View Full Version : Decriminalizing Marijuana in Canada
ripdog
10-11-2002, 03:59 PM
I'm very interested to see the effect that this will have on the future of marijuana. My guess is that the U.S. will limp into the marijuana selling business before too long. It seems like prohibition all over again to me. I think that American money will flow north into Canada and before long our government will have to legalize it to stem the tide. All I can say is that it's about &!@#% time! I doubt that I'd be a customer, whether it be in Canada or the U.S., but the hypocrisy of this issue maddens me. I had my share of experience with alcohol, pot, and cigarettes when I was younger. I see absolutely no difference between alcohol and marijuana, and cigarettes are a complete waste of time. The recent anti-drug commercials that plod along to the beat of "This is the house that Jack built" leave me asking hard questions. They imply that buying a dime bag of marijuana leads to the suffering of many people and that it leads to experimentation with harder drugs. Thhhhppppttttt! Are there any dealers who actually sell "dime-bags" anymore? By the time I was buying pot as a teen, we had emraced the metric system for small purchases. My experimentation began with stealing my step-dad's beer and sharing it with my buddies at school. So why not some nasty commercials about alcohol from the concerned folks at the Partners for a drug-free America? I could answer my question, but you already know it. Anyway, I wonder what all you guys think of this. If you think there's a huge difference between pot and alcohol, I'd really like to know how you came to the conclusion and what experience you have to back it up with. Here's a link related to the story:
web page (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1003/p06s01-woam.html)
Jimbo
10-11-2002, 04:06 PM
Very interesting article Ripdog. The paragraph I really enjoyed is copied below:
"Some 600,000 Canadians have criminal records for marijuana possession, and about 1.5 million people, or 5 percent of the population, smoke pot recreationally, according to the Canadian Medical Association."
This seems to imply that 40% of the pot smokers have been caught. I find this highly improbable. What do others think?
Jimbo
according to my dad, who knows everything, the difference between pot and alchohol is that you can drink (or even be a drunk) and still work very very hard (or even be a workaholic), while obviously pot smokers just dont make hard workers.
A lot of the people who were busted once may not use it now. Not because of the punishment or treatment, but because they outgrew it. Most of the pot smokers from the '60's are around now and are a huge part of the population. I'd also guess most, or at least many, don't smoke it now.
I like the part of the article that points out that drug laws are price-support laws. That is exactly right. Organized crime groups of various sorts have their profits boosted by the laws. The drug problem is a complex one that has been handled simplistically by governments.
andyfox
10-11-2002, 04:43 PM
"The drug problem is a complex one that has been handled simplistically by governments."
I agree 100%. One of the problems with legalization, or decriminalization, would be the same one we have with alcohol: roughly 20,000 people are killed in the U.S. each year by drunk drivers. Also, do we really have evidence that long-term marijuana smoking doesn't lead to the same types of health problems as long-term cigarette smoking?
Jimbo
10-11-2002, 04:59 PM
Brad,
One of you said "...while obviously pot smokers just dont make hard workers" Have either of you ever heard of President Clinton?
Jimbo
A bunch of studies show MJ use is physically dangerous. But so what? I don't care at all about smokers of pot or tobacco who get sick. It is none of my business and not my concern. Of course, I am against any tax dollars that go to pay for it. The problem of hurting other people while on drugs or alcohol is a legitimate concern of the government. We have reduced DUIs by aggressively prosecuting it. I think the same thing might be doable on driving under the influence of drugs, although it is much harder to prove drug DUIs than alcohol DUIs. Nevada has an oppressive vehicular manslaugher statute that simplifies things, but can lead to great injustice.
In my ideal world, the costs of drug use would be borne solely by the users. I do not know how to accomplish that however. It's not like drug addicts will suddenly be able to act responsibly and support their families etc...
Yes, but you are referring to a particular subset of smokers who "don't inhale".
John Cole
10-11-2002, 06:44 PM
brad,
According to Thomas Szaz, although he might be a bit of a crackpot, certain drug laws came into existence because Chinese coolies who worked on the building of railroads outperformed other workers considerably. A bit of opium, they found, provided the necessary stimulant needed to perform mind and body-numbing labor for hours and hours.
I've found--well years and years ago I found--that I could not work after or while drinking, nor did I care to work after smoking pot. On the whole, though, I'd say alcohol is much worse, but I also get pretty lit on two beers.
John
Ray Zee
10-11-2002, 07:46 PM
alot of the drug laws came about because of the times. coca-cola had cocaine in it many years back maybe like in the 1920's and so did other things. soon the govt. decided to oust it. i remember as a youngster seeing commerials that showed people smoking a reefer and then becoming a major criminal. both heavy drinking and pot use will ruin anyones life but most things in moderation will enhance their lives if used properly. but that is where the problem lies is that few can control their use of drugs. as a fact even in the 1960's i remember that coca-cola had something in it that if you took some aspirin with a coke you got high kinda. thats gone also.
adios
10-11-2002, 08:26 PM
"A bunch of studies show MJ use is physically dangerous. But so what? I don't care at all about smokers of pot or tobacco who get sick. It is none of my business and not my concern. Of course, I am against any tax dollars that go to pay for it."
Unfortunately there is a spillover effect and society in someway must absorb the cost. Taxes on tobacco help but I suspect not enough.
"society in someway must absorb the cost." I disagree here. Society does not have to absorb the cost. We choose to gratuitously pay for peoples private stuff like health care, but we ought not. One reason is that all personal choices have costs. If we then pay for those costs, we will eventually eliminate choices through regulation designed to help "public health" or whatever BS. So we should simply stop taxing people to pay for others lifestyle choices. And yes, getting old is a lifestyle choice. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif Think I'll make a good AARPer?
everyone knows sociopaths have near unlimited energy /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
p.s. you cant argue with my dad, he knows everything, i told you
youve heard the arguments for a 'fat tax', or something. or once national id gets in place and everything you ever buy goes into a database your insurance goes up if you buy a lot of fat or junk foods. looks like that is how socialism is coming.
brad
well you have to admit that executives/management place an almost russian obsession on drinking. of course whether they work or not ...
I thought you had to be high to live in Canada anyway so what's the problem?
yl
Ryan_21
10-12-2002, 11:30 AM
Tupac Shakur, yeah, the guy to the left <---- in the picture up there, was a chronic pot smoker and a workaholic. He wrote/recorded/and produced a whole cd, with 29 songs on it in 15 days. Doing 7 of the songs the first night. And was known to finish 3 to 4 songs a day. When most musicians who actually write/record/ and produce their own work can only get about 1 song a week done.
Ryan_21
Ryan_21
10-12-2002, 11:37 AM
Isn't there a bill on the Nevada state balot that will be voted on in Noverber containing a law that could legalize up to 3oz. of marijuana for personal use?
Was wondering how any of you out in Nevada feel about this and how will you vote. I personally feel that if marijuana ever becomes legal in the U.S. Nevada will definately be the first to legalize it, with all the liberalness out there.
Ryan_21
but statistically. anyway, you cant argue with my dad hes always right.
but did tupac talk real slow like potheads do? if not then maybe he was just one of those guys whom pot just doesnt affect like that.
anway i wouldnt know as both pot and alchohol just put me right to sleep.
Ryan_21
10-12-2002, 11:52 AM
No, you are right, I just wanted to point out a freak and say not everyone fits that category.
Also, Pac didn't talk slow and was highly intelligent.
Ryan_21
Clarkmeister
10-12-2002, 12:22 PM
It's losing support. The police actually endorsed it, but received a lot of heat and changed their mind, causing the resignation of the head representative of their group. It now appears the bill will not pass, though there are still commercials airing in support of it.
adios
10-12-2002, 06:24 PM
First of all I'm not advocating any specific course of action. I'm merely stating what I believe is the economic reality in our society. I suppose one way that society would not be forced to absorb the costs is to have no public assistance for health care. If you can't afford health care you don't get it. If you can afford health care because you are adequately insured or you have enough resources to pay you get it. As a society I don't think we're prepared to take this step. Another way possibly is that if you use tobacco or illegal drugs or some such then if you can't afford health care you don't get it. Again I don't think society is willing to go this far.
adios
10-12-2002, 06:28 PM
I believe you've made a very astute observation. It's a matter of how much more "socialistic" we want to be as a society as we're already "socialistic" to a certain degree. One of the often stated goals for the USA economy is to provide economic security and equitable distribution of income.
No, our society is not willing to go that far. But that leads to other problems. Like being ridiculously overtaxed and overcontrolled by the nanny state.
Ryan_21,
I believe Ann Arbor, Michigan "decriminalized" pot in the early 70's and was the first municipality in the USA to do so. I am not sure if that is still the case but it used to be the same fine as a parking ticket with no violation attached to your record as long as you paid the token fine.
Jimbo
Ryan_21
10-12-2002, 11:48 PM
Wouldnt it be easier if the U.S. had free health care for all its citizens no matter what, like most other major countries?
If we just get rid of the stupid space program it would be possible. I mean who really cares wtf is out there? Do you or anybody else really give two craps that they found a new mass of ice past pluto, I know I would rather have free health care than to know about that crap.
Ryan_21
Free health care isn't free. It costs a lot. And in countries with socialized medicine, the doctors are worse. Doctors must be free to charge what their services are worth. I actually don't mind some level of government funding for emergencies or pain control. But anything beyond that should be left to the market and charity. And health care cost so much more than our space program it just isn't funny. I think the government has much more business in space than health care.
andyfox
10-14-2002, 01:57 AM
"And health care cost so much more than our space program it just isn't funny."
Very true; health care consumes about 1/7 of our entire national income. But that could also be turned into an argument for universal health coverage. Universal systems spend less money on wasteful overhead, and more on primary prevention. And every country with a universal system spends less of its GDP on health care than the U.S., yet has less intrusion in to clinical decions than in the U.S. system. Not to mention that nearly all of them have longer life spans from birth than us.
I'm not convinced universal coverage is the way to go, but let's not forget the problems with allocating health care to the market: fragmentation, opportunism, asset rearranging, overhead, underinvestment in public health, and an assault on service and altruism. The market can yield some perverse results sometimes.
ripdog
10-14-2002, 02:39 PM
An interesting fact is that Coca-cola and Dr. Pepper were actually medicine. On a personal note, my father in-law had a massive stroke several years ago and his attending physician was—you guessed it—Dr. Pepper! My mother in-law mistakenly called him Dr. Pepsi a few times (I swear it's true), but that didn’t seem to have a negative effect on the level of care.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.