|
Author |
Topic Options
|
OnTheIce 
CKA Uber
Posts: 10666
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:06 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy: Curtman Curtman: If what your saying is true, then prohibition is ineffective at stopping this. You can't stop all crime, ipso facto prohibition should end. WTF? Because you can't stop all crime prohibition should end? That makes no sense. This isn't about prohibition or stopping "all" crime it's about the ability to hide a self induced impairment because of the characteristics of the drug and the idiots using that drug so they can stay stoned and still have their high paying job unlike the alcoholic who at some point will get caught because of the characteristics of his addiction? Maybe what they need is mandatory drug testing and extremely harsh sentences for people who use drugs while entrusted with the publics safety because these drug users don't show up on peoples radar like alcoholics do and your claim that it should be legalized won't make one bit of difference either way to these people.  It makes perfect sense to stoners looking to justify their drug use and current support of organized crime.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:08 pm
But but but POT is harmless say the potheads!!!! Curtman will be posting on this one for a month making excuses.
|
Posts: 35270
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:12 pm
jj2424 jj2424: But but but POT is harmless say the potheads!!!! Curtman will be posting on this one for a month making excuses. Read Curtman's posts, see if you can find him saying it's harmless.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:19 pm
"The pilot was flying under visual flight rules, but given the bad weather, it would have been safer to fly using instruments, the board said."
He was too stoned to realize he was flying in a fog/haze, instead of looking out the window he should have been looking at is VOR gauges.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:29 pm
raydan raydan: Read Curtman's posts, see if you can find him saying it's harmless. I probably said it's less harmful than alcohol at some point. If not, I should have.
|
OnTheIce 
CKA Uber
Posts: 10666
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:34 pm
raydan raydan: Read Curtman's posts, see if you can find him saying it's harmless. post1596157?hilit=harmless#p1596157Curtman has recently changed his tune to "virtually harmless" from his original "harmless" stance.
|
Posts: 35270
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:47 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce: raydan raydan: Read Curtman's posts, see if you can find him saying it's harmless. post1596157?hilit=harmless#p1596157Curtman has recently changed his tune to "virtually harmless" from his original "harmless" stance. In his defense, he says the plant is harmless... just like the poppy is harmless until you make opium out of it, or barley until you make beer out of it. I'd say that pot and booze are close, but that they harm you in different ways.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:55 pm
This whole problem has nothing to do with legal or illegal drug use despite what Curtman jokingly mentioned in his post and everything to do with public safety. The question becomes. How do we detect drugs and I mean all drugs in people who we entrust with our lives short of having mandatory blood testing prior to them getting behind the wheel, into the pilots seat or taking up their shift at the nuclear power plant? Tests which are impractical and likely not even physically possible. Drug use, both legal and illegal has increased in the last 5 decades along with having more people in positions of trust so I'd say at some point we're going to hit the wall when it comes to public safety. So does anyone have any suggestions and no Curt making it legal won't make the problem disappear. 
|
Posts: 15594
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:11 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy: This whole problem has nothing to do with legal or illegal drug use despite what Curtman jokingly mentioned in his post and everything to do with public safety. The question becomes. How do we detect drugs and I mean all drugs in people who we entrust with our lives short of having mandatory blood testing prior to them getting behind the wheel, into the pilots seat or taking up their shift at the nuclear power plant? Tests which are impractical and likely not even physically possible. Drug use, both legal and illegal has increased in the last 5 decades along with having more people in positions of trust so I'd say at some point we're going to hit the wall when it comes to public safety. So does anyone have any suggestions and no Curt making it legal won't make the problem disappear.  I'm unsure if there is any other way other than mandatory blood testing to detect drug use. At least a way that would be as conclusive and some, I'm sure, will argue that even a blood test may not be conclusive. As has been said marijuana can be present for 30 days but for how long is a person impaired to the point of it being a factor in their ability to properly function after smoking it? Hours? Days? Same thing with legal medications. I'm not sure how long it takes the body to rid itself of flu remedies, for example, that makes one drowsy. Unfortunately with the way of things these days there will be someone, somewhere, who will protest that testing them in any way, even if they swear up and down that they are straight, is a violation of their rights.
|
Posts: 14139
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:41 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce: Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy: Curtman Curtman: If what your saying is true, then prohibition is ineffective at stopping this. You can't stop all crime, ipso facto prohibition should end. WTF? Because you can't stop all crime prohibition should end? That makes no sense. This isn't about prohibition or stopping "all" crime it's about the ability to hide a self induced impairment because of the characteristics of the drug and the idiots using that drug so they can stay stoned and still have their high paying job unlike the alcoholic who at some point will get caught because of the characteristics of his addiction? Maybe what they need is mandatory drug testing and extremely harsh sentences for people who use drugs while entrusted with the publics safety because these drug users don't show up on peoples radar like alcoholics do and your claim that it should be legalized won't make one bit of difference either way to these people.  It makes perfect sense to stoners looking to justify their drug use and current support of organized crime.  Legalization is about taking as much organized crime OUT of it as possible. Christ dude, even non-tokers get that part.
