Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login



Register Here


Forum posts for Please Read

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
So you're saying there's no effects? No short term memory loss? No higher rates of lung disease when compared to people that don't smoke anything?

Posted by mike on Mar 17, 2004
Where are the studies that PROVE that there are ill effects? Where? It's all heresay.

I thought that weed was banned origionally in Canada basically to piss off black people and Chinese workers who were the main people smoking weed back then, and the white people didn't want to be "contaminated" or some such thing... people were so stupid. Wasn't the origional "law" type stuff part of the Chinese immigrant act or something?

That and what's her name, that famous member of parliament from way back in the day. She has on of those Heritage Moment commercials about her. Molly something? No... that's not it.

I really don't get how the RCMP has published some kind of report claiming that it will cost them more money to issue tickets after the reforms take place. How does that make any sense? I suppose if you creatively cook the numbers and don't factor in the cost of keeping people in jail, and the court time for people fighting charges, and so forth. Even if every ticket ever issued were challenged in court (which some people are "threatening" to do according to the RCMP) wouldn't it make more sense to just issue less tickets? Are they planning on hiring special cops to walk around and issue tickets or something? Come on now, that's a little silly.

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
So that it what you're saying.
I just wanted to be clear on that.

i know what to do!
Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
decriminalize it..
don't legalize it except for medicinal use...

simple.. and still enforce large sentences for traffickers and large-scale growers... and the government should grow it's own medicinal weed.. and this time NOT SUCK at it...

i mean really what is up with all that government weed sucking so bad??
they couldn't hire ONE of the growers they have caught in the past??
SOMEONE, who knew what they were doing?
i mean i know a few people who grow.. (3 well maintained plants can pay your rent)... and it's not that hard ..

you need the large sentences on large scale growers and traffickers because that is where the REAL criminal element comes in...

smoking it.. doesn't hurt anyone
buying it from your friend... doesn't hurt anyone
growing it and buying from BIKERS, TRIADS, RASTAS... that can sometimes get people killed...

decriminalize it and i would grow my own...
so basically that is how i see it.. everyone wins

us regular smokers can smoke without fear of jail time
medicinal users can smoke and feel better .. from cancer, MS, glaucoma, AIDS.. etc etc..
police can still get the really bad dudes.. and prevent that type of crime...
government and other agencies can benefit from less money spent on such a small crime as posession.. court, jail and police costs associated with it can almost be NULL.. compared to the insane amount of cash spent now..

i don't see a reasonable argument against this.. if you think of one... please correct me...

and please be informed.. i don't want anyone telling me a marijuana high lasts 3 days.. that pot makes you a rapist that eats glass, that weed supports terrorists, and that 10,000 children have been living in grow houses in toronto.. cuz that is just retarded..

so..... GO! comments please.. take some time.. goof off from work .. and lets get going on this.. the wolfshack has been dead for more than a week.. KICK IT!!1

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
I don't think they'll decriminalize it until they've invented some sort of cheap weed breathalizer. Until there's a sure fire way of telling whether or not someone is high when they're driving it'll be a tough fight to decriminalize it.

Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
umm.. so they don't need one of those now?

so people can get away with driving high on weed/coke/heroin/meth/whatever... as long as those drugs aren't decriminalized???

yeah they need something.. but they need something for all those other drugs... what about stuff like salvia divinorum... it's legal.. i doubt you could drive on it.. but i mean.. shit.. i really don't think that is a big concern when it comes to decriminalization...

but really paul is that your only argument against decriminalization?
that is sweet...

Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
that last post didn't sound right..

i just meant that if that is all paul can think of against decriminalization it shouldn't be much longer....

not that i REALLY care... i'll just obey the laws i like.. and ignore the ones i don't... as always.. as really most people do...

when was the last time you stopped and considered not doing something because it was against the law.... ? lol

you only consider the punishment.. not the fact that it is actually a bad thing to do because the government said so..

so rock on paul.. i didn't mean anything by that post...

clockity clock clock
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Yeah, it would be good to have that now. But, if the government is going to give its approval to smoking the ganga, then they need a way to stop smoking and driving. And it is an issue, as MAD is already bitching about it, and so are some MPs.

