# Put the gangs out of business: Legalize Drugs



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> Finally, we need to embark upon drug legalization, which will starve gangs of their principal oxygen supply and serve to upset the attractive risk-reward proposition that every new gangster now faces.
> ... ... ...
> 
> There is no contradiction in being pro-drug-reform yet anti-drug use. In its present form, the war on drugs is both bad public policy and a fight we cannot win. All drug users should have the right to harm themselves if they so choose. Recognizing that we cannot eliminate their demand, I would much prefer that drug users purchase their wares in a controlled setting rather than from young gangsters, who effectively control what gets sold, where it gets sold and to whom it gets sold.
> ...


I agree with many of the points in this article (surprised it's in the National Post, there's usually little of value there).

It seems clear that drug prohibition has been a colossal waste of time, billions of dollars and untold human lives. No significant reduction in the rate of addiction to hard drugs or use of soft drugs has ever occurred. 

Besides all of this waste, drug prohibition works to enrich organized crime on many levels, from Colombian cartels to North American Mafia groups, biker gangs and youth gangs. 

And besides all this, how does the government have the right to tell me I can't smoke some pot, or even become a heroin addict if I want? Everyone's body belongs to them to do with as they choose. If not, then to be consistent we should not be allowing people to overeat cholesterol-laden foods or do risky things like mountain-climbing or sky-diving for recreation, not to mention allowing cigarette smoking or drinking.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

As long as drugs continue to waste human lives, kill humans, injury and disable humans, and tear families and friends apart, they should stay illegal and be cracked down on. Legalizing drugs would give people a legal and justifiable excuse to kill themselves and tear families apart (and cause damage to others) -- and no one would have the legal authority to put an end to it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Lars said:


> As long as drugs continue to waste human lives, kill humans, injury and disable humans, and tear families and friends apart, they should stay illegal and be cracked down on. Legalizing drugs would give people a legal and justifiable excuse to kill themselves and tear families apart (and cause damage to others) -- and no one would have the legal authority to put an end to it.


So Lars, what about alcohol and tobacco?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

To me the whole problem with the War On or Prohibition of Drugs what ever you want to call it is the Criminalization of a Medical Issue.

The focus should be on harm reduction and treatment of dependancy both medical issues.

The local CBC this evening news had an interview with two addicts who are first cousins from New Waterford CBRM. Very interesting piece.

If you ever have a chance to watch the excellent documentary "CottonLand" details lives of addicts in Industrial Cape Breton who are addicted to Oxycontin. This Doc reminded me of a real life Train Spotting.

How much money good after bad are we willing to spend to satisfy the Drug Tzar of the Excited States?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> So Lars, what about alcohol and tobacco?


That's the other good example of items that should be better controlled (but who knows how). Unfortunately, the only real way out of the messes caused by those two items, along with drugs, is for people to grow up and take better care of themselves and better control of their lives. However, legalizing drugs because cracking down on them doesn't make a big enough dent is not the solution - if anything, it just strongly encourages further abuse of the substances in question.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Lars said:


> As long as drugs continue to waste human lives, kill humans, injury and disable humans, and tear families and friends apart, they should stay illegal and be cracked down on.


Yes many drugs, especially "hard" drugs, can be harmful. Drug prohibition increases that harm in many ways. The "cracking down" that you speak of does more harm to those you purport to be protecting.

Illegal drugs are produced by underground criminal organizations and people that don't have to meet any standards of quality or purity. Most heroin overdoses happen because the user receives something that is way more potent than they thought, which causes them to overdose. 

Illegal drugs are also cut with many toxic chemicals that can kill the users or make them sick. Heroin for instance, can actually be administered safely in measured doses with no harmful side-effects besides the addiction. A person could go through their life taking heroin and still be a part of society. It's what it is cut with that often makes the addicts sick. In some parts of Europe they have experimented with giving clean heroin to addicts in safe doses, which allows them to carry on with and stabilize their lives, getting jobs and apartments, without having to steal for a fix or risk possible death from an impure dose. When their lives start to stabilize, they can work on kicking the addiction.

Much of the tearing apart of families or traumatic results of a person becoming an addict, have to do with the addict having to turn to crime or prostitution to be able to come up with the large amounts of money needed to support a habit. These drugs really don't cost that much to produce, but criminals need a huge markup to pay for their risk of being caught, as well as to be able to buy more guns, pay off other crooks, and corrupt police. Legally produced drugs would be cheap and a person who is an addict could get a prescription that could easily be paid for.

Nothing of what you are saying applies to soft drugs like marijuana, or even some of the hallucinogens like magic mushrooms, LSD or ecstasy. Many people have used these drugs with little or no harm to themselves, their lives or others, except for the risk of contamination or impurities.



Lars said:


> Legalizing drugs would give people a legal and justifiable excuse to kill themselves and tear families apart (and cause damage to others) -- and no one would have the legal authority to put an end to it.


And who are you or the state to tell anyone what they can do with bodies, anyway? I can eat cheese pizzas until I'm obese and need a winch to be moved from my bed, perfectly legally and with lots of damage to my family, society and the health care budget. Do you propose that eating cheese pizzas be made illegal too?

And just how does drug prohibition prevent anyone from getting access to these drugs anyway? Those who feel their lives have no value often end up with a drug or alcohol problem, whether there is prohibition or not. It's just that with prohibition they will be in more danger of needlessly dying and will be spending their money with criminals, which helps to put all of us in danger.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Lars said:


> That's the other good example of items that should be better controlled (but who knows how). Unfortunately, the only real way out of the messes caused by those two items, along with drugs, is for people to grow up and take better care of themselves and better control of their lives. However, legalizing drugs because cracking down on them doesn't make a big enough dent is not the solution - if anything, it just strongly encourages further abuse of the substances in question.


Yes exactly, "who knows how"? Nobody. 

People who have nothing to live for or are inclined for whatever reason to live recklessly, will do things that endanger their lives. They always have and they always will. Addiction and alcoholism will always be a part of society. The fear that if drugs are legal or decriminalized in some way we will all rush out and ruin our lives is nonsense. It's nothing more than outdated "reefer madness" paranoia promoted by the drug enforcement industry.

In the meantime we waste billions and criminalize the victims in a completely fruitless effort to protect them from themselves. And as a side effect we create immense profits for and help sustain organized crime groups and gangs, with their guns and violence. According to the UN, drug addicts comprise .6% of the world's population.

If people have something to live for they will take care of themselves and have better control of their lives. Whether drugs, alcohol or tobacco is legal or illegal has little to do with it.

Edit: fixed punctuation


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm firmly in the 'legalize' camp. 

As we should've learned from history, prohibition of any drug that can be easily manufactured or grown is simply a recipe for funding crime.

And, as we should all be aware, human beings (and other mammals) are strongly disposed to ingest chemicals that alter their neurology, either for self-medication, stress release, or just 'for the fun of it.'

Laws exist to prevent citizens from harming *each other*, not to prevent them from harming *themselves*.

We seem to have found an acceptable compromise with respect to the regulation of some drugs (tobacco and alcohol), and the only things preventing us from reaching the same compromise with other drugs is historical constraint, and the political power of those who profit from the status quo.

We can start by legalizing marijuana, and work our way through the spectrum of illicit drugs as quickly as we can without causing too much disruption.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm also in the legalize, control, and treat camp.
Take out the profit motive.
Abolition never works and only lines the pockets of the criminal societies.

Almost ANY drug can be and has been abused from aspirin to peyote and heroin and every nasty thing people can get hold of...glue and gasoline being notable.

Profit tho is where the real attraction for hardened criminals lies and their weak point in being disbanded or jailed.

Throughout history hitting crime on the tax and finances end has been most effective. Al Capone and many many others.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> So Lars, what about alcohol and tobacco?


not to mention cars


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

As somebody who used to sell drugs (OK, Weed, doesn't really count) I can say that legalization is not going to help. If this happens then the drugs will become regulated and then they will not be as potent. What does that mean? It means that there will still be illegal drugs better than what the government is selling, so it's not going to help anything. Sure there will be some people that switch to the legal way of doing things, but the majority will continue to get 'the good stuff' from the underground people.

And while we are throwing more things into the pot, what about guns!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There are still moonshiners too but with prices down and "control" financial penalties high I think you'd see a major change. ( instead of criminal only control enforcement can involve punitive fines with a rather low standard of proof compared to a criminal conviction )
There will be people that grow their own....who cares.
Most will want quality controlled product and many including myself don't like the overly potent supply that is often current....and unpredictable.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I just want to say that all you "Let's legalize drugs! The government can't tell me what to do!" I would love to see you deal with a heroin or coke addict on the daily basis.

1) Alcohol is nowhere near as psychoactive or psychotropic as other drugs on the market. But we do have alcohol abuse issues. We are trying to get rid of these problems, not take on more.

2) The acceptability of tobacco use in our society is dropping rapidly. Again, we are trying to get rid of these problems, not take on more. You may have noticed the government is working to ween our society off tobacco.

3) If people can't get the drugs, they can't become addicted to them. Addiction is what leads to all the problems. Legalizing drugs will make it EASIER for people to get drugs, easier to become addicted, easier for the illegal drug traders to ply their wares. What is more wide-spread? Tobacco addiction or heroin addiction? Tobacco addiction or marijuna addiction? Tobaccco addiction or cocaine addiction? Which one is legal? Don't you think legality corrolates with wide-spread addiction?

4) The government tells us daily how we cannot harm ourselves. Wear your seatbelt. If they won't let us kill ourselves in our car, how does it make more sense for them to let us kill ourselves with narcotics?


----------



## Radio Flyer (Feb 11, 2007)

Our current policy and laws prohibiting drug use are not working. According to Larry Campbell (former BC Coroner, Vancouver Mayor and outspoken critic of our drug policies) in 1914 when the US and Canada made Opiates illegal there was roughly 1.3 to 1.4 percent of the population addicted. Guess what the percentage is today ... 1.3 - 1.4 percent. The population is much larger so the problem seems to have grown but the reality is the current program of prohibition has not changed anything.

Police usually don't arrest and confiscate drugs from hard core users anymore. The addict is processed and let out soon after the arrest and still needs the drugs. This invariably causes the addict to commit a crime. Its become a crime prevention program for our police officers who deal with addicts on a day-to-day basis. Arresting addicts provides no benefit to the addict nor to society nor to the police.

The other side of illegal drug use is the recreational user, the person who plays but isn't a hard core addict. Contrary to what the authorities and the popular wisdom says, many people can and do use illegal drugs on a casual basis and are not classified as addicts. The recreational use of drugs is where most of the profit is for the dealers. Its not necessary to sneak down a back alley to score drugs. Instead a dealer's representative will deliver an order. Cash only!  

There is no evidence that relaxing the laws on prohibition will result in an increase in drug use. It hasn't happened in countries like Holland and it didn't happen when alcohol prohibition was repealed here. 

Doesn't it make more sense to treat the diseases and symptoms, addiction, mental illness, poverty, homelessness?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The culture of drug prohibition is very deeply ingrained, and I don't expect to see an end to it anytime soon. That goes double, triple or more for drugs other than marijuana. People can build all the nice airtight theoretical cases for complete legalization they want, editorialists can editorialize until the cows come home, but the powers that be in law enforcement and government will absolutely not accept and act on them anytime soon, and quite possibly never. The mentality of interdiction and control is just too deeply seated.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacDaddy said:


> As somebody who used to sell drugs (OK, Weed, doesn't really count) I can say that legalization is not going to help. If this happens then the drugs will become regulated and then they will not be as potent. What does that mean? It means that there will still be illegal drugs better than what the government is selling, so it's not going to help anything. Sure there will be some people that switch to the legal way of doing things, but the majority will continue to get 'the good stuff' from the underground people.


You appear to be assuming that pot smokers just want more buzz for their buck. Let me tell you that there are a lot of people out there who find today's "good stuff" to be anything but. Freakishly manipulated, overpowering garbage is more like it. They'd rather go without than smoke that crap.

It's a (ahem) pipe dream, but it would be nice to have a cannabis culture that was more like wine culture. Different strains, strains bred for finesse instead of brute force, etc. Can't happen if you leave it to the underground, which has no interest in any measure of "quality" beyond raw intoxicating power.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

iMatt said:


> You appear to be assuming that pot smokers just want more buzz for their buck. Let me tell you that there are a lot of people out there who find today's "good stuff" to be anything but. Freakishly manipulated, overpowering garbage is more like it. They'd rather go without than smoke that crap.
> 
> It's a (ahem) pipe dream, but it would be nice to have a cannabis culture that was more like wine culture. Different strains, strains bred for finesse instead of brute force, etc. Can't happen if you leave it to the underground, which has no interest in any measure of "quality" beyond raw intoxicating power.


well said, iMatt  cannabis culture. don't choke, enjoy your smoke


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Legalise it, regulate it, tax it. B.C.'s official GDP numbers would skyrocket overnight!

We are doing more harm than good with our current approach, and it is costing us money. It's some sort of weird policy S&M ritual whereby adults are paid to tell other adults what they can do with their bodies. Kinky.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

iMatt said:


> The culture of drug prohibition is very deeply ingrained, and I don't expect to see an end to it anytime soon. That goes double, triple or more for drugs other than marijuana. People can build all the nice airtight theoretical cases for complete legalization they want, editorialists can editorialize until the cows come home, but the powers that be in law enforcement and government will absolutely not accept and act on them anytime soon, and quite possibly never. The mentality of interdiction and control is just too deeply seated.


Canada was actually moving (very slowly) towards de-criminalising. The trend was there and, combined with very lax real-world attitudes, I think that there's a lot more opportunity for change.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Laws exist to prevent citizens from harming *each other*, not to prevent them from harming *themselves*.


Disagree. Helmet laws & seatbelt laws are the first two that come to mind.

_____

As for the matter at hand, my off the cuff response is no, but I'm willing to listen. I haven't seen anything from either side which is very compelling.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Beej said:


> Canada was actually moving (very slowly) towards de-criminalising. The trend was there and, combined with very lax real-world attitudes, I think that there's a lot more opportunity for change.


Decrim would have been a more rational and efficient form of law enforcement, but not necessarily real progress toward outright legalization or an inherently "progressive" change.

A huge plus, of course, is that it would have put an end to the practice of ruining or massively disrupting lives for the crime of simple possession. However, I believe it would have made the situation *worse* for the average smoker. 

As it stands, charging someone caught with a trivial quantity is an expensive and largely pointless exercise. Absolute discharge or small fines that don't cover all the costs to the system are such common verdicts that the police come across as having a lax attitude. 

Issuing tickets, on the other hand, is a profitable, low-hassle activity for the state. The result (IMO): smokers would be driven to deeper discretion and secrecy. In places where smoking in public is now pretty broadly tolerated... no more.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

iMatt said:


> Issuing tickets, on the other hand, is a profitable, low-hassle activity for the state. The result (IMO): smokers would be driven to deeper discretion and secrecy. In places where smoking in public is now pretty broadly tolerated... no more.


Interesting observation.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Beej said:


> Interesting observation.


...but not a particularly original one. I don't know who came up with it, but it's an argument that's been making the rounds for a while. I find it pretty convincing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> I'm firmly in the 'legalize' camp.
> 
> As we should've learned from history, prohibition of any drug that can be easily manufactured or grown is simply a recipe for funding crime.
> 
> ...


Very well put, a nice distillation of my position as well.



FeXL said:


> bryanc said:
> 
> 
> > Laws exist to prevent citizens from harming *each other*, not to prevent them from harming *themselves*.
> ...


And for similar reasons I have a problem with these two as well. I think you would be very unwise to not wear a bike helmet, use a seatbelt, smoke cigarettes, or take crystal meth, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell you not to do so. It is the person's responsibility to make sure their activity doesn't impinge on others. This is why I support smoking restrictions in public airspace, but not the prohibition of tobacco. It would only drive tobacco underground for the hard core addicts and enrich another group of criminals. 

At this point the typical argument comes up that health care costs and other societal costs mean we have the right to impose these limits. If that is true then there is a massive list of activities we should also be controlling to save the societal costs, including amateurs driving their own cars, eating unhealthy food in large quantities, being sedentary in front of TVs or computers for many hours a day, rock-climbing, snow-boarding, diving, sky-diving, etc., etc., etc. Nobody would want to live in a world where the state told you you couldn't take any of these risks if you wanted to.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> I just want to say that all you "Let's legalize drugs! The government can't tell me what to do!" I would love to see you deal with a heroin or coke addict on the daily basis.


Been there, done that. I've seen alcoholism up very close in my personal life, I had alcoholic parents. I've also dealt with other addicts of illegal drugs. It's the same thing, those who become addicts have lives that have become broken to a greater or lesser degree. They will be addicts of something despite the legality or illegality of the substance. If the substance is decriminalized and dealt with as a health problem rather than a criminal problem and if the person can get a clean and safer supply, the chances of bringing that addict out of addiction become much greater. Driving the addicts into a life of crime or prostitution to support their habit, or putting them in jail with other addicts along with brutal criminals won't help them at all.



guytoronto said:


> 1) Alcohol is nowhere near as psychoactive or psychotropic as other drugs on the market. But we do have alcohol abuse issues. We are trying to get rid of these problems, not take on more.


You say there would be more problems, yet under prohibition we haven't cut addiction rates at all, despite tons of collateral damage. I maintain that people who have working lives that mean something to them will not suddenly drop it all and become useless addicts, if they had the ability to get drugs without dealing with criminals.



guytoronto said:


> 2) The acceptability of tobacco use in our society is dropping rapidly. Again, we are trying to get rid of these problems, not take on more. You may have noticed the government is working to ween our society off tobacco.


