Crazy Grow Op

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Oh, I'm not disputing any of those things, but if there's a zero tolerance for marijuana, there should also be a zero tolerance for alcohol which is known to have worse effects than being stoned. The problem from a governmental point of view is that creating a zero tolerance law for the sake of legalizing pot would not be a popular move. And right now, there's not fool-proof way of determining if a driver is under the influence of pot.

Trust me; I'm all for legalizing pot. However I totally understand the limitations of the government in this regard as well. They need to create a law that can not only be passed, but also enforced.

you're missing a major point here though, pot already falls under driving under the influence laws. millions of Canadians smoke pot already, it's not like this would be a brand new situation the cops would have to deal with after legalization. would you want a specific law setup for every drug out there that affects your cognitive abilities? i've never seen a cop test someone for cold or allergy medications, both of which could impair your driving as much or more than pot

alcohol has specific testing limits because it's the easiest to detect, but everything else falls under the cop's judgment to determine if someone is impaired. i just don't see this being a big issue when pot is finally legalized

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i've yet to hear a compelling argument about why marijuana should be illegal that doesn't also apply to alcohol.

First off I'm not against the legalization of pot. The thing that I think would bother me is that I would be forced to deal with the second hand smoke more often which is something alcohol does not do. I should have the right to clean air.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

you're missing a major point here though, pot already falls under driving under the influence laws. millions of Canadians smoke pot already, it's not like this would be a brand new situation the cops would have to deal with after legalization. would you want a specific law setup for every drug out there that affects your cognitive abilities? i've never seen a cop test someone for cold or allergy medications, both of which could impair your driving as much or more than pot

alcohol has specific testing limits because it's the easiest to detect, but everything else falls under the cop's judgment to determine if someone is impaired. i just don't see this being a big issue when pot is finally legalized

No, I'm not missing a major point. Alcohol has specific testing limits because there is information on how much a person can ingest before they are considered too impaired to drive. If marijuana is legal, the same considerations need to be given it as well. Currently, it's at the cops whim whether or not they decide to charge you or suspend your license. On a much larger scale, that'll never fly.

And if you don't think drugging and driving will be more prevalent if marijuana becomes legal, you're deluding yourself.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i've yet to hear a compelling argument about why marijuana should be illegal that doesn't also apply to alcohol. the big difference between weed and the harder narcotics is that it isn't physically addictive, and in the history of mankind no one has ever overdosed on pot

"Marijuana should be illegal"
"Why?"
"Because it's illegal"

Seriously though, despite the fact that most people in Canada and the US know the current war on drugs (particularly marijuana) isn't working and is using up billions of taxpayers money, a major obstacle preventing any sort of change are police administration and police unions.

Suppose 15% police time and resources are spent chasing the petty stuff, if suddenly that stuff is no longer a crime, police will have a tough time justifying maintaining their budgets at current levels.

Obviously, this could mean less hiring and perhaps layoffs.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

First off I'm not against the legalization of pot. The thing that I think would bother me is that I would be forced to deal with the second hand smoke more often which is something alcohol does not do. I should have the right to clean air.

I'm pretty sure the laws surrounding it's use would be even stricter than cigarette laws.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by bcb

Suppose 15% police time and resources are spent chasing the petty stuff, if suddenly that stuff is no longer a crime, police will have a tough time justifying maintaining their budgets at current levels.

Obviously, this could mean less hiring and perhaps layoffs.

I'm sure there are other branches which are horribly understaffed would love to bring those people in. There's still heroin, meth and x to deal with.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

First off I'm not against the legalization of pot. The thing that I think would bother me is that I would be forced to deal with the second hand smoke more often which is something alcohol does not do. I should have the right to clean air.

so why would marijuana not fall under the same public smoking laws for cigarettes that we have now? it would likely be even stricter, as you could combine those with the public intoxication laws for alcohol so that you couldn't smoke weed anywhere in public

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, I'm not missing a major point. Alcohol has specific testing limits because there is information on how much a person can ingest before they are considered too impaired to drive. If marijuana is legal, the same considerations need to be given it as well. Currently, it's at the cops whim whether or not they decide to charge you or suspend your license. On a much larger scale, that'll never fly.

