Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*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 ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CC Scott





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 151
Reputation: 15.9Reputation: 15.9
Location: Edmonton

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And may I just add that this topic has gone WAY off topic now.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Unlawful consumption or supply of alcohol

33. No person shall,

(a) drink alcohol in a form that is not a liquor; or

(b) supply alcohol in a form that is not a liquor to another person, if the person supplying the alcohol knows or ought to know that the other person intends it to be used as a drink. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 33.



Ontario Provincial Offenses... not sure about other provinces. The reasoning, I believe is that it is dangerous to your health... extremely so.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CC Scott wrote:
And may I just add that this topic has gone WAY off topic now.

Yup... how unusual... :roll:

-Mac
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the last time I'm going to respond to any thing pot related in a non pot thread. I will open a new thread that I will use to respond to any such comments in. Then I can just link my response to the original thread I am responding to. That way I don't get blamed for taking the thread off topic but can still reply to these kind of false statements.

Quote:
Marijuana unlike liquor is a substance in which the sole purpose of consumption is to get "high" or in an Inebriated State,


first of all what "other " purpose is alcohol used for other than its intoxicating effect?

Marijuana is used for many reasons and it has the side effect of making one feel happier.

Marijuana is used for pain control, seizure control, appetite stimulation, as sacrament for religious purposes, for fellowship, and as a natural medicine for dozens of ailments including Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer, Epilepsy, depression, Chrohn's and colitis, the list of reasons Cannabis is used for besides getting high is long.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alcohol was used for pain control.

Alcohol is consumed as a social beverage. I often have a single beer when I get home from work, it helps me wind down and I enjoy the taste, but I am far from intoxicated.

Wine is used in religious ceremonies.
What religion in Canada exactly uses marijuana for scrament?

"the list of reasons Cannabis is used for besides getting high is long."

You misspelled reasons, i'll be happy to help you out - its spelled: Excuses

;)
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
This is the last time I'm going to respond to any thing pot related in a non pot thread. I will open a new thread that I will use to respond to any such comments in. Then I can just link my response to the original thread I am responding to. That way I don't get blamed for taking the thread off topic but can still reply to these kind of false statements.

Quote:
Marijuana unlike liquor is a substance in which the sole purpose of consumption is to get "high" or in an Inebriated State,


first of all what "other " purpose is alcohol used for other than its intoxicating effect?

.


First off thank you for your reply,
But you sort of sidestepped the question.

Maybe my experiences are different then those of most people and its very possible that they are,

But what is the percentage of people who consume alcohol and become Inebriated?
I was at lunch a few moments ago and I would say that half the folks had a beer, or glass of wine on their tables etc, and they were not Inebriated. So between us what is a fair number of folks that consume alcohol and become drunk by it? 10%? 20%

Where as with Marijuana I (and as I said this is just me) have never been in the presence of someone who has smoke it and not become Inebriated, which is the concern I am expressing.

You quickly point to the benefits of Marijuana, and to that I have no issues but is the percentage of users of Marijuana for the purposes of benefit that you have listed really the majority or even a large base of Marijuana users? Simply said and of course I could be wrong it seems the majority (50% + 1) of Marijuana users are smoking to become Inebriated.

And this is the point I was hoping you could address for me. Because if let say 10% of all end users who consume liquor become Inebriated and of those 10% lets say 1% of them drive when they should not, is there not a fear when a substance where more end users based on average are becoming Inebriated because of its consumpion there is a danger?

DrGreenthumb wrote:
Marijuana is used for pain control, seizure control, appetite stimulation, as sacrament for religious purposes, for fellowship, and as a natural medicine for dozens of ailments including Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer, Epilepsy, depression, Chrohn's and colitis, the list of reasons Cannabis is used for besides getting high is long


Again I have to ask what is the percentage of folks that are using Marijuana for its beneficial aspects vs. those who are using it soley because if its Euphoric "Side Effect"

I mean if we want to debate this lets debate it as realists, I could sit back and talk to you about Alcohol's benefits from a health stance:

Such as light to moderate drinking may help reduce the risk of diabetes in later life, certain types of stroke, osteoporosis and Alzheimer's disease

Or its many positive uses such as an alternative to fossil fuels, or uses in perfumes to prevent the use of plant and animal extracts, as a cleaner, or as a medical Disinfectant

But if I did that we would be clouding the issue, Alcohol is legal and as I had as one of my concerns that you disregarded was that we already have an issue on our roads as a result of it, and I am simply asking from you to provide your take on if the issue of the potental for Marijuana related fatalities. Will the number be less then equal to or greater then that we currently have with Alcohol related deaths on our roadways?

Do you really feel that the majority of the uses of Cannabis if it were legalized would be used for the benefical aspects you listed or for recreational uses?

And what of the rest of the points?

Thank you again


Last edited by cosmostein on Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
Alcohol was used for pain control.

Alcohol is consumed as a social beverage. I often have a single beer when I get home from work, it helps me wind down and I enjoy the taste, but I am far from intoxicated.

Wine is used in religious ceremonies.
What religion in Canada exactly uses marijuana for scrament?

