# Why We Need To Decriminalize Marijuana



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Because it never makes people stupid.

Police:Child Shows Investigators How To Use Marijuana - Omaha News Story - KETV Omaha



> Police charged 25-year-old Lisa Schuchard with felony child abuse.
> 
> *Schuchard and her live-in boyfriend, Christopher Gladden, both admitted to police they smoked marijuana on a daily basis.*
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I had far too many potheads work for me over the years. Not only did they endanger fellow workers operating machinery, but they became more stupid by the day.

Yeah, we sure need to legalize that $h!t.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

I knew ehmac's moral authority, SINC, would pipe in!

I'm just playing around - i mean no offense.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I had far too many potheads work for me over the years. Not only did they endanger fellow workers operating machinery, but they became more stupid by the day.


I'll bet dozens of you best employees were casual users. But you're right, just like alcohol, abusers are dangerous to themselves and others. Fortunately we figured out that criminalizing it doesn't work for alcohol. It's only a matter of time before the same obvious approach will be applied to marijuana.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I'll bet dozens of you best employees were casual users. But you're right, just like alcohol, abusers are dangerous to themselves and others. Fortunately we figured out that criminalizing it doesn't work for alcohol. It's only a matter of time before the same obvious approach will be applied to marijuana.
> 
> Cheers


Sadly, you can smell an alcohol abuser every time.

The guys who sneak off on their lunch break to the back lane and toke, leave no trace. That is but one more reason NOT to legalize this crap.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Sadly, you can smell an alcohol abuser every time.
> 
> The guys who sneak off on their lunch break to the back lane and toke, leave no trace. That is but one more reason NOT to legalize this crap.


I can smell the sickly sweet stench of Mary Jane the instant a user walks in the door and would hate to do anything to make it more common.

However my big concern with legalization is that once it is legal, users will turn to some other drug to get their illegal kicks. Either crack cocaine or crystal meth are far more devastating to users and would most likely be the next choice.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sadly, you can smell an alcohol abuser every time.
> 
> The guys who sneak off on their lunch break to the back lane and toke, leave no trace. That is but one more reason NOT to legalize this crap.


Sounds like you're arguing in favour of alcohol prohibition to me. If not, I can't see what you think the difference is. Your logical position doesn't make any rational sense. Is it because you claim you can't _smell_ if someone is smoking up on the job? Well, you often can anyway, but even if you couldn't that's not a compelling reason. And hard core drunks are really good at getting enough of a buzz on at work so they can't be discovered and masking the smell.

The answer to alcohol abuse is not to throw problem users in jail and create a lucrative black market economy through prohibition that only enables capital for criminals. Our society already tried that and clearly it was a disaster. Unfortunately not enough of us recognize the daily disaster we are creating through drug prohibition.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Sounds like you're arguing in favour of alcohol prohibition to me. If not, I can't see what you think the difference is. Your logical position doesn't make any rational sense. Is it because you claim you can't _smell_ if someone is smoking up on the job? Well, you often can anyway, but even if you couldn't that's not a compelling reason. And hard core drunks are really good at getting enough of a buzz on at work so they can't be discovered and masking the smell.


Well, that last comment diffuses your argument totally.

Ask ANY police officer. You CANNOT mask the smell of alcohol. That is an old wives tale period.

A guy who smokes a joint at 12:30 in his car with the window open while driving, (that's what most users used to do in my experience by the way) does not leave any trace smell a half hour later when he shows up after lunch.

He returns stoned and dangerous. Legalize it and coke is next? No thanks.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> Well, that last comment diffuses your argument totally.
> 
> Ask ANY police officer. You CANNOT mask the smell of alcohol. That is an old wives tale period.
> 
> ...


I worked in a photolab through high school and university. during my time there, I worked mostly with younger people, around my age. The majority of them did enjoy marijuana, and the whole lab knew they did. We knew because we could smell it - regardless of when they last smoked.

Also, I know a couple people who have avoided a criminal record when stopped by police in RIDE programs. I don't know how they got away with it - perhaps poor police work.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Sadly, you can *smell* an alcohol abuser every time.
> 
> The guys who sneak off on their lunch break to the back lane and toke, leave no trace. That is but one more reason NOT to legalize this crap.


Apparently you've never met an actual pot user. :lmao:


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Gotta disagree with you Sinc; actually you poit really isn't a point against decriminalizing. Just because it would be egal to do so doesn't mean it would be legal to do so at work. Alchohol is legal but I would lose my job if I showed up to work drunk. Same would go for dope. I used to smoke in the past and regardless of whether or not someone did smell and they do I could probably have a 99% accuracy in guessing who was stoned or not.

I think there is a myth of what decriminalizing will incurr....not much from what we already see today. It just means the cops wil stop busting people for it. We aren't going to see a mass exodus of people taking up smoking because it's legal, nor will we be able to pick it up while we do our groceries.

Gateway drug; perhaps but I think that concept is scapegoat based. In many to most cases people who abuse drugs have deeper underlying issues which leads them to drugs in the first place, because pot is the easiest to acquire and not that bad it is usually the first drug tried and is thus labelled a gateway drug. 

Smoking a joint on the weekend or having a pint really has no difference; using on a daily basis is where the trouble begins...this would fit for drugs or booze. I don't have an issue in someone partying once and a while; it's when the party doesn't stop that I become concerned.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Well, that last comment diffuses your argument totally.
> 
> Ask ANY police officer. You CANNOT mask the smell of alcohol. That is an old wives tale period.
> 
> ...


Lots of people have one drink too many at lunch. Maybe not enough to be smelled but impaired nonetheless. Why is having a joint at lunch somehow different or any worse? You don't really say why it's OK for the drunks but not for the potheads.

Anyone who needs to take drugs to get through a day at work has a problem (not counting caffeine  ). I think it could be easily argued that marijuana addiction is only a psychological addiction and that marijuana impairment is nowhere near as serious as alcohol impairment, but I won't make that argument here. 

So assuming all things being equal, how does engaging in cannabis prohibition help the abuser or help society? Those who want pot will get it, if they use it daily, they likely have many sources from which to get it. Prohibition doesn't impact its availability, but buying it illegally often means enriching and enabling organized crime on some level. 

Being prohibited and illegal, unless a user is growing his own, he may not be able to control its potency, so he may unintentionally get more stoned at lunch than he intended. This can't be a good thing. We already know alcohol prohibition didn't help problem drunks and only endangered society.

You hinted at the gateway drug idea, but that's just unsubstantiated bunk. I'd really like to hear some prohibitionist tell me what benefit our society gets by pretending we can "win" a war on drugs? Do you have a better argument than "no thanks"?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Do you have a better argument than "no thanks"?


Sure, it is illegal and those who use it should be jailed or fined depending on whether or not they are dealing it too. Not to mention it leads to many worse drugs.

Given the support it gets on this forum, a lot of Mac users must be "users" too. And that is just plain sad.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sure, it is illegal and those who use it should be jailed or fined depending on whether or not they are dealing it too. Not to mention it leads to many worse drugs.
> 
> Given the support it gets on this forum, a lot of Mac users must be "users" too. And that is just plain sad.


I think you should just park your big ol' RV by a beautiful lake and relax with a good glass of wine, Sinatra (or what have you) and a joint. Just once. You don't need it to appreciate nature but it's as good a spot as any to broaden your horizons, Sinc. 

Course then you'll probably be working tricks the next day to pay for your new heroin lifestyle.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My horizons are and will remain clear while I travel. I don't need a joint to appreciate Ma Nature.

She does just fine all by herself, "no enhancements", thanks.

The wine sounds OK with a good meal, but no music plays at my campground. Good campers know it bothers the neighbouring rigs.

Unless that joint makes you stupid enough to ignore campground protocol, in which case, rock on.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sure, it is illegal and those who use it should be jailed or fined depending on whether or not they are dealing it too. Not to mention it leads to many worse drugs.
> 
> Given the support it gets on this forum, a lot of Mac users must be "users" too. And that is just plain sad.


Your reasoning is circular. Marijuana should be illegal because it's bad and it's bad because it's illegal. You've made this argument many times before and yet it still makes no sense.

Leads to worse drugs? Exactly how does that happen besides some potential magical property cannabis must have? The "gateway drug" argument has no basis in fact, period. And even if it somehow did, how is prohibition going to stop that?

A lot of Mac users may or may not be users, but that doesn't say one word about whether prohibition is dumb idea or not. For the record, I haven't even tried pot in over a decade and I rarely drink more than an occasional single beer or glass of wine. Does that have something to do with the validity of my arguments, SINC? 

I'm still waiting for some cogent argument on your part stating why continued marijuana prohibition is beneficial to society. And if so why should we not also go back to the failed policy of alcohol prohibition, alcohol being a far more dangerous drug than cannabis.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Leads to worse drugs? Exactly how does that happen besides some potential magical property cannabis must have?


I agree with the rest of your post, but there's some merit to this claim. Smoking cannabis is often a gateway to smoking tobacco, which is much more dangerous and addictive than cannabis.

In my opinion, this is the most significant danger marijuana represents to our society.

Cheers


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I agree that MJ is often a gateway to cigarettes mostly an attempt to cover one stench with another (legal) stench. 

As to being a gateway drug I have no idea. I do know there are a number of users attracted to it partly because it is illegal. Take that away and they will gravitate to something worse.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bryanc said:


> I agree with the rest of your post, but there's some merit to this claim. Smoking cannabis is often a gateway to smoking tobacco, which is much more dangerous and addictive than cannabis.
> 
> In my opinion, this is the most significant danger marijuana represents to our society.
> 
> Cheers


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Pot leads to smoking tobacco? Since when? :lmao:

Alcohol is the gateway drug. It's the one substance that, when abused, can consistently remove good judgement, inhibition and in some cases cause personality changes. And it's readily available and easy to obtain. Most people that I've encountered in life have tried or became drug users BECAUSE they were drunk.
~

That aside, pot doesn't make you an idiot--it only exaggerates what's already there. You don't need to smoke pot to be an idiot, there are a lot sober examples to be found.

The only reason why pot isn't legalized is because, unlike alcohol, you can't accurately measure the amount one has used. You can smell it, and there are physiological cues, but there is no quick test akin to the breathalyzer.

As soon as a clever person figures out a way to make a "breathalyzer" or some sort of device for pot smokers, they'll be a rich person and pot will be legalized.

~

SINC: Who was in charge of hiring? Why would you (or your employer) hire pothead after pothead? If they were so obviously potheads, and dangerous to co-workers, why even bother keeping them around?

~

As I've stated in previous threads, I do not smoke pot. But I have no objection to others doing it. Why? Because it is a less dangerous drug than alcohol. Anybody who believes alcohol is incapable of making someone stupid is clearly under it's influences.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> SINC: Who was in charge of hiring? Why would you (or your employer) hire pothead after pothead? If they were so obviously potheads, and dangerous to co-workers, why even bother keeping them around?


Although it was not the only branch with the problem, Fort McMurray was by far the worst. Hiring was done by department heads and in a volatile and super expensive market like that, "you takes what you can get" attitude is prevalent.

While the majority were involved in the mechanical production side, thus the safety issue with operating fork lifts, etc., we had our fair share of "journalists" who wrote some rather "warped" views of council and court.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Your logical position doesn't make any rational sense.


Nor does your position make any sense to me. You have your opinion and I have mine and one is unlikely to change the other, so let's leave it at that, shall we?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Nor does your position make any sense to me. You have your opinion and I have mine and one is unlikely to change the other, so let's leave it at that, shall we?


Yes, but your opinion doesn't appear to be backed up by a rational argument. Again, do you have one?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, but your opinion doesn't appear to be backed up by a rational argument. Again, do you have one?


I've told you again and again that it is illegal and should remain so. That's my position. End of story. It won't change.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Lots of people have one drink too many at lunch. Maybe not enough to be smelled but impaired nonetheless. Why is having a joint at lunch somehow different or any worse? You don't really say why it's OK for the drunks but not for the potheads.


I'll jump in here and say it's not okay. If you are on the job, it is unacceptable to have even one drink at lunch (unless it is a social lunch with a client who may also choose to drink - in that case, one drink MAX).



> Anyone who needs to take drugs to get through a day at work has a problem (not counting caffeine  ). I think it could be easily argued that marijuana addiction is only a psychological addiction and that marijuana impairment is nowhere near as serious as alcohol impairment, but I won't make that argument here.


Any sort of impairment on the job is an issue. Forklift operators shouldn't be working if using standard over-the-counter cold medications that make them drowsy. And the whole argument that marijuana is only psychologically addicting is a load of bull that pro-pot users have touted way too long. Countless articles on marijuana addiction can be found with a simple google search.



> So assuming all things being equal, how does engaging in cannabis prohibition help the abuser or help society? Those who want pot will get it, if they use it daily, they likely have many sources from which to get it. Prohibition doesn't impact its availability, but buying it illegally often means enriching and enabling organized crime on some level.


Prohibition DOES impact availability. Something that is prohibited is harder to get. It has a stigma attached to it. We are trying to eliminate tobacco use in our society. Why are we wanting to get rid of one problem, and introduce another?



> Being prohibited and illegal, unless a user is growing his own, he may not be able to control its potency, so he may unintentionally get more stoned at lunch than he intended. This can't be a good thing. We already know alcohol prohibition didn't help problem drunks and only endangered society.


Alcohol prohibition and marijuana prohibition are two totally different things. Two totally different substances. It is not possible to compare the two effectively.

Because of the amount of work required to brew alcohol, it's not feasible for your average home "drinker" to produce his own (unless it's toxic moonshine). The stuff that was available in your underground bars often came from legitimate distillers. Alcohol was always available. There was never really a stigma attached to alcohol.

Marijuana is a different creature. Anyone can make it - CHEAP! The profits are HUGE! If it were to become legal, do you think all the criminal organizations would simply say "Oh, it's legal! We're closing up shop!". No! Criminal organizations still smuggle cigarettes. You know, those 100% legal tobacco sticks. They are still smuggled across borders. Mobs still control an underground economy of cigarettes. Legalization does not make crime go away.



> You hinted at the gateway drug idea, but that's just unsubstantiated bunk.


It is a gateway drug. Just like alcohol is a gateway to tobacco. Tobacco is a gateway to marijuana. Marijuana is a gateway to other illicit drugs, like ecstasy. Want proof? Attend any college or university party. Yes, I understand there are many studies out there that say "Marijuana is not a gateway drug". Really, you have to look at the definition of gateway drug. While the abuse of marijuana may not directly lead a user onto other drugs, the lack of a clear message that "All drug abuse is dangerous" gives kids that message that it's okay to experiment with these things. Hence, the rise in ecstasy and meth use.



> I'd really like to hear some prohibitionist tell me what benefit our society gets by pretending we can "win" a war on drugs? Do you have a better argument than "no thanks"?


I'm not pretending we can "win" any war on drugs. The amount of money criminals can make with drugs guarantees there will always be a supply of it. The addictiveness of these drugs guarantees there will always be users. The one thing we can do is limit the social impact by NOT allowing illicit drug use to become socially acceptable. If we legalize marijuana, what is next? Crystal meth? Why not?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> I'll jump in here and say it's not okay. If you are on the job, it is unacceptable to have even one drink at lunch (unless it is a social lunch with a client who may also choose to drink - in that case, one drink MAX).


I never said it was OK, but it is something that people do, legally.



guytoronto said:


> Any sort of impairment on the job is an issue. Forklift operators shouldn't be working if using standard over-the-counter cold medications that make them drowsy. And the whole argument that marijuana is only psychologically addicting is a load of bull that pro-pot users have touted way too long. Countless articles on marijuana addiction can be found with a simple google search.


Countless articles on aliens probing human victims can be found too. There's no scientific evidence that I've ever heard of though.



guytoronto said:


> Prohibition DOES impact availability. Something that is prohibited is harder to get. It has a stigma attached to it. We are trying to eliminate tobacco use in our society. Why are we wanting to get rid of one problem, and introduce another?


Are you arguing in favour of tobacco prohibition? I'm against that too, but I do support it's regulation to attempt to mitigate it's fatal negative effects. The problems are with us whether tobacco or marijuana is illegal or legal. Prohibition does nothing to eliminate the problem that comes from abuse of drugs and does many things to cause other problems to society.



guytoronto said:


> Alcohol prohibition and marijuana prohibition are two totally different things. Two totally different substances. It is not possible to compare the two effectively.


Ummmm ... why not?



guytoronto said:


> Because of the amount of work required to brew alcohol, it's not feasible for your average home "drinker" to produce his own (unless it's toxic moonshine). The stuff that was available in your underground bars often came from legitimate distillers. Alcohol was always available. There was never really a stigma attached to alcohol.


Don't tell that to my relatives who brew a whole lot of beer and wine, easily and cheaply. :lmao: No stigma attached to alcohol? That's how it got prohibited in the first place, the temperance movement became a political force ... just say no to booze.



guytoronto said:


> Marijuana is a different creature. Anyone can make it - CHEAP! The profits are HUGE! If it were to become legal, do you think all the criminal organizations would simply say "Oh, it's legal! We're closing up shop!". No! Criminal organizations still smuggle cigarettes. You know, those 100% legal tobacco sticks. They are still smuggled across borders. Mobs still control an underground economy of cigarettes. Legalization does not make crime go away.


The profits are "HUGE" because it's illegal. Because it's easy to grow, any user could easily supply themselves at little cost. And those huge profits are what is funding the criminals. In the world of black and white thinking, prohibition and it's massive cost to our society is a great idea because legalization and regulation would not wipe out every last tiny vestige of the black market. In the case of marijuana, I think it would make almost all marijuana trafficking go away, because it's dead simple to grow. If in regulating it the government sought to keep the price as high as it currently is then they would give bootleggers a market to exploit.



guytoronto said:


> It is a gateway drug. Just like alcohol is a gateway to tobacco. Tobacco is a gateway to marijuana. Marijuana is a gateway to other illicit drugs, like ecstasy. Want proof? Attend any college or university party. Yes, I understand there are many studies out there that say "Marijuana is not a gateway drug". Really, you have to look at the definition of gateway drug. While the abuse of marijuana may not directly lead a user onto other drugs, the lack of a clear message that "All drug abuse is dangerous" gives kids that message that it's okay to experiment with these things. Hence, the rise in ecstasy and meth use.


Oh please, obviously GT, according to your "reasoning" here, college and university is a gateway to marijuana and other illicit drugs. Let's ban colleges and university too. Mother's milk is a gateway drug.

The real gateway to addiction, whether to legal or illegal drugs is people who don't value their lives and seeking some kind of escape from psychological pain. In creating a better society we can help there, or in taking some of the vast billions we spend on the drug war and spending them on help for addicts could help, but prohibition of drugs doesn't help that in the least.



guytoronto said:


> I'm not pretending we can "win" any war on drugs. The amount of money criminals can make with drugs guarantees there will always be a supply of it. The addictiveness of these drugs guarantees there will always be users. The one thing we can do is limit the social impact by NOT allowing illicit drug use to become socially acceptable. If we legalize marijuana, what is next? Crystal meth? Why not?