I'm glad that government messages about the dangers of tobacco are working. Maybe you noticed that no one, including the National Post columnist are talking about promoting hard drug use.



> 3) If people can't get the drugs, they can't become addicted to them. Addiction is what leads to all the problems. Legalizing drugs will make it EASIER for people to get drugs, easier to become addicted, easier for the illegal drug traders to ply their wares. What is more wide-spread? Tobacco addiction or heroin addiction? Tobacco addiction or marijuna addiction? Tobaccco addiction or cocaine addiction? Which one is legal? Don't you think legality corrolates with wide-spread addiction?


The war on drugs has done nothing to make drugs difficult to get. If you live in a city you can probably get your hands on any drug you want inside of half an hour. Again you are making the reefer-madness type of argument that the rate of addiction amongst otherwise healthy people would increase if we took drug distribution away from criminals.



guytoronto said:


> 4) The government tells us daily how we cannot harm ourselves. Wear your seatbelt. If they won't let us kill ourselves in our car, how does it make more sense for them to let us kill ourselves with narcotics?


Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Canada was actually moving (very slowly) towards de-criminalising.


Yes we were — at least B.H.*






* Before Harper


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Maybe you noticed that no one, including the National Post columnist are talking about promoting hard drug use.


Those would be the best ads ever. beejacon


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> Decrim would have been a more rational and efficient form of law enforcement, but not necessarily real progress toward outright legalization or an inherently "progressive" change.
> 
> A huge plus, of course, is that it would have put an end to the practice of ruining or massively disrupting lives for the crime of simple possession. However, I believe it would have made the situation *worse* for the average smoker.
> 
> ...


I support outright legalization of marijuana. I also think that growing pot for your own use should be legal, such as those who make their own beer or wine.

Yes, I see the ticketing as a potential problem for those who want to enjoy a bit of marijuana. That said, the police aren't likely to raid a house to write tickets, so other than those who might want to smoke it on the street which probably isn't appropriate anyway, it may not be a problem.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> The culture of drug prohibition is very deeply ingrained, and I don't expect to see an end to it anytime soon. That goes double, triple or more for drugs other than marijuana. People can build all the nice airtight theoretical cases for complete legalization they want, editorialists can editorialize until the cows come home, but the powers that be in law enforcement and government will absolutely not accept and act on them anytime soon, and quite possibly never. The mentality of interdiction and control is just too deeply seated.


I suspect that there is much truth to what you say, but I think that this deep seated mentality comes mainly from people not really thinking about the issue and just accepting the irrational moral panic around the subject of illegal drugs. 

Now that I've really thought about the issue in the last few years, I can't help connecting it to daily stories in the news and becoming more convinced of the stupidity of the "war on drugs".

Just today, I heard about a new inter-provincial plan, no doubt costing many millions, to crack down on organized crime. Lots of toys for cops who want to get on the career fast-track and enjoy the latest weaponry. But where does organized crime get almost all their money and guns. Illegal drugs.

But here's an interesting site from a growing law enforcement group now boasting 6,400 members across North America: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Excellent points and arguments, GratuitousApplesauce and some others. :clap: 

More: I will bet my house that drug companies and the "Security Industry" are major lobbyists behind the continued criminalisation of all presently illegal drugs.
I mean, just imagine the (corporate economic) disaster if people were able to grow their own pot, smoke some as a sleep aid or appetite stimulant, or glaucoma treatment, or as a relaxant, etc, etc..

The Security Industry? Self explanatory.

An excellent book on the history of the criminalisation of marijuana is 
"The Emperor Wears No Clthes" - by Jack Herer
ISBN 1-878125-02-8


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Ooops. Double post! 
Sorry!


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Website on the premise of market interposition in the drug trade:
PDPI Pacific Drug Policy Initiative - research & education to improve our society's response to dangerous drugs

Criminal distribution of drugs persists despite the 'war on drugs' because 
1) there is demand and
2) the profits are so high that it is worth the % chance of being caught, jailed, or murdered by rival 'businessmen'.

To say it in the opposite direction: where there is a demand for a black market product, prices will rise to cover the cost of distribution plus profit (including jail, weapons and the possibility of death). So any enforcement action you add, simply causes the distribution chain to up the price to cover their additional costs or losses.

The site above proposes that the government create a regulated sales channel for drugs, and sell a guaranteed-quality product (not cut with sugar and rat poison, for example) at cost -- that is - 10 to 100 times less than street price. The black market channel could not sustain itself on zero profit.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I support outright legalization of marijuana. I also think that growing pot for your own use should be legal, such as those who make their own beer or wine.


I tend to agree with pro-legalization arguments, and specifically the idea of allowing people to grow for personal use. I'm just terribly pessimistic that they'll ever make a serious dent in the status quo. Mostly because the US drives Canadian drug policy, whether we like it or not, and I don't see any significant flexibility there at the federal level, where it matters most.



> Yes, I see the ticketing as a potential problem for those who want to enjoy a bit of marijuana. That said, the police aren't likely to raid a house to write tickets, so other than those who might want to smoke it on the street which probably isn't appropriate anyway, it may not be a problem.


I often see and/or smell people smoking on their own property, sometimes in full view sometimes not. In other words, it would be pretty easy to catch quite a few pot smokers if you wanted to, since most of the weed people smoke these days has a very powerful aroma.

Right now they go about their business largely without interference, most likely because neighbours and passersby don't see it as their place to interfere and possibly because the police might not do anything unless there was a major public nuisance.

Under a ticketing system, I suspect more of these people would get police attention. Where would they draw the line? Would they only bother with people who do it in full view, or would the scent be enough for them to go knocking on doors? My cynical side says that cash-strapped police forces would take any reasonably easy opportunity to write that ticket.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Y'all get ready to pee in a bottle, because I'll guarantee you that legalization of pot and other drugs will bring in mandatory drug testing for everyone. Employers will demand it, cops will demand it, etc. You don't think your personal freedoms will be compromised? Think again.

Criminals and gangs will move to other endeavors, like the sex trade, robberies, theft, truck hijacking, car-jacking, etc. to make up for the loss in drug trade.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But here's an interesting site from a growing law enforcement group now boasting 6,400 members across North America: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition


What a load of bunk. During alcohol prohibition, who commited the violent crimes? The dealers and distributors. The users? Nope. A drinker never got knifed in a back alley just trying to score some hooch. A drinker never held up a corner store just so he can afford a shot of tequila.

These are the problem that come with drug addiction. Legalization of drugs does NOTHING to stop drug addiction. It is that drug addiction that keeps the drug lords in business.

How is legalizing drugs going to make less people addicted to drugs? It's not! You will still have people pushing all the stuff that 'makes you feel good' on school kids, getting them hooked, so they steal from mom and dad to feed their habit.

Okay, marijuana is now legal. Oh look, I can buy a pack at the corner store. Crap, I can't afford it, and I really need it. Think that person is just going to give up their addiction because they can't afford it?

Not one single argument in this thread has dealt with the crime-from-addiction aspect of things, and you can't, because legalization can't reduce addiction. It only contributes to it, like alcohol and tobacco.

Thanks for wanting to have more crime in our cities.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Not one single argument in this thread has dealt with the crime-from-addiction aspect of things, and you can't, because legalization can't reduce addiction. It only contributes to it, like alcohol and tobacco.
> 
> Thanks for wanting to have more crime in our cities.


What you are purposely missing is that legal drugs result in LOWER levels of drug use not higher levels. Rates of heroin use in places like Frankfurt are 5-15% higher than in Amsterdam. Junkies are created by the black market. Without the need created by higher prices fewer people get introduced to hard drugs as the users don't need converts to sell to. I'll add that USA had a pretty large opiate addict population BEFORE criminalization and they weren't much of a problem until criminalization caused the prices to skyrocket. I'll also add that your example of an "addict" mugging people to get that pot is laughable at best.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

kps said:


> Y'all get ready to pee in a bottle, because I'll guarantee you that legalization of pot and other drugs will bring in mandatory drug testing for everyone. Employers will demand it, cops will demand it, etc. You don't think your personal freedoms will be compromised? Think again.


You guarantee? ... oooooooooohh kay.

So the war on drugs approach is actually protecting our personal freedoms? Interesting logic. If employers and cops are worried about people being on drugs, why would they be more worried after decriminalization or legalization? Anyone who wants drugs now can get them quite easily. Of course your assumption here is that drug use would go up.

For those who disagree, please be aware that hard drug use in Switzerland trended downwards after a couple of years with their modest experiments in decriminalization. I believe that crime rates did too. Pot use may rise, but if someone is going to be impaired at work, I would rather see them stoned than drunk. It's pretty easy to tell visually and through odor if someone went out for a toke on their lunch break, probably easier to tell than if they downed 2 or 3 drinks.



kps said:


> Criminals and gangs will move to other endeavors, like the sex trade, robberies, theft, truck hijacking, car-jacking, etc. to make up for the loss in drug trade.


Criminals will move on for sure.

After alcohol prohibition, which created much of the power and wealth of the Mafia, they needed to move on. They moved into drugs to a degree, but prior to the 1970s "War on Drugs" escalation, the business wasn't as big. Much of their huge ill-gotten gains went into legitimate business investments and a big chunk went into gambling in Vegas.

I highly doubt if there was a spike in robbery, theft etc. post alcohol prohibition. The thing about the drug business for organized criminals is that it's insanely easy compared to these other crimes.

Unfortunately we've already empowered and enriched biker and street gangs who have made billions in the drug trade. That money has already been laundered and has been invested legitimately. These criminals are already powerful and will want to maintain their incomes. I would predict that the big ones would probably retire and preserve their fortunes - maybe they'll invest in US military contractors, quite the growth industry these days. We'd also have huge amounts of police departments that could be redeployed to solving real crimes, rather than protecting us from victimless ones.

If you want to see criminal violence, look at what is happening currently in the US and to a lesser degree in Canada with drive-by shootings, gang wars over turf etc., destroyed inner cities. This exactly parallels the lawlessness, except on a far bigger scale, that occurred during alcohol prohibition and mostly ended when that prohibition did. I think legalization and decriminalization would result in a decrease in overall crime, violence and societal collateral damage.

As an aside, as far as the sex trade goes, I would also legalize this, as another example of consenting adults doing what they choose. This legalization would also deny criminals of this other avenue for money that kps cites.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> GA said:
> 
> 
> > But here's an interesting site from a growing law enforcement group now boasting 6,400 members across North America: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
> ...


How obtuse of you GT. I don't think you could have looked at the wealth of info on that site. Bunk describes your knee-jerk reasoning here.

Addiction will always be with us. No one has said it won't and it's clear that our current approach has only exacerbated the problem. Legalization means that we stop giving hundreds of billions to organized crime. Decriminalization means that instead of forcing addicts into crime and prostitution to get what they crave we get a chance to treat them and also give them something affordable so they can live stable lives until they can kick their problem. By promoting the status quo you are the one who is siding with more crime in our cities.

Some won't get better, some will insist on destroying their lives. But at least with decriminalization they have a better chance of turning things around rather than ending up in jail.

BTW, your marijuana addiction example is pretty laughable.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

From the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) web site:


> The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs".


As opposed to guytoronto, these are former police, FBI, judges and legislators in the US who are very concerned with crime and have seen the stupidity of the "war on drugs" first hand.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Legalization of drugs does NOTHING to stop drug addiction. It is that drug addiction that keeps the drug lords in business.


There are some basic mistakes in your logic. First, addiction by adults is a bad thing that government must make illegal? That seems to be your implicit argument and it is BS. The "goal" of society is not to minimise some subjective sinful personal behaviour (at least, that seem to be the lesson learned over the 20th century). So much for liberalism, long live the retailers of morality. Again, that's some kinky stuff.

Second, addiction keeps the drug lords in business? Wow, that must be why they make so much money off of caffeine. Making it illegal keeps black markets in business. A "drug lord" is a black market business. Ban TVs and there would "Boob-tube Lords".


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> There are some basic mistakes in your logic.


Actually guytoronto's post is probably a good demonstration of iMatt's earlier comment of our society being too indoctrinated to actually approach this issue in a fresh way. When presented with a lot of good arguments, it all gets waved away with a knee-jerk "loada bunk" comment.

I hope iMatt is wrong and we are actually smart enough to see past the proven mistake of prohibition, because I think this issue is key to many of the current problems we have in our society. I'm reminded of it every day when I hear the news.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> it all gets waved away with a knee-jerk "loada bunk" comment.


Please remind me of our obscene agreement on this when we next duel over deep integration. 

Of course, with U.S. drug policies, I'm happy to have Canada fleecing U.S. potheads should we find reason and let people stick what they want into their bodies. There are still people out there dumb enough to think that they should have some say over whether one adult male consents to having another adult male...well, you get the picture. How's the prostitution biz working out? beejacon


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Please remind me of our obscene agreement on this when we next duel over deep integration.




OK, although I'm sure what you'll have to say will surely be bunk, I'll try and go easy on ya. beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Are we talking about "deep integration" or Deep Integration? Either way, if I'm in Victoria in the near future (possible) I expect you to dress in your best foil hat. I will try to remember to wear red suspenders, a monocle and ride in on a herd of unfortunates.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Are we talking about "deep integration" or Deep Integration? Either way, if I'm in Victoria in the near future (possible) I expect you to dress in your best foil hat. I will try to remember to wear red suspenders, a monocle and ride in on a herd of unfortunates.


:lmao: 

I have a tin-foil body suit.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Yeah, I'll guarantee it. 

There is no mandatory drug testing in Canada except for airline pilots and cross-border truckers who fall under transport regulations agreed upon between Canada and the US. US employers drug test at will and as part of their conditions for hiring. Canadian employers can not do this. A Canadian employer may suspect you're impaired (non alcohol) or a user, but there's nothing they can do legally. 

If you're been drinking, cops can give you a breathalyzer, but there's no roadside test for drugs. Even if cops could smell that you just smoked a joint, what can they do if no marijuana is found, nothing. There is no minimum limit for impairment as there is with alcohol....because it's still illegal and there isn't an easy way to measure it, but that too will change.

So as a trade off, I can see random and mandatory drug testing as part of the legalization. Let's not kid ourselves, I had to go for random trug testing as a condition of my employment. Refuse and you're fired. We no longer do random drug tests, but if recreational drugs become legal, I can see that coming back in a second.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You guarantee? ... oooooooooohh kay.
> 
> So the war on drugs approach is actually protecting our personal freedoms? Interesting logic. If employers and cops are worried about people being on drugs, why would they be more worried after decriminalization or legalization? Anyone who wants drugs now can get them quite easily. Of course your assumption here is that drug use would go up.
> 
> For those who disagree, please be aware that hard drug use in Switzerland trended downwards after a couple of years with their modest experiments in decriminalization. I believe that crime rates did too. Pot use may rise, but if someone is going to be impaired at work, I would rather see them stoned than drunk. It's pretty easy to tell visually and through odor if someone went out for a toke on their lunch break, probably easier to tell than if they downed 2 or 3 drinks.


Easy for you to talk about all this crime living secluded on some gulf island...:lmao: 

Believe it or not, I'm on the fence regarding mild drug use and the sex trade. I do see some benefit to their legalization, but I also see many pitfalls.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Criminals will move on for sure.
> 
> After alcohol prohibition, which created much of the power and wealth of the Mafia, they needed to move on. They moved into drugs to a degree, but prior to the 1970s "War on Drugs" escalation, the business wasn't as big. Much of their huge ill-gotten gains went into legitimate business investments and a big chunk went into gambling in Vegas.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I'm glad you guys don't run the country or a province for that matter. I'm just waiting a few years to see how bad the stats are going to be on the effects of legalizing marijuana. The increases in school drop-outs, driving under the influence, deaths, etc, not to mention the stench. Legalizing drugs is not the answer.

Canada is going to pot. Pun intended.

Ooooh, oooh, I just had another idea, with the war on obesity, when you legalise drugs, gangs will start selling transfat burgers... they'll start namin' themselves after the popular fast food joints. It may sound funny, but gangs will always exist, they'll just make money off of something else. If you want to break up the gangs, you have to make it uninteresting to join a gang... why do kids join a gang... to belong, to have a "family" in some cases...


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> There is no mandatory drug testing in Canada except for airline pilots and cross-border truckers who fall under transport regulations agreed upon between Canada and the US. US employers drug test at will and as part of their conditions for hiring. Canadian employers can not do this. A Canadian employer may suspect you're impaired (non alcohol) or a user, but there's nothing they can do legally.
> 
> If you're been drinking, cops can give you a breathalyzer, but there's no roadside test for drugs. Even if cops could smell that you just smoked a joint, what can they do if no marijuana is found, nothing. There is no minimum limit for impairment as there is with alcohol....because it's still illegal and there isn't an easy way to measure it, but that too will change.


If memory serves, unless it is a condition of your employment contract you can't be tested for drugs (which may or may not be the situation with pilots & professional drivers).

However, as a pre-employment screen, you can be asked to pee into a bottle, even in Canada. After you're hired, however, there is nothing your employer can do without that stipulation.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

FeXL said:


> However, as a pre-employment screen, you can be asked to pee into a bottle, even in Canada. After you're hired, however, there is nothing your employer can do without that stipulation.


Technically true, but seeing how it's very easy for companies to fire you (all they have to do is give you proper severance), it's usually easier for the employee to comply.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I forgot to mention, that although my employer no longer conducts random drug testing because we no longer cross the border, we can still be sent for a drug test after an accident or if management suspects drug use or impairment. This "Fitness for Duty" status may also apply to other transportation sectors, such as railway workers or water vessel operators.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

kps said:


> Yeah, I'll guarantee it.
> 
> There is no mandatory drug testing in Canada except for airline pilots and cross-border truckers who fall under transport regulations agreed upon between Canada and the US. US employers drug test at will and as part of their conditions for hiring. Canadian employers can not do this. A Canadian employer may suspect you're impaired (non alcohol) or a user, but there's nothing they can do legally.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you have to submit to drug testing to keep your job. I don't see how it has much to do with this discussion though. Your contention is based on an assumption that drug use will go through the roof if we legalized pot and legalize or decriminalize other drugs and therefore all sectors of industry will demand drug testing. I don't think that there's any evidence that our whole society will suddenly become rampant stoners and drug addicts. The evidence we do have from places that have tested the decriminalization waters points to lower rates of use. 

There is currently a trend where pot use is going up, regardless of decriminalization. But because I support decriminalization doesn't mean I support people being stoned on the job, especially not those driving big rigs. I suspect anyone who might get stoned before he gets behind the wheel of a massive truck, probably has some other issues in their life, because they would know full well that it's a risk. Just like the guy, and there's ample evidence of this happening, that brings his thermos of coffee mixed with booze.

And I certainly don't want the guy giving me my needed fix of morning caffeine to be on any drugs whatsoever. That extra-long double espresso with a half-hit of chocolate had better be perfect or there will be hell to pay. beejacon Drug test all baristas!



kps said:


> Easy for you to talk about all this crime living secluded on some gulf island...:lmao:
> 
> Believe it or not, I'm on the fence regarding mild drug use and the sex trade. I do see some benefit to their legalization, but I also see many pitfalls.


OK, I assume that the :lmao: means you were just kidding rather than laughing at the idea that I can't talk about crime because of where I reside. 

I lived for several years in Vancouver's downtown eastside and just east of it in East Vancouver. I've been a victim of drug-war induced petty crime in terms of car and house break-ins. I still currently spend a lot of time in Vancouver on business, usually at least a week or 10 days a month, and I stay on the east-side when I do. This summer I will unfortunately be in Vancouver more than home. I'm as up on the reality of city crime as any Vancouver resident. It sure is nice to come home though, throw the club in the trunk and leave my car doors unlocked.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Kosh said:


> I'm glad you guys don't run the country or a province for that matter. I'm just waiting a few years to see how bad the stats are going to be on the effects of legalizing marijuana. The increases in school drop-outs, driving under the influence, deaths, etc, not to mention the stench. Legalizing drugs is not the answer.


This is just FUD. Again, (for about the 4th time) there is no evidence that we will become a nation of drug abusers if there is a move towards legalization and decriminalization. This is merely the unquestioned "reefer-madness" moral panic propaganda that the drug enforcement industry promotes.

There is a societal cost to all addictive behaviour including those who eat large quantities super-sized fast food garbage all day. Keeping illegal what the majority of people can handle just fine with no ill-effects is wrong. By that logic MacDonalds should be made illegal. It's wrong for junk food, for alcohol, for marijuana, for caffeine, etc etc.

We will always have addiction and addictive behaviour on our hands and we need to promote a better way of dealing with it. What we've done to date has not worked but rather has exacerbated the problem.



Kosh said:


> Canada is going to pot. Pun intended.
> 
> Ooooh, oooh, I just had another idea, with the war on obesity, when you legalise drugs, gangs will start selling transfat burgers... they'll start namin' themselves after the popular fast food joints. It may sound funny, but gangs will always exist, they'll just make money off of something else. If you want to break up the gangs, you have to make it uninteresting to join a gang... why do kids join a gang... to belong, to have a "family" in some cases...


Making it uninteresting is exactly my point. The big lure for youth gangs and organized crime is the quick easy money that dealing in a prohibited substance with a guaranteed market that will buy that product, illegal or not. It is drug and alcohol prohibition that has historically capitalized the gangs, mafias and bikers in the billions of dollars. Easy money is the attraction. Other crime is not nearly as profitable.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm sorry you have to submit to drug testing to keep your job. I don't see how it has much to do with this discussion though.


Sure it does, you're missing the point. What I'm saying is that there will be conditions to legalization and some of these conditions will not be popular and may even infringe on our rights. It's the law makers of this country that can legalize drug use, it's also the law makers of this country who can amend existing laws regarding rights and privacy. If full legalization is to take place, we can be certain that there will be conditions. There will be a price to pay, the question is...how much.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> OK, I assume that the :lmao: means you were just kidding rather than laughing at the idea that I can't talk about crime because of where I reside.


Yes, I was kidding....no disrespect intended.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The lawmakers might make people pee in a cup versus an eternal war on drugs and all the associated policing and social costs of attaching a stupid stigma to people putting things in their own body...how big is the cup?

I worked at a place that had a strict zero-tolerance policy on alcohol being in your system (or the building, for that matter), including hangovers and gifts (no bottle of wine in the building). It was stupid and I don't know if they could actually test for it. Nobody tested me and I duly ignored the rule including laughing at it during orientation. 

I get the feeling that the threat of such intervention is moving of its own volition, so we may as well get legal drugs if we're going there any way. I want to get fired for something seriously fun. beejacon

And then maybe I'll enjoy a legal case proving that I can use excel and powerpoint while high. "I graph better when I've had a few."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

kps said:


> Sure it does, you're missing the point. What I'm saying is that there will be conditions to legalization and some of these conditions will not be popular and may even infringe on our rights. It's the law makers of this country that can legalize drug use, it's also the law makers of this country who can amend existing laws regarding rights and privacy. If full legalization is to take place, we can be certain that there will be conditions. There will be a price to pay, the question is...how much.


What Beej said.

The price has got be much less than what we are paying right now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Came across this article today from a right-wing libertarian site on the subject of this thread. I would have to agree with it.

Decriminalize all drugs; Drug Prohibition makes you unsafe



> Making drugs illegal is a tyrannical approach to solving a socioeconomic problem. The notion that the government can make you a more responsible person is absurd. The government’s ban on drugs doesn’t prevent people from using drugs; it instead, just fills up our prisons and distracts law enforcement from prosecuting violent crimes.





> Decriminalizing drugs would not only free up room in prisons, but it would actually make drugs safer, and reduce crime. Making drugs illegal makes them unsafe and expensive. When drugs are expensive, users tend to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Right on!!

While we're at it, let's legalize:

Carrying handguns in public
Child porn
Spousal abuse
Smoking in restaurants
Old school lawn darts
and anything else that harms society!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GT: weak even for you.

1. Will users shoot someone else up? That's probably extremely rare. Not zero, but quite rare. More rare than stabbings I would guess. Darned knives!

2. Direct harm to children in the process of making it.

3. Direct harm to spouses.

4. I'd prefer that businesses make their own choice, including not being allowed to hire minors and paying a payroll premium for that choice. I am a smoker but am pretty certain that I'd say the same otherwise.

5. You are grasping. That is a problem with children using them and yes, like idiotic pit bull rules, overly controlling if they have been banned.

6. Anything else that harms society: nice to see that you have now adopted the collective over individual liberty. Gambling, alcohol, fast food, rudeness, funny looks, market pricing, non-market pricing, business, government, annoying neighbours, boring neighbours...try to keep up here GT. 

The leftover social conservatism that tries to tell us what we can put in our bodies (including the naughty bits of other people's bodies) is stupid and destructive. Is that a simple black & and white thing? No, but I'm not sure that you are ready for a more "sophistimacted" discussion quite yet.

"You want to legalise free speech?!?!?!? Then you may as well legalise yelling 'fire' in a crowed room when there is no fire and libel would have free reign!" 

If shades of grey trouble you, buy a pair of peril-sensitive sunglasses to block them out.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

If drug addicts aren't commiting crimes to get money for drugs anymore, what are they going to do with all that spare time? Become scout leaders, go shopping at the mall, road trips accross Canada? Wow it's amazing, if they can afford drugs they can become upstanding members of society, just like the ones that can afford it now, because you know none of them commit any crimes. Can't wait to buy some legal roids at the gym and Benoit my whole family. XX)


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Beej said:


> 1. Will users shoot someone else up? That's probably extremely rare. Not zero, but quite rare. More rare than stabbings I would guess. Darned knives!


Drug addiction leads to a lot of problems, including committing crime to afford the drugs. Cheaper, legalized drugs isn't going to make addiction go away.



Beej said:


> 2. Direct harm to children in the process of making it.


Ever see who cultivates drug crops in third-world countries?



Beej said:


> 3. Direct harm to spouses.


Ever see a marriage destroyed because of drug abuse?



Beej said:


> 4. I'd prefer that businesses make their own choice, including not being allowed to hire minors and paying a payroll premium for that choice. I am a smoker but am pretty certain that I'd say the same otherwise.


It's one of those things we have to tolerate to live in a nicer society. It's kinda nice to walk into any bar or restaurant in Toronto and not gag on stale smoke smell.



Beej said:


> 5. You are grasping. That is a problem with children using them and yes, like idiotic pit bull rules, overly controlling if they have been banned.


Ya, I kinda find the whole 'ban lawn darts' thing kinda ridiculous. I threw it in there 'cause it is funny.



Beej said:


> 6. Anything else that harms society: nice to see that you have now adopted the collective over individual liberty. Gambling, alcohol, fast food, rudeness, funny looks, market pricing, non-market pricing, business, government, annoying neighbours, boring neighbours...try to keep up here GT.


We want to move towards a better society, not an "anything goes" society. Fast food? Legislation to eliminate trans-fats and force restaurants to post calorie counts (it's happening).

My point is, there is no way to control drug addiction, just as there is no way to control alcohol addiction. Unfortunately, drug addiction is so powerful, people's lives are destroyed by it. Do we really want to make it easier for people to destroy there lives, and possible harm others around them as they do so? Legalizing drugs will not make addicts go away. It will make more of them.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> It's kinda nice to walk into any bar or restaurant in Toronto and not gag on stale smoke smell.


I bet it's nice to work at one too and not have to breath that crap in.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is just FUD. Again, (for about the 4th time) there is no evidence that we will become a nation of drug abusers if there is a move towards legalization and decriminalization.


Did you miss the news that Canada now has the highest rate of usage in the developed world?

A lot of people talk about the reasons for legalizing drugs but you know what? Most of it is a load of steaming do-hickey. You're going to allow someone to waste their lives away in thrall to an addiction. Society should be about helping everyone reach their potential, what potential is there in being a drug addict?

I don't know who is more amoral...the users, the pushers or the abetters?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Drugs are no biggy.

I know some drug addicts and they're just like everyone else...kinda

Steve...
he's 45 years old, dropped out of high school, was and likely still is a dealer, has never held down a job for more than 6 months his entire life. Did jail time. Drives a vehicle that would fail every safety test going. Owns nothing of any value, no house, no decent vehicle, not even a decent bicycle. Has had lots of women in his life, not to mention STDs. Has milked every social program and handout the government is willing to throw at him. Sad thing is, Steve had the potential to be a better person but drugs has dominated his life from his early teens.

Joe..
He's also around 45. Has had numerous relationships with women but has never been able to keep it together. He has a little grow op in his basement. I mean in his mother's basement where he's lived his whole life. He's stolen stuff. Been arrested for it. He's lucky to own the shirt on his back. He's been better than Steve at holding down a job but after 45 years has absolutely nothing to show for it.

So when I read all this talk of how harmless drugs are and how it would solve all of our problems to legalize it. I can't help but think of Steve and Joe and how drugs has ruined their lives. And yes legalizing it will only make more Joes and Steves because legalization removes the social stigma that its wrong.
Hell look at how many teens are taking to pot in droves these days since Marijuana got its unwritten stamp of social acceptability in the past decade. When I was in school 20 years ago we had pot smokers and drug users but they were clearly a small minority. Not anymore. I can't help but wonder how many more will jump on the drug bandwagon when they can buy it at the LCBO or over the counter at a local convenience store.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And besides all this, how does the government have the right to tell me I can't smoke some pot, or even become a heroin addict if I want? Everyone's body belongs to them to do with as they choose. If not, then to be consistent we should not be allowing people to overeat cholesterol-laden foods or do risky things like mountain-climbing or sky-diving for recreation, not to mention allowing cigarette smoking or drinking.


GS, I agree with most of what you write but I have to call you on this one. You are simply wrong. That kind of thinking leads to anarchy - a breakdown of civil society as a whole. 

It is less the fact that you take heroin, alcohol, and dangerously unhealthy foods into your body and more the consequences for all of us who don't. Yes, please, take your heroin - but don't break into my home to feed your habitand leave your virally infected needles in my back lane with the used condoms from your like minded female friend who did a John to get her fix.

Smoke your dope and nicotine. Partake freely - but don't push my medical benefits costs higher when you go to a doctor to repair the self inflicted cancer and psychotic delusions you suffer. 

And don't expect me to feel badly for your loved ones when they fish your broken body from a large tree that luckily broke your sky-diving fall...again, just don't expect me to pay for the emergency services crew who will risk their life retrieving your limp remains.

Yes, imbibe, inject and revel as you see fit. Just keep it to yourself though and do us all a favour.

Since no-one can keep it to themselves the government makes rules to protect the majority from the minority who let their sloth spill over and make life unsafe and unpleasant for so many innocents. I have no position on legalising marijuana - I actually think I'm in favour of making it a free for all like nicotine. But I stick by my way of thinking that if you smoke, drink and live on fast food voluntarily you should pay for all medical costs associated with the physical damage. Not to mention the environmental cost. If I have to sit on one more lovely beach or in one more park and pick my way through some smokers' litany of discarded butts on the ground I'll....get really mad.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gee Deep Blue I would respectfully request you stay home so you don't push my medical and insurance costs higher by driving.
That you turn off all your power so you don't push my taxes higher for new power plants.
That you stop having kids just in case YOUR genes are costing the medical system more than mine.
......and really flying around to all those countries....I'm still coughing from the jet fumes..you're grounded - overdone the quota mate.
etc etc........

..oh yeah..those "stiff drinks" ?...gotta go.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> We want to move towards a better society, not an "anything goes" society.


A pretty concise way to put it. The better society is characterised as being in direct opposition to one where people choose what to do to their own lives. And, yes, that will affect other people's lives. No way around that: we are all connected and all individuals. 

Again, it is not black and white, but I think that the better society is based upon, to a large extent, "anything goes" for an individual not directly harming another. To the extent that their behaviour damages relationships is an argument against their free choice, I suggest that you really do not want to go down that line of argument. 

As for the truly external harm related to drug use, much of that is a result of it being illegal, just like alcohol under prohibition. There is still alcohol-related crime, but prohibition just hands over huge profits to organised crime. 

"Mr. Capone, we're making a better society so we figured that you should run a completely unregulated industry. In return, instead of hiring compliance officers -- darned pencil pushers -- we'll spend millions more and risk lives by using police officers."

Better my arse.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Deep Blue said:


> Smoke your dope and nicotine. Partake freely - but don't push my medical benefits costs higher when you go to a doctor to repair the self inflicted cancer and psychotic delusions you suffer.


Absolutely ridiculous for universal care unless all related tax dollars paid are refunded (a true opt out). In that case, everyone making over about $70k would just opt-out and self fund their health care. But the notion that a universal and mandatory-pay program should be used as a morality club by government is sick.

On the other hand, think of all the money to be had when things like public education and health care can charge for "non-standard" people that want standard treatment. Your kid asks too many questions in class? $10 per question. You got injured mountain biking in the wilderness? Pay up you immoral clod. A tad overweight? $100 per year, per pound or you pay the full costs of any health care before the age of 65. 

Or...socialised services could be used as great enablers for individuals, for better or for worse. Like voting.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> "Mr. Capone, we're making a better society so we figured that you should run a completely unregulated industry. In return, instead of hiring compliance officers -- darned pencil pushers -- we'll spend millions more and risk lives by using police officers."
> 
> Better my arse.


:clap: Great responses, Beej.



Guy Toronto said:


> My point is, there is no way to control drug addiction, just as there is no way to control alcohol addiction. Unfortunately, drug addiction is so powerful, people's lives are destroyed by it. Do we really want to make it easier for people to destroy there lives, and possible harm others around them as they do so? Legalizing drugs will not make addicts go away. It will make more of them.


You’re right GT, there is absolutely no way to control drug addiction as well as alcohol addiction and a host of other self-destructive behaivours. I would go further, agreeing with my libertarian cousins and say that the state has no right to attempt to control my behaivour in any way, self-destructive or not, unless it directly infringes on the rights of another person.

So why is the state attempting to control something that it can’t? And as has been pointed out amply in this thread the government’s attempt at control only make the problem worse. The “War On Drugs” really does make all of us less safe by funding and financing criminals and diverting a vaste chunk of our police expenditures. 

Yes, legalizing and decriminalizing drugs won’t make addicts go away, but there is no evidence that it will make more of them. This is just the baseless fear that is promoted by those that benefit from the drug war as the rationale for this failed policy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Did you miss the news that Canada now has the highest rate of usage in the developed world?
> 
> A lot of people talk about the reasons for legalizing drugs but you know what? Most of it is a load of steaming do-hickey. You're going to allow someone to waste their lives away in thrall to an addiction. Society should be about helping everyone reach their potential, what potential is there in being a drug addict?
> 
> I don't know who is more amoral...the users, the pushers or the abetters?


Yup, missed it, what’re you talking about, pot? We also drink more beer than a lot of countries, what of it?

Steaming do-hickey seems to sum up your counter-argument here, which doesn’t even really exist as an argument. _Who is talking about encouraging anyone to waste their lives away or encouraging drug addiction?_ The status quo approach does absolutely nothing to discourage this either. When I go into Vancouver or any other major city I could go out and become a heroin addict in about 5 minutes if I so choose. 

