Thanks for the updates FrankD.
6 months for 1 pot plant?
Tue, 2010-05-25 19:37
#52
Wed, 2010-05-26 01:18
#53
RevolutionPlease
Should be a no-brainer. Will they really lose big-time donations from organized crime? It's always been confounding why a government wouldn't want to tax pot???
Mon, 2010-05-31 20:06
#54
Overview of the process page of passing Bill S-10:
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/Bill-S10-theprocess.html
VIDEO: This video lays bare Senator Wallace's lack of basic understanding about the legislation (C-15/S-10) and draw his credibility into question. Not surprisingly, he is the Senator who introduced Bill S-10.
Get some popcorn and enjoy the specticle that is... Senator John D. Wallace!
"Senator John D. Wallace just doesn't get it!"
2 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CannabisFactsForCdns#p/u/0/tcOs7SmX4WM
http://www.youtube.com/user/CannabisFactsForCdns#p/u/1/x6AsIgo77fY
Enjoy!
-FrankD
Mon, 2010-05-31 21:10
#55
I do not grow pot or use pot. But live and let live, eh? If people use seed balls, I guess they can grow seeds anywhere, like all along the sides of the highways.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Make-an-Instant-Garden-Using-Seed...
Another name for them is seed bombs.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Make-a-Seed-Bomb/
I bet poor Mark wishes he made some seed bombs instead of selling stuff.
(In no way am I suggesting to put pot seeds in the seed bombs)
Fri, 2010-10-29 17:03
#56
VIDEO: Bill S10 Senate Committee meeting - Oct. 20, 2010
Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson makes his opening statement
http://www.youtube.com/CannabisFactsForCdns
Bill S-10 seeks to impose a Mandatory Prison Sentence of 6 - 9 months on a person caught growing as few as 6 cannabis plants if there is evidence of trafficking or intent to traffic (Def'n: to sell, trade or give to another person, or to have the intent to any of those things).
A bill's title, "Penalties for organized drug crime act" is very misleading... purposefully. This bill will scoop up lots of small fish and no kingpins.
-FrankD
Fri, 2010-10-29 22:15
#57
A bill's title, "Penalties for organized drug crime act" is very misleading... purposefully. This bill will scoop up lots of small fish and no kingpins.
I think the term "organized drug crime" applies to the government itself. Remember, the government is not your friend. It is entirely your enemy. It is always in complete opposition of your right to choose. It is repression and violence. I wholeheartedly support "groovygranny" Saga who started this thread... but remember: the guys who claim that growing or smoking pot is illegal are the ones with the guns and the prisons. And they use them. Beware.
Tue, 2011-02-08 09:39
#58
[url=http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca/content/view/88]More than 500 health professionals write to party leaders & MPs to condemn Bill S-10[/url]
Tue, 2011-02-08 09:57
#59
Yet another daily reminder of the relentless attacks by the conservative establishment, not only upon designated targets and communities, but upon the relatively harmless means that people enjoy as a temporary respite from the routine drudgery inflicted by these thugs.
Tue, 2011-02-08 21:37
#60
Here is David Bratzer again. (He is not a health professional, he is a police officer).
Calling for sanity, for recognition of how any market works and for legalizing drug use for adults.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlkdy5Ky3Cg
Wed, 2011-02-09 13:09
#61
FYI, I've recently updated and added more Bill S-10 information to my website...
Bill S-10 "Penalties for organized drug crime act" - Information Resources
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html
Here's a collection of organizations that oppose this legislation...
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/Bill-S10-opposition.html
You would think that this amount of opposition to ANY bill would be enough to kill it.
It begs the question, "Does the public have any power to influence the Harper government?"
-FrankD
Wed, 2011-02-09 14:13
#62
Which one?
Wed, 2011-02-09 14:20
#63
Which one?
The 2nd of the two posts. The almost-empty one. Thx.
Wed, 2011-02-09 14:24
#64
Just edit it to say 'double post.' You can't delete the space entirely.
Wed, 2011-02-09 14:29
#65
[duplicate post removed]
Wed, 2011-02-09 15:20
#66
Snert
I have occassionally wondered whether those involved in the financial end of drug use -- growers, smugglers, sellers, etc. -- wouldn't maybe prefer that the war on drugs continue.
Of course if caught, they're not likely to want to go to jail or be fined, unsurprisingly, but otherwise the illegality keeps their margins high. I doubt they await the news that now what they do is legal, many many others will want to do the same now, they get to pay taxes, they get to hire accountants, register a business, remit GST, pay benefits to their employees, and probably make a fraction of what they're used to.
Hilary doesn't seem to get that if she wants to stop those making so much money, just make it so that what they do is just like any other cottage industry, complete with modest earnings and a shitload of bureaucracy. :)
Wed, 2011-02-09 15:21
#67
Hillary Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs Because 'There Is Just Too Much Money in It'
Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?
Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.
Wed, 2011-02-09 15:48
#68
Of course they do, just like bootleggers financed prohibition campaigns.
Wed, 2011-02-09 19:50
#69
Boom Boom
This has probably been discussed already, but I think I missed it - is there much opposition to medical marijuana?
Wed, 2011-02-09 22:42
#70
Not many will disagree with it's medicinal qualities. But the war on drugs propoganda has everyone afraid, including the docs who are reluctant to prescribe it for fear of being in trouble with the College, or being ridiculed by their colleagues. The pharmacueticals also have alot to say about what is prescribed.
Wed, 2011-02-09 23:03
#71
Liberals now say they will vote against Bill S-10
Wed, 2011-02-09 23:04
#72
Boom Boom
Thanks. For some reason, I had thought medical marijuana was more common than it apparently is.
Wed, 2011-02-09 23:56
#73
alan smithee
I have to concur...It is INCREDIBLY difficult to find a physician who will prescribe medicinal marijuana...My guess is that you'd probably have to insist on seeing a new doctor until you find one that will...As it stands,most Canadians can't find ONE doctor,never mind a dozen.
And I think there are different politics for different hospitals....And some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it in fear of losing their jobs or what have you...Multiply the fact that Big Pharma has the population doped up on anti-depressants and anti-psychotics and doctors are becoming shills and symbolic used car salespersons for those LEGAL multi-billion dollar druglords.
I also believe that the Reform Party's anti-crime charade is just a step forward to scrapping medicinal marijuana projects and those using it for legitimate medical purposes will probably be intimidated or otherwise given no choice but to use pharmaceuticals which are chemicals rife with deadly side effects...And they are, in many cases, INEFFECTIVE.
I know that where I live,some French TV news show did a sting on a Compassion Club to show how easily one could get pot..Marijuana easily accessible?..Oh me,oh my..
The punchline is that they were charging (without proving) that kids were walking in and out of the place.
My guess is this was a deliberate stunt by some one or some group to undermine medicinal marijuana...If my next door neighbour is sparking up spliffs,eating cheetos and playing video games,why would I give a rat's ass?
I don't know anyone--including elder family members who are not raging left wingers--who feels threatened or even gives a damn about pot.
My opinion is legalize it,tax it and regulate it.
But I'm just an average working shmo..I don't have millions of dollars to buy policies.
Thu, 2011-02-10 08:31
#74
Thanks. For some reason, I had thought medical marijuana was more common than it apparently is.
I think it really depends on which area of the country you live in. In BC it is viewed much differently than Saskatchewan. Education is the key.
Thu, 2011-02-10 09:48
#75
Snert
I'm totally down with legalizing or decriminalizing weed, and other drugs, just as soon as we're all ready to take responsibility for our choice to use them. I don't think we're there yet.
Thu, 2011-02-10 10:27
#76
Like alcohol? There are plenty of people on a daily basis in the court system who have responsibility for alcohol consumption imposed upon them when they've been proven incapable of exercising personal responsibility. We're certainly not there with across the board responsibility with alcohol, and we never will be. And although I cannot legally make bathtub gin and homemade beer and sell it to the neighbors, I can still personally over indulge in any substances of that nature to my heart's content in the privacy of my home, so long as it doesn't have dramatic negative consequences for others.
Thu, 2011-02-10 10:30
#77
I have occassionally wondered whether those involved in the financial end of drug use -- growers, smugglers, sellers, etc. -- wouldn't maybe prefer that the war on drugs continue.
This is no idle speculation: California's defeat of Proposition 19 was supported by growers and sellers, who would rather take their chances with legal sanctions than lose the enormous profits reaped from selling an illegal product.
And there's incentive on the law enforcement side of things as well, as governments continue pour massive funds into the war on drugs. Private for-profit jails in the US benefit from continuing sky-high incarceration rates; the police enjoy ever-increasing funding as well as power and prestige.
There's too much money riding on the continuation of the drug war. Too many people on both sides of the law continue to profit.
Thu, 2011-02-10 10:33
#78
alan smithee
Oooooooook.
So,because some people do not take responsibility for their drug use,prohibition must stay and users should remain marginalized and subjected to systematic oppression?
BTW,I think most people have figured out that 'the pusher' is a mythological bogeyman.
Nobody twists anyone's arm to use drugs..No one makes someone else's choices...If there wasn't such a heavy demand,there'd be no supply.
If someone wants to blame an addiction on a dealer,a brewer or a croupier...It's up to 12 step programs,rehabs,judges and case workers to educate them about personal choices and accountability.
There's no excuse for prohibition and no excuse for criminalizing a disease--PERIOD.
And I forgot,cannabis is NOT addictive...It's safer than alcohol,free of all the carcinogens and preservatives in tobacco and does not lead to residual crime.
In fact someone smoking cannabis is FAR more stable and controlled than those who drink alcohol.
The war on pot is a farce and an embarrassment..Which is simply an ideology and a way to protect Big Pharma,police funding and jobs,the paper industry,Alcohol Lords,military and organized crime.
It is NOT a policy with any intention of public safety or health.
Thu, 2011-02-10 13:18
#79
Snert
So,because some people do not take responsibility for their drug use,prohibition must stay and users should remain marginalized and subjected to systematic oppression?
I'm not suggesting that the regulation needs to be draconian. I guess I'm just saying that legalization of drugs will become a higher priority with me when discussion of responsibility starts to accompany all of the long-winded declarations of rights. I certainly believe in the basic right of individuals to eat, drink, smoke, snort or ingest whatever they wish to, but I don't believe that that right is separate from the responsibilities that should come with it.
Like alcohol? There are plenty of people on a daily basis in the court system who have responsibility for alcohol consumption imposed upon them when they've been proven incapable of exercising personal responsibility.
Alcohol seems to have been 'grandfathered' in a lot of ways in western societies, such that its legality will probably never again be in question. But personally, I'd hold alcohol users (including myself) to the same standards of responsiblity, and would hope the law one day might too. My parents -- both alcoholics -- were very clear when I was young that I could choose to get drunk if I wanted to, but that having made that choice, I was responsible for the outcomes of it -- saying "Oh, it wasn't MY fault, it was the VODKA'S fault was not going to ever fly. I guess that kind of stuck with me.
This is no idle speculation: California's defeat of Proposition 19 was supported by growers and sellers, who would rather take their chances with legal sanctions than lose the enormous profits reaped from selling an illegal product.
That makes it a bit harder for me to feel sorry for the ones that do get caught.
Thu, 2011-02-10 14:39
#80
alan smithee
Just to throw out an example...
If,for example,heroin was to be legalized tomorrow,there'd be no chance in hell that I'd start using it..In fact,MOST people wouldn't.
There are alot of prohibitionists who like to make the arguement that decriminalization or legalization would create more drug use.
I think it's a laugh riot that anyone would believe that scrapping prohibition would mean Grandma would be dropping acid.
If you look at countries with relaxed drug laws ,the rate of drug use is MUCH less than say,the Kingpins of prohibition (the U.S.)
Through prohibition and the 1980's fascist 'Just Say No' zero tolerance period,the United States remains a country which consumes 60% of all the world's illegal drugs,hence this approach is failure and a lesson that was learned but not practiced when alcohol was prohibited.
And why would it alarm people to legalize all drugs?
Video Lottery Machines and online gambling is legal..In the case of VLT's,lives have been ruined and gambling addictions are way up.
I remember reading that the way the VLT's are designed,they stimulate the exact same endorphins in one's brain as someone taking a pull from a crack pipe.
Loto Quebec hides the suicides associated with legal gambling and,(this is speculation,I don't have the stats),BUT the murder/ suicide rate is up as well.
A few times a year (just here in Quebec) a murder/suicide is commited...More times than not,the motive is about financial problems and marital problems.
Is it such a stretch to believe that SOME of these crimes MAY be from a gambling addiction?...It's not like the Lottery Corp.(the government) are going to admit it.
Also,I believe that cannabis is NOT a drug...It's just conveniently labeled as such so prohibitionists can lump it in with REAL drugs.
