Illegal Drug Use in Canada

[Higgly]

Been there..done that (Prohibition). Alcohol is legal and highly regulated, but people still get convicted of related crimes.

Yes they do. And that's because it is regulated. Drive under the influence. "Ca-ching" goes the insurance bill. "SHRED" goes the drivers licence. And so it should be.

[Higgly]

Anyone who has read Foote's "Boom Bust and Echo" has at least an idea of the dynamic here. The baby boom is in middleage at the moment, and except for the heads who never grew up, no-one really spends a lot of time toking. This of course infuriates the heads, who have managed, after the "medical marijuana" meme fell on its face, to elevate what amounts to a psychological addiction to the status of a virtue, at least in their own THC besotted minds. Having done that, the whole paradigm changes from "I'm just an innocent loser, so let me lose in peace and stop putting me in jail," to "halt in the name of the virtuous New Crusade and stop depriving me of my rights!"

There are a lot of heads who would rather toke up than drink. Well OK, they can appreciate a good wine.

You seem to have never been a part of the pot culture - university educated 1965 to... Not trying to deprecate you, but you are out of touch with the mainstream. There are a lot of people out there who enjoy marijuana. The polls will tell you that a majority of Canadians think this is a red herring.

[shavluk]

Honestly, I suggest you start being a little more careful in what you say. You should know by now that making these kinds of one line personal attacks won't keep you around for all that long on a moderated forum. You're conduct is shameful, and I wish you would stop associating with the Green Party and championing their cause on this message board. You are just providing those people who don't consider the Green Party a legitimate party fuel for their argument.

Thank you for your thoughts.

I am only in politics because I believe in free speech and think the erosion of our rights does matter.

These are words plain and simple. Just words.

The power or lack of power is a choice of the individual.

I will defend myself always.

I know I am doing a good job for the GREENS.

I have read more medical journals than anyone here outside of probably the doctor here ,that again would be "my" opinion.

Also law , civil rights and much much more.

When some one doesn't debate here or provide repeatedly asked for links and only lies or spreads hate (poison)they deserve to be berated , me included. I will and do back up what I say.

If I am out of line for some reason other than being tooooo proud of being GREEN I apologize to those who didn't learn a long time ago about words and free speech.

I will tone down my effectiveness for your squeamish types OK?

If you read you will see I never throw the first stone , ever!

As far as talking about the GREENS and THEIR CANNABIS POLICY ,,

SORRY ,,,, ITS WHY I JOINED IN THE FIRST PLACE !!!

And my environment does need cleaning up as more crime , pain and suffering and abuse are going to be coming under harper

Yes I do matter and so does the environment of the many many many I see daily because of my efforts or those who are in jail simply because of these victimless crimes the GREENS say they will help.

They most definitely matter to me and at some point they did matter to the GREENS.

The fact that I speak to people who think they cured their cancer with hemp oil is important to me.

The facts about hemp as fuel ,food, plastics etc,etc need to be explored especially as it ties to so many of our other issues.

Please do not ever talk to me again like you just did until you come to terms with your own discrimination with regards to the GREEN cannabis policy.

Do you believe we over the last year have grown without the cannabis Canadians???

That myself and many others are moving to the GREEN party and would you honestly like the GREENS to remove this policy ?

I will do and say what ever does not break the rules.

I will run as an in dependant and continue my work on my own if some like you are successful in letting your seemingly fearful attitude infect the GREEN leadership, I already had to run twice for this riding's nomination because of others like you in the GREEN PARTY who hate that this policy is actually a GREEN policy even though they love their new vote power.

I think it is a winning policy and just makes sense although I am a member of LEAP and other groups who actually deal with the casualties of this war every day.

Its the GREENS or the liberals WHO WILL END THE SLAVERY

I hope it is the GREENS , as they ended the war against Homosexuality , as well.

Were you also against that GREEN policy ?

[shavluk]

Afghanistan has always had wars....dopers are not the center of the universe

Dinosaurs need love too....they would be on endangered species lists.

New Orleans never should have gotten "dykes" (sic), new or old

Jails are big business for customers who don't like to follow the rules.

Best thing you have said yet ,,,, I actually have a soft spot for dinosaurs that none of you seems to realize.

I believe we all deserve more in this day and age.

[Moxie]

On a positive note most pot heads become so addled after a few years, society is spared their ramblings and rantings of their jellofied grey matter and they vote NDP.

[Higgly]

On a positive note most pot heads become so addled after a few years, society is spared their ramblings and rantings of their jellofied grey matter and they vote NDP.

Yawn.

[Guest coot]

Do they also wind up speaking in ungramatical gibberish like like "their ramblings and rantings of their jellofied grey matter?"? Between you and oldbold&cold (not to mention Shavluk), my brain is aching from all the illiteracy.

[shavluk]

What is it that I am doing wrong with my writing?

Besides hitting the send button ,,,,,,,,, for you brainiacs

[Pliny]

I once ate a hash brownie back in colege but I did not digest......

LOL

[Pliny]

Do they also wind up speaking in ungramatical gibberish like like "their ramblings and rantings of their jellofied grey matter?"? Between you and oldbold&cold (not to mention Shavluk), my brain is aching from all the illiteracy.

Like,like what?

[old_bold&cold]

Coot you are crazy to use that source for your cannibioid receptors, as it is one where anyone can upload anything and call it what ever they want. Also I do not spell check my posts, and yes as I am not a good typist but I will bet my Boichemical engieering degree trumps what ever education you have. There are no such thing as cannibinoid receptors, never was and never will be. Go get a book on the anatomy of the brain and look it up. What you are talking about is a person who for lack of knowing what these things were called then he made a surperfilous name for the real receptors that handle this, because he did not know what receptors in the brain process THC not Cannibis. These are the active agents and yes they are received by receptors that service many differing compunds therefore are not called Cannanbinoid receptors.

Maybe you need to learn somethings before you use them. Also you think that kids finding drug staches are just the fault of bad parenting and not the drug. Well when a one year old eats a few grams of hash, do you think it does not affect him. Or if he finds his daddy's speed stache, it will not kill him? Yes it is bad parenting to have any drugs in the home period, and you lock cupboards against children finding bleach and draino. But you should never have drugs in the house period.

Once again for the slow learners. All amounts of pot, hash and their oils, are illegal here in Canada. There never has been any law passed that reduces to fines, small amounts (Under 30 gramms) of any of them. There is not pending legislation to reduce these laws to this coming in any of the next planned government. So it does not matter that you say Pot is victimless because it is just by its very nature that it is not legal, and for the forseeablke future will never be legal, or even reduced to fines for simple possession. These are the known facts and I can not bother listening to them being disputed.

Shavluk I do not know where you get this garbage about being a green party candidate, but so far I have not been able to get Elizabeth May to say you are in any way associated with them at all. I am going to have to give her a few more days to respond, but I showed a copy of this to the green candidate for my area, and he laughed and said no way would he ever consider this in their platform. But I will wait to see what May says. You have brought over yourself and a couple buddies from what ever site you were on previously, trying to sell the good people here a bill of malarke. You even try insults when inteelect will not work, but I will admit I have used the same back at your ridiculous claims and views. I still can not figure your end game as you definitely are no poster boy for any cause that I can think of.

What bothers me most about this last week or so of this stuff, is that it has detracted from real issues and important discussion about the federal politics has taken a slide in this last week. I kind of hope it will get back to its former self. This whole thread is just going no where, and it is not something that is being considered by the government, rather they are enforcing things more then considering lessening things. But I guess they all can dream of the day when drugs are all free and legal, and the streets are paved with gold.

Edited October 8, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[shavluk]

There are more things in the brain than your old text books will explain.

Many things missing and added since your day you are the proof of that.

I love the blatant stupidity here and only tell you this not as a way of making you look or feel bad , for I need not do that for any compassionate actual citizen to come to their own conclusion quickly of its truth.

Say Hi to Elizabeth for me please as she is just a sweet heart!

MORE CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE FOR THE GREENS THAN ANY OTHER PARTY (outside of the obvious choice)

I plan on reaching many many people in this next election and have support from all parties.

You only exist even here with a voice because people get fed up with your unsubstantiated discriminatory view and respond to you.

Kind of a sad act in my view but what the heck ,, kick all the dogs you want ,,,eventually some one like me will actually catch you at it and all will then be right as rain wont it?

I have met your twin at other sites and they thankful with that attention span why they usually just die sooner than most and solve the problem.

[old_bold&cold]

There are more things in the brain than your old text books will explain.

Many things missing and added since your day you are the proof of that.

I love the blatant stupidity here and only tell you this not as a way of making you look or feel bad , for I need not do that for any compassionate actual citizen to come to their own conclusion quickly of its truth.

Say Hi to Elizabeth for me please as she is just a sweet heart!

MORE CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE FOR THE GREENS THAN ANY OTHER PARTY (outside of the obvious choice)

I plan on reaching many many people in this next election and have support from all parties.

You only exist even here with a voice because people get fed up with your unsubstantiated discriminatory view and respond to you.

Kind of a sad act in my view but what the heck ,, kick all the dogs you want ,,,eventually some one like me will actually catch you at it and all will then be right as rain wont it?

I have met your twin at other sites and they thankful with that attention span why they usually just die sooner than most and solve the problem.

Well you certainly proved my point that no one in their right mind would vote for you in any way. I am very glad you are helping the green party and if there were more like you maybe you could even help the Libers and ND. Just promise me that you will never volunteer to help the CPC, and I am sure that everyone here will thankyou.

As for text books changing since my day goes probably, but the same theory has to always hold true until we change the rules of Physics. Your view about why I am accepted or not here is amusing to me, so I will let you have it your way. I never liked the road well travelled, but you can only have the right to choice that later in life after your education, because to take the road less travelled in education usually gives you failure, but occasionally will give rise to great genius. My time has come and gone mostly, but I still may yet get back into things as retirement is boring, but we will need to see what I may like to do. I may start up another business and hire a few people, but it just does not seem worth sifting through a large number of candidates for a job and pick one or two. I always hated that.

[shavluk]

Why you can always help the GREEN PARTY and help your country

And I will always be here to help you over the little bumps on your way to recovery.

I promise.

[Guest coot]

I will bet my Boichemical engieering degree trumps what ever education you have. There are no such thing as cannibinoid receptors, never was and never will be. Go get a book on the anatomy of the brain and look it up.

You must have got your "Boichemical engieering degree" off the internet. Your clearly questionable credentials are undoubtably trumped by the American Academy of Neuroscience, which makes clear reference to cannibinoid receptors in this paper that is by no means favourable towards cannibis consumption.

www.neurology.org/cgi/reprint/59/9/1295.pdf

Perhaps you should read the paper to come up with a coherent argument. I'm getting bored by the lame level of debate on this thread. It's far too easy to shut down. I mean, "tough noogies" was really the best argument I've had yet.

Edited October 8, 2007 by coot

[Pliny]

On a positive note most pot heads become so addled after a few years, society is spared their ramblings and rantings of their jellofied grey matter and they vote NDP.

Yawn

Proof positive!

[old_bold&cold]

You must have got your "Boichemical engieering degree" off the internet. Your clearly questionable credentials are undoubtably trumped by the American Academy of Neuroscience, which makes clear reference to cannibinoid receptors in this paper that is by no means favourable towards cannibis consumption.

www.neurology.org/cgi/reprint/59/9/1295.pdf

Perhaps you should read the paper to come up with a coherent argument. I'm getting bored by the lame level of debate on this thread. It's far too easy to shut down. I mean, "tough noogies" was really the best argument I've had yet.

It is you who does not see what all this science talk means. For one thing they are grouping cannabinoids as the products of many differing compounds similar chemically to THC. They there are stating that these compounds that are processed by receptors in the brain hence they use the word cannabinoid receptors only in that context. You were using it as a noun by naming them that way, and there are no such animal. That is what I said from the beginning. You were trying to take all this to mean we have a preconceived receptors just for cannabis and it is not so, these same receptors will process hundreds of differring compounds and the many differing forms of THC are just a small number of these componds. They are and never will be so specific. But if they were then we could easily today develope blocking agents that would lock on to these and not get processed, which would then make people immune to all that category of drug.

Also no I graduated from Queens in the 70's, and I have worked for many companies and then owned my own labs and other companies in my life. I did find as I got older that if I wanted to do things my way, because I thought they were better, I would have to start my own companies. I enjoyed this and I also allowed all my employees to express their ideas and in many cases they did make excellent progress in changing times. So no, I did not just let time make me obslete, but time and health did make me retire, but now that I am, I find it boring. I have travelled a fair amount. That is the greatest teacher of all, and if I could I would make it so every school made the older classes take trips to other continents every summer, but yes I know that is pie in the sky thinking, but that would round out their education, better then anything that can be taught in classes.

