Legalize it all!
Tue, 2007-08-21 08:24
#1
Legalize it all!
Tue, 2007-08-21 08:24
#2
When alcohol was prohibited, we had gangsters who profitted from selling booze. Today we have marijuana, cocaine, etc and the gangs profit from those. Not to mention the side business like getting girls hooked on drugs and then sending them out to the streets. What if it was all legal and we spent our tax dollars on really trying to help people. Would it work? Could it work?
Tue, 2007-08-21 08:25
#3
yes.
Tue, 2007-08-21 09:04
#4
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070821.CMA21/TPStory/... like we're going the other way on this.[/url]
quote:
"The debate over whether to legalize marijuana, for example, has left an entire generation confused over whether or not pot is legal in Canada. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not," Mr. Clement said.
Tue, 2007-08-21 09:28
#5
quote:
...He said the campaign will be hard-hitting and uncompromising."We will discourage young people from thinking there are safe amounts or safe drugs." ...
Let the Reefer Madness begin! Go get 'em Tony! this is going to be a train wreck for the Cons. He says there is a whole generation of kids who don't know pot's even illegal in Canada. haha. No Tony, there is a whole generation of people who don't [i]care[/i] whether it's legal or not, because they know it's not harmful in the ways your fearmongering tries to tell them it is. The Cons are going to look like uptight asses with this one.
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-08-21 10:19
#6
Seems to me that this calls for a widespread pro-marijuana campaign. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:17
#7
I smoked/cooked/ate/imbibed/cultivated a number of forms of marijuana over a number of years, as did many of my friends. Personally I think it's a terrible, stupid drug that does many of the things its critics say it does - i.e. make many people overly passive and shiftless. Not to mention the amount of junk food consumed in it's throes! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] It's far more addictive to the psyche than its users give it credit for (making a useless distinction between physical and psychological dependence, IMO) simply because its worst effects creep in slowly from the edges rather than being drastic and sudden like methamphetamine, various phenethylamines, etc.
That said, I'm with the Dutch - I think we should stop worrying about policing it. Not out of some "dude, let's get stoned and spin" mentality, but out of pure practicality. The expense of bothering to police it is far higher than the social costs of the drug. The individual costs of pot are huge in many cases, but socially, it's rather benign.
Don't legislate past my lips, thanks...
[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:22
#8
Frustrated Mess
Mellow out, man.
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:23
#9
No time, dude.
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:27
#10
I should add, that its use in certain types of practices and/or rituals can be quite illuminating and point us in the direction of certain possibilities in ourselves. As a constant, long-term, habit, however, I think it's a waste of time and money. And as self-serving as this is, I think that those who are really "seeking" something "other" will come to that conclusion sooner or later. Using a stick to climb a mountain now and again is different than using crutches daily when there's really nothing wrong with your legs. You just need to practice using them...
But smoke away; not my problem.
[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:31
#11
Frustrated Mess
You're such a buzz kill.
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:33
#12
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:36
#13
Yeah, I think you may be missing the larget point that most people don't smoke weed to reach some sort of enlightenment. Some people smoke for exactly what reason you mentioned, the fact that it makes people lethargic.
I know a number of people who work hard all day, spend a lot of time 'improving' themseleves, but sometimes they just want to have no motivation and to relax. A bong hit tends to do that for them.
Anyway, I agree with Michelle. A number of anti-anti-drug efforts may be in order. Someone lighting up a joint at the anti-drug annoucement would be pretty funny.
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:48
#14
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[QB]Yeah, I think you may be missing the larget point that most people don't smoke weed to reach some sort of enlightenment. Some people smoke for exactly what reason you mentioned, the fact that it makes people lethargic.
I haven't missed that at all. Lethargy is fine (perhaps even necessary) in small doses but as a "lifestyle" - which is what many or pot's strongest promoters are advocating under various linguistic guises - it's a bad choice.
I know we post-modern types are nervous around sweeping statements about right and wrong, but people should be more active, not more passive. Now, what you're active [i]in[/i] is a different question. There are enough forces inside and outside us that point us toward inaction and stasis. Why encourage them?
Ironically, for the Big Brother Conspiracy types (and many potheads are because pot, like LSD encourages classic "paranoid psychotic" thinking - i.e. the making of connections between seemingly disparate facts and connecting them to one's self) there is nothing better for social/political control than a bunch of passive, lethargic folks who disengage themselves from the general social milieu. Especially when the people often drawn into the pot mentality are among the brightest and most creative among us - i.e. those with the possibility of greater and stronger forms of ACTION.
It's an alley that needs to be explored, but it's a dead end.