But this is just a personal opinion that some will agree with and others will not.
But the opinion that prohibition is a failure,a pox on civil liberties and a waste of money and resources is the truth...Prohibitionists lie,lie and lie because all their arguemants have been quashed.
Thu, 2011-02-10 15:01
#81
Snert
VLTs are an interesting example, in that I've seen many calls to regulate them or ban them outright.
Whereas once we legalize drugs, why not put VLTs anywhere we want to? Why would we regulate someone spending a twonie to play a game of Hold 'Em, but not regulate someone injecting heroin into the web between their toes?
Hell, if we're ever going to legalize drugs, I like to hope we'll get trans fats back in the process. I'll make my own decisions about them at the same time as I'm making my own decisions about Angel Dust! (predicted choice: Crisco - yes, PCP - no).
Thu, 2011-02-10 15:25
#82
alan smithee
Well,I can't speak for your province but here in Quebec,you can't throw a rock without hitting a VLT and the people who are playing these things are not simply throwing a Twonie into the slots..We're talking hundreds of dollars and some people are losing their shirts.
The government does some PR through commercials defending gamblers as being a majority responsible and spending a modest amount of money.
Again,Loto-Quebec keeps the real figures hush,hush....Sometimes I go to the neighbourhood bar for a beer and it's always the SAME people sitting there emptying their pockets in front of the VLT's.
Most are older people probably collecting a pension..But Loto-Quebec's answer to the gambling problem is this half-hearted gambling hotline featured on top of the machines.
Just a couple months ago,Loto-Quebec got involved with online gambling...They claimed that to combat problem gambling,the sites will only let you play a maximum of $500 a day.
$500/day...That's a pretty wicked drug addiction right there.
As for your example of Trans fats,personally if someone wants to eat food high in trans fats,that's their business and the government has no business dictating what someone can or can't eat.
Just like they have no business dictating what someone puts in their body or does with their body.
Even gambling...If you want to gamble,knock yourself out...But if someone can legally enjoy that crack,so should legitimate crackheads.
I'd just like to add that for every drug addict,there are 10 alcoholics.
Thu, 2011-02-10 15:52
#83
Snert
One very imporant (I think) difference between a problem gambler and someone using, say, PCP, is that problem gambling isn't reasonably going to affect your behaviour. Playing a VLT won't make you more aggressive, for example, or more paranoid or less able to use your judgement. If I'm going to support the legality of individuals using various reality-altering drugs, I'd like to know that they've got a plan for ensuring that they don't become a danger to others, and that they're prepared to accept full responsibility for their actions if they do. And again, I'd hope that exactly the same is true of alcohol. If I ever appear to be making an exception for alcohol, it's only because it was put into a different category long before we were born. If alcohol were "invented" in a remote lab in the jungles of Columbia in 2009, we'd be talking about it in totally different terms.
Thu, 2011-02-10 16:22
#84
alan smithee
Well,the case of hallucinogens varies from individual to individual...What's good for some,can't be handled by others...The same is true with alcohol.
I think it's common sense that anything manufactured in someone's bathtub shouldn't be ingested.
I also believe that the failure of alcohol prohibition was that it was popular with the masses...If cannabis was at that time,we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
But you're right...There are cultural prejudices.
It's like when Westerners go to Saudi Arabia and believe their right to consume alcohol trumps foreign law.
It's arrogant and hypocritical.
Thu, 2011-02-10 18:42
#85
Through prohibition and the 1980's fascist 'Just Say No' zero tolerance period,the United States remains a country which consumes 60% of all the world's illegal drugs...
The US consumes 80-90% of the world's opioid supply (that's poppy derivatives and synthetic drugs that mimic the poppy derivatives), and 99% of the world's supply of hydrocodone (Vicodan).
Thu, 2011-02-10 19:18
#86
alan smithee
Through prohibition and the 1980's fascist 'Just Say No' zero tolerance period,the United States remains a country which consumes 60% of all the world's illegal drugs...The US consumes 80-90% of the world's opioid supply (that's poppy derivatives and synthetic drugs that mimic the poppy derivatives), and 99% of the world's supply of hydrocodone (Vicodan).
Thanks.
I stand corrected...And that sharpens my point.
Thu, 2011-02-10 19:44
#87
I thought so too, alan.
What we can conclude:
Thu, 2011-02-10 20:37
#88
alan smithee
I thought so too, alan.
What we can conclude:
We'd be better off if they actually DID concede power to the nation's stoners..lol
BTW,Barry McCaffrey was a real asshole and appointed by a Democrat who 'never exhaled'
I remember an interview debating marijuana prohibition where he was losing the debate--badly.
Frustrated,he declared , 'Someone has a drink,they don't get drunk...Someone smoking a joint's sole purpose is to get high..So,to me,that's immoral'
The irony of an amoral bottom feeder preaching about morals...What a fuckin' tool.
Thu, 2011-02-10 20:56
#89
Boom Boom
Converted trailers help rural residents get medical marijuana
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- There are more medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado than Starbucks
- Rural residents still have limited access to doctors who can prescribe medical marijuana
- Now, mobile clinics cross the state, brining doctors who can provide access to the drug
- "We want to be sure no patient is left behind," says mobile clinic entrepreneur
ETA:
Ten years ago, Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment allowing for the medical use of marijuana, but it remains against federal law.
Two years ago, the Obama administration signaled that it would no longer go after medical marijuana in states that have legalized it.
Thu, 2011-02-10 21:47
#90
I choose not to use drugs but I see no reason why another adult who chooses to use them should be hassled. I think it takes a combination of bad luck, circumstance and genetics to become a junkie.
It would be cheaper if we accepted that 1 in a hundred will become addicted, educate people about that risk and spend money on the unlucky few rather than spending ten times as much on court time, prisons and policeing.
I am the only person I know who hasn't smoked dope ever. I don't concider all my friends to be criminals.
I know several people who cannot travel because of mary jane. If the government is going to be that idiotical about mary jane, why not ban travel for drunk driving or blowing over the limit?
Thats way more dangerous (to others) than a dubie to unwind after a stressy day's work.
I'm totally down with legalizing or decriminalizing weed, and other drugs, just as soon as we're all ready to take responsibility for our choice to use them. I don't think we're there yet.
Thu, 2011-02-10 22:02
#91
The VKT uses the rat coming back for more technique.The rat pushes a lever, gets food once in a while and gets addicted to pushing the lever.
Humans are succeptable to the same response. It is one of those responses that does not engage the higher levels of the brain.
So the person might have a math degree but the rat just keeps pushing the lever.
(Like babble or watching hockey or any other sport) except you feel shitty and badly out of pocket at the end of it.
The solution is treatment for those who get addicted. In BC known bankrupt casino addicts (whos family life is in ruins) are sometimes banned from casinos by the courts but they manage to let them in as often as they can get away with. Fines for the casinos should be the order of the day for doing this but the gambling pushers somehow get away with the lolly.
VLTs are an interesting example, in that I've seen many calls to regulate them or ban them outright.
Whereas once we legalize drugs, why not put VLTs anywhere we want to? Why would we regulate someone spending a twonie to play a game of Hold 'Em, but not regulate someone injecting heroin into the web between their toes?
Hell, if we're ever going to legalize drugs, I like to hope we'll get trans fats back in the process. I'll make my own decisions about them at the same time as I'm making my own decisions about Angel Dust! (predicted choice: Crisco - yes, PCP - no).
Fri, 2011-02-11 10:08
#92
Snert
Converted trailers help rural residents get medical marijuana
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/30/health/main3770460.shtml?sourc... L.A. they have it in vending machines.[/url]
A man who said he has been authorized to use medical marijuana as part of his anger management therapy said the vending machine's security measures would at least protect against illicit use of the drug."You have kids that want to get high and that's not what marijuana is for," Robert Miko said. "It's to medicate."
That's priceless. He's being treated for being mad, with weed! It's a [i]medicine[/i], OK??? Please! Everyone please take it seriously!! No giggling. You wouldn't laugh at a cancer patient receiving chemotherapy, so why is it OK to laugh at an angry man getting baked? He says right there, it's NOT about getting stoned!
Fri, 2011-02-11 11:33
#93
Maysie
Snert, stay out of this thread.
Fri, 2011-02-11 12:19
#94
alan smithee
Two years ago, the Obama administration signaled that it would no longer go after medical marijuana in states that have legalized it.
This is true...BUT the DEA went on a raiding frenzy a couple of days later pretty much signaling who really calls the shots when it comes to prohibition laws.