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 4 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...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.


There is a very big difference between criticizing people who are grouped by an inherent characteristic (like race, age, sex, nationality) and criticizing people in a group defined by the group members' behaviour (like crime, substance abuse, politics ... etc). That being said, in debating issues I think people should try to avoid generalizations where possible.

Quote:
...and as such should be legal for anyone 16 years and older to possess...


Personally, I'm of the opinion that use by a minor should be parental consent issue. Note that minors can consume liquor on private property with the express permission of their parents.
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
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 can't believe I just read such drivel. You are comparing being a pothead to being black or mexican. You are suggesting that decades of racial oppression is the equivalent of you not being legally able to purchase your dope. How very revealing indeed.

Quote:
I don't appreciate being labeled a drug addict because I use NATURAL medicine


Just because something is natural does not mean it isn't a drug. In fact, most drugs are derived from "natural" sources. You are a walking anti-drug advertisement - every post you make is a "this is your brain on drugs" commercial.

Quote:
I think that being in afganistan increases Canada's risk of a terror attack not lessens it.


Can't be proven either way. But there are 12 million women who have 100X the freedom they used to have. That counts for something doesn't it?

Quote:
Just because I don't want the military stooping to chemical warfare does not mean I am against the troops


It wasn't "chemical warfare". You mis-characterized the situation and I exposed your ignorance. Now you are doing it again. They were using it to burn your prescious weed. They also tried diesel fuel (which incidentally is used to drive their vehicles too).

Quote:
Anyone who disagrees with the war is unpatriotic and hates our soldiers?


No, anyone who accusses our troops of commiting war crimes without first doing a simple google search is unpatriotic and hates our soldiers.

Quote:
please get a life.


By becoming a druggie?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'f you've read your prohibition history you would know that cannabis prohibition was enacted because of racism against blacks and hispanics in the US and hatred of the chinese immigrants in Canada.

Janey Canuck , aka, Emily Murphy, largely resonsible for cannabis prohibition in Canada was a member of the anti-chinese leauge, and demonized cannabis so that the chinese railworkers who used it instead of the white man's alcohol could be legally deported.

Harry J anslinger , the American father of Cannabis prohibition used statements like "reefer makes darkies think they are as good as white men", and Reefer causes white women to seek sexual relations with blacks, musicians and others"

The prohibitionist apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Cannabis prohibition has been around for 80 years, that is by definition decades of oppression.

I totally agree with the parental consent opinion FF Canuck. It would be nice if parents would start taking some damn responsibility for their children instead of passing it off to the state so they can keep taking away our civil liberties "for the sake of the children". I swear that logic makes me want to spew. How is it good for the children to live under Big Brother's thumb?

Prohibition IS a state sponsered persecution of an innocent minority. There is nothing criminal about changing the way we think about things even if we use external substances to explore our minds potential. If Canada were to ban turbans it would be no less racist than if they banned those that they know wear turbans outright. Even though wearing a turban IS just a behaviour, it is a behaviour that is very important and significant to a community of people. Cannabis use is no different. It is a behaviour that is very important to a lot of people and prohibition is an attack on our community. We go to work, pay our taxes and love our children and our country as much as any one of you, and there is no excuse for letting this persecution continue.

If we are going to preach freedom and tolerance to the world we better at least grant it to our own people. Otherwise we will all just look like Harpercrites.
biggie





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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right - All that Canadians against the black man..

Reminds me of the underground railroad.
Where were they coming do you think?? and who helped them get there?

I'm done with your pathetic comments towards me - I am not offended by some troll on the internet hahaha.. If you feel the need to make yourself look like a complete idiot, that's your choice - I'm not getting dragged down by somebody who doesn't have any respect for other people, or their views. And I most certainly do not need to defend myself against you or your seriously dillusional views.

I think that we should lower the drinking age actually. Most of the rest of the world hasn't got a minimum, or it is very low. And you know, I don't disagree with that. I think, parental consent for those under 16.

It actually has always bothered me that a 16 year old is given the right to drive and make their own medical decisions, but not the right to drink or smoke. I don't really want a 16 year old to vote, but that's because I don't think they have the proper education to do so(as an average - I certainly did at that age, but most do not)

Quote:
Prohibition IS a state sponsered persecution of an innocent minority


Jailing Pedophiles is therefore a "state sponsered(sic) persecution of an innocent minority"

You support pedophilia as well?

If you're so persecuted, get out of Canada, go to the Netherlands if you're so opressed..