I'm all for people being able to look down that alley at their leisure, but I'm not beyond yelling into the shadows and saying "c'mon out now, there's things to be done" now and again.
[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:50
#15
Frustrated Mess
What really has to be appreciated is the Tony Clement and the neo-con Nazis really don't give a shit about pot or most other recreational and/or addictive drugs. What they do is play up the drug angle (WON"T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!) to justify bigger and badder policing budgets. If people were to look at their property taxes and ask, "hey, what's the highest annual increase in municipal spending", they will often find it is policing. As most people will know, neo-cons who are opposed to most social spending love to spend big time on guys with guns and their violent paraphernalia. That is what it is really all about.
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:56
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]What really has to be appreciated is the Tony Clement and the neo-con Nazis really don't give a shit about pot or most other recreational and/or addictive drugs. What they do is play up the drug angle (WON"T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!) to justify bigger and badder policing budgets. If people were to look at their property taxes and ask, "hey, what's the highest annual increase in municipal spending", they will often find it is policing. As most people will know, neo-cons who are opposed to most social spending love to spend big time on guys with guns and their violent paraphernalia. That is what it is really all about.[/b]
BINGO! Beyond all the drift above (I'm sorry) this is a crucial point.
Tue, 2007-08-21 11:59
#17
quote:
Anyway, I agree with Michelle. A number of anti-anti-drug efforts may be in order. Someone lighting up a joint at the anti-drug annoucement would be pretty funny.
Agreed. Are you up for it?
Tue, 2007-08-21 12:13
#18
It's not drift Beez. You bring up some good points. (although, are you really SURE they're not after you??) But I do think you're getting a skewed perspective on pot smoking.
What the propeganda machine wants you to believe is in the lethargy, the psychosis, pot smokers feeding drugs to children, and the slow retraction from society, and there are people who fit some of those concerns.
But the vast majority of pot smokers are casual smokers who do it occasionally, have jobs, are responsible, are active, are interested in legalizing to make it harder for children to get, and want people with serious disease/illnesses to be able to be a part of society without the pain.
But again, 'they' (who, for the record, ARE out to get you) don't want you to see the responsible smokers and supporters, only the 'deranged violent lunatics looking for their next rape victims'
Tue, 2007-08-21 12:14
#19
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]Agreed. Are you up for it?[/b]
Sure! You go first.
Tue, 2007-08-21 13:48
#20
quote:
I haven't missed that at all. Lethargy is fine (perhaps even necessary) in small doses but as a "lifestyle" - which is what many or pot's strongest promoters are advocating under various linguistic guises - it's a bad choice.
Holy shit it's "Reefer Madness 2007"
Tue, 2007-08-21 15:11
#21
You know what makes me passive and lethargic? 8 hours of stressful, mind numbing work.
Pot takes that away. I participate in many hobbies after blasting huge joints.
Theres a time and place for everything though.
Tue, 2007-08-21 15:17
#22
quote:
Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]Holy shit it's "Reefer Madness 2007"[/b]
So you believe in a Lifestyle of Lethargy, no matter what the cause?
Tue, 2007-08-21 15:25
#23
quote:
So you believe in a Lifestyle of Lethargy, no matter what the cause?
Ah no. Just because a person smokes pot doesn't mean they are living a life of lethargy. Using your argument, anyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic.
The sky is not falling.
Tue, 2007-08-21 15:25
#24
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[QB]It's not drift Beez. You bring up some good points. (although, are you really SURE they're not after you??) But I do think you're getting a skewed perspective on pot smoking.What the propeganda machine wants you to believe is in the lethargy, the psychosis, pot smokers feeding drugs to children, and the slow retraction from society, and there are people who fit some of those concerns.
No one is out to get me. If there is a "THEY", they wouldn't care less about me, and care even less about those that are lounging around on the couch. That's the point.
Anyway, you missed the point where I was a "casual" pot user and experienced the lethargy, the passiveness, the (mild) paranoid psychosis and witnessed it in the vast majority of my pot using friends. The propaganda machine has no bearing on my opinions. Purely experimental.
Perhaps what we consider acceptable levels of psychosis and lethargy in people are two different things.
And this is coming from a psychotic...
Tue, 2007-08-21 15:32
#25
quote:
Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]Ah no. Just because a person smokes pot doesn't mean they are living a life of lethargy. Using your argument, anyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic.
The sky is not falling.[/b]
I didn't say it was, nor did I include every pot user in my discussion of lethargy. Apparently, however, reading comprehension skills may be effected by pot defense...
