*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.
Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds
CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ---->
  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Well there's the thing; people have access to prescription drugs that cannot be detected like alcohol. And let's face it, at least where I live, spot check only happen on holiday weekends. The police pull over people who are driving weirdly or are suspicious. It is well before the breathylyzer that they know the person is under the influence. The police have pulled over thousands of drug users before without a breathylyzer or something like that.
Nevertheless, legalization or not, the issue with driving doesn't excuse harsh laws for possession, use, or selling. |
|
|
|
 |
beaver
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 231
  
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree with the Liberals.
We all know smoking has serious adverse side-effects, and the Government is ramping up anti-smoking initiatives.
On the other hand, marijuana has 4-times as much tar as tobacco and new medical studies imply that there may be a causation between marijuana use and mental illness.
So to me, it doesn't make sense that on one hand, the government is trying to reduce smoking, yet on the other hand legalize a whole new drug. There would be costs to the healthcare system and society in general.
Also, legalizing marijuana would in a sense be legitimizing the criminal drug lords and gangs who are operating grow-ops. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beaver wrote: | I disagree with the Liberals.
We all know smoking has serious adverse side-effects, and the Government is ramping up anti-smoking initiatives.
On the other hand, marijuana has 4-times as much tar as tobacco and new medical studies imply that there may be a causation between marijuana use and mental illness.
So to me, it doesn't make sense that on one hand, the government is trying to reduce smoking, yet on the other hand legalize a whole new drug. There would be costs to the healthcare system and society in general.
Also, legalizing marijuana would in a sense be legitimizing the criminal drug lords and gangs who are operating grow-ops. |
Let's criminalize alcohol while we're at it. It has FAR, FAR more adverseeffects on mental health. It causes a variety of problems, including cancer. The reality is marijuana is a soft, soft drug and the government shouldn't get involved in the personal habits of individuals. With the logic you are using, the government should enforce diet and exercise camps. Also, marijuana when inhaled using a vaporizer essentially eliminates the toxic chemicals. And another thing I have to point out is that marijuana, even when smoked like a cigarette, has never been found to cause lung cancer unlike tobacco and HAS NEVER been found to be a gateway drug unlike alcohol.
The drug lords and gangs would go out of business as farmers, corporations, small business would all take over the industry. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Most people who smoke and will smoke marijuana if legalized aren't going to smoke 10 joints a day like someone smoking cigarettes. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 905 Tory wrote: | | beaver wrote: | I disagree with the Liberals.
We all know smoking has serious adverse side-effects, and the Government is ramping up anti-smoking initiatives.
On the other hand, marijuana has 4-times as much tar as tobacco and new medical studies imply that there may be a causation between marijuana use and mental illness.
So to me, it doesn't make sense that on one hand, the government is trying to reduce smoking, yet on the other hand legalize a whole new drug. There would be costs to the healthcare system and society in general.
Also, legalizing marijuana would in a sense be legitimizing the criminal drug lords and gangs who are operating grow-ops. |
Let's criminalize alcohol while we're at it. It has FAR, FAR more adverseeffects on mental health. It causes a variety of problems, including cancer. The reality is marijuana is a soft, soft drug and the government shouldn't get involved in the personal habits of individuals. With the logic you are using, the government should enforce diet and exercise camps. Also, marijuana when inhaled using a vaporizer essentially eliminates the toxic chemicals. And another thing I have to point out is that marijuana, even when smoked like a cigarette, has never been found to cause lung cancer unlike tobacco and HAS NEVER been found to be a gateway drug unlike alcohol.
The drug lords and gangs would go out of business as farmers, corporations, small business would all take over the industry. |
Do you agree with the government regulating the sale of marijuana, similar to alcohol or cigarettes? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Progressive Tory wrote: | | Do you agree with the government regulating the sale of marijuana, similar to alcohol or cigarettes? |
If it has to get to that, sure. The provincial government or even local governments can do that to pay the bills for regulating it (operating vehicles, kids, store placement, vendor licenses) but it should be minimal and we don't need it to be treated like alcohol or cigarettes where only the biggest of the biggest corporations can afford the regulations. I am not sure, though, if I'd be comfortable with private individual growing their own batch simply because kids can easily steal it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 905 Tory wrote: | Well there's the thing; people have access to prescription drugs that cannot be detected like alcohol. And let's face it, at least where I live, spot check only happen on holiday weekends. The police pull over people who are driving weirdly or are suspicious. It is well before the breathylyzer that they know the person is under the influence. The police have pulled over thousands of drug users before without a breathylyzer or something like that.
Nevertheless, legalization or not, the issue with driving doesn't excuse harsh laws for possession, use, or selling. |
Nor am I asking it to.
I am not opposed to legalizing possession and distribution, however there are issues to worry about with thousands of first time users going to the LCBO buying a pound smoking it and then going driving which I am yet to see anyone pro-legalization individual or group address.
If we want to do it, I want it done properly. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The fastest way to get folks like me off the legalization bandwagon are to attempt to compare it to Alcohol or cigarettes.
Cigarettes kill you but don't effect your ability to react on a public roadway, alcohol in excess does, the sole purpose of smoking marijuana is to become inebriated.
That isn't that case with the other two, as I have had a glass of wine with supper or a beer with lunch for years.
The argument that we already have two substances that are a drain on our healthcare system and causes a public danger are already legal therefore we should legalize a third isn't one to win me over.
If we can establish the taxation will cover the healthcare costs, and that we can find a way to make the roadways as safe as possible with this substance legal then you may have me on board. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cosmostein wrote: | The fastest way to get folks like me off the legalization bandwagon are to attempt to compare it to Alcohol or cigarettes.
Cigarettes kill you but don't effect your ability to react on a public roadway, alcohol in excess does, the sole purpose of smoking marijuana is to become inebriated.
That isn't that case with the other two, as I have had a glass of wine with supper or a beer with lunch for years.
The argument that we already have two substances that are a drain on our healthcare system and causes a public danger are already legal therefore we should legalize a third isn't one to win me over.
If we can establish the taxation will cover the healthcare costs, and that we can find a way to make the roadways as safe as possible with this substance legal then you may have me on board. |
Good points. However, the first thing is that despite any risks, is it truly worth it to fight a war against marijuana and have people go to jail for it? Its a drain on our resources and on taxpayer money. Cops, kids, etc. have died because of this pointless war. The second thing is that you assume that a number of 'high' young people will hop into their cars and start driving intoxicated. One would think that only those irresponsible enough to drive while drunk would drive while 'high.' If the number of irresponsible people don't increase, you could theoretically throw everything at them.
But I want to get away from theory because it proves nothing and does nothing for this discussion. The reality is that in country where drugs have, at the very least, been decriminalized (possession not illegal), drug use has gone down, including Portugal. Hell, if you've ever been to California, marijuana is easily accessible in a legal fashion and DUIs have gone down since they instituted the current format of their medical marijuana program. Nevertheless, all a cop needs is probable cause (smell, erratic driving, speech). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, but then you have a state like Nevada where 50% of all DUI's are drug related.
We really have no idea how our population will ultimately react, we can pick and chose the most positive statistics to make it appear as though nothing will change however there are situation that support both sides of the argument.
You make an argument about kids and cops lost to a war with drugs, and I would argue about the kids lost on roadways every year because of our previously lax D&D laws.
I am on the fence;
However I could be swayed; all I want is to assure that we punish inebriated folks on our roadways with a harsh and swift punishment, regardless of how they are inebriated.
If you legalize a substance which has a sole purpose of inebriating its users I don't believe for a second the amount of accidents caused by inebriation will go down at least not at first.
For me its simple;
If you want moderate Tories aboard I just need to see evidence that the healthcare cost will put off by the taxation on the substance, that has never been the case with Tobacco and I want a rate which will result in me not being on the hook yet again.
Then make sure you throw the book at anyone who runs down a kid because they were too high to drive.
There will be lots of empty prisons cells, If you fill have of them with folks like that I could be swayed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Liberals vote to legalize marijuana at convention |
|
phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB |
|
