# Ideologues at work on pot?



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> ealth Minister Tony Clement will announce it’s anti-drug strategy this week with a stark warning: “the party’s over” for illicit drug users.
> “In the next few days, we’re going to be back in the business of an anti-drug strategy,” Clement told The Canadian Press.
> 
> “In that sense, the party’s over.”
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/261901

These guys need a two by clue across the head...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> These guys need a two by clue across the head...


Quote:

"Since then, the number of people arrested for smoking pot has jumped dramatically in several Canadian cities, in some cases jumping by more than one third.

Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax all reported increases of between 20 and 50 per cent in 2006 of arrests for possession of cannabis, compared with the previous year.

As a result thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that, under the previous Liberal government, was on the verge of being classified as a misdemeanour."

:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I would rather be drunk than high. If my government thinks that they should have a say in that decision, then they are fools at best.

I am not against banning as a strict rule, but the general notion of presumed banning is moronic. Start with allowing everything and use science and socio-economic evidence to determine excise taxes and, if ultimately reasonable, banning.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, apart from clapping at what I can presume to be Liberal bashing, tell me how does it help to criminalize what is socially accepted. 

I don't do drugs (unless you count beer, wine and single malt as drugs), but should people not have the choice to do with their body as they please? These are small amounts and we are increasing the ranks of "criminals". While it may help your world view that now it's scarier out there (with stats to back it up), has the War on drugs even worked in the past?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm still for coming down hard on criminal behaviour--whether it results from boozing it up, drugs or too much sugary pop. How they got into that state is no business of mine.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm still for coming down hard on criminal behaviour--whether it results from boozing it up, drugs or too much sugary pop. How they got into that state is no business of mine.


As the so-called resident Libertarian what happened to *individual liberty*?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> ...but should people not have the choice to do with their body as they please?


This is the most widely used argument to justify legalizing drugs, and is entirely irrelevant. Suicide is illegal. Why should doing drugs be legal? As far as I know, self-inflicted harm is not legal, and you will be detained (either imprisoned or situated into a certain facility) if you're caught doing so. As much as anyone would like to argue that doing pot is harmless, it isn't, and therefore falls under the category of self-harm and self-stupidity.

If we legalized drugs (even a bit), it would essentially be the government encouraging the use of drugs, which in turn encourages stupidity among our population and self-harm. The "War on Drugs" may not be overly effective, but that is hardly an excuse to discontinue it and legalize drugs. Discontinuing the laws against narcotics is simply encouraging their use, and the last thing we need is our government doing just that. I'm not debating for a second that people will always make use of narcotics. I'm saying that encouraging the act is hugely moronic.

Back to the topic of self-harm and ones right to do as they see fit, it's really not that simple. If it were, maybe the laws would be different. Unfortunately, smoking pot (among other things) alters your state of mind and therefore can potentially harm others based on something you may do while under the influence, including driving. The common argument against this statement is that drinking can alter your state of mind, yet drinking is legal. Sure. However, you can drink in moderation. Only if you choose to drink excessively can you pose a risk to the well-being of others. And I'll never buy the argument that you can do drugs "in moderation." (That's a load of BS in my mind.)

Bottom line: Sure, it's your body. But no government in their right mind will want to encourage the act of self-abuse.

I say that our governments should stand firmly in unity against the use of narcotics and spend more time and money on education/prevention on the subject, as well as continue efforts (as we have been for decades) towards jailing users and dealers of narcotics.

My 2-cents.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Effects of doing pot:

_"Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, increased heart rate, *impaired coordination and balance, delayed reaction time, and diminished short-term memory.* Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy state of relaxation that encourages fantasies, renders some users highly suggestible, and distorts perception *(making it dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat, or ride a bicycle).* Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations."

"*Marijuana use reduces learning ability. Research has been piling up of late demonstrating clearly that marijuana limits the capacity to absorb and retain information.*"_ Source: Basic Facts About Drugs: Marijuana.

But, for sure, let's go encouraging it! And legalize it! Let's encourage the next-generations of Canadians to be a group of morons!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

If alcohol is legal then pot should be as well. Alcohol is by far a more dangerous drug than pot and inflicts a far greater price on our society than all other drugs combined. Like Beej, I don't like the feeling of drugs and only drink alcohol on occasion. 

I don't understand why hard core anti-drug believers somehow think alcohol is OK.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Vandave said:


> If alcohol is legal then pot should be as well. Alcohol is by far a more dangerous drug than pot *and inflicts a far greater price on our society than all other drugs combined.* Like Beej, I don't like the feeling of drugs and only drink alcohol on occasion.
> 
> I don't understand why hard core anti-drug believers somehow think alcohol is OK.


Perhaps. But the key difference is moderation. Alcohol can be consumed in moderation, drugs cannot. Heck, even wine in moderation actually produces health benefits. Drugs have _no_ health benefits of any kind. 

There will always be abusers of substances (or objects) that, if used or consumed in moderation, would otherwise not inflict harm on others. This is not debatable. Some will drink too much and kill someone on the road. Others will run someone over with their car despite being in a perfect state of mind not under the influence of alcohol. There will always be abusers of everything that we can get our hands on.

The difference here is that alcohol, in moderation, is harmless. There is practically no such thing as doing drugs in moderation, and has short and long-term negative health effects.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Lars said:


> Perhaps. But the key difference is moderation. Alcohol can be consumed in moderation, drugs cannot. Heck, even wine in moderation actually produces health benefits. Drugs have _no_ health benefits of any kind.
> 
> There will always be abusers of substances (or objects) that, if used or consumed in moderation, would otherwise not inflict harm on others. This is not debatable. Some will drink too much and kill someone on the road. Others will run someone over with their car despite being in a perfect state of mind not under the influence of alcohol. There will always be abusers of everything that we can get our hands on.
> 
> The difference here is that alcohol, in moderation, is harmless. There is practically no such thing as doing drugs in moderation, and has short and long-term negative health effects.


Pot actually has many health benefits for sick people. I am sure you are aware of these studies are are only referring to casual recreational usage. 

Your point about being able to take alcohol in moderation does not negate my point about the hypocrisy of allowing alcohol in society and not other drugs. The reason is that the effect of alcohol is REAL and it is MASSIVE. The fact that some can drink in moderation does not negate the actions of all the people who cause trouble.

Pot carries a far lower toll than alcohol. Nobody has ever overdosed on pot and died. THOUSANDS die per year from alcohol poisoning. THOUSANDS of people die on the road at the hands of drunk drivers. THOUSANDS of drunks go home and beat their families due to alcoholism. THOUSANDS of people become addicted and loose everything. 

I am not suggesting alcohol should be illegal, I am just saying that it and pot are roughly equal. If you allow one, you have to allow the other.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> As the so-called resident Libertarian what happened to *individual liberty*?