I don't really have an opinion either way. If it's decriminalized, fine, if not, that's fine too. I do think that if they decriminalize they should go all out or not at all. Something like, decriminalize it, and allow a household to have up to 3 plants. And that would be the absolute gold standard. If you have 4 plants, tough luck buddy, you're going to jail.

Mike, I sort of think that the RCMP should stop investigating murder. Think of how much money it costs! I mean, if it costs so much money, they'd be better off to just charge less people with murder. Shit, what's the harm? Are you going to get killed twice? And shit, everyone, and I mean everyone, that's charged with murder fights the charge. Those bastards!
Look at speeding tickets. There's a hole industry set up to try to get people off. (Well not just speeding tickets, but any driving infraction).

Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
actually paul that is how it is right now...
3 plants is possession... 4 plants is 5-17 years

and really don't you think there is a big difference between being caught with a joint.. (less than one gram of pot) and murder???

if you don't i think you need your head examined

my message needs a title
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Of course there's a difference. That's why the punishment for muder is 25 years, while the punishment for a joint is much less.

The point is that the RCMP, and police in general, can't go and pick and choose how to enforce the law in effort to save money. If something's against the law the solution is to lobby parliament to get that law changed, not to tell the RCMP that something costs too much to worry about.

ASIDE: I'm not sure what a hole industry is either.

Pens are great. Penguins are better.
Posted by Nerhael on Mar 17, 2004
The main difference between murder and possession of pot in my view is I don't want another person to murder me. I don't give a flying fuck if some guy has some pot.

If someone drives while high, that's a problem. It could result in damage/death to others, and hence the government should make that illegal.

If they smoke pot in the privacy of their home, that doesn't hurt anyone except possibly themselves.

I feel the government has no place determining what I do to myself. I'm sure you'll think of some case where this won't work, but meh, in general I think it applies well.

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
The problem with that viewpoint is that nothing happens in a vaccuum. If you doing pot or heroin in the privacy of your own home truly had no affect on others, then yeah, go for it. However, it doesn't work like that.

Okay, assume you could do heroin with no penalty. When you OD on heroin, you go to a publicly funded hospital. You then take resources away from that hospital. That's one less minute the doctor gets to spend with the boy that had a tractor crush his legs, etc. Secondly, when you recover from ODing and go back home, you have no job anymore. So you go on welfare, which comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.
But you scrape yourself together and manage to get a good job. But then you start doing heroin again. And your performance at work suffers, which is a huge cost to your employer. The amount of lost productivity because of drug users and alcholics (and similarly to smokers and overeaters) is astounding. If we were more productive we'd make more money, which means more taxes being paid, which leads to more money for health Care, etc. Now, we could say that if you OD on an illegal narcotic you should't have access to public healthcare, but I think that's going too far.

Ever talk to someone that's been to Amsterdam? There's nice points, but it's also a hole.

Secondly, the government provides you with policing because they believe that they have an obligation to protect you from others. Some people would also say that the government has an obligation to protect you from yourself, which is why drugs such as heroin are illegal. I'm not saying i agree or disagree with that, just that it's a viewpoint. (Tangent - the Economist had an article on whether or not marijuana should be legal, and their conclusion was that all drugs should be legal).

Should I be able to download child porn at home? It's not harning anyone*. Should I be able to write stories about child porn?

*Yes, people are hurt in making it. You're not hurting anyone by downloading it though. People are also hurt by the clothes you buy. Should the government ban clothes from China? Don't have the right to buy clothes from wherever I want?

yeah ...
Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
nothing happens in a vaccuum.. 'cept for canadian politics... lol

Penguins to all corners of the earth
Posted by Nerhael on Mar 17, 2004
Okay, in response to the heroin OD, what about the a stomach ulcer from eating too much spicy food. Or being fat, and causing health costs associated with that?

We have medicare, if it wants to redefine it's applications to exclude drug users, fine by me. You OD on heroine, sorry, you're dead. I don't think that's going too far. I have no problem with that. The user made the choice to do it, and paid the price. Now okay, there's the costs associated to that death, but hey, like you said sarcastically, we only die once, so that cost is gonna happen eventually.

As for lost productivity. Christ, this is lost productivity. The employer should fire you if you suck. Doesn't matter about the cause. Heroine or laziness.

I realize the point about protecting you from yourself, it's just something I say I don't agree with. Which is the main point of my last point. They can list out the warnings, the problems etc, but I want final choice over myself.