THC is not biased, it effects most brainpans in a very specific, measurable way. The behavioural consequences of its use are also measurable. The effects on the cardiovascular system are also measurable.
I have no problem with people doing bad things to themselves, but don't pretend like it's all milk and honey for your brain and body.
So rather than "Reefer Madness" I'm arguing FOR the legalisation of pot. But on the grounds that I, and you, have the right to put things into our bodies that make us lethargic, or hyperactive, or whatever we choose as long as the cost to society is not that high.
That doesn't mean I think smoking pot on a regular basis is a good idea. Periodic use is one thing. The daily use of some so-called "casual" users is quite another. We give ourselves permission for this kind of use because of the notion that pot isn't harmful short, or long-term at those dosage levels.
There is a propaganda machine touting pot's safety as well, and it's every bit as full of shit as the anti-pot law-and-order bunch.
[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Tue, 2007-08-21 15:54
#26
quote:
THC is not biased, it effects most brainpans in a very specific, measurable way. The behavioural consequences of its use are also measurable. The effects on the cardiovascular system are also measurable.
Interesting, that's not what I learned. I learned that having a smoke after a days work may cause harm to your lungs but it certainly doesn't cause irrepairable damage to the brain. Pot doesn't kill brain cells. Which is why it is so strange that it is illegal when alcohol which of course is legal and does kill brain cells and if you drink enough alcohol it goes directly to the medula and you are a goner. It isn't possible to OD on pot.
I think you smoked it, got stupid and paronoid on it, and now you think it does the same thing to everyone else.
Sun, 2007-08-26 19:07
#27
I bet old tony smoked a lot more pot than me. (I have never touched the stuff.) but I do not know anybody who is in the same boat as me.
I suggest that mister heavy hand take a drug test to find out what screwed up his mind.
Of course he is a believer in the free market and the drugs market is the perfect example.
I buy good food and it is taxxxxxed and buddy buys pot and good or bad, the government doesnt get a cent. So me taxpayer is the bluddy victim of tonys allowing of the drug industry to go untaxxed. Cos i have to pay for the damn policing out of my food money.
I caul FOUL on tony.
I am a realist and I think it should be legalized and controlled. People die because some dealers lace it with other stuff.
We need a pot inspections department and we need it now.
Is the ndp into legalizing and taxing of it?
Brian
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[b][url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070821.CMA21/TPStory/... like we're going the other way on this.[/url] [/b]
Mon, 2007-08-27 10:13
#28
Makwa
I would choose to decriminalize all 'drug' possession, and move resources to the big dealers. Moreover, I would ignore pot altogether, as the social effects, as disruptive as they may be, pale in effect of crack and other highly habit forming pharmecueticals. Simply ignore the users in a criminal setting and get them into good rehab. Work on the big dealers once the market is shot in a decriminalized setting.
[ 27 August 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]
Mon, 2007-08-27 12:17
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
[b].
People die because some dealers lace it with other stuff.
[/b]
[url=http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm]Bullshit.[/url]
Sorry, the rest of your post is good, and YES the NDP does support a decriminalization of marijuana... but this is so loaded with crap I don't know where to start.
The points that some cancers may be linked to pot are potentially true (although lack of research due to it's illicit nature means we don't know).
The point that pot may be a factor in psychosis may also be true.. lack or research again.
The fact that it's 'laced' with some other drug that's going to kill you is about as legitimate as the old 'razor in the apple' on halloween.
Mon, 2007-08-27 12:43
#30
Le T
Although quelar, I started growing my own pot because I figured "hey, I grow my own food and try to buy from local farms, why trust where my weed comes from?"
I think that most pot is not grown by criminals or laced with Windex but most people who grow will use some sort of in-organic fertilizers, some even use foliar sprays. There's not a lot of info on what pot does to your health but there is a bit on what fertilizers and pesticides can do to you. For that reason I smoke organic.
For that same reason I question the legalization and taxation of pot. Government has never done that well at regulating agriculture and big agriculture growing pot scares me. Not to mention that tobacco companies would surely get into the pot business if it was legalized.
Pot is a flower, let it grow like any other.
Mon, 2007-08-27 13:07
#31
Like most people who smoked a lot of it in my younger years, I lost interest eventually. I'll never say never, but I almost never bother.
The prohibition is idiotic, we all know it's idiotic, it accomplishes little and costs much. But I just don't see this one as the issue I'm going to the wall for. Especially since most of the pot smokers I know and have known in the past would probably get all excited about a revolution, then get distracted by their XBox at the last minute and I'd be storming the Bastille by myself.
Props to those who do fight the fight though, it's one of the many idiocies in our society.