Yes, drugs will always be with us. And, as you state, prohibition means that insane profits for criminals will always be with us too.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I've told you again and again that it is illegal and should remain so. That's my position. End of story. It won't change.


I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm asking you to back it up. In just about any thread that mentions marijuana or drugs you post your opinion. That's fine. And it's my opinion that marijuana prohibition and the unwinnable war on drugs is harming our society, far more than any fictional good that it could do. And I'm quite willing to say why I've come to that conclusion.

You on the other hand have at various times tried to support your opinion with illogical arguments that other ehMaccers have shown to be illogical and irrational. At that point you either leave the thread or sum up with "it's just my opinion, end of story."

A quick Google search of ehMac brings up some of your assertions in favour of prohibition, debunked each time: ... drugs cause crime ... drugs really cause crime ... drugs are "plague on society" ... condoning prohibition "is madness" ... supporters of legalization are "out of their mind".

Well, I'm sorry SINC, that's not the end of the story. If you come on a discussion forum and make assertions, others will challenge those assertions or ask you to back them up. You are promoting a policy that allows for the police to make criminals out of people for doing something that should be their own business. Yet you don't seem to want to, or don't seem to be able to, back up such an extraordinary position. 

You have the right to post your opinion. And I have the right to post here that your opinion is not based on a defensible argument. Maybe in the future when posting on the subject of marijuana or drugs should should just submit, "I'm against it, just don't ask me to explain why."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You just don't get it do you?

I don't have to explain my position to you or anyone else. I am not in favour of legalizing dope or any other currently illegal drug.

If it was put to a vote, that's how I would vote. Clear now?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> You just don't get it do you?
> 
> I don't have to explain my position to you or anyone else. I am not in favour of legalizing dope or any other currently illegal drug.
> 
> If it was put to a vote, that's how I would vote. Clear now?


Yes, I've often been included in your book of those who "don't get it". In this case I'm happy about that.

Yeah I think I'm clear, SINC. I'm against it, just don't ask me to explain why, is your position.

Oh yeah, and I'm "out of my mind" for promoting legalization, but you don't have to explain that either. No you don't _*have*_ to explain that.

You don't have to explain any of your opinions SINC, but I wouldn't expect many on ehMac to take them seriously if you can't or won't.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

+1 on GA's posts.

SINC, your arguments for marijuana prohibition make no sense. 

Using your logic, I can only assume that you support gay marriage since it is currently legal in Canada.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Societies view various behaviours as being tolerable or not but most behaviours are scaled such that excess is the problem. It's OK to drink a little (or a lot), but not to drive. It's OK (since its not illegal ) to smoke cigarettes even though it kills millions of people. So why is marijuana treated any differently? Think of the pros and cons to legalization:

Pros:
1. A stable source for patients for which it is the only effective pain relief.
2. Reduction of the massive profits from crime, not to mention the grow-ops that suck $$ from any utility user and are a constant fire risk.
3. Allows law enforcement to focus on other bad behaviours.
4. Brings its use into the open, allowing greater education of its dangers.
5. Brings in major tax dollars for a product that is already widely available.

Cons:
1. Encourages smoking (MJ is as bad for your lungs as tobacco).
2. Promotes acceptability of use of hallucinogens (gateway argument).
3. Is difficult to detect effects yet there is sensory impairment.
4. Will decrease Canadian travel to the Netherlands and hydroponics sector will go bust.
5. USA

The only point that is actually relevant is the last. Legalizing marijuana would cause a reaction from the US that would cause a quick reversal. Canada a sovereign country? Here's the test.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Perhaps Sinc's arguments aren't the greatest in this debate but it's his opinion and you can't argue someone's opinion; he feels it should stay illegal...fine with me if that's his opinion. You can't really argue opinion, athough it may seem that way but it's his right to have his own thought on this or any other matter...having said that, opinion may be immoral, unethical, uninformed, without proper thought but it's still pretty hard to argue opinion.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sure, it is illegal and those who use it should be jailed or fined depending on whether or not they are dealing it too.


That was the essence of the decriminalization bill that died on the order paper before the last election: Crack down on people in the trade, but take the ordinary smoker out of the criminal system and issue fines instead. Growing, selling and consuming would all have remained illegal.

One goal was to keep simple-possession cases out of the courts, since a great many of them wind up with fines or absolute discharges anyway. Another goal (unstated AFAIK) was probably to generate a nice wad of tax-like revenue. 

As the law is now, when Officer Bob catches Stoner Joe puffing in an alley, chances are Bob's just going to confiscate the stuff and give Joe a stern talking-to rather than set wheels in motion for a criminal case likely to result in a small fine or no penalty at all. (I don't know if there are statistics on this, but I'd hazard a guess that many simple-possession cases that make it to court either have some aggravating circumstance like disorderly conduct, or are really trafficking charges reduced via plea bargain.) 

Under decriminalization, Officer Bob could just write a ticket on the spot, as if Stoner Joe were a double-parked SUV.

In a nutshell, if you want to see more pot smokers punished more effectively, you should probably support decriminalization.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Societies view various behaviours as being tolerable or not but most behaviours are scaled such that excess is the problem. It's OK to drink a little (or a lot), but not to drive. It's OK (since its not illegal ) to smoke cigarettes even though it kills millions of people. So why is marijuana treated any differently? Think of the pros and cons to legalization:
> 
> Pros:
> 1. A stable source for patients for which it is the only effective pain relief.
> ...


Although there would be a strong backlash to the end of marijuana prohibition from certain elements within the US, (as there was when we were close to some decriminalization a few years ago), I believe that the US response would not be as fearsome as some think. At the state level, some are more liberal than Canada is nationally. American public opinion as a whole isn't really that far behind Canada's. I think the main reason that the DEA drug warriors would try everything possible to derail this in Canada is because they know that legalization in Canada would result in the same thing happening there eventually.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> That was the essence of the decriminalization bill that died on the order paper before the last election: Crack down on people in the trade, but take the ordinary smoker out of the criminal system and issue fines instead. Growing, selling and consuming would all have remained illegal.
> 
> One goal was to keep simple-possession cases out of the courts, since a great many of them wind up with fines or absolute discharges anyway. Another goal (unstated AFAIK) was probably to generate a nice wad of tax-like revenue.
> 
> ...


The reason I didn't like that legislation is because it didn't take pot totally out of the hands of organized crime. But I thought it may have been the only politcally possible route to eventual outright legalization.

If I recall correctly, I think the proposed legislation would have allowed a certain amount of plants to be grown for personal use and still not be considered trafficking. I thought that this could have been a potential way for regular pot users to provide their own without the money going through to organized crime and without the worry that they might get busted as a dreaded "grow-op". To me this bill was only a temporary half-measure.

As many would have seen if this legislation had been enacted, the sky would not have fallen.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Perhaps Sinc's arguments aren't the greatest in this debate but it's his opinion and you can't argue someone's opinion; he feels it should stay illegal...fine with me if that's his opinion. You can't really argue opinion, athough it may seem that way but it's his right to have his own thought on this or any other matter...having said that, opinion may be immoral, unethical, uninformed, without proper thought but it's still pretty hard to argue opinion.


Nobody said it wasn't his right to have an opinion. I got lots of 'em myself. If you're going to post them on internet forums, you can expect that people will request that you explain them.

Me, I believe our society is controlled by shape-shifting alien lizard people, who take on the appearance of all our government and corporate leaders. That's just my opinion though, don't ask me to back it up. [/sarcasm]


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> +1 on GA's posts.
> 
> SINC, your arguments for marijuana prohibition make no sense.
> 
> Using your logic, I can only assume that you support gay marriage since it is currently legal in Canada.


Good point. If it's legal it must be right.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Although there would be a strong backlash to the end of marijuana prohibition from certain elements within the US, (as there was when we were close to some decriminalization a few years ago), I believe that the US response would not be as fearsome as some think. At the state level, some are more liberal than Canada is nationally. American public opinion as a whole isn't really that far behind Canada's. I think the main reason that the DEA drug warriors would try everything possible to derail this in Canada is because they know that legalization in Canada would result in the same thing happening there eventually.


Precisely. Don't underestimate the combined powers of homeland security and the DEA. They cover each others butts to ensure their budgets are maintained. While I don't wish to condone marijuana use, I find the arguments against its legalization are illogical when compared with cigarettes and alcohol. The only possible argument is that it will encourage harder drug use, but this is far from being proven and the resources released through having not to chase down illegal production of weed could be focussed on the acid and metamphetamine labs.

It's also ironic that world heroine production has significantly increased since the liberation of Afghanistan. If this were made a legal crop there and the products harvested at market prices to generate pharmaceutical pain-killers (morphine), the level of criminality would be decreased, heroine availability would drop, the world-wide shortage of morphine would be relieved, the Afghan farm economy would be supported and the Taliban terrorists would have a major funding stream cut off (I know this is idealized but makes more sense than the current strategy).


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

*gateway? what a crock.*

OK ok lets get this gateway path straight... 

Sugar
Caffeine 
Nicotine
Codeine
Alcohol
Inhalants 
Amphetamines
Marijuana 
Hash
Mushrooms
Acid
Ecstasy 
Meth
Cocaine
Heroin 
...

Right order? Am I missing something?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Nobody said it wasn't his right to have an opinion. I got lots of 'em myself. If you're going to post them on internet forums, you can expect that people will request that you explain them.
> 
> Me, I believe our society is controlled by shape-shifting alien lizard people, who take on the appearance of all our government and corporate leaders. That's just my opinion though, don't ask me to back it up. [/sarcasm]


I agree....we all argue our opinions; that's what the internet if for isn't it? 

As for the gay marriage comment; I feel it should stay legal. There are 2 trains of thought here; it may be wrong to force the church to allow it but we can allow marriage to be done in a civil situation. Marriage isn't specific to the church, this is what people miss. On the other hand, if it is deemed to violate human rights (if the charter modified) you could theoretically force the church to do so. The backlash from that would not be ideal!


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

If I had to work with you SINC, I think a joint would come in handy. 
It would help me laugh at the absurdity of what you believe.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Although I have no interest in marijuana, I don't believe that the act of smoking it should be illegal. In Guy's scenario the reckless child endangerment needs to be separated from the act of smoking marijuana. Let them be punished for the harm they do. Let them be punished for being high while looking after children, but not for the act of smoking in isolation. 

Similarly, I don't care how wasted people get with alcohol--but make them fully responsible for whatever harm they cause while inebriated.

Leave Shaggy alone, if he just smokes up in his basement while listening to Led Zeppelin.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CamCanola said:


> If I had to work with you SINC, I think a joint would come in handy.
> It would help me laugh at the absurdity of what you believe.


I understand that's what most pot users do, "laugh"


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

"Johnny smoked a rock of crack, and almost had a heart attack
Billy smoked a bunch of pot, a little hungry was all he got"

Anyone who is putting forth the argument that weed is bad and should be illegal and hasn't even tried weed in the first place can't say anything. That's like saying Apples taste bad when you've never eaten one.


Pot is harmless. Infact i had some pot last night.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Black said:


> Anyone who is putting forth the argument that weed is bad and should be illegal and hasn't even tried weed in the first place can't say anything.


Worst argument, ever. I haven't tried stabbing someone just yet, but I don't need to go there to realize it's probably not a good idea. (Well, perhaps it might do _some_ some good.) 

The people who say pot is 'good' are the people who will take that argument to the grave with them, hoping to win the government's support to their side somewhere in between.



Black said:


> Pot is harmless. Infact i had some pot last night.


1. Sure. We'll let you believe what you want in order to let you sleep better at night. 
2. We don't need to know that.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Black said:


> "Johnny smoked a rock of crack, and almost had a heart attack
> Billy smoked a bunch of pot, a little hungry was all he got"


Is that the line weed users keep repeating to themselves while they're on the their dope break to justify their use of the narcotic?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Honestly, why does it matter if marijuana is good or bad for you? Why even have that argument? If you say that a woman has the right to determination of her own body and therefore has the right to receive an abortion, why not extend the same right to some dope head to determine what he/she does with his/her body?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ... Let them be punished for the harm they do. Let them be punished for being high while looking after children, but not for the act of smoking in isolation.
> 
> Similarly, I don't care how wasted people get with alcohol--but make them fully responsible for whatever harm they cause while inebriated.
> 
> Leave Shaggy alone, if he just smokes up in his basement while listening to Led Zeppelin.


Excellent post MF. It's nice to be able to find a topic on which we are in complete agreement.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: We could probably agree on many areas where government efforts and funds are absolutely wasted. By the time you eliminate them, the remaining budget for actual social programs and useful endeavours would look like such a bargain that few would bother arguing about it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lars said:


> Is that the line weed users keep repeating to themselves while they're on the their dope break to justify their use of the narcotic?


Sure, sure. And doctors _don't_ prescribe the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes like increasing chemo patient's appetite, but to make everybody feel alright. 

Have another drink.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Lars said:


> Worst argument, ever. I haven't tried stabbing someone just yet, but I don't need to go there to realize it's probably not a good idea. (Well, perhaps it might do _some_ some good.)


Why are you talking about a stabbing experience? we're talking about inhaling the fumes of a burning plant.

When i was in junior high school i was always walking around high and mighty spouting 'above the influence' as if i was doing something extraordinary. When i reached high school i realised that egotistical manner was flawed as Pot does nothing negative to the body except make you really really hungry.



Lars said:


> 1. Sure. We'll let you believe what you want in order to let you sleep better at night.


It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. It's a fact it does nothing negative to me, i've been doing it on and off for 3 years now and nothing bad has happened to me involving my health, grades in school or general attitude.

Unless you want to believe it's bad for you, go ahead. We all know where belief gets us.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> bryanc: We could probably agree on many areas...


Sure... but where would be the fun in that?!?

It certainly seems obvious to me that the cost to society of trying to enforce stupid legislation against marijuana (and failing miserably) is far greater than the potential cost of decriminalizing or even fully legalizing it.

I've got no personal stake in this, as I don't smoke anything, but this is just such a no-brainer that I'm quite angry with our politicians that there's even any debate. It's like the gay marriage non-issue. Why are we wasting time with these discussions when the solutions are so obvious?

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Sure... but where would be the fun in that?!?


It would work out like one of those Kung-fu movies--like _Five Deadly Venoms_. Snake and Scorpion could work together to defeat Toad, but then Snake and Scorpion would become mortal enemies on the Bell Curve.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Q:Why are we wasting time with these discussions when the solutions are so obvious?
> 
> Cheers


A: We still have Religion wrapped up in politics. All of these issues can and are boiled down to morals founded by Religion. Take religion out of government and you will be sailing rather smoothly. Although this won't happen for a very long time.


Nobody is forcing anybody to smoke weed. Decriminalizing it won't make it any more popular than it already is (2/4 teens 14-18 have and do smoke Pot on a regular basis in Canada).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Black said:


> Why are you talking about a stabbing experience? we're talking about inhaling the fumes of a burning plant.


Because you made the argument that "Person X cannot condemn action Y because they've never tried it themselves." Sorry, but that's just about the dumbest argument ever. It's perfectly reasonable, and often necessary for someone to formulate an opinion on something without having tried it. Stabbing people is just an extreme and obvious example used to illustrate this point.



> Pot does nothing negative to the body except make you really really hungry.[/QUOTE}
> 
> *Bzzzt* Sorry, wrong again. Smoking anything does lots of bad stuff to your body. And THC does lots of bad stuff to your brain if you overuse it.
> 
> ...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bryanc said:


> The point is that informed, consenting adults should be allowed to put whatever they like into their bodies, _as long as it isn't having a significant negative impact on the rest of society_.


And somehow alcohol is okay. Go figure.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

bryanc said:


> The point is that informed, consenting adults should be allowed to put whatever they like into their bodies, as long as it isn't having a significant negative impact on the rest of society.


Define 'significant'. My opinion is that tobacco smoking has a MAJOR impact on society (people calling in to work sick, constant smoke breaks at work lower productivity, smoking in the home makes kids sick, etc.).


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> Define 'significant'. My opinion is that tobacco smoking has a MAJOR impact on society (people calling in to work sick, constant smoke breaks at work lower productivity, smoking in the home makes kids sick, etc.).


With alcohol, we have underage drinking, health-related issues that beleaguer our health system, drunk driving, assault, (date) rape. spousal and child abuse, disorderly conduct, workplace injury, lower work productivity, etc.

But that's okay... because children don't get second hand smoke from alcohol.  

_Oh, what a wonderful world._


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> But that's okay... because children don't get second hand smoke from alcohol.


And in this very thread we have a child of 17 endorsing pot smoking and claiming to have been a user since the age of 14 (and as recent as a day ago).

I guess that's OK too, is it?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> > Pot does nothing negative to the body except make you really really hungry.[/QUOTE}
> >
> > *Bzzzt* Sorry, wrong again. Smoking anything does lots of bad stuff to your body. And THC does *lots of bad stuff* to your brain if you overuse it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Anyone who thinks marijuana is 'harmless' is either uniformed or not very smart. I hope it's the former in your case.
> 
> Cheers


I will not say that Weed is completely unharmless, because that is not true. *It would be hard to find anything in modern society that isn't completely harmless. (Even bottled water increases your chances of getting cancer)*

Pot is not harmless, but it's not going to kill you. Wait that's not true it could kill you. You must smoke 15 pounds (yes pounds) of Pot in under 15 minutes to overdose. How's that for a drug?

Funfact: The people who criminalized Marijuana are also the people who criminalized the chemical your brain releases when you are about to die that puts you into a dreamlike state that essentially prepares you for death. (It is possible to artificially create this natural occuring drug).

Also i would like to point out the overdramatic anti-drug campaigns in the media. They are complete overexagerations and lies that i have experienced first hand. Ex: When i first started Gr.8 our class was given a presentation complete with posters and a long movie depicting two girls, 1 who had used Pot and the other who had used MDMA (Ecstasy). The movie showed the girls in extremely scary dreamlike states and both stories ended in tragedy with the girls suffering extreme anxiety and the girl who tried MDMA lost her memory and her brain was damaged. *I have tried pot and have done Ecstasy over 30 times in less than a year and i have yet to have a part of my brain fail or suffer from anxiety attacks, or even any bad symptoms at all. Also note i did 2 and sometimes 3 times the ammount the girl did in the movie*. As always, don't trust everything you hear people act scared about. It's all scare tactics. A campaign of fear. Pah, bullcrap.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> And in this very thread we have a child of 17 endorsing pot smoking and claiming to have been a user since the age of 14 (and as recent as a day ago).
> 
> I guess that's OK too, is it?


Another argument for legalization, SINC. 

If legal it would be illegal for a vendor to sell it to underage buyers, there are no regulations on black market sellers. Not only that but the black market product he uses could possibly be tainted, laced with other chemicals because organized criminals don't answer to any regulations. And obviously the War On Drugs has failed miserably in its goal of making drugs unavailable to children. As it always will.

Teenagers will experiment with mood-modifying drugs whether legal or illegal. How many people have never tried booze before they met the legal drinking age? How does threatening a child with imprisonment for doing something that teenagers will do anyway improve the situation in any way?

Sorry SINC, I don't mean to be asking you to back up your opinion, but you did pose a question. Feel free to not answer, though.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

SINC said:


> And in this very thread we have a *child* of 17 endorsing pot smoking and claiming to have been a user since the age of 14 (and as recent as a day ago).
> 
> I guess that's OK too, is it?


I am not a child.

I am endorsing the freedom to use Pot *if you would like too* due to my own experiences with it being nothing but relaxing, calming and safe (Under the conditions that you are not driving).


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> And in this very thread we have a child of 17 endorsing pot smoking and claiming to have been a user since the age of 14 (and as recent as a day ago).
> 
> I guess that's OK too, is it?


Did *I* say it was okay?

It's illegal to sell cigarettes to kids under 18 (depending where you live) but it's not illegal for them to smoke it. Explain that logic to me.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Although I have no interest in marijuana, I don't believe that the act of smoking it should be illegal. In Guy's scenario the reckless child endangerment needs to be separated from the act of smoking marijuana. Let them be punished for the harm they do. Let them be punished for being high while looking after children, but not for the act of smoking in isolation.
> 
> Similarly, I don't care how wasted people get with alcohol--but make them fully responsible for whatever harm they cause while inebriated.
> 
> Leave Shaggy alone, if he just smokes up in his basement while listening to Led Zeppelin.


Philosophically, I am in complete agreement with you here, being of the libertarian but lefty breed. 

I believe the state has no right to legislate what adults do with their own bodies, but the state does have a right to intervene when one person does harm to another. No busybody in government or the police should have any say over what a person chooses to do that only affects themselves.

The obvious hypocrisy of marijuana prohibition is evident since we don't prohibit many things that are far more dangerous. It comes out of the irrational "reefer madness" meme which still holds quite a bit of power. You will notice in the words of those who support it that they irrationally associate the idea of legalization with the moral decay of society.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Did *I* say it was okay?
> 
> It's illegal to sell cigarettes to kids under 18 (depending where you live) but it's not illegal for them to smoke it. Explain that logic to me.


Sorry Manny.

I did not mean to single you out, it was more of a general question and I should have made that clear..


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Black said:


> I am not a child.


Sorry, but the law says you are, until you turn 18.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> How many people have never tried booze before they met the legal drinking age? How does threatening a child with imprisonment for doing something that teenagers will do anyway improve the situation in any way?
> 
> Sorry SINC, I don't mean to be asking you to back up your opinion, but you did pose a question. Feel free to not answer, though.


An infinite number. So those who are threatened with imprisonment are an example to those who might follow their lead and are deterred. Same thing applies to underage alcohol use of course.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Sorry Manny.
> 
> I did not mean to single you out, it was more of a general question and I should have made that clear..


It's okay. And no, I don't think it's okay for underaged youth to do any of the sort--be it pot, tobacco or alcohol.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> It's okay. And no, I don't think it's okay for underaged youth to do any of the sort--be it pot, tobacco or alcohol.


I did all three of those 2 days ago, it was bad to you then?

Scenerio: I turn 18 on June 20th, so let's say on June 19th at exactly 11:59 i drink a beer... then is that terrible? but the next minute it will be okay, perfectly acceptable and non-criminal? This logic blows my mind more than drugs and alcohol ever will. I don't understand the logic involving what a number judging time on earth created by humans has to do with drinking a certain beverage that makes you loopy after too many.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> An infinite number. So those who are threatened with imprisonment are an example to those who might follow their lead and are deterred. Same thing applies to underage alcohol use of course.


An infinite number? Are you referring to those who never tried alcohol before they were legal? It's not clear from your post. If so, that wouldn't be correct and off the top of my head I would guess those who never tried booze before they were legal would be a small minority. I got drunk several times for 2 years before I was legal and I don't know if there was anyone in my class who hadn't, but there might have been one or two. How about you SINC?

So the threat of imprisonment for pot users has helped the situation? I don't really see how. In theory the deterrent is supposed to be working, but it obviously hasn't. And why should a teenager who smokes pot do jail time whereas if he caught with a bottle of booze would at worst get a lecture and a phone call to his parents and have his bottle poured out?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Black said:


> I did all three of those 2 days ago, it was bad to you then?
> 
> Scenerio: I turn 18 on June 20th, so let's say on June 19th at exactly 11:59 i drink a beer... then is that terrible? but the next minute it will be okay, perfectly acceptable and non-criminal? This logic blows my mind more than drugs and alcohol ever will. I don't understand the logic involving what a number judging time on earth created by humans has to do with drinking a certain beverage that makes you loopy after too many.


You seem hellbent on defending your choices--choices that have no effect on me. Let me say this: I don't care what you do. You don't need to justify it to me. I'm of no consequence to you or how you go about your life.

I've not once described underage drinking, or the use of illicit narcotics, as "terrible"--you did. I just don't agree that youth should partake in those activities. I won't post any links to studies about the effects of drugs or alcohol on the youth, etc. or some deep philosophical explanation as to why I think it's wrong.

If you feel you have the maturity and intelligence to do so, then good for you. However, your parent(s) or guardians are responsible for you. If you are caught doing illegal activity, the repercussions fall squarely on their shoulders. Have you considered that?

That aside, I've noted that you failed to offer the opinion of your parents and what their thoughts are in all of this. Do you not feel their opinion on the matter is of any value?


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> That aside, I've noted that you failed to offer the opinion of your parents and what their thoughts are in all of this. Do you not feel their opinion on the matter is of any value?


As i am under 18 i take the measures to ensure i do not cause trouble and am doing things securely when involving Pot. What i mean by this is i don't troll the streets looking for it since i'm not a stoner.

About my parents, i respect their opinion however i am my own person and have been since June 20th 1990. I am not a trouble maker and i do not pose a threat to anyone and as that i 'do what i want'. My parents know, my parents have both smoked pot in the past (20 years ago) and one drinks every month or so. If they told me not to do that they would be hypocrites and i would use that again them if they were to confront me (They haven't because it's not an issue or a problem with me).
_*Note: It is possible to 'do what you want' and not get in trouble_


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Black said:


> _*Note: It is possible to 'do what you want' and not get in trouble_


I didn't say anything about getting into trouble. However, like it or not, underage drinking, doing ecstasy and smoking pot certainly falls under that category.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I didn't say anything about getting into trouble. However, like it or not, underage drinking, doing ecstasy and smoking pot certainly falls under that category.


One time a police officer stopped me walking on the street by myself because a couple of kids were ringing and running houses around where i live. He searched me thinking i was drunk/high and found weed. He poured it onto the street, crushed it and told me to have a good day. They know that weed is not worth their time bringing me in, writing up a report, filing it and then following up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The admissions of illegal behaviour here astound me. 

So casual, like to break the law is really no big deal.

Unbelievable.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> The admissions of illegal behaviour here astound me.
> 
> So casual, like to break the law is really no big deal.
> 
> Unbelievable.


Welcome to the new Millennium. Oh wait, it happened last century as well. And the century before that....and......

It people were here making admissions to _serious crimes_, well then, that's something completely different.

If the lawmakers can break the law, why can't we?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Welcome to the new Millennium. Oh wait, it happened last century as well. And the century before that....and......
> 
> It people were here making admissions to _serious crimes_, well then, that's something completely different.
> 
> If the lawmakers can break the law, why can't we?


If one cannot grasp the basic concept of obeying the law, there is little hope.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> If one cannot grasp the basic concept of obeying the law, there is little hope.


From what I have read here, the laws being broken are the same ones that have been broken for decades.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, I am somehow certain that you have heard that choice phrase, "the law is an ass." Good old Charles Dickens.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Sinc, I am somehow certain that you have heard that choice phrase, "the law is an ass." Good old Charles Dickens.


Indeed I have Max.

I've also heard the choice phrase, "only asses break the law. It is people who fight to legislate change."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sometimes laws become obstacles to the evolution of society, Sinc. Someone has to take a stand. Otherwise we'd not have this thing we call civilization.

But at this point, over pot, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree... saner that way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Sometimes laws become obstacles to the evolution of society, Sinc. Someone has to take a stand. Otherwise we'd not have this thing we call civilization.
> 
> But at this point, over pot, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree... saner that way.


I consider that an appropriate solution given our difference of opinion, sir.

Very civilized indeed.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

SINC said:


> Indeed I have Max.
> 
> I've also heard the choice phrase, "only asses break the law. It is people who fight to legislate change."


It is ashamed that some take Authority as truth rather than truth as authority.

I broke the law by buying Marijuana. I did not hurt anyone. I did not hurt myself.

... but of course instead of questioning the very law put in place... you will simply follow the law without question or second thought.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Black said:


> It is ashamed that some take Authority as truth rather than truth as authority.


Who or what, is "it"?

And why is "it" ashamed?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Good question. Black, care to answer that one? I imagine you hadn't intended to sound quite so tortured in your justification.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

Right on Black, thanks for being honest. I'm more than twice your age and I've probably done much (and maybe more) of what you described in my salad days. I grew up in a prohibitive household that not only taught me to take alcohol and drugs seriously but it also taught me to lie and hide my experimentation. I still take them very seriously but now I no longer have to lie and hide. Unjust laws always demand to be broken, fought and repealed. Really, if they would just legalize it I'd become a farmer by the end of the month.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CamCanola said:


> Unjust laws always demand to be broken, fought and repealed. Really, if they would just legalize it I'd become a farmer by the end of the month.


Fought and repealed? Certainly. Fight for successful repeal is fine.

Broken? Sorry, you deserve to pay the price if you deliberately choose to break any law you happen to disagree with.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Every time we fail to learn from history.....it cost more....

Prohibition: No Liquor Allowed: Alcohol Unlawful, Bootleggers and Rumrunners Filled A Thirsty Need



> Prohibition in fact backfired. Instead of eradicating the manufacture and sale of liquor, it sustained and boosted it to the point that its use in both the United States and Canada was even greater and more widespread,” said C.H. Gervais, author of The Rumrunners, a Prohibition Scrapbook.
> Bootleggers and smugglers made fortunes
> 
> The business of booze exploded. Liquor bought from distilleries in Canada was smuggled across the border. In Detroit, Michigan, across the river from Walkerville, Ontario, illegal liquor sales were second only to the booming automobile industry. Bootlegging flourished. People bought alcohol under the guise of obtaining it for their own supplies (or for shipping it to another destination – Cuba was often listed on a B-13 Clearance Form issued by Canada Customs) then they evaded authorities, lugging liquor across the US border “with skaters on sunny afternoons, tourists crossing on the ferry boats... strapped to underclothing, inside brassieres, in stockings, in boots, up coatsleeves, in tires in cars.” The booze was delivered to covert Speakeasies and saloons, and sold to quench their thirsty customers.
> ...


sound familiar....it should.
Legalize, control, tax ...be done with it......

It is so seriously stupid that tobacco and alcohol is legal and marijuana offenders clogging up the court systems.

Right now all it does is set the stage for ridicule of the law in general as this aspect is so seriously and obviously stupid.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

If you asked me ten years ago what I thought would be legalized first between gay marriage and marijuana, I would have said marijuana. 

It amazes me how entrenched our system is with keeping it illegal. I can't see any reasonable argument as to why it would remain to be so. How anybody can argue that tobacco and alcohol should be legal while pot not, is perplexing. 

I only know one person in my generation (under 35) that feels strongly that pot should remain illegal. So, I guess it is only a matter of time until we take power and make changes. Worst case, it will be another 20 years.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Prohibition and the failure of it to snuff out alcohol consumption is often sited as the justification for legalizing drugs. But I have some questions about the prohibition years that maybe someone else has information of and would like to share.

1. Alcohol abuse is widespread among youth these days. Were youth getting waisted back then on the weekend? And if so, was it as common as it is today? 
2. Was there the ratio of alcohol related accidents causing death and injury that we see today compared to non impaired accidents?
3. Was there a similar percentage of alcoholics as todays numbers? 
4. Was it as socially accepted as it is today in the general population? I know countless people that can't do anything of a social or athletic nature without a 24 involved.
I guess what I'm getting at is that we claim prohibition failed and that can be said is true of its ultimate goal. But did it reduce the number of victims of alcoholism? Was alcohol and the problems attached to it as common then as they are today?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Prohibition and the failure of it to snuff out alcohol consumption is often sited as the justification for legalizing drugs. But I have some questions about the prohibition years that maybe someone else has information of and would like to share.
> 
> 1. Alcohol abuse is widespread among youth these days. Were youth getting waisted back then on the weekend? And if so, was it as common as it is today?
> 2. Was there the ratio of alcohol related accidents causing death and injury that we see today compared to non impaired accidents?
> ...


I imagine there might be some info out there to be googled that could answer your questions. I should be heading for bed soon so I won't do the research.

I think that during alcohol prohibition there was probably a reduction in alcohol usage, because people had to go to greater links to get it. So in that sense there probably was some reduction in the direct problems of alcohol use. No doubt alcoholics went to the necessary lengths to keep themselves supplied though, legal or not.

But there were many other costs to society that prohibition increased. First, and not insignificantly there was the cost to the freedom of perfectly reasonable people who had to submit to police telling them what they could and could not do. There were no doubt costs to users of the illegal stuff, since the unregulated black market supply could be tainted and poisonous. I would assume that there were not insignificant amounts of deaths due to tainted black market booze. But the big cost to society in my mind was the enabling and enhancement to organized crime that prohibition provided. The small time criminal gangs involved in providing booze to the masses grew to immense power and wealth. The brief experiment with prohibition capitalized them for generations and they spread their wealth and power to many other areas after prohibition ended. Part of the fight against organized crime resulted in the corruption of many police and politicians, often leading high up.

Here's an interesting chart, comparing murder rates in the US with prohibition and the War on Drugs highlighted:










The war on drugs has been going on for much longer than alcohol prohibition. You can be sure there are powerful criminals who don't want it to end, probably some who even can buy the influence of politicians. It has been shown that in many places where there are large drug squads there has been much police corruption even in (gasp) the COTU.

The whole idea of prohibition is premised on the irrational fear that we can't treat adults like adults because "demon rum" or "demon mary jane" will cause the general population to run amok and self-destruct. It's just not true. Sure there are vulnerable people who will have problems and they will be with us whether prohibition exists or not. We would be better off as a society to spend just a fraction of the billions we waste on drug wars on addiction research, treatment and help for the few who need it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If you asked me ten years ago what I thought would be legalized first between gay marriage and marijuana, I would have said marijuana.
> 
> It amazes me how entrenched our system is with keeping it illegal. I can't see any reasonable argument as to why it would remain to be so. How anybody can argue that tobacco and alcohol should be legal while pot not, is perplexing.
> 
> I only know one person in my generation (under 35) that feels strongly that pot should remain illegal. So, I guess it is only a matter of time until we take power and make changes. Worst case, it will be another 20 years.


I don't know many in my generation (50ish) who really think pot usage is in need of prohibition either. But polls show there still is a significant minority who buy into "reefer madness". I don't know if it's so much an age thing, just that those who are susceptible to irrational arguments and fear-based reasoning uncritically accept the war on drugs mantra.

I know some folks even older than SINC who relax with a joint now and then.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I know some folks even older than SINC who relax with a joint now and then.


I don't think Saltspring Island is a very representative population for Canadians as a whole.  

I think it is partly generational. Popular media would suggest that the view and usage of marijuana by the 60's generation was the highest compared to other generations. But, if you look at consumption numbers, a much higher percentage of people in my generation have used marijuana.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Among my generation including my relatives and friends, all from rural Saskatchewan and Alberta, all age 55 and over, are not, and never have been users of marijuana.

None of them have any desire to see it legalized either.

Drugs are not any kind of issue in our lives in any situation and all of us agree it should remain illegal.

(Although, some of us have had very bad experiences with offspring who began using pot and graduated to cocaine that has caused much strife.)

Simple as that.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

SINC said:


> Drugs are not any kind of issue in our lives in any situation and all of us agree it should remain illegal.


"I have no issue with _-blank-_ and have never touched _-blank-_ or been involved with _-blank-_ yet i have to disagree with _-blank-_ and keep it illegal in a court of law.

What you're saying makes no sense. I'm not a Scientist and neither are you, neither of us is qualified to make the assumption that Weed is bad or good (Which i had mistakenly done in an earlier post). I, however have experienced Marijuana and can therefore judge it more than someone (you) who has not done it or even had any contact at all with.

I'm sorry if i sound like a jerk questioning and picking apart your comments. It comes from the way i was raised. I was raised to question things around me and see the lies if there were some, raised to question the truth of authority instead of following it blindly and taking authority as truth. That is why i don't see the logic in people pretending they are scientists and people criticizing something they have had absolutely no contact with, whether it be Marijuana, homosexuality... you name it.

Before i ever had contact with Marijuana i was very against it because of adults telling me 'how bad it was' and how it will 'ruin my life if i smoke it'. I was lied to blatantly and purposely made scared of something that should not at all be considered a drug, none the less an illegal drug.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You're a child who should never have had any experience with drugs. I have had far too much first hand experience with the effect of drug use on a family and am in a much better position to comment on what I have experienced with addiction than you will hopefully ever know.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Drugs are not any kind of issue in our lives in any situation and all of us agree it should remain illegal.
> 
> (Although, some of us have had very bad experiences with offspring who began using pot and graduated to cocaine that has caused much strife.)
> 
> Simple as that.


Really? None of you drink alcohol on the weekend?

Do you really think pot was the root of the problem for that individual or were other factors in their life causing drug use? 

There is no credible data to suggest that marijuana use leads to 'graduation' to other drugs. If anything, the mixed message we send kids will lead them to try harder drugs. Kids hear that marijuana is really bad and that alcohol is OK their whole life. Once they give both a try, they realize there isn't much of a difference. That in turn causes them to question the larger message that all drugs are bad. 

I would rather we legalize marijuana and keep the harder drugs illegal. The messages we send kids about harder drugs would then be more credible and hence more effective.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Among my generation including my relatives and friends, all from rural Saskatchewan and Alberta, all age 55 and over, are not, and never have been users of marijuana.


Among my ex-father-in-law's generation (all age 55 and over, from Montreal and Toronto) there are many who have used marijuana in the past, and some who use once in a while now. 

They got jobs, got married, pay taxes, own homes and raised kids who also got jobs, got married, pay taxes, own homes, etc. 

