[inquiksilver]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

mtbr mtbr:

Keemo Keemo:

Leagalising pot would put the grow ops out of business, and deprive the organized crime rings of a serious income stream. Much of the pot grown now is traded to the US for cocaine and guns. Were we to legalize it and treat it under the same rules as beer and wine, we would free up police resource to deal with the serious drugs like cocaine and crystal meth. Taxed like beer and wine, it could pay for fighting the serious drugs. Legalized, the serious growers, rather than the merely criminally inclined ones, could go legitimate and pay taxes. Their employees would also be paying taxes, and the truckers hauling it off to the LCB distro centre. Under our current pot laws, only cops, lawyers and criminal groups benefit.

what would the organized crime rings do for money..switch to harder drugs. Do you think they would just give up and get real jobs.

Thats a real tired argument. The beer and wine excuse is also nonsense, we don't need any more legal drugs.

Sure we do. Everything should be legal until shown to cause significant societal harm. That's called freedom. Freedom--perhaps you've heard of it, though probably not. I guess scaredy-cats like you can't wait for the police state because you walk around ina permanent state of fear wouldn't know about that.

Freedom is great but unfortunately some in society can't express theirs without infringing on the freedom of others. So we could make all drugs legal, but when the addicted start robbing others to fuel the habits of their unproductive lives I'll be the one yelling I told you so.

[Dayseed]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sure we do. Everything should be legal until shown to cause significant societal harm. That's called freedom. Freedom--perhaps you've heard of it, though probably not. I guess scaredy-cats like you can't wait for the police state because you walk around ina permanent state of fear wouldn't know about that.

One small caveat though Zipperfish, how will society ever agree on what is "significant societal harm"? It's a stretchy term that really doesn't mean anything specific.

And how come no stoner out there arguing for the crime-reduction aspect hasn't yet tackled the cigarette smuggling issue?

[ShepherdsDog]

Alcohol is legal, yet the societal harm that it has caused and is causing is severe in some communities. However, that being said prohibition was a complete and total failure, and even though it is now legal, bootlegging continues generating revenue for criminals.

[Zipperfish]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sure we do. Everything should be legal until shown to cause significant societal harm. That's called freedom. Freedom--perhaps you've heard of it, though probably not. I guess scaredy-cats like you can't wait for the police state because you walk around ina permanent state of fear wouldn't know about that.

One small caveat though Zipperfish, how will society ever agree on what is "significant societal harm"? It's a stretchy term that really doesn't mean anything specific.

And how come no stoner out there arguing for the crime-reduction aspect hasn't yet tackled the cigarette smuggling issue?

It is a stretchy term, and in some cases (like cigarettes) you come into some grey areas. But not so from pot. The first real in-depth study of pot was probably conducted by a (the???) British High Commission in 1898. Their conclusion? Pot was overwhelmingly a personal risk, not a societal one, and even as a personal risk it wasn't rated particualrly deleterious. A small number of users overindulged and exhibited mildly negative symptoms.

Over a hundred years later and every major study has pretty much concluded the same thing. It's not very harmful by any yardstick. It's virtually impossible to overdose on it. People that use it don't die from it and don't kill for it. It has several legitimate medicinal uses, as well as it's efficacy as a recreational drug. There are grey areas whan balancing the freedom of the individual versus the risk to the state. Pot isn't one of them.

[Zipperfish]

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

mtbr mtbr:

Keemo Keemo:

Leagalising pot would put the grow ops out of business, and deprive the organized crime rings of a serious income stream. Much of the pot grown now is traded to the US for cocaine and guns. Were we to legalize it and treat it under the same rules as beer and wine, we would free up police resource to deal with the serious drugs like cocaine and crystal meth. Taxed like beer and wine, it could pay for fighting the serious drugs. Legalized, the serious growers, rather than the merely criminally inclined ones, could go legitimate and pay taxes. Their employees would also be paying taxes, and the truckers hauling it off to the LCB distro centre. Under our current pot laws, only cops, lawyers and criminal groups benefit.

what would the organized crime rings do for money..switch to harder drugs. Do you think they would just give up and get real jobs.

Thats a real tired argument. The beer and wine excuse is also nonsense, we don't need any more legal drugs.

Sure we do. Everything should be legal until shown to cause significant societal harm. That's called freedom. Freedom--perhaps you've heard of it, though probably not. I guess scaredy-cats like you can't wait for the police state because you walk around ina permanent state of fear wouldn't know about that.

Freedom is great but unfortunately some in society can't express theirs without infringing on the freedom of others. So we could make all drugs legal, but when the addicted start robbing others to fuel the habits of their unproductive lives I'll be the one yelling I told you so.

Yes, Freedom is Great. The rest of your post was crap, but the first three words were fantastic!

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Seems to me you're the type that likes something in their ass.

Wow, that's original. You see, if you had a couple of hoots you could probably dream up some better material too.