And if you don't think drugging and driving will be more prevalent if marijuana becomes legal, you're deluding yourself.

what proof do you have that this would be the case? in fact you could argue that if pot became legal, eventually the usage percentage would drop, since the Netherlands has a lower canabis use per capita than Canada. the same goes with alcohol and European countries that don't have a minimum drinking age, they have a much lower rate of underage heavy drinking than Canada or the US. when you legalize a drug and remove the mystique or rebellion factor, you remove a lot of the desire to do it in the first place

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

what proof do you have that this would be the case? in fact you could argue that if pot became legal, eventually the usage percentage would drop, since the Netherlands has a lower canabis use per capita than Canada. the same goes with alcohol and European countries that don't have a minimum drinking age, they have a much lower rate of underage heavy drinking than Canada or the US. when you legalize a drug and remove the mystique or rebellion factor, you remove a lot of the desire to do it in the first place

The Netherlands is also quite a bit more conservative and religious overall, at least thats the impression I got when I visited there. That could contribute to the results. Could be the majority of people smoking in Amsterdam are always tourists?

Out of all the exchange students at the university I went to, can't recall a single Dutch person who smoked weed. Not the case for French people I met Swedes, or Norwegians. Obviously not a huge sample size though Don't recall meeting any Germans who smoked either.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

what proof do you have that this would be the case? in fact you could argue that if pot became legal, eventually the usage percentage would drop, since the Netherlands has a lower canabis use per capita than Canada. the same goes with alcohol and European countries that don't have a minimum drinking age, they have a much lower rate of underage heavy drinking than Canada or the US. when you legalize a drug and remove the mystique or rebellion factor, you remove a lot of the desire to do it in the first place

I didn't say usage would go up, I said drugging and driving would. Or perhaps I should clarify; the number of arrests for drugging and driving would.

Do you think people drink alcohol for the mystique factor or rebellion?

You're talking about HEAVY drinking. You don't have to drink (or drug) heavily to become intoxicated.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I didn't say usage would go up, I said drugging and driving would.

Why would it go up? I can't think of anyone I know or have ever met that doesn't smoke pot because it is illegal, so I don't think it would change much in that aspect.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The Netherlands is also quite a bit more conservative and religious overall, at least thats the impression I got when I visited there. That could contribute to the results. Could be the majority of people smoking in Amsterdam are always tourists?

Out of all the exchange students at the university I went to, can't recall a single Dutch person who smoked weed. Not the case for French people I met Swedes, or Norwegians. Obviously not a huge sample size though Don't recall meeting any Germans who smoked either.

that basically makes my point, the Dutch don't smoke as much as other countries because it's no big deal, however many of the tourists that visit Amsterdam completely binge out because they get to do something legally that they can't back home

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do you think people drink alcohol for the mystique factor or rebellion?

You're talking about HEAVY drinking. You don't have to drink (or drug) heavily to become intoxicated.

Neither? I think people drink alcohol for the effects. Euphoria, removal of inhibitions, becoming chattier, etc. Its a social drug, it lubricates social encounters. Allows shy people to overcome their inhibitions, allows people who are embarassed about dancing to dance, etc. It can result in great times. It can also result in emotional times, depressing times, etc. Some variance there for sure.

Alcohol is a bit different in weed in that the amount you consume has drastically different effects. 1 beer vs 6 beers, a massive difference in how most people are affected, how they will act, etc. 1 joints in a night vs 6 however does not really have as big of a difference for weed. Maybe you'd be more burnt out? In addition someone can have one toke of weed and be very intoxicated with the effects weed has. However one can't get drunk off one sip of alcohol unless its some insanely high %.

Most drugs I've tried are vastly different. Too many people try to lump them into categories, groups, etc as if there were large similarites when in fact there are usually large differences. Weed, alcohol, magic mushrooms, MDMA, Salvia are all pretty different from each other.