"the list of reasons Cannabis is used for besides getting high is long."

You misspelled reasons, i'll be happy to help you out - its spelled: Excuses

;)


Biggie,

Since there is no way that I can find this sort of information anywhere the best I can do is try to find a reasonable figure and sort of work with it,

What do you think the percentage of people who consume alcohol that get Inebriated are? I have been working with 10% but I am thinking perhaps that is rather high?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
biggie rection wrote:
Alcohol was used for pain control.

Alcohol is consumed as a social beverage. I often have a single beer when I get home from work, it helps me wind down and I enjoy the taste, but I am far from intoxicated.

Wine is used in religious ceremonies.
What religion in Canada exactly uses marijuana for scrament?

"the list of reasons Cannabis is used for besides getting high is long."

You misspelled reasons, i'll be happy to help you out - its spelled: Excuses

;)


Biggie,

Since there is no way that I can find this sort of information anywhere the best I can do is try to find a reasonable figure and sort of work with it,

What do you think the percentage of people who consume alcohol that get Inebriated are? I have been working with 10% but I am thinking perhaps that is rather high?


Well, I'm not sure. See, Alcohol is something thats hard to say that about - sometimes people will become intoxicated because of it, but often they will not. I would say someplace around 10% would be a fair(I'm a worst-case scenario kinda guy) assumption - in that 10% of the time people get drunk... the other 90% they don't have enough to. But I dont know of any statistics proving/disproving this.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok since this is now the "pot thread" I feel I can elaborate on my response earlier.

If you drink the beer to unwind it IS the intoxifying effect you are enjoying. No different than smoking a joint after work to relax. The current legal status of alcohol does not imbue it with an automatic moral superiority, especially when the law is itself immoral.
10% get intoxicated? Are you daft? Never been to a nightclub? Alcohol has the highest abuse potential rating there is for drugs. It is right up there with cocaine and heroin. Look over the" should Cannabis be legalized" thread for the charts and graphs supporting this point, I believe my friend FrankDiscussion posted them there. Cannabis rates equal to coffee. It is not addictive, and you NEVER get "inebriated". You are either feeling the high or you are not. You can only get so high, smoking any more is a waste of time and weed. A person who is high is less "intoxicated" than someone who has had 3 beers.

People who are unfamiliar with pot's effects assume it is "like alcohol only stronger" because it is illegal. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You cannot get so high that you become violent and unpredictable like alcohol makes some people. Also unlike alcohol, you cannot continue to get more and more intoxicated if you continue consuming it, once you reach the desired effect. You can die directly from alcohol consumption like many thousands do every year, but it is impossible to die of a cannabis overdose.

I don't recommend anyone drive while their ability to do so is impaired by anything, alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, or even lack of sleep. That said, cannabis has very little effect on driving, especially if we are talking about an experienced smoker, and an experienced driver. I would not even get into a vehicle with a driver who had 3 drinks in an evening, but It doesn't bother me in the slightest to be in a car with someone who has been toking even if they do it while they are driving. They drive more slowly and cautiously. Pot raises your inhibitions, alcohol lowers them. Alcohol leds to risky behaviour and poor decision making, pot makes people more aware of the dangers around them. So to answer your question, no I do not think legalized pot would cause ANY increase in fatalities. I believe there would be considerably LESS violence and fatalities as people would be free to choose Cannabis as a safer alternative to alcohol. You can tell if a person's ability to drive is impaired by physical sobriety tests, you can't tell impairment by what you find in someone's pee. People who are high are unlikely to drive when their ability to do so is impaired because they are very aware of their mental state. It doesn't give you the 10 feet tall and bulletproof effect that alcohol does. Even if a person doesn't drink enough to become "drunk", they are still using the alcohol for it's intoxicating effect. They just choose to be "less intoxicated". Keep in mind I have nothing against alcohol, I enjoy a cold beer myself once in a while. I have personally met a lot more people who have alcohol problems, than have pot problems. It is the way a substance is used, not the substance itself that can be blamed for people's problems. It comes down to personal responsibility.

Definitions of inebriated on the Web:

intoxicated: stupefied or excited by a chemical substance (especially alcohol); "a noisy crowd of intoxicated sailors"; "helplessly inebriated"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Drunkenness, in its most common usage, is the state of being intoxicated with alcohol (i.e. ethanol) to a sufficient degree to impair mental and motor functioning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inebriated

Again pot does not make people "inebriated"


Biggie what do you care what religions use pot as sacrament? You have no respect for anyone's religious beliefs if they conflict with your own anyway. Some of us believe Cannabis to be the biblical "tree of life". It is no point discussing religion because it is something very personal, and there are no facts, only opinions. No religion is more legitimate than any other. The cannabis religions that I am refering to are Christian religions, an example being the Church of the Universe.

"euphoric side effect"

The euphoric side effect is inseperable from the therapeutic effect. If someone smokes a joint to de-stress or to feel good and happy then they are in fact "treating themselves" and that is healthy for them. It is no different than someone who uses prescription drugs to alter their mood, or has a couple of beers after work.

