[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

What a pile of crap. You're using the usual strawman argument that if legalization doesn't eliminate all illegal activity it's not worth doing. Legalization knocked the hell out of illegal booze - it will do the same for pot.

Now you claim I am against legalization. I'm not. I am for the reasons you describe tho, because I have lived that that is bullshit. You have not ever lived in a country where it is legal (or decriminalized), right? Where you can walk into a "coffee shop", and get some pot, or red lebanon, or whatever kind of weed or hasjish you want. I have. Did not take the crime out of it. Did not make the drug dealers go away.

andyt andyt:

That money can be put towards prevention and treatment.

Brenda Brenda:

Treatment for what? It's not hazardous when used the way it should, right?

If it's not hazardous, why do you want to ban it? It's certainly way less hazardous than booze. Doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the dangers (prevention) and help those people who can't stop on their own.

Yeah, you missed my sarcasm there.
Driving way over the speed limit is not hazardous either. Until you lose control. Should be legalize speeding?

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Bullshit. Your mom's fridge is very easy to access, and that friend of a friend who is over 19 has no problem getting you some for a profit.

Ah, so you're the expert on this - why is nobody listening to you?

Really Andy? Weak.

andyt andyt:

Maybe same would be true for X. Are our current laws preventing X use, or only leading to deaths from contaminated X? How many kids die each year from alcohol poisoning, why aren't you advocating making booze illegal?

Brenda Brenda:

I don't know, but I do know how many have died here in this area alone from XTC. Not from booze. Drinking and driving, yes, bot od-ed on booze? I guess 0

You're right, you don't know. [/quote] I take it you do?

$1:

How many died, and was it pure X or adulterated? Pure X, as long as you drink enough, isn't that dangerous. Massachusetts saw 228 deaths from alcohol poisoning in 2008 - they have about 6,5 million people, so say in BC you could expect 150 deaths every year. How many people die from inhaling their own vomit when they pass out? (Certainly seems popular among rock stars) Just nobody makes a fuss about it.

So lets make vomiting illegal

[peck420]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yet cities wouldn't allow a grow op, that requires that much ventilation and/or power consumption into a residential area anyways. Imagine how bad property values would be affected.

You want to grow a couple plants for personal use, that's fine... full operations have no place in a residential area.

Yes and no. I can only speak for my city, but here it depends on the size of the operation.

The City of Edmonton has no problems with my internal 'grow op'. It contains 100-125 different plants, grow lights, drip system, humidity barrier, and proper ventilation.

As long as I stay under the maximum amount of power to a residential lot (without special permit), they really don't care much.

The EPS, however, (which is how I know the can detect certain aspects) did a very thorough inspection within days of completion.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

So more speculation.

You don't think that making something legal, cheaper and more accessible won't increase consumption and bring new users on board?

And what have you got, slick?

Portugal saw as slight uptick in pot use and a downturn in hard drug use after decrim. Doubtless there will be a slight increase in pot use from the few people who are held back from it by illegality. Those certainly won't be the chronics - they're already sucking up all they can. It will be the casual user that tries it because it's available where he buys his booze. No problem there. Casual smokers of pot have greater lung function than non-smokers. Casual use of pot has very little danger associated with it - no more than casual use of booze. Many docs are now coming out against the recommendation of having a couple of drinks a day, because they say the brain damage that causes isn't worth it for the heart benefits. They're preaching abstinence.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Now you claim I am against legalization. I'm not. I am for the reasons you describe tho, because I have lived that that is bullshit. You have not ever lived in a country where it is legal (or decriminalized), right? Where you can walk into a "coffee shop", and get some pot, or red lebanon, or whatever kind of weed or hasjish you want. I have. Did not take the crime out of it. Did not make the drug dealers go away.

Of course you have to have drug dealers if you decrim possession but not manufacture. It doesn't really make sense to do that half way step.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

So more speculation.

You don't think that making something legal, cheaper and more accessible won't increase consumption and bring new users on board?

And what have you got, slick?

Portugal saw as slight uptick in pot use and a downturn in hard drug use after decrim. Doubtless there will be a slight increase in pot use from the few people who are held back from it by illegality. Those certainly won't be the chronics - they're already sucking up all they can. It will be the casual user that tries it because it's available where he buys his booze. No problem there. Casual smokers of pot have greater lung function than non-smokers. Casual use of pot has very little danger associated with it - no more than casual use of booze. Many docs are now coming out against the recommendation of having a couple of drinks a day, because they say the brain damage that causes isn't worth it for the heart benefits. They're preaching abstinence.

Andy, I don't give a flying fuck about cigarettes and booze. We can't turn back the clock nor is "booze is worse" a good excuse to legalize a drug.

Take it from someone who's experienced the situation you propose(Brenda). Your theory of lack of crime is pure bullshit.

Go smoke some dope when you're done your shift at Timmies and stop wasting time with your stoner bullshit.

Move onto actual issues that affect people, not hair-brained ideas you came up by reading an article from Europe.

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

andyt andyt:

What a pile of crap. You're using the usual strawman argument that if legalization doesn't eliminate all illegal activity it's not worth doing. Legalization knocked the hell out of illegal booze - it will do the same for pot.

Now you claim I am against legalization. I'm not.

Yep. It's one thing to be for legalization, but you must buy into completely and without question the entire ridiculous package of societal benefits that legalization will bring lest you be labeled anti-legalization.

Apparently our little pony, Andy, just found a second trick to perform.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

So more speculation.

You don't think that making something legal, cheaper and more accessible won't increase consumption and bring new users on board?

And what have you got, slick?

Portugal saw as slight uptick in pot use and a downturn in hard drug use after decrim. Doubtless there will be a slight increase in pot use from the few people who are held back from it by illegality. Those certainly won't be the chronics - they're already sucking up all they can. It will be the casual user that tries it because it's available where he buys his booze. No problem there. Casual smokers of pot have greater lung function than non-smokers. Casual use of pot has very little danger associated with it - no more than casual use of booze. Many docs are now coming out against the recommendation of having a couple of drinks a day, because they say the brain damage that causes isn't worth it for the heart benefits. They're preaching abstinence.

Andy, I don't give a flying fuck about cigarettes and booze. We can't turn back the clock nor is "booze is worse" a good excuse to legalize a drug.

Take it from someone who's experienced the situation you propose(Brenda). Your theory of lack of crime is pure bullshit.

Go smoke some dope when you're done your shift at Timmies and stop wasting time with your stoner bullshit.

Move onto actual issues that affect people, not hair-brained ideas you came up by reading an article from Europe.

Yeah, you've got nothing.

Brenda is for legalization. Can't imagine why, since she doesn't seem to think it will actually have a positive effect, but there you are. Go argue with her for a while.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Brenda Brenda:

andyt andyt:

What a pile of crap. You're using the usual strawman argument that if legalization doesn't eliminate all illegal activity it's not worth doing. Legalization knocked the hell out of illegal booze - it will do the same for pot.

Now you claim I am against legalization. I'm not.

Yep. It's one thing to be for legalization, but you must buy into completely and without question the entire ridiculous package of societal benefits that legalization will bring lest you be labeled anti-legalization.

You're for legalization but don't think there will actually be any positives from it. Well, we've seen before that logic isn't your strong point. Just the usual arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

[Brenda]

What is the benefit to raising the speed limit from say 90 to 100? None, right? There's no positive effect, other than that you can drive faster.

Why would there be a benefit other than making something legal that is already easily accessible? Why would there NEED to be an effect other than not having to punish every teenager who is smoking pot?

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Why would there be a benefit other than making something legal that is already easily accessible? Why would there NEED to be an effect other than not having to punish every teenager who is smoking pot?

well, let me turn your argument right back at you - let's legalize all drugs because people are already doing them,

Actually the teens would still be "punished" just as they currently are with booze or cigs. Nobody I know is advocating making pot legal for underage. So teens would still have their pot confiscated and people who sell to them would be punished same as they are now for booze and cigs.

Even OTI admitted that legal pot would bring in lots of legal tax revenue. Well, where do you think that revenue comes from - from formerly illegal sales. Making pot legal will have a huge impact on gang revenues. It will allow diversion of police resources to other areas. It will greatly reduce illegal grow ops - there just won't be the money in it to make it worthwhile. It's not a cure all - as chickenshit arguers like you and Gunnair like to pretend anybody on this forum has ever argued. But it will have a very positive effect.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Why would there be a benefit other than making something legal that is already easily accessible? Why would there NEED to be an effect other than not having to punish every teenager who is smoking pot?

well, let me turn your argument right back at you - let's legalize all drugs because people are already doing them,

Actually the teens would still be "punished" just as they currently are with booze or cigs. Nobody I know is advocating making pot legal for underage. So teens would still have their pot confiscated and people who sell to them would be punished same as they are now for booze and cigs.

Even OTI admitted that legal pot would bring in lots of legal tax revenue. Well, where do you think that revenue comes from - from formerly illegal sales. Making pot legal will have a huge impact on gang revenues. It will allow diversion of police resources to other areas. It will greatly reduce illegal grow ops - there just won't be the money in it to make it worthwhile. It's not a cure all - as chickenshit arguers like you and Gunnair like to pretend anybody on this forum has ever argued. But it will have a very positive effect.

Nice not answering my question.

BTW, I would also advocate for lowering the legal age. You can drive when you're 16, but not vote, smoke or drink. Weird.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Brenda Brenda:

Now you claim I am against legalization. I'm not.

Yep. It's one thing to be for legalization, but you must buy into completely and without question the entire ridiculous package of societal benefits that legalization will bring lest you be labeled anti-legalization.

You're for legalization but don't think there will actually be any positives from it. Well, we've seen before that logic isn't your strong point. Just the usual arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

You continue to demonstrate the depths of your black and white fucking idiocy. I simply don't buy all your arguments that there will be no end of societal benefits save for cutting back on the amount of tax money we waste on enforcement.

For a guy who whines about a black and white outlook from others, the hypocrisy you're demonstrating authorizes me to issue you a 'shut the fuck up' ticket.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

What is the benefit to raising the speed limit from say 90 to 100? None, right? There's no positive effect, other than that you can drive faster.

Why would there be a benefit other than making something legal that is already easily accessible? Why would there NEED to be an effect other than not having to punish every teenager who is smoking pot?

The bottom line is, pot smokers like andy want to smoke up without the worry of police and they want to pay less for pot.

All this talk about saving money, gangs...it's all smoke and mirrors to hide the real reason.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Booze costs pennies the bottle to produce, yet look at the price of booze. Why is there no thriving illegal booze produced?

No, just a half a billion dollar underground economy for smuggled booze.

Which is a FAR cry from the $4.5 Billion dollar legal industry just in Ontario alone. Or would you rather the gangs have 100% of the action instead of just their little piece of the pie.

I mean hell, since OC has their paws in a bit of the alcohol trade, might as well recrim booze since repealing prohibition didn't entirely remove the criminal element. Right?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Brenda Brenda:

Now you claim I am against legalization. I'm not. I am for the reasons you describe tho, because I have lived that that is bullshit. You have not ever lived in a country where it is legal (or decriminalized), right? Where you can walk into a "coffee shop", and get some pot, or red lebanon, or whatever kind of weed or hasjish you want. I have. Did not take the crime out of it. Did not make the drug dealers go away.

That's because Holland half-assed it. The problem is, you have places that can legally sell the stuff, but those places can't be legally supplied because of limits placed on cultivation.
Who do you think is supplying the "coffee shops"? It sure ain't the people growing 5 plants or less.
So what Holland effectively did was decrim it, not legalize it. They legitimized the market for pot but utterly failed to legitimize the supply.