The status quo only ensures that those who have made the choice to become drug addicts do many things that also harm society more. They enrich criminal gangs by purchasing these drugs at vastly inflated prices. Police expenditures have soared to keep up in the arms race with organized crime that makes a fortune off of drugs. To pay for these overly expensive drugs some of the addicts engage in petty crime that costs all of us, car break-ins and theft, house and apartment break-ins, fraud, shoplifting, pickpocketing and outright assault and robbery. Many of the at-risk street hookers have turned to prostitution to feed their drug habit. Because the unscrupulous criminals lace their drugs with various chemical agents and poisons as well as not controlling the purity, the danger to drug users using needle drugs is huge. Many die of accidental overdoses and have massive health problems caused by the impurities present in them. We pay for all that financially, and if the addicts have any loved ones left, they pay for it in grief.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, many drugs can be administered in a stable and clean fashion that allows the addict to stabilize and normalize their life, which gives them a chance to kick the habit. Heroin, for instance, causes very little harm physically, outside of the addiction, if provided in predictably measured, clean doses.

You talk of morality, yet the amorality of the current drug war and its many victims doesn’t seem to bother you in the least. Like the “War On Terror” it’s an imaginary war that can never be won.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Deep Blue said:


> GS, I agree with most of what you write but I have to call you on this one. You are simply wrong. That kind of thinking leads to anarchy - a breakdown of civil society as a whole.
> 
> It is less the fact that you take heroin, alcohol, and dangerously unhealthy foods into your body and more the consequences for all of us who don't. Yes, please, take your heroin - but don't break into my home to feed your habitand leave your virally infected needles in my back lane with the used condoms from your like minded female friend who did a John to get her fix.


These situations are the direct result or are exacerbated by the criminalizing of drugs and drug users.



Deep Blue said:


> Smoke your dope and nicotine. Partake freely - but don't push my medical benefits costs higher when you go to a doctor to repair the self inflicted cancer and psychotic delusions you suffer.
> 
> And don't expect me to feel badly for your loved ones when they fish your broken body from a large tree that luckily broke your sky-diving fall...again, just don't expect me to pay for the emergency services crew who will risk their life retrieving your limp remains.
> 
> ...


You realize you are talking about abolishing universal health care here? Or entering into some bizarre system of micro-managing by government of every tiny aspect of our lives and habits. 

I vote to provide health care for those who have eaten one too many burgers than what their arteries could stand. Or for some reason of psychological imbalance have become alcoholics or hooked on heroin. I would also vote that as a society we attempt to find ways to encourage people to live healthier lifestyles - but not to the point of coercion.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Drugs are no biggy.
> 
> I know some drug addicts and they're just like everyone else...kinda
> 
> ...


Did ending alcohol prohibition result in it being suddenly cool to waste your life as a drunk? Have the rates of alcoholism destroyed our society? Your comment is based on some kind of imagined fear, yet doesn't take into account the immense and ongoing harm of our current approach. Have you looked at any of the links in this thread or are you simply repeating the "Drugs - Bad" "War on Drugs - good" mantra?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Alcohol actually has health benefits in moderation, you can't say the same for crack or heroin, unless of course you're a pusher.

Society needs boundries, legalizing drugs is not the kind of message we send to people. Oh it's a winless battle though, so is life, maybe you should give up on that too.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Alcohol actually has health benefits in moderation, you can't say the same for crack or heroin, unless of course you're a pusher.


Yes all those people in the bars are there for the health benefits ( benefits which various studies have disagreed with by the way). Sorry to let you in on this but they are there in the bar to get a buzz for recreational purposes. Hopefully most of them will do so responsibly. Marijuana has many claimed health benefits for those with a variety of medical issues and some people just find it plain fun, like having a beer after work. LSD, magic mushrooms, peyote and ectasy all have benefits to the psyche and for spiritual reasons, claimed by many of those who use them for that reason. Heroin and other opiates are the best pain killers known to man and have been used succesfully for those reasons.

But this is besides the point, alcohol isn’t legal because it has health benefits. It has great health risks much more than many of the drugs on the list above. It’s legal because the government realized prohibition accomplished nothing, other than to provide seed money for vast networks of organized criminals, whose descendants are still living comfortably on “family” fortunes created during alcohol prohibition. In the past I personally have taken several of the drugs on the list above, for reasons of personal experimentation and for recreation and can assure you I’m not addicted to anything besides my double-espresso every morning. (and ehMac - should we ban internet forums too?)



JumboJones said:


> Society needs boundries, legalizing drugs is not the kind of message we send to people. Oh it's a winless battle though, so is life, maybe you should give up on that too.


Has anyone actually read this thread or are they just responding based on the jerkiness of their knees?

Why do you think the message we send by decriminalizing drug use is one of encouragment? As I see it the message that is sent is: “Using drugs is your own business, since you are the sovereign of your own body. Some of the more dangerous ones can cause serious problems with addiction. But if you get into trouble with them, we won’t abandon you to criminals for your supply and risking death to get your fix. We can take a small portion of the untold billions we spend battling drug profiteering organized crime and use it to provide addiction services, which we can’t currently seem to find the money to fund, even though the police “War On Drugs” budget is always rubber stamped.”

“Of the less dangerous currently illegal drugs, like pot, we can make their production for personal use completely legal, like brewing beer or wine for personal use is and we can tax commercially available varieties, just as we do with alcohol and tobacco, to help offset some of the negative costs associated with their use. We no longer have to worry about illegal grow-ops run by bikers armed to the teeth. Enjoy in moderation, like a glass of beer, wine or some of your favourite scotch.”

The message we now send for alcohol and tobacco, as well as gambling and fast food, is the same – Enjoy in moderation, act like an adult, be responsible don’t get addicted. We’ll just stop being hypocritical in regards to which drugs are officially allowed, but controlled and taxed and which ones will make you a felon.

The state can’t make you act like an adult, those who insist on getting addicted are doing so anyway, it’s just costing all of us billions more and putting us as well as them at even more risk.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Wow, what a read .

For those of you against legalization of marijuana and other drugs, why are you against it?

For example in Vancouver in the East end, they have a huge problem with tons of people out on the street who are using all sorts of drugs. They come from all walks of life and all ages. Funny thing is, right across the street is a huge ass Vancouver Police building. So, how is it possible to control the drugs on that corner and area of the East end with a police station right across the street? I mean, if you have ever been or lived in Vancouver, you will know what I am talking about. For years the police have been fighting to control drugs in that area, but I tell you, it is not the easiest thing to do. Quite a few years ago, the Vancouver police started a clean needle program to at least try to keep the drug users from getting diseases while using dirty needles. I'm not sure if they are still using this program, but here is a case where there are drug users all over the place, with a police station right there, and the police can't keep up with policing illegal drug use.

Today, where I live, happens to be in the city where the Mayor of this place lives, you can get marijuana anywhere, anytime and at any place of the city or region. I can actually point out several houses, areas, towns and houses in them, who grow it, sell it, and distribute it. Teens in this region can call hundreds of people within seconds and pick up drugs whenever they want. In the last two years, the drug growing and selling has increased in the area. More teens and other users are selling and using all the time. Marijuana is even being sold at the place of work, right in front of others, and also being used outside in parking lots while on breaks for a lot of businesses in the area. Can you imagine if these businesses which I will not name, had to enforce drug testing before hire? The impact on that in this region would put out a lot of businesses if not put a huge constraint on hiring "drug free" mainly marijuana using associates. 
By not making marijuana specifically legal, we still have to deal with a safety issue of houses blowing up, or potential fires of drug users who do not know how to grow marijuana safely in their homes. This is a huge pain in the ass once again for law enforcement to deal with and the community. 

I can no longer walk anywhere in this city at night or day, in very nice family communities or downtown or just about anywhere and not smell marijuana being smoked. When I look at the penalties of what happens to someone who gets caught with it, I see a waste of $$$ going down the drain for most tax payers. Do you have any idea of the billions of dollars that is wasted on funding drug enforcement across North America? So a teen gets caught, big deal, fills out some paper work, goes to jail perhaps for the night and is back out the next day and keeps using and selling again. What a waste of police man power and tax payers money. 

In all the years since the beginning of this Police against drugs across North America, we haven't seen it disappear or get better. In fact in my area it has actually increased amongst the younger teen generation of use. It is more accessible these days than when I was a teen. And you don't have to go far to see it being grown these days. 

If either governments US and Canada really wanted to stop the war on drugs, there is only one way and that is the way of actually going to war like we have seen in Iraq. I'm talking loading up everything and heading down to the source and kicking some hardcore ass. Then taking down all the big drug bosses after that with all the fire power you got. This scenario seems like a scene out of a Hollywood movie, but it is the only realistic way of getting rid of drugs to a point.

Now for a more realistic approach , legalize marijuana, start with that, if you do it right, it can be a lot better than what is going on now these days. Yes, our highly over paid drug enforcement officers who don't really catch any of the big drug bosses and do too much paper work for the one time offender who carries on using it after they get out, won't be around, but too bad. Most importantly, it will be grown safely, we won't have to risk the safety of others around you if someone is growing it, as you could have standards in place. A lot of the crime of selling will disappear, such as guns and gangs in your area won't have a place anymore in the area once it is legalized.

Point is, marijuana is not going away, it is here to stay for along time. I see more people using it daily. It is way more accessible these days than ever before in this region and I know that the police have not cracked down on the biggest sellers of it in this area as they are still out there. Plus if they did, the next guy inline is ready to take over. 

Another example of how marijuana gets around in Canada. Ever travel across the country in a Grey Hound bus? I have. Guess what gets transported from B.C. to Ontario monthly in huge amounts by Grey Hound passengers? Yup, marijuana. Funny thing is, the police have no clue on this at all. And if they do, they aren't doing a good job of catching it. When I travelled from Vancouver back to here in Ontario, there were at least 3 teens who had each a full size hockey bag full of this stuff wrapped up. Their bags when opened smelled of it, and the smell was strong. Every stop along the way, these guys would try to hide at the bus station and smoke some marijuana, they did and got away with it. But what surprised me was that you could actually get away with smuggling this stuff by bus across Canada without any police dogs or checks of luggage prior to boarding a bus. Try doing that while checking your bags at the airport, you have a better chance of being caught, not that the system is perfect. 

Like I said, marijuana is being grown, transported and used by thousands of people everywhere across Canada. If you're a parent and have kids and they go to parties, guess what? Not only is marijuana present but also other drugs. Who knows where these other drugs came from and what is in them. Would you want your teen dead because the drugs they tried at the party was laced with some bad ****? That's why if they were to legalize drugs and put in place a good system, we could stop half the crap and the crime that goes along with using and selling drugs today.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You realize you are talking about abolishing universal health care here? Or entering into some bizarre system of micro-managing by government of every tiny aspect of our lives and habits.


You betcha. By universal health care I assume that you mean sick people are told wait in agony and potentially die as a result of their diseases even though treatments are out there. It's just that you can't get those sick people into the operating room because the system can't squeeze them in.

What baloney! This "everyone is equal" stuff is a worthy goal but realistically a fallacy. Mix public with private and you might get a health care system that functions.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Well hearing those stories the arguement that drug enforcment is a waste of money, because obviously they aren't going after the average drug user. The only time the average drug user gets charged with possetion is when they are doing something else illegal. You don't hear stories of Police busting up homes for teens smoking pot in their parents basement, they target the large operations.

And do you really think that the legalization of drugs is going to stop people from producing their own? I can see more people setting up meth labs at home, endagering the public. And your tiny marijuana grow-op isn't as harmless as one would think, the fumes that come off of those plants when being grown and used is nasty. Especailly if children are in the house. But of course as soon as drugs are legalized all the home grow-ops are going to be gov't inspected for safety right? 

And MacGyver, I smoked in my day and the very reason I stopped was that the pot I was smoking was laced with cocaine. It was a tough lesson, but there is no reason why other kids shouldn't learn it too. Kids are going to try what ever they want, legalizing drugs is going to make them any safer.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Deep Blue said:


> What baloney! This "everyone is equal" stuff is a worthy goal but realistically a fallacy. Mix public with private and you might get a health care system that functions....


.... for the rich mostly....
You'd have to be very judicious to get a proper system working.
Just look at Quebec to see how dysfunctional a dual system is.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The legalization of hard drugs would be just one more nail in the coffin of the moral decay of society.

The harm and heartbreak addicts bring to society and their immediate families is something most never experience, but perhaps should before they journey down such a dangerous road.

Canada will have gone into the toilet if drugs are legalized. It is absurd to even consider.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

In the UK, methadone clinics provide heroin users with an option that involves not having to resort to crime to get a fix, and opportunities to break the habit. Legally.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> Hasn't the Netherlands done well with their system allowing drugs?Their society doesn't seem to be falling apart.


It's more of a non-enforcement than allowing, which happens here to a degree. And isn't that for only soft drugs, not hard drugs?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> It's more of a non-enforcement than allowing, which happens here to a degree. And isn't that for only soft drugs, not hard drugs?


It's only soft drugs because the Netherlands has programs like the UK for hard drugs.

And it isn't just non-enforcement, it's legalization for soft drugs.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> The legalization of hard drugs would be just one more nail in the coffin of the moral decay of society.


What do drugs have to do with morality?

SINC, sometimes you sound like a caricature of yourself. The only moral issue here is how do we, as a society, deal with people who are sick? Somehow, we've recognized that people addicted to alcohol and nicotine are sick and need treatment, but we treat people who are addicted to opiates or other drugs as criminals. To make matters worse, we force them into criminal culture by making the provision of their addictions criminal, and simultaneously make this provisioning vastly more profitable than any legal activity most people could reasonably hope to undertake.

I know very bright graduate students who've dealt with their poverty by selling drugs (pot), and it's pretty hard to criticize them when they clearly did no harm to anyone, and would otherwise have been forced to live in abject poverty.

The moral fiber of our society is revealed by how we deal with our sick, vulnerable and underprivileged. Cracking down on drugs makes life worse for these people, not better.

Cheers


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

There are many, many other items they could have chosen to sell. They chose drugs for their own reasons, risking their career, or at least delaying it, and potentially wasting your time or the time of whoever supervised or taught them.

No one has a choice ONLY between selling drugs and abject poverty.



bryanc said:


> What do drugs have to do with morality?
> 
> SINC, sometimes you sound like a caricature of yourself. The only moral issue here is how do we, as a society, deal with people who are sick? Somehow, we've recognized that people addicted to alcohol and nicotine are sick and need treatment, but we treat people who are addicted to opiates or other drugs as criminals. To make matters worse, we force them into criminal culture by making the provision of their addictions criminal, and simultaneously make this provisioning vastly more profitable than any legal activity most people could reasonably hope to undertake.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How far would they have got selling booze??....get it now??


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

bryanc said:


> The moral fiber of our society is revealed by how we deal with our sick, vulnerable and underprivileged. Cracking down on drugs makes life worse for these people, not better.


That's absolutely true. Deal with the demand problem by helping wean the addicts off the drugs and putting more effort into preventing people from becoming addicted in the first place.

Deal with the supply problem by cracking down hard on the dealers and pushers.

I absolutely do not agree with legalizing drugs just because it's an easy way out.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> It's only soft drugs because the Netherlands has programs like the UK for hard drugs.
> 
> And it isn't just non-enforcement, it's legalization for soft drugs.


Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine.
> 
> Drug policy of the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And the next paragraph (not quoted above) means that when it's sold, consumed, possessed, traded, whatever, it is legal in most senses, since cannabis prosecutions have ended:



> However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> I do not use drugs. If people want to use drugs, it's their business.
> 
> Your Mac is inspired by an acid tripping Steve Jobs.
> 
> Microsoft Windows was made without mind altering chemicals, which is more harmful?


So, I'll find the next Steve Jobs down at the Salvation Army two blocks away? :lmao:


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> Many homeless people are not drug users. Many successful people are drug users.


And many successful people are not.



MasterBlaster said:


> I think the harm of certain drug use is greatly exaggerated. What happens when people smoke pot? They get stoned, they look relaxed and happy.


I believe that today's level of THC are much much higher than in the past.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> And the next paragraph (not quoted above) means that when it's sold, consumed, possessed, traded, whatever, it is legal in most senses, since cannabis prosecutions have ended:


Technically you can get a ticket, you can choose to pay, or take it to court where it will more than likely will be dismissed. It is unenforced due to the court system, but still technically something you can receive a ticket for. Isn't this the direction we are heading here in Canada?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Technically you can get a ticket, you can choose to pay, or take it to court where it will more than likely will be dismissed. It is unenforced due to the court system, but still technically something you can receive a ticket for. Isn't this the direction we are heading here in Canada?


Actually not anymore. There are more arrests and prosecutions for minor drug offences lately, the kind where the police would let people off with a warning several years ago.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> How far would they have got selling booze??....get it now??


Gimme a break. Sometimes you are so smart you can't see the forest for the trees. Drugs ruin society. Selling them is as immoral as living off the avails of prostitution. Condoning such actions is madness. Get it now?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Gimme a break. Sometimes you are so smart you can't see the forest for the trees. Drugs ruin society. Selling them is as immoral as living off the avails of prostitution. Condoning such actions is madness. Get it now?


bring back dem prohibition days, eh?
i wonder if you, especially as an ex-smoker, would take some time to avail yourself of the harm done to society at large by cigarette smoking


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> bring back dem prohibition days, eh?
> i wonder if you, especially as an ex-smoker, would take some time to avail yourself of the harm done to society at large by cigarette smoking


I know full well the harm done to society by cigarette smoking Michael. But _any_ fool should be able to understand it pales in comparison to the harm done to society by hard drugs.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> I know full well the harm done to society by cigarette smoking Michael. But _any_ fool should be able to understand it pales in comparison to the harm done to society by hard drugs.


alcohol and nicotine hardly "pale" in comparison to cannabis which itself is hardly an hard drug

the gov't should sell cannabis as it does alcohol and cigarettes


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

About as accurate as your "crime wave" perceptions.



> BMJ 2003;326:242 ( 1 February )
> 
> Social costs of smoking are triple those of illicit drugs
> 
> ...


and it's not just in Australia



> FINDINGS: The use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs cost more than 200 billion francs (FF) in France in 1997, representing 3714 FF per capita or 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Alcohol is the drug that gives rise to the greatest cost in France, i.e. 115420.91 million FF (1.42% of GDP) or an expenditure per capita of 1966 FF in 1997. Alcohol takes more than half of the social cost of drugs to society. The greatest share of the social cost of alcohol comes from the loss of productivity (57555.66 million FF), due to premature death (53168.60 million FF), morbidity (3884.0 million FF) and imprisonment (503.06 million FF). Tobacco leads to a social cost of 89256.90 million FF, that is an expenditure per capita of 1520.56 FF or 1.1% of GDP. Productivity losses amount to 50446.70 million FF, with losses of 42765.80 million FF as a result of premature death and 7680.90 million FF linked to morbidity. Health care costs for tobacco occupy second place at 26973.70 million FF. Illicit drugs generate a social cost of 13350.28 million FF, that is an expenditure per capita of 227.43 FF or 0.16% of GDP. Productivity losses reach 6099.19 million FF, with 5246.92 million FF linked to imprisonment and 852.27 million FF to premature death. The cost of enforcing the law for illicit drugs occupies second place at 3911.46 million FF, followed by health care costs of 1524.51 million FF.


and for Canada



> FINDINGS. The misuse of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs cost more than $18.4 billion in Canada in 1992, representing $649 per capita or 2.7% of GDP. Alcohol accounts for approximately $7.52 billion in costs, including $4.14 billion for lost productivity, $1.36 billion for law enforcement and $1.30 billion in direct health care costs. Tobacco accounts for approximately $9.56 billion in costs, including $6.82 billion for lost productivity and $2.68 billion for direct health costs. The economic of illicit drugs are estimated at $1.4 billion.


The economic costs of alcohol, tobacco and illicit...[Addiction. 1998] - PubMed Result

Strange assessment of the world you have there Sinc.....'course that's been very evident of late.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Strange assessment of the world you have there Sinc.....'course that's been very evident of late.


Anyone who supports any decision to legalize hard drugs is out of their mind. And more importantly, contribute to the decay that modern society has become.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

"Modern society" has been _decaying _for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks railed against it, as I'm sure some will thousands of years from now.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Anyone who supports any decision to legalize hard drugs is out of their mind. And more importantly, contribute to the decay that modern society has become.


I note that you specify hard drugs but, even given that (perhaps some are beyond the freedom-damage balance) at what point is "decay" not directly related to government telling individuals what to do with their own bodies? Strict social orders can, on the surface, appear all nice and peaceful but I do not like the hidden costs. Severe social stigma regarding divorce, as one example, did more harm than good in my opinion. Broken families are not a great thing, but compared to abusive and hateful families bonded together by social practice? Nah. 

There is no such thing as some outside moral objective standard by which we should order ourselves (leave that to sky daddies and fake atheists) -- there is a cost to forced order. 

On this topic we disagree but, without relying upon observations that are heavily dependent upon our prohibition (ie. circular arguments of harm that exist because the drugs are illegal...GA has covered this quite well), what are your concerns and do they apply to specific drugs?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> what are your concerns and do they apply to specific drugs?


There is no such thing as a drug that does no harm. So-called recreational users are just that, users dependent on and addicted to, you name the drug from weed to coke to meth. Most users I know say they are not addicted, but I defy them to prove why they continue to use if they are not. Potheads included.

All of it is harmful to society and if you think tobacco did society harm, wait until some fool unleashes this crap on an unsuspecting public.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> There is no such thing as a drug that does no harm.
> ..
> All of it is harmful to society and if you think tobacco did society harm, wait until some fool unleashes this crap on an unsuspecting public.


Many things that individuals do cause "harm" relative to some morally objective utopian society, including overuse of the internet, gambling, overeating etc. The problem with this view of "harm" is that it completely devalues the individuals that make up society (ie. the real society). A basic failure of the philosophy of collectivism ("my village" in grassroots righty terms) as the ultimate measure.

You have yet to make any case. The "harm" society argument, in and of itself, applies to many freedoms that we now take for granted and, as usual, employs fear. No concept of balancing the person with the society, just fear.

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms: set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." 

Make the case for reasonable limits without resorting to, "I jus knows what I knows" sentimentality. We all "knows" a lot of wrong-headed stuff that should not be used to control others and what they do with their own bodies.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> No one has a choice ONLY between selling drugs and abject poverty.


Just checking back in the thread to see what I missed. We agree on this. A lot of arguments can be made about which is more profitable but, in the end, there are now -- more than ten to fifteen years ago -- plenty of jobs with limited skill requirements out there that pay quite well. Not living with the latest iMac (cool looking) but more than enough to make selling drugs a choice in many provinces. 

I have clearly come out in support of legalising drugs (most but possibly not all...I do not know the science enough to say all) but, within current laws, the "forced to deal" argument is extremely weak. This is not about being forced to work in the industry, it is about personal choice and the social stigma that creates many of the "harms" that people just assume are inherent to drug use.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Make the case for reasonable limits without resorting to, "I jus knows what I knows" sentimentality. We all "knows" a lot of wrong-headed stuff that should not be used to control others and what they do with their own bodies.


Is this convincing enough for you?

*Amphetamines*

Effect of the drug: The effects can last from approximately 4 
to 12 hours, but the initial high or “peak” is gone within minutes 
of ingestion, leaving the user to face a “crash,” or a low, desper- 
ate feeling which sparks a strong desire to use the drug again. 
The effects of smoking “Ice” can last up to 24 hours. 
• Increased blood pressure/increased heartbeat 
• Increased breathing/body temperature 
• Euphoria 
• Loss of appetite 
• Feeling more alert and less tired 
• Intense “rush” which only lasts for about a minute 
Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• Irritability/anxiety 
• Severe mood swings 
• Overheating/fever 
• Weight loss 
• Difficulty sleeping 
• Paranoia/hallucinations 
• Depression 
• Compulsive behavior, for example, feeling that there is 
something crawling under the skin. User will pick at the 
skin, or rub their arms over and over again. 
• Nerve damage which causes symptoms similar to 
Parkinson’s Disease 
• Stroke 
• Increased risk for AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis where needles 
are used 
• Convulsions 
• Meth psychosis/meth madness (similar to schizophrenia) 
• Death 

*CANNIBIS:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: In large doses, cannabis 
causes fatigue, “burnout,” paranoia or psychosis. 
Long-term effects of cannabis use upon the body include cell 
abnormalities, impaired speech, loss of memory, lack of mental 
focus, inability to concentrate, mood swings, blurred vision, 
infertility, sinusitis, bronchitis or lung cancer, pregnancy complications.


*COCAINE:*

Effect of the drug: The effects from cocaine use are felt 
immediately and last one to two hours. Crack cocaine use 
provides a high that is incredibly potent, due to the way it is 
ingested. The effects of crack cocaine are felt almost instantly, 
quicker than any other drug. The “low” that follows this incredible 
“high” is what drives the user to seek another dose, or “hit” of crack 
cocaine. The effects of crack cocaine use last about fifteen 
minutes. 
Effects include: 
• Increased alertness, euphoria, and excitation 
• Increased blood rate/pulse 
• Insomnia 
• Lack of appetite 
Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• Agitation 
• Hallucination 
• Heart disease 
• Brain seizures 
• Mental illness (cocaine psychosis) 

*BARBITURATES:*

Potential for Abuse: Barbiturate use is very dangerous 
because the body builds tolerance to the drugs over time. The 
user must increase the dosage to get the desired effect, 
however the amount of barbiturates that will cause death 
remains the same. This means that a heavy user risks death 
with every dose. Benzodiazepines and barbiturates can be fatal 
when mixed with alcohol. Over 3 million Americans abuse 
benzodiazepines and barbiturates every year, often without 
medical supervision. About 5,000 deaths and tens of thousands 
of emergency room visits result each year from barbiturate 
overdoses. (Source: National Council on Alcoholism and Drug 
Dependence) It is estimated that in 1999, 8.9% of 12th graders 
in the United States have used barbiturates or benzodiazepines 
at some time. (Source: Monitoring the Future study, 1999)


*GHB/GBL:*

Potential for Abuse: GHB/GBL can be easily found in 
nightclubs, at “Rave” parties, or college campuses. Increasingly, 
GHB/GBL are being produced in kitchen labs, making it readily 
available locally. Although slightly more expensive than the 
average illicit drug, GHB/GBL’s effects last longer than most other 
drugs. An ounce of GHB, a usual dose, can be purchased for $15 
to $20 dollars. GHB/GBL have a great potential for abuse, as both 
drugs are addictive. GHB addiction can take weeks or months to 
occur, but GBL addiction can occur in days. What makes GHB/ 
GBL so dangerous, is that the potency of the drug varies widely 
and cannot be known. Therefore, the potential for overdose and 
death is clearly high. Most disturbing is the emergence of GHB 
as a “date-rape” drug. Victims are easily incapacitated with GHB 
and will have little recollection, if any, of the attack. 

*HEROIN:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
Heroin is so powerful that the effects can be felt within seconds 
depending on the method of ingestion. It is so addictive that users 
will feel withdrawal symptoms within 6 to 12 hours of the last 
dose. The withdrawal symptoms for heroin/opiates/opioids are 
flu-like and include: 
• Disorientation 
• Runny nose, watery eyes 
• Diarrhea 
• Pain/muscle cramps 
• Alternating chills and profuse sweating 
Heroin users can never be certain of the potency of the dose they 
are getting so overdosing is common. Some rates of purity 
(which determine potency) in heroin samples have been found to 
be over 90%, while the national average is 41%. Heroin users risk 
overdose with each and every 
dose. The effects for heroin 
overdose and opiate/opioid 
overdose include: 
• Slow, shallow breathing 
• Pain, muscle cramps 
• Rapid heartbeat/anxiety 
• Convulsions 
• Coma 
• Death “heroin powder in foil bindle or bag” 

*INHALANIS:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• Nausea/vomiting/headaches 
• Weight loss 
• Chemical-induced stupor 
• Loss of control 
• Memory loss 
• Mood changes 
• Aggressive/violent behavior 
• Suffocation 
• Lung Damage/Brain Damage/Kidney Damage 
• Heart attack 
• Coma “huffing”

*KETAMINE:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• Loss of motor skills and loss of coordination 
• Aggressiveness/violence 
• Vomiting 
• Coma 
• Death 

*LSD:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• “Bad trips”-hallucinations which cause fear, anxiety, panic 
• Extreme mood changes 
• Nausea 
• Confusion/loss of control 
• Flashbacks-where hallucinations return sometimes up to a 
year after the drug was ingested 


*MDMA:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• Jaw clenching/teeth grinding 
• Irritation 
• Headaches 
• Vomiting 
• Panic/Anxiety 
• Exhaustion/Dehydration/Heatstroke- This is very common 
because while under the influence of the drug the user does 
not realize that the body is overheating and does not drink 
enough water or give the body a chance to rest. MDMA users 
at a Rave (typically an all night party) have been known to 
dance for several hours, raising the body’s temperature to 
dangerous levels, and then collapse, suffering a heat stroke. 
• Convulsions 
• Heart Attack 
• Brain damage/mental illness 
• Death 

*PCP:*

Potential for Abuse: The purity level of PCP can never be 
determined and so the user risks overdose every time. The 
greatest danger of PCP is the strong risk of drug-induced 
psychosis and self-injury or injury to others. PCP users are 
known to become delusional and violent. These other 
hallucinogens are less commonly abused than LSD, but 
equally dangerous. 


*FLUNITRAZEPAM:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• Light-headedness/dizziness 
• Loss of motor skills 
• Confusion/disorientation 
• Decrease in blood pressure 
• Nausea 
• Memory loss 
• Incapacitation/ “passing out” 
• If mixed with alcohol or other drugs, the effects of 
flunitrazepam are accelerated and user may become incapaci- 
tated. It can also cause coma or death. 

*STEROIDS:*

Negative Effects/Overdose Effects: 
• Severe acne 
• Baldness 
• Sterility/Sexual dysfunction 
• Aggression, also referred to as “roid rage” 
• Depression 
• For females-deepening voice, excessive body hair, reduction 
in breast size 
• Male breast enlargement 
• Stunts growth in young users 
• Organ damage/Cardiovascular problems 
• Cancer


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

To convince me that your opinion is relevant with regards to another adult's choices on what goes into their own body? No. We could talk of specific drugs that biologically eliminate second chances, but you just seem to be playing the old fear card. These drugs bad; those drugs good; have some prozac. Have you seen the list of side effects for some modern legal drugs?

Seems like you just want to control other people for the good of your own visions of a beautiful village. The extreme left and right agree on this: the individuals must be subdued for "our (read: their)" own good. 

No grey, jus what we knows and what we fears.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fair enough, but it screams at me that drugs in general are a bad thing and should never be legalized.

Let's just call that my unbending opinion and leave it at that then, shall we?

You can believe what you will as well.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Comparing the effects of hard drugs on the human body to eating is so far out of touch with reality that, well, never mind.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Coffee and bad food are equally if not more harmful.
> 
> Overeating donuts will wreak havoc on the body.
> 
> ...


The one MAJOR problem with your argument about food items.
Your body needs, requires, and benefits from the very items you are equating with drugs. Unless they're selling crystal meth light, now enriched with vitamin C, it contributes absolutely nothing to your bodies nutritional requirements. All it brings with it is addiction and side effects, social and physical. 

Our bodies physically need sugar, fats, proteins in meats etc.. Last time I checked, THC isn't mentioned in the Canada food guide.

I guess I have a happy life sober that I don't understand the need or desire to be hallucinating pink elephants or stairing at the back of my hand for hours to have a good time. I thinks its sad that lots of folks need this crap to find some temporary escape from reality. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> The one MAJOR problem with your argument about food items.
> Your body needs, requires, and benefits from the very items you are equating with drugs. Unless they're selling crystal meth light, now enriched with vitamin C, it contributes absolutely nothing to your bodies nutritional requirements. All it brings with it is addiction and side effects, social and physical.
> 
> Our bodies physically need sugar, fats, proteins in meats etc.. Last time I checked, THC isn't mentioned in the Canada food guide.
> ...


you mean like cigarettes?
but, oh, lots of money to be made from cigarettes and cigarette companies and taxes on tobacco

as soon as the powers that be figure out how to make money and the gov't can tag along vis a vis taxes, drugs like cannabis will be legalized


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I thinks its sad that lots of folks need this crap to find some temporary escape from reality.


I share the sentiment, to an extent, but draw a different conclusion.

When does "temporary escape" become a criminal matter? When does it become a problem for the individual? For society?

Consider:

There are those who have a drink after work or a glass of wine with dinner with few or no ill effects, and those who find their only solace in getting soused until they drop. 

There are those who have a little puff of pot now and then for fun, and those who "wake and bake" and waste their lives in a fog of pot smoke, and even a few whose "pot paranoia" doesn't go away when the high wears off.

There are those who take some speed or coke to produce artificial wakefulness to get them through a gruelling educational process, and there are those who become speedfreaks or cokeheads and wind up flushing their lives down the tubes. (As an aside, I'll bet you've been treated by at least one doctor who did speed in med school; and if you've ever hired a lawyer or eaten at a restaurant, then you've probably been acquainted with recreational cocaine users.)

There are those who experiment with psychedelics and come away with an inoffensive or enlightening experience, and those who love that first trip so much they wind up wasting their minds and lives dropping acid or eating mushrooms, and even a few who hallucinate the potentially lethal delusion that they can fly. (It's not lethal if you happen to be frolicking in a field when it happens.)

There are those who receive prescriptions for painkillers and use the pills to manage pain, and there are those who get hooked on the pills and wreck their lives by making the quest for more pills their raison d'être.

There are those who like sex and enjoy a healthy sexuality, and there are those who crave it like a drug and will spare no effort to line up an endless string of new partners.

And so on.

Which of the people described above needs to be protected from themselves by being arrested and jailed? 

Which of them needs to be incarcerated to protect others? 

Which of them needs to be handled as a person with a medical problem to be treated by the healthcare system?

Which of the nasty side effects in Sinc's list is more logically treated as a criminal matter than a health matter?

My answer: when drug use (and that includes alcohol and prescription drugs) leads a person to harm other people, or leads them to cause a clear and present danger (e.g. impaired driving), that's when you ought to cross the line from "medical issue" to "criminal matter." Potentially or even certainly harming one's own health, as in *over*eating, doesn't make sense to me as a category of criminal offence.

When you cross the line from "a bit of fun" to "abuse" is another question entirely, and the answer lies largely with individuals, their loved ones, employers, and medical professionals. What the police could possibly have to do with it is beyond me, yet in fact, most of the time it's a police matter the moment the substance enters the room.

Criminalizing self-destructive behaviour to protect people from themselves is not only futile but more harmful than helpful.

Unhappy people have always found ways to waste their lives, with or without enabling substances. Add substances, and there's a good chance you'll wind up with addiction -- a phenomenon defined as an illness by medical consensus. Not only that, but most people are not especially unhappy and are able to be moderate in their substance intake. As if criminalizing the genuinely sick weren't bad enough, we also criminalize the moderate. That is the "nanny state" at its worst.

Protect society from people who brandish weapons, start fights, drive under the influence, dance naked in the middle of a busy street -- all fine by me. 

But what, exactly, is society's business in the home of a person who puffs a little pot while watching a movie? What is society's business at a party where people snort some coke and stay up all night talking nonsense? Just who is harmed by those activities?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMatt said:


> But what, exactly, is society's business in the home of a person who puffs a little pot while watching a movie? What is society's business at a party where people snort some coke and stay up all night talking nonsense? Just who is harmed by those activities?


It IS society's business because the drugs they buy are obtained directly or indirectly from the criminal element. They support the gangs and bikers who use gunfire on more Canadian city streets than ever before in the ongoing turf war for the right to sell those illicit drugs to so called respectable users who "snort some coke and stay up all night talking nonsense".


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> Coffee and bad food are equally if not more harmful.


Coffee??? I beg to differ, please tell me how you figure that one?

http://www.coffeeandhealth.ca/


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> It IS society's business because the drugs they buy are obtained directly or indirectly from the criminal element. They support the gangs and bikers who use gunfire on more Canadian city streets than ever before in the ongoing turf war for the right to sell those illicit drugs to so called respectable users who "snort some coke and stay up all night talking nonsense".


Yes, of course it's currently society's business because the drugs are illegal. I thought that went without saying, given the context of the discussion.

I'll rephrase the question: what is *inherently wrong* with those activities, apart from the current illegal status of the substances involved?

And, to repeat a question from my previous post: which of the nasty side effects on your list is properly a criminal matter rather than a healthcare question?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMatt said:


> I'll rephrase the question: what is *inherently wrong* with those activities, apart from the current illegal status of the substances involved?


Drug use dispensed by anyone other than a qualified medical professional put all society at risk as well the users themselves. Note they _are_ users. There is no other apt description. The risk of addiction and becoming a burden on society is real.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MasterBlaster said:


> Many homeless people are not drug users. Many successful people are drug users.


I once had the misfortune to work for a summer in a corporate office (I was even required to buy a suit, but I drew the line at wearing a tie). I've never seen so many coke-feinds. It strikes me as highly unlikely that anyone at this (highly successful) firm *didn't* use cocaine (with the possible exception of the clerical staff).



> I think the harm of certain drug use is greatly exaggerated. What happens when people smoke pot? They get stoned, they look relaxed and happy.
> 
> Carl Sagan was a large user of pot, he said it greatly helped him work. He seemed very smart to me,


Pot is almost entirely harmless (smoking is bad for you, but, unlike tobacco, marijuana is not addictive, and it's not necessary to smoke very much). I don't have much use for it myself, but it's a great way to get over "writer's block" or unleash your creativity (problem is that bad ideas are still way more abundant than good ideas), and it's a very effective analgesic.

Marijuana should definitely be legal.

As for other 'harder' drugs, I see decriminalization as a first step towards treating these addictions more effectively, humanely, and saving a lot of tax dollars.

Cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> Drug use dispensed by anyone other than a qualified medical professional put all society at risk as well the users themselves. Note they _are_ users. There is no other apt description. The risk of addiction and becoming a burden on society is real.


I actually agree with some of that. Leaving aside the question of where I disagree, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I fully agree with all of it.

Now my questions become:

1: Why are the twin risks of addiction (recognized as an illness) and becoming a burden criminal and not healthcare matters? Is any useful purpose served by putting the ordinary user into the criminal justice system because of the risk or fact of addiction?

2: Why do we put a great big asterisk next to alcohol? Alcohol is demonstrably lethal, presents a real risk of addiction and is central to many social ills, yet we allow non-doctors over a certain age to medicate themselves with the stuff at will. Why is that not a crime if other forms of self-medication are threatening enough to society that we define them as crimes? 

2a: Do you believe alcoholic beverages should be prohibited?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Traffic accidents from driving causes a lot of death and misery. How does that stack up against drug use for damage?
> 
> Work related health problems and injuries cause a lot of damage to people.
> 
> Ban cars and work?


Again bad example. People NEED transportation, people NEED income. 
I'd love to hear some reasons that we NEED illicit drugs?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I'd love to hear some reasons that we NEED illicit drugs?


Must everything in life be a function of necessity?

We don't really need movies, do we? Does that mean we should shut down the movie industry and all the theatres and video stores and put all that wasted money toward necessities? Card games are basically wasted time, and often wasted money -- might as well ban cards. Does music serve much purpose beyond providing pleasure?

My own preference in mind-altering substances is good wine, or a nice gin and tonic on a hot summer day, or fine port or single malt on a winter night. Some may find those things utterly unnecessary and not worth the well-known health risks, and they are surely not NEEDS, but who's to say I can't or shouldn't enjoy those simple pleasures? As long as I don't get drunk and go driving (or otherwise cause public danger), and as long as I don't get drunk every day and become a burden instead of a contributor, why should anyone care?

I never met a cocaine user who wasn't an insufferably self-absorbed bore, and many pot smokers aren't much better. But I can't find a legitimate reason why their drug of choice is inherently any worse than mine (alcohol), as long as they are aware of the health risks and don't let it rule their lives. If it does come to rule their lives, it's a medical issue. Period.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMatt said:


> If it does come to rule their lives, it's a medical issue. Period.


No, it's a criminal issue. The suppliers of the drugs will make it easy for them to get for a period of time. Then they will turn to crime to support their habit when the cost goes up. That is a known fact and MO of illicit drug distributors and legalizing drugs won't make these guys go away. It might force them to reduce their price per unit, but nothing else.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

I've refrained from commenting on this post for a long time, because this is an issue that is close to me, and it makes me sometimes lash out instead of keeping my cool. I know someone (loved someone?) who has succumb to drug abuse. Of course, they are not willing to admit it, but anyone who uses any mind-altering substance one or more times daily is abusing. It changed them, and broke us apart. And the more I tried to help, the more I was attacked for not seeing things her way/not understanding/taking sides/ etc..

Now with that said, here's my cool, level headed response.  I can see the points in legalizing, and some are very good points. However, my opinion on this is simple... despite all the best intentions to reduce crime by legalizing drugs, crime will not go away. 

Do you honestly think all the dealers will just say "oh well, I guess I'll start working at Burger King instead"? They will just create new drugs, sell cheaper, or find new (and potentially more dangerous) ways of making money.

All we will do if we legalize drugs is create new users/abusers by attracting those who were scared off by dealers.

And not that it matters, but I don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink coffee, don't eat chocolate, and at most I have a glass of wine with a meal on occasion. I'm about as natural as it comes, and I aim to keep it that way. 

A7


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> No, it's a criminal issue. The suppliers of the drugs will make it easy for them to get for a period of time. Then they will turn to crime to support their habit when the cost goes up. That is a known fact and MO of illicit drug distributors and legalizing drugs won't make these guys go away. It might force them to reduce their price per unit, but nothing else.


What does any of that have to do with making *the consumption itself* a crime?

If the SAQ offers me a free taste of Château d'Yquem and I later turn to crime so I can afford a steady supply (a bottle-a-day habit will run me at least $180, as long as I can confine myself to 375 ml bottles), has the SAQ done something inherently criminal? Is the drinking of the wine in itself criminal? No and no. I should be punished for the crimes I commit in order to feed my habit, and perhaps sent to Château Rehab. No way should the addiction in and of itself be criminal.

Also, the dynamic you outline bears no relation to the most popular illicit drug, marijuana. Pot is, relatively speaking, dirt cheap. I've never heard of a case of a pot smoker who turned to crime to support a habit due to escalating costs. Not saying it's never happened, but if it has it's very rare. Most pot smokers I've met would find it well nigh impossible to smoke more than about $10 to 20-worth a day without falling asleep.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

a7mc said:


> Now with that said, here's my cool, level headed response.  I can see the points in legalizing, and some are very good points. However, my opinion on this is simple... despite all the best intentions to reduce crime by legalizing drugs, crime will not go away.
> 
> Do you honestly think all the dealers will just say "oh well, I guess I'll start working at Burger King instead"? They will just create new drugs, sell cheaper, or find new (and potentially more dangerous) ways of making money.
> 
> All we will do if we legalize drugs is create new users/abusers by attracting those who were scared off by dealers.


A7 gets it. :clap:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> It depletes the body of B-vitamins and magnesium.


Because so many people die each year of this. You're grasping at straws here, people can overdose on water too, should we have a law on excessive water drinking too?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

a7mc said:


> Now with that said, here's my cool, level headed response.  I can see the points in legalizing, and some are very good points. However, my opinion on this is simple... despite all the best intentions to reduce crime by legalizing drugs, crime will not go away.
> 
> Do you honestly think all the dealers will just say "oh well, I guess I'll start working at Burger King instead"? They will just create new drugs, sell cheaper, or find new (and potentially more dangerous) ways of making money.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your perspective. And I, too, have seen people changed and even ruined by drugs and alcohol, though fortunately no one as close to me as this person was to you.

That said, my counterpoint is this: if you accept that addiction is fundamentally a medical issue, can you not accept that criminalizing it just makes people reluctant to seek help?

It's true there are trade offs and some of what you predict might come true. Even so, I would still prefer to live in a society that dealt with its social problems openly, and treated medical issues as medical issues and criminal matters as criminal matters. By blurring the line between the two, we only make things worse.

I won't elaborate on that last point, as I'd only be repeating things from my other posts today.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

iMatt said:


> Must everything in life be a function of necessity?


No that would just be silly. But when I put snorting cocaine on the scales of benefit vs risk I can't justify legalization. Base jumping off the CN tower could be fun too but go try doing it and see if someone stops you. I hate lifejackets and seatbelts but if I'm caught without them I'm in big trouble.
We keep hearing the comparison to cigarettes but I wish they were illegal too. Problem is after years of legalization, glamorization and corner store access, too many people are hooked on the crap and nobody has the political will to just ban it. Instead we throw expensive Band-Aids on the problem and hope it goes away. At least with cigarettes we made them legal ignorant of the health consequences. The same could not be said for drugs.

Disease? Is it really fair to call drug and alcohol addiction a disease, or even obesity in many cases? Maybe in the case of a crack baby born addicted thanks to bad choices mom made or an obese person with some genetic disposition to rapid weight gain. In most cases its simply a term used to deflect personal responsibility from the addict for the mess they got themselves in. Cocaine doesn't run up your nose in the middle of the night. You choose to snort the crap knowing full well where it could lead you. A liter of Hogendas isn't absorbed through your pours while swimming in the lake. Trying to victimize the addict for his or her poor choices doesn't fly with me.

Good post A7!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> But when I put snorting cocaine on the scales of benefit vs risk I can't justify legalization.


Then the main difference between us would appear to be this: when I put snorting cocaine on the scales of benefit vs. risk, I can't justify putting it up my own nose. I've yet to see a compelling argument for why the law should make that choice for me, since it is my own nose. I've also seen nothing to convince me that if I become an addict (or even if I take the risk of becoming one), the state should blow a lot of money punishing me.

But the law says what it says, and I don't seriously expect to see any real change to it in my lifetime, no matter how long that may be.

Now I'll have to leave this aside for at least a few days, as procrastination time is over. No offense to anyone wanting to reply from now til the next procrastination time.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

Well iMatt, you seem intent on proving that abuse is a medical issue rather than a criminal issue. The problem is, you can't claim either as fact.

Unfortunately, you're stuck with the chicken/egg situation. Sure, treating abuse as a medical issue is important, but if people didn't have access to the drugs, would they become addicted in the first place? The whole point of criminalizing it is to keep it out of the hands of potential abusers. 

Seems pretty straight forward to me. 

A7


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The whole point of criminalizing it is to keep it out of the hands of potential abusers.


except it does not work..sets up a profit margin for criminals to exploit and exacerbates issues like contamination - lots of people died from illicit moonshine as well as huge costs for pursuing "criminals" users are very high.

Gambling, alcohol, do not submit to prohibition but can be swung to some positive in tax flow and security of quality /fairness etc.

There ARE addictive personalities just as there ARE various metabolic responses to alcohol. Addiction of whatever source that becomes socially disruptive needs medical treatment just as any other mental condition that is disruptive.
Deal with what IS, not what OUGHT to be.

Take the profit out, control distribution through age geared outlets, control quality turn the resulting social income to treatment and prevention.

Otherwise it just flows to the gangs and no funds to gov.
That's the way it IS......wishful thinking be damned.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nor will your system work. The criminal element is smart enough, and devious enough to figure ways around any type of government control. The losers will still be the abusers, who would not exist if we toughen drug laws, not relax them. Use at your own risk. No help supplied to abusers.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

We've had legalized Alcohol and tobacco for decades now and organized crime is still raking in the bucks on that. $1.6 billion annually alone in lost cigarette revenues to contraband. Nearly 40% of smokers in ontario smoking smuggled smokes. 
Drug dealers won't be flipping burgers if the government gets in the business of drug dealing. They'll just have more clients looking for a better high.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

a7mc said:


> Well iMatt, you seem intent on proving that abuse is a medical issue rather than a criminal issue. The problem is, you can't claim either as fact.


OK, one last bit of procrastination, because you make points well worth discussing.

It's easy to prove addiction is a medical issue, since drug addiction is recognized as a disease. The question is: should it *also* be a criminal matter? It's not an "A or B?" question, but rather "A, or A+B"?

What is a crime, fundamentally?

According to the dictionary on my Mac, it's "an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law." 

By that definition, there is nothing that is inherently criminal. Anything can be defined as criminal if that's what we, as a society, want. In most cases, harm to others is the standard. Not when it comes to drug use.

I suspect I'm going to remain mystified for a long time as to why the state and many individuals believe some kinds of addiction, not to mention drug use absent addiction, ought to be treated as criminal matters and some not. 



> Unfortunately, you're stuck with the chicken/egg situation. Sure, treating abuse as a medical issue is important, but if people didn't have access to the drugs, would they become addicted in the first place? The whole point of criminalizing it is to keep it out of the hands of potential abusers.
> 
> Seems pretty straight forward to me.
> 
> A7


I still maintain that if someone is predisposed to addiction, illegality is a feeble barrier. As I said in another post, if you're on a road to ruin you're going to find a way to get there no matter what substances (or opportunities to gamble, etc.) are available to accelerate your spiral.

The one heroin addict I ever knew had no trouble opening reliable 24/7 avenues of access. I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that if you want drugs they aren't very hard to find. 

But more to the point, perhaps, is what happens when a non-user is offered the opportunity.

Because I knew this guy I eventually had the opportunity to try heroin. I declined, not because it was illegal but because I was well aware of the risks. I'd go so far as to say illegality had no bearing on my decision. Social stigma, perhaps. Cost, to an extent. The prospect of becoming enslaved to a drug, absolutely. 

Because of that last one, I know for sure I wouldn't be sampling heroin if it were legalized tomorrow. (Yes, I know this is merely anecdotal.)

So, I think it's fair to assert that illegality doesn't seriously hinder access. Would removing the stigma and illegality send the message that it's OK to use, thus increasing the number of addicts? A tough question, to be sure. Some people who would otherwise be put off by the stigma alone would give it a try. I can't deny that point. 

That said, I don't think there's any evidence of massive pent-up demand for heroin, cocaine or whatever else, that would be unleashed if these drugs were legalized. Most people have a healthy respect for the risks involved in drug use, and most people who have a willingness and desire to try them already have ample opportunity. I also strongly suspect they are not about to let the law get in the way once they've made up their minds. 

Anyway, as you can see my concern is mainly for the consumer. None of what I've written today should be taken as sympathy for anyone who currently traffics. They are opportunists at best and predators at worst. I'd like to see them out of business.

Since there's no realistic prospect of legalization in the foreseeable future, I'd hope at least that the law and the people enforcing it would focus on the supply side, while the demand side is addressed by other means.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Don't legalize it.

You can't regulate it.

Punish suppliers with life on the first offense for the first gram sold.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

90% through one reserve on the liquor - end I suspect smokes are the same and it's a result of a gradient about taxes.,

Very likely little moonshine in that mix.



> # Liquor smuggling occurs throughout Canada. The bulk of the liquor smuggling occurs in Ontario and Québec, but there is also an apparent problem in British Columbia.
> 
> # The source of contraband liquor appears primarily to be a product that is distilled and/or bottled in the U.S. Our research has indicated that there are relatively few incidents of Canadian bottled liquor exported for sale abroad and then smuggled back into Canada in commercial quantities.
> 
> ...


I dare say more is made on the counterfeit good trade by far and a ton of dollars still flows to Ontario - $1.6 billion where ever that comes from is chump change in the whole market. Sounds like a piracy loss number for a sound bite.
The market is in bottled and distilled branded liquor - not moonshine and is therefore no different than any tax evaded good - fuel is smuggled too.

That's a complete diversion.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The "smuggling still exists" argument emerged? Great. That happened in autos when the dollar was under 70 cents. I'm sure all sorts of stuff goes on to avoid GST, particularly amongst contractors. 

As MD suggests, what is the $1.6 B versus the total market? Furthermore, to what extent is it enabled by legal differences on and off reserve?

Look at the total dollars and, as a warning to those that whole-heartedly support any and all tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol, consider how governments (with broad voter support) abuse the ease with which sin taxes can be raised. Whether people like it or not, it is well known that these taxes hit the poor hard. 