Quote:
If we are going to preach freedom and tolerance to the world we better at least grant it to our own people.


We preach freedom of speech, and freedom of religion - never have our countries claimed to be state-run anarchy's..

Quote:
Even though wearing a turban IS just a behaviour, it is a behaviour that is very important and significant to a community of people. Cannabis use is no different.

First you compare prohibition to slavery, and now you're comparing smoking a reefer to wearing a turban!? This just keeps getting better.

Quote:
Just because something is natural does not mean it isn't a drug. In fact, most drugs are derived from "natural" sources. You are a walking anti-drug advertisement - every post you make is a "this is your brain on drugs" commercial.


Hahahaha, I love it!

Quote:
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?


You're not saying you disagree with the war - you're accusing our troops of Chemical warfare... and its pathetic. Those are men and women defending your right to &%#& and whine about pot all day.. Have some respect.

I'm tellin ya - Decrim. and Fines. The only way to go.


Last edited by biggie on Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:33 am; edited 1 time in total
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only an idiot would compare smoking pot, a victimless act, to pedophelia, but then you have proven time and again by your statements that you are an idiot so the statement is not surprising coming from you.

My guess is that you want young children to be able to drink alcohol so that it will be easier for you to get down their pants? So is it 12 year olds or younger that you wish to offer some panty-remover? It actually makes since that someone who is interested in dominating others would take pleasure in stealing the innocence of a child.

Quote:
It actually has always bothered me that a 16 year old is given the right to drive, but not the right to drink or smoke. I don't really want a 16 year old to vote, but that's because I don't think they have the proper education to do so(as an average - I certainly did at that age, but most do not)


Interesting that it does not bother you that a 30 year old does not have the right to smoke pot , but it does bother you that a 16 year old can't drink or smoke tobacco. You are kind of an illogical guy biggie



Quote:
Jailing Pedophiles is therefore a "state sponsered(sic) persecution of an innocent minority"


I don't consider pedophiles 'innocent" , not by a long shot. How can say pedophiles are an innocent minority? Do you see it that way because you identify with them? Your knees get a little weak when you walk by a elementary school biggie?
biggie





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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Classy... Real classy.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just stay away from my kids, sicko
biggie





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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This has been a nice little distraction from the real issue at hand, perhaps you would like to answer the very valid question posed to you earlier.

Because most of your claims involve the medicinal etc.. uses of pot-

how many people do you see using pot for recreational only purposes?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
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.


First off, Thanks for the reply again.
I don't think that I am daft in the least, go out to a resturant for lunch, The Opera, to a jays game, any event where liquor or beer is served, look at the normal situation and not the worse case situation to try and dispell a valid point.

As you make mention of later, you say you would not enter a car with someone who has had three drinks, what about someone that has had one? You make reference later on to an "experienced" smoker but should it become legalized we will have a whole mass of people who are not, again we cannot base this arguement on a group of "experienced" smokers it has to be based on the average smoker and with that said most of the average smokers would get high from smoking Cannabis which is the point I am trying to make, the majority of social drinkers who have a beer or glass of wine at a resturant or ballgame will not become intoxicated, where as the average smoker will become high.

Are you honestly telling me that there is a larger percentage of people who consume alcohol who get drunk to the point where they are a danger on the roads, then folks who get high when they smoke Cannabis?

DrGreenthumb wrote:
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.


You seem to be making an attempt to take this debate in an alcohol Vs.cannabis debate and that is not at all the case.

The question at hand is with the problems we already have in place with alcohol is it a good idea to legalizes another substance which will make the end user "intoxicated" "high" "inebriated" or whatever definition you feel comfortable with using.

As you have said below, you are do not agree with anyone driving while impared on anything, but would legalizing Cannabis not create any increase on our roadways?

Because for me personally, I do not consider the arguement that since Alcohol already kills people on our roadways, we should clearly legalizes another substance that may very well do the same valid in the least, and generally speaking that is what you are trying to do here.

DrGreenthumb wrote:
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.


I would like to start with the sections I have bolded off,
First off I have to admit my confusion, because you make the comment that there you would no increases in fatality because users of Cannabis would not drive, yet earlier in the same paragraph you make mention that you have no issue driving with someone who has been toking because they drive "slowly and cautiously"

So which is it?

To follow that statement, using Nevada as an example because it has perhaps the most harsh laws in regards to drug use and possession in North America. in 2004 46 percent of all traffic fatalities were alcohol and/or drugged driving related. In fact, 60 percent of those situations found that they were under the influence of drugs and of those 60% just under half of them where under the influence of Cannabis.

