[Wally_Sconce]

romanP romanP:

I don't plan to legalise marijuana in the United States. I don't even live there, nevermind having influence over their drug policies. I hope Barack Obama will take steps toward legalising, as he seems keen to do. Most states recognise that keeping weed illegal does more harm than good and wastes a lot of taxpayer money that could be better spent on looking for real criminals instead of manufactured ones.

please allow me to restate my point, because i fear that your last comment has strayed off topic.

I beleive that there was a general theme - maybe you support i - that legalizing marijuana will illiminate the criminal element
in Canada.

And, my response still remains that legalizing it in canada only will NOT acomplish that.

Why? because our criminal producers are exporting to another illegal market(ie USA). Adding legalized producers to Canada will not disrupt the ciminal business to the USA. theerefore the criminal producers will not be muscled out of business.

Furthermore, they aren't coming back with money exclusively,so there is limited merit to the idea that the Canadian government could tax or legitimize the revenue stream. the crinals are coming back with harder drugs and illegal firearms. Both of which Canada does not want, and does not want to legitimize.

[ridenrain]

romanP romanP:

No! Not Logic...
I'm Melting!!!

Good post, you old fart.

[Wally_Sconce]

if they were smuggling tobaco into a country that had a ban on tobacco, you simply could not illiminate the criminal element by issuing them a business license. follow what i am saying?

[romanP]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

romanP romanP:

Show us the non-existant evidence.

Check the definition of adiction (not the definition Websters gives you). To be addicted you don't have to be physically dependant on a substance. Being phusically dependant on a substance can be part of an addiction but just because your not doesn't mean you are not addicted. Addiction is a mental condition not a physical one.

Okay. If we're going to use that definition of addiction, then everything from potato chips to video games should be illegal.

[raydan]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The medical definition of addictions like the UN definition of genocide. It's been inflated to the point of being meaningless. By the above marijuana would certainly be addictive, but then so would hamburgers, chocolate, coffee, gambling, sex and internet chat rooms.

Don't know about hamburgers, chocolate and coffee (although I wouldn't be surprised for coffee) but there are addictions to gambling, sex and internet chat rooms.

...If I play bridge for money online and we're "dirty" chatting at the same time, is that considered a triple-addition.

[hurley_108]

You can develop a physical dependence on caffeine. I know, I've got one. I get wicked headaches if I try to cut the stuff out.

[romanP]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Ronin your not seriously going to stand there and start arguing that Stoned drivers are not a concern because we should be worried about people driving on cough syrup......

Ronin.. heh. I am indeed a masterless samurai.

No, I'm arguing that worrying about people driving under the influence of anything is what we should worry about, not just marijuana or alcohol.

$1:

If you legalize a drug used as a social high of course more people are going to be driving after using it.....

No more than people who already smoke drive while high.

[Lemmy]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

if they were smuggling tobaco into a country that had a ban on tobacco, you simply could not illiminate the criminal element by issuing them a business license. follow what i am saying?

[raydan]

romanP romanP:

Okay. If we're going to use that definition of addiction, then everything from potato chips to video games should be illegal.

Very few "addictions" are illegal.
Booze, smoking, sex, legal gambling...

Do you know people who drink 10-15 coffees a day?
I do and if they stopped cold-turkey they would probably experience withdrawal symptoms.

I guess that other people would experience the same thing if you removed their cell phones, computer, gaming consoles or TV.

[ridenrain]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

if they were smuggling tobaco into a country that had a ban on tobacco, you simply could not illiminate the criminal element by issuing them a business license. follow what i am saying?

You can't illiminate the "criminal element" in society by ANY means. But legalizing marijuana will REMOVE the criminal element from the trade in marijuana. The gansters will have to find other means to make their illegal dollars. Since I would argue that pot is the most popular recreational narcotic (at least after alcohol), it must be a MAJOR part of their opperations. Ending prohibition didn't bring down the Mafia, but it forced the mafia out of the liquor business. Legalizing pot would cut off a big part of the scumbags' business.

Criminals still traffic in tobacco and alcohol and those are legal on both sides of the border. This law will do nothing except lock down the border when trade with the US is even more critical.

Again, is there any proof that police are prosecuting people who are growing their own pot?

[romanP]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

$1:

Okay... First of all, pregnant women shouldn't smoke, no matter what the substance.

You need to present an argument to these women as to why they shouldn't smoke. How successful do you think the getting women not to drink argument would hold up without knowing about fetal alcohol syndrome and other reasons.

I need to do that? Why do I need to do that? I'm pretty sure the medical establishment has already taken care of that and warned people accordingly, on cigarette packages and neverending newspaper articles.

$1:

$1:

For some people with mood and attention disorders, it helps them quite a bit. But to tell the truth, not a lot of research has been done because of marijuana being an illegal substance. If it were legal, a lot of barriers to research would be torn down, and we would probably discover that marijuana is even more vastly useful than was previously thought.

Um actually more research has likely been funded because it's illegal but I think you miss a major point. Funding. The reason we hear so many studies both for and against is simply who's paying the bills. The real science takes places in scientific journals and not on the BBC as much as I do like that station.

The BBC wasn't doing the research, they visited a facility where research was being done.

As for studies for or against, that is just science. Most of the studies against are about smoking. Other than smoking, the only other danger I know of is that there is about 6% of people who will exhibit signs of psyhosis from consuming THC, but it's also possible that those 6% already had mental problems which were just made more apparent when THC entered their body.

$1:

$1:

Here's some helpful advice: don't mix drugs unless you know what you're doing. Most of the time, it's a bad idea.

However, if we were going to use this as a basis to decide whether any drug should be legal or not, then alcohol should be illegal because it is often deadly to mix with medication.

You seem to have troubles being able to read. Not once in my post did I ever use the word illegal. I'm just saying I want more research to be done.

That would be easier if it marijuana were legal.

$1:

You know how on pretty much every single commercial for medicine they tell you what symptoms to watch for and what meds NOT to take with it. Same needs to be done for weed.

Then they should put the same kind of warning on beer, liquor and wine.

$1:

That and don't treat others like children we all know not to mix things it's really insulting.

I've met my fair share of people who don't know better, and should have.

$1:

$1:

$1:

I'd be fine with legalizing it proven that any groups at risk are made very aware when they go to purchase and that you are never allowed to operate any kind of heavy equipment or motor vehicle while high. Also you really shouldn't be stoned in public around kids.

Again, there are people at risk for abusing not only prescription and over-the-counter medication, but stuff you would find in an entirely different store, like paint, gasoline or glue. This has not kept those substances from being legal.

I think you need to read the first sentence of that paragraph over again before you try to present my argument as an argument against legalization. I'm not arguing that weed should be illegal at all just saying what terms I would accept for legalization.

Then it is an argument for or against legalisation. If the warnings are not there, you don't want it legalised. Correct?

If you were not talking about people at risk for abuse, then I'm not sure who you're talking about.

[romanP]

ridenrain ridenrain:

The purpose of this was to make it legal for the recreational/medical user to grow and smoke his own product, and I support that. My question though, do police even prosecute these people any more?

I read about it in the newspaper all the time. Some guy growing a couple of plants for his glaucoma will get raided by the RCMP cause, you know, weed is threat to national security or something.

$1:

This bill will help the grower-user but it won't change the criminal aspect one little bit.

Which is why I only support full legalisation.

[Lemmy]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Criminals still traffic in tobacco and alcohol and those are legal on both sides of the border. This law will do nothing except lock down the border when trade with the US is even more critical.

Again, is there any proof that police are prosecuting people who are growing their own pot?

[romanP]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

romanP romanP:

I don't plan to legalise marijuana in the United States. I don't even live there, nevermind having influence over their drug policies. I hope Barack Obama will take steps toward legalising, as he seems keen to do. Most states recognise that keeping weed illegal does more harm than good and wastes a lot of taxpayer money that could be better spent on looking for real criminals instead of manufactured ones.

please allow me to restate my point, because i fear that your last comment has strayed off topic.

You mean it's an inconvenient fact you don't want to read.

$1:

And, my response still remains that legalizing it in canada only will NOT acomplish that.

Nowhere have I said that marijuana should only be legal in Canada.

[romanP]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

if they were smuggling tobaco into a country that had a ban on tobacco, you simply could not illiminate the criminal element by issuing them a business license. follow what i am saying?

Tobacco is being smuggled, but that's because the cost to buy a pack of smokes at the gas station is higher than the market can stand. That's government's fault for putting too much tax on tobacco.