|
Lemmy
CKA Uber
Posts: 12349
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:57 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:  Legalization is about taking as much organized crime OUT of it as possible. Christ dude, even non-tokers get that part. Actually, no it's not. In that respect, OTI is absolutely correct. The fact that legalization would reduce crime is a nice side-effect. Legalization is, as OTI says, about justifying ones drug use. The "supporting organized crime part" of OTI's statement is horseshit, but credit where credit is due. But what legalization is all about, on a larger scale, is freedom. Uptight, anal retentive conservatives like OTI shouldn't be able to impose their morality on other adults. That's the primary philosophical justification for legalization {that rhymed}. So the legalization movement is primarily about justifying a choice of behaviour.
|
Posts: 14139
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:05 pm
jj2424 jj2424: But but but POT is harmless say the potheads!!!! Uhhh it is. But just like alcohol, certain prescription drugs and lack of sleep, there are certain things one should avoid when under the influence of any of those things. Not only have I never sat in the pilot's seat while high, I've never sat in it when I didn't get at LEAST 8-9 hours of sleep the night before.
|
Posts: 14139
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:32 pm
Lemmy Lemmy: PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:  Legalization is about taking as much organized crime OUT of it as possible. Christ dude, even non-tokers get that part. Actually, no it's not. In that respect, OTI is absolutely correct. The fact that legalization would reduce crime is a nice side-effect. Legalization is, as OTI says, about justifying ones drug use. The "supporting organized crime part" of OTI's statement is horseshit, but credit where credit is due. But what legalization is all about, on a larger scale, is freedom. Uptight, anal retentive conservatives like OTI shouldn't be able to impose their morality on other adults. That's the primary philosophical justification for legalization {that rhymed}. So the legalization movement is primarily about justifying a choice of behaviour. That's not entirely true. It's surprising the number of people who don't partake of the bud, that are pro-legalization and it has nothing to do with personal choice and everything to do with being able to see the facts. They understand that pot is pretty much the most lucrative venture organized crime ever got its claws into. They understand that pot is the economic engine that fuels OC's other ventures. They understand it's stupid to have neighbourhoods turn into "hot spots" over a relatively benign plant. They can also do the math and see just what kind of money the govt CAN make from legalization. As I've explained previously, a gram of weed costs the same to produce as one cigarette, which is 0.8 grams of tobacco in a king size smoke. A king size pack of name brand smokes contains 20g of tobacco and costs about $15. So an ounce of weed taxed at the same rate as tobacco would cost a little over $20. The govt could tax the living snot of it to the point it costs $75-80 an ounce to buy. Compare to current street prices of anywhere from $180-300 an ounce depending on location and quality. Now stop and consider that while only 17% of Canadians still smoke cigarettes, as many as 17% of Canadians smoke weed on a regular basis, and that's just the ones that admitted to it. Add that to cost reductions for police, courts and penal institutions and it makes perfect sense from an economic perspective. So you see, there are many that are on the legalization bandwagon for reasons other than a case of personal choice. They don't argue for the legalization of other drugs because they also understand pot is not even close to being in the same class as heroin, cocaine, etc. Hell, it's not even in the same class as alcohol, based on years and years of observation and personal experience with both.
|
Lemmy
CKA Uber
Posts: 12349
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:02 am
Your points are valid, and I'm sure that that's how a lot of people view the issue. What I'm suggesting is that the issue is a bigger one, fundamentally, than one about crime or tax or whether pot is like or unlike cigarettes, heroin or alcohol. The key philosophical argument for legalization is about freedom and rejecting the legislation of morality. For me, that's the the most important thing. And it would be, equally so, if I were not a pot user. It's the same argument as the one against criminalizing homosexuality or any other private, adult choice. The principle is principal.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:31 am
Lemmy Lemmy: PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:  Legalization is about taking as much organized crime OUT of it as possible. Christ dude, even non-tokers get that part. Actually, no it's not. In that respect, OTI is absolutely correct. The fact that legalization would reduce crime is a nice side-effect. Legalization is, as OTI says, about justifying ones drug use. The "supporting organized crime part" of OTI's statement is horseshit, but credit where credit is due. But what legalization is all about, on a larger scale, is freedom . Uptight, anal retentive conservatives like OTI shouldn't be able to impose their morality on other adults. That's the primary philosophical justification for legalization {that rhymed}. So the legalization movement is primarily about justifying a choice of behaviour. I totally disagree. Many people, myself included don't use pot or give a shit about freedom in this particular instance. If I thought prohibition worked, I'd be all for it. It's about reducing harm. Included in that is reducing criminal activity. Most of the responsible pro legalization people I've read: doctors, ex-cops, etc don't frame it as a freedom issue because they want to get stoned. They frame it as an issue that's better addressed from a medical standpoint than a criminal one. And the medical impact of pot is pretty small, way smaller than booze, despite Raydan's opinion.
|
|
Page 2 of 4
|
[ 57 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests |
|
|