[Gunnair]

The real piss off won't be the fucktards who want to militarize the US border because Canada legalizes pot, but all them poor Yanks who want to come up north for a fine merlot, a Nanaimo bar, and a joint that'll be stuck in their 19th century society south of the 49th.

No loss not being able to go south.

[Choban]

ENOUGH DEBATE AND POLLS AND BS STUDIES CAN WE JUST HAVE A F%^$IN BINDING COUNTRY WIDE VOTE ON IT PLEASE, WE ARE A DEMOCRACY.

[Arctic_Menace]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Go ahead and legalize pot. Just don't mind us as we militarize the border and it takes you 8 hours to cross the border.

Fine, be dicks. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Besides, if it takes 8 hours to cross the border, and if I'm going to get felt-up in an airport, then forget travelling to America. It's not worth that much hassle and embarrassment.

[Gunnair]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Go ahead and legalize pot. Just don't mind us as we militarize the border and it takes you 8 hours to cross the border.

Fine, be dicks. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Besides, if it takes 8 hours to cross the border, and if I'm going to get felt-up in an airport, then forget travelling to America. It's not worth that much hassle and embarrassment.

[billypilgrim]

Gunnair Gunnair:

The real piss off won't be the fucktards who want to militarize the US border because Canada legalizes pot, but all them poor Yanks who want to come up north for a fine merlot, a Nanaimo bar, and a joint that'll be stuck in their 19th century society south of the 49th.

No loss not being able to go south.

well said. ..i've noticed a recent increase in your use of the word 'fucktard', and i like it.

[Curtman]

Choban Choban:

ENOUGH DEBATE AND POLLS AND BS STUDIES CAN WE JUST HAVE A F%^$IN BINDING COUNTRY WIDE VOTE ON IT PLEASE, WE ARE A DEMOCRACY.

I don't think we're ready for a vote yet. The poll shows nationally support is about 50%. Very similar to what the polls in California were saying before their vote. I think we need more public debate before there will be a reason to have a vote.

[jason700]

We could try it out in BC, see how it goes...

[PublicAnimalNo9]

This isn't quite on topic but the irony isn't lost. Last night as I was watching TV when one of those anti-drug commercials came on. You know the type, kid takes a toke from a joint and next thing you know he's banging heroin in some back alley.
Immediately following that was a commercial from one of the pharma companies peddling one of their drugs with all those lovely health risks that pose a far greater health risk than pot.
So in conclusion, pot is bad because it'll lead to harder drug use, even though there is ZERO empirical data to back that claim up.
But pharmaceuticals are just fine even when they increase your risk for heart disease, cancer, weakened immune systems leaving you more susceptable to other diseases, and of course, death.
What warning could they put on pot, Caution: May make reruns of Gilligan's Island seem funnier than they really are?

[andyt]

jason700 jason700:

We could try it out in BC, see how it goes...

Drug laws are federal. Can't see it working to make them legal in only one province, if that's what you meant.

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[Zipperfish]

romanP romanP:

[Wow, is marijuana that dangerous?

Danger has nothing to do with it. It's a sin.

[Choban]

$1:

I think we need more public debate before there will be a reason to have a vote.

Problem is that the Pro crowd isn't listening to the Con crowd and vise versa, I'm sure polls show around 50% but I find polls to be misleading as they only use a very small percentage of the population and depending on where/whith whom you conduct the poll you'll get different results, Say you only poll 19-30 year olds compared to 50-65 year olds you'll get way different results.

My original thought was enough, debate and counter debate has been going on longer than I've been alive, less talk more action, let the actual people have their say.

[Khar]

I wanted to copy and paste some conclusions here but it occurred to me I should check before doing so to see if I was actually allowed to.

‘lo and behold, I can’t due to policy from JSTOR (since I did not notice my automatic access) and other online access mediums.

Two papers which I can reference in some degree come to the conclusions that they can neither support nor refute the gateway hypothesis to a significant degree. Extensive rhetoric from advocacy groups and special-interest lobbyists aside, general evidence on the topic is inconclusive.

Other papers or editorials peripherally discuss other issues as well. Full access to the first two articles provides some good summaries on topics such as policy. Essentially, the responses come from several methods of discussing this -- biological, economical and psychological. How this relates to policy decisions is mentioned in several. For example, the discussion of alcohol as a substitute or complement good greatly effects policy decisions. If people who do weed typically do it hand in hand with alcohol, then there are tangible benefits to reducing weed consumption to reduce to deleterious effects of assosiated alcohol use. However, this requires further research which, as far as I know, has not been completed. The excerpts, abstracts and descriptions are worth reading since they will say a lot about why the gateway effect cannot be confirmed, as well as touching on some major debate issues which rage to this day.

If you guys can't access one of the pages, let me know, I am pretty sure those pages are all public access though.

[Zipperfish]

Khar Khar:

I wanted to copy and paste some conclusions here but it occurred to me I should check before doing so to see if I was actually allowed to.

‘lo and behold, I can’t due to policy from JSTOR (since I did not notice my automatic access) and other online access mediums.

Two papers which I can reference in some degree come to the conclusions that they can neither support nor refute the gateway hypothesis to a significant degree. Extensive rhetoric from advocacy groups and special-interest lobbyists aside, general evidence on the topic is inconclusive.

Other papers or editorials peripherally discuss other issues as well. Full access to the first two articles provides some good summaries on topics such as policy. Essentially, the responses come from several methods of discussing this -- biological, economical and psychological. How this relates to policy decisions is mentioned in several. For example, the discussion of alcohol as a substitute or complement good greatly effects policy decisions. If people who do weed typically do it hand in hand with alcohol, then there are tangible benefits to reducing weed consumption to reduce to deleterious effects of assosiated alcohol use. However, this requires further research which, as far as I know, has not been completed. The excerpts, abstracts and descriptions are worth reading since they will say a lot about why the gateway effect cannot be confirmed, as well as touching on some major debate issues which rage to this day.

If you guys can't access one of the pages, let me know, I am pretty sure those pages are all public access though.

I don't think there is any argument at all for "further research" to justify any policy decision on marijuana. Cannibis is probably the most studied drug of all time as it is. The original uberstudy, Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, completed in 1894 was conducted by the British. It concluded that pot was a bit of a risk but not much of one for the great majority of users. It still stands as probably the most in depth study conducted. Most major studies since then have arrived at similar conclusions.

The issues around pot are moral, not technical.