Your experiences colour your viewpoint, SINC, as my experiences colour mine. From mine, which includes many people I know in both your generation and mine, I can only think of 1 person who has gotten into real trouble with marijuana--became an addict at 14, quit successfully in his late 30s.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Black said:


> I have tried pot and have done Ecstasy over 30 times in less than a year and i have yet to have a part of my brain fail or suffer from anxiety attacks, or even any bad symptoms at all. Also note i did 2 and sometimes 3 times the ammount the girl did in the movie. As always, don't trust everything you hear people act scared about. It's all scare tactics. A campaign of fear. Pah, bullcrap.


Smoking a little weed now and then is no big deal, though in hindsight I wish I hadn't been exposed to it until I was a bit older than you are now, because I do think it can change you in subtle ways and it's better to have a grasp of that before you begin uninformed experimentation.

But pharmaceuticals made by an amateur chemist in a basement lab? I'll never understand why people are willing to trust such drugs. 

Even with completely legitimate pharmaceuticals prescribed by a doctor, the average person has no clue what they're really putting in their body and what side effects might result. They just have to trust their doctor and pharmacist. And yet people put that same trust in white powders made in uncontrolled settings by anonymous people of unknown training (thus best assumed to be no real training at all), sold by anonymous people of questionable motives and morals.

No doubt the movies they showed you in school used exaggerated scare tactics, but that does not change the fact that street pharmaceuticals are orders of magnitude riskier than weed. 

The mistake is in the education system putting marijuana on a par with other drugs. Kids discover that pot isn't as terrible as teacher said, then assume the rest of it's all lies too. Not very wise, IMHO, either on the part of the adults or the kids.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Your experiences colour your viewpoint, SINC, as my experiences colour mine. From mine, which includes many people I know in both your generation and mine, I can only think of 1 person who has gotten into real trouble with marijuana--became an addict at 14, quit successfully in his late 30s.


You bet it does Sonal, and having seen the dark underside of drug addiction, I am firmly committed to keeping them illegal. Apparently some people have a problem with that, but that's tough. It's the way it is.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Some fabulous insight from the CBC:

CBC News: Reports from abroad: Neil Macdonald



> While Washington continues to lecture the rest of the world about recreational drug use — and bares its teeth when countries like Canada even consider relaxing their drug laws — millions of Americans are creating some of the most pot-friendly communities in the world.
> 
> "One out of three of us, 100 million people, now live in a state or municipality where marijuana is effectively decriminalized," says Allen St. Pierre, director of NORML, the largest marijuana advocacy group in the U.S. "That's a lot of debauchery. It's also par for the course."





> So far, the Supreme Court has backed Washington, ruling that the federal government is entitled to enforce its ban on marijuana anywhere in the country. Tellingly, though, the court has not struck down the state's permissive laws.
> 
> States here have wide latitude to govern themselves according to the moral views of their respective societies, and, for the past 35 years, voters in state after state have made it clear through ballot initiatives that marijuana doesn't overly offend them.
> 
> ...





> American conservatives take note: your country has pushed the pro-pot envelope much further than Canada has. Americans grow far more pot than Canadians do. There are no commercial pot dispensaries in Canada. And Volcanoes erupt mostly in California.


It's only a matter of time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Most people who are proponents of legalizing marijuana claim emphatically it is not a gateway drug. Perhaps they are right.

But legalize it, and watch it become the single gateway drug of the century.

Proponents of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and whatever else bends their minds, will then clamor for the same rights.

Yep, it will indeed become a gateway drug if it isn't already.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

The biggest "gateway drug(s)" are nicotine and alcohol.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> Most people who are proponents of legalizing marijuana claim emphatically it is not a gateway drug. Perhaps they are right.
> 
> But legalize it, and watch it become the single gateway drug of the century.
> 
> ...


I've never heard anyone praise the positive effects of drugs such as the ones you listed. For the most part, I think people who use marijuana differ greatly from those who use heroine, ecstasy, cocaine etc.

I just found this trailer for a documentary debuting at SXSW this year. It is in the same mould of Super Size Me, in which someone tests the effects of marijuana use for 30 days. Check it out:

YouTube - Super High Me Teaser


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> But legalize it, and watch it become the single gateway drug of the century.


So sorry to ask you to back up your blanket assertions again SINC, but what is this one based on?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Besides, the concept of "gateway" drug has pretty much been dismissed in behavioural neurotoxicology circles.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

titans88 said:


> I've never heard anyone praise the positive effects of drugs such as the ones you listed. For the most part, I think people who use marijuana differ greatly from those who use heroine, ecstasy, cocaine etc.


Well, there is a poster in this thread singing the praises of ecstasy.

The problem with drug subcultures is that they overlap. If you enter the world of underground marijuana use by any but the most arm's-length means, sooner or later you'll encounter other, riskier drugs. Doesn't necessarily mean you'll use them, but the "gateway" is there. Combined with kids' sense of invincibility and the all-drugs-are-equally-bad line, it can be lethal. (Nobody plans on becoming an addict, after all.)

The tragedy is that marijuana is a domestic, easily grown product, and relatively benign compared to most other mind/mood-altering substances. It's the obvious entry point to drug culture. Most other drugs involve international smuggling and/or more elaborate manufacturing. If they didn't overlap with pot culture, you'd have to look a lot harder to find them.

So, ironically, the "gateway drug" line is a self-fulfilling phenomenon. With pot kept illegal, kids wind up associating with "merchants" who sell more than just the green stuff.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So sorry to ask you to back up your blanket assertions again SINC, but what is this one based on?


It is neither opinion nor assertion GA. It is a prediction and as such stands alone. 

The human mind is such that if one group gets their way with legalization of a certain drug, proponents of other currently illegal drugs will demand the same privilege. 

I predict that is exactly what would happen if marijuana were legalized.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

titans88 said:


> I've never heard anyone praise the positive effects of drugs such as the ones you listed. For the most part, I think people who use marijuana differ greatly from those who use heroine, ecstasy, cocaine etc.
> 
> I just found this trailer for a documentary debuting at SXSW this year. It is in the same mould of Super Size Me, in which someone tests the effects of marijuana use for 30 days. Check it out:


Actually ecstasy isn't that bad. It's not addicting and just makes you feel good. It can be harsh though considering the pills have random ingredients that sometimes (although not usually likely) have cocain, meth etc in them.


If someone used marijuana 3 times a day for 30 days they would be very very tired from sleeping so much.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

Black said:


> Actually ecstasy isn't that bad. It's not addicting and just makes you feel good. It can be harsh though considering the pills have random ingredients that sometimes (although not usually likely) have cocain, meth etc in them.
> 
> 
> If someone used marijuana 3 times a day for 30 days they would be very very tired from sleeping so much.


I don't have an issue with the decriminalization of marijuana, but you lose with me with this ecstasy business. That is pushing the envelope a bit much.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A 17 year old with this much drug experience is a sad case indeed. Makes one wonder just what is lacking on the home front.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> It is neither opinion nor assertion GA. It is a prediction and as such stands alone.
> 
> The human mind is such that if one group gets their way with legalization of a certain drug, proponents of other currently illegal drugs will demand the same privilege.
> 
> I predict that is exactly what would happen if marijuana were legalized.


Could happen, but maybe not. I predict that legalization of marijuana would make society sit up and think rationally about other drugs, realizing that prohibition does nothing but create more victims.

I predict that if marijuana and other drugs are legalized and regulated there would be far less overall harm to society. Right now marijuana, ecstasy, LSD and other drugs, possibly containing contaminants, poisons and/or sold in fatal unregulated doses are easier for teenagers to get than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

I predict that without legalization, more lives will be ruined, more addicts will continue committing crimes and selling their bodies for fixes, while risking fatal overdoses from tainted products and we will spend many more billions in a completely futile attempt to prevent what can never be prevented. I predict organized criminals will also continue to rake in billions of easy money under continued prohibition.

The unspoken assumption underneath your prediction appears to be that our society can't be trusted to act like adults around the subject of drugs, without the force of the state's power to keep us from harming ourselves. That's pure bunk. Of course the state's power can't do that, has never done that and can never do that, the minority of people who become addicts will always be with us prohibition or not. Prohibition does nothing except create victims, enrich criminals, corrupt police and restrict the liberty of citizens, while failing at keeping drugs away from anyone, adult of child, who wants them. 

You support a dangerous and irrational policy that results in the opposite of its stated goal of keeping our society safe. The massive blowback of prohibition puts us all in danger.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You support a dangerous and irrational policy that results in the opposite of its stated goal of keeping our society safe. The massive blowback of prohibition puts us all in danger.


If you seriously believe that, please, get some help.

Criminals will continue to sell marijuana, legalized or not.

Make it legal and control its sale in government outlets (with a safe content guaranteed) for say, $10 an ounce and street dealers will off it (no guarantee of content) for $5 an ounce.

How in hell will that make society safer?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> Yep, it will indeed become a gateway drug if it isn't already.


I found this interesting regarding MJ as a Gateway Drug:



> Marijuana is a gateway drug. In drug law enforcement, rarely do we meet heroin or cocaine addicts who did not start their drug use with marijuana. Scientific studies bear out our anecdotal findings.
> For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported, based on a study of 300 sets of twins, that marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine and crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD.
> 
> Furthermore, the younger a person is when he or she first uses marijuana, the more likely that person is to use cocaine and heroin and become drug-dependent as an adult. One study found that 62 percent of the adults who first tried marijuana before they were 15 were likely to go on to use cocaine. In contrast, only one percent or less of adults who never tried marijuana used heroin or cocaine.


About.com had this article on the harmful effects of marijuana and its quite extensive.
Marijuana: The Myths Are Killing Us

The other thing that protokers often mention is the wonderful utopian model that is Holland. I recently saw a documentary talking of how the government in the Netherlands is now trying to undo the prostitution and drug culture they endorsed years ago. This article refers to the failure of legalized prostitution.

Amsterdam To Clean Up Red Light District, Eye On Development Spurs Crackdown On Criminals In Famed Zone For Sex And Prostitution - CBS News

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> If you seriously believe that, please, get some help.


Yes, I seriously believe that. Please explain what you mean by "get some help", or what you think there is about my arguments that puts me in need of "help". I still maintain that the few arguments you have offered up are illogical.



SINC said:


> Criminals will continue to sell marijuana, legalized or not.
> 
> Make it legal and control its sale in government outlets (with a safe content guaranteed) for say, $10 an ounce and street dealers will off it (no guarantee of content) for $5 an ounce.
> 
> How in hell will that make society safer?


Please, how much bathtub rot-gut gin is easily available? There might be a few loonies who make it but no one seriously bothers. Even if a few losers continued to try and sell it for $5/oz they're looking at a pretty thin profit margin for their time, compared to the biker gang who now can reap hundreds per ounce. At this price they are willing to get violent to protect their turf and their grow-op. If legalized the now not very profitable pot dealer would be better off getting a real job at $5/oz. You're not being very realistic here.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I found this interesting regarding MJ as a Gateway Drug:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You realize of course your link was written by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, not an unbiased source in the least, with their vested interest in and their very careers depending on the flow of War On Drugs billions. If you look you could easily find a hundred links that will refute this propaganda from less biased sources.

Your story on prostitution doesn't relate to the discussion unless you're making the point that marijuana is a gateway to prostitution. BTW, it ends on note of scepticism.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

> Marijuana is a gateway drug. In drug law enforcement, rarely do we meet heroin or cocaine addicts who did not start their drug use with marijuana. Scientific studies bear out our anecdotal findings.
> For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported, based on a study of 300 sets of twins, that marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine and crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD.
> 
> Furthermore, the younger a person is when he or she first uses marijuana, the more likely that person is to use cocaine and heroin and become drug-dependent as an adult. One study found that 62 percent of the adults who first tried marijuana before they were 15 were likely to go on to use cocaine. In contrast, only one percent or less of adults who never tried marijuana used heroin or cocaine.


So is the process social, biochemical or magical?

I maintain it's social. Make a relatively benign substance a big taboo -- and lump it in with the truly nasty substances -- and kids wind up rubbing elbows with more experienced people who are in a position to (try to) influence them to try a different high. And hey, pot was fun and yielded nothing more than a case of the munchies and a lot of laughs, so why not? Dealer Ed delivered fun with his weed, why wouldn't his other wares be fun too?

Best of all, the pot business, with its low cost of entry and easy production, helps underwrite riskier, more expensive drug businesses. (Which is more or less all of them except mushrooms.)

Everybody loses. Except police budgets and dealers' wallets.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*William F. Buckley on Marijuana legaization*

In honour of Mr. Buckley's life, while I disagree with much of what he stood for, he was not delusional on some issues. William F. Buckley writes about why conservatives should be in favour of marijuana legalization:

William F. Buckley Jr. on Marijuana on National Review Online



> Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

SINC said:


> A 17 year old with this much drug experience is a sad case indeed. Makes one wonder just what is lacking on the home front.


That wasn't a very nice thing to say.

Drugs have nothing to do with a good home.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, I seriously believe that. Please explain what you mean by "get some help", or what you think there is about my arguments that puts me in need of "help". I still maintain that the few arguments you have offered up are illogical.


Simple, I consider your arguments illogical.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If legalized the now not very profitable pot dealer would be better off getting a real job at $5/oz. You're not being very realistic here.


OK, make it $100 for the government ounce and $50 for the street dealer ounce. If that makes it work better in your mind, so be it.

Point is, the street dealers will sell unknown content stuff for half the "legalized" rate no matter what.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

SINC said:


> Point is, the street dealers will sell unknown content stuff for half the controlled rate no matter what.


Selling bad drugs destroys the opportunity for repeat business. Drug dealers don't intentionally sell bad drugs. They are people too.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Black said:


> Selling bad drugs destroys the opportunity for repeat business. Drug dealers don't intentionally sell bad drugs. They are people too.


 Can we get any more naive than this?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, you mean like the hordes of alcohol street dealers selling dirty hooch and making a killing?


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

SINC said:


> Can we get any more naive than this?


You haven't tried weed.
Haven't bought weed.
You haven't experienced weed.
You're posting in a thread and being against Pot.

Do not talk to me about lack of knowledge.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Simple, I consider yours illogical.


Show that mine are illogical. You haven't, just asserted your right to your opinion, while still not explaining why you think my arguments mean I need to "get some help". Just saying it doesn't make it so.



SINC said:


> OK, make it $100 for the government ounce and $50 for the street dealer ounce. If that makes it work better in your mind, so be it.
> 
> Point is, the street dealers will sell unknown content stuff for half the "legalized" rate no matter what.


If that was true the streets would be awash in illegal booze dealers, but that hasn't happened. Booze companies make a reasonable profit at current prices, nobody is likely to do very well at half the price and lousy quality. Same for pot. 

Next.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Show that mine are illogical. You haven't, just asserted your right to your opinion, while still not explaining why you think my arguments mean I need to "get some help". Just saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't be bothered GA.

You apparently know it all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Black said:


> You haven't tried weed.
> Haven't bought weed.
> You haven't experienced weed.
> You're posting in a thread and being against Pot.
> ...


Fine. I won't. Given that post, you obviously don't have any.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

iMatt said:


> So is the process social, biochemical or magical?
> 
> I maintain it's social. Make a relatively benign substance a big taboo -- and lump it in with the truly nasty substances -- and kids wind up rubbing elbows with more experienced people who are in a position to (try to) influence them to try a different high. And hey, pot was fun and yielded nothing more than a case of the munchies and a lot of laughs, so why not? Dealer Ed delivered fun with his weed, why wouldn't his other wares be fun too?


Great assessment iMatt. 
I think your bang on. I think MJ is a gateway drug but so is alcohol for that matter. Once you've embraced the notion that injesting an intoxicant of any kind to achieve an altered state is acceptable, its not a big leap to try something harder to reach a greater high. Especially if you're high when someone offers it up. You may not be thinking too straight at the time.
I guess where I see the heightened danger in Marijuana is that its classed as a drug. Once a person has come to accept that taking a drug is OK, there are plenty of other more deadly stimulants that may have lost their stigma as well. I know many people that drink but would never try drugs and I'd chalk that up to the social stigma attached to it. Remove the stigma and watch out. One only needs to look at the epidemic use of marijuana among our children today as a result of of the social stigma vanishing.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I can't be bothered GA.
> 
> You apparently know it all.


Can't be bothered, or just can't? Never said I knew it all, but it's interesting that much of your commentary has devolved into little jabs like "you apparently know it all" or "you need to get help".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Can't be bothered, or just can't? Never said I knew it all, but it's interesting that much of your commentary has devolved into little jabs like "you apparently know it all" or "you need to get help".


No, can't be bothered. You obviously have your mind made up that legalization will fix all our problems. I wish you luck if it ever happens and hope that you find it all worthwhile.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> No, can't be bothered. You obviously have your mind made up that legalization will fix all our problems. I wish you luck if it ever happens and hope that you find it all worthwhile.


SINC, I think we have all made our minds up already. To me, this discussion is about backing up one's opinion to increase understanding of other viewpoints. 

So far I do not agree with your logic of why you think prohibition of marijuana should be continued. 

Your first argument is circular and non-rationale (i.e. it should be illegal because it is already illegal).

The second argument of marijuana being a gateway drug is not supported by studies. Rather, the opposite is supported by studies.

The third argument that the criminal element would remain is inconsistent with the history of alcohol and tobacco. 

Am I missing something?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Taking this to another level, I tend to agree with the Dutch drug policy model. I believe that it is very rare for people to abuse psychedelic drugs like marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, DMT and Salvia. These drugs are less about shutting out the outside world (escapism) and are more about a spiritual experience. 

In comparison drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, ecstasy are more about getting high and self medicating. They are also prone to addiction and abuse. 

For that reason, I don't think psychedelic drugs should be illegal.

SINC is probably working on getting me kicked out of the Conservative Party right this moment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> I don't think psychoactive drugs should be illegal.
> 
> SINC is probably working on getting me kicked out of the Conservative Party right this moment.


Not at all. Why would I?

You, like me, are entitled to your opinions.

Psychoactive? 

You're either high or not. One drug is as bad as the other.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not at all. Why would I?
> 
> You, like me, are entitled to your opinions.
> 
> ...


Whoops, I meant to type psychedelic. 

Are against 'getting high' in principle? Or are you specifically concerned about the effects that drugs have on people and society?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Whoops, I meant to type psychedelic.
> 
> Are against 'getting high' in principle? Or are you specifically concerned about the effects that drugs have on people and society?


People and society.

I believe they drag both down. There is no good that comes of people becoming users.

I fear for our grandchildren. Hell, I fear for society.

With only a limited time left on this planet, I shouldn't, but I do.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

What is the definition of a drug and where do you draw the line. Is sugar a drug? Is tea or coffee a drug? Is exercise a drug? Is nicotine and alcohol a drug? What about your heart medication or ritalin that we give to kids? 

The biggest drug dealer in our country is the medical system. Thing about that for a moment. The reason we allow this is that such drugs provide a positive value to our society. So, let's dispel the myth that all drugs are created equal and that all drugs are 'bad' for society. They are not.

