causes me to read all night and stay up late and stress over work.

Wee d is just a waste of life and money IMO. It makes you feel very slow and retarded the next day and really holds back your potential. And it's not fun if you do it every day. It just becomes a habit.

Drinks make you gain wait, hold water, and kill your sex drive. It can also make you feel slow the next day and it gives you the feeling of poor health. Oh yes it also causes you to over eat which is a major problem.

But the drinking buzz is the best of them all hands down. Because no matter how drunk I am, I'm still sober as crazy as it sounds. But I don't get drunk anymore cause I'm not young. Now I'm just tipsy. Other drugs just simply impair you to the point you are retarted which isn't fun.

I think mj is way, way over rated.

KO2 · July 10, 2007

I gave you facts: the university students see no signs of impairment in their prof, The gold medal winner, that's two to zip.

If there were a rash of marijuana induced driving fatalities, then lets see the evidence from the coroners

They must have been testing (for our safety- to base legislation on) these last coup of decades anyways. Not to have been gathering this information would have been criminal negligence on the government's part.

I'll bet that they don't wish to release these figures because they would actually prove that statistically the least often drug found in a dead or injured driver's blood is marijuana. The rare occassions that some evidence is found of marijuana in the blood, it is promoted to high heaven as being the cause.

Why not scream from the statistical mountain of evidence from the inquests into traffic fatalities, if its is there, rather than shout from the occassional rare isolated incident?

The reason my gullible self deluded friends is that no such evidence exists. Actually the government tests that have been done show and abscence of evidence, where a normal background should be.

Read the friggen literature that your government paid to scientifically develop.

In Brittian fighter pilots were tested on a simulator and did so well that they were deemed capabale of having flown the mission under the influence. Thes were not habitual users , at least they weren't supposed to be.

You let people tell you that you are impaired, believe them and act accordingly.

It is the power of mass marketing lies, even those who should know better conform to the pack's standards. It's always easier to go with the flow, than to stand up for reason.

Edited July 10, 2007 by KO2

Xman · July 10, 2007

With how straight and focused the immigrants are that I know, it's easy to see how White Canadians are failing their race. Right, KO2? mikedavid00?

Riverwind · July 10, 2007

I gave you facts: the university students see no signs of impairment in their prof, The gold medal winner, that's two to zip.

The plural anecdote is not data. There are at least two anecdotes that contradict your claims in this thread. Where are the scientific studies that support your claim that driving while high is _never_ dangerous?

If there were a rash of marijuana induced driving, then lets see the evidence from the coroners

The coroners have no information about how many high drivers there are because drivers are not routinely tested for dope today. You cannot use the lack of data to make your case - you need scientific studies that demonstrate no impairment.

In Britain fighter pilots were tested on a simulator and did so well that they were deemed capable of having flown the mission.

Care to provide a link to that study? High on what? Government issued dope? Would you fly in a plane with with a pilot high on BC Bud?

What you seem to be missing is the government does not have to prove that marijuana impairs everyone all of the time. It just needs to show that it impairs some people some of the time. That is an easy case to make.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Riverwind

gc1765 · July 10, 2007

I'd say marijuana can definitely impair driving...but not as much as alcohol, because while it may slow your reaction time (like alcohol) it does not get rid of your inhibitions the way alcohol does (which is probably even more dangerous because it encourages drunk drivers to take more risks).

gc1765 · July 10, 2007

Because their immigration policy does not allow anyone who just 'wants to come live there'.

So, what you're saying is those "ethnic immigrants" you always rant about are actually MORE qualified than you?? No wonder you are so angry...

Xman · July 10, 2007

Honestly, these things are a no-brainer. Remember Johnny Fever? Booze and pot make you MORE competent. At least, that's what the high school kids in this thread tell me. Grow up!

Xman · July 10, 2007

Because their immigration policy does not allow anyone who just 'wants to come live there'.

So, what you're saying is those "ethnic immigrants" you always rant about are actually MORE qualified than you?? No wonder you are so angry...

Ah, don't get pulled into his game.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Xman

Michael Bluth · July 10, 2007

Pot was decriminialized for a couple years, but never legalized. It meant the fine was not as heavy for posession, and the amount you can have on you before you could be busted for went up. So you could have a 1/4 ounce (7 grams) and would not get busted. Now it is back to what it was before. You can get busted for any amount of pot on you.

That law never passed. What you are referring to is the Liberal legislation that died on the order paper.

jbg · July 10, 2007

Why not scream from the statistical mountain of evidence from the inquests into traffic fatalities, if its is there, rather than shout from the occassional rare isolated incident?
The reason my gullible self deluded friends is that no such evidence exists. Actually the government tests that have been done show and abscence of evidence, where a normal background should be.

Read the friggen literature that your government paid to scientifically develop.

Huh?

I know you're normally a very eloquent and well-spoken poster. Try to adhere to your standards.

And again, a warm welcome to this Board from South of the Border.

KO2 · July 10, 2007

"Remember Johnny Fever? Booze and pot make you MORE competent"

You must be American,you get your facts from old sit-coms.

I have flown high for hundreds of hour both powere and soaring cross country.

I have driven since the mid sixties under the influence of marijuana more often then not, and have retired an unblemished proffessional liscense.

I current ride bycicle in busy traffic and have never had an accident since I began 53 years ago.

Marijuana has been a part of my daily enjoyment since 66. The only reason I'm a criminal is because there is a special trait in humans that causes them to always want to oppress one segment of the population in order to set themselves up a notch higher in the pecking order.

They can judge themselve better and have all the lies to prove that the problem class is the problem.

Since the sixties I watched and warned of things to come. Organized crime and violence grew exponentially, while fools like you spouted lies as to how dangerous I was.

The same believers that believed in WMD's and all the crap your leaders spewed at you.

Riverwind · July 10, 2007

Marijuana has been a part of my daily enjoyment since 66.

In other words you have developed a huge tolerance for the drug. The same thing happens to alcoholics who can appear to be perfectly sober even with a BAC of 0.10 or higher. Do you think that all driving after drinking should be allowed because some people develop tolerance to the drug that allows them to function normally under the influence? Edited July 10, 2007 by Riverwind

geoffrey · July 10, 2007

In other words you have developed a huge tolerance for the drug. The same thing happens to alcoholics who can appear to be perfectly sober even with a BAC of 0.10 or higher. Do you think that all driving after drinking should be allowed because some people develop tolerance to the drug that allows them to function normally under the influence?

Very true Riverwind, very true. A tolerance doesn't mean that your reaction time (or other factors) aren't reduced either, it just means some 'symptoms' aren't as noticable. I've noticed my alcohol tolerance skyrocket since the beginning of summer and especially since the Stampede started (only 3 days ago, I know, it's bad).

I still walked home tonight from the pub even though I figure I could probably have driven reasonably. Was (is) my BAC over 0.08? Very likely. I had 4 pints in 2 hours and I weigh just over 140 pounds. Could I drive? Maybe. But some reactions would have been questionable. I'm not willing to risk my life, my friend's lives or the lives of others on the road over that chance.

The same should apply to drugs. If you smoke pot, you shouldn't be behind the wheel under the influence regardless of your belief in your abilities. Your driving a dangerous weapon that can easily kill. Being under the influence of any mind altering drug is clearly reckless behavoir. If one was just risking their own life, I wouldn't care less. But there are many other people on the road.

It can't be allowed. Driving under the influence of marijuana should be equally punished as driving under the influence of alcohol about 0.08 (or whatever the law may be in the area).

Edited July 10, 2007 by geoffrey