Yet legalizers love ranting about the prison-industrial complex and George Bush's failed War on Drugs, as if that's our only alternative to the corner pot store. Many also argue that all drug laws should be repealed, as if cocaine were no worse than wee
canadian-politics-f17/legalize-pot-like-cigarrettes-t63904.html
Thanks.
Let's try and keep this one on the rails.
Thanks.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It's going to be decriminalized, whether the neo-temperance Puritans like it or not.
For all the court penalties currently levied, pot
is pretty well already 'decriminalized"......but...
decriminalizing something and legalizing it aren't
the same thing.
If I was to get caught not wearing a seat belt, it's not a
criminal act, but it would cost me $110 and two demerit points
each time I did. Is that ok with you and pot possession ?
I don't particularly care about the pot thing as long as
it continues to be a criminal offense to drive under its' influence.
Oh, and I'm neither a Puritan nor a neo-temperance type person,
I'd just prefer that my family and I aren't on the same road
as a driver who is wa-a-a-a-a-ay too relaxed.
It's going to be decriminalized, whether the neo-temperance Puritans like it or not.
big deal. the country has already gone smoke free in public places.
It's going to be decriminalized, whether the neo-temperance Puritans like it or not.
big deal. the country has already gone smoke free in public places.
And this has what do with decriminalization? It's coming...neo-teetotaler need to get used to it.
It's going to be decriminalized, whether the neo-temperance Puritans like it or not.
For all the court penalties currently levied, pot
is pretty well already 'decriminalized"......but...
decriminalizing something and legalizing it aren't
the same thing.
If I was to get caught not wearing a seat belt, it's not a
criminal act, but it would cost me $110 and two demerit points
each time I did. Is that ok with you and pot possession ?
I don't particularly care about the pot thing as long as
it continues to be a criminal offense to drive under its' influence.
Oh, and I'm neither a Puritan nor a neo-temperance type person,
I'd just prefer that my family and I aren't on the same road
as a driver who is wa-a-a-a-a-ay too relaxed.
Firstly, i'm well aware of the differences between "legalization" and "decriminalization" hence my use of the specific term. And why can't pot laws simply mirror alcohol laws - these same silly antics were pressed by prohibitionists and how'd that work out again? The only issue that needs ironing out is procurement.
Secondly, why do these neo-teetotalers always resort to argumentative fallacies? Who's supporting driving "high"? Why is this somehow linked? No one is advocating leniency on intoxicated drivers anymore than they'd support drunk drivers, drivers high on prescription drugs, overtired drivers, overstimulated drivers, etc.
I don't think it's the issue of the potential harm, or lack thereof, that pot presents to individuals and society that's at issue. The issue, I think, is that there is just no votes in it. Plus the Excited States of America would have a shit hemmorhage and cause no end of trouble at the borders.
Regretful, I'd say, since for me it's an issue of the freedom of individuals to live their lives how they please if they are not harming others. On the other hand, pot is probably more easily available now and cheaper than it would be if legalized. At least in BC!
It's a drug and hippies use drugs and I hate hippies so therefore I hate people using marijuana and want to make it illegal forever.
Staunch defender of freedom, aren't you?
...
I'm going to go out for awhile...