So in a State that has the tightest controls and punishements for drugs of any kind, 30% of all traffic fatalities were caused by Cannabis users, do you not feel a number like that may grow if this substance were made legal and readily available to the public?

Again, as I said very early on my opinion on this issue really is not set in stone and more then anything I have my list on concerns that more then anything are at least valid. Simply telling me that there will be no increase in fatalities if the substance is legalized is simply pie in the sky dreaming and not based at all in fact, just warped opinion.

As for the last bolded point?
Do you really feel that the % of people who drink to get drunk is higher then those who smoke to get high?

DrGreenthumb wrote:
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"


Are we really going to split hairs when it comes to terms?

Fine, Answer me this.
Can smoking pot decrease your reaction time in the event of an emergency?
And do you function the same way while high as while not high?



DrGreenthumb wrote:
"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.


So because we certain forms of chemical, liquid or natural forms of "de-stressing" are legal they should all be? This is a Dangerous Pandora's Box. What if someone feels they should be able to go home sit on the sofa and do a line of coke? if that is their poison should it not be legal to by that definition?

DrGreenthumb wrote:
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.


This is an interesting topic, UCLA did a study that found that smoking pot does not cause cancer, which I am assuming is the study you are refering to.

Where as the University of Texas did a study where they found that blood from marijauna smokers has nearly three times as many DNA mutations as that of non-smokers, they also did testing on the blood cells for the umbilical cords of the new-borns of some marijuana smokers. These infants likewise had three times as many damaged cells as those of non-smokers

And the reality is that smoke damages you lungs, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens just like Tobacco, but of course the old arguement is that you smoke cigerettes far more then marijuana but the reality is inhaling smoke damages your lungs and can lead to lung cancer.

Simply said, to kick back and tell me that smoking anything does not cause long term lung damage is simply insulting.

Rather then feeding me pie in the sky theories, if you really want to make your point explain to me how we would deal with these issues if it was legalized rather then pretending they do not exist.

Thanks again for the reply.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
This has been a nice little distraction from the real issue at hand, perhaps you would like to answer the very valid question posed to you earlier.

Because most of your claims involve the medicinal etc.. uses of pot-

how many people do you see using pot for recreational only purposes?


I know it was not directed at me, but just from the minimalist research I have done via reading and online research the figures are between the range of 3 - 10% of users currently using pot as a non-recreational drug (IE for legitimate medical use) . Which places the numbers of non-medical recreational users somewhere in the 90% area.

But of course most of these figures are "best" guesses of researchers that are trying to work with numbers that are no way static.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Are you honestly telling me that there is a larger percentage of people who consume alcohol who get drunk to the point where they are a danger on the roads, then folks who get high when they smoke Cannabis?


I am telling you that no matter how you look at it alcohol is far more of a danger on our roads than is Cannabis. The legality makes no difference whatsoever. I apologize for asking if you are daft, that was uncalled for. Some of the posters here who insist on comparing adult cannabis consumption with pedophelia and murder tend to get me a little chippy.
Binge drinking, especially among new users is a huge problem, the same problem does not exist with pot smokers of any age, because of the actual effect of pot is to make one ultra aware of everything around them and especially of their own body and state of mind. That is why a lot of new users experience paranoia when they first start using. This same "paranoia" is what prevents the truly "stoned" from getting behind the wheel of a car. New users experience the most paranoia and are unlikely to drive because of fear of being caught or getting into an accident. Impairment tests actually show that a cannabis user "feels" more impaired than they actually are, quite the opposite is true for alcohol which is well known to lessen inhibitions . As for tests from America blaming any accidents on pot they are very suspect considering American drug policy, and the fact that pot is detectable in one's system up to 2 months after the last toke even though the "high" only lasts 2 hours max.
Because alcohol is legal, at least new users have the advantage of being taught proper consumption by their parents and other adults they can trust. Were cannabis legal, new users could also be "trained" in the proper usage and dosages. Instead parents are forced to hide their own pot use from their kids and the kids hide their use from the adults. It is much harder to detect when someone is developing problem use, when they hide their use from you.

Quote:
You seem to be making an attempt to take this debate in an alcohol Vs.cannabis debate and that is not at all the case.


