# Marijuana is a harmless drug...



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

www.24hrs.ca said:


> A 44-year-old Surrey was arrested after fleeing his own home when four armed males invaded it.
> 
> Police received a call from the home owner at 4:18 a.m. Friday after he escaped his 144B Street house in nothing but his underpants.
> 
> ...


Would decriminalization of marijuana eliminate these problems or make them worse?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> Would decriminalization of marijuana eliminate these problems or make them worse?


Oddly enough, I've never had a problem... but then again, I don't grow illegal drugs.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

won't matter, there will always be morons.


----------



## andrewenterprise (May 22, 2005)

Like gaston said, we'll always have morons. If its legallized, than a slew of different problems with most likely become apparent.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Decriminalizing won't solve it.

Most lot of these grow operations crops are not for Canadian but American consumption. So, even if we legalized, and controled distribution and taxed, the grow operations would still exist.

However, from a social perspective, legalization, control, distribution and taxation in Canada would reap huge social and revenue benefits for Canada.

Marijuana is a gateway drug many will argue, however, the gateway you eliminate is to the dealer and underworld that supports the dealer.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

we already export a lot of oil, softwoor lumber, and other natural resources to the u.s. 

why not add marijuana to the list? 

maybe the u.s. could put a tariff on the maryjane instead of the softwood?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

miguelsanchez said:


> we already export a lot of oil, softwoor lumber, and other natural resources to the u.s.
> 
> why not add marijuana to the list?
> 
> maybe the u.s. could put a tariff on the maryjane instead of the softwood?


uhhhm, Somehow I do not think they would go for it!


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

We had prohibition on Alcohol for a long time, then they brought it back, what happened to the criminal element then? It is still there in the black market area's, but not as prevalent. Would be similar for pot, no?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Decriminalizing won't solve it.
> 
> Most lot of these grow operations crops are not for Canadian but American consumption.


This is not true.
Please show me ANY proof of this.
You make it sound like Canadians don't smoke pot.
I too can make up stats. How about this one?
Most of the USA's pot comes from Canada.

It is also not true but looks good in print.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

decriminalize for legal use within Canada, taxed like smokes and booze, but highly criminalize illegal exportation. another country shouldn't "suffer" from our experiment.

legalize it, say, or at least decriminalize it


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Yes I agree.
Legalise in Cnada but make it an extremely serious offence to export to a nation where it is illegal.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

martman said:


> This is not true.
> Please show me ANY proof of this.
> You make it sound like Canadians don't smoke pot.
> I too can make up stats. How about this one?
> ...


Do you read the news? Of course Canadians smoke pot. The simple fact is that an enormous amount of pot grown in Canada is US bound.
By comparison to Mexico, the amount is small, however the total amount has increased 269% over the last few years.

Read a staistical and un-biased report 
Here.


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

The solution really lies in .....hey look a cat riding a bike.....uhhh waht were we talking about???

i am going to eat some cake and watch family guy.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Marijuana is not without consequence (see this and other science....

But then it won't kill you with a stroke like (other) arthritis medications.... or help you come to suicide like some anti depressants...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

iPetie I looked at your link and immediatly found this:


> Introduction
> 
> United States government officials (and sometimes even Canadian officials) have made many claims that Canada is a major supplier of cannabis to the US. However, the available evidence, including reports from the Auditor General of Canada, the RCMP, joint Canada-US task forces, and the United Nations, suggests that:
> 
> ...


I went on to read many of the links and the only thing I found that came close to what you say is this:


> Sources close to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency [Adminstration] say it will soon issue a report claiming there are 15 to 20,000 marijuana growing operations in British Columbia alone and 95 per cent of the output is headed south.
> 
> -- Carl Hanlon, Global National Television News, 6:30 pm EDT, Monday, May 13, 2002


Now personally I don't trust the DEA to be truthfull on this issue.
Why?
http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr031104gao.html


> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Responding to a request by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, yesterday gave the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy unfettered permission to mislead the public in the name of opposing "drug legalization."


After looking at the rest of the "unbiased report about the issue" I found nothing else that even begins to back up your claim.
The fact remains most domestic pot production feeds Canada's appetite. This is not to say that we don't export.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Puh-leeze,

Who does continued marijuana prohibition help? It helps organized criminals, such as biker gangs. As penalties gets stiffer, they are the only ones with the criminal and violent expertise and the willingness to take the risks involved. As they move into it, others move out, the whole field, once the domain of hippie growers, gets nastier and more violent. It helps police who want to expand their large anti-drug operations. They need more guns, more undercover cops, more crime fighting toys. Police chiefs see their departmental budgets expand. Without marijuana prohibition, there would be a lot less cops needed. Not to mention the problems of corruption that occurs when rich powerful criminals interact with police. These problems have manifested in many major North American cities including T.O.

If it was legal, you would hardly be able to give it away, never mind sell it. It grows like a weed, hence the nickname. Problems with it are extremely minor compared to almost any other currently legal drug you could name, including caffeine.

The US problem is a red herring. If it's legal here, then enforcement would be the problem for US border guards, not us. The example of Canada's liberal marijuana laws and seeing how our society didn't suddenly collapse, would put pressure on the US to liberalize also. The DEA knows this very well and therefore uses as much pressure as possible on Canada to attempt to discourage us from going this way.

It's way past time we quit this illogical, costly and ridiculous prohibition.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

The reason for making export a serious crime is solely to appease the US. Given their ability to mess with our economy I think it is important to proceed this way if we were to legalise.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

Unbelievable. Just when I thought people couldn't get any more retarded, I read all these replies.

The ONLY people who benefit from legalization are ABUSERS and GOVERNMENT. Nothing more.

What really pisses me off is how our society has changed to drastically to embrace drug use. It is a mind altering DRUG, therefore it should be illegal. Some of you will go on to argue that Alcohol has the same effects, and I would agree 100%. Some of you will argue that anti-depressants, etc have the same effect, and I also agree!! The major difference is that if you drink alcohol next to me, I am NOT affected. If you take a pill next to me I am NOT affected. But if you SMOKE (cigarettes OR pot for that matter) near me, I AM affected.

When will we start to embrace the rights of those who DON'T want to live in a mind altered fantasy world? WHEN ARE MY RIGHTS GOING TO BE ENFORCED?!

A7


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

a7mc said:


> The major difference is that if you drink alcohol next to me, I am NOT affected. If you take a pill next to me I am NOT affected. But if you SMOKE (cigarettes OR pot for that matter) near me, I AM affected.
> 
> When will we start to embrace the rights of those who DON'T want to live in a mind altered fantasy world? WHEN ARE MY RIGHTS GOING TO BE ENFORCED?!
> 
> A7


Talk about silly!
If I smoke a joint next to you, you are not affected! You can't show me one study that begins to sugest second hand pot smoke is dangerous. No one is going to force you to get high. 
Legalising pot in no way affects your rights. Dream on!

I would add that legalisation will free up HUGE amounts of money better spent on social programs and anti-gun programs.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

> If I smoke a joint next to you, you are not affected! You can't show me one study that begins to sugest second hand pot smoke is dangerous. No one is going to force you to get high.


Aside from pot head morons telling me it's possible, That's not neccesarily the issue. What about the smell? If I piss all over you, it won't harm you, but I'm willing to bet you won't like it will you?

A7


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

legalization or not, it's a complicated issue, that i don't dare discuss; but for the time being i suggest you move out of these place where everybody smokes around you, as it sounds to me you are the guy who lights 'em up on the Phillip Morris Test Room. I picture you surrounded by 27 proffessional chain smokers who try out all the cigarettes. you need a new job!!!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

a7mc said:


> Aside from pot head morons telling me it's possible, That's not neccesarily the issue. What about the smell? If I piss all over you, it won't harm you, but I'm willing to bet you won't like it will you?
> 
> A7


Sorry but this is just stupid.
If I start my car near you you might smell it too.
Perhaps you want to ban roses? Maybe people who fart should be thrown in jail. You going to call the cops tonight when I light my BBQ and cook some burgers?
Give it a rest. Your idignation is laughable.

{sarcasm}Everyone exhale on a7mc{/sarcasm}
PS: a7mc I don't actually have a car so maybe we should be talking about how smelly your car is (assuming you have one)


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

a7mc said:


> Unbelievable. Just when I thought people couldn't get any more retarded, I read all these replies.
> 
> The ONLY people who benefit from legalization are ABUSERS and GOVERNMENT. Nothing more.


So, by your logic, you would prefer the Hells Angels or worse benefit as things stand today, as opposed to the Government. 
Bad as the Gov is, I'm pretty sure they could put extra revenue towards say, health care or education.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

> So, by your logic, you would prefer the Hells Angels or worse benefit as things stand today, as opposed to the Government.


By my logic, I would prefer people get a brain and stop using. But apparently that ain't gonna happen.

I agree that the Gov could put the money towards health care or education. If they legalize, they'll need it, because there will be twice as much abuse!

At least the "Hells Angels or worse" scare off impressionalbe kids, and hopefully save a few from making bad decisions. Make it legal and the message we send to kids is "it's ok to do drugs".

I hope I'm dead long before the next generation of messed up drug addicted kids take over this country. 

P.S. Done replying to Martman. Just another idiot abuser with no sense of logic.

A7


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

a7mc said:


> Unbelievable. Just when I thought people couldn't get any more retarded, I read all these replies.


It really isn't appropriate to use "retarded" as an insult.


a7mc said:


> What really pisses me off is how our society has changed to drastically to embrace drug use. It is a mind altering DRUG, therefore it should be illegal. Some of you will go on to argue that Alcohol has the same effects, and I would agree 100%. Some of you will argue that anti-depressants, etc have the same effect, and I also agree!! The major difference is that if you drink alcohol next to me, I am NOT affected. If you take a pill next to me I am NOT affected. But if you SMOKE (cigarettes OR pot for that matter) near me, I AM affected.


If people smoke pot at home, you are not affected.

By the way, if someone does coke, X, or GHB right next to you, you won't be affected either.

Finally, anti-depressants are not "mind-altering drugs" anymore than ASA or ibuprofen. They cannot induce a high or altered state (unless you are already bipolar).


a7mc said:


> When will we start to embrace the rights of those who DON'T want to live in a mind altered fantasy world? WHEN ARE MY RIGHTS GOING TO BE ENFORCED?!


Again, if people only smoke pot at home, you are not affected.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

rgray said:


> But then it won't kill you with a stroke like (other) arthritis medications.... or help you come to suicide like some anti depressants...


You are spreading misinformation. Depressed people are often already suicidal. The trouble with SSRI anti-depressants is that sometimes they make you feel worse before you feel better. That "worse" is unlikely to become suicide unless the patient is already suidical.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

a7mc said:


> I agree that the Gov could put the money towards health care or education. If they legalize, they'll need it, because there will be twice as much abuse!
> 
> 
> P.S. Done replying to Martman. Just another idiot abuser with no sense of logic.
> ...