I agree with you that many drugs are bad for society and should be illegal. Drugs like cocaine and heroin are extremely addictive and have a tremendous negative effect on people and society. That said, I have to point out that the toll is nowhere near that of alcohol and tobacco. If you were truly concerned about society, then you should be pushing alcohol and tobacco prohibition.

So the next question is then where do we draw the line and to define what constitutes an unreasonable cost to people and society from any given drug. If a drug causes people to be violent, damage property, steal or cause negative effects to other people, then I would consider it to have crossed the line. in contrast, if the effects are mostly confined to the user and not too physically or mentally damaging, then the costs would not cross the line. This is definitely subjective, but more or less follows the golden rule (do unto others).

Marijuana basically calms people down, makes them hungry and causes them to go to sleep. I think long term use causes lethargy, lack of energy and potential damage to short term memory. For the most part, I haven't seen many studies or evidence to show that marijuana negatively affects people beyond the user. The effects to the user do not make them a non-functional member of society (meth regularly does this). Based on this, I consider the effects to society from marijuana to be acceptable. I would say the same for other psychedelic drugs. 

In contrast, drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin and even alcohol present a huge cost to society and to the user. Most of these would probably cross the line I defined above. 

No good comes from using drugs? I don't buy that. People who use marijuana do it because they believe they get something positive out of it. Who am I to judge if it doesn't really affect me or them to any significant extent?

Many people use psychedelic drugs for a spiritual experience. In my mind, their use arguably falls under freedom of religion. Religion is in essence a spiritual experience. How is that really different from following the writings of 2000 year old books written by desert nomads? You already know that I have tried psychedelics and my reasons were not about getting high but rather about having a spiritual human experience. I personally believe that if you haven't had a psychedelic experience at least once in this life, then you have missed out. FYI... this can be done without drugs (e.g. meditation, flotation tanks). The same goes for physical and mental experiences. If you haven't tested your body or mind, you missed out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> I personally believe that if you haven't had a psychedelic experience at least once in this life, then you have missed out. FYI... this can be done without drugs (e.g. meditation, flotation tanks). The same goes for physical and mental experiences. If you haven't tested your body or mind, you missed out.


And happily so, thank you.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> People and society.
> 
> I believe they drag both down. There is no good that comes of people becoming users.
> 
> ...


If that's the case then you should be actively anti-alcohol as well, given the enormous problems society has with it.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Remove the stigma and watch out. One only needs to look at the epidemic use of marijuana among our children today as a result of of the social stigma vanishing.


The main result of removing social stigma would be, IMHO, that parents and teachers would have the opportunity to teach kids a healthy respect for the drug and a moderate approach to consuming it, without advocating anything illegal in the process. 

No doubt that education wouldn't "take" in all cases. Some kids who are brought up to treat alcohol with respect and moderation will still indulge in the kind of binge drinking that's rampant when kids are taught to "just say no until the magical age of 18/19/21" and do their experimentation in secret. But I do think you can put a dent in binge drinking by teaching moderation in the home, both in words and by example.

So, yes, there will always be people who waste their lives getting stoned all day, just as there will always be people who waste their lives drinking beer all day, or waste their lives drinking Pepsi and watching Jerry Springer et al. all day.

But there would also be more scenes like this: eight adult friends at a backyard bbq, one lights a joint and passes it around. Three or four have a toke, four or five don't, and nobody gives anybody any grief over their decision to smoke or not to smoke.

That's the kind of social acceptability millions of people already practice, only it's a criminal offence that some people strongly oppose, so they have to hide it from the Sincs and MacGuivers they know. Just about everyone knows a Sinc or a MacGuiver, they all know their opinions on the matter, so when they're around they just pretend such scenes only happen in other people's backyards.

Now, I don't have kids so I haven't thought much about how I would approach that situation if I did. I'm pretty sure under current law I would make damn sure this only happened when there were no kids around, and I'm not sure at what age I would draw the line for witnessing (let alone participating in) such a terrible scene. 

Under legalization, I'd probably still set an age limit, but probably lower, for witnessing it, and it would become an opportunity to answer inevitable questions and demystify the whole thing. And I'd still try to delay participation as long as possible, because I *do* believe pot can mess you up if you don't give it the same respect you give a bottle of vodka, for example. It can't kill you as easily as the booze can, but it can still mess you up.

Finally, about the "drug stigma" and social acceptability business: I have a well-stocked liquor cabinet with enough booze to kill several people. This is perfectly acceptable to most people, and it's perfectly legal. But a single joint in the house would make me a criminal. I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how that makes any sense at all.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I personally believe that if you haven't had a psychedelic experience at least once in this life, then you have missed out. FYI... this can be done without drugs (e.g. meditation, flotation tanks).


This is worth watching:

Bonkers: Isolation Tank Makes You Hallucinate, Get One Free, Become a Nutcase


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> No, can't be bothered. You obviously have your mind made up that legalization will fix all our problems. I wish you luck if it ever happens and hope that you find it all worthwhile.


Again, another sarcastic exaggeration. I never claimed that marijuana legalization could "fix all our problems".

It's easy to tell when some debaters have run out of ideas because they resort to misrepresentation and digs.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> Finally, about the "drug stigma" and social acceptability business: I have a well-stocked liquor cabinet with enough booze to kill several people. This is perfectly acceptable to most people, and it's perfectly legal. But a single joint in the house would make me a criminal. I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how that makes any sense at all.


You'll be waiting a long time. It's wrong because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's wrong is the explanation I've heard.

Good post, though.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You'll be waiting a long time. It's wrong because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's wrong is the explanation I've heard.


You got it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> > It's wrong because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's wrong
> 
> 
> You got it.


Yes, I get it. It's a nonsensical illogical argument.

Simple definition of a circular argument.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC, I just feel the need to say i'm awfully disappointed in you. You and I have not had any direct conversations during my time here at ehmac. However, based on our comments I have read in the past and their responses, I have always considered you to be well respected by most members here. I just don't seem to understand your rationale for talking to people the way you have in this thread.

We all reserve the right to have our own opinion. If you don't support the decriminalization of marijuana - that is fine with me. My parents taught me to respect others and their beliefs. It seems, however, that you have shown absolutely no respect to others here who have disagreed with you. I am shocked that you would resort to personal insults, and even insulting the parents of one of our members.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

titans88 said:


> SINC, I just feel the need to say i'm awfully disappointed in you. You and I have not had any direct conversations during my time here at ehmac. However, based on our comments I have read in the past and their responses, I have always considered you to be well respected by most members here. I just don't seem to understand your rationale for talking to people the way you have in this thread.
> 
> We all reserve the right to have our own opinion. If you don't support the decriminalization of marijuana - that is fine with me. My parents taught me to respect others and their beliefs. It seems, however, that you have shown absolutely no respect to others here who have disagreed with you. I am shocked that you would resort to personal insults, and even insulting the parents of one of our members.


When people come down on me, I reply in kind. 

When I am badgered to justify my stand because I have an opinion, I object. I owe no one an explanation of why I hold an opinion.

Personal insults you say, self defense I say.

And finally, show me where I insulted a member's parents. If you refer to this post:

"A 17 year old with this much drug experience is a sad case indeed. Makes one wonder just what is lacking on the home front."

I stand by that statement, as no 17 year old should have ever been allowed to experiment with drugs to the extent that he (or she) claims. To have a youngster so flippant with making comments about personal use of drugs smacks of lack of parental control, and if they are insulted by that observation, so be it. 

But to be honest, I doubt there is much truth to those posts. Attention grabbing? Yes, but perhaps a cry for attention is more like it?


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> When people come down on me, I reply in kind.
> 
> When I am badgered to justify my stand because I have an opinion, I object. I owe no one an explanation of why I hold an opinion.
> 
> ...


I don't think people have come down hard on you nearly as much as you think. In fact, I firmly believe this discussion could have been much different if you gave everyone the time of day, and offered and explanation of your opinion. Not because you HAVE to, because it would have been great to hear and furthered this discussion.

I don't know if you get what is amazing about forums like these. They give us the opportunity to express and share our beliefs. However, they also open the door to discourse. Talking about our opinions, and explaining them is a great thing, and can open one's mind to new ideas. I completely respect your opinion, and understand it for the most part. I just think if you handled yourself a bit better, explained why you feel the way you do, then a lot of these snarky remarks could have been avoided. I just hate seeing discussions devolve into immature comments that are meant to be hurtful.

Regardless of how you feel about our 17 year old friend, you have absolutely no right to call out his parents. I too agree that he has far too much insight into marijuana and ecstasy, and that worries me as well. However, i'm not about to place blame. We don't know anything about his home situation and how he was raised. It is not for us to question either. We have no right to that kind of personal information. Rather, I know ultimately any 17 year old is going to make decisions on their own, good or bad, regardless of how they were raised.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

titans88 said:


> We have no right to that kind of personal information. Rather, I know ultimately any 17 year old is going to make decisions on their own, good or bad, regardless of how they were raised.


So, if your "we have no right to that kind of personal information" statement rings true in that case, it follows that I must have the right to hold an opinion without having to explain why to others.

And for the record, I have every right to "call out his parents", whatever you mean by that statement.

If a kid like him or her lived across the street from me, and told me things like that on my front lawn, I would have children's services at his parents throat in a heartbeat. That sir, is my right, to protect abused children.
.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> So, if your "we have no right to that kind of personal information" statement rings true in that case, it follows that I must have the right to hold an opinion without having to explain why to others.
> .


Of course you don't have to share your explanation! But why not? Otherwise, what was the purpose of posting in this thread in the first place?

Also, don't you think someone's family life is far more personal (and perhaps off-limits) than an explanation regarding the decriminalization of marijuana??


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

titans88 said:


> Of course you don't have to share your explanation! But why not? Otherwise, what was the purpose of posting in this thread in the first place?


Uh, to make you aware of my opinion, perhaps?



titans88 said:


> Also, don't you think someone's family life is far more personal (and perhaps off-limits) than an explanation regarding the decriminalization of marijuana??


Not at all. When a child has that much drug experience, anyone close to him or her should be concerned enough to confront the parents and/or alert the authorities.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> Uh, to make you aware of my opinion, perhaps?
> 
> 
> Not at all. When a child has that much drug experience, anyone close to him or her should be concerned enough to confront the parents and/or alert the authorities.


So you would prefer all of us to join this thread and just say "Yes" or "No" if we support the decriminalization of marijuana?

Also, neither of us are remotely close to this young ehmacer' therefore you should mind your own business.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

titans88 said:


> So you would prefer all of us to join this thread and just say "Yes" or "No" if we support the decriminalization of marijuana?
> 
> Also, neither of us are remotely close to this young ehmacer' therefore you should mind your own business.


Yes.

No. When a child makes it a point to promote illegal drugs in my presence, it becomes my business. It should alarm anyone who reads such things.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yes.
> 
> No. When a child makes it a point to promote illegal drugs in my presence, it becomes my business.


Alright. Your idea of a thread sounds like a lot of fun. One word answers from now on folks!!!!!

I'll leave it up to you to contact the authorities. You must feel great knowing you'll get one 17 year old pot smoker off the streets. Now you won't need to worry about you kids stealing your snack foods. I guess the next thing is to figure out how to get the remaining thousands of teenage pot smokers in Canada to jail.

You know what I think? I think you're an angry gentleman, who is extremely upset that the majority of people around here disagreed with you. The funny part is that really isn't a big deal. We all have opinions, and most of us respect each other and their opinions. Clearly, you have little respect for anyone who thinks differently than you.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

titans88 said:


> Alright. Your idea of a thread sounds like a lot of fun. One word answers from now on folks!!!!!
> 
> I'll leave it up to you to contact the authorities. You must feel great knowing you'll get one 17 year old pot smoker off the streets. Now you won't need to worry about you kids stealing your snack foods. I guess the next thing is to figure out how to get the remaining thousands of teenage pot smokers in Canada to jail.
> 
> You know what I think? I think you're an angry gentleman, who is extremely upset that the majority of people around here disagreed with you. The funny part is that really isn't a big deal. We all have opinions, and most of us respect each other and their opinions. Clearly, you have little respect for anyone who thinks differently than you.


If you and the majority here, think that a 17 year old kid having that much experience with dangerous drugs is fine, the country is fast going to hell in a hand basket.

Me? I will not be part of such a thing. It's your conscience. Good luck with it.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> If you and the majority here, think that a 17 year old kid having that much experience with dangerous drugs is fine, the country is fast going to hell in a hand basket.
> 
> Me? I will not be part of such a thing. It's your conscience. Good luck with it.


I'm not ok with, but i'm not about to pass judgment him. The difference between me and you is you like to judge others from the comfort of your computer chair. I sincerely hope he changes his ways, and gives up the ecstasy. In regards to the marijuana, if he was older, and perhaps better able to understand his decisions, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

My conscience is clean. I sleep just fine at night. I know i've accomplished more, and done more for others than most people dream about.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

titans88 said:


> I'm not ok with, but i'm not about to pass judgment him. The difference between me and you is you like to judge others from the comfort of your computer chair. I sincerely hope he changes his ways, and gives up the ecstasy. In regards to the marijuana, if he was older, and perhaps better able to understand his decisions, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
> 
> My conscience is clean. I sleep just fine at night. I know i've accomplished more, and done more for others than most people dream about.


Him? Are you sure? 

One has to be careful on a forum lest someone else calls your hand and finds you wrong. (It could be a her, non?) 

I'm happy to know you have done your share for others. I too have done my share for well over 50 years now.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> Him? Are you sure?
> 
> One has to be careful on a forum lest someone else calls your hand and finds you wrong. (It could be a her, non?)
> 
> I'm happy to know you have done your share for others. I too have done my share for well over 50 years now.


Him/Her - it clearly does not matter in regards to our discussion. I'm glad to see you have resorted to these types of corrections. That is awfully mature of you.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

SINC. I've been caught with Pot and nothing happened. I've been caught drinking underage and nothing happened. Cops don't care because cops aren't stupid.

In 4 months i'll be legal to drink and it'll still be (if not more) legal for me to carry a certain amount of pot. Keeping loving the 'illegal' status of it. I'm under their radar and *i'll be fine.* I am telling you i am fine so do you need to step down with insisting that i am a 'child' who needs adult guidance. I don't.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Black said:


> In 4 months i'll be legal to drink and it'll still be (if not more) legal for me to carry a certain amount of pot.


I admit it's been a long time since I hit the magic age of 18, but if I'm not mistaken that's when many of a person's youthful misdeeds become a lot more interesting to the authorities, and when getting caught becomes much more damaging to the individual's life and reputation. 

Having a criminal record is not something to be taken lightly, and that's exactly what's at stake once you turn 18. Not to mention that the older you get, the more reputation and achievements you have to protect.

Your days of carefree youth are almost over, Black. In our society you can get by for another 10 to 15 years looking, thinking and acting much like a teenager, but it's not quite the same. Unless you turn out to be a complete failure, you'll have more responsibility with each passing day and that means, whether you like it or not, that you'll have to worry more about the consequences of *everything* you do.

Enough sermonizing -- back to work.

BTW, where did you get the idea that it's "legal" for you to carry any pot? "I didn't get arrested that one time" isn't the same thing as "legal."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> When I am badgered to justify my stand because I have an opinion, I object. I owe no one an explanation of why I hold an opinion.


I hope you don't think I was "badgering" you SINC, because that was not my purpose. I recognize that you have no obligation to explain, you could answer every post like you were participating in the "Test" thread if you wanted. 

As I think I've already explained quite clearly if you make unsubstantiated claims or statements on a discussion forum, others have the right to disagree with you and ask you to substantiate them. While you certainly don't have to answer or explain the why of your opinions, it doesn't lend any support to your opinion if you don't. But it's your choice.

And just to be perfectly clear, I mean no personal offence by challenging your opinions, I'm attempting to discuss this in good faith. This happens to be a subject that I think is important and where I believe unquestioned acceptance of the status quo has been harmful to society.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

iMatt said:


> I admit it's been a long time since I hit the magic age of 18, but if I'm not mistaken that's when many of a person's youthful misdeeds become a lot more interesting to the authorities, and when getting caught becomes much more damaging to the individual's life and reputation.
> 
> Having a criminal record is not something to be taken lightly, and that's exactly what's at stake once you turn 18. Not to mention that the older you get, the more reputation and achievements you have to protect.
> 
> ...



Oh i agree, fully. I have seen people in my old High school who had failed the previous year and were therefore 18 be charged with all kinds of stupid things. Just because i drink (almost never anymore) and smoke (almost never anymore) does not mean i am going to be a rambling drunk stoner for all my life.

When i was caught drinking it was because i was outside. When i was caught with pot they did not charge me because i didn't have enough for it to be seen as a serious crime, it had nothing to do with my age and if i were 18 still nothing would have happened (seeing as my friend Jordan who was with me was 18).

I completely agree with what you are saying and already know of the consequences i would be facing if i were to break the law.
- Don't drink in public
- Don't be drunk in public
- Don't drink and drive
- Don't smoke pot and then drive
- Don't be high in public
- *Don't carry more than half a gram of weed*

I understand the laws. I have a clean record and plan on keeping it that way.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Black said:


> Just because i drink (almost never anymore) and smoke (almost never anymore) does not mean i am going to be a rambling drunk stoner for all my life.


Quite true for most of us, and hopefully for you.



> *Don't carry more than half a gram of weed*


This may be a rule of thumb that many cops may live by, but you can't rely on all of them sticking to it.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

iMatt said:


> Quite true for most of us, and hopefully for you.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be a rule of thumb that many cops may live by, but you can't rely on all of them sticking to it.


Ok i suppose you are right so i will just not bring it outside. Although this won't be a problem again seeing as i almost never carry any.

I'm mostly a shy kind of guy with not too many close friends, people don't usualy suspect 'the good guy' (as if pot is a bad thing) so i can't see myself getting into any trouble with the law. I love being under the radar. I'm kinda like a cruise-missle.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> I admit it's been a long time since I hit the magic age of 18, but if I'm not mistaken that's when many of a person's youthful misdeeds become a lot more interesting to the authorities, and when getting caught becomes much more damaging to the individual's life and reputation.
> 
> Having a criminal record is not something to be taken lightly, and that's exactly what's at stake once you turn 18. Not to mention that the older you get, the more reputation and achievements you have to protect.
> 
> ...


Good point, iMatt.

I think that part of my vociferousness on this subject is that I was busted for possession of cannabis when I was about 19. I was lucky that it happened where and when it did in that there were no serious or longlasting consequences. I am also incensed that if I had been in some other places my early adulthood could have been spent in prison. 

I had less than an ounce of pot on me. At the time I was frightened, I had a job as a junior artist and wore a tie to work every day and I didn't know what would happen from this. When the cop stopped us he gave us a lecture and wrote me a ticket to appear in court and to appear for a fingerprint and mugshot. The lecture from the cop was laughable, the guy was so ill informed and was trying to scare me into believing I might become an addict, or how pot would lead to heroin. I openly laughed at one point because what he was saying was so ridiculous, which he didn't like, but I also suspected that he knew that the lines he was spouting were BS.