Mon, 2007-08-27 14:50
#32
quote:
I think that most pot is not grown by criminals or laced with Windex but most people who grow will use some sort of in-organic fertilizers, some even use foliar sprays. There's not a lot of info on what pot does to your health but there is a bit on what fertilizers and pesticides can do to you. For that reason I smoke organic.
I watched an episode of House where a guy was dying and of course they couldn't figure it out till there was 5 minutes left in the show. THen he admitted he'd fallen off the wagon and smoked some pot which was grown using lots of potassium which lead to the shut down all his vital organs.
Mon, 2007-08-27 15:23
#33
I think because each drug is different, we need different, tailored approaches to them when it comes to prohibition or regulation.
I got high a lot in high school. Never in class, mind you, but you know, at that age. I gave it up for decades because I found it boring. I never experienced any kind of problem turning my back on it.
A few years ago, I started getting high again every once and a while, when I have no responsibilities or have to socially interact with anyone but my spouse. I get a tad introspective when I'm high.
I'll probably get high tonight and watch "Robot Chicken" which is deeply twisted and well suited to a marijuana buzz.
Or maybe not. I can take it or leave it.
Mon, 2007-08-27 16:09
#34
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
[b]The prohibition is idiotic, we all know it's idiotic, it accomplishes little and costs much. But I just don't see this one as the issue I'm going to the wall for...Props to those who do fight the fight though, it's one of the many idiocies in our society.[/b]
I think that it's an important political issue even though mj policy doesn't affect as anywhere near as much as economics, health care, environment, etc. It's important because the current policy is clearly counterproductive--clearly. So when a politician starts talking about marijuana, and they're not calling for significant changes to the current laws, i just stop listening. If they can't get such a simple issue right, what use are they going to be on the more important stuff?
It's like Dems who voted for the war claiming that they were mislead--if you bought what bush was selling, i don't want you sepnding my money (sorry for the thread drift).
MJ legalization is a no brainer. Yeah, i guess it's not worth going to the wall for (speaking as a stoner) but i certainly see it as a good indicator as to which politicians live in the reality based world.
Mon, 2007-08-27 16:30
#35
Well, politically it comes down to an issue of individual liberty.
Any of the social ills worth mentioning related to marijuana use is related to it being an artificial black market item.
Many people don't like pot, don't understand it, and don't want any part of it. Bravo! I am happy for them. I will not impinge upon their individual liberty and freedom by passing laws criminalizing their non-pot smoking behavior.
The same consideration from them the other way would be cool.
But it's not a deal breaker for me. There are bigger fish to fry on the subject of individual liberty.
Mon, 2007-08-27 16:52
#36
Bullshit yourself.
Internet statistics. Dodgeier than the minister's logic.
Some people do put other stuff in. Just a fact.
Like tobbaco to help it burn.I hope you do not deny that!
As we all know, pot is not addictive so how do you sell more and corner the market?
Lower your prices? Nope.
you go out of business.
Also, you are a dealer. You are not just selling pot. There are products with a higher markup.
"Man that pot you sold me gave me a wiked buzz, dude! Got any more, bro?" "Nope I am all out but this CM gives a similar strike, and its on special right now"
Does he take the special or move on?
Tony should be torn to shreds by someone in marketing because his approach just means less supply of pot so people have to get their buzz with something else. And something addictive.
Lots and lots more people would grow their own if it was legal. There would be fewer badass dealers too because the good home grown stuff would be locally used. Jonny or mikey up the road could become official organic growers.
Is pot safer than beer? Probably.
Is pot safer than Coke. definitely.
Is pot safer than crystal meth. Definitely.
Less pot on the streets just means more of the other stuff. Tony will kill more people than pot with his war on potheads and thats for sure.
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[b][url=http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm]Bullshit.[/url]
Sorry, the rest of your post is good, and YES the NDP does support a decriminalization of marijuana... but this is so loaded with crap I don't know where to start.
The points that some cancers may be linked to pot are potentially true (although lack of research due to it's illicit nature means we don't know).
The point that pot may be a factor in psychosis may also be true.. lack or research again.
The fact that it's 'laced' with some other drug that's going to kill you is about as legitimate as the old 'razor in the apple' on halloween.[/b]
Mon, 2007-08-27 17:03
#37
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Some people do put other stuff in. Just a fact.
Like tobbaco to help it burn.I hope you do not deny that!
I will. Pot doesn't need anything to help it burn. You are thinking of hash which, I would believe, is probably a lot worse than both pot and tobacco (and should be avoided).