RE: Child porn: The assumption of a decrimilized pot thing is you're growing it yourself, so this hurting of another in the making process isn't there. Isn't this essentially a strawman? If children were being exploited in the makign of pot, it would be different guy, there's no doubt of that.

RE: Sweatsops: The government has no responsibility to those people in china. Our government is responsible to Canadians. I would love for them to take that kind of stance on it though. Fucking people over is fucking people over. They would never allow that kind of exploitation of a Canadian citizen. But sadly, that's who there responsibility is to.

ASIDE: How does overeating result in lost productivity? I can understand smoke breaks, but you can snack at your desk easily enough.

blockity block block block
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
The child porn was in reference to the government not interfering in your life, not pot. Okay, Robin Sharpe writes stories that include child porn. Actually, teh entire point of the stories is to get to the child porn. No one gets hurt. Should that be illegal or legal? I believe he'll be going before the supreme court soon.

There's health costs associated with being overweight, as you mentioned. So the question is, do we draw a line somewhere? Currently that's how we do it. We encourage you to get in shape by institues and programs like CAN FIT and other stuff like that, but we let you make that decision. We don't let you make the decision on illegal narcotics, we've drawn a line there. The option is to move the line further away from health, and let you do whatever you want, or move it closer, and ban narcotics, alcohol, ice cream, etc.

An employer can't fire you for being sick. When you're sick you're not producing. Hence, the billions of lost productivity. That's what I meant by overeating. I didn't even think of smoke breaks for smokers. I just meant that smokers and overeaters are less productive, on average. Of course, so are women*, doesn't mean we shouldn't hire them, or that it's fair not to hire them.

*If you're interviewing a university grad, one's a woman and one's a man, who do you hire? Well, odds are that the woman is more likely to have at least one, possibly more, babies. Which means you train her for her to take time off, then you train someone new, then you have to pay her while she's not working for you. It's kind of a crappy situation for young women.

Stop speed reading.
Posted by mike on Mar 17, 2004
Dude, I require that you stop speed reading what I am saying, you are hurting my brain with your responses.

I said that the RCMP is stupid for saying it will cost more to issue tickets. If they are saying that then they must be assuming that they will have to hire special cops to walk around asking everyone they pass "do you have any weed on you?". If they find it to be such a fucking problem to have officers show up in court when tickets are fought then the same could be said for speeding tickets. Cops frequently don't show up for traffic tickets. They couldn't possibly be deducting the costs of the current system of prosecuting offenders, appeals and so forth, shit man, half the time with weed they just issue a fine anyway, this is skipping a step and therefore saving money. If they find it to be costing too much to issue tickets then they could issue less, or they could issue more because the fines are revenue for christ sakes. It is the same thing as speeding tickets, you can't convince me that cops don't have traffic violation quotas they have to meet. Did I mention murder? No. Is murder ever comparable to smoking weed? No. Does murder have anything to do with what we are talking about? No. I forget what it is called, but you are comparing a mountain to a mole hill here and it's just not working for me.

We do have a brethalizer test. Do people still drive drunk? Yes they do, it is a mentality issue. Do I drive drunk? No, but I have before. Do I drive high? No, but I have before. Which is worse? Drunk. There is no comparisson. People who know enough not to drive drunk will know enough not to drive high. I guess they only figured out how to nab drunk drivers after the invention of the breathalizer. Oh... that's right... the roadside sobriety test used to work. I guess there is no possible way to issue a roadside sobriety test anymore? Cops have lost that ability now?

Did someone reference penguins earlier?
Posted by Nerhael on Mar 17, 2004
Not sure why I have penguins on the brain.

Right, but the child porn harms people, hence is not an analogous comparison to how the government wants to interfere RE: pot.

That child porn in writing is a good one. That it exists is harmless, and reading it in theory is harmless. But could be suggested that it A: endorses the bad manifestions of child pornography, B: leads the reader to those manifestations. Interesting situation though. That here? Or US?

But that line is arbitrary. Hurting yourself by eating is analogous to hurting yourself by smoking pot. Both shouldn't really create incidental harm to others. Why can't there be a CAN FIT for pot?

Well, I don't think you you'll get any sicker from pot than from regular cigarettes. Pulling heroin in to this is different. Heroine is a true narcotic, that creates a physical dependency. I think there's more basis for cigarettes being illegal than pot.

RE: pregnant woman: Has anyone read proposed solutions to this? I know some of you have read material concerning this. I actually think I did too, but think it skirted potential solutions.

hole this
Posted by Katie on Mar 17, 2004
I've been to Amsterdam. And I 100% disagree with you calling it a hole.

Have you even been to Amsterdam? Because if you have, you didn't see enough of it. The only place that was remotely sketch was the red light district, and that would have more to do with legalized prostitution, n'est pas?

I thought the people in Amsterdam were the friendliest, the most approachable, and the most fun. The city itself was beautiful with no more garbage and rundown areas than Toronto or my own home town of Milton. The city is gorgeous, perhaps not architecturally-wise but definitely style-wise and there are tons of fun places to go that have nothing to do with weed. There were open air markets around every corner, performers, human chess games, and allll sorts of other things to make life awesome there.

So I think, if you were trying to say that legalized weed had something to do with Amsterdam being a hole, that you were way off track. One because even with it being legalized, there is still only a small percentage of the population that uses it on a regular basis. And two, because it's not a hole.

Dockity dock dock dock
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Mike, no matter how many times you accuse me of speed reading it won't make it true. I wish I could speed read!

You say If they are saying that then they must be assuming that they will have to hire special cops to walk around asking everyone they pass "do you have any weed on you
I say The point is that the RCMP, and police in general, can't go and pick and choose how to enforce the law in effort to save money.

Now, which of those sounds strange to you? Which is more based in reality?

The point on the breathalizer is that the government can't endorse a policy (decriminalizing weed) that will encourage its use unless they have a way of preventing its use while driving. Shit, you're already saying that there's no comparison between driving drunk and driving high. There damn well better be a way to test if someone is driving high.

The child porn is about a guy from BC. He says it's a good thing, as it allows people who are into that to get it without harming anyone.

I don't know if the line really is all that arbitrary. The government has banned substances that alter your state of being/and or are addictive. The only exceptions are alcohol and caffeine.

I don't know about a solution to the woman thing. I think it has to do with government offering incentives to companies with pregnant women or something. It'll take someone smarter than me to figure it out.

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004

Did that work??
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004

Harmful effects
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Okay, sorry about the I-talics.

It's all heresay though.

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Katie, I have never been to Amsterdam. I'm glad to hear someone say something nice about it. My point regarding it was more in regards to Nerhael's point about being able to do what you want if it doesn't harm others.

Lucid Nonsense
Posted by Miguel on Mar 17, 2004
I have heard lots of stories about parks full of drug addicts and needles on the ground in Amsterdam, but even if they were true, that has to do with smack, not marijuana.

I think the key flaw in the health/government protection argument is that tobacco, heroin coke and the other hard drugs have proven, overt addictive qualities. Marijuana is not addictive, at least there are no chemicals in it that will cause dependency. So if you want to stop, you can without much trouble.

You could argue that it can cause one to become psychologically addicted, but almost anything can become addictive, from alcohol to pornography to working out, depending on mental factors. But then you would have to tell me with a straight face that we should limit or prohibit the consumption of junk food/alcohol/pornography&eroticism/intense working out etc. Its not going to happen. In a secular, liberal society like ours, no one would ever agree to that.

So while both pot and tobacco cause lung cancer, you quickly develop a dependency on nicotine while THC has no addictive qualities, and it is the addictiveness (and the large amounts of tobacco one can consume to ease the cravings) that cause the problems.

Driving is a priviledge, not a right. If someone gets caught driving while high, just do the same thing you do to alcohol, remove their licence. The situation right now is ridiculous because you have weed getting the shaft for silly historical reasons while alcohol and tobacco are legalized. And yes you could say that WELL GOOD SIR, I THINK THEY SHOULD ALL BE ILLEGAL...but its a ridiculous argument, because the vast majority of society approves of alcohol and smoking if done in a private, controlled setting, and there should be no reason why you cant have the same done to marijuana.

You can't turn the clock back, so the only fair system is to remove restrictions on marijuana.

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
I be able to own any type of weapon I want, as long as I keep in my basement?