Cannabis does not cause Cancer, it has in fact been shown to destroy Cancer cells especially tumours by a process called glioma. There has never been a recorded case of lung Cancer in a cannabis only smoker. Rates of Cancer are also lower in people who use cannabis and tobacco than people who only smoke tobacco. Researchers have suggested that this may be because of the anti-Cancer effects of THC and CBD the 2 main active compounds found in Cannabis smoke.

For the record I am for the legalization and REGULATION of all drugs that are considered dangerous enough to need regulation. Addiction and drug abuse are HEALTH PROBLEMS, not criminal problems. Problems that could be dealt with a lot more cheaply and effectively without the use of the criminal law.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canada troops battle 10-ft Afghan marijuana plants


OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet (three meter) high marijuana plants.

General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa.

"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.

Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.

"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly.

One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."


They are admitting to war crimes, white phosphorous has been banned for decades and ILLEGAL to use
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
They are admitting to war crimes, white phosphorous has been banned for decades and ILLEGAL to use


Perhaps if you used a larger font it would be true. Then again MAYBE NOT...

Quote:
Use of white phosphorus against military targets (outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a non-binding debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997


Quote:
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use. If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

CLEARLY the troops were NOT using it as a weapon.

You should do some reading before attacking our troops who are fighting to free brutally oppressed people and eliminating a training ground for terrorists who want to kill you. Ungrateful &#^$*#
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Biggie what do you care what religions use pot as sacrament? You have no respect for anyone's religious beliefs if they conflict with your own anyway. Some of us believe Cannabis to be the biblical "tree of life". It is no point discussing religion because it is something very personal, and there are no facts, only opinions. No religion is more legitimate than any other. The cannabis religions that I am refering to are Christian religions, an example being the Church of the Universe.


I care because you're making false claims, and I don't believe you..

I find it funny that you can make such an assumption of someone you don't know anything about.

I could go on for hours telling you why that comment could not be any farther from the truth, but I'm just a little bit sickened by you... You may as well have accused me of being a racist, and I don't take that lightly.
For you to make such an assumption, such a low remark... your prejudice is disgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, and just In case you hadn't seen when I wrote this before- I am not religious 8)

As for this non-sense:

"That said, cannabis has very little effect on driving, especially if we are talking about an experienced smoker, and an experienced driver."

The Senate report that YOU(If I remember correctly) cited as evidence stated the EXACT opposite of this - well what is it? Is your senate report flawed? If so, how can we trust any of it?

"People who are high are unlikely to drive when their ability to do so is impaired because they are very aware of their mental state. "

AHAHAHA YEAH, RIGHT!!! Have YOU ever been to a club?? If you believe this, then this should be your indicator that the pot has destroyed what few braincells you have left.

You still haven't answered the question - How many people are ACTUALLY using pot for its "good" purposes? And how many just want to get high?

"If you drink the beer to unwind it IS the intoxifying effect you are enjoying."
No, it is not - It is the taste of the beer on my tongue that I am enjoying. Funny how the first sip has me relaxed.. before the substance has even reached my stomach. Nice try. That single and your very definition will prove as evidence.

Quote:
intoxicated: stupefied or excited by a chemical substance (especially alcohol); "a noisy crowd of intoxicated sailors"; "helplessly inebriated"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Last edited by biggie on Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
CLEARLY the troops were NOT using it as a weapon.

You should do some reading before attacking our troops who are fighting to free brutally oppressed people and eliminating a training ground for terrorists who want to kill you. Ungrateful &#^$*#


Nicely said, and I couldn't agree more
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heheh I figured I would find out pretty quick if that was really a law by posting that, it seems that in your opinion its not. I had not actually even heard of white phosperous before just reading that article this evening at another site. So is there a law against white phosperous used as a weapon? Because using it to burn people out of their hiding place does seem like a chemical weapons application to me.

If I'm way off base in claiming its illgal, I'm sorry I should have checked my source better, or checked the law myself.

I do believe you to be a very prejudiced person biggie, if that offends you too bad. The stereotypes and generalizations, all denigrating, you use to describe cannabis users shows the bigot in you. Substitute the word Black or Mexican for pothead in most of your pot statements and it becomes the same story retold by generations of folks just like you.

I don't appreciate being labeled a drug addict because I use NATURAL medicine, but that hasn't stopped you.

I wish our troops all the best, it is their leaders that I critisize, not the men who are just following orders. I think that being in afganistan increases Canada's risk of a terror attack not lessens it. Just because I don't want the military stooping to chemical warfare does not mean I am against the troops, that is a lame BUSH tactic. Anyone who disagrees with the war is unpatriotic and hates our soldiers? please get a life.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie the senate report says that anything that has ANY impairing effect should not be used while driving, including Cannabis. I agree completely with that statement and I stand by the senate report that concluded that all things considered, cannabis is significantly less harmful than alcohol and as such should be legal for anyone 16 years and older to possess. Notice how they recomend a lower age restriction than is placed on alcohol? I did. After digesting all the available information they probably concluded as I have that if the next generation chose cannabis instead of alcohol as their recreational drug of choice, we as a society would greatly benefit.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
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


the pot thread (was libs and reporter seriously deluded)

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB