|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Benoit
CKA Elite
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:20 pm
Robair Robair: Pseudonym Pseudonym: Meh, I really haven't developed a strong position on the issue. I don't know enough about its effects and don't care to know. I find it interesting how they draw the line arbitrarily between alcohol and nicotine as drugs versus THC and heroin as drugs. I can't really figure out a position that I would consider solid between these lines, so I tend to just stay out of this mess. Heroin is bad, bad stuff. No comparison to the other three IMHO. Didn't the biggest push to ban Mary Jane originally come from industries that had to compete with hemp paper, hemp rope etc etc? Another vexed questions is raised by UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, one of the more thoughtful experts on drug policy today. Basically, he's a liberal. "Criminal punishment of marijuana use does not appear to be justified," he maintains. But legalization has big problems too. "Full commercial legalization of cannabis, on the model now applied to alcohol, would vastly increase the cannabis-abuse problem by giving the marketing geniuses who have done such a fine job persuading children to smoke tobacco, drink to excess and super-size themselves another vice to foster," he argues.
|
Posts: 8157
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:47 pm
Benoit Benoit: Robair Robair: Didn't the biggest push to ban Mary Jane originally come from industries that had to compete with hemp paper, hemp rope etc etc? Another vexed questions is raised by UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, one of the more thoughtful experts on drug policy today. Basically, he's a liberal. "Criminal punishment of marijuana use does not appear to be justified," he maintains. But legalization has big problems too. "Full commercial legalization of cannabis, on the model now applied to alcohol, would vastly increase the cannabis-abuse problem by giving the marketing geniuses who have done such a fine job persuading children to smoke tobacco, drink to excess and super-size themselves another vice to foster," he argues. Yes, I read the article. What was the point of that post? Didn't have much to do with what I said, and didn't answer my question...
|
Benoit
CKA Elite
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:55 pm
Robair Robair: Benoit Benoit: Robair Robair: Didn't the biggest push to ban Mary Jane originally come from industries that had to compete with hemp paper, hemp rope etc etc? Another vexed questions is raised by UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, one of the more thoughtful experts on drug policy today. Basically, he's a liberal. "Criminal punishment of marijuana use does not appear to be justified," he maintains. But legalization has big problems too. "Full commercial legalization of cannabis, on the model now applied to alcohol, would vastly increase the cannabis-abuse problem by giving the marketing geniuses who have done such a fine job persuading children to smoke tobacco, drink to excess and super-size themselves another vice to foster," he argues. Yes, I read the article. What was the point of that post? Didn't have much to do with what I said, and didn't answer my question... Search: canada-us-relations-f14/hemp-for-food-amd-fuel-t63321.html
|
Posts: 806
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:44 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1: robmik43 robmik43: So, someone who doesn't agree with you is somehow a "neo-teetotaler" ???? Nope, someone who exhibits extreme view on intoxicants is "neo-teetotaler". That includes relying on argumentative fallacies - which I noticed you conveniently avoided addressing - to make points. $1: I don't consider all pot smokers to be dangerously irresponsible, just annoyingly irresponsible, especially when they whine. Who's a "pot smoker" and who's whining? It seems someone is being annoying irresponsible in their commentary. $1: My worry is that decriminalization will lead to much greater pot use. Do you possess the same worries regarding alcohol? I hope your consistent in your assertions. $1: Greater pot use [to me],will mean greater potential for the type of situations that concern me, especially amongst young drivers. Firstly that's a fallacy of extension and an argument from adverse consequences. Secondly, how's it different from prescription drugs (do you have any idea as to their abuse?) or alcohol? It's already happening - not to condone, but merely to acknowledge it - so how is your potential argumentative fallacy anymore legitimate if it's decriminalized? $1: Perhaps your position is that there would be the same number of pot users in a decriminalized environment, they'd just be less worried about trips to the hoosegow, fines and criminal stigma ? That's not my position, but thanks for yet another argumentative fallacy. $1: BTW, I made my share of stupid mistakes in my younger days, yet I am still not a teetotaler, not even the made-up "neo" kind. ![Drink up [B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif) Uh...okay, but how does address the fact that "decriminalization" is likely going to happen? Again, many of your points mirror the same kind of temperance stuff that prohibitionists argued and it didn't work then, and doesn't wash now. What i find truly remarkable is how people condemn pot use and champion its criminality but say little about alcohol and its societal, medical and legal effects (it's not entirely legal either) As my own, and other posts have pointed out, pot is ALREADY essentially decriminalized in practise. The cops and judges just don't care about simple possession or casual use. I have not "championed its' criminality". Going to the trouble of responding to each sentence of my post individually might get you honorable mention in a Drama Queen contest, but it doesn't give your position additional weight. I have the concerns I mentioned, and am entitled to those concerns...and there are others. Many feel that pot becomes a gateway drug for a lot of users... and for a lot of users it has been...perhaps in the beginning, these gullible unfortunates were just "neo-dopers" ? The pot culture has spawned a huge and dangerous criminal grow-op underworld, worse than any Prohibition-era illicit rotgut booze industry. I think we're a long way away from legal pot farms no matter what happens, and who is in power ...and by the way, pot law amendments are nowhere near any must-do lists for either the CPC or Libs.
|
Posts: 806
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:01 pm
Robair Robair: Prohibition creates Al Capones. I'm all for legalization and I don't even use the stuff. I'd rather Canada collect tax off it, than spend my taxes trying to get it off the street. Prohibition doesn't create Al Capones...the Al Capones are already there. They almost always simply move to whatever they CAN sell. Just like the original Al...he was already in gambling, extortion, bribery, loansharking, prostitution and robbery...he just moved to booze during Prohibition for additional profit...keeping all the other stuff. After Prohibition, the Mob moved to union infiltration, contract rigging, and 'legitimate' businesses....still keeping much of that "old stuff". Our Al Capones include Hells Angels, St.Lawrence River Mohawks, Jamaican gangs, Far East Asia gangs, and homegrown hoods etc, etc...they are already there. Legalize pot, regulate and tax it ? Many of them will then sell cheaper pot, even if inferior, the way they sell cigarettes now. Because we already have our Al Capones, no changes in law will keep them from making a living the way they know how. Handgun use in crime is about to ramp up sharply in Canada, with or without any changes in "law"...because of demand, and because our criminals are capable suppliers.
|
Mustang1
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 7594
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:03 pm
robmik43 robmik43: Going to the trouble
Actually, it's no trouble dealing with you but thanks for projecting! $1: of responding to each sentence of my post individually might get you honorable mention in a Drama Queen contest, Sorry, my witless chump, no Drama Queen contest, but apparently you do revel in peon humor. $1: but it doesn't give your position additional weight. Nope, my arguments give my position weight. And when people like you respond with infantile prattle, my points shine in comparison $1: I have the concerns I mentioned, and am entitled to those concerns...and there are others. Those argumentative fallacies were already identified and you responded with nothing since. Simply stating your position again in an intellectual temper tantrum really doesn't make it more persuasive. $1: Many feel that pot becomes a gateway drug for a lot of users... It's not. $1: and for a lot of users it has been...perhaps in the beginning, these gullible unfortunates were just "neo-dopers" ? Oh good, more pleb humor. Could you just maybe make some silly stream of stupidity and put them all in there? Thanks. Stumble on.
|
Mustang1
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 7594
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:05 pm
robmik43 robmik43: Robair Robair: Prohibition creates Al Capones. I'm all for legalization and I don't even use the stuff. I'd rather Canada collect tax off it, than spend my taxes trying to get it off the street. Prohibition doesn't create Al Capones...the Al Capones are already there. They almost always simply move to whatever they CAN sell. Just like the original Al...he was already in gambling, extortion, bribery, loansharking, prostitution and robbery...he just moved to booze during Prohibition for additional profit...keeping all the other stuff. After Prohibition, the Mob moved to union infiltration, contract rigging, and 'legitimate' businesses....still keeping much of that "old stuff". Our Al Capones include Hells Angels, St.Lawrence River Mohawks, Jamaican gangs, Far East Asia gangs, and homegrown hoods etc, etc...they are already there. Legalize pot, regulate and tax it ? Many of them will then sell cheaper pot, even if inferior, the way they sell cigarettes now. Because we already have our Al Capones, no changes in law will keep them from making a living the way they know how. Handgun use in crime is about to ramp up sharply in Canada, with or without any changes in "law"...because of demand, and because our criminals are capable suppliers. Maybe some of us have learned the lessons from prohibition. Oh...and don't the same "points" apply to alcohol today? Gotta' love the Puritan mindset
|
Posts: 11825
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:23 pm
Simple Possession should have been removed from the books when I was a kid. Now my kids are having kids, and it's still a criminal offense. That's bullshit. It's also bullshit to say adults aren't being charged. Several have been charged here in the last couple years. If the cops don't like your face, and they can't find anything else they'll for sure charge you wherever you live. They also grabbed a bunch of Grade 10 and 11 kids smoking up behind a building near the school and every one was charged. Meanwhile shops are getting broken into, drunks are stumbling down the street and driving thru town and there's 5 crack houses in view of the cop shop.
|
Posts: 3329
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:33 pm
A big problem that I can say I do have with this is, of course, inconsistent/incomplete enforcement. If you are going to have a law in the books, at least give a pretense of backing it up. Prohibition suffered from the same problems that marijuana and speeding enforcement do now. It just seems a bit ridiculous how police handle the problem now.
|
Posts: 3329
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:35 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1: Maybe some of us have learned the lessons from prohibition. Oh...and don't the same "points" apply to alcohol today? Gotta' love the Puritan mindset
Try to debate him without insulting or deriding him. Puritan mindset? Please. A Puritan ehtic used to imply a person who worked their ass off. When did this ridiculous "prudishness" notion come into vogue?
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:03 pm
Pseudonym Pseudonym: Zipperfish Zipperfish: Pseudonym Pseudonym: 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? Meh, I really haven't developed a strong position on the issue. I don't know enough about its effects and don't care to know. I find it interesting how they draw the line arbitrarily between alcohol and nicotine as drugs versus THC and heroin as drugs. I can't really figure out a position that I would consider solid between these lines, so I tend to just stay out of this mess. tell you the truth, the older I get, the less I care too.
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:08 pm
In my line of work...i would rather deal with someone under the influence of mj than any other substance...in particular, I cant stand anyone when they have been drinking...annoying as all hell.
|
Benoit
CKA Elite
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:29 pm
herbie herbie: Simple Possession should have been removed from the books when I was a kid. Now my kids are having kids, and it's still a criminal offense. That's bullshit. It's also bullshit to say adults aren't being charged. Several have been charged here in the last couple years. If the cops don't like your face, and they can't find anything else they'll for sure charge you wherever you live. They also grabbed a bunch of Grade 10 and 11 kids smoking up behind a building near the school and every one was charged. Meanwhile shops are getting broken into, drunks are stumbling down the street and driving thru town and there's 5 crack houses in view of the cop shop. If simple possession was still a criminal offense, I would have seen half of the neighbors move away.
|
Posts: 11825
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:54 pm
Check a lawbook before you check reality. The public openly flaunts the law, just like they did in Prohibition times. It's exactly the same. The criminals distribute it, the public wants it, the cops and politicians look the other way or get in on the take.
|
Benoit
CKA Elite
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:58 pm
herbie herbie: Check a lawbook before you check reality. The public openly flaunts the law, just like they did in Prohibition times. It's exactly the same. The criminals distribute it, the public wants it, the cops and politicians look the other way or get in on the take. The cops are rational.
|
|
Page 3 of 4
|
[ 47 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests |
|
|