[ 27 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Mon, 2007-08-27 17:03
#38
Legalizing and taxing drugs like any other commodity will not work. The black market and the police and legal system are too addicted to money for that to change.
The simple fact is that there's no money in the potential legalization for any of the interested parties. The only people who push for legalization are the ones who don't understand how our market system really works, above and below board. De-criminalization is about the best option but I doubt it will happen.
The problem right now with drug enforcement is discretionary prosecution of "the rules", and the targeted emphasis on certain groups. It's a tool of the establishment.
As far as the pot debate goes. Certainly not as utterly harmless as the pro-weed people would suggest but compared to medically proscribed and readily availible pharamcuticals like oxycontin, perodan, percocet, anti-depressants, ritalin, and on and on... comparatively harmless. The medical use of pot faces the problem that it can be completely free. No one gets a cut of that action for treatment. Unless it's legalized, controlled, taxed.
Asking for legalization is like handing a big tobacco company control of the end product. They'll shake hands with the government who enforce the rules dictated by the business interests.
Mon, 2007-08-27 17:05
#39
quote:
You are thinking of hash which, I would believe, is probably a lot worse than both pot and tobacco (and should be avoided).
I've never heard that before. HOw is is dangerous for use? THanks.
Mon, 2007-08-27 17:41
#40
quote:
HOw is is dangerous for use? THanks.
It's crumbly and often burned with tobacco. Invariably pieces of the burner drop out the end, and these falling red-hot crumbs could set you or your clothing on fire. Kinda hippy napalm.
And then you're dead. Very dangerous.
(grammar edit)
[ 27 August 2007: Message edited by: anchovy breather ]
Mon, 2007-08-27 18:15
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
As we all know, pot is not addictive so how do you sell more and corner the market?
Lower your prices? Nope.
you go out of business.
Also, you are a dealer. You are not just selling pot. There are products with a higher markup.
"Man that pot you sold me gave me a wiked buzz, dude! Got any more, bro?" "Nope I am all out but this CM gives a similar strike, and its on special right now"
Does he take the special or move on?
[/b]
WTF are you talking about? This makes no sense at all. Why would someone cut a less expensive drug with a more expensive drug?
Drugs, legal or illegal, sell themselves, and people don't need to cut other crap in to get their customers hooked.
Mon, 2007-08-27 21:16
#42
quote:
Originally posted by anchovy breather:
[b]It's crumbly and often burned with tobacco. Invariably pieces of the burner drop out the end, and these falling red-hot crumbs could set you or your clothing on fire. Kinda hippy napalm.
And then you're dead. Very dangerous.
(grammar edit)[/b]
Maybe if you were sitting in a puddle of gasoline, or possibly wearing highly flammable clothing.
I could see hashish being harder on the lungs, and easier to 'cut' for the unethical dealer. But there really isn't much point in mixing other stuff into plain old marijuana.
Tue, 2007-08-28 12:01
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Bullshit yourself.
Internet statistics. Dodgeier than the minister's logic.
Some people do put other stuff in. Just a fact.
Like tobbaco to help it burn.I hope you do not deny that![/b]
*note* ignoring the last half of your post due to it barely making any sense.
Sure! Some people add tobacco to it to burn it. So what the hell is your point? I showed you a questionable webstat that says no people die due to marijuana, so the balls back in your court to show me a single unquestionable death due to pot.
Tue, 2007-08-28 13:15
#44
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]I think that it's an important political issue even though mj policy doesn't affect as anywhere near as much as economics, health care, environment, etc. It's important because the current policy is clearly counterproductive--clearly. So when a politician starts talking about marijuana, and they're not calling for significant changes to the current laws, i just stop listening. If they can't get such a simple issue right, what use are they going to be on the more important stuff?
It's like Dems who voted for the war claiming that they were mislead--if you bought what bush was selling, i don't want you sepnding my money (sorry for the thread drift).
MJ legalization is a no brainer. Yeah, i guess it's not worth going to the wall for (speaking as a stoner) but i certainly see it as a good indicator as to which politicians live in the reality based world.[/b]
this made me think. it is worth going to the wall for. take Toronto for example. it's broke. over a quarter of the city budget goes to policing. the police are obsessed with busting grow-ops, and persecuting users. there is a major cost to pot being illegal, in the form of organised crime benefiting from the production and sale of said weed. not to mention the insurance costs of grow houses full of mould and the theft of hydro regularly and hysterically reported in the media. this all justifies even larger police budgets. legalise it and we suddenly have millions to spend on transit, ifrastructure, and social programs that aren't being diverted to the "drug war" which, except from the point of view of the cops being able to get more money allotted to them, is an abject failure.