Read it again--I said that people should be punished for the harm that they do--and that it's no business of mine if they do that harm while under the influence of something or not.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

"Marijuana use reduces learning ability. Research has been piling up of late demonstrating clearly that marijuana limits the capacity to absorb and retain information."
I bet you the millions of Doctors, Lawyers, Small or Large Business owners, Marketing Execs or any of the "Suits" here in Canada would beg to differ.
Mostly everyone I know over 20 smokes weed in moderation. The sad part is the kids these days skip it entirely because they don't want to ask around, it never gets offered to them. They instead have people pushing crystal meth and percs in their faces. I wish all I had to worry about with my son was weed.
I think the "Anti-Drug" enforcers are about a decade behind the times. Stop the kids that are actually doing DAMAGE here.
And just for the argument, Alcohol kills MILLIONS every YEAR. Weed kills none (impaired judgement yes, but spousal and child abuse, no. Sorry).

Just read vandaves post, seems we're on the same level here. Logically speaking, I think Alcohol should be illegal but that doesn't mean it'll happen ever.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Elric said:


> (impaired judgement yes, but spousal and child abuse, no. Sorry).


Tell that one to my brother who just tore his family apart due to his pot use. Couldn't hold down a job, always high and was growing it in his basement with two kids living in the house. Fortunately now he is seeking the help he needs. Newsflash: Pot can rip apart families.

Please don't give me the bs about pot has benefits for cancer patients, yes it can, that is why there is medical mj, /argument.

Alcohol yes can be bad for you but it also has health benefits in moderation, mj sorry, it's just bad for you period.

Seems like the Liberals like to give up on a lot of things but I think the majority of Canadians will agree that the war on drugs shouldn't be one of them. Not the kind of message I want to be sending my kids.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Seems like the Liberals like to give up on a lot of things but I think the majority of Canadians will agree that the war on drugs shouldn't be one of them. Not the kind of message I want to be sending my kids.


The message I want to send to my kids is that drugs like alcohol and pot have many negative side effects. You can do them in moderation, but it is healthier and better not to.

The message we are sending kids now is that pot is equivalent to cocaine and heroin. Once kids try pot and find out that it is similar to alcohol, we immediately lose credibility and they called BS on the 'Say no to drugs' message.

Other drugs are a whole different thing and trying them once is just plain stupid. Let's keep our anti-drug message to the drugs that are causing the problems.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> _The message I want to send to my kids is that drugs like alcohol and pot have many negative side effects. You can do them in moderation, but it is healthier and better not to._
> 
> The message we are sending kids now is that pot is equivalent to cocaine and heroin. Once kids try pot and find out that it is similar to alcohol, we immediately lose credibility and they called BS on the 'Say no to drugs' message.


I'm always scared when I agree with you....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Again, I think back to Victorian England where drugs were legal. This type of enforcement is an extremely recent thing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm always scared when I agree with you....


Does that make you a NeoCon by association?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Does that make you a NeoCon by association?


No, just makes you a little Liberal (in the classical sense).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> Perhaps. But the key difference is moderation. Alcohol can be consumed in moderation, drugs cannot.


WTF?!?  

If it's possible to have 1 beer, rather than 6, how is it not possible to have one toke rather than 6?



> Drugs have _no_ health benefits of any kind.


Have any factual evidence to back this up? It's certainly not consistent with the data I'm aware of.

Fundamentally, the only reason marijuana is illegal is that several powerful industries successfully lobbied the government to prohibit it in an effort to protect their profits. The fact that it remains illegal, in the face of the ample evidence that it is a relatively harmless drug and that it's criminalization is damaging to society on many levels, is farcical. It's just like the gay-marriage non-issue... the cons doing their bit to help prop up the stupidity flowing from Washington.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> If it's possible to have 1 beer, rather than 6
> ............
> Fundamentally, the only reason marijuana is illegal is that several powerful industries successfully lobbied the government to prohibit it in an effort to protect their profits.


But it's not...
............
What is that based upon? I think it underestimates how deeply conservative people, particularly parents, are about such things. Think about all the stuff that gets banned or proposed to get banned, often due to flocks of worried parents.

I can see how big drug companies help to hold the status quo, but I think the fears of "reefer madness" predate big drug companies. Didn't it align with silliness like alcohol prohibition and a generally socially conservative push to get government into our lives in the early 20th century?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the arguments that "Marihuana" was demonized to prevent the hemp indistry from challenging other established concerns have merit. There's a Popeye cartoon from the 1930s in which he consumes "loco weed" instead of spinach and there's no real stigma attached to it. A 1916 silent film "The Mystery of the Leaping Fish" features Douglas Fairbanks as Coke Ennyday, a comic detective who solves crimes entirely through the use of recreational drugs.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I think the arguments that "Marihuana" was demonized to prevent the hemp indistry from challenging other established concerns have merit. There's a Popeye cartoon from the 1930s in which he consumes "loco weed" instead of spinach and there's no real stigma attached to it. A 1916 silent film "The Mystery of the Leaping Fish" features Douglas Fairbanks as Coke Ennyday, a comic detective who solves crimes entirely through the use of recreational drugs.


That's fair, but what is the timeline from the substance being banned to it, essentially, being pushed out of publicly polite society?

Also, "Fundamentally, the only reason" is quite an expansive conclusion versus, "was demonized to prevent", which does not set aside other reasons for the silliness or assign a heirarchy. 

Unfounded fear and superstition, as seen with, "gingerism" is fully capable of staying alive on a shoestring budget. Heck, looking at some past ehmac threads, it is alive and well on the wild, wild net as well!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I wonder is this a good waste of our Budget Surplus. The Law and Order Crowd think yes. :-( Gotta thump them kids. Keep em under our thumb.

Booze and weed are as good and as bad as you want them to be. Nobody is going change anybody's mind on what's good and bad.

Tobacco is a legal scourge and gate way drug that leads to other addictions. It also destroys the health of citizens.

Tobacco and alcohol are in too many portfolios of the "Vested Interests." No Government especially the elected Cons' "New Government" will bite that hand. 

Just put Marijuana in portfolios and see the LOC change their tune on what's good and bad. tptptptp


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Also, "Fundamentally, the only reason" is quite an expansive conclusion


Okay, I was probably overstepping there, but industrial lobbying played a big role in marijuana prohibition, long before any research was done to determine if there was any real danger to individuals or society. Indeed, now that some research is being done, we're finding very little and conflicting evidence regarding its dangers, and some circumstances where it can be beneficial.

And, without diminishing my support for legalization, I should add that I'm fully aware of the fact that there are plenty of individuals who've messed up their lives with pot. But that's obviously true of alcohol, gambling, bad relationships, poor driving, bad diets, and religions too. I simply don't think it's the government's job to legislate how adults run their lives.

Finally, the notion that decriminalization somehow equals promotion is ludicrous. I can't even formulate an argument against this position because it it so preposterous to begin with.

Cheers


----------



## Ravenclaw (Feb 18, 2007)

Beej said:


> But it's not...
> ............
> What is that based upon? I think it underestimates how deeply conservative people, particularly parents, are about such things. Think about all the stuff that gets banned or proposed to get banned, often due to flocks of worried parents.


This is so true. We worry about our kids. It's one thing to have thoughts on their prospective substance abuse when they are still in the cradle, but as they become teenagers our worries become more real. Last month we dropped off our first child, just eighteen, at a large university residence. It was an enlightening experience, although I don't consider myself naive or extremely conservative: some parents actually left tubs of alcohol for their fledglings to help them with the first weeks of partying. As I left on the Sunday evening following move in, I casually noted to my offspring that MJ was heavy in the air--emanating from a residence window of a building next to his. In the days that followed, the MJ smokers were evicted, but the drinkers continue to party, leaving their mark and pungent odors in public spaces shared by all. Cardboard is used as a visual aid to assist anyone wanting to avoid the human regurgitated land mine. 

Thanks


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Tell that one to my brother who just tore his family apart due to his pot use. Couldn't hold down a job, always high and was growing it in his basement with two kids living in the house. Fortunately now he is seeking the help he needs. Newsflash: Pot can rip apart families.


Newsflash: there is a HUGE difference between smoking on occassion and growing it in your basement.

I don't know your brother, but I can guarantee you that smoking pot didn't make him lose his jobs, or his family. At least not solely. There would be other huge factors involved I'm sure.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Elric said:


> Newsflash: there is a HUGE difference between smoking on occassion and growing it in your basement.


Of course never said there wasn't, but addiction knows no bounds. Cutting out the middle man is a lot cheaper when you have an addiction.



Elric said:


> I don't know your brother, but I can guarantee you that smoking pot didn't make him lose his jobs, or his family. At least not solely. There would be other huge factors involved I'm sure.


Sure he has had his emotional problems and looked to pot for an escape same with any addict. But I guarantee that it was the fact he was stoned on the job/home and how it affected his attitude was how he lost everything.

Are you saying that the majority of pot smokers don't have other problems, and don't get high to escape those problems?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Are you saying that the majority of pot smokers don't have other problems, and don't get high to escape those problems?


As opposed to non pot smokers?
I'll say it loud and clear. The majority do not have any more problems than their non smoking counterparts. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Oh that's right. You don't believe in evidence. You just continue to make these pronouncements with nothing to back them up but anecdotal stories about your family. This is the same kind of BS we see from the likes of the Republican and Conservative parties. Our pot laws are based on lies and these lies convince our young that the whole of the discourse is BS, making them more likely to think all drug information being given to them is similarly false.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Any way you cut it, pot is a mind altering substance and should remain illegal. It is the gateway to major addictions of much harder drugs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Any way you cut it, pot is a mind altering substance and should remain illegal. It is the gateway to major addictions of much harder drugs.


So is alcohol... yet you seem well acquainted with that and not decrying a ban on alcohol.

Do you know for sure that it's a gateway?
Is beer a gateway to Vodka?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Any way you cut it, pot is a mind altering substance and should remain illegal. It is the gateway to major addictions of much harder drugs.


that's the oldest one in the book. You have to come up with something people will actually believe. What a bunch of crap.

The sad thing is now we have a government spending millions and millions of dollars on a strategy that has never worked before EVER, and despite the pleas of many doctors snubbing their nose at strategies that actually do.

So one bunch of 18 years olds go out and plastered, and the other ends up with criminal records. Beautiful. 

And people clap their hands about this?

What's next...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Any way you cut it, pot is a mind altering substance and should remain illegal. It is the gateway to major addictions of much harder drugs.


Oxygen is a mind-altering substance. So is sugar. Or, if you want to restrict it to chemicals that alter the activity of neurotransmitters, then consider caffeine, chocolate, and hot peppers.

I will, however, agree with your point about it being a gateway drug. Several of the graduate students I know who started smoking pot as an approach to dealing with stress, research problems, and scientific writing (all of which, incidentally, were dramatically improved by some good 'BC-Bud') did take up smoking tobacco. This, in fact, is my major reason for avoiding it personally. My mom is a tobacco smoker and I've watched her trying to quit. I definitely don't want to wind up in that situation. But occasional marijuana use doesn't worry me a bit.

Obviously, heavy marijuana use, like heavy drinking, is a serious problem, and, if we were to legalize it, it's a problem that would probably get worse. However, compared to the problems we cause by prohibiting it, that seems a small price to pay.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

groovetube said:


> The sad thing is now we have a government *spending millions and millions of dollars* on a strategy that has never worked before EVER, and despite the pleas of many doctors snubbing their nose at strategies that actually do..


Well, it will help with those pesky hospital waiting times.... wait, that was the promise they choose to ignore...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One thing about threads like this one, it makes the potheads readily identifiable.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> As opposed to non pot smokers?
> I'll say it loud and clear. The majority do not have any more problems than their non smoking counterparts. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.
> Oh that's right. You don't believe in evidence. You just continue to make these pronouncements with nothing to back them up but anecdotal stories about your family. This is the same kind of BS we see from the likes of the Republican and Conservative parties. Our pot laws are based on lies and these lies convince our young that the whole of the discourse is BS, making them more likely to think all drug information being given to them is similarly false.


Right, evidence. A family member down in the gutter isn't good enough for you. You need statistics to make you sleep at night, please show me your evidence to prove that my brother is the anomaly and that pot is harmless and doesn't ruin lives.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So is alcohol... yet you seem well acquainted with that and not decrying a ban on alcohol.
> 
> Do you know for sure that it's a gateway?
> Is beer a gateway to Vodka?


Then why not take up that cause? Fight for a ban on alcohol. The reasoning that alcohol is worse than pot is asinine, fight to ban them both.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Elric said:


> Mostly everyone I know over 20 smokes weed in moderation. The sad part is the kids these days skip it entirely because they don't want to ask around, it never gets offered to them. They instead have people pushing crystal meth and percs in their faces.


No one I know over 40 smokes marijuana in any amount, and I know a lot of people. It is not only uncommon, it is unheard of in our circle of friends.

I haven't seen anyone use weed socially since I caught a couple of cub reporters stinking up the men's room at a paper back in the early 80s.

That is unless you count the drunks at concerts lately, who stink up the joint (pardon the pun) when most in attendance just wish they weren't even there.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Right, evidence. A family member down in the gutter isn't good enough for you. You need statistics to make you sleep at night, please show me your evidence to prove that my brother is the anomaly and that pot is harmless and doesn't ruin lives.


I read the statement I'm about to make a lot in this forum.


I don't know how many different people said:


> Correlation doesn't equal causation.


He could have (and with far more ease and success) messed up his life with heroin, cocaine or alcohol. Very few people mess up the way your brother did on pot.You see far more alcoholics sleeping in the gutter than you do pot heads.Drug addiction is a MEDICAL problem. Failure to recognize this fact is why we continue to support a failed proven counterproductive anti-drug strategy. The sad part of all this is that a fiscal conservative like yourself can't see the pointless and colossal waste of capital and resources the "war on drugs" really is. You don't like welfare but you want to see people locked up for a medical condition they have. When will law and order types get it through their thick heads? JAIL IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE FORM OF WELFARE THERE IS! If you want to stop waste, stop incarcerating non-violent people. I have yet to see a study showing an increase in drug use where it has been decriminalized so why play this losers game of ruining sick people's lives with indictable offense convictions? This is a huge drag on the economy and NO ONE seems to be capable of producing any data to back up the war on drugs as a strategy worth keeping (meaning actually reduces drug use and \ or availability).


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

There is so much bull$h!t being thrown around in this thread it is beginning to smell like a farm!

My entire academic career has been spent in _behavioural toxicology_, a branch of biological psychology, particularly in effects of prenatal exposure to marijuana on cognitive functions in children. We followed the same cohort from the perinatal period through young adulthood. We are now looking at at effects in the same subjects as young adults. A sample of our research can be found at Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults -- Fried et al. 166 (7): 887 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal - you can follow the bibliography from there if interested.



SINC said:


> Any way you cut it, pot is *a mind altering substance* and should remain illegal.


By itself, so what? So is caffeine and sugar.


SINC said:


> It is the gateway to major addictions of much harder drugs.


The gateway theory has been pretty much discredited in research. It remains the province of lobby groups and other non-critical types who have little regard for the truth.


bryanc said:


> Okay, I was probably overstepping there, but industrial lobbying played a big role in marijuana prohibition, long before any research was done to determine if there was any real danger to individuals or society. Indeed, now that some research is being done, we're finding very little and conflicting evidence regarding its dangers, and some circumstances where it can be beneficial.


True. Specifically, marijuana was prohibited due to lobbying by four interests:
1 & 2. The nicotine and alcohol industries who wanted to eliminate a competing recreational substance.
3. The pharmaceutical industry who objected to a medicine with a record some 12000 years long. After all, they didn't want people growing their own medication for *free* - cuts into corporate profits don't you know.
4. The pulp and paper industry wanted to eliminate hemp paper because it lasted much longer and could be recycled more times. Also paper made from trees was cheaper than paper made from hemp if you do not count the cost of replacing tree. Hemp/marijuana, of course can be re-grown on an annual basis - trees take years. It escapes me why this isn't a carbon issue.

It is also true that there is limited evidence as to the harm that may be attributable to marijuana. And what evidence there is is characteristically poorly interpreted in the public media. In all my years of research and reading in the field, IMHO (I am not alone in this), there is no case to prohibit marijuana as long as nicotine and alcohol are legal. As to possible positive effects, the classic case is as an anti-nausea treatment in cancer therapy, but there is evidence of positive effects against chronic pain and as a therapy for MS, as well as other areas. The literature exists should one actually want to know the truth rather than knee jerk along with the crowd. There is good and bad in everything. Cigarettes kill, but nicotine may have a role in ameliorating memory loss in early Alzheimer's and as a treatment for ADD and its relatives. Alcohol is arguably the single biggest drug problem in all of society, but a drink a day can have a very similar positive therapeutic effect to aspirin in heart attack and stroke prevention without the danger of damage to stomach lining and other side effects of aspirin. Certain alcohol preparations, namely dark ales and red wines, contain antioxidants and flavinoids which have been shown to be useful to the body. BTW, marijuana also has antioxidant properties.


JumboJones said:


> Are you saying that the majority of pot smokers don't have other problems, and don't get high to escape those problems?





martman said:


> As opposed to non pot smokers?
> I'll say it loud and clear. The majority do not have any more problems than their non smoking counterparts. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.


I second that challenge.


Lars said:


> Effects of doing pot:
> _"Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, increased heart rate, *impaired coordination and balance, delayed reaction
> Source: Basic Facts About Drugs: Marijuana.*_


_*
This quote is from The American Council for Drug Education which is a lobby group not a research organisation. They wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit them in the eye. Much like DARE they exist on half-truth and innuendo and the money of the uncritical. DARE programs cost communities money that could be used for real teaching efforts. DARE exposed children show no difference from unexposed children by the middle to end of high school - the money spent is completely wasted. Police do themselves a disservice in their support of DARE because when the children find out that most of the program is bovine fesces their faith in authority is diminished.

I could go on....

Prohibition has never solved anything. It just serves to make criminals rich.*_


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> There is so much bull$h!t being thrown around in this thread it is beginning to smell like a farm!
> 
> Prohibition has never solved anything. It just serves to make criminals rich.


Just like drug dealers in a way. All you potheads and so-called "recreational users" who think drugs should be legalized are the very ones supporting the continued existence of dealers and gangs and their criminal and murderous ways.

It is why you see 18 year olds driving around in $100,000 vehicles.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Just like drug dealers in a way. All you potheads and so-called "recreational users" who think drugs should be legalized are the very ones supporting the continued existence of dealers and gangs and their criminal and murderous ways.


Old Joe Kennedy made his fortune running booze from Canada under prohibition and look where that led!!  


SINC said:


> It is why you see 18 year olds driving around in $100,000 vehicles.


Don't know about the truth of that - I think it has more to do with ridiculously loose credit.

I did drive this $100,000 car this weekend.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> One thing about threads like this one, it makes the potheads readily identifiable.


Be careful who you're calling 'pothead' around here. Just because I believe something and can see the sense in an alternative way of looking at things doesn't mean I'm a 'pothead'.

But if that's the sort of backwards reasoning that helps make you feel better, then I can't help you.

Sort of like in gay marriage threads when someone dares to voice support then they must be gay. Or if you disagree with Bush then you are either a terrorist or support them.

Absolutely idiocy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Be careful who you're calling 'pothead' around here. Just because I believe something and can see the sense in an alternative way of looking at things doesn't mean I'm a 'pothead'.


Likewise you might consider being careful accusing me of calling you a pothead. I didn't.

It does however make me wonder what members might be users and users are potheads to me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> No one I know over 40 smokes marijuana in any amount, and I know a lot of people. It is not only uncommon, it is unheard of in our circle of friends.


Kind of like gays don't exist in Iran? People are less likely to come out in the open when others don't tolerate their beliefs. This could be a reason why YOU don't observe it and why it is unheard of.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Kind of like gays don't exist in Iran? People are less likely to come out in the open when others don't tolerate their beliefs. This could be a reason why YOU don't observe it and why it is unheard of.


Given our group have socialized for twenty years, including camping together for weeks at a time, it is highly unlikely my friends are sneaking off into the bush for a toke.

They are much more likely to pull up a chair around the fire, beer or shot in hand and join in a sing along to enjoy life.

I repeat, no one in our circle of friends are users.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Given our group have socialized for twenty years, including camping together for weeks at a time, it is highly unlikely my friends are sneaking off into the bush for a toke.
> 
> They are much more likely to pull up a chair around the fire, *beer or shot* in hand and join in a sing along to enjoy life.
> 
> I repeat, no one in our circle of friends are users.


Apparently they are *users* of alcohol which is a far, far bigger problem drug than all the illegals put together. Good for you!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> They are much more likely to pull up a chair around the fire, beer or shot in hand and join in a sing along to enjoy life.


Sounds exactly what "pot heads" do...

As for your information SINC, I don't do "pot" but it certainly will not stop my belief that it should be legalized. 

After rgray make salient points, why did you switch to anecdotes? 

BTW, if soft drugs were legalized, those scary drugs dealers would cease to exist... imagine that....


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> .......... why did you switch to anecdotes? ....


Anecdote is what passes for data amongst alcohol users... :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> BTW, if soft drugs were legalized, those scary drugs dealers would cease to exist... imagine that....


What none of you get, is that there is no soft version of alcohol. It is what it is, but drugs are considered "soft and hard" for whatever reason.

Never having used, I cannot answer why, but I do know that soft leads to hard drugs.

Someone tried to draw a similarity of beer leading to vodka, but that just shows the ignorance of understanding between the two drugs.

Alcohol is alcohol is alcohol.

Pot is not coke and coke is not meth and so on. Get it now?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Pot is not coke and coke is not meth and so on. Get it now?


And the one does not lead to the other to the other... Read some real peer reviewed research on the subject rather than lobby group hype.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Likewise you might consider being careful accusing me of calling you a pothead. I didn't.
> 
> It does however make me wonder what members might be users and users are potheads to me.


oh yes you did. I'm sorry I won't let you get away with a snide remark, and then try to run from it. If you can't own your words don't type them. Now should we consider those who drink slobbering drunken losers?

See how stupid that is?

I don't consider people who like to have drinks with friends to be drunkards, so why on earth would you call people who like to smoke a joint potheads?

Seems to me you are allowing your bias to cloud reason.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Someone tried to draw a similarity of beer leading to vodka, *but that just shows the ignorance of understanding* between the two drugs.


Really.

Many recovering addicts I know said their first drug was alcohol. Interesting. Even more interesting were the ones that said they went from alcohol directly to coke or heroin.

Gateway indeed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I simply don't think it's the government's job to legislate how adults run their lives.


Would you also agree that modern pharmaceuticals should be freely available to adults, allowing for huge flashing safety warnings and having to pass a basic, "does not instantly kill or disable" test (gets into another level of debate)? 

A true open standard for all drugs, instead of our current artificial tiers between "fun" drugs and "treatment" drugs -- a line that marijuana is already blurring.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> A true open standard for all drugs, instead of our current artificial tiers between "fun" drugs and "treatment" drugs -- a line that marijuana is already blurring.


Perhaps the most honest statement of the debate to date.

The "blurring" part, that is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm so easy I thought that Tylenol 3 was a lot of fun.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Perhaps the most honest statement of the debate to date.
> 
> The "blurring" part, that is.


Actually, I raise it because the topic, on the surface, unites some "righty" and, "lefty" ehmacers on the side of liberty. I'm scratching the surface.

The social-conservative approach, to me, is just surface. Either personal feelings -- fine when honestly stated as such, or some mix of flawed logic or, more simply, a stronger desire to control other adults.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> What none of you get, is that there is no soft version of alcohol. It is what it is, but drugs are considered "soft and hard" for whatever reason.
> ......
> Someone tried to draw a similarity of beer leading to vodka, but that just shows the ignorance of understanding between the two drugs.
> 
> ...


Some of the drugs can be blended. Maybe all. I'm not sure. 

For example, marijuana and tobacco are frequently blended. That makes it similar to alcohol in that the strength can be set. Add to that the selectable THC content of the mj (by selecting breed) and blending other fun stuff...when the geniuses at Molson, Merck-Frost and Rothmans are finally allowed to play along.

Legalise and regulate and, like most consumer products, a few big brands will dominate along with some nice local supply for variety. Or we could attempt to build a cowardly new world in which individuals must be protected from...themselves. Next up from Mac: iRobot, for your protection.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Actually, I raise it because the topic, on the surface, unites some "righty" and, "lefty" ehmacers on the side of liberty. I'm scratching the surface.
> 
> The social-conservative approach, to me, is just surface. Either personal feelings -- fine when honestly stated as such, or some mix of flawed logic or, more simply, a stronger desire to control other adults.


I have no desire to control other adults. But I do not equate the term "adult" and "user" as equal. No one who uses has the mindset of an adult, rather it is that of a juvenile.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I have no desire to control other adults. But I do not equate the term "adult" and "user" as equal. No one who uses has the mindset of an adult, rather it is that of a juvenile.


Yes you do.
Now it's mindset? 
Why don't you just admit that you have a strong bias against all drug use? Instead of justifying what you are saying with a rather embarrassing analogy...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Adults have been taking time off from the everyday for a long time. A form of beer was, I think, invented around the same time as civilisation itself (causality unknown  ). Clearly that's stretching the precision of the data, but I just think that it's funny that way.

Blandly dismissing all users through a mindset that, as MF pointed out, was only established recently and is already under fire, demonstrates a lack of historical understanding, to put it politely. 

Throw in the limited distinctions, despite what you may feel, between alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, "illegal" drugs and pharmaceuticals and there is little room left for the, "I jus knows what I knows" argument, unless it is admitted to be personal feelings. It is not reasoning itself, but an attempt to reason with one's own feelings. Feel any way you want -- and ingest what you want, as far as I'm concerned -- but don't try to pass a feeling off as a rationale argument.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Blandly dismissing all users through a mindset that, as MF pointed out, was only established recently and is already under fire, demonstrates a lack of historical understanding, to put it politely.


Oh, I understand history just fine thanks. Having lived it more than twice as long as some here, suffice to say that I have zero respect for anyone who chooses to use drugs.

Is that plain enough?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Being older means that you understand history? I think you just firmly established quite the opposite. Maybe you do not realise how much of it went on before you were born? And by "how much" I do not mean just a simple count of the years. 

And...aw heck, I'll leave it at your response to being challenged on your understanding of history:
"Oh, I understand history just fine thanks. Having lived it more than twice as long as some here, suffice to say that I have zero respect for anyone who chooses to use drugs."

That is plain enough. I could not have made my case so effectively without your help. Thanks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> That is plain enough. I could not have made my case so effectively without your help. Thanks.


You can twist it and turn it and massage it all you want, tied to history or not.

Bottom line:

Users are losers.

I've seen it close up and it's ugly.

And that is history you have yet to experience.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You are mixing up user and juvenile; have, thankfully, backed away from a ludicrous defense of the foundation of historical understanding; and, do not allow for "users" that do just fine. Most "users" that I meet are doing very little, but not all. Your statement does not allow for that.

And, finally, none of the "loser" talk has anything to do with supporting the illegality of the drugs unless, "I have no desire to control other adults" is not true. And no, simply redefining the term, "adult" to exclude those that behave against your wishes does not count, for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is with just saying, "I feel this way" instead of the ongoing farce of stating fake general facts and/or fake arguments. Why present your feelings as something they are not with the "objective" lingo?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Then how about "I believe this way", feelings have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sure, but that's an odd way to put it.

Example: one loves their significant other and feels that the other is a great person; they may know -- rationally -- that the significant other does bad things quite often, and not have true faith that they are a great person (faith can be tested) but, nonetheless, feel that their significant other is a great person.

I am not wording this well at all but I think that faith is different than simple feeling. Either way, thanks for removing faith-feeling from the realm of rationale argument. It may influence one's rational thoughts, but is not a substitute. Similarly, rational argument is not a substitute for faith-feeling but it does have the advantage of being better suited to debate. Makes for cr*p poetry, though.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Oh, I understand history just fine thanks. Having lived it more than twice as long as some here, suffice to say that I have zero respect for anyone who chooses to use drugs.
> 
> Is that plain enough?


Does your definition of drugs include alcohol?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Sure, but that's an odd way to put it.
> 
> Example: one loves their significant other and feels that the other is a great person; they may know -- rationally -- that the significant other does bad things quite often, and not have true faith that they are a great person (faith can be tested) but, nonetheless, feel that their significant other is a great person.)


No, not so, one only feels their significant other when they touch them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I don't think much recreational drug use is healthy or safe, but neither are an excess of potato chips a sedentary life style, skateboarding and careless use of firearms. Banning drugs so people don't do dangerous things is in the same realm as banning fast foods so people don't become obese and cost the public healthcare system a lot of money--or banning guns because some people use them carelessly.

The most effective use of society's limited law enforcement power, in my humble opinion, is to come down hard on the crimes that affect others--driving while under the influence, violence, theft, murder, etc. I think that society would be much safer if these tertiary acts were the focus, rather than policing a random list of recreational substances among other more acceptable recreational substances.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Does your definition of drugs include alcohol?


Loaded question VD. They are all drugs, but no, I exclude alcohol when referring to "illegal" drugs.

Drugs to me are what people (users) spend money on to support the criminal and gang element in society who directly profit from the sales of same.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> SINC: I don't think much recreational drug use is healthy or safe, but neither are an excess of potato chips a sedentary life style, skateboarding and careless use of firearms. Banning drugs so people don't do dangerous things is in the same realm as banning fast foods so people don't become obese and cost the public healthcare system a lot of money--or banning guns because some people use them carelessly.
> 
> The most effective use of society's limited law enforcement power, in my humble opinion, is to come down hard on the crimes that affect others--driving while under the influence, violence, theft, murder, etc. I think that society would be much safer if these tertiary acts were the focus, rather than policing a random list of recreational substances among other more acceptable recreational substances.


Well said. Summarizes my opinion just perfectly. :clap: :clap: 

I draw the line at recreational (e.g. pot, shrooms) and I still think hard drugs (e.g. cocaine, heroin) should remain illegal.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> SINC: I don't think much recreational drug use is healthy or safe, but neither are an excess of potato chips a sedentary life style, skateboarding and careless use of firearms. Banning drugs so people don't do dangerous things is in the same realm as banning fast foods so people don't become obese and cost the public healthcare system a lot of money--or banning guns because some people use them carelessly.
> 
> The most effective use of society's limited law enforcement power, in my humble opinion, is to come down hard on the crimes that affect others--driving while under the influence, violence, theft, murder, etc. I think that society would be much safer if these tertiary acts were the focus, rather than policing a random list of recreational substances among other more acceptable recreational substances.





> Well said. :clap:


Agreed


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The most effective use of society's limited law enforcement power, in my humble opinion, is to come down hard on the crimes that affect others--driving while under the influence, violence, theft, murder, etc. I think that society would be much safer if these tertiary acts were the focus, rather than policing a random list of recreational substances among other more acceptable recreational substances.


Macfury: You rather conveniently leave out the seedy side of the drug trade. The gangs, the violence, the murders, prostitution etc., and all the other things that drug use enhances. Is that not affecting others?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Loaded question VD. They are all drugs, but no, I exclude alcohol when referring to "illegal" drugs.


Yes, it is loaded. This discussion isn't about our current laws so much as what we think our future laws should be. From that perspective, the discussion is open for comparing pot to alcohol. You obviously haven't tried pot. It kind of negates your age argument presented above. 

Again, I don't understand how somebody like yourself who is strongly anti-drug can be so indifferent to alcohol and tobacco. Why is one OK and not the other?



SINC said:


> Drugs to me are what people (users) spend money on to support the criminal and gang element in society who directly profit from the sales of same.


Let's be honest.... this is a choice we make. We can choose to remove the criminal element from some drugs (e.g. pot). 

I don't disagree that pot users do present a larger negative influence by enabling the creation of criminal and gang elements. However, I don't think that blame can fully go onto pot users. Some of it also belongs to policy makers who try to regulate relatively innocuous substances.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Macfury: You rather conveniently leave out the seedy side of the drug trade. The gangs, the violence, the murders, prostitution etc., and all the other things that drug use enhances. Is that not affecting others?


SINC: This describes exactly what life was like during Prohibition--just substitute alcohol for "drugs."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Yes, it is loaded. This discussion isn't about our current laws so much as what we think our future laws should be. From that perspective, the discussion is open for comparing pot to alcohol. You obviously haven't tried pot. It kind of negates your age argument presented above.


You got one part right. I don't do illegal drugs. I was afforded ample opportunity had I chose to do so, but I did not. Never have, never will.



Vandave said:


> Again, I don't understand how somebody like yourself who is strongly anti-drug can be so indifferent to alcohol and tobacco. Why is one OK and not the other?


Simple. One is legal, one is not.





Vandave said:


> Let's be honest.... this is a choice we make. We can choose to remove the criminal element from some drugs (e.g. pot).


The choice we (society) have already made is that pot is illegal. 



Vandave said:


> I don't disagree that pot users do present a larger negative influence by enabling the creation of criminal and gang elements. However, I don't think that blame can fully go onto pot users. Some of it also belongs to policy makers who try to regulate relatively innocuous substances.


If you let the small guys get away with small things, the big guys will move in and make them big things. Hello cocaine and meth and heroin and whatever else makes them a profit at the expense of the weak who cannot resist.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Simple. One is legal, one is not.


Again, the matter at hand is choice. You seem to be choosing to strengthen the laws against pot. Why? 

Why not also make alcohol illegal?



SINC said:


> The choice we (society) have already made is that pot is illegal.


Why do we have legislators then? I mean, if all our laws are perfect and stand the test of time, then we don't need to ever change them, right?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"One is legal, one is not.": an argument for stasis from someone that wants to change how judges are appointed? Once again, these are your feelings Sinc, not rational arguments of a debate. The equivalent of, "I prefer the colour green over the colour blue."

"The choice we (society) have already made is that pot is illegal.": We cannot change? Perhaps you have zero interest in laws changing, but most people (ie. society) seem to instinctively understand that they do change, and that they want a say in such change, no matter how petty in some cases. 

Once again, these are your feelings Sinc. 

Unless, of course, you want to argue from the basis of our laws being permanent and unchanging. That would be odd, considering that they get changed every year.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Again, the matter at hand is choice. You seem to be choosing to strengthen the laws against pot. Why?
> 
> Why not also make alcohol illegal?
> 
> ...


Illegal drugs in IMO will be the demise of society as we know it, if legalized.

__________________________

Right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> "One is legal, one is not.": an argument for stasis from someone that wants to change how judges are appointed? Once again, these are your feelings Sinc, not arguments.


I see you missed this point in my earlier post.

Feelings are with fingers. Feeling is a sense of touch and has zip to do with the discussion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Society has already, "demised" due to a long list of liberties that were "granted". Many people, including myself, would not want to go back to the "un-demised" state and look forward to further similar "demising". 

"Sorry" about all the annoying quotes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Illegal drugs in IMO will be the demise of society as we know it, if legalized.
> 
> __________________________
> 
> Right.


Do you have any concept of what alcohol has done to our society? Look around you at look at the damage caused by alcohol. If you add up all the damage done by illegal drugs it falls way short of alcohol.

You still haven't provided any coherent rationale as to why alcohol and tobacco are OK while all other drugs lead to Apocolypse Now.

Right??? Are you sure you want to stick with that answer?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Do you have any concept of what alcohol has done to our society? Look around you at look at the damage caused by alcohol. If you add up all the damage done by illegal drugs it falls way short of alcohol.
> 
> You still haven't provided any coherent rationale as to why alcohol and tobacco are OK while all other drugs lead to Apocolypse Now.
> 
> Right??? Are you sure you want to stick with that answer?


Sure, But it's legal.

___________________

Sure have. Alcohol and tobacco are legal.

___________________

Yes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I see you missed this point in my earlier post.
> 
> Feelings are with fingers. Feeling is a sense of touch and has zip to do with the discussion.


I did not miss the point; I did not want to embarrass you. 

Find a decent English dictionary. There are multiple definitions of feel and feeling. You may believe or feel that only one definition exists, but you would be wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Whiskey leads to harder drugs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sure, But it's legal.
> 
> ___________________
> 
> ...


SINC, this is the most irrationale post I have ever seen you write.

Legal has nothing to do with this discussion. Do you not understand the concept of choice in a free democracy? We have a choice.

To answer my question above (because I am not sure you are actually aware of the effect alcohol and tobacco have):

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000 
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect	17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7
Marijuana 0


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I believe I know the difference:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
feel·ing *?* ??**[fee-ling] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.
the function or the power of perceiving by touch.
2.
physical sensation not connected with sight, hearing, taste, or smell.
3.
a particular sensation of this kind: a feeling of warmth; a feeling of pain.
4.
the general state of consciousness considered independently of particular sensations, thoughts, etc.
5.
a consciousness or vague awareness: a feeling of inferiority.
6.
an emotion or emotional perception or attitude: a feeling of joy; a feeling of sorrow.
7.
capacity for emotion, esp. compassion: to have great feeling for the sufferings of others.
8.
a sentiment; attitude; opinion: The general feeling was in favor of the proposal.
9.
feelings, sensibilities; susceptibilities: to hurt one's feelings.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
be·lieve *?* ??**[bi-leev] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lieved, -liev·ing.
–verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
—Verb phrase
6.
believe in,
a.
to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b.
to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Vandave said:


> If you add up all the damage done by illegal drugs it falls way short of alcohol.


I always laugh out loud when I hear this type of argument, simply because it holds no ground whatsoever. That's the equivalent of saying, "Why enforce this new speeding race law? Don't the police have more pressing issues to tend to?" Based on that logic, let's gather statistics on every law that's ever been broken, and narrow it down to the single most broken one. Shove that one to the top, spend all our resources enforcing it, and discontinue the rest of the laws that govern our society, as well as legalize all other crime that falls short of being committed as much as the one on the top of the list.

Bottom line: Though the use of illegal narcotics creates less pressing issues than the abuse of alcohol, it is no grounds to justify legalizing them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Legal has nothing to do with this discussion. Do you not understand the concept of choice in a free democracy? We have a choice.


Legality has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion of "illegal" drugs.

And yes, you're right, we DO have a choice and we made it.

That is exactly why pot is illegal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

VD:

1) Yet another example of feelings masquerading as rational argument -- I have pointed this out to Sinc before. Usually it takes me longer to get him to make such obviously irrational arguments. They're normally only obvious when one knows to look for them. 

2) Being intentionally provocative. Not adeptly, but done nonetheless. Like Hitchens' enjoyment of pulling down popular idols, but more concise and even less witty.

3) Attempt at the "ah ha" of others admitting that the law is not perfect and is changeable...something most would admit to right off the bat if asked. Weak links to justifying elected judges are forthcoming?

4) Other, including being influenced.

5) Blend of any/all of the above.

What's your take, VD?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I believe I know the difference:


Knowing is not understanding in the same way that knowledge is not wisdom.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Lars said:


> Bottom line: Though the use of illegal narcotics creates less pressing issues than the abuse of alcohol, it is no grounds to justify legalizing them.


I do not advocate legalizing hard drugs. I think they should remain illegal. I believe they are harmful to people and society.

Recreational drugs however, are not harmful. They are not even on the radar when compared to alcohol and tobacco. Again, zero deaths from pot last year in the US. 1 million from the legal stuff. 

So it makes sense to you that our police and court system gets tied up with pot cases? I think the police and courts have more pressing issues to deal with.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> VD:
> 
> 1) Yet another example of feelings masquerading as rational argument -- I have pointed this out to Sinc before. Usually it takes me longer for him to make such obviously irrational arguments. They're normally only obvious when one knows to look for them.
> 
> ...


Interesting point number 4 Beej.

You're absolutely right. I have been influenced. 

Influenced by ridding plants of potheads operating machinery who threatened the safety of fellow workers in spite of warnings and offers to council them.

Influenced by lives ruined by illegal drugs.

Influenced by the appalling murder rate in Edmonton alone over territorial disputes by gang members over illegal drugs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Knowing is not understanding in the same way that knowledge is not wisdom.


Nor is wisdom functioning under the illusion that one has knowledge.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> VD:
> 
> 1) Yet another example of feelings masquerading as rational argument -- I have pointed this out to Sinc before. Usually it takes me longer to get him to make such obviously irrational arguments. They're normally only obvious when one knows to look for them.
> 
> ...


My take? Sigh...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc, that is the same style of argument used by militant atheists against religion. Lovely.

Are you so ashamed of your own feelings that you regularly try to disguise them as logical argument? Is it a generational thing? I have lots of feelings and they are what they are. They are not logical arguments to use against others' arguments. I can try to understand how I ended up with my feelings but, in the end, if I prefer green over blue that does not mean that someone else should or that government should declare reality to be as such.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nor is wisdom functioning under the illusion that one has knowledge.


You once again attacked your own "arguments" (actually, they're feelings).

At least you have a sense of humour about this and I do appreciate that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

OK, then let's leave it this way.

I believe that illegal drugs should remain illegal.

I believe that illegal drugs should not be legalized, period.

No touchy/feely stuff. 

Just my firm and unchangeable opinion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It is a matter of faith and your preceding arguments were, as already demonstrated by others, meaningless in an objective sense (ie. argument/debate etc.). That makes a sort of sense. 

So why go through the farcical "rationale" when it really is just faith (or feeling)? To put it another way, why try to act like others should have the same favourite colour as yourself? I am not saying that there are no arguments that can lead to your conclusions, just that you used few (if any) and that your posts were dominated by the irrational/emotional without admitting (until pushed) to being as such.

But, after all, we have been through this before. Isn't it fun to recycle?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Once a salesman, always a salesman. All a steer can do is try.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and the salesman (snakeoil that is) have clearly done their job in your case, because there isn't any credible evidence to show why pot should be illegal, and alcohol not.

Now as I said previously, the conservatives are now going waste millions of dollars on a strategy that we have seen fail for decades, and it's appalling that people think it'll work this time.

Insanity is...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Police union backs P.M.'s marijuana crackdown:*

OTTAWA - The Canadian Police Association is giving a thumbs-up to the Harper government for promising to get tough on drugs through a new strategy expected to be unveiled this week.
"That is a cornerstone, because a lot of violence is related to drugs," said the association's president Tony Cannavino, following a ceremony on Parliament Hill Sunday to honour officers who had lost their lives on the job.
"The message sent years ago, with the marijuana decriminalization bill, created a lot of problems. A lot of kids and adults think that it's legalized in Canada, which it's not, and it sent mixed messages here. So we needed to address it really strongly."

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=506200af-8297-44d3-adf2-eb4562e60388


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Alcohol is the ultimate gateway drug, IMHO--it opens more doors to problems than any illicit drug could ever hope to and is easily available to the general public: restaurants, bars, stores, etc. Depending on where you live, you can also pick it up at the local grocery store.

How convenient.

It removes one's ability to make intelligent decisions as well. 1/6th of Canada's population smoke pot, yet we don't hear about a people killing others whilst stoned (driving or otherwise.)

The same can't nearly be said of alcohol.

For all the problems pot allegedly causes, I ask this: why hasn't alcohol been made illegal?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Exactly.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> Any way you cut it, pot is a mind altering substance and should remain illegal. It is the gateway to major addictions of much harder drugs.


I have decided that anyone that HONESTLY believes this crock of **** is a total and complete moron. No offense, but you should not believe everything you read from the US government.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> I have no desire to control other adults. But I do not equate the term "adult" and "user" as equal. No one who uses has the mindset of an adult, rather it is that of a juvenile.


Clearly you've never had a conversation with some one that has "smoked pot". Sure their ideas may seem to be unconventional, but very well thought out and from a different perspective makes for great conversation and debate.... then you have alcohol, now there's juvenile for ya, joke punches and titty twisters abound sounds like real fun to me.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> Illegal drugs in IMO will be the demise of society as we know it, if legalized.


Oh my GOD man! I think the demise of society will be based on how many sheep the government can create. "Well, they say so, so it must be true, praise (insert political leader here)!"

I don't know your age, but your posts seem to point above 40, which I find incredibly disheartening due to the fact, you WILL go vote, and the people that actually CARE about society believe they have no say (18-30 year olds), so they "don't waste their time". Very sad indeed.

I sincerely hope you are playing devils advocate here to provoke the debate, because man, some of the **** out of your keyboard is downright disturbing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Elric said:


> I don't know your age, but your posts seem to point above 40, which I find incredibly disheartening due to the fact, you WILL go vote, and the people that actually CARE about society believe they have no say (18-30 year olds), so they "don't waste their time". Very sad indeed.


I'm 63 and you're right, I will vote. 

Just like every single election since the day I became eligible to cast a ballot including the times when I was between 18 and 30. 

BTW, if today's 18 to 30 year olds don't bother voting, they deserve their fate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> BTW, if today's 18 to 30 year olds don't bother voting, they deserve their fate.


which in this case seems to be the fate of having their futures decided by the uninformed...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> which in this case seems to be the fate of having their futures decided by the uninformed...


Now you see, that's where you are dead wrong. 

The only reason fate affects them is because they don't get out and vote for change to their fate.

Makes one wonder if they are all too stoned to bother, but that's quite another question.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes all of our young people are stoned. When the liberals got in that's when everything went to pot, literally.

The conservatives 'new' strategy is bound to work. It always has.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Now you see, that's where you are dead wrong.
> 
> The only reason fate affects them is because they don't get out and vote for change to their fate.
> 
> Makes one wonder if they are all too stoned to bother, but that's quite another question.


Bravo. 

Have another drink.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Bravo.
> 
> Have another drink.


Guess you missed the point entirely.

If you don't vote, you can't expect change. Got it now?

So, perhaps it is you who should have another drink?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Given the baby-boom, "young" people are politically short-changed compared to the political demographics of more typical population pyramids. Thankfully, after the boomers and their immediate predecessors are gone, we'll still have an enormous debt to remember them by. 

Boomer parents lived through and fought in WWII, but the kids born around the time of the war, and the boomers themselves seemed to struggle only with the problem of how long they should do something that is obviously damaging to the country and the future. 

They can moralise about other adults' pot use all they want but thanks guys, if for no other reason than to prove, once and for all, that one generation can steal from another and get away with it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Given the baby-boom, "young" people are politically short-changed compared to the political demographics of more typical population pyramids. Thankfully, after the boomers and their immediate predecessors are gone, we'll still have an enormous debt to remember them by.


Not to mention the thousands of inventions by boomers you take for granted today. 



Beej said:


> Boomer parents lived through and fought in WWII, but the kids born around the time of the war, and the boomers themselves seemed to struggle only with the problem of how long they should do something that is obviously damaging to the country and the future.


Not enough damage to prevent you from having the freedom to express yourself. 



Beej said:


> They can moralise about other adults' pot use all they want but thanks guys, if for no other reason than to prove, once and for all, that one generation can steal from another and get away with it.


The generation we inherited was no picnic either. History has a way of repeating itself. You ready?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not to mention the thousands of inventions by boomers you take for granted today.
> 
> 
> Not enough damage to prevent you from having the freedom to express yourself.
> ...


People stopped inventing things and did not invent before these great spenders came along? 

Hmmm...look at the biggies: not invented by the big spenders, most were advanced but not invented. Things had been consistently advanced for a quite a while there. Understanding of history, eh? 

Some even say that technology by around 1920 was, in many areas, a fair bit ahead of where it was in 1500. But they're weirdos. It took the big spenders to really make a difference.

Advanced computers are great, though. Thanks. Er wait, that still does not explain the debt. Particularly, Canada's and each province's debt. Maybe a tiny portion of Canada's debt and some more of the U.S. debt, though. 
..
Yes, they managed not to undo what predecessors had fought for. Not that the big spenders themselves fought for anything, but they managed not to blow it. Hooray! Not blowing it makes up for the theft?
..
Yes, and hopefully more of the useless and often damaging social conservatism will, once again, be tossed onto the trash heap.


----------