When I got to court, several weeks later, it was a joke. There were literally hundreds of cases on the docket and I just waited in line, stood up when I was told to, pleaded guilty and the judge announced "absolute discharge", which he'd already said a hundred times earlier. As far as I know any record I had was wiped clean, much to my relief.

But I was lucky. If I'd run into the wrong cop or one who was corrupt I could have been in a load of trouble. Maybe I would have run into an old-time cop who might have tried to beat some fear into me. If I had been in another jurisdiction maybe I would have gone to jail or prison. Evidence could have been easily fabricated so that I could have received a far more serious trafficking charge. I learned to be much more careful after that.

As long as it's illegal injustices will be done. They had no right to put me through that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> They had no right to put me through that.


First let me be clear that I do not take anything you say personally GA, nor do I think you participate in bad faith. You're a clever guy and your contributions here are appreciated.

But that does not mean I have to agree with you.

As for your statement above they had every right to put you through what they did, as in my opinion, you broke the law of the land at the time. And as others here have pointed out, that has consequences. Be thankful you avoided a criminal record as getting a pardon takes a long time and is no easy matter.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> First let me be clear that I do not take anything you say personally GA, nor do I think you participate in bad faith. You're a clever guy and your contributions here are appreciated.
> 
> But that does not mean I have to agree with you.
> 
> As for your statement above they had every right to put you through what they did, as in my opinion, you broke the law of the land at the time. And as others here have pointed out, that has consequences. Be thankful you avoided a criminal record as getting a pardon takes a long time and is no easy matter.


Oh I am thankful that at that time in Ontario, the enforcement of cannabis possession laws only resulted in a ticket being written and that I was spared the ordeal of going to jail. And I'm thankful that the justice system recognized that there was absolutely no benefit to sentencing huge numbers of young folks to jail for marijuana possession even thought they had the power to do so. I could have gone to prison for that at the time, the law was on the books (don't know if it still is in Ontario). 

Sorry but I have to disagree with you that making something unlawful gives that law legitimacy. That's just too simplistic. They now have laws on the books in the USA, since the Patriot Act that allow their CIA or Homeland Security to detain people without charge, without even the right to contact a lawyer. Is this legitimate, even though it's legal? In a democracy should the government have the right to suspend habeas corpus?

We have had laws on the books in the past where it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Were those laws legitimate when they were in force and should the government have that right?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As your example points out GA, laws change with the times.

I guess the time is not right yet, to change marijuana laws. One day it will likely happen, if enough people agree with you and demand it, but not anytime soon is my guess. 

In the meantime, law enforcement are left to deal with it as a crime and users are left to face prosecution and jail time. For now, "them's the breaks".


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*hmmm...a few thoughts*

Interesting idea, but it won't fly anytime soon...
1) Big nosy neighbour down south
2) mellow people not needing as many antidepressants-drug companies get curious
3) 6 month shortage of doritos and funyons 
4) you can't patent it at all, also less need for enforcement and police $$
5) I wouldn't mind if....it was treated like alcohol and taxed about the same. Used with common sense and some care it could be okay, but like anything else, it only
takes a few goofs to mess it up for everyone else
6). play it cool-my buddy has a possession charge from the 70's (US) still on his record, and he can't enter the US without getting a full pardon, or a waiver, which is $500-$1000 or a little more. With the US's current hysteria, it's a good idea NOT
to tease the rabid pitbull next to you.
7) same rules as other stuff-you go to work really high, bye-bye. You drive high, you ain't driving
8) may encourage creativity, thinking and a general less tolerance for bs, a willingness to not accept the status quo---oh we can't have that...we likes us our sheeple thanks very much. Keep 'em dumb and in the dark !


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Never will happen.

To many people would opt to just drop out, and stay high. In this world, wouldn't you?

The Feds have to keep everyone's nose the the grindstone, the better to fill their pockets.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

mmmmm..... Funyuns.....


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SINC said:


> First let me be clear that I do not take anything you say personally GA, nor do I think you participate in bad faith. You're a clever guy and your contributions here are appreciated.
> 
> But that does not mean I have to agree with you.
> 
> As for your statement above they had every right to put you through what they did, as in my opinion, you broke the law of the land at the time. And as others here have pointed out, that has consequences. Be thankful you avoided a criminal record as getting a pardon takes a long time and is no easy matter.


I think you're a little hypocritical with the whole "breaking the law" stance, Sinc. In this thread you're pretty tough on those who break the law. In the Latimer thread, however, you're championing a convicted murderer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darkscot said:


> I think you're a little hypocritical with the whole "breaking the law" stance, Sinc. In this thread you're pretty tough on those who break the law. In the Latimer thread, however, you're championing a convicted murderer.


Two very different subjects require two very different solutions. No conflict at all, so why bring it up?

I consider Latimer to be "wrongly" convicted.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Two very different subjects require two very different solutions. No conflict at all, so why bring it up?
> 
> I consider Latimer to be "wrongly" convicted.


So are you saying that the law is open to interpretation?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> So are you saying that the law is open to interpretation?


Not at all, I'm saying that sometimes the law convicts people when it clearly should not, and the Latimer case is one such example.

Marijuana laws are quite another matter, and it would appear that a very large number of people choose to ignore the law completely, to pursue their particular brand of pleasure.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

but that's your opinion Sinc, and you are indeed interpreting the law accordingly. You see, unfortunately it cant work that way.

Now you may not agree with people smoking pot, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal and people should get criminal records and go to jail for it.

A huge thread, and not one good credible argument for pot being illegal, beyond someone's personal feelings.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

groovetube said:


> A huge thread, and not one good credible argument for pot being illegal, beyond someone's personal feelings.


Yeah, that's my sense of it too. We've given the prohibitionists lots of opportunity to explain themselves, but they've come up with little more than second-hand rhetoric, mistaken "facts" and "I jus' knows what I knows".

And now ... I arbitrarily pronounce ... that the winner is ... (shuffles with envelope) .... (mugs for camera) ... anti-prohibitionists!! Come on up and take a bow!  

And a big thank you to GuyTranna for bringing us this thread, with his original back-handed snarky post hinting that pot makes you stupid. Interesting, that in looking over this thread, the vaunted intellect of the prohibitionists with their cannabis-unsullied brains didn't seem to be able to manufacture an argument that was not fallacious.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Two very different subjects require two very different solutions. No conflict at all, so why bring it up?
> 
> I consider Latimer to be "wrongly" convicted.


I don't follow that. Didn't he murder his daughter? Clarify, _if you please_, how he was "wrongfully" convicted.

If you're arguing that what he did shouldn't have been considered murder, you are arguing for the law to be changed, just as those in favour of marijuana legalization are doing.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't follow that. Didn't he murder his daughter? Clarify, _if you please_, how he was "wrongfully" convicted.
> 
> If you're arguing that what he did shouldn't have been considered murder, you are arguing for the law to be changed, just as those in favour of marijuana legalization are doing.


Exactly!

BTW, that is my favourite Vonnegut quote in your signature.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't follow that. Didn't he murder his daughter? Clarify, _if you please_, how he was "wrongfully" convicted.
> 
> If you're arguing that what he did shouldn't have been considered murder, you are arguing for the law to be changed, just as those in favour of marijuana legalization are doing.


No, I am not advocating a change in the law regarding murder. 

I am proposing change in how the medical community treats a hopeless case and that an option for mercy be extended for parents currently caught in a trap.

Doctors having the power to extend suffering and hopeless life is the problem, not the Latimers of this world. They act in compassion.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

SINC said:


> No, I am not advocating a change in the law regarding murder.
> 
> I am proposing change in how the medical community treats a hopeless case and that an option for mercy be extended for parents currently caught in a trap.
> 
> Doctors having the power to extend suffering and hopeless life is the problem, not the Latimers of this world. They act in compassion.


That would be a change in the law regarding murder, wouldn't it?

Just to clarify, I do agree with your stance on this issue regarding Mr. Latimer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

titans88 said:


> That would be a change in the law regarding murder, wouldn't it?
> 
> Just to clarify, I do agree with your stance on this issue regarding Mr. Latimer.


Thanks titans88, but no I don't want the laws to change regarding murder at all.

What I see is giving doctors, in consultation with families, the right to discontinue treatment, much like they do now with brain dead accident victims for people like Tracy Latimer.

A new set of compassionate medical rules, strictly enforced and monitored for special cases where there is pain, suffering and no hope for change.

Murder is murder and the law as it now stands is fine. We just need to create an outlet medically that allows a merciful end without the courts involvement. There should be of course, a strict litmus test involved for both doctors and families so no person can act alone.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Hey, this isn't the Robert Lattimer thread.

Stay on topic, please.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Thanks titans88, but no I don't want the laws to change regarding murder at all.
> 
> What I see is giving doctors, in consultation with families, the right to discontinue treatment, much like they do now with brain dead accident victims for people like Tracy Latimer.
> 
> ...


But Sinc, you are changing the definitions of murder.

You feel this sort of case should be removed as one of the definitions of murder.
Just as many of us feel possessing pot should be removed from the drug laws.

Kinda a bad anaolgy happening here, but hey lets go with the flow.

Personally, I don't feel an explanation is needed as to why pot should be legal. There should however, be a damn good reason as to why we as taxpayers should be expected to pay million and millions to enforce a prohibition on pot, when those resources can be better spent on far bigger problems. I thought conservatives would agree with this logic, no?

And all welcome iMouse, a newly converted to mac newbie.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> No, I am not advocating a change in the law regarding murder.
> 
> I am proposing change in how the medical community treats a hopeless case and that an option for mercy be extended for parents currently caught in a trap.
> 
> Doctors having the power to extend suffering and hopeless life is the problem, not the Latimers of this world. They act in compassion.


You were saying he was "wrongfully" convicted. Whether you agree with his actions and motivations or not, and I'm not making any comment on that case, from what I can tell he was correctly convicted for killing his daughter. As far as I know without a change in the law there are no options available for him to not be convicted.

Therefore you do appear to believe that "illegal" does not necessarily equal "wrong" which is different than what you were saying regarding marijuana. Earlier in response to me objecting to the state having the right to put me through their criminal justice system for possessing pot you said:


SINC said:


> As for your statement above they had every right to put you through what they did, as in my opinion, you broke the law of the land at the time. And as others here have pointed out, that has consequences. Be thankful you avoided a criminal record as getting a pardon takes a long time and is no easy matter.


and later elaborated:


SINC said:


> In the meantime, law enforcement are left to deal with it as a crime and users are left to face prosecution and jail time. For now, "them's the breaks".


This appears to be inconsistent to me, can you clarify?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GA, you have once again gone in circles. It is so simple:

For the record, I believe that current laws regarding drugs are fine as they are, and therefore I advocate no change.

And further, I believe that current laws regarding murder are fine as they are, and therefore I advocate no change.

Those views are indeed consistent.

I do believe that a medical option should be available to doctors and families in consultation with each other, to discontinue treatment to the severely disabled if deemed they will have no quality of life, to show mercy in special cases like those of the Latimers, with no court involvement.

Now I will move on before our newly self-appointed moderator jumps on me again for being off topic.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Why, bless your little pea-pickin' heart.

But, I agree with everything in your last post.

The Supreme Court should weigh in on this subject, so that loving fathers such as Robert are not put to the task, as it were.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

No they are not consistent Sinc.

The law states it is illegal what Latimer did. And in your words, 'thems the breaks'.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> GA, you have once again gone in circles. It is so simple:
> 
> For the record, I believe that current laws regarding drugs are fine as they are, and therefore I advocate no change.
> 
> ...


I'm only going in circles trying to understand your logic SINC. 

Therefore if the law is fine as it is, Latimer was not "wrongfully convicted", as you stated?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> No they are not consistent Sinc.
> 
> The law states it is illegal what Latimer did. And in your words, 'thems the breaks'.


Not you too gt.

The fact that I want no change in either law is totally consistent.

"Them's the breaks" applies equally to the pot user being fined or jailed and Latimer going to jail. Trouble is, most pot users don't go to jail, or even get fined and they should under the law. Either that, or Latimer should not have gone to jail.

That is the only inconsistency I can see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, one involves someone's life, and the other, possessing what most people are now seeing as something that isn't as dangerous as we have been led to believe.

Sinc I have lost more than one dear friend to an overdose. But even I can see the absolute stupidity of the the arguments for prohibition, and the bald faced lies contained in them.

We, have been had. And continue to be.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Sinc I have lost more than one dear friend to an overdose.
> 
> We, have been had. And continue to be.


That is too bad gt, my sympathies, I know how it feels. I lost a dear friend to suicide. He was high on drugs at the time.

Did your dear friends, like my dear friend, start on marijuana too?

I have to wonder who is being had by whom?

Just one more reason I support current drug laws.

RIP Kevin Paul Wood.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

none of them Sinc. If I were to think about it, and we were all friends in high school and were in our first bands together, it was alcohol we all started with. And lots of it. I don't think one of them ever even bothered with pot at all.

The last one I lost, left a wonderful young daughter (about 5 years old) and a wife. It gives me a lump in my throat when I see her pictures and see his facial expressions.

It's time for some sanity.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My friend's young daughter is now 14. She was 8 when he died. My oldest son is her Godfather. She will never know what a talent her father had and it all ended because he started to experiment with pot. And then worse.

Yeah that Marijuana, not a gateway drug at all, is it?

Bitter? You god damned right I am bitter. At marijuana and all who promote its use. Now you know.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

then I suppose we should ban alcohol.

And fast.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Maybe we should, but legalizing pot is a slippery slope to nowhere too. Why add to our problems?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sinc there is NO evidence that pot is a "gateway drug". None.

As much as I may be saddened by the loss, it serves absolutely no purpose for me to blame something unrelated, and waste millions and other resources when it could be better spent. It doesn't honor my friends memory one bit at all.

Sanity. Truth.

That's what is needed. Not myth.

Trust me, I have seen more than my share on this issue by a mile and that's as much as I'll say on that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Sinc there is NO evidence that pot is a "gateway drug". None.


Sorry gt, but my dead friend tells me pot is, or he would be alive today, and like you, that's as much as I too will say. Nothing will ever change my mind.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I hate to say it. But I don't believe that Sinc. Not one bit.

To blame pot for someone's death, is to dismiss the whole story. It makes us feel good to be able to point the finger at some 'evil', but there is no evidence to support it. None.

No more evidence, than there is to support alcohol being the gateway drug for my friends, who went from alcohol right to heroin. And that is not uncommon. There are many many factors that are involved here Sinc.

Pot is NO different than alcohol in the scheme of things.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I meant it when I stated that was as much as I would say. I guess you didn't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm happy to chat about the topic, but not my personal experiences further.

In person yes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So be it. Maybe one day on iChat. Come to think of it we did that once already, although not on this topic.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC, sorry to hear about your experience but I don't see how it can be directly attributed to marijuana. 

I'll tell my story. I had a friend in University who started smoking pot and got heavily into it over the school year. He went home to Edmonton over the summer and then died of an embolism in his lung. I suspect this had a lot to do with his smoking of pot.

As much as I believe marijuana use was a factor in his death, I don't believe it should be illegal for the reasons I have stated already.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

I think a lot of people out there have lost friends, family, acquaintances etc to drugs. It is an extremely personal and emotional subject for most of us to talk about, so thank you for sharing your story SINC and groovetube. 

SINC, I think I understand where you are coming from, and I think I have a clearer picture of why you stand where you do in regards to marijuana and the laws surrounding it.

I'm not about to tell you marijuana is not responsible for your loss as I have no specifics regarding the situation, so i'll take your word for it (if that sounds rude it is not meant to). Personally, from my experiences of loss, there were far more factors than just marijuana, if it could even be considered a factor at all. The family members I have lost to suicide had much bigger and far more complex issues within themselves that ultimately resulted in their suicide. I just think the assumption that marijuana leads to harder drugs which leads to suicide is troublesome and fallacious perhaps. There are always, from my experience, numerous factors involved in not only suicide, but addiction as well.

Keep in mind, I say all of this with the utmost respect to you and your loss. I by no means suggest you are wrong in statements, as every situation is different. I just have a problem with blanketing all situations like these.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for the kind words Vandave and titans88.

Had he never embarked on marijuana experimentation, it might have turned out differently. No one knows for sure, but I will take no further chances in favouring any relaxation of current drug laws.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> So be it. Maybe one day on iChat. Come to think of it we did that once already, although not on this topic.


probably a little better to talk about something like this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

As long as we're telling real life stories I'll offer mine. I already told the one earlier about getting busted.

My father, who I never really knew was a serious alcoholic. He would drink, eventually gettting blind drunk and went into violent rages, usually with my mother nearby or sometimes someone else, either bigger or smaller than him with predictable results. His alcoholism and the subsequent post-traumatic stress to myself when I was less than 10 years old coloured my whole life and have been a major psychological issue for me that at times nearly did me in. I feel lucky that I've gained some perspective on it now.

Now if I was inclined to believe prohibition was an answer to anything I would believe that my father would have been a regular guy if only alcohol was illegal. Of course he wouldn't have. He was a damaged man, for reasons that I can only guess at. Alcohol was his choice for self-medication. I doubt if he was the type for seeking psychological help, even if there had been any available in the '40s and '50s when he was perfecting his addiction. People nowadays fortunately are more inclined to accept real psychological help if it is offered.

My memories of him sober are few, but he was never relaxed and didn't appear to be very happy, until he had a few beers in him. I'll always remember the time when the barking of our new little puppy sent him into a rage and he threw the poor dog down the stairs. Then he went out to the hotel to administer his medication.

If he'd been an alcoholic under prohibition, he would have been drinking rotgut moonshine that he got from a bootlegger or an illegal club. The small fortunes he spent on booze would have capitalized the local mafia or gang, who would then spend a share on other criminal activities and violence and of course a percentage to bribe judges, politicians and police. Maybe he would have died or been poisoned by a bad batch.

Far from being a solution, alcohol prohibition would have made our society more dangerous and done nothing to prevent my father from being an addict.

Marijuana is not anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol, but as has been argued in this thread repeatedly, prohibition only compounds any harm that it might have for the psychologically vulnerable and adds the element of capitalizing and aiding criminals, corrupting police and victimizes users. 

The myth offered by the prohibitionists in this thread is that somehow prohibition of marijuana is keeping anyone safe. Even if you believe in the well debunked gateway drug myth, marijuana prohibition keeps the drug away from absolutely no one who wants to use it. It is often easier for underage teenagers and children to get pot, meth, X or even heroin than legal drugs. The only way prohibition has ever worked is where it is invoked in an authoritarian police state, where anyone can be locked up forever on a whim with no trial. 

The USA is working on getting there and their War On Drugs helps them get there, dovetailing nicely with their recent curtailments of civil liberties and expanded powers of warrantless searching and arbitrary arrest. If we take prohibition to its logical conclusion all we get is either a police state or a broken, lawless and violent society. Meanwhile the scourge of addiction carries on for the few who are inclined to be addicts, as it has since the beginning of human society.

If we want to truly and sincerely help those who are addicts, then lets actually do something to help them, not make their lives harder and more desparate and damage ourselves in the process.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Jamaica mulling end of marijuana prohibition*



> A seven-member government commission has been researching possible changes to the Caribbean nation's anti-drug laws, which some police complain are clogging courts and jails with marijuana-related cases, a government official said Friday.
> 
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZwcRR-QoJqgP5h_EWFu791-292AD8V4PGOG1


If there was ever an example of prohibition being a failed policy it is Jamaica. Violent blackmarket gangs, rampant police corruption and bribery from those gangs, while a huge swath of the population grows and uses it. I have a friend who visited her relatives there last year and was telling me how absolutely everyone in the small villages grows it and uses it, including her relatives. It is just like here where almost everyone has beer in the fridge. The use it for its medicinal value too, making traditional teas and lotions for all kinds of ailments, commercial drugs being expensive.

The common folk there are caught between criminals who squeeze them on one side and cops who demand protection money.

The only serious reason that the Jamaican government hasn't done this long ago is because of threats from the US DEA. If the US were to restrict trade and tourist flights, the country would be sunk. So they continue to live with their society being torn apart by corruption and violence to keep the USA happy.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Sorry gt, but my dead friend tells me pot is, or he would be alive today, and like you, that's as much as I too will say. Nothing will ever change my mind.


Here's a sad little story: Drunk driver gives tearful apology for killing Gatineau girl

_A Gatineau man cried Wednesday as he apologized to the family of a 17-year-old cyclist he struck and killed while driving drunk in August.

Rémi William Comeau, 51, who had not shown any emotion in earlier court proceedings, wiped away tears at his sentencing hearing in Gatineau, first when he heard Marie-Hélène Primeau's family describe the pain her death has caused them and later as he told the family he was sorry.

Comeau pleaded guilty in October to impaired driving causing death after he drove his pickup truck into Primeau on the Lady Aberdeen Bridge on the night of Aug. 28, following two earlier crashes._​
And yet you feel completely at peace with alcohol being legal.

_What a wonderful world..._


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*I seem to be in the habit of thread revival of late... but circumstances demand it!*

*Legalizing pot: The billion dollar repercussions*



> On Tuesday, California will vote on Proposition 19, an initiative to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana. If passed, it would allow people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate or transport marijuana for personal recreational use.
> 
> Legalized marijuana in California would have a profound impact across North America, with prices plummeting and jobs lost. In British Columbia alone, experts say the move would wipe out about $2-billion in exports and 20,000 jobs. (Globe & Mail)




An interesting way to make the case...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Light up those joints... but don't you dare smoke the demon tobacco.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> *I seem to be in the habit of thread revival of late... but circumstances demand it!*


Yep, the first step down a very slippery slope.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yep, the first step down a very slippery slope.


Just like marijuana use might lead to tobacco.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I was more concerned about the weight gain aspect myself.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Saw an article somewhere that if 19 passes it could cripple the BC Bud industry. The loss of export income could put a big time damper on the wet coast economy.beejacon


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Marajuana is a Gateway....*

To Taco Bell ... Oh the Horror ... The Inhumanity


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I never understood people placing "LOL" under their own jokes.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I never understood people placing "LOL" under their own jokes.


It should be LAMOJ!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's simply to **** you off macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> it's simply to **** you off macfury.


Don't worry 'bout me. I actually enjoy seeing people bray at their own jokes in text!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well you certainly have gotten pretty righteous about it enough times. Tricky you are.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I never understood people placing "LOL" under their own jokes.


It stands for Lay Off Litigation.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

MannyP Design said:


> And yet you feel completely at peace with alcohol being legal.


While I agree it's a sad story, people are killed in car accidents where alcohol isn't involved too. What do we criminalize to prevent that?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I never understood people placing "LOL" under their own jokes.


They're telegraphing their intent. No different from employing emoticons. Sure, sometimes it comes off as feeling redundant. But what can ya do?

(;->))


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> They're telegraphing their intent. No different from employing emoticons. Sure, sometimes it comes off as feeling redundant. But what can ya do?
> 
> (;->))


In the olden days it was considered rather pitiful to laugh at one's own jokes. Typing one's guffaws seems like a more stilted variation.


----------



## K2ACP (Sep 11, 2010)

Our own Stevie Jobs was an avid pot smoker, because of that, he is were he is today. Without pot, the computer you're sitting at would be an Altair 8000010 with a DOS like UI, but looking on the bright side, Microsoft would've not made Windows if it wasn't for Jobs's pot smoking.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

K2ACP said:


> Our own Stevie Jobs was an avid pot smoker, because of that, he is were he is today. Without pot, the computer you're sitting at would be an Altair 8000010 with a DOS like UI, but looking on the bright side, Microsoft would've not made Windows if it wasn't for Jobs's pot smoking.


Every pot head that ever worked for me was a safety risk for everyone around him. Oblivious to machinery and what was going on around him at the time. 

That statement is just so wrong it isn't even funny.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Not my experience*



SINC said:


> Every pot head that ever worked for me was a safety risk for everyone around him. Oblivious to machinery and what was going on around him at the time.
> 
> That statement is just so wrong it isn't even funny.


I know three fellows who smoked a lot of dope in their time ( and two still do). One owns a tower crane business, one has operated tower cranes for 30 years and the final one is a trained millwright and also and excellent carver and craftsman. All are very safety aware and are not a hazard to anyone. The forth one, well he rebelled and left heavy industry to work in advertising. He had his own business for some years and now works for a large bill board sign and store sign company in a senior position.

Now, if what you are referring to are people who come to work stoned and therefore are a hazard, please tell me how that differs from the guy who shows up drunk on the job. It would not matter what "mood altering drug" you were on, from too much Prozac to Acid ... They would be a hazard, especially with heavy equipment. I am pretty sure that you are not implying that drunk on the job is OK but stoned isn't.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Lichen Software said:


> Now, if what you are referring to are people who come to work stoned and therefore are a hazard, please tell me how that differs from the guy who shows up drunk on the job. It would not matter what "mood altering drug" you were on, from too much Prozac to Acid ... They would be a hazard, especially with heavy equipment. I am pretty sure that you are not implying that drunk on the job is OK but stoned isn't.


Gladly.

A guy who shows up for work drunk is obvious from the stink of his breath. Never could tell if a guy was stoned or not, but it became obvious in certain situations when they simply forgot things that were part of a normal routine. The guys I am referring to used their coffee breaks to sneak out for a puff.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Every pot head that ever worked for me was a safety risk for everyone around him. Oblivious to machinery and what was going on around him at the time.
> 
> That statement is just so wrong it isn't even funny.


I don't think he was talking about running dangerous machinery.

I don;t understand why, anyone thinks legalizing pot means it's suddenly ok to drive to do those things.

It's not. Period.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Gladly.
> 
> A guy who shows up for work drunk is obvious from the stink of his breath. Never could tell if a guy was stoned or not, but it became obvious in certain situations when they simply forgot things that were part of a normal routine. The guys I am referring to used their coffee breaks to sneak out for a puff.


you've never smelled pot on someone's breath?

It's pretty pungent.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> Gladly.
> 
> A guy who shows up for work drunk is obvious from the stink of his breath. Never could tell if a guy was stoned or not, but it became obvious in certain situations when they simply forgot things that were part of a normal routine. The guys I am referring to used their coffee breaks to sneak out for a puff.


You can smell dope, though not as obvious as booze. Try this one on for size: I worked 12:00-8:00 in a paper mill with a guy on acid. Paper Waves apparently are really neat. It was an anxious night for me.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

i disagree. Pot is every bit as obvious as booze - as Groove says, it's pungent and it's a cloying scent that tends to stick. I can smell it immediately, just as I can often tell if someone's a smoker. It's on their breath and it's in their clothes. I can pretty much always tell when someone's just smoked up - it's like Pig Pen walking around with a cloud of dust enveloping him.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> i disagree. Pot is every bit as obvious as booze - as Groove says, it's pungent and it's a cloying scent that tends to stick. I can smell it immediately, just as I can often tell if someone's a smoker. It's on their breath and it's in their clothes. I can pretty much always tell when someone's just smoked up - it's like Pig Pen walking around with a cloud of dust enveloping him.


Not to mention if you have ever been high or around people that you knew were high it is easy enough to recognize the altered behaviour.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I've smelled dope on someone far easier than alcohol. Someone would have to have drank a good amount and I have to be pretty close up to smell it. Or, they're a freaking brewery in which case I don't need smell to tell.

Pot, easy peasy. Pretty tough to mask that one.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Lichen Software said:


> You can smell dope, though not as obvious as booze. Try this one on for size: I worked 12:00-8:00 in a paper mill with a guy on acid. Paper Waves apparently are really neat. It was an anxious night for me.


Well, you sure can't smell acid on a person's breath. But his eyes would have been big 'ole orbs and he'd probably be acting very strangely indeed. At least the fellow wasn't operating a towmotor - right?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Max said:


> Well, you sure can't smell acid on a person's breath. But his eyes would have been big 'ole orbs and he'd probably be acting very strangely indeed. At least the fellow wasn't operating a towmotor - right?



Actually worse - Operating a hoist with 25' long x 4' thick reels of paper - A fair tonnage there

This was many years ago.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yikes. I knew a guy, way back when, who would operate a big diesel towmotor after long nights snorting coke, back in the 80s. And no, he didn't last on the job too terribly long.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Max said:


> Yikes. I knew a guy, way back when, who would operate a big diesel towmotor after long nights snorting coke, back in the 80s. And no, he didn't last on the job too terribly long.


By far the biggest problem was drinking. I grew up in Iroquois Falls in northern Ontario. Kapuskasing, about 90 miles north, had the distinction of being the location of the absolute first LCBO in Ontario and shortly thereafter we had ours and then after that we had the dubious distinction of having the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in North America. Guys used to do a 6 beer lunch on a regular basis. Then it was another 6 or 8 at the beer parlor after work followed by a few brew to wash down supper. The guys who habitually drank liquor were worse.

I ran dances when I was in high school. This was in the late 60's just as dope was coming through. The first year I did it, dope was not there yet. We had fights on the dance floor, fights in the parking lot, broken fixtures in the men's washroom and tons of vomit in the ladies. T'was an active little place. By the next winter, dope had been discovered. The fighting stopped, the damage stopped, the vomit stopped, snack sales went way up and everyone was happy because "The Music is Pink man".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm familiar with the area, having worked on the support crew of a treeplanting outfit operating in the late 80s in camps near Kapuskasing, Manitouwadge and Upsala respectively. On days off, we too drank our faces off... hell, there was nothing else to do. And yes, plenty of grass in camp as well. People worked hard but partied equally hard. Must have had something to do with our being in wicked shape from clambering all over the bush loaded down with trees.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Lichen Software said:


> By far the biggest problem was drinking. I grew up in Iroquois Falls in northern Ontario. Kapuskasing, about 90 miles north, had the distinction of being the location of the absolute first LCBO in Ontario and shortly thereafter we had ours and then after that we had the dubious distinction of having the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in North America. Guys used to do a 6 beer lunch on a regular basis. Then it was another 6 or 8 at the beer parlor after work followed by a few brew to wash down supper. The guys who habitually drank liquor were worse.
> 
> I ran dances when I was in high school. This was in the late 60's just as dope was coming through. The first year I did it, dope was not there yet. We had fights on the dance floor, fights in the parking lot, broken fixtures in the men's washroom and tons of vomit in the ladies. T'was an active little place. By the next winter, dope had been discovered. The fighting stopped, the damage stopped, the vomit stopped, snack sales went way up and everyone was happy because "The Music is Pink man".


LOL! Perfect illustration of the differences between alcohol and weed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah Iroquois Falls. Remember playing there many times so many years ago.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Max said:


> I'm familiar with the area, having worked on the support crew of a treeplanting outfit operating in the late 80s in camps near Kapuskasing, Manitouwadge and Upsala respectively. On days off, we too drank our faces off... hell, there was nothing else to do. And yes, plenty of grass in camp as well. People worked hard but partied equally hard. Must have had something to do with our being in wicked shape from clambering all over the bush loaded down with trees.


ROTFL

Yes .... I planted trees one summer too.

That's where I learned to smoke ... It kept the flies away.

But I have to say tree planter's parties are the absolute best. The Stanley Hotel in Matheson never rocked so hard.

We had one guy who had to quit planting. He'd get high prior to making his lunch the night before. He had to make three to get one in the bag. He was eating himself out of house and home.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, though I smoked before I went up north, I redoubled my efforts just to ward off the many winged insects which seemed so charmed by my blood. As for partying, when I was on the support crew we stayed in camp while the planters would go into the nearest town to rip it up. We'd enjoy sitting around the campfire, breaking out the guitars and bottles. It was nice to have the camp to ourselves - very quiet. We smoked TM's - tailor-mades. My tobacco at the time was Drum. Can't believe I smoked it as much as I did. We used to kill ourselves laughing at the more urbane planters smothering themselves in scented soaps and shampoos, being chased by clouds of flies, remaining clueless.

The year before I was a treeplanter and I remember a couple of crazy weekends in Thunder Bay... like we were trying to drink the town dry. Bunch of crazies sowing their wild oats. Can't say that all the locals found us all that charming, although our money was green enough. We used to run these American trophy hunters too from time to time - a trio of guys on trikes in full camo gear roaring through our plots, gunstocks mounted vertically on the front spoke... a father and his two teenage sons. Whoa, looking to bag bear or moose. Once we found three bear corpses in the local dump... stripped of their hides; heads and paws sawn off. Strange, sad sight. It was bad enough to stand there in the middle of a denuded hardwood forest on a summer's dusk, nothing but stumps and slash as far as the eye could see, a cloud of flies and their eternal buzzing... realizing we were there on a strictly monoculture trip... so that in two decades' time people could wipe their butts with the softwood trees we were putting in.

For all that, it was generally good times... and the land around North Superior is truly beautiful. All in all though, a young buck's gig. I was never a great treeplanter - my numbers were never what you'd call stellar. I was one of the elders of the group. Most of the planters were 19, 20, in and around there. I was nearing 30! Heaven forbid. The second year was a lot more fun - driving pickups, trikes and quads down logging roads and half-assed bush roads, delivering pallets and bags of trees to the planters.

I've never been that far north since. And that isn't even _north!_ Man, this country is just so absurdly huge. Yet as it was, it just seemed light years away from the reality of urban life. I'm very grateful I had an opportunity to do those two summers.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

groovetube said:


> ah Iroquois Falls. Remember playing there many times so many years ago.


Sports or Music? There was lots of both up there ( staying on topic at least a little ) and recreational substances.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Max said:


> Yes, though I smoked before I went up north, I redoubled my efforts just to ward off the many winged insects which seemed so charmed by my blood. As for partying, when I was on the support crew we stayed in camp while the planters would go into the nearest town to rip it up. We'd enjoy sitting around the campfire, breaking out the guitars and bottles.
> Big Snip...
> I've never been that far north since. And that isn't even _north!_ Man, this country is just so absurdly huge. Yet as it was, it just seemed light years away from the reality of urban life. I'm very grateful I had an opportunity to do those two summers.


You saw it in the sunset years. There are boarded up stores in Thunder Bay now I understand. The population in my old home town has been cut in half and the average age has skyrocketed. There is still lots of drink and drugs from what I hear, but the parties are not near as happy now.

It was up there that I learned of beer as a unit of measurement. A fellow I knew had a camp up the Abitibi River. when I asked how far up he responded "About 5 beer".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Both sides of my family are lousy with railroad people... we have roots in the Sudbury basin. CNR. Dispatchers, brakemen, engineers (both grandfathers), works equipment... I myself worked in Signals for two summers. I did one summer, 1980 I think it was, in a small railroad town up there. That's where I learned of 'traveler' beers. My uncle would take myself and a couple of my cousins out to a camp a few k out of town. We'd ride in the back of a pickup, clutching our travellers. No one raised an eyebrow. The local cops, all two of them per shift, knew who the troublemakers were already and they generally let you go about your business. We'd get into an outboard boat on a big lake, bringing along a cooler stuffed full of stubbies. Maybe pull someone riding a rubber tube behind us for larfs. Completely different world today; unreal. But that was a long time ago now.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Lichen Software said:


> Sports or Music? There was lots of both up there ( staying on topic at least a little ) and recreational substances.


music. The local (the only perhaps) bar in town. I think it was a 5 nighter, stayed up where there were the plywood bunkbeds.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

groovetube said:


> music. The local (the only perhaps) bar in town. I think it was a 5 nighter, stayed up where there were the plywood bunkbeds.


That would probably have been the Glendale if it had a motel attached or the Union or Capital if it was a standard old time hotel. 

During the early 70's they put a third pipline run through the area. With pipliners in town and lots and lots of drinking it got pretty rowdy. They busted up the Glendale totally one night. It was owned by the Mayor at the time. The pipeline foreman showed up the next morning with a cheque for $35,000 to cover the damages and make nice and life went on.

There was always a lot of music up there. To this day every man and his dog plays guitar. We were able to book a lot of bands that did the customary cross Canada tour as they looked for gigs to get them from civilization through to Thunder Bay.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Max said:


> LOL
> 
> Both sides of my family are lousy with railroad people... we have roots in the Sudbury basin. CNR. Dispatchers, brakemen, engineers (both grandfathers), works equipment... I myself worked in Signals for two summers. I did one summer, 1980 I think it was, in a small railroad town up there. That's where I learned of 'traveler' beers. My uncle would take myself and a couple of my cousins out to a camp a few k out of town. We'd ride in the back of a pickup, clutching our travellers. No one raised an eyebrow. The local cops, all two of them per shift, knew who the troublemakers were already and they generally let you go about your business. We'd get into an outboard boat on a big lake, bringing along a cooler stuffed full of stubbies. Maybe pull someone riding a rubber tube behind us for larfs. Completely different world today; unreal. But that was a long time ago now.


My wife's family is the same with regards to grandfathers and great grandfathers - Ottawa Valley through to North Bay and up the T&ONR working the railway. One of her grandmothers is a different story. The family came Germany -> Kitchener/Waterloo -> Formosa -> Thunder Bay starting up Formosa Springs Brewery and what is now Dorans Brewery along the way. Beer is in her blood.

People don't know that Northern Ontario was a really strange combination at the turn of the last century. On one hand it was a high tech as you got then with the quattro of Railway, Mining, Paper Mills and Power. This was juxapositioned with a frontier outlook that was far more open than the more "civilized" parts of the province. It was a land of opportunity and freedom. 

My dad was born in 1906 and worked through the depression for the Bank of Toronto. At the time they had a rule that if you did not make some baseline salary, you were not allowed to get married. If you did they felt you would have to steal from the bank to live. He waited 10 years to get married and then found he had trouble living. He went north in 1942 to be a bush camp clerk and auditor and never looked back.

My mom was a music teacher. One of her star pupils went down south to a teaching gig. She was leary of going and asked mom what she could expect. Mom told her that it was not near as open as up north. When she returned at the end of year, Mom asked her how it went. Her response was "It was horrible. The first thing they asked me was whether I was Catholic or Protestant. I was Protestant so none of the Catholics would speak to me. The second question they asked was whether I was Liberal or Conservative. I was conservative so none of the Liberals would speak to me. I had alienated 3/4's of the town within 5 minutes of arrival.".

So it was an open culture, well paid. It knew how to party on and had the resources to do so.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I'm familiar with the area, *having worked on the support crew of a treeplanting outfit operating in the late 80s in camps near Kapuskasing, Manitouwadge *and Upsala respectively. On days off, we too drank our faces off... hell, there was nothing else to do. And yes, plenty of grass in camp as well. People worked hard but partied equally hard. Must have had something to do with our being in wicked shape from clambering all over the bush loaded down with trees.


Hey, me too, plus further west to Atikokan in the same time frame... what a coinkidink. I had stopped smoking pot at that time and wasn't that much of a drinker. I did take up smoking a little bit just so I could sleep at night as due to the long hours and repetitiveness of the job I would still be planting in my dreams especially as I started to fall asleep, I would find myself actually moving in my sleeping bag... go... go... go... The pot really helped and I was able to get a good nights sleep.

The thing that I did really enjoy about planting was the food.. we had really good cooks and because of the nature of the job you could eat anything and as much of it as you wanted and never put on an ounce.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If a police officer pulls over a person who is driving erratically and performs a breathalyzer test that shows the person has consumed no alcohol, how do they prove that the person has been smoking marijuana instead? What is considered acceptable proof for impaired driving in those cases?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

macfury, let's take this argument one step further .... how would the office tell that the person was impaired as a result of taking prescription medication. I'm sure there would be some form of test, blood level maybe, but I'm sure that would be a Charter issue of the nth order.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> macfury, let's take this argument one step further .... how would the office tell that the person was impaired as a result of taking prescription medication. I'm sure there would be some form of test, blood level maybe, but I'm sure that would be a Charter issue of the nth order.


Right. I'm not making a point here, just asking a legitimate question that I don't have an answer for. I support the legalization of marijuana, by the way, but I also support firmer and harsher penalties for impaired driving.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ah yes, the food! That was what made all that hard work and flies worthwhile. We too had a great cook. The variety was excellent and there was even decent fare for the veg contingent - although that was only a handful of skinny women in a 40+ camp; the rest of us were ravenous carnivores, shoveling grub into our gobs at a furious pace, whether it was brekkie or dinner. Most of us, regardless of gender, ate like there was no tomorrow. No real ability to put on fat, either. Never have I been in such stinking radiant health. Even my previous summers working on the railroad couldn't compare.

As for the planting: agreed again, mostly tedium. I won't say I didn't jam up some good poetry in my head from those days in the field, and I kept myself company with a great deal of music spinning on the old cerebral turntable. Anything not to think of the black flies, deer flies and skitters, or the sorry bleakness of the ravaged land.

Lichen: sounds like our two families have many shared experiences. My paternal great grandfather was born in Alexandria ON and elements of both sides worked the CN line between Ottawa and Sudbury... and beyond, of course. My dad was born in Hornpayne. Several years ago, when he died, I met a lovely old gent who was my dad's best friend when they were both around ten years old. He bestowed on me photographs of the two of them and their mutual friends who grew up in that neck of the woods... going into the bush with their hunting rifles, hanging around the tracks... which was rather like television before television existed; all the cool stuff came in on rails, all the interesting people from far away rode in and out on those same rails. My dad's first job was on the ice gang in Hornpayne, using tongs to grab blocks of ice and haul them onto the cars for refrigeration.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> all the cool stuff came in on rails, all the interesting people from far away rode in and out on those same rails. My dad's first job was on the ice gang in Hornpayne, using tongs to grab blocks of ice and haul them onto the cars for refrigeration.


Hell, I uses to play around the tracks in Toronto, squashing pennies and the like. Trains seemed more like friends back then. They're almost painted as demonic now.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Max said:


> Ah yes, the food! That was what made all that hard work and flies worthwhile. We too had a great cook. The variety was excellent and there was even decent fare for the veg contingent - although that was only a handful of skinny women in a 40+ camp; the rest of us were ravenous carnivores, shoveling grub into our gobs at a furious pace, whether it was brekkie or dinner. Most of us, regardless of gender, ate like there was no tomorrow. No real ability to put on fat, either. Never have I been in such stinking radiant health. Even my previous summers working on the railroad couldn't compare.
> 
> As for the planting: agreed again, mostly tedium. I won't say I didn't jam up some good poetry in my head from those days in the field, and I kept myself company with a great deal of music spinning on the old cerebral turntable. Anything not to think of the black flies, deer flies and skitters, or the sorry bleakness of the ravaged land.
> 
> Lichen: sounds like our two families have many shared experiences. My paternal great grandfather was born in Alexandria ON and elements of both sides worked the CN line between Ottawa and Sudbury... and beyond, of course. My dad was born in Hornpayne. Several years ago, when he died, I met a lovely old gent who was my dad's best friend when they were both around ten years old. He bestowed on me photographs of the two of them and their mutual friends who grew up in that neck of the woods... going into the bush with their hunting rifles, hanging around the tracks... which was rather like television before television existed; all the cool stuff came in on rails, all the interesting people from far away rode in and out on those same rails. My dad's first job was on the ice gang in Hornpayne, using tongs to grab blocks of ice and haul them onto the cars for refrigeration.


I used to dispatch crews on both the Alexandria sub and crews in and out of Hornpayne.

I conversed regularly with the fine citizens of Hornpayne until the CNR took the Crew Dispatching function out of Moncton and sent the office to MacMillian Yard in the GTA.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I won't say I didn't jam up some good poetry in my head from those days in the field, and I kept myself company with a great deal of music spinning on the old cerebral turntable. Anything not to think of the black flies, deer flies and skitters, or the sorry bleakness of the ravaged land.


For me the creative inspiration played itself out in a series of paintings that I did when I got back based on my memories of the ravaged landscape. Made for great fodder for splashy abstracted landscapes. They sold really, really well too... I made more money from the paintings than I did from the actual planting... go figure.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Screature: same here. I can still sell paintings, but I sure wouldn't want to go back to treeplanting.

BigDL: cool... and Mac Yard was where I did my second summer on Signals, this time as one of a Signals gang. I think I preferred working as a maintainer's helper in the Sudbury basin... quieter and generally easier. The gang was a lot more hard work... played a lot of banjo that summer, which was slang for manual digging with shovels in spots where there was already buried cable.

MF: no doubt, trains and train tracks are almost demonic. Now it's about safety this and safety that. Kids seem to be under a much tighter leash these days. Everywhere one looks perps and pervs are laying in wait, ready to snatch the children away.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Screature: same here. I can still sell paintings, but I sure wouldn't want to go back to treeplanting.


Amen to that! Pretty sure it would kill me now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Amen to that! Pretty sure it would kill me now.


Damnation boys, I've got a big pack of seedlings here and I could sure use your help. There's a great crop of seniors 'cross that horizon and they'll be needin' a load of soft wipe for what ails them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Sorry MF, I have retired from that industry.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Let's be fair. To get the neo-cons on board they need to be made aware of a couple of things. The banksters have repossessed thousands of square miles of prime pottom land. Not only that but Monojuana has developed a GMO crop that will survive any weed killer and the gene is dominant assuring that anyone else attempting to grow will have to pay the giant fines amounting to triple the return on the crop.

Once the conned types realize the wheelers and dealers are on board, I am sure all opposition will go up in smoke.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Macfury said:


> If a police officer pulls over a person who is driving erratically and performs a breathalyzer test that shows the person has consumed no alcohol, how do they prove that the person has been smoking marijuana instead? What is considered acceptable proof for impaired driving in those cases?


I think the fact that they are driving with hands at 10 and 2, and at 20km/h would give it away. Can you kill anyone by hitting them at 20km/h?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> If a police officer pulls over a person who is driving erratically and performs a breathalyzer test that shows the person has consumed no alcohol, how do they prove that the person has been smoking marijuana instead? What is considered acceptable proof for impaired driving in those cases?


There are specially trained officers now that can check individuals for drug impairment; not all officers can, but one officer can always call another who can to perform the test(s) on an individual he/she may think is impaired by a drug.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

dibenga said:


> OK ok lets get this gateway path straight...
> 
> Sugar
> Caffeine
> ...


PLUS ONE!

But Hash should be before Marijuana and I would put Alcohol after Heroin (based on personal opinion and experience of destroyed families)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

awwww srsly? 

officers charged people with impaired driving years before they had breathalyzer tests.

Next?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> awwww srsly?
> 
> officers charged people with impaired driving years before they had breathalyzer tests.
> 
> Next?


Not "next." You didn't deal with the question at all. Lars provides good information, while you provide nothing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Not "next." You didn't deal with the question at all. Lars provides good information, while you provide nothing.


I dealt with the question dead on, you just didn't like it is all.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I dealt with the question dead on, you just didn't like it is all.


Weird. I really like you in this thread 

But the fact is, a "pot detector" isn't needed for it to be legalized (or decriminalized). If it's ever needed, it's needed when it's illegal. And I'm pretty sure they don't have one now.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

don't police have a drug test to determine cannabis use?


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> I have had far too much first hand experience with the effect of drug use on a family and am in a much better position to comment on what I have experienced with addiction than you will hopefully ever know.


2 things. 1/ I am in a similar boat as you, only Alcohol is the cause, 3 of 5 families in my immediate relations torn apart due to alcohol. (The other 2 are very happy recreational weed smokers with careers in the $50,000+)

and 2/ when you say drugs, you mean weed right, 'cause that's the topic. not Coke, Heroin or whatnot.


----------



## ApplePie (Feb 28, 2007)

As soon as the government needs more money they will legalize it... just like gambling... prostitution is around the corner as well.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ApplePie said:


> As soon as the government needs more money they will legalize it... just like gambling... prostitution is around the corner as well.


Canada is $800+ billion in debt.....wouldn't that qualify as needing more money?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Elric said:


> 2 things. 1/ I am in a similar boat as you, only Alcohol is the cause, 3 of 5 families in my immediate relations torn apart due to alcohol. (The other 2 are very happy recreational weed smokers with careers in the $50,000+)
> 
> and 2/ when you say drugs, you mean weed right, 'cause that's the topic. not Coke, Heroin or whatnot.


+1 I know SINC has had family trauma relative to cannabis use so no disrespect to SINC meant here, but my extended and immediate family has a history of both alcohol abuse and marijuana use and it is the alcohol abuse that has caused the problems in every case going back over 75+ years.

Even my wife who has been with me when I have been intoxicated with each substance comments that she likes me better when I am high rather than drunk... not because when I am drunk I am abusive or depressed or anything.... she says I am just more happy and creative when I am high as opposed to being drunk.... Being intoxicated at the time, when she isn't, (well... at least not high as when she has smoked in the past she says it gives her "rubber legs" and she doesn't like it  ) I will have to take her word for it. XX)


----------



## ApplePie (Feb 28, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Canada is $800+ billion in debt.....wouldn't that qualify as needing more money?


Not really. There is still room for them to tax us on electricity and gas etc... The government needs to bleed us fully elsewhere first. They need the drugs and sex in their back pockets silly - something to fall back on.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

with the way the con, er, the NEW conservatives are burning though our money at an unprecedented rate, we'll need that tout suite.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> with the way the con, er, the NEW conservatives are burning though our money at an unprecedented rate, we'll need that tout suite.


Odd statement indeed considering your Libs spent over a billion on the failed long gun registry alone. 

Would you like me to detail even some of the rest of the waste they wrought on the country?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

listen genius, the liberals haven't been in power for 4 years. And it doesn't appear they will be for a while.

So while you can spend your time reminiscing of a party long out of power going on about the misdeeds of a previous government that we all are keenly aware of, and why they were voted OUT of office YEARS ago... , let's talk about what's happening now. I know it may be painful for you, but you're just gonna have to pull your head out of your rear end and face your lying thieving bunch of jackarses of a government you spent so much time telling us were the second coming of the accountable fiscally responsible white angels of heaven.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> listen genius, the liberals haven't been in power for 4 years. And it doesn't appear they will be for a while.
> 
> So while you can spend your time reminiscing of a party long out of power going on about the misdeeds of a previous government that we all are keenly aware of, and why they were voted OUT of office YEARS ago... , let's talk about what's happening now. I know it may be painful for you, but you're just gonna have to pull your head out of your rear end and face your lying thieving bunch of jackarses of a government you spent so much time telling us were the second coming of the accountable fiscally responsible white angels of heaven.


Now there is a post from an entirely rational and clear thinking individual. Thanks for the enlightenment, such as it was.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you wanted to go there with that ridiculous knee jerk WELL THE WASCALLY WIBERALLLSSS!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> you wanted to go there with that ridiculous knee jerk WELL THE WASCALLY WIBERALLLSSS!!!


Hmm, Elmer Fuddisms explain your position? Interesting try at diversion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

are you for real?

C'mon wake up. I made a comment regarding our government maybe needing the new revenue, perhaps sooner, than later. It was part of the flow dude.

But then you rode in on your rodeo bull screaming about a government that had nothing to do with the conversation, and has been out of power for 4 years.

And you want to cry about diversion. Quit sniffin the cow patties. They kill too many brain cells I hear.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> are you for real?
> 
> C'mon wake up. I made a comment regarding our government maybe needing the new revenue, perhaps sooner, than later. It was part of the flow dude.
> 
> ...


You keep forgetting (conveniently I might add) that much of this stuff began under your Liberal watch OVER four years ago.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what hiking the deficit and spending like drunken sailor with the in highest history deficits?

Nope. You sir, are a liar.

The liberals ran surpluses.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> what hiking the deficit and spending like drunken sailor with the in highest history deficits?
> 
> Nope. You sir, are a liar.
> 
> The liberals ran surpluses.


I strongly suggest you remove that statement calling me a liar.

Both the Liberals and the NDP insisted this government spend that kind of money or risk an election, and that is no lie.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You willfully told an untruth, and I stand by my statement.

You knew damn well what you said was untrue, and that sir, is a lie.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

We'll see about that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

If you blatantly lie, you get called on it.

You stated the liberals caused our financial situation 4 years ago. You know very well, this is a lie.

I called you on it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Really? 

Really?  


groovetube... SINC's point of view may be frustrating to you, but a liar he is not. This conversation has turned really, really silly in a hurry. 

Please... walk away from the keyboard for bit, and think about retracting that statement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> If you blatantly lie, you get called on it.
> 
> You stated the liberals caused our financial situation 4 years ago. You know very well, this is a lie.
> 
> I called you on it.


I said only this:



SINC said:


> You keep forgetting (conveniently I might add) that much of this stuff began under your Liberal watch OVER four years ago.


All of your screeching doesn't change the fact that many problems you keep referring to here as Harper created problems began on the Liberal watch. 

Calling me a liar for that is unacceptable. So we will see what the mods think. That is all I have to say to you on the subject for now.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

he lied in the conversation. He knew very well what he was doing, and I called it as I see it. Perhaps he should consider NOT lying.

Sinc: "You keep forgetting (conveniently I might add) that much of this stuff began under your Liberal watch OVER four years ago. "

That, is a blatant lie. And he knows it.

So yes, really.

And yes I'm stepping away for tonight.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)




----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

groovetube said:


> he lied in the conversation. He knew very well what he was doing, and I called it as I see it. Perhaps he should consider NOT lying.
> 
> Sinc: "You keep forgetting (conveniently I might add) that much of this stuff began under your Liberal watch OVER four years ago. "
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hey I just said why I said it.

I'm relaxed. Now anyway.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Decriminalize love!
Legalize compassion!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Calling me a liar for that is unacceptable. So we will see what the mods think. That is all I have to say to you on the subject for now.


...and he took his toys and left the playground.

Love the signs ehMax!


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> The liberals ran surpluses.


No they didn't.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

if there ever was a classic example of why pot should be legal, and used more, this thread is it.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

groovetube said:


> if there ever was a classic example of why pot should be legal, and used more, this thread is it.


+1
Srsly.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

groovetube said:


> if there ever was a classic example of why pot should be legal, and used more, this thread is it.


In all seriousness...

At the very worst, SINC was mis-informed on his facts and opinions. Whether that's the case in this thread, I have no clue. He could be 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. 

However, I would bet my last bottom dollar that SINC was *NOT* deliberately lying and it was 100% out of line to accuse SINC of being a liar. It was way out of line and against very clearly against ehMac policy. The statement should be retracted. 

Doing so is not agreeing with SINC or saying he's correct or that you like him, but it does retract an ehMac violation that will otherwise earn a small vacation.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

groovetube said:


> if there ever was a classic example of why pot should be legal, and used more, this thread is it.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Turns out ignorance wins again.

I guess we all have to quit smoking weed again... cause it's illegal.

Who wants to go get pissed and beat up some stoners!?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)




----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A bit off topic but addressing the comment about Liberal surpluses

Perhaps Screature can chime in on this but as I understand it the Liberal surpluses came from including UI and SI payments as part of general revenue. 

Part of the current deficit is because the UI surplus had been spent down leaving the fund short of current needs. 

Seniors are already paying dearly for the SI grab as there has been no cost of living increase even though some things seniors are most likely to purchase have gone up. Those being food, insurance and taxes. As baby boomers start to collect on SI, the taxpayers can also expect to pay a hefty price for that Liberal surplus. 

A quick peak south of the border will clarify this. Social Security should have been solvent through 2050 but the Clinton/Bush looting of these funds means it is only good to about 2017.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> as I understand it the Liberal surpluses came from including UI and SI payments as part of general revenue.
> 
> Part of the current deficit is because the UI surplus had been spent down leaving the fund short of current needs.


This is correct. 

Spending was moved off books, revenues were illegally appropriated from other sources and used as general revenue, and bills were left unpaid. To top it off, even the _announced _surpluses that were attained by this smoke and mirrors game were promptly spent on pet projects, and not carried over. 

When the CPC came to power, there was no surplus. No actual money had been saved, and several billion dollars in obligations were in arrears.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> A bit off topic but addressing the comment about Liberal surpluses
> 
> Perhaps Screature can chime in on this but as I understand it *the Liberal surpluses came from including UI and SI payments as part of general revenue.
> 
> ...


Yup.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Plus, with the economy the way it was, a pack of baboons could have raised a surplus.





Oh, wait. They did...


----------