To actually tackle the issue sensibly, each drug will have to be analyzed for its own merits/detriments. I'm sure this issue will get become more and more prevalent as people communicate anonymously over the net about their experiences with drugs away from the societal wide disapproval about "drugs". Communication will end up eroding the effect of the mostly successful propaganda against all non-prescription drugs.

Drugs are bad? I wouldn't say it can reduced to good/bad dichotomy with such a large generalization. Drugs are dangerous? Very much so. The strangeness is that many of the prescription drugs are as bad or worse as the outlawed ones. And some of the outlawed ones are far better than some of the prescription drugs.

I think my favourite example of how drug laws don't really make much sense is that cough syrup is a very powerful dissociative similar to Ketamine. However because it is the best cough suppressant, we're willing to sell it over the counter. WARNING do not start guzzling cough syrup based on this information, many of it contains additives such as tylenol which make it very dangerous to consume large amounts.

Salvia is another weird one. Very short effects, more powerful than mushrooms in that short time. And yet it remains legal for now and is sold all across North America in head shops and smoke shops.

Drug laws are just wildly inconsistent. Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't become a bigger issue already. I kind of think it will become a big issue in my lifetime but yeah, I'm impressed how well the power systems in society have kept it a pretty low profile issue.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

that basically makes my point, the Dutch don't smoke as much as other countries because it's no big deal, however many of the tourists that visit Amsterdam completely binge out because they get to do something legally that they can't back home

Except my point was that it might have less to do with being legal, and more to do with the country being much more Christian and conservative overall than Canada.

[1stLand]

some of the logic of legalization proponents is faulty.

"if we legalize marijuana, it will eliminate organized crime"

Not really, dope peddlers will just move harder drugs like coke, E, meth.

They already have the distribution channels in place, the clients.

What legalizing pot will do is make it more widespread in our society. More people will become stoners and our healthcare system will be further burdened when those who started smoking pot at an early age grow older and develop lung disease or schizophrenia or other mental disorders linked with chronic marijuana use.

Fact is, we need Cops to bust the idiot grow operators who have their fingers in a few different illegal pies. Bust them on the pot charge and go after them on bigger items when other evidence is uncovered.

Better yet, bust a grow op or a pot dealer and make them 'sing' and rat our bigger fish out there that are coke dealers and dirt bags in general.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Why would it go up? I can't think of anyone I know or have ever met that doesn't smoke pot because it is illegal, so I don't think it would change much in that aspect.

Well I've certainly met people who wouldn't try it because its stigmatized overall in society. I think a pretty strong argument can be made that the stigma against pot is in part because it is illegal.

Making it legal would have the effect of condoning it to some extent. And that would change society's overall opinion on weed and whether it is a valid recreational drug.

I think it would change attitudes about and towards weed over the long term.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Why would it go up? I can't think of anyone I know or have ever met that doesn't smoke pot because it is illegal, so I don't think it would change much in that aspect.

How old are you Hoot? As people get older they tend to 'hide' the things that they do which may not be socially acceptable. Sure, when you're 15 and everyone smokes pot, it's not a big deal that your friends know you do it. When you're 40 and still a pot head, it tends to be on the 'down-low' if you know what I mean. It's not legal and you never know who out there is going to judge you for it, so why advertise? However if it becomes legal, who cares? No one. Since it is now socially acceptable to do so and becomes more open, people will do it in more places and around people they wouldn't have previously. They would treat it more like drinking; instead of an 'at home wind down' only type thing, it's now an acceptable thing to do on a night out. And when people go out and smoke pot, they have to get home somehow, right?

Not everyone is like you and is open about their pot smoking habits.

Put another way, depending on your job, you may go out for drinks with the office, but are you going to go out and smoke a joint with your office? If and when it becomes okay to do that, don't you think people will still drive home from that? (Oh, I'm only high; it's not like I'm drunk or anything!)

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

What legalizing pot will do is make it more widespread in our society. More people will become stoners and our healthcare system will be further burdened when those who started smoking pot at an early age grow older and develop lung disease or schizophrenia or other mental disorders linked with chronic marijuana use.

I'd love to see the studies that show a strong link between Marijuana and mental disorders. Sounds like a bit of a myth to me.