Edited October 8, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[Guest coot]

It is you who does not see what all this science talk means. For one thing they are grouping cannabinoids as the products of many differing compounds similar chemically to THC.

Cannibis receptors were discovered in 1988. You obviously haven't kept up with any new scientific developments since the late 1940s.

Here. Before commenting further, read something new. Learn. Understand. Grow.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p970759.html

[old_bold&cold]

I have read all these and I still stand by what I am saying. The reason they name them that way is for convience and expidious use to give them an identifing name. It would be like instead of explaining the working of the Aveoli in the lungs they say oxygennoidal receptors of the lungs. There have not renamed the aveoli, but have referred to it by use and possible function, to expidiously get around having to go through that whole mechanism. I do find it bad use and it would never fly in the lab logs, but for public ease of definition it is now ok I guess.

Edited October 8, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[Guest coot]

I understand you want to save face and not admit that you don't know what you're talking about. I've added bold so that you don't get too confused by all the science talk.:

"In 1990 Israeli scientists discovered 'receptors' in the human brain which are uniquely suited for cannabis. In 1992 a special protein binder was identified.

Cannabis acts on specific cannabinoid receptors in the brain. Such receptors have been found in humans, in rats, chickens, turtles, trout and possibly even in fruit flies.

This distribution may suggest that the gene responsible must have been present early in evolution, and its conservation implies that the receptor serves an important biological function. "

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/brain.php

Since cannibis is the only known source of cannabinoids, it appears the brain has either evolved to use them through millenia of chronic use by humans, or god, in his intelligent design, decided we need this plant and the means to use it. So by not using cannibis, you are clearly forsaking god's will.

(Though I'm forsaking his will too, because I haven't touched it in years.)

Edited October 8, 2007 by coot

[old_bold&cold]

No need to save face Coot. You still do not understand even basic biology and that most things in the body serve several purposes. if you read right after this about protiens binders, this will mean that it needs this binder to conform to the receptor. But hence our disagreement, but on the bright side, I will have to look into this further and I in a way hope you are right, because if you are it will give me the chance to make use of the genetics portion of my background to possibly come up with a compound that would permanently block these so called receptors, so that there would never be any affect from smoking pot period. This would definitely be an easy sell, and it could be just the thing to come out of retirement for. But as I said I am highly doubtful of this being such a specific receptor, and if it is as i think it is multifunctioned then permanetly blocking it would not be such a good idea.

[Guest coot]

I admit I don't know much about biology, but I clearly knew more than you. Good luck with the compound.

[trex]

it will give me the chance to make use of the genetics portion of my background to possibly come up with a compound that would permanently block these so called receptors, so that there would never be any affect from smoking pot period.

it has already been thought of and being is researched now. i read an article sometime in the past year that discussed this idea specifically, a kind of immunization against getting high off pot by blocking these very receptors.

Edited October 8, 2007 by tbud

[Guest coot]

It does make you look rather pathetic to call me brain damaged just because I know more about this topic than you. Somehow I don't see you ever being on the cutting edge of research.

Edited October 8, 2007 by coot

[old_bold&cold]

We shall see coot. But if as I expect that these receptors are multi purpose then I will have have to say that my own view was correct, but yes I would hope I am wrong and these are single purpose, as that is the easiest way to stop the pot wars, would be to simply make it so there is no affect therefore no demand. If this were the case I would think that any person with any knowledge of these things would not have already done this, as it is not leading edge stuff. This would require low to mid level knowledge to produce that kind of blocker and anything single use in that area would make it easy to permanently block the receptors, without any other harm. It would make the perfect tool to end illegal pot use completely. But yes it would also end any recreational use for it as well, but that would be another discussion.

As for others doing this, I would suspect they have found that it is not the receptors that are unique but maybe the protein binders, and if so this would be a much harder task, as cancelling protiens opens up all kinds of harms and difficulties. So I hope you can see why I say it was not that simple as was put forward, but I am still looking at this.

Edited October 8, 2007 by old_bold&cold