I would give the marijuana arguments more credit if they weren't all by people that like to smoke weed. (I dont' mean in this thread, I mean in general). However, like I said, I don't really care either way. (Just want to be clear on this. Some people seem to be confusing my comments in regards to Nerhael's statements as being anti weed).

Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
paul what were those links in reference too?

the first refers to the harmful effects of pot being:

1. Effects on the brain:

"Of the three studies of this question that have been done, the results show NO, mild, and fairly pronounced long-term damage,"

2. Respiratory damage:

Their conclusion: Puff for puff, smoking marijuana is even harder on the lungs than smoking tobacco.

umm.. so?
everyone knows that.... if you smoke something.. be it tobacco, pine needles, tarragon, heroin, crack, coke, hippo, whatever.. it isn't good for your lungs... even more so this article goes on to say:

"The evidence is convincing that long-term regular use of marijuana exposes users to significant risk of lung damage. Many may also suffer subtle but measurable cognitive and motor impairments that persist for weeks after use stops. And, of course, nonmedical use of marijuana is illegal everywhere. However, compared with other drugs of abuse such as tobacco, alcohol and cocaine, marijuana is much less addictive, if at all, and there's no danger of death from an overdose."

"In the meantime, Consumer Reports believes that, for patients with advanced AIDS and terminal cancer, the apparent benefits some derive from smoking marijuana outweigh any substantiated or even suspected risks. In the same spirit the FDA uses to hasten the approval of cancer drugs, federal laws should be relaxed in favor of states' rights to allow physicians to administer marijuana to their patients on a caring and compassionate basis."

so what is the point of this link?
yes it can cause bodily harm.. but very little even when compared to tobacco and alcohol.. so what were you trying to say?

The point
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
is that it was stated, with Michael Moore like accuracy, that there are no side effects of weed, and that's a proven fact. Then we were told that anything having to do with side effects was heresay.

Well, both those arguments are false. If you want to say that the effects are minor, or less than the effects of cigarettes, fine. But don't say there's no effects, as I start to lose my respect for your argument when you say that.

Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
i didn't say that.. just asking the point of your post

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Which i answered.

What part of what I"m saying are you not understanding?

Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
its just that your posted links didn't have anything to do with the current topic of discussion.. i didn't know you were actually responding to the original post.. chill ace...

and i accepted your answer.. just said that it wasn't my statement you were responding too..

oh and one more thing.. and here's the crazy part.. mike is right about this one.. it is stated pretty clearly.. about the RCMP:

he is saying the following:

IF marijuana were decriminalized the RCMP were complaining it would cost more to ticket people than the current arrest/incarceration/trail deal they have right now...


IF marijuana were decriminalized the RCMP/courts/government would save money ...


HE never said that the RCMP should decriminalize marijuana in order to save money... you somehow read that into his post..

My turn to say 'huh?'
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Where did I say that Mike said the RCMP should decriminalize to save money? I don't understand your if also but ideas.

Posted by Nerhael on Mar 17, 2004
Posting help:

When a user would like something to appear in italics, you wrap the text you want italized...(That a word?) with
You almost had it Paul, just forgot the backslash on the closing one.

Other helpful ones.
Bold text
<b>Bold text</b>
Underlined text
<u>Underlined text</u>
Striked-out text
<s>Striked-out text</s>
SuperScript text
<sup>SuperScript text</sup>
SuperScript text
<sub>SuperScript text</sub>

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
Nerhael, I almost laughed out loud at your post.

Fantastic. Thank you for the tips!


Totally Impartial.
Posted by mike on Mar 17, 2004
I could totally go either way on this issue to PHD. We should definitely decriminalize weed.

The RCMP said it would cost more to enforce the ticketting laws than to keep with the current system. I say that is not correct and they are skewing the numbers somehow. That is the end. No more. I don't want hem to pick and choose hwo to enforce the law. But since it will be very similar to a speeding ticket the same rules of engagement will obviously apply. If the officer wants to slap you with the full fine for speeding or weed they will, If they want to let you off with a warning they will, if they want to do something in between they will. Although in thinking about it that is an example of the cops picking and choosing how to enforce the law. That is not what I am talking about though. How could it cost more to issue tickets? That makes no sense to me given the added revenue and decreased level of enforcement. I don't get where the other stuff came from.