Right, like having the "something stuck up your ass" thing is original. OOH its like "That's hot" by Paris Hilton. Go copyright now!

I'm sorry, I can't hear you--your brain is too small.

[inquiksilver]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

mtbr mtbr:

Keemo Keemo:

Leagalising pot would put the grow ops out of business, and deprive the organized crime rings of a serious income stream. Much of the pot grown now is traded to the US for cocaine and guns. Were we to legalize it and treat it under the same rules as beer and wine, we would free up police resource to deal with the serious drugs like cocaine and crystal meth. Taxed like beer and wine, it could pay for fighting the serious drugs. Legalized, the serious growers, rather than the merely criminally inclined ones, could go legitimate and pay taxes. Their employees would also be paying taxes, and the truckers hauling it off to the LCB distro centre. Under our current pot laws, only cops, lawyers and criminal groups benefit.

what would the organized crime rings do for money..switch to harder drugs. Do you think they would just give up and get real jobs.

Thats a real tired argument. The beer and wine excuse is also nonsense, we don't need any more legal drugs.

Sure we do. Everything should be legal until shown to cause significant societal harm. That's called freedom. Freedom--perhaps you've heard of it, though probably not. I guess scaredy-cats like you can't wait for the police state because you walk around ina permanent state of fear wouldn't know about that.

Freedom is great but unfortunately some in society can't express theirs without infringing on the freedom of others. So we could make all drugs legal, but when the addicted start robbing others to fuel the habits of their unproductive lives I'll be the one yelling I told you so.

Yes, Freedom is Great. The rest of your post was crap, but the first three words were fantastic!

Hell yeah freedom is great. But correct me if I'm wrong. Your stance is no limitations should be set in order to protect the freedoms of the rest of the general public.

[Zipperfish]

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Hell yeah freedom is great. But correct me if I'm wrong. Your stance is no limitations should be set in order to protect the freedoms of the rest of the general public.

Well my stance is that Freedom is Great. My stance is that if you are going to take away a freedom, you better have a damned good reason. And, as indicated in my post to Dayseed above, wiht marijuana they are not even close to a damned good reason. Instead we are pandering to a bunch of American Jesus-freaks and other assorted religious wingnuts, a gaggle of scared old people holed up in their basements and peeking out fearfully at a world they no longer understand, and a cadre of do-gooders who, more than anything in the world, want to save us from ourselves and make us "safe."

[inquiksilver]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Hell yeah freedom is great. But correct me if I'm wrong. Your stance is no limitations should be set in order to protect the freedoms of the rest of the general public.

Well my stance is that Freedom is Great. My stance is that if you are going to take away a freedom, you better have a damned good reason. And, as indicated in my post to Dayseed above, wiht marijuana they are not even close to a damned good reason. Instead we are pandering to a bunch of American Jesus-freaks and other assorted religious wingnuts, a gaggle of scared old people holed up in their basements and peeking out fearfully at a world they no longer understand, and a cadre of do-gooders who, more than anything in the world, want to save us from ourselves and make us "safe."

I totally agree with most of what you said. While I am definitely am not one of the social descriptions you listed, I personally have lost faith in the system we are using to deal with drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. My concern is not necessarily whether they are legal or not but the way we handle their effects. I do not want to sound as a hypocrite as I have experimented with many drugs and used to smoke, but it is not a secret that they can cause severe physical, and psychological damage. Using these substances is a conscious decision and if a chronic alcoholic begins to have liver failure or a person who has smoked weed for as long as they can remember develops lung cancer is it far for the rest of us to pick up the tab for their treatment?

[Zipperfish]

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Hell yeah freedom is great. But correct me if I'm wrong. Your stance is no limitations should be set in order to protect the freedoms of the rest of the general public.

Well my stance is that Freedom is Great. My stance is that if you are going to take away a freedom, you better have a damned good reason. And, as indicated in my post to Dayseed above, wiht marijuana they are not even close to a damned good reason. Instead we are pandering to a bunch of American Jesus-freaks and other assorted religious wingnuts, a gaggle of scared old people holed up in their basements and peeking out fearfully at a world they no longer understand, and a cadre of do-gooders who, more than anything in the world, want to save us from ourselves and make us "safe."

I totally agree with most of what you said. While I am definitely am not one of the social descriptions you listed, I personally have lost faith in the system we are using to deal with drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. My concern is not necessarily whether they are legal or not but the way we handle their effects. I do not want to sound as a hypocrite as I have experimented with many drugs and used to smoke, but it is not a secret that they can cause severe physical, and psychological damage. Using these substances is a conscious decision and if a chronic alcoholic begins to have liver failure or a person who has smoked weed for as long as they can remember develops lung cancer is it far for the rest of us to pick up the tab for their treatment?

I'm afraid I disagree that marijuana causes severe physical or psychological damage. I've never seen evidence of such. Can it up your chances of lung cancer? Prob'ly--so what? What doesn't give you cancer?

You are presetning the classic socailist's argument: Because I have to pay a part of the tab from your ill halth, then I should have a say in how you live your life. That kind of goes against the whole "Freedom is Great" thing if you ask me.

[ridenrain]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sure we do. Everything should be legal until shown to cause significant societal harm. That's called freedom. Freedom--perhaps you've heard of it, though probably not. I guess scaredy-cats like you can't wait for the police state because you walk around ina permanent state of fear wouldn't know about that.

One small caveat though Zipperfish, how will society ever agree on what is "significant societal harm"? It's a stretchy term that really doesn't mean anything specific.

And how come no stoner out there arguing for the crime-reduction aspect hasn't yet tackled the cigarette smuggling issue?

The only way to stop the smuggling of it is to reduce the profit. Tobbacco is a bad example because it's not widely grown but beer & wine might be a good example.

Both are legal on both sides of the border yet it is taxed so heavy in Canada that a margin exists to smuggle it. Problem is that it can just as easy be made at home or at the numerous beer & wine stores that require no skill, talent or effort and still costs half the price.

Problem is as you say. Pot isn't grown for the Canadian market but for profit into the US market.

[inquiksilver]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

Hell yeah freedom is great. But correct me if I'm wrong. Your stance is no limitations should be set in order to protect the freedoms of the rest of the general public.

Well my stance is that Freedom is Great. My stance is that if you are going to take away a freedom, you better have a damned good reason. And, as indicated in my post to Dayseed above, wiht marijuana they are not even close to a damned good reason. Instead we are pandering to a bunch of American Jesus-freaks and other assorted religious wingnuts, a gaggle of scared old people holed up in their basements and peeking out fearfully at a world they no longer understand, and a cadre of do-gooders who, more than anything in the world, want to save us from ourselves and make us "safe."

I totally agree with most of what you said. While I am definitely am not one of the social descriptions you listed, I personally have lost faith in the system we are using to deal with drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. My concern is not necessarily whether they are legal or not but the way we handle their effects. I do not want to sound as a hypocrite as I have experimented with many drugs and used to smoke, but it is not a secret that they can cause severe physical, and psychological damage. Using these substances is a conscious decision and if a chronic alcoholic begins to have liver failure or a person who has smoked weed for as long as they can remember develops lung cancer is it far for the rest of us to pick up the tab for their treatment?

I'm afraid I disagree that marijuana causes severe physical or psychological damage. I've never seen evidence of such. Can it up your chances of lung cancer? Prob'ly--so what? What doesn't give you cancer?

You are presetning the classic socailist's argument: Because I have to pay a part of the tab from your ill halth, then I should have a say in how you live your life. That kind of goes against the whole "Freedom is Great" thing if you ask me.

I'm saying if people are granted the freedom to knowing and willingly cause harm to their bodies, I should have the same freedom to opt out of paying for their poor judgment. Just like smokers have the freedom to smoke, they are not allowed to smoke in settings that negatively affects non smokers.

[Zipperfish]

inquiksilver inquiksilver:

I'm saying if people are granted the freedom to knowing and willingly cause harm to their bodies, I should have the same freedom to opt out of paying for their poor judgment. Just like smokers have the freedom to smoke, they are not allowed to smoke in settings that negatively affects non smokers.

No you just don't get it, I'm afraid. Anyone who thinks that the state "grants" freedom, to use your words, just doesn't understand freedom at all. I amfree. It's not for the state to grant.

[mtbr]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

mtbr mtbr:

Keemo Keemo:

Leagalising pot would put the grow ops out of business, and deprive the organized crime rings of a serious income stream. Much of the pot grown now is traded to the US for cocaine and guns. Were we to legalize it and treat it under the same rules as beer and wine, we would free up police resource to deal with the serious drugs like cocaine and crystal meth. Taxed like beer and wine, it could pay for fighting the serious drugs. Legalized, the serious growers, rather than the merely criminally inclined ones, could go legitimate and pay taxes. Their employees would also be paying taxes, and the truckers hauling it off to the LCB distro centre. Under our current pot laws, only cops, lawyers and criminal groups benefit.

what would the organized crime rings do for money..switch to harder drugs. Do you think they would just give up and get real jobs.

Thats a real tired argument. The beer and wine excuse is also nonsense, we don't need any more legal drugs.

Sure we do. Everything should be legal until shown to cause significant societal harm. That's called freedom. Freedom--perhaps you've heard of it, though probably not. I guess scaredy-cats like you can't wait for the police state because you walk around ina permanent state of fear wouldn't know about that.

You can have all the freedom you want when you start paying your own medical bills,nothings free.

A permanent state of fear

[ShepherdsDog]

Obviously you don't get it. By living within a society you surrender certain freedoms in exchange for the protections and services provided by the society. The state can and does place limitations on your 'freedom'. They are called laws. Thumb your nose at them and see how long you remain free.