Mandatory sentencing for marijuana went into effect today

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hatter

I think pot should be legalized. However, while it remains illegal, I don't have a problem with this legislation, as it clearly targets dealers and not the recreational smoker.

As the system currently stands, there is no control on the product making it easier to fall into the hands of children, and drives its use underground. When I was in high school, getting booze and cigarettes was much more difficult than pot.

Obviously the solution to those problems is legalization, but until there is real will for it, targetting dealers is probably the right move. I don't think the current system is very safe for the user.

I agree, I think that the RCMP should buy a squadron of CF-5's with napalm cannisters.

When they see a dope field, death from above baby.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree, I think that the RCMP should buy a squadron of CF-5's with napalm cannisters.

When they see a dope field, death from above baby.

I'd be down with that!

[vektor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree, I think that the RCMP should buy a squadron of CF-5's with napalm cannisters.

When they see a dope field, death from above baby.

what if a bus driver accidentally got lost and drove into the field because he was high and the children die in a tragic accident.... no no no, my hypothetical situation proves you aren't thinking of the kids

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I'd be down with that!

Because we need to waste MORE money on this ****ing drug war, so we'll buy the RCMP military aircraft. Good thinking.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by vektor

what if a bus driver accidentally got lost and drove into the field because he was high and the children die in a tragic accident.... no no no, my hypothetical situation proves you aren't thinking of the kids

Impossible, no one has died from marijuana use ever.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Impossible, no one has died from marijuana use ever.

this is your sarcastic rebuttal because I didn't clarify that it's likely someone has died while under the influence.

"no one has ever overdosed on cannabis"

there, now you have no hole to crawl into. You have no logical arguments against the majority on this board, all you have is hypotheticals, red herrings and personal insults. You have nothing, the large majority of anti marijuana posts on this board are not supported by science or reason, it's supported by personal bias and hypothetical situations that use extreme scenarios because that's all there is. So go ahead, what's your next brilliant rebuttal? I'm over sensitive and stupid? I'm a lazy stoner that can't get a job? What is it genius, let's see what you got next. I'll wait with the other 70% of the people here for your next jewel of wisdom.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by vektor

this is your sarcastic rebuttal because I didn't clarify that it's likely someone has died while under the influence.

"no one has ever overdosed on cannabis"

there, now you have no hole to crawl into. You have no logical arguments against the majority on this board, all you have is hypotheticals, red herrings and personal insults. You have nothing, the large majority of anti marijuana posts on this board are not supported by science or reason, it's supported by personal bias and hypothetical situations that use extreme scenarios because that's all there is. So go ahead, what's your next brilliant rebuttal? I'm over sensitive and stupid? I'm a lazy stoner that can't get a job? What is it genius, let's see what you got next. I'll wait with the other 70% of the people here for your next jewel of wisdom.

You need to settle down a bit. When have I ever made a comment that even remotely resembled what you typed in the last few sentences of your post. I agreed with what you posted and you still find it nessessary to attack me.

I want to point out that I have made 0 personal attacks or insults in this thread unlike you who has made several directed to anyone who does not agree with your point of view, there is several in your post.

I made an exaggerated scenario that I myself said was extreme and was less then half serious. Additionally I said it could happen with alcohol now, then pointed out that I had zero issues with legalization. I have no issues with having a discussion but if this is your way of having that discussion I don't expect it to go very far.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

You need to settle down a bit. When have I ever made a comment that even remotely resembled what you typed in the last few sentences of your post. I agreed with what you posted and you still find it nessessary to attack me.

I want to point out that I have made 0 personal attacks or insults in this thread unlike you who has made several directed to anyone who does not agree with your point of view, there is several in your post.

I made an exaggerated scenario that I myself said was extreme and was less then half serious. Additionally I said it could happen with alcohol now, then pointed out that I had zero issues with legalization. I have no issues with having a discussion but if this is your way of having that discussion I don't expect it to go very far.

Hypotheticals and red herrings are not a discussion which is why I'm not too concerned about it. If you wanted a discussion you'd be debating the actual scientific research that supports it or the logical reasons for it, but I'm not seeing any of that.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by vektor

Hypotheticals and red herrings are not a discussion which is why I'm not too concerned about it. If you wanted a discussion you'd be debating the actual scientific research that supports it or the logical reasons for it, but I'm not seeing any of that.

Ok, carry on with your personal attacks & insults then. There is always the possibility that by doing so those with differing opinions will change theirs.

[Mister Yamoto]

Pot smokers are greatly overrating the benefits of legalization.

Right now pot is cheap and easy to get. It's illegal, but the laws are loosely enforced.

The price of weed is the same as it was 25 years ago. That is because it is black market and the price is truly set by supply and demand. In that same timeframe the price of say gas, rent, milk, cigarettes, beer has doubled or in some cases tripled. Legalized marijuana will at least double in price right of the bat and will be taxed the same way any other "sin tax" is. 7$ of tax on 50 cents worth of tobacco. And the price will increase year after year far greater than the rate of inflation.

Although it might be fun to go to the marijuana store and say" I wanna try this new kind and gimme some more of the stuff I tried last week" those places are gonna be regulated up the yinyang. If you need to buy weed say at 11 at night, if you are drunk, if it is a holiday, if you are 17, if you have already bought your limit that month etc,etc then you are hooped.

Legalization is a very misleading term. Alcohol is legal, right? But look at all the tickets and charges for DUI, public intoxication, underage drinking. Those laws, for the most part are strictly enforced. Right now the marijuana laws for mere possession are pretty much ignored by law enforcement. And if you are a smoker that is even better than legalization. If legalization ever happened the amount of marijuana related charges would go way up.

Basically I am saying to the pro legalize people be careful what you wish for it just might happen.

[Vulcan]

Although it might be fun to go to the marijuana store and say" I wanna try this new kind and gimme some more of the stuff I tried last week" those places are gonna be regulated up the yinyang.

That's basically what you have now in a Vancouver pot store with a medical pass. My sister has one and I walked into the store with her and there was many varieties. When she got out both my sisters were arguing over who gets what while they're spilling dope all over my old caddie. I thought I was back in the 60s.

[SebC]

I just love this for its logical consistency:

Marijuana: virtually harmless; Conservatives implemented mandatory setencing for possession (with "intent to traffic").

Internet connection: often harmless, occasionally harmful; Conservatives pushed for registered IP addresses.

Long guns: often harmless, sometimes intentionally used to murder people; Conservatives abolished the registry and want to destroy (have destroyed?) the $2 billion investment in it creation because it's a "privacy violation".

Long form census: widely regarded as necessary to all kinds of groups, minor inconvenience at worst; Conservatives abolished it because it's a "privacy violation".

[vektor]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Ok, carry on with your personal attacks & insults then. There is always the possibility that by doing so those with differing opinions will change theirs.

Ok ok I've calmed down, sorry for being a dick. If you want to discuss anything that's science based I'd be happy to.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Because we need to waste MORE money on this ****ing drug war, so we'll buy the RCMP military aircraft. Good thinking.

I was wondering, when you have your sense of humor surgically removed do you have to stay in the hospital over night or is it a day surgery?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by vektor

incorrect.

Deaths caused by Alcohol poisoning in the US in one year:

80,000
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm


Deaths caused by marijuana ever:

0

Where is there room for debate?

So no one has ever gotten into a car accident and died while under the influence of marijuana, huh? Funny how some people like to be so selective in the statistics they use...

[vektor]

Originally Posted by Ark2

So no one has ever gotten into a car accident and died while under the influence of marijuana, huh? Funny how some people like to be so selective in the statistics they use...

I shall quote myself to stop any more ridiculous arguments

"no one has ever overdosed on cannabis"

moving on, is there any logical input you have to add?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Actually the statistics are technically correct: Marijuana has not been the cause of any death. If someone gets high and dies from a car accident, they didn't die because they got high, they died because of the car accident. Marijuana was simply a contributing factor, but not why the person died, same as it would be if they drove drunk and died. If you want to argue if they never drove high or drunk they would never have died...thats a theoritical that you cannot actually prove. But when that death goes into statistics, it goes under death from a motor vehicle, not death from alcohol or pot.

With alcohol, death from alcohol poisoning occurs from drinking too much alcohol, so you can attribute that death directly to alcohol. But marijuana on its own cannot cause death. I suppose its speaking in technicalities, but it isn't wrong.

[polak]

Thats the same as saying cigarretes don't kill anyone. They just "contribute" to cancer.

Smoking weed does too (not to the same extent though).

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Actually the statistics are technically correct: Marijuana has not been the cause of any death. If someone gets high and dies from a car accident, they didn't die because they got high, they died because of the car accident. Marijuana was simply a contributing factor, but not why the person died, same as it would be if they drove drunk and died. If you want to argue if they never drove high or drunk they would never have died...thats a theoritical that you cannot actually prove. But when that death goes into statistics, it goes under death from a motor vehicle, not death from alcohol or pot.

With alcohol, death from alcohol poisoning occurs from drinking too much alcohol, so you can attribute that death directly to alcohol. But marijuana on its own cannot cause death. I suppose its speaking in technicalities, but it isn't wrong.

Don't they also keep track of alcohol related car accidents? Kind of as a separate statistic.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by polak

Thats the same as saying cigarretes don't kill anyone. They just "contribute" to cancer.

Smoking weed does too (not to the same extent though).

Except cigarettes have been proven to have carcinogens in them, the direct cause of many types of cancer. So its not the same at all. You can argue smoking pot causes you to become a more dangerous driver, but there was a study found in the other pot related thread that stoned drivers are actually safer, so there's a study refuting that claims. Granted, not a scientific study, but thats kind of the point. Science has proven carcinogens cause cancer, and that they are most definitely in cigarettes. There is not one single study that says marijuana consumption will lead directly to death. Not one. You can say for instance it makes driving more dangerous, but so do hail, snow, rain, wind. Are we using those as causes of death anytime soon? Doubtful. Contributing factors? Sure, but those aren't the reason the person died. Again, its a technicality, but as OJ and Casey Anthony will tell you, they didn't do it and technically, they're right.