For fans of The Hip, Federalism AND Funny Pot Policy - 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: For fans of The Hip, Federalism AND Funny Pot Policy (/showthread.php?tid=5471)
+- 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: For fans of The Hip, Federalism AND Funny Pot Policy (/showthread.php?tid=5471)
Pages:
1
2
For fans of The Hip, Federalism AND Funny Pot Policy - Stephen Dame - 02-15-2005
Allan Gregg, Brian Mulroney's right hand man and the guy who discovered and signed a certain five piece band from Kingston, wrote the cover story to this months Walrus with Pierre Trudeau on the cover.
It's a really cool piece if yer into that sorta thing, and I know there's been some nifty political debates round here lately, and Gregg is Hip connected so I figured I'd mention it...
- Stephen Dame - 02-16-2005
And since I know we've got a lot of fans of the Herb round here, an article about medicinal marijuana apears in the same issue:
A US manufacturer of a marijuana spray, responding to government concerns that people will "intentionally overspray" or get "unecessarily high" is putting a safety device on their sprayer (like an asthma puffer) that will automatically shut the device down if the patient exceeds their doctor recommended dosage.
Yep, if they go over by one puff daily (less than the equivalent to one toke from a real joint) the damn thing refuses to spit weed.
Big Brother is a comic genius.
- VioletlightHeron - 02-16-2005
Hehehe, lets face it, the legalization folks are using the medicinal marijuana issue to get around a debate on the value of legalizing pot. I think most people would approve medicinal marijuana but would have lots of doubts about the wholesale decriminalization of marijuana possession laws. Myself, I couldnt care less that some people want to smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes. If they want to be stoners, fine but there shouldnt be an expectation of having it widely available so some people can go chase the ganja or whatever hip slogan is currently used.
- fingernailsonhull - 02-17-2005
I have never tried marijuana. nor do I ever plan to. However, I do support its decriminalization - not legalization. It's not because of some "human rights" issue, that's stupid. It's because I think the amount of resources that law enforcement and our corrections system expend dealing with marijuana is disproportionate to its negative effects on society.
- Dilly_sAm - 02-20-2005
Despite being an infrequent marijuana user, I don't support de-criminalization on the grounds that the system of marijuana use in this country works. The people they are trying to protect from the long arm of the are already protected-the police never arrest kids with a gram in their pocket. Having a bit of pot is no longer socially taboo, and most police officers take that into consideration when they grab a kid with a dime bag. Government interference, albeit minor, can only lead to more interference. This is never a good thing. The failed attempt by Health Canada to grow medicinal marijuana in an old mine has been a disaster; the marijuana is low in quality and high in toxic metals, and Canada Post won't even ship it!
In my opinion, the system of marijuana use is in fine order- those who need it for medical use can get it, and those who just wanna fool around can too.
- The Darkest Canuck - 02-20-2005
legalize it, tax it, regulate it, ensure that there's a legal age to purchase it, continue to try to do away with cigarettes by making weed cheaper than cigarettes...it's already a multi-billion dollar industry...why shouldn't the government get in on the action if they're just gonna let us smoke it anyway? they could tax all of the marijuana sales AND tax all of the companies selling it as well...imagine that, no more weed shortages ever again, you could just go to the store and buy some of the stickiest of the icky...not to mention how killer the weed would be if there was large scale competition selling it, different flavours, more potent herbs, think of all the American tourists that'd come here to smoke our killer weed and have a good time in our country... i still don't get how cigarettes and cigars are legal, and good ol' organic untainted mary j gets the shitty end of the legal stick...not to mention that it's way less addictive...
I <3 WEED! mmmmmmmm mmmmmmm good!
- beanmedic - 02-21-2005
The Darkest Canuck Wrote:i still don't get how cigarettes and cigars are legal, and good ol' organic untainted mary j gets the shitty end of the legal stick...not to mention that it's way less addictive...
Except it's just as bad for you as cigarettes, if not worse.
- BigRon - 02-21-2005
Actually, weed is not even in the same galaxy as tabacco in the toxicity department. Cigarette smoke is in a class of it's own as far as being a pure killer is concerned.
Pot doesn't have asbestos, cyanide, carbon monoxide, formaldihyde, or several hundered other chemicals in it.
I know pot heads who have bad memories, but none who are sick like smokers get.
- The Darkest Canuck - 02-21-2005
not only that, it only effects short-term memory, basically, you might have a hard time remembering shit while you're stoned...like where you put your lighter :lol:. also, alchol is legal to consume, yet it is known to kill brain cells and cause liver and kidney damage, not to mention that it often causes some people to become violent and unpleasant, or do other stupid things like drive drunk. nobody sparks a doob and as a reaction to the weed, beats their wife, and i don't know that there's any proof that it causes people to lose some of their driving abilities, if anything people drive more cautiously when stoned, they get paranoid that they'll get in an accident or caught :lol:.
- BigRon - 02-21-2005
I read a very interesting study done in the UK a few years ago. It actually concluded that the stoned drivers were much more likely to stick to the speed limit, give ample time to signal and generally drive much more defensively than their sober counterparts.
Obviously I don't suggest everyone drive stoned, but it was kinda funny to see a study where the conclusion was so far off the hypothesis made by the researchers.
Ronny Boy
- Coneycat - 02-21-2005
BigRon Wrote:I read a very interesting study done in the UK a few years ago. It actually concluded that the stoned drivers were much more likely to stick to the speed limit, give ample time to signal and generally drive much more defensively than their sober counterparts.
That makes me feel much better about a story my ex-cabbie brother once told me about a tow-truck driver he knew who was called upon (many years ago) to break into a rental car after... a certain five-piece band from Kingston... locked their keys in it. Apparently when the door popped open it became clear what they'd been smoking in there. It's nice to know that putting them back on the road wasn't quite as bad an idea as I would have thought.
(The above story is total hearsay so I can't vouch for it--I just thought it was funny. The tow-truck driver apparently thought they were a really nice bunch. No idea who was driving.)
- thedarkcanuck - 02-21-2005
weed is worse for you than cigarettes? i`d sure like to know how that statement is true...the two aren`t even in the same ballpark when it comes to any health related issues
- The Darkest Canuck - 02-21-2005
exactly, so how the hell is it that tabacco products are legal and weed isn't?
- skippy the wonder dog - 02-21-2005
BigRon Wrote:I read a very interesting study done in the UK a few years ago. It actually concluded that the stoned drivers were much more likely to stick to the speed limit, give ample time to signal and generally drive much more defensively than their sober counterparts.
I'd like to examine the methodology before buying that conclusion.
There's a serious problem with attempts to prove that marijuana is more or less harmful than tobacco or alcohol: there isn't enough data to make sound conclusions.
Because marijuana is illegal, and because no responsible researcher would test a hypothesis by setting loose dozens of potentially impaired drivers and then measuring the resulting level of mayhem, we really have only anecdotal evidence on this one. We also have only anecdotal evidence that marijuana impairs driving, because we don't know if we have a valid sample on which to base an accident rate.
- thedarkcanuck - 02-22-2005
i have done my own little study and found that i drive much better when i indulge....more focus or something