Again more stats with no backing. There is absolutly NO indication that legalistation will resut in an increase in canabis use. Infact studies in the Netherlands sugest that the rate of use will decrease by approx 5%.

You may be done replying to me but I am not done replying to you.

It seems to me you are the abusive one here...
Once again the pot calling the kettle black.
Man are you rude.

As for no sense of logic?
Really! :lol: 
I don't see you passing any philosophy courses with your logic.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

a7mc said:


> By my logic, I would prefer people get a brain and stop using. But apparently that ain't gonna happen.


No, it's not likely to happen ever.



a7mc said:


> I agree that the Gov could put the money towards health care or education. If they legalize, they'll need it, because there will be twice as much abuse!


Disagree! I think the usage will actually decrease as opposed to increase. See other response below. Also, you would be taking an underground economy and making it taxable.



a7mc said:


> At least the "Hells Angels or worse" scare off impressionalbe kids, and hopefully save a few from making bad decisions. Make it legal and the message we send to kids is "it's ok to do drugs".


No, the message will be that you're not getting close to the stuff until you're 19. Thus the usage by teens will be severely curtailed. The local dealer does not ask for ID. The problem is the local dealer is not a biker or worse, he is a neighbour or schoolmate. Thus, the deterrent you mention is non-existent. It is however a very short step up the chain.

Marijuana, as I said before is a gateway drug. In and of itself it is, IMO less harmful than alcohol. The gateway has proven to be to the underworld, moving some on to more harmful drugs like crack, meth, heroin etc. Removing the underworld, reduces the risk of people moving to more harmful drugs.


----------



## _Outcast_ (Oct 17, 2003)

iPetie said:


> So, by your logic, you would prefer the Hells Angels or worse benefit as things stand today, as opposed to the Government.
> Bad as the Gov is, I'm pretty sure they could put extra revenue towards say, health care or education.


 Sure, just like they were going to do with all the revenue from the casinos. I'm sure that the amount of cash the casinos rake in over the course of a year could provide excellent health care coverage for all Canadians. Same with lottery proceeds. But as with all things run by our illustrious government what they said and what actually happens are two very different things.

And other people using pot or other drugs definitely has the potential to affect me in an adverse manner. Do we want our children taught by teachers who are high on pot? Do you want your car worked on by some mechanic who is stoned? How about the subway? Let some whacked out pothead drive a subway train or a streetcar. It'll be fun and hey, it's harmless and they're not hurting anybody, are they?

Is reality so bad that people feel they need to be high 24/7? Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me.

Jerry


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

_Outcast_ said:


> Sure, just like they were going to do with all the revenue from the casinos. I'm sure that the amount of cash the casinos rake in over the course of a year could provide excellent health care coverage for all Canadians. Same with lottery proceeds. But as with all things run by our illustrious government what they said and what actually happens are two very different things.


 So, I'll ask you again, who would you prefer to see derive revenue from this? The Gov. or someone else even less palatable.



_Outcast_ said:


> And other people using pot or other drugs definitely has the potential to affect me in an adverse manner. Do we want our children taught by teachers who are high on pot? Do you want your car worked on by some mechanic who is stoned? How about the subway? Let some whacked out pothead drive a subway train or a streetcar. It'll be fun and hey, it's harmless and they're not hurting anybody, are they?


Now, you're grasping at straws, the same could be said for alcohol. Abusers will always exist and not legalizing this will have zero effect on your hypotheses.



_Outcast_ said:


> Is reality so bad that people feel they need to be high 24/7? Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me.


I don't think anyone here is condoning or has even indicated that this is an option.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

a7mc said:


> Aside from pot head morons telling me it's possible, That's not neccesarily the issue. What about the smell? If I piss all over you, it won't harm you, but I'm willing to bet you won't like it will you?
> 
> A7


Pot Head Morons. Where do you get your stats on this, are you saying all Pot Heads are morons? I know lawyers and doctors that smoke pot, they are not morons, and saying they are is just ignornace on your part. Just because you don't agree with what they do does not make them morons.



a7mc said:


> It is a mind altering DRUG, therefore it should be illegal. Some of you will go on to argue that Alcohol has the same effects, and I would agree 100%.


Alcohol has the same effects as weed? Who's the moron now! Obviously you know nothing abotu the effects of the drug, because the effects are compeltly different between the two.
As somebody who has had both an alcohol and drug problem when I was younger, I can tell you without a doubt that there is a difference, and if Alcohol is legal, then smoking weed should be to, the effects are a lot less harmful in general. 
How many people have you heard that died from smoking weed? 
Now how many people have you heard about that have died from alcohol poisoning? 
How many D&D accidents have there been as opposed to Pot smoking accidents?

As mentioned before, we let big pharm push out all sorts of stuff that screws people up even more than weed does, but they are making big money from it, so it's OK. 
This is an endless debate, similar to the Mac PC debate. You will have people for and against and there is never a middle ground.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Like many other 'contentious' issues, the scientific, economic, sociological and other rational analyses of this issue are all in agreement: legalization is the only rational course of action. Yet there is so much political resistance to this obvious choice, primarily due to pressure from the US and the pharmaceutical industry, that legalization has not yet happened, and mere decriminalization is a major challenge.

This shouldn't even be an issue. Sure there will be some problems that arise from legalization, but they'll be much easier to deal with than the problems we face now, and we'll have a lot of cash with which to defray any resulting expenses.

If only our politicians had enough guts to stand up to the Americans and the lobbyists and say, "We're doing what's right for Canada. If you don't like it, that's too bad."

Cheers


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

_Outcast_ said:


> Sure, just like they were going to do with all the revenue from the casinos. I'm sure that the amount of cash the casinos rake in over the course of a year could provide excellent health care coverage for all Canadians. Same with lottery proceeds. But as with all things run by our illustrious government what they said and what actually happens are two very different things.
> 
> And other people using pot or other drugs definitely has the potential to affect me in an adverse manner. Do we want our children taught by teachers who are high on pot? Do you want your car worked on by some mechanic who is stoned? How about the subway? Let some whacked out pothead drive a subway train or a streetcar. It'll be fun and hey, it's harmless and they're not hurting anybody, are they?
> 
> ...


Come on. It is illegal to dive while intoxicated. This will not change if pot is legalised. Do I want people doing dangerous jobs on pot? No, again making pot legal will not change any of this. Idiots who mess up on jobs while stoned are already here. Drinkers are a much bigger problem socially than pot users. I don't see why you worry about pot users and these situations, as pot is and has been part of Canadian culture for decades now. Pot is smoked by teachers, lawyers, cop, judges, polititians (and their handelers, and assistants), and writers. 

My favorite Canadian pot smoker?
Pierre Berton 
http://www.humanhemphealth.ca/National_Post_101604.html url originally from the National Post.

Aren't some of us being just a little paraniod here?
There is no indication that we would be any worse off than the Dutch if we were to legalise or decrimnalise as per the Dutch model and quite frankly they don't have any more prolems with drugs and no higher a rate of adiction than in Germany along the Dutch border. We are a society of durg users anyhow. Just watch TV and tell me how many drugs are advertised. The fact is Pot is safer than ASA and much safer than Tylenol. The time for hysterics is over.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Like many other 'contentious' issues, the scientific, economic, sociological and other rational analyses of this issue are all in agreement: legalization is the only rational course of action. Yet there is so much political resistance to this obvious choice, primarily due to pressure from the US and the pharmaceutical industry, that legalization has not yet happened, and mere decriminalization is a major challenge.
> 
> This shouldn't even be an issue. Sure there will be some problems that arise from legalization, but they'll be much easier to deal with than the problems we face now, and we'll have a lot of cash with which to defray any resulting expenses.
> 
> ...


Where is PET when you need him?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDaddy said:



> Pot Head Morons. Where do you get your stats on this, are you saying all Pot Heads are morons? I know lawyers and doctors that smoke pot, they are not morons, and saying they are is just ignornace on your part. Just because you don't agree with what they do does not make them morons.


Yeah, I had to laugh as well... I've crossed paths with all sorts of people who use pot -- including law enforcement. Pot is no more of a gateway drug than a deck of cards is a gateway to gambling addiction, than a cookie is a gateway to overeating, or video games are a gateway to violence -- it's the person who uses/abuses it (addictive personalities.)

I've tried pot on a number of occasions in my youth -- I just don't get the appeal of it. Some people like it... I don't. Everyone I know who does use pot isn't some slobbering moron sitting in his parent's basement eating twinkies all day long trying to figure out the secret of the universe. In fact, some are very successful business owners.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Yet there is so much political resistance to this obvious choice, primarily due to pressure from the US and the pharmaceutical industry, that legalization has not yet happened, and mere decriminalization is a major challenge.


Your tinfoil hat is rusting.

The principal resistance to legalization is Canadians. When politicians talk about decriminalizing, the voter backlash reins them in. Canadian society, on the whole, is pretty puritanical.

The pharmaceutical industry? Where did that notion come from? I don't think Eli Lilly or Pfizer could care less on the matter.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

iPetie said:


> Where is PET when you need him?


Yeah, he was a real stand-up guy when the US wanted to test cruise missles in Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Anyone who uses pot is a criminal, pure and simple. Just like long gun owners. Same stupid application of the laws.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Anyone who uses pot is a criminal, pure and simple.


You're not a criminal until you are convicted of a crime. So much for "pure and simple."


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Gotta keep them dangerous senior citizens from dealing drugs!

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/29/Canadian_pot_sentence20050829.html?ref=rss


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> You're not a criminal until you are convicted of a crime. So much for "pure and simple."


So it follows if a long gun owner who does not register a weapon is not caught (convicted), he or she is not a criminal?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice chess move SINC! 

You got him cornered by using his own argument as a weapon. But I bet you're too mellow a guy to grab the blade and put him out of his misery...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> So it follows if a long gun owner who does not register a weapon is not caught (convicted), he or she is not a criminal?


I never said they were. You must be confusing me with someone else.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Nice chess move SINC!
> 
> You got him cornered by using his own argument as a weapon. But I bet you're too mellow a guy to grab the blade and put him out of his misery...


You also are confusing me with someone else. I don't know who, either...


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

iPetie said:


> Marijuana is a gateway drug many will argue, however, the gateway you eliminate is to the dealer and underworld that supports the dealer.


Actually the REAL gateway drug is Sugar, 

followed by caffeine, 

then alcohol, 

maybe smoking ....


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

donuts should be between caffeine and alcohol dibenga.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Gee, I always thought the gateway drugs were the ones everyone used in high school. You know, Paxil, Ritalin, Xanax, and oral contraceptives. Those Flintstone vitamins were pushed pretty hard, too.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> Sorry but this is just stupid.
> If I start my car near you you might smell it too.
> Perhaps you want to ban roses? )


This statement made me laugh. The loons in the government of the City of Ottawa want to do something just like that. They are currently entertaining a bylaw to ban strong purfumes in public. Sorry granny, your Channel No5 is in violation of bylaw #2518. Your going downtown! They also have an aversion to cigarette smoke but I think they'd applaud legal marijuana.

All this talk of legalizing drugs makes me think of the story of the little old lady that swallowed the fly. Her solutions only made her problem worst. 

Now, where is that frog?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed , McGuiver!

"If we only just had a few more laws...then we'd have _UTOPIA!!_"  

Famous last words.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

very apt, MacNutt.

lpkmckenna: "The principal resistance to legalization is Canadians. When politicians talk about decriminalizing, the voter backlash reins them in. Canadian society, on the whole, is pretty puritanical."

agreed. and sometimes people must be led to a change.

******

any idea why such plants exist?

what would be the purpose in nature for hallucinogenic plants to exist? or fermenting fruit causing drunkiness in animals? mushrooms...peyote.....and on

poisonous plants make sense, the ones that make you sick and die. they're saying "don't eat us!". tasty ones make sense, they're for the hungry creatures to scatter the seeds, etc. But to have the ability to cause other creatures to feel high or mystical? Sounds like a team.

do they exist just for us? who knows, but you could think there was something pretty natural in the way that humans have found and sought solace or happiness in the effects of these "drugs". like a key in a lock, psychotropic piece of the puzzle which isn the brain.

take a hit of something sometime when everything feels just right. have some help to go a little beyond your confines. and if you can do that without any ...fantastic.

like anything good it can be abused. period. get the abusers help, it's not just the pot, it's society, too. I can see why a lot of people use it and do use it responsibly, too. good, just and productive people have done it. it's everywhere. it's just a little easier to demonize "pot smokers" than say "fat people" or even, daresay, alcoholics. all are frowned upon in society, it's just a lot easier to pick on the pot smoker because our generations have been taught it. but you don't agree with alcholol, either. bet it's not quite the same, though, is it. getting high has that unnatural word attached to - drugs. is it the addiction aspect? or is it the mind-altering aspect? if it's so bad for us, why does that area of the brain even exist. why hasn't it been withered away as something useless, like appendixes or tails or as something harmful even?

just imagine it. stretch your mind and try to imagine a beneficial, maybe benevolent aspect of "drugs". do it once, do it happy and do it well. even ask a good friend to watch over you if you want. most everybody likely knows a friend that would give them some help like that. that won't kill you and getting high responsibly won't make you kill your neighbours either, something some people don't even need drugs to do, they do it sober. fu*k, i think we should ban sobriety. it's killed and hurt more people.

the human brain is way too complex an organ to be merely stupidly drunk off using plants. and we are on the outside just way too self-centred, ignorantly assuming, applying labels to people who think otherwise.

just once, like i said. you might find that you're not really God or even athiestically Darwinist or even don't have the ability to think you know the way of each. But you might get an even deeper sense of both.

feed the brain with knowledge, feed the stomach with nutrition, feed the soul with happiness and feed the wondering with mystic.

or maybe it's just not for you. the world is full of wonder even without it. i can't quote stats now but you really can't argue that pot or shrooms, and their gang (within reason) are any worse than alcohol, cigs, and some over/under the counter drugs are. would you ban them all? Ban a persons ability to choose to do something possibly benefiting their selves (even just psychologically) because others abuse that ability? By that logic we should outlaw food. or skydiving. soy green pills for all, thrice daily. 

and nice thinking, martman!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Anyone who uses pot is a criminal, pure and simple. Just like long gun owners. Same stupid application of the laws.


No only the owners that didn't register are criminals.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> This statement made me laugh. The loons in the government of the City of Ottawa want to do something just like that. They are currently entertaining a bylaw to ban strong purfumes in public. Sorry granny, your Channel No5 is in violation of bylaw #2518. Your going downtown! They also have an aversion to cigarette smoke but I think they'd applaud legal marijuana.


There is a rationale behind doing something about perfumes. A small number of people have an intense reaction to perfume, just like some people do to peanuts or bee stings.

Does this require a by-law? I'm not sure. How would you enforce it?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

darkscot said:


> any idea why such plants exist? what would be the purpose in nature for hallucinogenic plants to exist? or fermenting fruit causing drunkiness in animals? mushrooms...peyote.....and on
> 
> do they exist just for us? who knows, but you could think there was something pretty natural in the way that humans have found and sought solace or happiness in the effects of these "drugs". like a key in a lock, psychotropic piece of the puzzle which isn the brain.


Were you stoned when you wrote this stuff? I could, like, totally hear that, ya know, stoner accent, dude!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

martman said:


> No only the owners that didn't register are criminals.


Again, no one is a criminal until convicted.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

does it matter? do ehmac and drugs mix?


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Amen Darkscot! Very well put!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> There is a rationale behind doing something about perfumes. A small number of people have an intense reaction to perfume, just like some people do to peanuts or bee stings.
> 
> Does this require a by-law? I'm not sure. How would you enforce it?


The pertinent point of ipmckenna's post should read..."a SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE have an intesnse reaction to perfume."

Okayy...so what?


I have an intense reaction to anything that contains cows milk. This means cheese, butter, cream...any of that stuff.

Almost every single time I eat out...or dine at a friends place during a community get together, I have a very negative reaction the next day. I always tell them that I can't have any milk products...but it's always in there somewhere.

"Oh! But I didn't realise you meant CHEESE too! Everybody loves cheese!"

"Oh! I forgot about that lactose thing...and so I slathered your hamburger bun with real butter! hope you don't mind. Everyone loves the taste of butter!"

"Oh! Those cookies were loaded with cream and milk! Sorry about that!"

So...I suffer. Because the majority will conduct their lives as they see fit. And we who have small (or large) problems with what the majority chooses to do on a daily basis, simply have to deal with it.

Or...we must choose to distance ourselves from society. Or we have to demand that ALL of society change, just to make we of the tiny minority feel happy and comfortable.

Which I choose not to do.

On a daily basis. Simple as that.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> The pertinent point of ipmckenna's post should read..."a SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE have an intesnse reaction to perfume."
> 
> Okayy...so what?
> 
> ...


Simple as that, eh? Your martyrdom has been noted. Do you go into a lactose-intolerance fit from inhaling milk products? Didn't think so.

Those allergic to peanuts or perfume cannot ask not to inhale any.

Many schools now forbid students and staff from bringing peanut butter sandwiches or brownies with peanuts. It isn't the end of the world, but it does prevent unnecessary emergencies. Schools have enough of them already.

I don't know anyone allergic to perfume. But I do know several allergic to peanuts; they have some interesting stories to tell.

We've also gone thru this issue with smoking. Slowly, smoking was moved out of theatres, workplaces, schools, malls. The last battle seems to be bars and clubs. Same old issue, same old arguments, and eventually the same result.

I don't know exactly what the "perfume-intolerant" are allergic to. If it can be identified it could be banned, and perfume can continue as normal.

But I do know exacly what it feels like to sit in a theatre, next to some dolled-up gal, smothered by her excessive perfume. Really, I'd rather she was smoking.

Your martyrdom in defend of the majority is nonsense. Asking the majority to give up little things (peanut butter sandwiches) for a miniscule minority (one kid out of several hundred) is not tyrannical. It's a lesson in tolerance.

Or think of the bar scene. There are dozens of people there, many are smoking. They clearly outnumber the few waitresses. But the patrons will be there a few hours. The waitresses may be there a few years.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

"The last battle seems to be bars and clubs"
No, it's the "homes".

"Those allergic to peanuts or perfume cannot ask not to inhale any."
Yes, the can but that wouldn't make sense. They can purchase foodm products that don't contain any nuts. Limited selection tho it is.

"Many schools now forbid students and staff from bringing peanut butter sandwiches" 
but it's not outlawed in your home is it?

"Really, I'd rather she was smoking." 
perfume like, clothes, comes off. that's personal tho. 

"Or think of the bar scene."
good riddance. second-hand smoke sucks.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Have you eaten out recently? Ever took a moment to discern what amount of milk products are in each fast food or restaurant meal?

Ever spent much of the next day sitting on the can...or bent over it...due to something you've eaten outside the safety of your own home?

How would you like to be subject to that particular form of excruciating torture...EVERY SINGLE TIME you eat out? Even at MacDonalds or A&W?

Or...even at your best friends barbecue? Or your mom's house?

Getting the picture now?  

The vast majority of human beings on this planet...most of the Chinese, a huge amout of the people in India, much of the sub-saharan africans, and even quite a whack of the europeans (or their direct ancestors)...CAN'T tolerate cows milk!

Especially in adulthood.

Pretty much everyone loses some of the enzyme that digests milk, after the age of three. And NONE of us is ever supposed to consume the milk from a seperate species! NO animals, except mankind, ever do this. And certainly not into adulthood.  

Cows milk is for baby cows. Not adult humans.

Like about 60% of the poepl on this planet...I can't have cows milk or anything made from it. or I get seriously sick the day after (sometimes for TWO days afterwards). I mean laid out. deeply ill.

But I do NOT demand that all of my fellow human beings abandon all cheese and butter and dairy products. Just to save me from this ongoing grief.

I deal with it. Because I'm in the minotity in this society.

Or...I eat in (real) chinese restaurants...where I am in the majority (they rarely, if ever, consume milk products. In fact... mostly, they avoid them with the same passion that I do).

Just the way it is. I accept this. And DEAL with it.

So should anyone else who has a particular sensitivity that is NOT shared by the majority of people in their particular societal group.

Otherwise we would all be subject to the tyranny of the tiny but vocal minority.

And we would all be eating unflavored tofu and walking around with heavy gauze masks over our pieholes.

If it ever gets to THAT...then I'm _OUTA HERE!!_   

Trust me on this.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> There is a rationale behind doing something about perfumes. A small number of people have an intense reaction to perfume, just like some people do to peanuts or bee stings.
> 
> Does this require a by-law? I'm not sure. How would you enforce it?


Enough laws already.

For every new law you want to enact, you have to find two to get rid of. Make that a law! 

I agree with MacNutt... we can't have laws to protect a minority of people from being inconvenienced.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

death is not an inconvienence.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

What a rant!

You are forgetting an important detail, MacNutt: smoke, perfume, and peanuts are airborne allergens. There is nothing those who are allergic can do about it.

No one is stuffing milk products down your throat. The guy next to you in the restaurant could eat nothing but milk products, and you'll be fine. But sit the peanut-allergic kid next to a man eating a brownie, and there could be problems.

Gee, I'm awful sorry you can't eat in each and every restaurant in Canada because they use milk products. Instead of whining about it, a campaign could work. Even McDonald's got a vegetarian menu, and no more peanuts, either.

Cow's milk is not for humans? Why, because you and many others are allergic? There are many allergies. Are seafood, alcohol, and pencillin not meant for humans, too?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I agree with MacNutt... we can't have laws to protect a minority of people from being inconvenienced.


We don't necessarily need laws to deal with such things. By-laws are just an option.

I don't think a law was passed to ban peanuts from schools. The school boards just imposed a rule.

MacNutt suffering on the toilet is an inconvenience. My niece lying in a hospital ward is not.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

> You are forgetting an important detail, MacNutt: smoke, perfume, and peanuts are airborne allergens. There is nothing those who are allergic can do about it.


 (Among other great logical quotes from lpkmckenna)

I'm so done on this topic... I've learned a long time ago that most people don't listen to reason, no matter how logical, so I stopped trying. I used to think my right to live meant something to others. I now know otherwise. Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm happy at least a few people understand.

A7


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> What a rant!
> 
> You are forgetting an important detail, MacNutt: smoke, perfume, and peanuts are airborne allergens. There is nothing those who are allergic can do about it.
> 
> ...


It's not an "allergy". It's the inability to digest cows milk. One that I share with the majority of the human beings on this planet.

Every mammal on earth begins to lose the digestive enzyme that helps them to digest this complex hormone-laden early food...once they reach adult age. Some more than others.

I fact...even adult cows have trouble digesting cows milk once they've reached adult age. It's no wonder that so many humans have trouble with it!
 

But...in our northern/eastern European-derived north american culture, it is somehow publicly acceptable to consume large quantities of this highly unnatural cholesterol laden food. Despite the obvious damage it does to our bodies.

We do this on a daily basis. It is a part of almost everything that we eat. Cheese, butter, cream, milk.

And...no matter WHAT I do...every single restaurant and food outlet I ever choose to eat at seems to be bent upon sneaking this vile crap into my food. I PAY for this the very next day. In horrible ways. 

As do many people of african descent, and many people of chinese descent, and many people of Indian descent, and many people of european descent, and .....well you get the idea.

At least I HOPE you do!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Ever spent much of the next day sitting on the can...or bent over it...due to something you've eaten outside the safety of your own home?
> 
> Or your mom's house?


I always knew that mom liked me the best - ahh


MacNutt said:


> The vast majority of human beings on this planet...most of the Chinese, a huge amout of the people in India, much of the sub-saharan africans, and even quite a whack of the europeans (or their direct ancestors)...CAN'T tolerate cows milk!


Only you could misconstrue being lactose intolerance this way...
It's not CAN'T tolerate cows milk - it's can't digest large amounts of lactose (milk sugar). 




MacNutt said:


> Pretty much everyone loses some of the enzyme that digests milk, after the age of three. And NONE of us is ever supposed to consume the milk from a seperate species! NO animals, except mankind, ever do this. And certainly not into adulthood.


Please, where did you get this babble from? 
Milk is a source of calcium - something that is NEEDED.
Next thing you'll be telling us is that we should not eat pork because it's not our species...




MacNutt said:


> Cows milk is for baby cows. Not adult humans.


I love how you take a mishmash of sources together and mix them up into a MacNutt soufflé.
Human breast-milk is better for babies. It ends there.
People have been drinking/eating milk for THOUSANDS OF YEARS....





MacNutt said:


> Like about 60% of the poepl on this planet...I can't have cows milk or anything made from it. or I get seriously sick the day after (sometimes for TWO days afterwards). I mean laid out. deeply ill.


Would you like to come over for some wine and cheese?


----------



## tikibangout (Jul 19, 2005)

Weed, Wine, Cheese, mmmm.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I always knew that mom liked me the best - ahh
> 
> -Only you could misconstrue being lactose intolerance this way...
> It's not CAN'T tolerate cows milk - it's can't digest large amounts of lactose (milk sugar).
> ...


_Answer-_ 

Don't much like wine, and I can't eat cheese. Sorry.

And my idea of a good time isn't choking down a lump of hormone-laden animal cholesterol and then hanging my skinny highland butt over the big white telephone for the next day or so, burning the shine off the porcelain.

But, thanks for the invite anyway.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

a7mc said:


> (Among other great logical quotes from lpkmckenna)
> 
> I'm so done on this topic... I've learned a long time ago that most people don't listen to reason, no matter how logical, so I stopped trying. I used to think my right to live meant something to others. I now know otherwise. Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm happy at least a few people understand.
> 
> A7


It's a two-way street... you might want to revisit your posts. There was nothing logical, nor factual about your point of view as it is presented on this board. You'll find a lot of people will consider another's point of view if they take the time to talk TO someone, rather than to talk AT someone.

Maybe if you could start and explain why pot will restrict "your right to live" without delving into drama? I'm interested in knowing how legalized pot will affect your health in a such a way. What are the sources?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacNutt said:


> It's not an "allergy". It's the inability to digest cows milk. One that I share with the majority of the human beings on this planet.
> 
> Every mammal on earth begins to lose the digestive enzyme that helps them to digest this complex hormone-laden early food...once they reach adult age. Some more than others.
> 
> I fact...even adult cows have trouble digesting cows milk once they've reached adult age. It's no wonder that so many humans have trouble with it!


You're ignoring lpmckenna's point MacNutt, and you're getting repetitive.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

*Underwear Goes Inside the Pants* by Lazyboy

Why is marijuana not legal? 
Why is marijuana not legal? 
It's a natural plant that grows in the dirt. 
You know what's not natural? 
80 year old dudes with hard-ons. 
That's not natural. 
But we got pills for that. 
We're dedicating all our medical resources to keeping the old guys erect, 
but we're putting people in jail for smoking something that grows in the dirt?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> So it follows if a long gun owner who does not register a weapon is not caught (convicted), he or she is not a criminal?



Well, i don't know about this. I can think of plenty of scenarios in which this situation will not only "not" make you a criminal, i would not even constitute a criminal act. But then, i'm no freaking lawyer. I do know that in today's society, nothing is pure and simple, nothing (but MacNutt's water  ) ; even though I'm the kind of guy who thinks everything is white or black, then again, everything is grey, or not , or is ......

is there a lawyer here?


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

> Maybe if you could start and explain why pot will restrict "your right to live" without delving into drama? I'm interested in knowing how legalized pot will affect your health in a such a way. What are the sources?


I agree, my posts have been a little over the top. I appologize. I'm still very bitter... I lost a very good friendship over pot. Someone I loved chose to use daily while her house was about to be repossessed and had a hard time putting food on the table for her kids. And people tell me it's a harmless drug.  

Anyway, I have all kinds of logical comments, but they've been ignored so many times before, I'm tired of repeating myself. I get the same lame excuses back each and every time.

A7


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

*Silly post...*

rgray made this post near the begining of this thread. Obviously, the poster did not READ (not even the abstract!!! LOL!) the document that he/she says "marijuana is not without consequence". Hey, don't bogart that joint, my friend!

Mel

Abstract goodies:

<i>Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) <b>compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5)...</b>

Interpretation: Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained.</i>





rgray said:


> Marijuana is not without consequence (see this and other science....
> 
> But then it won't kill you with a stroke like (other) arthritis medications.... or help you come to suicide like some anti depressants...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Melonie, I know of only one person who smoked when we were back in college and he is still smoking now. He was brilliant, and now he is somewhat smart. His short-term memory is shot, and where once he was the ultimate multitasker, now, he takes one thing at a time. Granted, this is annecdotal evidence of one case, but, as a7mc notes, there are the dramatic negative effects as well.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Dr. G -

Too much of ANYTHING is likely going to backfire on you eventually.

Use is a different animal than abuse.

Think dose. 2 aspirins will fix your headache, a bottle might kill you.

Scare-tactic posts that have no bearing on the research outcome (i.e. poster referring to science-based peer-reviewed studies that have not even been read by said poster) are dangerous too. Very Bushian!

Mel


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

a7mc said:


> I agree, my posts have been a little over the top. I appologize. I'm still very bitter... I lost a very good friendship over pot. Someone I loved chose to use daily while her house was about to be repossessed and had a hard time putting food on the table for her kids. And people tell me it's a harmless drug.


Did this person have other problems, like a mood disorder? If someone's weed use becomes this severe I start to think that it may be a symptom of a deep psychological issue.

Very often abusers of drugs / alcohol are really depressed or bipolar or even borderline. Talking about their addiction is confusing the symptom for the cause.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Melonie, while I have had a joint in many years, there are still times when I would like to have one........just for old time sake. Still, I agree with your differentiation of abuse and use.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Dr. G -

I would suspect that you, as I, did most of our growing up in the '60's, when pot was the defacto standard tool of rebellion. Much less dangerous than alcohol. I know personally several PhD's who continue to indulge. And write papers. And books. And contribute to society in impressive ways. Probably because they don't smoke five joints a day, as that study stated was a "heavy user". And I agree. My gawd, five joints a day would kill me. I'll take a puff or two when I want to relax at the end of the "pressing" day. Pretty much for the past 40+ years.

Mel


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Melonie, yes, as a child of the 60's, I first tried pot at Woodstock. I did not have the money to spend on such things, and never bought any of my own until I was working on my Ph.D. As for writing "under the influence", I could not seriously write anything of value. I would think so at the time, but then the next day would see the "errors of my way". 

"Keep on truckin', sister"


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I agree some people can do it other's can't. I have seen many people that are chronic weed smokers and they have no motivation for anything. I used to work in the addiction field and although I beleive pot is not that harmful in moderation, it is with some people. I can't understand why some people think it is not bad for them. It's usualy people that smoke it that have this attitude. Everyone has the right to do as the please even if it is ilegal. I wish I could smoke pot responsible but that will never happen for me, but at least I know that


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Clockwork, a friend of mine stayed stoned his entire junior year in college. He did not even remember the courses he took. However, this B to B+ student pulled straight A's and A-'s in five tough courses (we shared four of these courses together, so I know how tough it was for me to get an A in each of them).


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

It's not as black and white, mind you what is. I know some people do very well while others don't do so well. It would be interesting to see how many people do well and how many people don't do so well in the long term. Personaly I think most people don't do so well. Most people that gravitate toward drugs and booze hardcore generaly from my experience are dealing or not dealing with a lot of pain. I guess your friend was bright. Perhaps too bright which is often the case (many bipolars use it because there too high and are very smart while manic and use pot to come down a bit). The people I have worked with over the last few years are mostly very bright but not when there high. Most of the people I went to school who were in the scene are not doing well at all. Mind you I hung out with the hardcore addicts.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

*Not a harmless drug*

May I also state that I believe that there is no such thing as a "harmless drug". There are always risk factors with any drug (from caffeine, to Viagara, to the opiates, and so on). Dose and frequency are important determining factors. Often there are underlying factors at play too, and these factors are often missed outright or downplayed. The cause of the need to get high is often not treated, just the symptoms are treated.

I believe legalization of cannabis would be a very wrong thing for Canada to even consider. However, I am in favour of decriminalization of cannabis. And more research on the physiologic and pyschologic effects of cannabis. And better targeted, more relevant information about cannabis directed at youth. And better access to alternatives to cannabis use by youth. But the "just say no" crowd have their heads buried in the sand, or dare I say it, "other places".

Mel


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Without my morning cup of coffee, I am lost. I freely admit that I am addicted to at least three cups of coffee a day.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Without my morning cup of coffee, I am lost. I freely admit that I am addicted to at least three cups of coffee a day.


You forgot Doxies....


I would welcome less strict pot laws but with a way to test the level of "highness". A little like blood alcohol test...


* I have never smoked and personally am against pot smoking.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I never smoked and did anything when I was in a position of responsibility, like during work, study, driving, etc. I never did smoke pot much, but during solitary times, when it affected no one, I did indulge. I cannot see how people could work or perform and smoke.

As for doxies, they are NOT addictive. They are beautiful. They are cute. They are loving. They are our masters. We must love our doxies. Krishna doxies....Hari Krishna doxies. Hello. How are you? Would you like to buy a doxie?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I like Melonie's point about there being no such thing as a 'harmless drug.' There's a time and a place where pot, or alcohol, or other recreational drugs may be 'acceptably harmful.' Personally, I enjoy beer much more than pot, and consequently alcohol is more of a threat to me than THC. But I doubt that anyone here would argue that we should make beer illegal because people can do themselves harm by drinking too much of it. Instead, we rely on adults to control themselves as much as possible. Clearly, this is how we should be treating cannibis.

Many of my best and brightest friends are fairly frequent pot smokers. They, and many others, have found that, as well as being 'fun', pot can really help with writers' block or other circumstances when some lateral thinking is called for. I've even had good ideas while under the influence. Of course everything seems like a good idea when you're stoned, so the trick is to sort out the good ideas after you're thinking clearly again.

Clearly, abuse has significant deleterious effects (as is true for any other drug), and there are people who are unable to control their use. Legalizing it would provide tax-revenue to help mitigate theses problems (which occur anyway, but which are currently generating income only for criminals).

As for the role the pharmaceutical industry played in the prohibition of cannabis, this is well documented elsewhere (read any one of the many books on the subject). Basically, the textile, oil and pharmaceutical industries were all very actively involved in lobbying the US government to make cannabis illegal because it offered the prospect of cheap fibre, oil (for both fuel and food), and drugs (particularly analgesics). Up until it's prohibition, hemp was the biggest agricultural crop in the world, and provided enormous economic benefits. As a result of prohibition, these benifits have been transfered to the cotton, oil and synthetic drug industries at society's expense.

I, for one, am appaled.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Growing hemp is actualy benefitial to the soil also, I guess it returns more nutrients,
this is a Great little piece on hemp


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

bryanc - my only real problem with legalization is that this would have the undesireable effect of "legitamizing" the use of yet another recreational drug in the minds of our young people. That is why I support decriminalization only.

I firmly believe that mind-altering drugs should not be used by persons who do not yet "know themselves", for lack of a better term. We, as individual adults (some have called my adult status into question on this board!) are hopefully still seeking to know ourselves, but young teens are far, far away from knowing themselves and a psychotropic drug like cannabis could/would interfere with this process.

Vinnie - I own three hemp/silk blouses, one hemp/cotton fall jacket and one hemp/cotton business suit. Virtually indestructible.

Hemp rules. SO MANY USES.

Mel


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

I can see your point, Melonie that legalizing it may seem as an endorsement to youngsters to get high stupidly. this is where we as a society have stopped guiding our youngsters and let the state take over parenting and guidance. and the real guides, the seniors, are shunted off. there are tribes and societies that allow their youth to get high in a responsible manner and guide them along the way.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

darkscot - agree completely that parents/elders have either dropped the ball (many parents have chosen the television, the nanny, our school system, or lavish gifts to supplant real parenting) or have had the ball taken away from them (our native population suffered (and continue to) greatly when children were taken from their parents and placed into residential schools).

Why not start a thread on this topic? I'll contribute!

Mel


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

My feelings on decriminalizing drugs are simple.

Why are theft, kidnapping, rape, murder, and fraud categorized as crimes? I would say, because they violate the rights of others, and thus undesirable in and of themselves. For example, we don't outlaw theft "because it might lead to" other crimes. Theft itself is undesirable.

Why have drug-related offences? Does using pot violate the rights of others? Is it socially undesirable in and of itself? Or are we only concerned "because it might lead to" other crimes?

You might say "it increases the costs of healthcare." Sure, it might. So does skydiving and bungee-jumping and other extreme sports people get a rush from. Ban them too? How about risky sexual behaviour, smoking, or obesity. Ban them too?

You might say "addicts commit other crimes like prostitution or stealing to feed their habit." Possibly. Or perhaps you have the cart before the horse. A prostitute is likely so depressed that drugs are one of the few pleasures she has left. And stealing can have many influencing factors, like peer pressure, heavy debts, an excessive lifestyle, or a sociopathic persona. Ban them too?

You might say "drugs lead to problems like homelessness and child abuse." Again, you are probably confusing cause and effect. Drug abuse and homelessness are common symptoms of mental illness; one doesn't cause the other. And don't you think child abuse and drug abuse have a common cause, instead of one leading to the other?

Putting those who have hurt no one in jail is wrong. Prison is for wrong-doers. Prison is removing the right to liberty from those who do not respect the rights of others. Taking the liberty from those who want only their personal liberty respected is morally unconscionable.

(For the record, I do not use any illegal drugs. I don't even drink alcohol anymore. I am just disgusted that addicts are ostracized and incarcerated instead of supported and treated.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

lpkm, I agree completely with your points.

There is what has been termed a "moral panic" around drugs in general, that causes society to not think particularly clearly about drug issues and not rationally weigh the costs and results of our actions and legislation. At one time, during alcohol prohibition, the moral panic included alcohol, but the user base was too great and the drug was too integrated in our society for unworkable policies to continue for long. The same seems to be slowly happening with cannabis, much to the chagrin of powerful forces mainly from the USA that would like to see the prohibition continue.

As bryanc echoing Melonie stated that "there is no such thing as a harmless drug". I agree with this. But continued prohibition doesn't do anything to change this, in fact, it almost always ensures that the danger from drugs and their cost to society is far worse.

Heroin, contrary to popular belief, resulting from the moral panic, is a less dangerous drug than tobacco, although it is equally as addictive. The problems around danger to heroin users are because we allow criminals to be the sole conduit for it's manufacture and distribution. The danger to addicts from heroin comes mainly from the fact that they can't tell what dosage they are giving themselves and run the risk of overdosing. Also, the drug is often cut with various additives that can easily kill them or make them very sick long term. Heroin that is clean and of measured dosages, can be taken by addicts over a whole lifetime with no ill effects, other than psychological.

There are pilot programs in Europe and Britain, where heroin addicts, who have failed to kick it, are prescribed daily doses to keep the craving at bay. These people are able to hold down jobs and contribute to society normally and then with that stability in their lives work on cutting off their addiction.

Allowing criminals to be the sole manufacturers and distributors of drugs, whether heroin or cannabis, also harms society in the same ways as alcohol prohibition did much harm during that time. Organized violent criminals fight each other and the police to gain the massive profits to be had from taking the risks to deliver the illegal substances. The harsher the penalties for a drug, the greater the risk, the higher the street price becomes, insuring that the criminals who decide to deliver the drugs have bigger organizations with more guns, etc. The war on drugs creates and exacerbates the very problem it seeks to stamp out. It is completely illogical and ineffective in bringing about it's stated aims, just as alcohol prohibition only resulted in creating a huge financial base for the mafia and other organized gangs in the 1920s and 1930s, that continues to this day.

The reason that people buy into the war on drugs philosophy, is that they have been panicked into believing that our society would break down if we didn't engage in this war. Many people irrationally seem to believe that if a drug like cannabis was legal, we would become a nation of pot addicts. This makes no sense.

Right now, I could choose to go on an alcohol bender. I could fill my cupboard with booze and drink myself stupid, but I don't. I don't because I have a reason to live for. Those who give in to addiction, whether it's alcohol, or heroin, do so because they have psychological problems that cause them to sink into either part time or full time addiction. Those people need our help, not a war on drugs, that does nothing for them.

For the record, I do not smoke pot and I drink moderately, occasionally at parties or get togethers. I may try pot from time to time, but usually when I do, I don't enjoy the psychological effect of increased self conciousness. I have many friends that enjoy pot on a regular basis, and they are no worse off than I am when I have a beer or two, or a nice glass of scotch. 

When I was in college, I experimented with pot, hashish, LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, mushrooms, speed and a few other things. I consider myself lucky, that I didn't run into a bad batch of one of the chemical drugs I tried, but I am no worse for trying them. Today, older and a bit more risk averse, I wouldn't blindly pop something in my mouth, or up my nose, that a buddy told me was good, so I'm not likely to try any of those chemical drugs again. I believe that trying those things provided me with some valuable experiences, that I probably wouldn't have had any other way.

So to get back to the title of this thread "Marijuana is a harmless drug..." - no, not completely, although it is far less harmless than some currently legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Any harm that might be caused to society by legalization of marijuana is many magnitudes less than the harm caused by its continued prohibition.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

You can't really compare pot and alcohol and the effects very well. Drinking one beer or a couple is probably not going to do too much to you. Drinking two beers or smoking a joint. Well one joint would be far worse considering the carcinogens are very high in pot and two beers well its only two beers. Another factor is that you really don't know what is in pot. Pot and hash is often cut with all sorts of chemicals such as hairspray on weed to make it weigh more and vasaline and other chemicals like tar to weigh hash down. I always get a kick when people say I know where I am getting it from so I know it's good. Well generally many people see the weed before it gets to you. Just like coke is cut many times with crazy stuff like super fine glass (hence nose bleeds). Sometimes people even put small amounts of meth or other drugs in pot. Unless you grow your own then you probably don't know whats in it. Plus you hold the smoke in your lungs longer which does more damage then one cigarette (I have also seen studies that say one joint has the same effect to your lungs as a pack of smokes). When you buy alcohol it is regulated, you know every beer is going to be the same as the last one. 
If you want to compare abusing pot to alcohol then again it could be subjective and not easily proven which is more harmfull. Heavy pot smokers can get cancer just like smoking cigarettes. It also affects your immune system as well as your short term memory. Alcohol generally messes people up in the long term but depending on the person and the situation it can be fatal in the short term where pot is generally like cigarettes and gets you in the end. You could smoke pot till your blue in the face and probably not die smoking too much in one day. Also withdrawal from alcohol is totaly different. You can die from alcohol poisning and withdrawl from alcohol. Pot you don't die but it stays in your system sometimes as long as a month in heavy users. People should really think when they say pot is not harmfull but alcohol is more harmfull. Well they both can be harmfull. I am also sure there has been some people who have died from smoking pot and driving but probably not nearly as many as alcohol related. Propbably not as many people die from driving stoned but I am sure it happens.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Clockwork, I agree that the comparisons between pot and alcohol are not exact and that there are many factors involved. Many of the factors you mention have to do with the fact that often criminals control the manufacture and distribution of cannabis. Maybe you should compare black market, criminal produced marijuana to moonshine to be fair.

I do know someone that was growing pot in a grow op and got busted. He beat the charge because he was growing it exclusively for the Compassion Club in Vancouver (medicinal use) and for his own glaucoma treatment. If I was buying, I would get it from someone like him, rather than an anonymous source.

Also, many of the the smoking problems with pot can be eliminated by eating it, which is the method I would prefer, if I was a pot user today, since I don't like getting smoke in my lungs from any source. Smoke is a carcinogen, whether it is from tobacco, pot, your wood stove or fireplace or a candle.

As far as I know, you can't overdose on cannabis to the point of death, like you can with alcohol. As far as drinking and driving and toking and driving, there are no reliable stats that I have seen, do you have any?

I still maintain that the costs to society of ending marijuana prohibition are less than the costs to society of the war on drugs approach.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Clockwork said:


> Just like coke is cut many times with crazy stuff like super fine glass (hence nose bleeds).


You are kidding, right? This "crushed glass" theory must be one of those urban legends. Clockwork, show me any research that points to this theory.

_The street form of cocaine is both vasoconstricting and locally irritating to the thin respiratory epithelium of the nasal airway. Repeated snorting sets up a cascade of ischemia, inflammation, micronecrosis, infection, and then macronecrosis leading to perforation.11,23 Nasal septum perforations of both the cartilaginous and bony tissues have been well documented.3,24 With larger defects, support of the nose is compromised, resulting in the typical saddlenose deformity.3,24 Some patients have been known to use various narrow instruments to debride intranasal crusting, increasing the potential for perforations.11 In extreme cases, adjacent bony structures may become eroded and vital tissues damaged.6,12,13,22,23

Similarly, topically applied cocaine can be locally destructive to the oral mucosa and dentition. Acute ulceration, necrosis, and rapid recession of gingival tissues, as well as erosion of both dentin and enamel, have been reported.19,20 Inhalation of "crack" cocaine has been implicated in the corrosion of gold dental restorations.25 Moreover, cocaine consumption immediately before or after tooth extraction can result in excessive hemorrhage.26_

Most of the rest of your post is pure conjecture. I will refrain from comment.

Mel


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As far as I know, you can't overdose on cannabis to the point of death, like you can with alcohol.


You can die from drinking too much water (except MacNutt's special bottled water, of couse!). It is all a matter of dose and method of intake. Difficult to die from smoking too much pot, because you would pass out before you could consume fatal levels. You could more easily die from ingesting cannabis. Try eating a quarter pound of red lebanese hash made into brownies. You would likely die, unless you got your stomach pumped pretty darn quickly.

Mel


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Melonie said:


> You can die from drinking too much water (except MacNutt's special bottled water, of couse!). It is all a matter of dose and method of intake. Difficult to die from smoking too much pot, because you would pass out before you could consume fatal levels. You could more easily die from ingesting cannabis. Try eating a quarter pound of red lebanese hash made into brownies. You would likely die, unless you got your stomach pumped pretty darn quickly.
> 
> Mel


Eating a whole tray of brownies without the hash, might make you feel sick too,  but OK Mel, granted, you can die from too much of anything. I said "as far as I know" because I haven't personally heard about anyone dying from a pot overdose, although alcohol overdose is very common. I once took a toke from a gigantic party spliff made with 1 whole ounce of Moroccan hash and a pile of tobacco. I didn't feel too well afterward, but I think it was all the tobacco making me feel green, not the hash.

I still don't see how any of this invalidates my point about the relative harm of cannabis to society or how the war on drugs mode is more harmful.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I still don't see how any of this invalidates my point about the relative harm of cannabis to society or how the war on drugs mode is more harmful.


Err, GA, I never made mention of your other points. I never disagreed with them in the first place. So please don't feel invalidated on my account!

I THOUGHT I was very careful and to the point in my post, quoting ONLY the ONE SENTENCE that I took issue with and wanted to discuss or hear your counterpoint. That one sentence, to refresh your memory, was:



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As far as I know, you can't overdose on cannabis to the point of death, like you can with alcohol.


I usually enjoy throwing my 2 cents in on discussion topics of interest to myself, but when people make statements that have no bearing on anything I said or didn't say, like you have just done, I get pissed off.

And a pissed-off Mel is not a pretty sight!

 

Mel


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

You can believe what you want, you will anyway.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Melonie said:


> My only real problem with legalization is that this would have the undesireable effect of "legitamizing" the use of yet another recreational drug in the minds of our young people. That is why I support decriminalization only.


So does that mean that the use of alcohol is 'legitamized' in the minds of our young people? Just because it is a legal product?
I would think it's more the monkey see monkey do. Mommy and Daddy will drink in front of their kids all the time.
Guns are legal too, does that legitimize it?
I would be more quick to blame people like Afroman who portray the use of the drug as being cool, just because you do it does not make it cool. But the media has made drinking and drugs the in thing to do.
Kids will stupid stuff with or without different influences, some will choose not to, and that is their choice. I chose to smoke pot, did that lead me to other drugs like they say it does, no, I have never done coke, acid, heroin. It's a matter of choice and influence, not legality.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Mel said:


> Err, GA, I never made mention of your other points. I never disagreed with them in the first place. So please don't feel invalidated on my account!


Melonie, I didn't feel invalidated on your account, so no need to take offence.

To be totally clear, let me state that I was addressing that statement to anyone reading this thread who might think that your criticism of one of my points, which I granted, might invalidate my main argument that I made in post #95. Sorry if my muddy writing skills confused that. I didn't mean to mislead or misconstrue.

Now to address this:


Mel said:


> bryanc - my only real problem with legalization is that this would have the undesireable effect of "legitamizing" the use of yet another recreational drug in the minds of our young people. That is why I support decriminalization only.


I disagree with decriminalization, such as what has been proposed by the Liberal government, over outright legalization, for the following reasons.

Decriminalization, especially the scenario proposed where trafficking penalties are increased, still leaves us with the situation where most of the manufacture and distribution will be done by organized criminals. With increased risk of prosecution, those who are not truly hardened criminals or who don't have the support of large organizations will get out of the business, leaving it to the heavier crooks. Even a backyard pot grower who grows one or two plants might be scared off. Increasing risk, means pot prices go up, means more black market money for criminals, means more powerful organized crime groups, means potentially more police corruption. This is exactly the wrong way to go.

Legalization on the other hand, means that companies registered by the government can grow it, for regulated distribution, with controlled quality and purity. Likely under a legalization scenario, those who grow a few backyard plants would be protected, just as those who like to make their own wine or beer are legally allowed to. Marijuana is going to be a cheap crop to grow, if it doesn't have to be hidden indoors, so the prices would be kept reasonable. Criminals would abandon the market, since they wouldn't be able to compete with the quality product grown legally at the reasonable prices it fetches, instead of the highly inflated criminal price. This is why if you have the choice of buying some nice scotch or a jug of backyard moonshine of questionable quality, most people would opt for the scotch.

As far as it legitimizing the use of pot in the minds of youth, I'm not sure how it could be any more legitimized than it is now, and has been since I was a teenager in the early '70s. Although alcohol is legal, moderate and safe use is legitimized, while abuse, such as drunk driving, or being falling down drunk in public, is not condoned. Marijuana's current "pirate" status, means that almost any use of it at present is seen as "cool" by young people. Legalization might actually change how it is perceived, when we can sensibly deal with marijuana abuse in an open way, without all the "war on drugs" rhetoric.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Clockwork said:


> You can believe what you want, you will anyway.


LOL

Restrain yourself, Clockwork!

My gawd, I can't imagine what your un-edited post must have said!

     

Mel


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

MacDaddy said:


> So does that mean that the use of alcohol is 'legitamized' in the minds of our young people? Just because it is a legal product?


Do you think not?



> I would think it's more the monkey see monkey do. Mommy and Daddy will drink in front of their kids all the time.


Well, there is room for additional reasons, you know. This one that you illustrate would also be legitamate. My opinions are NOT EXCLUSIONARY.



> Guns are legal too, does that legitimize it?


Sure seems to be the case in the USA, doesn't it?



> I would be more quick to blame people like Afroman who portray the use of the drug as being cool, just because you do it does not make it cool. But the media has made drinking and drugs the in thing to do.
> Kids will stupid stuff with or without different influences, some will choose not to, and that is their choice. I chose to smoke pot, did that lead me to other drugs like they say it does, no, I have never done coke, acid, heroin. It's a matter of choice and influence, not legality.


No person is to blame. But the "coolness" factor of drug-taking cannot be denied in some quarters. There are many factors at play. Legal status is but one.

All I am saying is that by legalizing a psychotropic drug, one runs the risk of legitamizing its use by young people, the very people whose minds are most "at risk" by the use of said psychotropic drug.

It is NOT simply just a matter of choice and influence, as you suggest. I do not take issue with those two points you bring into the discussion. However, I hope you will agre that It is not that simple. I wish it was.

Legalizing anything gives it credence. Legalize murder and you can bet the murder rate will escalate. Legalize money laundering and watch it take off. Legalize shoplifting and I wouldn't want to be a retailer, that's for sure. Legalize pot and you are going to make an already complicated teenager's life a lot more complicated.

Decriminalize it and at least those teenagers won't have to carry the burden/stigma of a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

Mel


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Melonie, I didn't feel invalidated on your account, so no need to take offence.
> 
> To be totally clear, let me state that I was addressing that statement to anyone reading this thread who might think that your criticism of one of my points, which I granted, might invalidate my main argument that I made in post #95. Sorry if my muddy writing skills confused that. I didn't mean to mislead or misconstrue.


Thanks for clearing that up, GA!





> Now to address this:
> I disagree with decriminalization, such as what has been proposed by the Liberal government, over outright legalization, for the following reasons.
> 
> Decriminalization, especially the scenario proposed where trafficking penalties are increased, still leaves us with the situation where most of the manufacture and distribution will be done by organized criminals. With increased risk of prosecution, those who are not truly hardened criminals or who don't have the support of large organizations will get out of the business, leaving it to the heavier crooks. Even a backyard pot grower who grows one or two plants might be scared off. Increasing risk, means pot prices go up, means more black market money for criminals, means more powerful organized crime groups, means potentially more police corruption. This is exactly the wrong way to go.


I don't disagree too strongly with your take on any currently proposed G of C approach to decriminalize cannabis possession and your projection of what could happen given proper circumstances. Much remains to be "figured out" by our elected officials. We have to remember that the LeDain Commission gave its recommendations over 30 years ago! Talk about government inaction!



> Legalization on the other hand, means that companies registered by the government can grow it, for regulated distribution, with controlled quality and purity.


LOL!

GA, I take it you not familiar with the Fed's attempt at growing high-quality pot in abandoned mines in the prairies? Absolute crap pot. Leave the growing to the guys that know how to grow it.



> Likely under a legalization scenario, those who grow a few backyard plants would be protected, just as those who like to make their own wine or beer are legally allowed to. Marijuana is going to be a cheap crop to grow, if it doesn't have to be hidden indoors, so the prices would be kept reasonable. Criminals would abandon the market, since they wouldn't be able to compete with the quality product grown legally at the reasonable prices it fetches, instead of the highly inflated criminal price. This is why if you have the choice of buying some nice scotch or a jug of backyard moonshine of questionable quality, most people would opt for the scotch.


Why not just jail the big-time growers and importers/exporters and let the small timers alone. Anyone found growing more than ten or a dozen plants (keeping in mind that one decent Cannabis indica plant can yield a pound of dynamite). Grow houses would still be on the hit list.

As far as it legitimizing the use of pot in the minds of youth, I'm not sure how it could be any more legitimized than it is now, and has been since I was a teenager in the early '70s. Although alcohol is legal, moderate and safe use is legitimized, while abuse, such as drunk driving, or being falling down drunk in public, is not condoned. Marijuana's current "pirate" status, means that almost any use of it at present is seen as "cool" by young people. Legalization might actually change how it is perceived, when we can sensibly deal with marijuana abuse in an open way, without all the "war on drugs" rhetoric.[/QUOTE]

This is North America, land of the plug up the butt. We must allow change to happen very slowly, as our butt-plugged society just cannot take it any other way. Decriminalize first, then legalize after getting the bugs out and giving our society time to get used to it. Baby steps.

Mel


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I just ended up rambling so I figured there was no point to what I was writting. I was also going to post some info on what people cut with. I decided not to but I will give you the link. You were right about the glass but this article asked people and generaly I don't think they would be to forthcoming if they did cut it with harmful substances. I don't think I would, I would feel crappy if someone knew what I was doing. I think drugs do get cut but generaly not with toxic substances but it has happened. I have personaly known people back in the day that sprayed weed with hairspray or cut huge amounts of hash with tar. I have also ran into weed with crack in it and was not too impressed. My point is that you never know what your going to get. It may not kill you but there may be something more then weed, not all the time but you never know. There is no scientific research, but how many drug dealers are really going to say, hey I cut it with rat poisin.

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/97821.htm

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=629&AreaID=4135&LinkID=3210

You can find all sorts of info but it can't be proven either way thats why I erased my ramble


----------



## tikibangout (Jul 19, 2005)

My dealer is my cousins boyfriend, and is very trustable and reliable. I know how to be safe and how to look for ****. Its easily detectable, as long as you know what to look for. Also I don't buy from strangers. That helps.

And marijuana should NOT be legalized.


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

Mugatu said:


> donuts should be between caffeine and alcohol dibenga.



damb you're right, guess I've had too much crack


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

Clockwork said:


> Most people that gravitate toward drugs and booze hardcore generaly from my experience are dealing or not dealing with a lot of pain. .



But I don't like booze...


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Melonie said:


> Sure seems to be the case in the USA, doesn't it?


Guns are legal in Canada as well (And most, if not all of the free world) so because Americans are killing each other in record numbers it legitimizes it?
So what happened here in Canada then? Are you saying we should be killing each other more because guns are legal and the Americans are doing it? (Here goes the Monkey See Monkey Do)

It does not legitimize it by legalizing it.
I didn't start smoking weed because it was legal (It's not!) it was peer pressure, but even that was not enough to make me start. I didnt start to smoke full time for at elast 5 years after that, and it was by choice. Its all about choice. you CHOOSE to smoke it, nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to smoke a joint or drink a beer. If you think it's wrong, don't do it, wether it's legal or not.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While I have always enjoyed a cold beer, I have never used a drug of any kind unless prescribed by a doctor. Peer pressure is a lame excuse for no willpower. I resisted the peer pressure to begin using weed and I am glad I did so, oh those many years ago.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, you were a fine example for me as an older brother growing up.................that is until I went to Woodstock. After that...................


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDaddy said:


> Guns are legal in Canada as well (And most, if not all of the free world) so because Americans are killing each other in record numbers it legitimizes it?
> So what happened here in Canada then? Are you saying we should be killing each other more because guns are legal and the Americans are doing it? (Here goes the Monkey See Monkey Do)
> 
> It does not legitimize it by legalizing it.


I'm with Melonie on this one. Yes Guns are legal in Canada but "Hand Guns" are severely restricted. Hand guns were not designed for shooting ground hogs but shooting people. The US is loaded with legal handguns and military assault rifles. Because of the laws in Canada, we're not. Even in TO now, illegal handguns are knocking people off left and right. Start selling them at walmart and I tend to think you'll see more gun deaths in Canada. 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Think about all the people who get shot every year from road rage in the States. You can't kill with a gun if you don't have a gun to shoot. So many people with guns in the glove compartment, guns all over the country, many guns to choose from. Out of sight out of mind. Mind you, you can run someone over if you choose. Happened in Detroit. Someone follwed someone that cut them off and ran them over and killed them. Stupid guy was caught on video.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> I'm with Melonie on this one. Yes Guns are legal in Canada but "Hand Guns" are severely restricted. Hand guns were not designed for shooting ground hogs but shooting people. The US is loaded with legal handguns and military assault rifles. Because of the laws in Canada, we're not. Even in TO now, illegal handguns are knocking people off left and right. Start selling them at walmart and I tend to think you'll see more gun deaths in Canada.


Most people use unregistered illegal guns in most of the murders (Gang shootins, drug related, etc). People generally dont use weapons registered in their name to kiill people!


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

MacDaddy said:


> Most people use unregistered illegal guns in most of the murders (Gang shootins, drug related, etc). People generally dont use weapons registered in their name to kiill people!


That's right, MacDaddy!

And where, oh where, are those handguns coming from???

The USA - where the gun manufacturers (handguns we are talking about here) have the ear of the politicos. You can buy a gun with fake ID. Because everyone and her mother own at least one gun in the US, they are readily available to thieves.

Look an pre-terror England. Their police force did not carrry guns because guns are not easily obtained in England. Virtually all handguns in England that are in private hands today are illegally obtained. I would say the same for Canada too.

Guns are a lot like SUVs, in a way. Some people "felt safer" in a monster SUV. So people driving regular cars began to feel less safe around all these monster SUVs, and they in turn would purchase a monster SUV for themselves.

Hand guns, being so easily obtained in most US states, make some people feel safer. As more Americans began owning handguns for "personal safety", even more non-gun-owning Americans became gun-owning Americans.

It is a vicious cycle, with no end in sight (for the gun issue. the monster SUV cycle might well end shortly thanks to future out-of-sight gasoline prices).

Mel


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Hey Clockwork, I have rarely ever come across "spiked" drugs in my life. Once, in the early 70's, I smoked some grass that had been spiked with a horse tranquilizer called PCP. Not fun. Once I had some acid that was not properly process so there was a high level of residual strychnine in it. Not nice.

But two instances over 35+ years of recreational drug use does not indicate much of a problem. Maybe I was just lucky, but points were made about buying from a regular "dealer" and being able to tell if something is not right are valid.

I have purchased cannabis once in a while from a compassion club in Toronto for the past 6 years. Same stuff as 99.9% of the street stuff.

And sure, some people will dilute cocaine with talcum powder. Or "humidify" pot to bring its weight up. I agree that purchasing from a trusted source is optimum.

Mel



Clockwork said:


> I just ended up rambling so I figured there was no point to what I was writting. I was also going to post some info on what people cut with. I decided not to but I will give you the link. You were right about the glass but this article asked people and generaly I don't think they would be to forthcoming if they did cut it with harmful substances. I don't think I would, I would feel crappy if someone knew what I was doing. I think drugs do get cut but generaly not with toxic substances but it has happened. I have personaly known people back in the day that sprayed weed with hairspray or cut huge amounts of hash with tar. I have also ran into weed with crack in it and was not too impressed. My point is that you never know what your going to get. It may not kill you but there may be something more then weed, not all the time but you never know. There is no scientific research, but how many drug dealers are really going to say, hey I cut it with rat poisin.
> 
> http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/97821.htm
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

I know a few people with handguns, and more than one. All of them obtained legally and are registered. They are great for target shooting (Which I quite enjoy). 
My point was that they are legal, but it does not legitimize their use, again, its all about choice. Just ebcause I have it, does not mean I am going to 'bust a cap in yo ass' and to compare us the the US and their murder rate, comon. Americans are gun happy and have people like Heston pumping the use and having in your hands at all times, stuff like that is causing people to kill each other 'I loves my gun'.

The whole point is that they are legal and kids up here don't go around killing everybody. And legalizing pot will not make all teens go out and buy a bag of weed.
the whole thing here is you say it legitimizes it by legalizing it, and it doesnt, with guns, booze, or anything else. Its CHOICE.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

MacDaddy said:


> I know a few people with handguns, and more than one. All of them obtained legally and are registered. They are great for target shooting (Which I quite enjoy).
> My point was that they are legal, but it does not legitimize their use, again, its all about choice. Just ebcause I have it, does not mean I am going to 'bust a cap in yo ass' and to compare us the the US and their murder rate, comon. Americans are gun happy and have people like Heston pumping the use and having in your hands at all times, stuff like that is causing people to kill each other 'I loves my gun'.


Americans are "gun happy" BECAUSE historically hand guns have been sold left, right and centre for centuries. Gun fairs, gun this, gun that. Millions of Americans own handguns. The gun manufacturers are very powerful lobbyists in the US. Of course "legal" handguns are not used anywhere nearly as often as stolen handguns in the commission of crimes. Duh. Where do these guns come from? They are stolen from the millions of households that have guns! Guns are a part of the American psyche. Not Canada. Thank goodness.



> The whole point is that they are legal and kids up here don't go around killing everybody. And legalizing pot will not make all teens go out and buy a bag of weed. the whole thing here is you say it legitimizes it by legalizing it, and it doesnt, with guns, booze, or anything else. Its CHOICE.


Technically, guns are legal in Canada. Ever try to buy and register one? Yeah, I thought so. Easy, eh? Your argument is silly. Admit it.

Of course legalizing any act or product gives it credence. This is such a basic precept. If you disagree, then there is no point in continuing a discussion.

Legalize bullying at school and watch out.

Legalize the purchase of hand guns by 13 year olds and watch out.

Legalize cannabis and you are confident that these 13 year old will be fine because they have a choice?

Sorry, what planet did you say you were from?

Mel


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

If you want to believe that legal anything legitimizes it, then go ahead, I do not believe it, nor will I ever. And no I don't own a gun, but I will in the future, and yes I will go through the pain in the ass procedure to own it, which is my CHOICE, if you purchase illegally, then it's obvious what you are planning to do with it, plain and simple. Your just paranoid (Are you sure your not smoking up yourself?) about legalizing anything, step out of your box and realize that its going to happen legal or not. Nothing you do will stop any of it.

I am backing out of this conversation. It is becoming to repetitive and pointless.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've been looking in on this thread once in a while. Mostly enjoying the debate from the sidelines....I have a brand new G5 Dualie to play with during the evening hours, after all. This thing is occupying most of my spare time these days. 

And I haven't contributed much to this thread, other than the bit about lactose intolerance. Which was pretty far off-topic. Even for me. 

But...I gotta fess up here.

I was a committed pot smoker for many years. Every single day, I would 'wake and bake'. And the rest of the day was usually more of the same. I REALLY got into it in the evening. I could burn down a quarter in a day and a half. I never intentionally went more than a day or so "without". Only constraints were availability and money supply. Mostly, I found my way around that. I smoked a LOT of good BC bud. Grew it for a while too.

I never smoked it when I was in my teens. Never smoked anything back then. But I got into it in South America during my early twenties (a coping mechanism for daily existence in some of the fly-blown sh*t pits I ended up working in, I suppose. That's MY excuse, anyway.)

When I came back home to BC, I discovered that there was some VERY good bud being grown and sold here. So I partook, as Bob Marley would say. And sailed away....every day. 

I lived on the edge, and worked as a freelance artist for motorcycle magazines for a number of years. I always had trouble with the deadlines...for some reason. But I survived. Barely. My life was a bit scattered then. To say the least.

In the mid nineties, during a foray back to my oilpatch tech job for a top-up of the exhausted bank account, I decided to quit smoking pot. Once and for all. They were doing piss tests on the rigs by then and i was being asked to do a very groundbreaking bit of field prototype work on a mobile mass spectrometer. 

So I quit smoking dope one wintry day in Alberta. For good. And I haven't had so much as a single puff for about a decade now. I don't miss it a bit. 

I thoroughly enjoyed my time in the fog. And I am thoroughly enjoying being away from it! 

My thoughts on marijuana? For anyone who is still listening?

Okay...here goes:

-Pot is NOT physically addictive! (Psychologically, perhaps. But not physically. I quit suddenly...and never felt any ill effects at all.)

-Pot opens up a door in your brain. A door that leads to the creativity that is hidden within all of us. But, if you smoke too much...you might not be able to take advantage of this. You'll stay on the couch and think all about it. Then fall asleep and forget everything.

-Pot makes you drive very slowly and carefully. Too slowly sometimes. people will notice this. Especially the cops. 

-Pot makes your eyes look like bleeding pee-holes in the snow. Everyone knows if you've just torched up. Especially the cops.

-Watching a movie on pot is great because your mind will wander all over the place in a million different directions. And you can watch the same movie a few weeks later...and it is all BRAND NEW! You never really saw it the first time. But you thought you did.

-No hangovers. It's not toxic. It doesn't dry you out like alcohol, either. 

-Pot causes apathy and complacency in large long term doses. You might end up living in a dumpster...but you will say "HEY! At least I have a roof over my head!" 

My final thoughts here:

I couldn't care less if we Canadians legalise or decriminalise marijuana. In fact, I rather hope we do. It's pretty much harmless stuff...as long as you don't get too deeply involved. Just like anything.

But I know I'll never touch it again. Not ever.

I had my run, and it was great! Now I've moved on. 

Been there, done THAT...got the T-shirt to prove it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> But I know I'll never touch it again. Not ever.
> 
> I had my run, and it was great! Now I've moved on.
> 
> Been there, done THAT...got the T-shirt to prove it.


An honest and illuminating post by one who knows.

Thanks for the trip Gerry! It's the only one I will ever have!

Waddago Laddie!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> -Pot makes you drive very slowly and carefully.


Yup... it sure does (or should I say _did_.)


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

- the most dangerous aspect of pot is the fact that it is illegal.
- I consider both nicotine and alcohol to be earlier "gateway" drugs. Both are very physically addictive.
- I say decriminalize now and remove the money from it. Legalization might be an option as well. If the US has a problem with this - that's their problem.
- people's houses don't get reposessed because they used pot. Chances are *very* good that their house would have been reposessed in any event. 
- Drug abuse should be a medical issue and not a crminal one.
- I disagree with peanut butter bans at schools. What's next - banning guns??
- I love milk. The majority of my family does also.

Moderation.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

R the G said:


> - the most dangerous aspect of pot is the fact that it is illegal.


I agree completely. Most the harm caused has been directed at marijuana users by the state, and to other parts of society by the huge monetary boost that organized crime gets by being involved in supplying it illegally.

Lets just grow up and just legalize it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I read somewhere that, after pot was decriminalised in the Netherlands about two decades ago, useage by the general public in that country actually went DOWN!

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Making something "forbidden" also makes it very attractive to a lot of people. A LOT of people! 

Making it legal, and removing the "forbiddenness" of it, would likely expose this substance for what it truly is. Lots of people would try it....some would fall in love with it and dedicate all of their spare time to consuming it...and most of us would recognise the obvious negative effects of long term use, and then the majority of us would use it in moderation. Many of us would turn our backs on it entirely. No one wants to be seen to be a rubbie who is hung up on something while letting it rule their lives. Much like alcohol.

Drinking every single day and getting wasted...BIG PROBLEM.

Drinking once in a while for a slight glow...NO problem.

Puffing bud every single day and getting wasted...BIG PROBLEM.

A toke once in a while, for a nice light glow...No problem.

Just my thoughts on this.

(But I'll never touch it again. This is MY choice. I couldn't care less what the rest of you do. None of my buisness, really.)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I read somewhere that, after pot was decriminalised in the Netherlands about two decades ago, useage by the general public in that country actually went DOWN!
> 
> This doesn't surprise me in the least. Making something "forbidden" also makes it very attractive to a lot of people. A LOT of people!
> 
> ...


I'm going to use my 999th ehMac post to say that I completely agree with everything Gerry says in the above quote. 

Go MacNutt go, you tell 'em what for!!


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Melonie said:


> darkscot - agree completely that parents/elders have either dropped the ball (many parents have chosen the television, the nanny, our school system, or lavish gifts to supplant real parenting) or have had the ball taken away from them (our native population suffered (and continue to) greatly when children were taken from their parents and placed into residential schools).
> 
> Why not start a thread on this topic? I'll contribute!
> 
> Mel


sorry for the flashback intrusion...
Melonie, would love to, but i'm guilty of some of the above myself (television, nanny). wouldn't want to self-incriminate. was good to see you write that parents/elders have dropped the ball rather than blaming on gov't. we've let our responsibilities slip.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> I read somewhere that, after pot was decriminalised in the Netherlands about two decades ago,.....


MacNutt,

Just for your information, pot or any other drug for that fact is illegal in the Netherlands. It is a common misconception. Yes there are the "coffee" houses but the drug is still illegal. You see the Dutch have a philosophy that if it doesn't bother other people, then what is the harm? In other words it is illegal, but the authorities, citizens et all turn a blind eye.

And regarding your post that Pot is a harmless drug, I beg to differ. In his teenage years, my brother in law was a user and dealer. He has had his run ins with the law, been in jail and had to go into hiding because some people wanted him dead. All because of pot. He still watches his back some twenty years later.

Harmless? I don't think so.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

and some people I know sit on their porches and light a doobie. doesn't paint all dope smokers as harmless porch sitters, does it? it's the lifestyle and habits that are harmful, not the plant itself. and because we've villified and criminalized it, a lot of people associating with pot are introduced to a shady side of life. your brother chose to become a dealer and live hard.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Of course. It was his choice.

The topic is that pot is a harmless drug. That's a generalization. All I'm trying to illustrate is that this generalization isn't completely true.

I've had and lost friends because of that drug. When I say lost I mean they are no longer friends, because they valued the drug more than our friendship. They couldn't go an evening without lighting up. even when I was an unsuspecting passenger in their car.

It's not completely harmless.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

true, that is the topic. and I've lost friends to the druggie lifestyle too. buddies in prison, and with others our paths have just diverged. it's not inherently dangerous, what is dangerous is how you plan to deal with it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I had friends that used pot, but they respected our friendship to the point that they never "used" around me.

I always did appreciate them doing that, or was it not doing that? Whatever.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MaxPower said:


> MacNutt,
> 
> Just for your information, pot or any other drug for that fact is illegal in the Netherlands. It is a common misconception. Yes there are the "coffee" houses but the drug is still illegal.


This is probably just a semantic misunderstanding, but MacNutt didn't say in his post that pot was made legal in the Netherlands, he mentioned decriminalized, which it was, AFAIK.

He also didn't say that it was "harmless", just relatively harmless.


The MacNuttian One said:


> It's pretty much harmless stuff...as long as you don't get too deeply involved. Just like anything.


Yes, your eyes aren't deceiving you, that's GratuitousApplesauce defending MacNutt.


----------



## tikibangout (Jul 19, 2005)

Having been a pothead for around 3 years, I finally kicked the habit and it feels good. My head feels so much more clear. I just figured the whole time was a big waste of money that got me nowhere. Also, it just started to bore me.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is probably just a semantic misunderstanding, but MacNutt didn't say in his post that pot was made legal in the Netherlands, he mentioned decriminalized, which it was, AFAIK.
> 
> He also didn't say that it was "harmless", just relatively harmless.
> 
> Yes, your eyes aren't deceiving you, that's GratuitousApplesauce defending MacNutt.


 Now I've seen everything 

Maybe I just misread MacNutt's regarding the Netherlands.

And harmless vs. relatively harmless, well that's just splitting hairs.

At any rate, I don't really care if someone does pot, just not around me.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> And regarding your post that Pot is a harmless drug, I beg to differ. In his teenage years, my brother in law was a user and dealer. He has had his run ins with the law, been in jail and had to go into hiding because some people wanted him dead. All because of pot. He still watches his back some twenty years later.
> 
> Harmless? I don't think so.


The "harmful" aspect that your are referring to is solely because of the prohibitionist laws that exist. If the laws didn't exist, the drug wouldn't be illegal and there wouldn't be black market prices for this freely growing plant.

Man made pot harmful - not nature.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

interesting read.
miss MacNutt in here. big time


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

GB, what's with the 3 year old threads? Are you feeling particularly sentimental?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

It's weird looking at these old threads. That was a really good post by MacNutt.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

cap10subtext said:


> GB, what's with the 3 year old threads? Are you feeling particularly sentimental?


All the time. Being doing it for a while, just that i'm not around lately. These days i'm babysitting a lot, my baby started daycare, which means that i pay to see her get sick ALL the time and take care of her. Which would be great if she wasn't sick.
At least i can dig old threads, which i love.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Daycare, where germs are rampant, and parents are nervous.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's weird looking at these old threads. That was a really good post by MacNutt.


yea I just read that. It was a damn good post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It really was a good post. I suspect that if the active ingedients in marijuana were found in the bottom of a bottle of hooch, nobody would pay them the slightest attention.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

unless they come up with a good marketing campaign....


----------

