Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 (/showthread.php?tid=11835)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 (/showthread.php?tid=11835)
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - skippy the wonder dog - 05-09-2008
I think you're overstating the difficulty of making wine and beer. People have made them for centuries, long before such things as vintners and brewmasters existed. You just have to be less concerned about the potability of the finished product.
But yes, growing the aptly-nicknamed weed is still easier. Which makes it even less likely the government would attempt to control it if it were legalized.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-09-2008
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Hipfan734 Wrote:Your smugly sarcastic and dismissive tendency shows that you...
-ignore the vast discrepancy in fatalities (cannabis being entirely non-lethal)
-ignore the vast discrepancy in addictiveness (alcohol being rated by medical doctors as much more addictive, where as cannabis is relatively non-addictive)
No, I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm not arguing that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol, or that cannabis should remain illegal. I am arguing -- and please read this slowly, so it sinks in this time -- that cannabis is not as benign as cannabis activists claim. Full stop.
I have also argued that the pro-cannabis lobby uses false arguments to suggest that Aunt Mildred's glass of wine with dinner is somehow more dangerous than cannabis use, which it is not. This false argument harms their credibility.
Your monomaniacal focus on lethality and addictiveness is a handy straw man for you, but it has nothing to do with my argument.
Hipfan734 Wrote:-imply that I entirely dismiss potential psychological harm done by heavy cannabis use (which I do not, I simply state the research is new, often inconclusive, and potentially flawed)
.... and "a smear," i.e. a false statement made to demonize cannabis.
You have, indeed, entirely dismissed any research that suggests cannabis is not as benign as you would like to think. You're now backing off calling it a smear, but still dismiss it as new and unverified, and state that more research is required before the results can be accepted.
Cannabis is not entirely benign. It's certainly not as dangerous as it was once made out to be, but dismissing all the research findings you don't like isn't constructive. It's not very good for your credibility.
Again, you are misrepresenting my view. Weed is NOT entirely benign. BUT, it is entirely NON-lethal, relatively NON-addictive and poses a small but significant risk of causing psychological harm - at least that's what some recent research suggests - however, in an illegal environment which threatens prison time for weed users, one must ask if the constant threat of criminalization exacerbates or induces an anxious state of mind in the users. The medical establishment has been WRONG before about theories of weed inducing madness, gynecomastia, amotivational syndrome, impotence, lung cancer, etc.
But the 2 areas of Cannabis research which have been consistently ACCURATE on, were assesments on the relative physical TOXICITY and ADDICTIVENESS of Cannabis. Those are the 2 primary & concrete indicators of harm, and you cannot dismiss them. That's why The Netherlands calls weed a soft drug, and BANS all hard drugs in coffeeshops.
According to YOUR dismissive view, based solely on thwarting organized crime empowerment, black tar heroin and crack cocaine must be treated the same as weed, when in SCIENTIFIC REALITY, they are ranked EXPONENTIALLY more harmful, toxic, LETHAL and addictive.
So, I have a multi-faceted approach.
1) Weed should be legalized/decriminalized due to it's relative non-lethality and relatively non-addictive nature (black tar heroin and crack cocaine are fundamentally DIFFERENT in this respect).
2) Stances promoting Legalizing/decriminalizing substances which meet criteria 1 AND thwart the organized crime takeover of said industry, deserve to be considered.
Now, try to realize there will be different approaches to supporting the free the weed movement. Yours AND mine are not perfect or infallible. But since your view entirely dismisses distinctions based on recognizing the 2 primary indicators of physical harm (lethality and addictiveness), your view is more inaccurate and obfuscationally sweeping than mine.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-09-2008
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Hipfan734 Wrote:That doesn't mean that a different marketplace scenario can't be envisioned and set up. So, just because I oppose and criticize the current paradigm infrastructure, doesn't mean I'm automatically a hippie commie. Such a fallacy of false alternatives is invalid, as I am advocating a viable 3rd(4th/5th) alternative.
This raises a number of interesting questions, such as:
- what is a paradigm infrastructure, precisely? Is that something you build out of buzzwords, like a philosophy made of Lego?
- has there ever been a fallacy of true alternatives, and if so, was it valid?
- is a 3rd(4th/5th) alternative actually a 2.4th alternative, as my dimly recalled math suggests? I remember Sarah M----- far more clearly; she sat in the next row, one seat ahead, and possessed a devastatingly elegant neck ... consequently, I remember my math poorly. But I digress.
Anyway, please do keep it up.
Why don't we both admit that's it's not about you or me battling in out : it's about preventing 1000's of non-violent consenting adults using a relatively non-toxic substance from being imprisoned.
There are a number of manifestations of a cannabis marketplace , from dutch-style coffeeshops to allowing the same industry format found WRT alcohol and coffee.
Again, it's a complex issue, but the bottom line is that the harm induced by cannabis does not warrant mass incarceration of it's users.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-09-2008
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:I have also argued that the pro-cannabis lobby uses false arguments to suggest that Aunt Mildred's glass of wine with dinner is somehow more dangerous than cannabis use, which it is not. This false argument harms their credibility.
Such an argument would indeed harm the credibility of the movement, as that claim is ridiculous.
But as with any "cause" for activism, there is always that "lunatic fringe" whose arguments are not embraced (and often rejected outright) by the more 'sensible', central contingent.
Wouldn't you agree that the 'sensible' contingent of pro-legalization activists does have a valid argument when they assert that alcohol abuse has greater quantitative physical, social, and economic ill-effects?
Alcohol can induce delerium tremens because of it's more highly addictive nature. Alcohol causes 1000's of deaths per year due to acute alcohol poisoning and liver disease (among other things, like impaired driving). But someone is being irrational if they absolutely refuse to see the soft drug argument : that Cannabis in entirely non-lethal (it cannot induce a fatal overdose with high concentrations of THC in the blood), and it's potential for addiction is ranked by medical doctors as FAR lower than alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. It's lethality is rated lower than aspirin or WATER (water intoxication causes 100's of deaths per year via swelling on the brain).
Again,
1) lethality
2) addictiveness
3) psychological harm
1) has been quantified, 2) has been qualified, and 3) has been hypothetically established, but the research on the issue is not as sound and longly established as 1) & 2).
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-09-2008
mojo_mattv Wrote:I do believe that if Canada were to legalize marijuana, and I'm sure there are many others who will agree, it will not be under the conditions that it can be privately sold. The government would ensure that it is dispensed through a government owned organizations much like the LCBO with alcohol.
There are hundreds if not thousands of private liquor stores in BC & Alberta. Letting the gov't completely control it's production and distribution is unsound, and that's why the food supply, the booze supply and the coffee supply models are better.
Even in the gov't run booze stores (which I as a Canadian in BC never frequent), the products are produced by private companies. Also, 1000's of Canadians brew their own wine. Also, 1000's of small time booze sellers/companies exist. A diverse, though highly regulated market, taxed, is likely best.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-09-2008
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:Right, skip.
But tobacco requires a specific climes and soils, and can't really be grown indoors. And the processing of the plant is also dependent on some pretty specific conditions. Growing it for personal use would require living in a specific region and have a drying barn.
Brewing beer and making wine is difficult. They are sensitive, complicated processes, and require a lot of knowledge and expertise (or trial and error), not to mention select ingredients (which you won't find at the corner store), and material resources.
Cannabis, on the other hand, is an extremely hardy plant that can be grown everywhere, with little effort, and virtually no startup cost or material resources.
I mean....it's a freakin weed...
Yep, but I have relatives who give me 10-20 bottles of their home made wine per year, for free. They assure me it's easy once you refine the process step by step, and the wine is actually consistently good.
But you're right, weed is a naturally highly adaptive weed.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-09-2008
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:The Horrible Esthete Wrote:Wouldn't you agree that the 'sensible' contingent of pro-legalization activists does have a valid argument when they assert that alcohol abuse has greater quantitative physical, social, and economic ill-effects?
In principle, yes, although when you get to the specifics you usually find people playing fast and loose with definitions for rhetorical effect.
However, that's an argument against banning cannabis, and it's many years too late. What the legalization movement fails to grasp is that they need an argument for legalization.
Well, read all the data in the links I gave earlier in this thread regarding 1) lethality and 2) addictiveness, then consider the possibility of chronic weed use inducing psychological harm, and combine that with YOUR and my thwarting organized crime argument.
Why must we entirely dismiss any aspect of any rational argument ?
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-10-2008
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:mojo_mattv Wrote:I do believe that if Canada were to legalize marijuana, and I'm sure there are many others who will agree, it will not be under the conditions that it can be privately sold. The government would ensure that it is dispensed through a government owned organizations much like the LCBO with alcohol.
But the problem there is that unlike alcohol, cannabis can be easily produced privately, at extremely low cost, and at a level of quality which is comparable or better than anything that could be mass-produced. Thus, the issue of controlling its "sale" would be a moot concern.
It would be impossible to de-criminalize this type of organic "produce", yet still try to restrict private production.
Proabably, it would be a diverse market, with private growers, alongside small, medium and large sized businesses. The private growers would be the ones who want to take on the relatively minimal effort of harvesting, the others wouldn't want to be bothered, and would buy the weed at the local coffeeshop or weed store.
But meanwhile , bill C-26 is about to become law, and will give those Canadians who grow just 1 plant a 6 month sentence. Such is the will of today's Liberals and Conservatives in parliament. Only the Green Party and NDP oppose it.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-10-2008
VioletlightHeron Wrote:The Horrible Esthete Wrote:mojo_mattv Wrote:I do believe that if Canada were to legalize marijuana, and I'm sure there are many others who will agree, it will not be under the conditions that it can be privately sold. The government would ensure that it is dispensed through a government owned organizations much like the LCBO with alcohol.
But the problem there is that unlike alcohol, cannabis can be easily produced privately, at extremely low cost, and at a level of quality which is comparable or better than anything that could be mass-produced. Thus, the issue of controlling its "sale" would be a moot concern.
It would be impossible to de-criminalize this type of organic "produce", yet still try to restrict private production.
I also think there would be a secondary market for those who do not like paying taxes on goods and there would be a strong probability that this secondary market would be run by gangs and organized crime outfits.
Not needed.
All you'd have to do is buy 20 seeds for 50 bucks, and grow your own. If the gov't banishes this avenue, then organized crime takeover is inevitable.
But the DEA budget and employment, and the US prison industry, is currently getting Billions of dollars per year to KEEP weed illegal, criminalize the users, and let the entire industry be hijacked and controlled by organized crime, fuelling a subsequently needed crackdown.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - skippy the wonder dog - 05-10-2008
Hipfan734 Wrote:Why don't we both admit that's it's not about you or me battling in out : it's about preventing 1000's of non-violent consenting adults using a relatively non-toxic substance from being imprisoned.
You seem to be having trouble with that very concept.
Quick: is anyone in this thread arguing that people should be imprisoned for possession of cannabis?
(Crickets.)
Huh. Didn't think so. Look at them straw men burn! I do love a bonfire.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - Hipfan734 - 05-11-2008
Again, why don't you take the Dylanesqe approach and simply agree with the million+ Canadian pot users, instead of constantly bashing them and harping away at them when they try to attain liberty ? - Bill C-26 Yes Or No ?
Why can't you be on the same page, looking at different angles (individuality) ? Why is the slightly different view/approach to be treated as a major isssue ? Different strokes for different folks tokes provokes protester-bashing ?
Dylan was and is a progressive, pacifist pot-smoker. Try to emulate and appreciate. People can agree in principle, but have a different strategy, priority-set and style...
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - mojo_mattv - 05-11-2008
Hipfan734 Wrote:Again, why don't you take the Dylanesqe approach and simply agree with the million+ Canadian pot users, instead of constantly bashing them and harping away at them when they try to attain liberty ? - Bill C-26 Yes Or No ?
Why can't you be on the same page, looking at different angles (individuality) ? Why is the slightly different view/approach to be treated as a major isssue ? Different strokes for different folks tokes provokes protester-bashing ?
Dylan was and is a progressive, pacifist pot-smoker. Try to emulate and appreciate. People can agree in principle, but have a different strategy, priority-set and style...
Lol, what the hell are you even talking about now? I think you need to reread the thread in order to gain a better comprehension on what has occured here.
Re: Anti-Weed Liberals And Conservatives Passed Bill C-26 - skippy the wonder dog - 05-11-2008
Hipfan734 Wrote:Why is the slightly different view/approach to be treated as a major isssue ?
Oooh, good question. I'm trying to remember who it was that was spouting the "if yer not with us, yer agin us" rhetoric just a few posts ago. Who was that guy who accused anyone who didn't agree 100% with his position of enabling the passage of C-26? Criticize the wingnuts of the movement, and you're helping the enemy ... I'm pretty sure that was his argument.
I can't remember. Can anyone help me out here?