It is hypocritical to allow alcohol use when it is clearly more unhealthy and more dangerous to society than Cannabis. If prohibition is warranted in the case of Cannabis it is doubley warranted in the case of alcohol. Most Conservatives really don't want to discuss this issue because prohibiting cannabis and allowing alcohol is an indefensable position. Kind of like if we banned pellet guns but not machine guns. Cannabis affects the user in a totally different way than alcohol does and does not encourage risky behavior, because it does not lower a person's inhibitions. Just because alcohol does cause havoc on the highways is no reason to extrapolate that cannabis would do the same. The effects of Cannabis are more closely compareable to coffee than to alcohol. You do not get slurry speach and poor co-ordination from Cannabis, my own mother cannot tell if I have been smoking pot or not. An experienced cannabis smoker is not impaired at all. When you are "high" on pot your senses are sharpened not dulled. There is a speedvision closed circuit test video comparing straight, stoned, and lightly liquored driving you should watch. I think if you google "speedvision toking and driving" you could quite easily find it.

Quote:
Because for me personally, I do not consider the arguement that since Alcohol already kills people on our roadways, we should clearly legalizes another substance that may very well do the same valid in the least, and generally speaking that is what you are trying to do


That is not what I am saying at all. Impaired driving is against the law already no matter what is causing the impairment. Because people have accidents while talking on the cell phone, while doing their makeup, or eating McDonalds, should we make cellphones , mcdonalds and makeup illegal, or is making it illegal to drive while doing these things enough? If someone is driving badly and causing a danger to other drivers, go ahead and arrest them, but that is no justification for jailing people who are only driving their couch or their lawn chair. If you can't tell that someone is "impaired from physical sobriety tests they are probably not impaired. The presence of any drug in a person's urine does not prove anything.

Quote:
What if someone feels they should be able to go home sit on the sofa and do a line of coke?


Absolutely they should be able to consume whatever the hell the want to consume, it is their body isn't it, or does Stephen Harper own the canadian people like a slaver? If one can use the substance without causing injury to any third parties then absolutely they should be able to do so. That is called freedom my friend.

I don't buy the harming oneself with canna smoke theory, there has never been a case of Cannabis use causing Cancer which can't be said for most legal substances. Even if it is harmful to oneself that is a health issue not a criminal issue, I don't hear conservatives calling for car exhaust to be illegal and it is poisonous.

I got company and gotta go smoke some cannabis right now so I'll continue this later.

Nice to have this discussion with someone who is willing to at least approach it with an open mind and not make ignorant comments comparing pot consumption with pedophelia and murder. Again sorry about the daft comment, having this discussion with some people here can be very frustrating.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the sake of saving some space, and avoiding confusion rather then quoting the last post, I will just C&P what I am responding to in Italics to make life easier.

Binge drinking, especially among new users is a huge problem, the same problem does not exist with pot smokers of any age, because of the actual effect of pot is to make one ultra aware of everything around them and especially of their own body and state of mind. That is why a lot of new users experience paranoia when they first start using. This same "paranoia" is what prevents the truly "stoned" from getting behind the wheel of a car.

First off I want to be very clear that I think that anyone who endanger others on the road regardless of what they are on should be punished.

We cannot overlook some of the figures we have already seen, the reality is that there are situation where people have smoked and drived, and caused roadway fatalities the numbers in terms of percentage vary from area to area, and in my past post I cited Nevada because of its harsh stance on drugs in general, and the numbers were very high.

I guess my concern is that if we legalize pot we will have an increase in users, much like we saw when the outlawing of liquor was lifted, the estimates are that consumption of alcohol based products increase by nearly 5000% over the decade afterward, and if in a state like Nevada 30% of roadway Fatalities are caused by impared drives who have consumed cannibus what would the numbers look like if it was legal and easy to obtain.

That more so is my biggest fear.

It is hypocritical to allow alcohol use when it is clearly more unhealthy and more dangerous to society than Cannabis. If prohibition is warranted in the case of Cannabis it is doubley warranted in the case of alcohol. Most Conservatives really don't want to discuss this issue because prohibiting cannabis and allowing alcohol is an indefensable position.

I am not saying one is better then the other or vice versa.
My issue is simply that we already have a problem with alcohol based DUI's that lead to fatality, and is it hypocritical that Alcohol is legal while Cannabis is not? Perhaps. Although I am not sure if I am that keen on allowing another substance that has in many places already caused a series of roadway fatalities to become legalized.

I am very much for the rights of people to do what they want, but what if this action causes an increase in Drug Related DUI's, at that point its not longer about the rights of the user, but more so the rights of the victims as well, and actively endorsing a substance which may not be as bad as alcohol but may have the potental to increase harm on our roadways, Well that makes me leary.