You said:
"The point on the breathalizer is that the government can't endorse a policy (decriminalizing weed) that will encourage its use unless they have a way of preventing its use while driving. Shit, you're already saying that there's no comparison between driving drunk and driving high. There damn well better be a way to test if someone is driving high."

The breathalizer is a deterant, not prevention. Just the same way as a roadside sobriety test (the pre-breatalizer method) is a deterent, not prevention. Therefore there is a method of deterring driving while impaired. The whole point of impared driving is that you are impaired. Not necessarily drunk, but impaired. If you have been drinking, huffing gas, have a serious inner ear problem, smoking weed, took a handful of codene, are using serious prescription medication, or whatever else, you are impaired and can be charged with impaired driving. That is the end of it. Sure it would be great to have a simple test, and we'll likely work on that, but the fact is that your impaired driving discussion goes a lot farther than booze. Impaired driving is a mentality, there is no absolute prevention other than just not doing it, and people are apparently not willing to do that.

I don't get how you say you don't care one way or the other, but you are so totally against it. Weed is also not comparitive to child porn, Fact.

here... and here
Posted by alltogethernow on Mar 17, 2004
"Mike, I sort of think that the RCMP should stop investigating murder. Think of how much money it costs! I mean, if it costs so much money, they'd be better off to just charge less people with murder. Shit, what's the harm? Are you going to get killed twice? And shit, everyone, and I mean everyone, that's charged with murder fights the charge. Those bastards!
Look at speeding tickets. There's a hole industry set up to try to get people off. (Well not just speeding tickets, but any driving infraction)."

"I say The point is that the RCMP, and police in general, can't go and pick and choose how to enforce the law in effort to save money. "

he wasn't saying the RCMP should pick and choose.. he was saying in the event that marijuana was decriminalized the RCMP could save money.. not the other way around.. and these arguments seem to say

Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
I'm not totally against it.

All I've said is that there will need to be a good way of detecting if someone's high while driving. That's the only thing I'm saying against it.

I have never compared weed to child porn. If you think that's the case then I suggest you stop speed reading.

Posted by Nerhael on Mar 17, 2004
Ahem, sorry, heh, got my HTML tags mixed up. I knew there was one to display HTML within XML, and got it mixed up with anotehr one. All fixed.

Lets see....
Posted by Miguel on Mar 17, 2004
"should I be able to own any type of weapon I want, as long as I keep in my basement?"

I am guessing this is in reply to my comments on the use of alcohol and tobacco in a private setting.

1. I don't believe this is a good analogy, weapons are extremely dangerous and always controlled if not banned in most societies due to the obvious harm and danger they represent in an immediate physical way. Not at all the same with marijuana, where the only issues are lung cancer and the possibility of driving while high. And on that note, who really thinks the decriminalization of marijuana is going to bring about a huge spike in driving high? The people who smoke weed while high are going to do it regardless of its legal status, because its a problem of education and quick enforcement. I really don't think this is the major issue with marijuana besides the focus of interest groups like MADD.

2. How many people do you know who don't smoke tobacco or drink that preach about the benefits of that? If you don't smoke marijuana you are not going to be its biggest champion, but you should be able to see the reasoning behin....wait a minute....what do you call both Chretien and Martin's strong endorsement of decriminalization? I don't think they are chronics.

3. Did you answer Mike's comments on sobriety tests? Why don't cops just run those on motorists and if they fail, they have to go down to the station for testing?

4. The bottom line is, marijuana was criminalized due to moral and racial considerations. We now live in an individual, socially liberal society that disapproves of almost any government intervention on moral issues (including the most currently controversial moral issue: abortion). We can smoke, drink, watch pornography that doesn't involve children, engage in sodomy etc. etc., and yet marijuana use seems to have a stigma that is almost entirely of a moral nature. Its puzzling

Posted by Nerhael on Mar 17, 2004
Another good one:

<blockquote>Text to quote</blockquote>

"I said that blah blah blah. You damned dirty ape."

jockity jock jock jock
Posted by phduffy on Mar 17, 2004
The weapons thing was in response to nerhael. Most of what I've said has been in response to him.

Let's see, I'm not gay and don't know any gay people, and yet I support gay marriage. I'm not going to have an abortion, and hopefully will never be in a situation where it has to be discussed, and yet I support it. I will never be on death row, and yet I have feeligns about capital punishment. If by Martin's strong endorsment you mean taking the bill of the table so that they can weaken it, and getting rid of Chretein's ministers that supported it, and generally avoiding the question, then yes, he is a fanatic.
How do you know Chretein didn't smoke weed? That might explain some things. "Money?? Shit, I don't remember".

Look, you don't have to convince me of anything, I don't really care. However, breathalizer tests are already an issue! Don't get angry at me, realize that there is a serious issue.
Do I think more people will smoke weed if it's not illegal? Absolutely. And they'll smoke more often. And if there's more people smoking more often you'll get more people driving while hi. Just the fact that it will be easier to get will make that happen more often.

The thing, if you're going to make an argument to people that don't care about the issue, like myself, you should get things right. Saying that Martin is a strong supporter of it and that there are no harmful side effects is just wrong, and obviously wrong. Anyoen that knows people that smoke weed will realize that, and you're going to start off on the wrong foot. If you come at them with the world is against pot smokers, and there's nothing wrong with it, etc, you make your point weaker.

I would suggest that gay marriage is currently more controversial. And I don't think our society is as libetarian as you think. Go look up the history of AOV, for example.
Okay, I'm going home now, so no more from me. :)
Tomorrow morning I'll stop posting here, but I'll post something on the main page if no one else does.

You are unbelievable
Posted by Miguel on Mar 17, 2004

1. Don't twist my words dude, just don't. Here is what I said :"what do you call both Chretien and Martin's strong endorsement of decriminalization". The Chretien governments bill, as far as I know was removed due to a legal issue. Paul Martin is changing the bill to give harder fines to growers and he is lowering the amount that you can have in your possession. All of which is fine. He could have very well have buried the bill, or even put in tougher legislation for possession. But no, he has gone on record as saying "it does absolutely nothing to give a criminal record to young people caught with minimal amounts." And of course Paul Martin got rid of those ministers because of their views on the oh so important issue of Marijuana and not simply because they were Chretien loyalists. Paul Martin is not as strong a supporter as Chretien, but he sill endorses decriminalization.

2. I never said there were no side effects, there are side effects. Back to the driving issue again, alcohol affects driving much more strongly than marijuana does, and I would love to see statistics on how many accidents are caused due to THC intoxication. I'm not denying that people don't see this as an imprtant issue, but I suspect that its not as prevalent as people make it out to be.

3.If you look at the big picture it goes like this, and I think the senate report said it best:

* "the current system of prohibition in Canada does not work and should be replaced by a regulated system that would focus on illegal trafficking, prevention programs and respecting individual and collective freedoms

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue"

*No one on the committee wants to see an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, we believe that the recommendations you see in this report (widespread decrim) will ultimately result in a reduction of use of the drug.

See, those old rich fogeys are finally doing something right!

4. Im not angry I just smoked a big phat bowl I'm just trying to discuss this.

Side Effects
Posted by MDuffy on Mar 17, 2004
Hey Paul, on your little thing about short term memory loss here is my feelings:
Every test ever done on this is where they take 2 people aprox same IQ get one fully baked, the other sober and they write a test.

I know you dont smoke weed so it might be a bit different for you to understand this but... if I am a test subject about to write an hour iq test after being filled with a large dose of THC, I dont give a fuck. The one guy that doesnt smoke is thinking "ok gotta get right answers and beat this chump" where the stoned guy is thinkgin "they call em fingers, but I dont see them doing any fingin.... wo there they go"

Honestly if you were all stoned you want to listen to music, or draw or something. Take a look at your cd's all those musicians you listen to (a good 90%) REAL fucken high on pot. Pot people have done more for this world than any other people. Bill Gates- stoner, the guy that sent the first thing into outerspace from Canada (head of astrophysics at UBC) chronic, woody harrleson - chronic, Ted Turner - Chronic, Van Goe, William Shakespear... I can go on if you want...

Posted by MDuffy on Mar 17, 2004
Nobody has ever died from pot. EVER no recorded case.
So the government wants to put me in jail for a min 2 years for growing 25 plants??? FUCK THAT, 25 plants can be smoked in a couple months depending on the size, do they take people who make guns (guns kill millions) and throw them in jail for manufacturing guns? Do they put head tobacco companies in jail??? NO, Paul Martin is a fucking hypocritical fuck. His wife openly stated that she gave Paul Martin a pot brownie without his knowledge. Ok #1 manufacturing a controlled substance min 1 year, and #2 giving someone any form of drug without their knowledge is fully illegal, I dont know the time you get but still, its highly illegal.

Posted by phduffy on Mar 18, 2004
You said Paul Martin is a strong supporter of decriminalization.
That's not true. Others have said that there are no effects to marijuana. That is also not true. I didn't say that you said there were no effects to marijuana. I didn't twist your words. Shit, people have told me that I'm against decriminalization and that I compared child porn to pot, neither of which are true. So don't talk to me about twisting words.

Also, the Senate statement that cannabis use will go down is complete BS, and I kind of believe that they must have known that.

Mduffy, I am highly dubious of your statement that pot people have done more for the world than any other people.
Also, in regards to the testing, you seem to be saying that it's impossible to test people on THC. Well okay, that would prove Mike's point that there's no 'proof'. (See, it's fake because it's in quotations!!!111)

Oh yeah
Posted by phduffy on Mar 18, 2004
If you're growing 25 plants then you're not growing all that for yourself.
You're selling some of it, which means that you have illegal income that's not being taxed.

Posted by Miguel on Mar 18, 2004

Why would the senate include such a statement then? This was an exhaustive (and expensive) study that they undertook, and they listened to experts on both sides of the issue and had access to all kinds of information that we don't.

They are also not politically accountable (except if they hang out in mehico for months on end), so it's not like they released a pro decrim report to appease Chretien.

Posted by Miguel on Mar 18, 2004
While the Amsterdam situation not exactly the same than ours, recall what Katie said.

"because even with it being legalized, there is still only a small percentage of the population that uses it on a regular basis."

Why would Canada be so much different?

Beats me
Posted by phduffy on Mar 18, 2004
I can't really figure it out. They're smart people, they've got to know that use isn't going to go down. They can certainly have an agenda. Maybe they really believe that decriminalization is good, so they added this as an attempt to appease the opponents.

You know...
Posted by phduffy on Mar 18, 2004
We should have something about the Senate. There's something kind of controversial.

Posted by MDuffy on Mar 18, 2004
whatever dood, 25 plants is personal amount. 25 plants would be enough for 1 year, and you can only harvest once a year. Also I never said Paul Martin supports decrim, he is a fucker.
Phduffy, I think your problem is that your "one of them" a none "pot person" and thats why your so anal about the situation. So give me your address and ill mail you a joint, you can smoke that friday night or something and think about it!

Posted by MDuffy on Mar 18, 2004
If the gov't were to decrim marijuana and everyone could grow it wherever they wanted, no one would be able to make an income off growing it because it wouldn't be worth any money. Also phduffy have you ever bought lettuce and tomatoes from a biker or an affiliated gang member? I think not, my point on that being that if anyone could grow it, there would be no income and people wouldn't have to buy it from sketchy people.

TO clarify
Posted by phduffy on Mar 18, 2004

Fuck. What I'm against is misinformation, and the people reading things into what I've said that I just didn't say makes me want to call my MP and tell him to keep pot illegal just to piss you off.

I don't care either way. I present the breathalizer issue as something that opponents are bringing up. Nerhael makes a comment that he doesn't think that the government should be involved in personal decisions, ie, drugs. I bring up what I see as problems to THAT POINT including Amsterdam and child porn. I also find studies that show that there are harmful effects to marijuana, directly contradicting earlier statements that pot has no harmful effects. Somehow me trying to get the correct information is taken as me being against decriminalization, which I have never said or even hinted at. Mostly because IT'S NOT TRUE.

mduffy, in regards to the 25 plants, it depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about decriminalizing, then yes, you are making money and not paying tax on it, because it's still illegal to grow. Even if it's legalized there's a decent chance that it would be a controlled substance. In which case you wouldn't be able to grow it and sell it without severe restrictions.

March Madness
Posted by MDuffy on Mar 18, 2004
What im saying about the 25 plants is that if you were to grow them outside vvery year so that you would have enough supply to last you a year, so you do not have to purchase it from the streets.

Also if people were allowed to grow it wherever, then people wouldn't sell it anymore (if they did it would be cheap as hell). This would stop all the illegal money floating around. People would have jars of the stuff everywhere and we would trade different strains not sell.