As for health problems, I think you can argue that alcohol has a very, very bad effect on the health for alcoholics. So are you arguing we should ban cigarettes and alcohol too? If not then your argument is inconsistent.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Neither? I think people drink alcohol for the effects. Euphoria, removal of inhibitions, becoming chattier, etc. Its a social drug, it lubricates social encounters. Allows shy people to overcome their inhibitions, allows people who are embarassed about dancing to dance, etc. It can result in great times. It can also result in emotional times, depressing times, etc. Some variance there for sure.

You've proven my point. If people don't drink for the mystique or cool factor, why would they smoke pot for the same? They don't. Drug use won't go down when it becomes legal.

[quote]Alcohol is a bit different in weed in that the amount you consume has drastically different effects. 1 beer vs 6 beers, a massive difference in how most people are affected, how they will act, etc. 1 joints in a night vs 6 however does not really have as big of a difference for weed. Maybe you'd be more burnt out? In addition someone can have one toke of weed and be very intoxicated with the effects weed has. However one can't get drunk off one sip of alcohol unless its some insanely high %.[quote]

And one hoot of weed may not make a person high if it's bad weed, or it could screw them right up if it's good weed. A person who smokes all the time will not be affected the same as someone who doesn't. But the same could be said of alcohol in a manner... there are functioning alcoholics in the world who could probably drive drunk as a sober person would, however they would definitely blow over. People react differently to alcohol as well, but regardless of how it affects you, there is still a legal limit to the amount you can consume before being declared legally intoxicated.

Most drugs I've tried are vastly different. Too many people try to lump them into categories, groups, etc as if there were large similarites when in fact there are usually large differences. Weed, alcohol, magic mushrooms, MDMA, Salvia are all pretty different from each other.

To actually tackle the issue sensibly, each drug will have to be analyzed for its own merits/detriments. I'm sure this issue will get become more and more prevalent as people communicate anonymously over the net about their experiences with drugs away from the societal wide disapproval about "drugs". Communication will end up eroding the effect of the mostly successful propaganda against all non-prescription drugs.

Drugs are bad? I wouldn't say it can reduced to good/bad dichotomy with such a large generalization. Drugs are dangerous? Very much so. The strangeness is that many of the prescription drugs are as bad or worse as the outlawed ones. And some of the outlawed ones are far better than some of the prescription drugs.

I think my favourite example of how drug laws don't really make much sense is that cough syrup is a very powerful dissociative similar to Ketamine. However because it is the best cough suppressant, we're willing to sell it over the counter. WARNING do not start guzzling cough syrup based on this information, many of it contains additives such as tylenol which make it very dangerous to consume large amounts.

Salvia is another weird one. Very short effects, more powerful than mushrooms in that short time. And yet it remains legal for now and is sold all across North America in head shops and smoke shops.

Drug laws are just wildly inconsistent. Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't become a bigger issue already. I kind of think it will become a big issue in my lifetime but yeah, I'm impressed how well the power systems in society have kept it a pretty low profile issue.

I understand what you're saying here; it's not fair to regulate some drugs and not others. I don't dispute that. I'm saying that in order for pot to become legalized, they're going to need to some stricter controls over it in order for it to fly with the public.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

some of the logic of legalization proponents is faulty.

"if we legalize marijuana, it will eliminate organized crime"

Not really, dope peddlers will just move harder drugs like coke, E, meth.

They already have the distribution channels in place, the clients.

What legalizing pot will do is make it more widespread in our society. More people will become stoners and our healthcare system will be further burdened when those who started smoking pot at an early age grow older and develop lung disease or schizophrenia or other mental disorders linked with chronic marijuana use.

Fact is, we need Cops to bust the idiot grow operators who have their fingers in a few different illegal pies. Bust them on the pot charge and go after them on bigger items when other evidence is uncovered.

Better yet, bust a grow op or a pot dealer and make them 'sing' and rat our bigger fish out there that are coke dealers and dirt bags in general.

If you can prove that the vast majority of people who smoke weed would also be willing to leap to a more dangerous narcotic and that has never been proven.