[skippy the wonder dog]

Won't this simply make the drug trade more lucrative in Canada, by raising margins for those who produce and distribute?

This is exactly what it will do.

In fact, rather than make it more difficult for organized crime to grow, distribute and sell marijuana, it will likely increase the organized gangs' importance in the overall supply. It's gangs that have the organization, money and expertise to distribute weed underground, and who can most afford the increased risks.

So this is more money to the bikers' pockets, which in turn feeds the quasi-legitimate enterprises (strip joints, rub and tugs) they use to launder their profits.

So, let's spend our money on treatment, education and research. Otherwise, we risk copying the failed policy south of the border.

Exactly. This is not a criminal matter. It's a public health issue.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Suffice it to say that this bill is step in the absolute wrong direction.

[Hipfan734]

Well, I can grow all the luscious Early Girl tomatoes I can possibly eat in a growing season on just one plant. And it costs about three dollars.

You do the math.

But by growing just ONE cannabis plant, bill C-26 - approved and passed by the Liberals and Conservatives - would allow authorities to sentence you to the mandatory minimum 6 month sentence.

[Hipfan734]

1) Calculate the number of Cannabis induced fatalities per year, and contrast that with the number caused by use of tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals (or even caffeine and aspirin).

Since you've presumably got all those numbers at your fingertips, I'm sure you won't mind sharing the data.

That is, in any case, a specious argument. Death is not the only form of harm. Recent research has suggested that heavy users are four times more likely to suffer from depression and psychotic illnesses than non-users.

There is an enormous amount of misinformation on this subject, both from anti-drug activists who exaggerate the dangers, and from pro-drug activists who claim that cannabis is harmless. The fact is that it is not harmless. Any drug is potentially harmful.

It's potential for causing addiction is rated lower (by medical doctors) than most other drugs.

I'm sure you're about to share all the peer-reviewed research on that, too. Make sure to distinguish between physical addiction and psychological reliance.

The pro-drug side claims that it is completely non-addictive, relying on physical addiction as a benchmark and comparing to nicotine. However, some research suggests that one is as likely to become psychologically dependent on cannabis as one is to become an alcoholic.

2) The most prolific songwriter in the history of mankind, Paul McCartney, was and is a heavy potsmoker. Same for Bob Dylan.

Many great writers (notably Faulkner) wrote drunk, but this is not an argument against prohibiting alcohol. Coleridge smoked opium. The Grateful Dead and Jimi Hendrix took LSD. Hunter Thompson was continually under the influence of alcohol, mescaline, cannabis, and cocaine.

None of that forms an argument for legalization.

3) By criminalizing coffee, or alcohol, or tobacco, we'd simply take the industry out of the hands of licensed/regulated companies and hand it over to ruthless organized crime groups.

How bright of you, to summarize my argument as if you'd made it.

Unfortunately, the pro-cannabis lobby never makes this argument. Instead, they go on about how harmless cannabis is, and how harmful alcohol and tobbaco are, while gathering in public places to show off their dreadlocks. Marc Emery, the poster child for the delusional states associated with heavy use, is the worst possible spokesman for the movement.

Whether you're a fan of Emery is irrelevant: mojo-mattv's point is well taken. The legalization movement is its own worst enemy. We do not see all those people who aren't participating in the protests, because they don't form part of a public movement to legalize cannabis. What we do see is the equivalent of a bunch of people getting together in a park to drink whisky, as if this act is somehow meaningful.

The 2 primary indicators of harm, as recognized by medical doctors are....

1) Lethality (potential to induce a fatal overdose)

2) Potential for addiction (based on severity of withdrawal symptoms)

Other less concrete side effects are also to be taken into consideration, but they are *usually* less provable in an overtly documented and causal manner (such as the tenuous link between heavy Cannabis use and Scizhophrenia and/or Depression - evidence does tend to show that Cannabis can likely trigger the condition in those who are genetically predisposed or exacerbate psychotic symptoms in those who have a preexisting psychiatric condition or illness).

All scientific evidence is to be considered. But the latter, more tenuous theories have not been studied as long and verified beyond a reasonable doubt. One possibility is that the harsh drug laws themselves cause the anxiety which mimics clinical paranoia (imagine how nervous/paranoid coffee would make you if you realized that you could be put in prison at any time for brewing or consuming it).


To quote Dr. Andrew Weil "Cannabis is one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man. It is relatively non-toxic."


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm">http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.laleva.cc/choice/prohibition/cannabis-aspirin.html">http://www.laleva.cc/choice/prohibition ... pirin.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/">http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html">http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/addictiv.htm">http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www ... dictiv.htm</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm">http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1578.a06.html">http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1578.a06.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fcda.org/judge.young.htm">http://www.fcda.org/judge.young.htm</a><!-- m -->


So your perspective is based on a smear. Not all drugs are equally harmful, and I never said death (lethality) was the only criteria : but it is CERTAINLY the primary indicator of harm. Alcohol is exponentially more addictive than Cannabis, as delerium tremens are 1000X more severe than any documented cannabis withdrawal. The vast majority of Cannabis users do not use the drug regularly, they use it irregularly. At it's worst, Cannabis can induce mild to moderate psychological dependence, NOT actual severe physical addiction a la alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals. But again, the psychological addiction induced by alcohol and tobacco, is much much worse, as the vast majority of users are regular and habitual.

If we were discussing legalizing or decriminalizing a cyanide 'out' pill, crack cocaine or black tar heroin, we'd have to quantify the lethality and addictiveness of said substances. Each substance must be precisely qualified and quantified INDIVIDUALLY.

As for artistic enhancement, to each his own. If the artist contends that their creativity is enhanced and they show a prolific amount of work, and do not severely endanger their own lives or lives of others, you must consider the scenario as tolerable. But you can't blindly equate (smear) all substances together. If an artist claims that megadosing on crack, crystal meth and black tar heroin augments their creativity it cannot serve as any justification for legalizing those substances because they are MUCH more lethal and addictive than Cannabis.

You also have a smug tendency to assume that my restatement of your anti-prohibition argument was a derivative ripoff... but so was yours... neither of us originated it.

If you continue to demonize the legalization movement instead of realizing that the more manifestations of protest, civil expression, discourse and debate the better, then you are facilitating bill C-26 unwittingly, by attacking prospective victims of such draconian laws merely for peaceful protests. Peaceful protests can be considered as merely one aspect of a multi-faceted approach. Walking into parliament and ripping up bills won't work, and neither will doing nothing.

[Hipfan734]

People can come up with statistics to help prove any argument, 96% of people know that.
The primary reason for me and many other people "zeroing in on these protestors" is simply because they happen to be the most visible, and as skippy said, they usually do more bad then good. I'm not so naiive as to assume that these are the only people recreationally enjoying marijuana, however; my point stands that as far as I know that majority of people who do smoke are not actively campaigning for legislative change. Rather it is a disproportionate ammount of "stoners" getting together and protesting in these rallies, and by doing this, drowning out the smaller, quieter groups actively campaigning through legislation.

The media MAKES them the most visible, and doesn't cover the 95% of Cannabis users who do NOT engage in peaceful public protest. They (the media) do not document the fact that the US DEA drug war has turned them into an incarceration nation with 2.2 million prisoners and the world's highest incarceration rate, and their drug use has not went down.

Who sponsors the media (Global, CTV, etc.) commercially ? Corporations and big business who do not want Cannabis legalized - they want alcohol and pharmaceuticals to maintain a hypocritical monopoly on substance use.

Again, we agree that peaceful public pot protests are not the primary vehicle of change, and so do the 95% of cannabis users who don't show up.

That's why, other avenues, such as, debate, discourse, writing MPs and voting for the 2 parties who are pro-decriminalization/legalization (the Green Party and the NDP) are what the vast majority of cannabis users do.

If you can think of other methods to facilitate civil change and influence legislation, please do so - but the more ideologically pro-Bush parliamentarians are likely not going to budge at all.

[skippy the wonder dog]

This is rapidly getting ridiculous.

So your perspective is based on a smear.

Well, actually, on peer-reviewed research that has not been refuted. The strongest criticism of that research is that the higher rate of depression and psychotic symptoms observed in users may reflect their genetic predisposition for those problems. But that isn't relevant. It's like arguing that we should ignore taser deaths because the people who get shocked were acting up anyway.

Alcohol is exponentially more addictive than Cannabis, as delerium tremens are 1000X more severe than any documented cannabis withdrawal. The vast majority of Cannabis users do not use the drug regularly, they use it irregularly.

The vast majority of alcohol users do not drink regularly. Most alcohol users will never experience delirium tremens. In fact, the DTs occur only in people who are chronic, long-term alcoholics, and then only in a small percentage of cases.

But again, the psychological addiction induced by alcohol and tobacco, is much much worse, as the vast majority of users are regular and habitual.

The majority of drinkers do not drink regularly and habitually, and do not become alcoholics. Don't conflate regular cigarette smoking with drinking. They are not comparable.

So remind me: whose argument is based on a smear?

If you continue to demonize the legalization movement instead of realizing that the more manifestations of protest, civil expression, discourse and debate the better, then you are facilitating bill C-26....

Oh my God! Why do I hate democracy?

Well done, G.W. Bush: if I'm not with you, I'm against you. No criticism of any aspect of the pot lobby can be permitted. United we stand.

And now you're telling us that 95% of cannabis users aren't joining public protests because they agree that "peaceful public pot protests are not the primary vehicle of change," and that those people instead pursue other approaches. In other words, you're familiar with the motivations and actions of 95% of cannabis users, which is a made-up number to begin with.

Okay.

And you're telling us that the only reason those people aren't all over the news is that the evil media corporations want to keep selling us tobacco and booze so they can maintain their "hypocritical monopoly on substance use."

Okay.

The cannabis lobby just gets more credible every day.

[mojo_mattv]

He's obviously high Skippy :wink:

[The Horrible Esthete]

Well, I can grow all the luscious Early Girl tomatoes I can possibly eat in a growing season on just one plant. And it costs about three dollars.

You do the math.

But by growing just ONE cannabis plant, bill C-26 - approved and passed by the Liberals and Conservatives - would allow authorities to sentence you to the mandatory minimum 6 month sentence.

I was responding to the poster who asked "if [weed] were legal, wouldn't it cost everyone a fortune?". And his question was a reaction to your soapboxing against this bill.

So essentially, I was taking up your side of the issue.

Pull that slide and give yourself minute to relax just a bit, HF734....it's not you vs. the world in this one.

[grimes]

Who sponsors the media (Global, CTV, etc.) commercially ? Corporations and big business who do not want Cannabis legalized - they want alcohol and pharmaceuticals to maintain a hypocritical monopoly on substance use.

:lol: you should probably avoid statements like this if you want to be taken seriously. It reminds me of the ramblings of a college know-it-all hippie (see South Park episode 902 - Die Hippie, Die for reference: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=902">http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=902</a><!-- m -->).

For the record I say legalize pot, let the "corporations and big business" mass produce it, and tax the hell out of it, just like tobacco and alcohol.

[The Darkest Canuck]

For the record I say legalize pot, let the "corporations and big business" mass produce it, and tax the hell out of it, just like tobacco and alcohol.

WTF???? I would trust that weed even less than the shit that you buy on the streets...they'd be adding all sorts of shit to make it more addictive once there was a profit to be had off of it for them...

Like Pepsi, or McDonald's or w/e.

[Hipfan734]

This is rapidly getting ridiculous.

So your perspective is based on a smear.

Well, actually, on peer-reviewed research that has not been refuted. The strongest criticism of that research is that the higher rate of depression and psychotic symptoms observed in users may reflect their genetic predisposition for those problems. But that isn't relevant. It's like arguing that we should ignore taser deaths because the people who get shocked were acting up anyway.

Alcohol is exponentially more addictive than Cannabis, as delerium tremens are 1000X more severe than any documented cannabis withdrawal. The vast majority of Cannabis users do not use the drug regularly, they use it irregularly.