The implication? The "smuggling still exists" argument is quite weak and, to the extent that it does apply, is largely a result of governments loading up on easy taxes instead of limiting sin taxes to socio-scientific calculations of real costs. 

Now, with good calculations instead of a political free-for-all, there is a large excise tax base and income tax base sitting out there in an industry that we choose to leave completely unregulated. 

The employees also have zero rights and significant harm is added to the inherent chemical harm -- that individuals can choose to partake in for many other things -- just because, many decades ago, drug use became taboo instead of just another embarrassing personal habit/weakness (note: Sherlock Holmes character). 

We have more harm than would exist otherwise (how many people got shot smuggling cars?); more enforcement costs than otherwise (CCRA accountants versus Police) and we get none of the "sin tax" revenue and none of the standard income and payroll taxes associated with any industry. 

This is our better society.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MasterBlaster said:


> Is religion a drug?


Don't go there... illustrating the similarities between peoples beloved irrational fantasies/socially sanctioned neurotic behaviour, and drugs or mental illnesses is a quick way to get a lot of people angry at you. Which, of course, is all the more evidence that it's true.

As usual, Beej boils the drug-legalizaton question down to it's pragmatic and economic essentials, and, also as usual, comes up with a pretty good analysis from that limited perspective.

The only reason I can see for ordinary citizens to oppose legalization is their own irrational fears of 'drug culture.' Of course, the wealthy and powerful business people making billions from the status quo are doing everything in they can to keep it this way. But I do see society gradually waking up to the obvious fact that criminalizing drug users (especially recreational drug users) is just a huge mistake.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> But I do see society gradually waking up to the obvious fact that criminalizing drug users (especially recreational drug users) is just a huge mistake.


There is no such as a "recreational drug user".

People are either clean, or users. Take your pick.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> There is no such as a "recreational drug user".
> 
> People are either clean, or users. Take your pick.


This is the logical equivalent of saying there is no such thing as a "social drinker"... you are either and alky or a teetotaler... Nonsense.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not really. With illegal drugs, you either use or you don't. The degree to which one uses illegal drugs varies, but there is nothing recreational about breaking the law.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think it's irrelevant if you are a recreational drug user/alcohol drinker. I don't believe people should be allowed to use "hard" drugs (crack, cocaine, heroin, etc.) but I fail to see why marijuana is restricted.

The fuzzy logic that booze is somehow better or safer for people to consume than pot is idiotic at best.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> The fuzzy logic that booze is somehow better or safer for people to consume than pot is idiotic at best.


Why is it everyone assumes people drink only to get drunk, people can stop at one, and do, which has health benefits. Where as no amount of pot, large or small, has any.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Where as no amount of pot, large or small, has any.



This statement is blatantly false. You really need to read a little on the subject. Marijuana is acknowledged to have anti nausea effects and analgesic effects, among others.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

rgray said:


> This statement is blatantly false. You really need to read a little on the subject. Marijuana is acknowledged to have anti nausea effects and analgesic effects, among others.


Yes and the damage a little pot smoke is the least of worries for a cancer patient, besides medicinal marijuana is legal, so if it is helping those who _need_ it, why make it completely legal?

Beside your average pot smoker is not clogging up the courts, and law enforcement are not targeting them, it's the grow-ops and smugglers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> This statement is blatantly false. You really need to read a little on the subject. Marijuana is acknowledged to have anti nausea effects and analgesic effects, among others.


Not so fast. Maybe, maybe not:

Q. Does marijuana have any medical value?
• Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Drug Facts And Statistics
> 
> From The Drug Project.
> 
> ...


Little out date there Sinc but that's not new



> *New Study Of Medical Cannabis Shows Scientific Value For Patients With Neuropathic Pain*
> Main Category: HIV / AIDS News
> Article Date: 13 Feb 2007 - 0:00 PDT
> 
> ...


New Study Of Medical Cannabis Shows Scientific Value For Patients With Neuropathic Pain


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> Drug Facts And Statistics
> 
> From The Drug Project.
> 
> ...


What a load of bunk. This is the worst propganda ever. There have been numerous deaths due directly to marijuana usage, including:

Allergic reactions to marijuana. It happens. People have died.
Crime surrounding marijuana. Grow ops, drugs deals, gangs, etc. People have died.

The whole notion that "legalization" of drugs will eliminate the gangs is blatantly wrong.
London Free Press - Local News - MPP demands action on cigarettes


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

People die from peanut allergies too......so what 



> *Alcohol, tobacco worse than pot, ecstasy: study *
> Last Updated: Friday, March 23, 2007 | 11:45 AM ET
> The Associated Press
> 
> ...





> In a Swedish study, researchers found no link between marijuana use among more than 45,000 male military conscripts, aged 18 to 20, and their death rates over the next 15 years.
> 
> Another study of 65,171 men and women enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health plan found that, with the exception of AIDS patients, marijuana users were not more likely than others to die over a 10-year period.


BTW there is no record I can find of marijuana allergy killing anyone. In fact cannaboids are in allergy creams.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

> Our knowledge that marijuana and cigarette smoking contain as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances and the resulting probability of harm associated with long-term use of marijuana and with exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke, the Canadian Cancer Society recommends that exposure to marijuana smoke should be avoided.


http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_71944811_71962447_langId-en,00.html

The amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers.

http://www.allergyasthmatech.com/News/art606862.asp


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> Why is it everyone assumes people drink only to get drunk, people can stop at one, and do, which has health benefits. Where as no amount of pot, large or small, has any.


Why is it that people assume people smoke pot to get stoned stupid? Pot has medicinal applications as well. So what's your point? Shall we continue with this list of pros and cons until someone declares themselves the winner?

There are a lot of things a person can ingest that will benefit them far, far more than alcohol or pot... this isn't about benefits--it's about personal choice of recreational drugs. Stop trying to paint alcohol drinkers as tempered, responsible people who do so purely for their health and be a little realistic.

Otherwise, people would simply drink alcohol-free beverages.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> People die from peanut allergies too......so what


Dance! Do the 'someone called me on my crappy statistics and caught me in a lie' dance! Let's see the two-step shuffle...side-step the facts!



MacDoc said:


> BTW there is no record I can find of marijuana allergy killing anyone.


Well, let's just do a different dance then:

http://www.parkhurstexchange.com/qa/A.php?q=/qa/Allergy/2000-09-11.qa


> If the marijuana is contaminated with mould spores, which is common, smoking it may lead to allergic asthma, infection or hypersensitivity pneumonitis (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1983;71:389-393)


Hey, I'm not saying that MJ is a major cause of deaths. Just down come in here touting BS facts about MJ being 100% safe.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Why is it that people assume people smoke pot to get stoned stupid?


Are you kidding me? What people like the taste of it and just want a drag, I don't think so.



MannyP Design said:


> Pot has medicinal applications as well. So what's your point?


Yes and it has been legalized for medicinal use.



MannyP Design said:


> Stop trying to paint alcohol drinkers as tempered, responsible people who do so purely for their health and be a little realistic.


Realistically, maybe it tastes good, especially red wine with a nice beef tenderloin, but this doesn't mean I need to finish a whole bottle with a meal. The tempered responsible drinkers far out way the fall out drunks, and if you don't see that then it's time to run with a new crowd.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Are you kidding me? What people like the taste of it and just want a drag, I don't think so.
> 
> Yes and it has been legalized for medicinal use.
> 
> Realistically, maybe it tastes good, especially red wine with a nice beef tenderloin, but this doesn't mean I need to finish a whole bottle with a meal. The tempered responsible drinkers far out way the fall out drunks, and if you don't see that then it's time to run with a new crowd.


Why do you not get that people can temper marijuana use in just the same way?

So it's illegal... so is exceeding the speed limits on the highway, and my bet is that just about everyone on this board who drive exceeds the limit regularly.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> There have been numerous deaths due directly to marijuana usage, including:
> 
> Allergic reactions to marijuana. It happens. People have died.


Yet another unreferenced statement. 


guytoronto said:


> Crime surrounding marijuana. Grow ops, drugs deals, gangs, etc. People have died.


These are effects of the criminalisation of marijuana. They are not "directly" effects of the drug itself.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So tell me, when you legalize drugs, the gangs and criminals magically disappear do they? There are busy bootleggers today. What makes you think gangs will give up the drug trade?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana


The DEA is hardly a scholarly institution and has a vested interest in disinformation in service serves their alleged goal to control drug use. In all elements the DEA is a howling failure, succeeding only in building a monstrous armed-to-the-teeth bureaucracy. Their "War on Drugs" has resulted in cheaper, more abundant and better quality drugs on the street that before they came into existence. They have a vested interest in a continued drug "problem" because if it went away, they'd all be out of a job.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's as much horse pucky as you claim others are posting.

I ask again, What makes you think gangs will give up the drug trade?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

rgray said:


> These are effects of the criminalisation of marijuana. They are not "directly" effects of the drug itself.


There is still an illegal trade of regular cigarettes. Even if MJ was legalized, there would still be a MASSIVE illegal trade. There is too much money involved. People would still die due to criminal activities surrounding a 'legalized' drug.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> There are busy bootleggers today.


Interesting point. You are no doubt aware that the Kennedy family fortune had its basis in running booze from Canada into the US during prohibition? Instead of old Joe doing hard time, his spawn ended up running the country. Twisted world!!!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> There is still an illegal trade of regular cigarettes.


Indeed there is, due to the taxation imposed by governments who now have a vested and financial interest in continuing the nicotine problem.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> Indeed there is, due to the taxation imposed by governments who now have a vested and financial interest in continuing the nicotine problem.


And . . . let me guess . . . This won't happen if they legalize drugs? :lmao:


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> And . . . let me guess . . . This won't happen if they legalize drugs? :lmao:


I have never said it wouldn't. I'm simply saying that the emphasis on the drugs themselves is misplaced.

First of all, no one is going to legalise drugs. There may be de-criminalisation or there may be controlled access. 

In jurisdictions where this has been tried it has met with some success. In the UK heroin addicts can register and receive a maintenance level of supply. They also receive medical care. These cases become useful productive members of society. Take away the need for criminal activity to secure supply and useful members of society are the result. Among those that register, criminal activity is vastly reduced and many who register opt to discontinue drug use.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

rgray said:


> Why do you not get that people can temper marijuana use in just the same way?


Complete BS, I have yet to meet a pot smoker the limits themselves to a toke.



rgray said:


> Indeed there is, due to the taxation imposed by governments who now have a vested and financial interest in continuing the nicotine problem.


And the way the health war on cigarettes is going, it isn't going to be long before they are completely banned. Then what is going to be your mule, alcohol? I have yet to read any health benefits of marijuana, and the medicinal attributes are weak because it is already legalized for that reason and there are better medicines to combat what ails you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I have not checked back in the thread but the argument seems to be around a black market still existing. Nice, simple and binary. 

The black market would be dramatically reduced but, in a world without grey, that's not relevant. Unless the alternative is perfect then the status quo (deeply imperfect) is preferred. I'm quite familiar with this line of reasoning for public policy. The status quo is generally held to a lower standard.

By the way, we still have tax cheats, restaurants that break health regulations etc. So why is this a black and white thing to some?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I have yet to read any health benefits of marijuana, and the medicinal attributes are weak because it is already legalized for that reason and there are better medicines to combat what ails you.


Why do there have to be health benefits? Look around and think about how many things that people enjoy have zero-to-negative health benefits or that have alternatives with more benefits/lower health costs.

Then after that fun, explore the "benefits" of legal drugs. 

What we have is a set of difficult choices. I am strongly in favour of clear and unspun labeling but, once people have information that can be easily understood, why is it your business what they put in their body? Because, with prohibition, banned substances are involved with crime? That's circular.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I have yet to read any health benefits of marijuana,


Then you might want to read my review of the book _Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine_ published in The Lancet. Better yet, read the book.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> So why is this a black and white thing to some?


Because black and white makes for more impassioned arguments, less willingness to listen to the other side, bigger, nastier flame warz, much more soapboxing and moralizing (also known as pissing matches) and virtually endless entertainment ...even if it all eventually comes off like a rerun of a rerun). Black and white is fiercely competitive... whereas the many greys of consensus are intrinsically cooperative while tending to be far less sexy.

But then again you already knew that, didn't you.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Beej said:


> why is it your business what they put in their body?


It isn't, how many pot smokers here have a hard time getting a gram of weed? When was the last time any of the said pot smokers been arrested for smoking/possesing pot, that did not include breaking some other law in the process?

Exactly it's your habit, and you knew the availabilty of your drug of choice when starting. Why the hell should we make it easier for you to continue your habit, or easier for anyone else to to start?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Fair enough Max. I also enjoy the entertainment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I would have no clue where to even start to buy weed, nor would I bother to look.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Exactly it's your habit, and you knew the availabilty of your drug of choice when starting. Why the hell should we make it easier for you to continue your habit, or easier for anyone else to to start?


Your argument is based upon the presumption that it should be illegal, unlike all sorts of other things. Start with, "It's not your business" then make the case for intervention. 

If it's not your business then why does government make it so? Because people do think it is their business. It is not a matter of "easier" but a matter of why you think that you should have any say, through the laws that you support, in this.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Beej said:


> Then after that fun, explore the "benefits" of legal drugs..


Excellent point. The litany of failures of "approved" medications is truly horrendous. The real drug problem is in the legal drug area. The illegal drug problem is trivial by comparison. Take for example the recent finding that 10% (one in ten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) patients in hospital are subject to drug prescription errors. APPROVED medications for arthritis cause heart attacks and strokes. APPROVED medications for stomach problems cause heart attacks and strokes (just announced today).

People are driving around the streets on psychoactive medications - worse yet they may have over/under dosed themselves... or mixed medications with dangerous interactions (not the individuals fault).

"Illegal" drugs are the least of your drug worries.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

rgray said:


> Then you might want to read my review of the book _Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine_ published in The Lancet. Better yet, read the book.


Love to, but does any of it include the _health benefits_ of *smoking* pot, not _medicinal_?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

rgray said:


> Excellent point. The litany of failures of "approved" medications is truly horrendous.


This brings up, in my opinion, a more challenging topic, particularly for "legalised drugs" supporters. Should experimental drugs from the pharma-industry be open as well, given that research should always continue and clear labeling should identify the known risks with all drugs?

It's all well and good to support those scrappy individualists with grow-ops but, using the same argument, why control the rest? I do not mean drugs covered under healthcare, I mean the availability of uncovered (ie. you pay full cost) drugs, whether they be currently illegal "fun" drugs or industrially invented.

It may be interesting to see what the "pro-legalisation" crowd thinks of that. beejacon


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

rgray said:


> Excellent point. The litany of failures of "approved" medications is truly horrendous. The real drug problem is in the legal drug area.  The illegal drug problem is trivial by comparison. Take for example the recent finding that 10% (one in ten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) patients in hospital are subject to drug prescription errors. APPROVED medications for arthritis cause heart attacks and strokes. APPROVED medications for stomach problems cause heart attacks and strokes (just announced today).
> 
> People are driving around the streets on psychoactive medications - worse yet they may have over/under dosed themselves... or mixed medications with dangerous interactions (not the individuals fault).
> 
> "Illegal" drugs are the least of your drug worries.


Yes they should stop trying to cure and treat illnesses with the invention of new drugs, because we all know pot cures them all.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Yes they should stop trying to cure and treat illnesses with the invention of new drugs, because we all know pot cures them all.


No one even came even close to saying that.

Of course research should continue. However "truth in advertising" must prevail. All known side effects should be honestly reported, and they are not. I worked in the drug testing business as a research analyst for a major Canadian psychiatric hospital and I know that not all side effects found in testing make their way onto the info sheets included with the drugs (not that anyone, certainly not the doctors, reads then anyway).

The problem with pot so far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned is that people can grow it for free.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> The problem with pot so far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned is that people can grow it for free.


The bigger problem with pot is that too many people use.

Pot, coke, meth, they're all users.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> The bigger problem with pot is that too many people use.
> 
> Pot, coke, meth, they're all users.


And what is the difference between pot and beer, or wine or any other alcohol? Really trivial when you think about it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> And what is the difference between pot and beer, or wine or any other alcohol? Really trivial when you think about it.


Last I checked, pot was not considered alcohol.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You're right. Pot isn't alcohol. Alcohol is a much more lethal drug than pot and easier to obtain.

I wager dollars to doughnuts that the reason why Alberta is seeing such an increase in violent crime isn't because of pot. Big oil has been having problems with employees showing up on the job hungover, or worse, drunk on the job. The best part is that employees can buy kits to cheat urine tests. And it's quite successful.

But booze isn't the problem. LOL.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> Complete BS, I have yet to meet a pot smoker the limits themselves to a toke.


:lmao:

Wow. How old are you? Such damning evidence. Sounds like you've been hotboxed one too many times.

You haven't met a lot of people, clearly. I know quite a few people who can and do limit themselves with respects to when and how many times they "toke".


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Sounds like you've been hotboxed one too many times.


Sure when I was 16.



MannyP Design said:


> You haven't met a lot of people, clearly. I know quite a few people who can and do limit themselves with respects to when and how many times they "toke".


Sorry my exposure to pot heads isn't up to your standards, not really my crowd since highschool, but personally there is nothing sadder than a 30 somthing pot head trying to recapture their youth, time to grow up.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Beej said:


> If it's not your business then why does government make it so?


The gov't makes everything their business, why is this any different? There are a lot of worse things to be worried about the gov't making their business than the recreational habits of Canadians. 

Or maybe they make it their business because the overwhelming majority of Canadians want to keep drugs illegal or else the country would be run by these guys.

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/index.en.php3


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Nice thread... :lmao: Someone should publish a ebook of the best 'derailed threads', that would be funny. 

Legalizing drugs would do absolutely nothing as far as putting gangs out of business that's just well, idiotic. Like that's all organized gangs do is sell dope and s$%t. If you want to get rid of the gangs well.... get rid of the gangs. It's not rocket science. If you have mice in your house do you get rid of all your food and hope that you starve them to death? :lmao:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Nice thread... :lmao: Someone should publish a ebook of the best 'derailed threads', that would be funny.
> 
> Legalizing drugs would do absolutely nothing as far as putting gangs out of business that's just well, idiotic. Like that's all organized gangs do is sell dope and s$%t. If you want to get rid of the gangs well.... get rid of the gangs. It's not rocket science. If you have mice in your house do you get rid of all your food and hope that you starve them to death? :lmao:


:clap: 

But most around here would rather see them be coddled and rehabbed in our system, rather than have the book thrown at them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep. They voluntarily boil their brain and then try to call it a medical problem so the rest of us pay for their so-called recreational use.

Bottom line is users are losers.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Bottom line is users are losers.


What a tiny little world of black and white you live in! A life full of one bit decisions must be so easy... Too bad it ain't real!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Yep. They voluntarily boil their brain and then try to call it a medical problem so the rest of us pay for their so-called recreational use.
> 
> Bottom line is users are losers.


funny, that's a great way to describe cigarette smokers and wasn't it smoking that led to your multiple (read expensive) heart attacks?

why did it take multiple heart attacks for you to quit smoking?
were you a staunch defender of "smokers rights" while you were a smoker?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> funny, that's a great way to describe cigarette smokers and wasn't it smoking that led to your multiple (read expensive) heart attacks?
> 
> why did it take multiple heart attacks for you to quit smoking?
> were you a staunch defender of "smokers rights" while you were a smoker?


You never quit do you?

The attacks were in under one hour in quick succession. 

Has nothing to do with users and drugs and boiling their brains.

Try and stick with the subject.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> What a tiny little world of black and white you live in! A life full of one bit decisions must be so easy... Too bad it ain't real!


What has been easy is not to take illegal drugs. That is reality.

Like I said users are losers.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> You never quit do you?
> 
> The attacks were in under one hour in quick succession.
> 
> ...


your heart attacks had nothing to do with your smoking?

oh man, pure harpo-esque logic


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> your heart attacks had nothing to do with your smoking?
> 
> oh man, pure harpo-esque logic


Of course not... it's genetics not alcohol, or fatty food, or cigarettes, or coffee, or a lack of exercise.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> Sure when I was 16.
> 
> Sorry my exposure to pot heads isn't up to your standards, not really my crowd since highschool, but personally there is nothing sadder than a 30 somthing pot head trying to recapture their youth, time to grow up.


:lmao:

Nice try. Deflect and divert--the desperate attempts of a weak-minded in-duh-vidual who can't debate the pros and cons of something without resorting to hyperbole and ultimately personal attacks.

Not that it matters, but I don't smoke pot. Period. Or any other drug for that matter. I have tried it in the past but never really cared for it. I rarely drink alcohol, either. Your post only tells me that you're clearly have emotional problems. 

Seek help. Or get laid.

Whichever is easier for you.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> A weak-minded in-duh-vidual who can't debate the pros and cons of something without resorting to hyperbole and ultimately personal attacks.


I guess this isn't a two way street with you?



MannyP Design said:


> Wow. How old are you? Such damning evidence. Sounds like you've been hotboxed one too many times.





MannyP Design said:


> Of course not... it's genetics not alcohol, or fatty food, or cigarettes, or coffee, or a lack of exercise.





MannyP Design said:


> Seek help. Or get laid.
> 
> Whichever is easier for you.


Ooo... question my sex life, pull that one out of your grade nine hand book? Looks like it is you that can't handle a debate. I'll say it again, grow up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> your heart attacks had nothing to do with your smoking?
> 
> oh man, pure harpo-esque logic


Why can't you just forget the heart attacks?

I will say it again. They had nothing to do with taking illegal drugs, and I am fully aware that smoking was a major factor.

Trying to blame Harper for words YOU put in my mouth is just plain low brow thinking. Hell I don't even blame the Liberals for my heart attack.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> More Sinc-logic?
> 
> Am I getting this right?
> 
> Did he smoke and support smokers (ie his drug of choice) rights, then have a heart attack (smoking related)?


Not that any of those questions are any of your business, but for the record my heart attack was mainly genetic, but yes smoking was a factor.



MasterBlaster said:


> Then actively speaks out against other drug use?


Yes I do, did and always will speak out against _illegal_ drugs.




MasterBlaster said:


> Does Sinc drink too?


Yes, he loves a beer.



MasterBlaster said:


> Does Sinc drink coffee (another drug)?


Only decaf and only one cup per day.



MasterBlaster said:


> Doe he eat a questionable diet?


No, I have been following a heart smart diet given me by my cardiologist's dietician for seven years now, combined with an exercise program.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Why can't you just forget the heart attacks?
> 
> I will say it again. They had nothing to do with taking illegal drugs, and I am fully aware that smoking was a major factor.
> 
> Trying to blame Harper for words YOU put in my mouth is just plain low brow thinking. Hell I don't even blame the Liberals for my heart attack.


I'm sure that time will come.

As for blaming Harpo, he's doing enough to make himself look stupid

and just what will those ex-pat U.S. oil barons and the boys and girls at the Fraser Institute say when Harpo doesn't win a majority next time out?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and just what will those ex-pat U.S. oil barons and the boys and girls at the Fraser Institute say when Harpo doesn't win a majority next time out?


They will say:

"Oh well, we're stuck with forming another government with a minority. I mean really, there are only so many fools who would ever vote Liberal again."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

How would you feel if you were denied care because of your lifestyle? 
Sorry SINC, since you smoked, we will not care for you – now go shove off and let us take care of real humans…
That’s the same logic you are using. You’d place judgment values if they are not exactly fitting to the way you live. 
As for certain drugs being illegal, it’s time to change that. The laws are archaic and repressive. Don’t you believe in freedom SINC? What about Liberty? 
Always trying to spin into your eschatology….


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> As for certain drugs being illegal, it’s time to change that. The laws are archaic and repressive. Don’t you believe in freedom SINC? What about Liberty?
> Always trying to spin into your eschatology….


That's where your type's plan fails. Wanna boil your brain? Go ahead, just don't expect we who remain clean to pick up the pieces. That's our liberty . . . clear thinking, unencumbered by illegal drugs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> That's where your type's plan fails. Wanna boil your brain? Go ahead, just don't expect we who remain clean to pick up the pieces. That's our liberty . . . clear thinking, unencumbered by illegal drugs.


So go ahead and drink your beer (and pickle your liver) and smoke your cigarettes... 


As for my type, I don't like drug use (and have never smoked in my life) but I sure will defend anyone who partakes...


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> That's our liberty . . . clear thinking, unencumbered by illegal drugs


Not that I want to contribute to pushing this thread even farther off the rails than it already is, but there are way more people running around the world in a fog 'encumbered' by _legal drugs_ than those smoking dope or crack that's for sure.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> They will say:
> 
> "Oh well, we're stuck with forming another government with a minority. I mean really, there are only so many fools who would ever vote Liberal again."


No, they will say; "We paid damn good money for a majority, NOT another minority."

and just how many more times can Harpo bribe the electorate with another 1% GST cut?

even the millions he's sending Quebec's way isn't helping too much
where's the indignation for Qubec pork barreling now SINC ol' boy?
I guess it's ok if Harpo does it, eh?

and let's not forget, lest we forget, that 10x as many Cdn. soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Harpo's watch, than under the Martin led gov't


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Not that I want to contribute to pushing this thread even farther off the rails than it already is, but there are way more people running around the world in a fog 'encumbered' by _legal drugs_ than those smoking dope or crack that's for sure.


cue Rush Limbaugh


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> No, they will say; "We paid damn good money for a majority, NOT another minority."
> 
> and just how many more times can Harpo bribe the electorate with another 1% GST cut?
> 
> ...


MACSPECTRUM, you political ignorance is amazing. It is evident you personal contempt for our Prime Minister clouds your every comment. The propaganda you spew borders on hysteria.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and let's not forget, lest we forget, that 10x as many Cdn. soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Harpo's watch, than under the Martin led gov't


How soon you forget:



Fink-Nottle said:


> The British stats are almost identical and they had no change in government:
> 
> 5 dead from April 2002 until February 2006
> 59 dead from March 2006 till present
> As Sinc says, the front lines have become far more dangerous for a number of reasons. Had the Liberals won I doubt we'd see any difference here.





guytoronto said:


> As I recall, Parliment voted to extend the mission in Afghanistan shortly after Harper took office. Since the Conservatives have a minority, it was the other parties that kept the mission going.
> 
> Macspectrum is just out to lunch on the political realities of this war. Maybe Harper himself is going over there and personally causing the deaths of those soldiers.





MACSPECTRUM said:


> Had the Liberals won, Paul Martin wouldn't have dragged us into a longer and deadlier war
> 
> the cons and Liberals like Michael Ignatieff (wanna be neo con) are to blame





Beej said:


> Do you actually believe that so conclusively? Not that you're a Martinite, but you certainly sound like one of those devoted naive persons. Funny thing about them is that it was always about what would be "if" and how bad everyone else was. I was actually optimistic about Martin as a PM, until he proved to be, well, not so great. Only the Martinites continued to consider him as a respectable PM and they loved to tell their "what if" tales.





Beej said:


> The vote was very very important to Martin. He did not show up.
> 
> I did not like the way Harper pushed the vote, but the opportunity was there to stand up against it.





keebler27 said:


> this is incredibly irresponsible to post. you're just tossing meaningless stats out there trying to make a point with them when in reality, aside from the lives lost, it means nothing.
> 
> it wouldn't have mattered which PM was in control - our mission has gotten bigger and therefore, more dangerous. Plus, the Taliban are striking back more often and with larger IDEs. So maybe if you're going to tout stats, find some research on the # of enemy attacks before and after.
> 
> ...





HowEver said:


> As has been pointed out many times, Canada never had and never intended to have a "peacekeeping" role in Afghanistan. Recommendations that they revert to that role there, or maintain it, are odd to say the least.


http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/54068-cdn-casualties-afghanistan-pre-post-harper-pm.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So now SINC picks and post quotes from other Ehmacers to _try _and make a point...
At that level, are you sure you don't work for the Post?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So now SINC picks and post quotes from other Ehmacers to _try _and make a point...
> At that level, are you sure you don't work for the Post?


Tsk, tsk. No clue again, eh?

All those ehMacers posts already made their point. 

MACSPECTRUM didn't like them then, nor likely now, but he forgets these things.

You really should _try_ and pick better nit pickings.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> cue Rush Limbaugh


I don't get the reference, but whatever...

If you're trying to say that's not the case, well......


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Tsk, tsk. No clue again, eh?


The one that is clueless would be you SINC.

In one post you blame drug use on poor parenting.
So care to tell others about your son? Is he a reflection of how poor a job you did and (by your logic) should we have jailed you for the poor job you did?
If I recall, he's doing much better, yet you'd like to deny others a second chance. 
Is your son a loser?

Then, you want to restrict healthcare based on lifestyle. Should doctors have left you do die because of your unhealthy choices (including cigarette smoking)?
You ruined your health and the taxpayers paid for your poor choices. 

So while your arguments are obtuse, they are amusingly hypocritical.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The one that is clueless would be you SINC.
> 
> In one post you blame drug use on poor parenting.
> So care to tell others about your son? Is he a reflection of how poor a job you did and (by your logic) should we have jailed you for the poor job you did?
> ...


My son was an adult when he left home. His addiction was created by being a member of a rock band in Vancouver for seven years, long after he had left our influence.

And for the record, that is the lowest of the low to even bring something like that up.

And yes I smoked, but the genetics in my family played a far greater role in my heart attack. As for cost, it was just over $9,000 to the system. Over my lifetime I paid well over $40,000 to health care. They still owe me a bunch should I ever need it.

And yes my son was a loser. Any user is. Satisfied?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> And for the record, that is the lowest of the low to even bring something like that up.


Odd how those that have arrogance and contempt for others and are always pontificating to get a certain world view don't like people looking into their "family values".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Tsk, tsk. No clue again, eh?
> 
> All those ehMacers posts already made their point.
> 
> ...


you're right SINC, i did make an error
i said that 10x as many canadians died in afghanistan under Harpo, than under Martin
actually it's 59:5, (as per your quote of FINK-NOTTLE) so it's actually almost 12x

for that "skewing of the facts," i humbly apologize


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Odd how those that have arrogance and contempt for others and are always pontificating to get a certain world view don't like people looking into their "family values".



Do as I say, not as I do.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> I seem to have missed anything about how your son was afflicted with drug problems. I think I am starting to understand how this may possibly have created your hardline view towards certain narcotics. This must have been hard for you and your wife.


I once posted the trials of going through rehab on another board with our son who was 35 when his addiction peaked. AS has tossed it back in my face by innuendo, and recently more directly for two years now. He seems to think an adult child's decisions were a result of our treatment of him, which is so far from the truth it is not even funny. His use of this against me is lower than low, but that's the way it goes.

Hard barely describes watching someone you love battle the demons of drug abuse and now that he has recovered and is a contributing member of society again, it is painful to have it used against me, but that is the MO of some here.



MasterBlaster said:


> Did you love your son any less Sinc?


Of course we don't love him any less. We rescued him from various locations when he was totally spaced out on coke and was sure the cops had surrounded his hotel rooms he rented to get high. It was tough finding him passed out on his back with the whites of his eyes showing when his eyes were rolled so far back in his head we thought him dead.


MasterBlaster said:


> Would you still love him if he didn't recover?


One can never not love an offspring. One tries to forget what happened, but at times I felt it necessary to tell others of our troubles to educate and warn them against the evils and hardships incurred through a family member's addiction. Never did I imagine it would be used in an attempt to ridicule me, but I guess there are some who revel in causing pain to others.



MasterBlaster said:


> If he wasn't your son, how would your attitude have been different towards him?


It would not have been my problem and I have no sympathy for anyone who uses. I do have tons of sympathy for the agony through which they put their families. Like I said, all users are losers.



MasterBlaster said:


> Everyone with a substance problem is someones son / daughter, brother / sister friend.


Yes, nothing could be more true. Just pray it is never your family member that is involved. And say a small prayer that a callous individual never uses the information to try and discredit you.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for those kind words MB, that means a lot to me.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Your welcome Sinc.
> 
> I am curious, what do you think and feel about police that make money from the drug trade and other crimes?


to borrow from Homer Simpson; "BP rising...."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In one post you blame drug use on poor parenting.
> So care to tell others about your son? Is he a reflection of how poor a job you did and (by your logic) should we have jailed you for the poor job you did?
> If I recall, he's doing much better, yet you'd like to deny others a second chance.
> Is your son a loser?


Unbelievable. I just saw this and am shocked. 

Some "in your face" aggressiveness adds to the spice of ehmac and shining the light on past approaches versus current claims is all well and good but in this case, AS, you went way too far. I can see the argument you are making, but it is much better suited to a PM. Much.

There is no objective equation for "too far" and there is opportunity for claims of "he did something somewhat similar" but, at some point, common sense and decency do matter when dealing with others.

An apology would do wonders. Not just for Sinc (I cannot say whether or not he would care), but for any ehmacers that would ever consider sharing deeply personal matters on this site.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Gee Beej, if you really feel that way a PM would of done wonders and likely been more effective...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A desperate attempt at a reversal. AS, I have no interest in providing you with shovels while you continue to dig. The choice is clearly yours. Desperate reversals or otherwise.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

AS, he did it publically as he's trying to shame you for your continued tastelessness on this matter. Isn't this obvious?

Please leave Sinc's son out of your ongoing war. It's making me cringe watching this thing drag on.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

That you find it objectionable is a bit of a puzzlement. Someone condones and labels with near impunity, all the while spouting specious and narrow minded blather and you seem insulted by the fact that he himself is not so squeaky clean. 

I have no qualms at pointing out the hypocrisy and self-righteousness exhibited given the denigrating tone taken. 

It reminds me of Ted Haggard who preached against homosexuality and drug use. His followers should of felt duped when it was revealed that he frequented a gay male escort and used methamphetamine. Of course, the good Pastor had an excuse to explain and lessen the outrage of his transgressions....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

My point is that you ought to be able to come up with ammo against Sinc's arguments without making it personal. That you think it fine to go for the jugular and make it overwhelmingly personal, _and_ find it puzzling that some of us here find such tactics pathetic and vulgar, speaks volumes.

But whatever, AS. Continue on your high horse, I guess.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> But whatever, AS. Continue on your high horse, I guess.


Odd that while some seem on a quixotic endeavour, I'm the one on a horse. 

I don't expect SINC to embrace what he finds objectionable but when his bias is betrayed but reality, I do find it hypocritical.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, you're the one on the horse. Yet you find it odd that you're being singled out for nasty play. I'm waiting for the masses to rush to your aid here.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Beej said:


> An apology would do wonders. Not just for Sinc (I cannot say whether or not he would care), but for any ehmacers that would ever consider sharing deeply personal matters on this site.


I put a governor on doing that long ago.

What I don't get though, is how someone can continually hope to win an argument when their tactics have already declared them disqualified.

I guess that's the spark that ignites a vendetta. But then again, maybe it just means that someone needs to get away from it all, like, 3 weeks in Puerto Vallarta or something. I dunno.


----------