If someone is driving badly and causing a danger to other drivers, go ahead and arrest them, but that is no justification for jailing people who are only driving their couch or their lawn chair

I am sure the majority of pot smokers would not cause an issue, but by that same note nor to the many alcohol consumers that have a beer at lunch. My concern is with those who will not simply enjoy it on the sofa at home, or at a friends house. If you could assure me that was the case I would have little issue with it from this aspect.

I guess the point I am making is that Alcohol like it or not is here to stay, as are the ill effects that come along with it, and I cannot use the mentality that one substance that has caused harm and pain to many families is legal so therefore we should legalize another one that may not be as bad, but still could potentally be bad.

Perhaps the sentencing on Cannabis users is too harsh, and maybe thats a debate for another day because really I am not sure if I have done the reasearch to debate that intelligently yet.

Absolutely they should be able to consume whatever the hell the want to consume, it is their body isn't it, or does Stephen Harper own the canadian people like a slaver? If one can use the substance without causing injury to any third parties then absolutely they should be able to do so. That is called freedom my friend.

I don't buy the harming oneself with canna smoke theory, there has never been a case of Cannabis use causing Cancer which can't be said for most legal substances. Even if it is harmful to oneself that is a health issue not a criminal issue, I don't hear conservatives calling for car exhaust to be illegal and it is poisonous.


I agree with the first part to an extent, then there are my limits.
Do what you want, but when you OD, when you need treatment, when you have a stroke these are all issue that have been brought upon by the end users own choices that myself and other Canadians who do not do a line of coke when we get home have to pay for.

Now of course smoking cigerettes and Alcohol make for a large chunk of healthcare costs as well, but I am not all that keen to open the books to allow coke, herion etc

I think that people should be able to do whatever they want in their homes, as long as at the end of the day I do not have to be involved be it as a tax payer or as someone who is in the "other car"

I think of it as my freedom to live my life for me and my family.

As for the smoke causing cancer theory, I really don't know there are arguments for both but I think it was summed up best by a prof at UBC, The reality is that 1/10000th of the research that has been done on the long term effects of smoking pot has been done Vs. the long terms effects of tabacco.

I would have no issue on more research being done on the topic so we could get a firm answer, because from my limited Science knowledge (being of a business background) my understanding is that breathing in smoke (of any kind) harms the cells within the lungs that could cause cancer.

Thank you for the debate thus far, I have throughly enjoyed it. Its often nice to get some perspective from those on the other side of issues.

Cheers,
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
and if in a state like Nevada 30% of roadway Fatalities are caused by impared drives who have consumed cannibus what would the numbers look like if it was legal and easy to obtain.


First of all I do not accept this as fact, I need more information before commenting. If 30 % of car accidents were being caused by cannabis I would already know about it. I do a LOT of reading on the subject. What other substances were in their blood besides cannabis? I would say probably alcohol. Also like I said before cannabis remains detectable in your system for up to 2 months after your last toke. If 30 % of the population uses cannabis even occasionally then of course we are going to see that reflected in toxicology tests when those people die or are tested. That in no way says that cannabis use caused the accident or even that the person was high at the time of the accident. It just says that a lot of people are using cannabis. In what percentage of fatalities did the driver's blood contain caffeine? red meat? Correlation does not equal causation.

Quote:
I guess the point I am making is that Alcohol like it or not is here to stay, as are the ill effects that come along with it, and I cannot use the mentality that one substance that has caused harm and pain to many families is legal so therefore we should legalize another one that may not be as bad, but still could potentally be bad.


Well like or not so is Cannabis, it has been here since the beginning of time, and its use is even more widespread now after 80 years of prohibition than it ever was before.
You cannot use the mentality either that since alcohol causes destruction and misery so too must cannabis. Cannabis is far less harmful and dangerous than the laws against it. It is a much softer drug than alcohol by any measure.
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
My guess is that you want young children to be able to drink alcohol so that it will be easier for you to get down their pants? So is it 12 year olds or younger that you wish to offer some panty-remover? It actually makes since that someone who is interested in dominating others would take pleasure in stealing the innocence of a child.


Banned.
CC Scott





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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
DrGreenthumb wrote:
My guess is that you want young children to be able to drink alcohol so that it will be easier for you to get down their pants? So is it 12 year olds or younger that you wish to offer some panty-remover? It actually makes since that someone who is interested in dominating others would take pleasure in stealing the innocence of a child.


Banned.


Ouch. Yeah that post went WAY too far. Good riddance.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 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