The vast majority of alcohol users do not drink regularly. Most alcohol users will never experience delirium tremens. In fact, the DTs occur only in people who are chronic, long-term alcoholics, and then only in a small percentage of cases.

But again, the psychological addiction induced by alcohol and tobacco, is much much worse, as the vast majority of users are regular and habitual.

The majority of drinkers do not drink regularly and habitually, and do not become alcoholics. Don't conflate regular cigarette smoking with drinking. They are not comparable.

So remind me: whose argument is based on a smear?

If you continue to demonize the legalization movement instead of realizing that the more manifestations of protest, civil expression, discourse and debate the better, then you are facilitating bill C-26....

Oh my God! Why do I hate democracy?

Well done, G.W. Bush: if I'm not with you, I'm against you. No criticism of any aspect of the pot lobby can be permitted. United we stand.

And now you're telling us that 95% of cannabis users aren't joining public protests because they agree that "peaceful public pot protests are not the primary vehicle of change," and that those people instead pursue other approaches. In other words, you're familiar with the motivations and actions of 95% of cannabis users, which is a made-up number to begin with.

Okay.

And you're telling us that the only reason those people aren't all over the news is that the evil media corporations want to keep selling us tobacco and booze so they can maintain their "hypocritical monopoly on substance use."

Okay.

The cannabis lobby just gets more credible every day.

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)
-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)

-bash all public pro-cannabis protesters
-bash the evidence (and those providing it) that Cannabis is non-lethal and relatively non-addictive.

IOW, you are being predominantly irrational.

Also, you are unwittingly facilitating the Neo-Con's anti-cannabis argumentative stance by targetting reasonable counterarguments and delusionally believing that your judgement of Cannabis is more accurate than the concretely verified medical evidence in the links I provided.

The Non-Lethality is concretely verified. The low Potential for addiction, soundly verified, and the potential for inducing *psychological* harm, generally unverified / inconclusive at this point (dictating that non-judgemental neutrality and further investigation is warranted).

[Hipfan734]

He's obviously high Skippy :wink:

Again, you are wrong. Not only that, you can only utter ad hominem retorts to cover up your intellectual impotence and false accusations in the debate realm.

Get back to bashing the protesters (who are only a minute minority of cannabis users anyway). It's what you do best (but still do rather ineffectively).

[Hipfan734]

Well, I can grow all the luscious Early Girl tomatoes I can possibly eat in a growing season on just one plant. And it costs about three dollars.

You do the math.

But by growing just ONE cannabis plant, bill C-26 - approved and passed by the Liberals and Conservatives - would allow authorities to sentence you to the mandatory minimum 6 month sentence.

I was responding to the poster who asked "if [weed] were legal, wouldn't it cost everyone a fortune?". And his question was a reaction to your soapboxing against this bill.

So essentially, I was taking up your side of the issue.

Pull that slide and give yourself minute to relax just a bit, HF734....it's not you vs. the world in this one.

I was simply trying to state the mandatory minimum for growing 1 plant. It's not just directed at you.

Again, 1 plant under Bill C-26 = 6 month sentence.

[Hipfan734]

Who sponsors the media (Global, CTV, etc.) commercially ? Corporations and big business who do not want Cannabis legalized - they want alcohol and pharmaceuticals to maintain a hypocritical monopoly on substance use.

:lol: you should probably avoid statements like this if you want to be taken seriously. It reminds me of the ramblings of a college know-it-all hippie (see South Park episode 902 - Die Hippie, Die for reference: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=902">http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=902</a><!-- m -->).

Scarecrow bashing. That's the Neo-Con "Hippy" characterization.

I'm all for strongly regulated businesses. Underground coffee and underground alcohol is more dangerous than well inspected and well regulated coffee and alcohol.

Currently, even though you may want to close your eyes to it, the status-quo is set up so that it is in the interest of the biggest corporations (especially BigPharma) to keep cannabis use and production criminalized. They want a total monopoly on all therapeutic avenues.

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.

[cferneyh]

Your smugly sarcastic and dismissive tendency shows that you...

you can only utter ad hominem retorts to cover up your intellectual impotence and false accusations in the debate realm.

cratch: