Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

So you disagree with it, but how is it a straw man?

By falsely comparing my position on marijuana to the reality of alcohol regulation, you are distorting, and ignoring the real issues posed by marijuana legalization.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

All of your posts are quite uninformed, but this one is just puzzling.

So it's more harmful than alcohol because it was an uncomfortable experience for you? So harmful you chose to do it 9 more times after the first smoke. Science be damned, peter had a bad time so it must be more harmful than alcohol, a substance that damages vital organs and can kill you.

For others, daily life is an uncomfortable experience and marijuana is the most effective way to manage their ailments or depression. I strongly believe that legalizing marijuana will more than halve the amount of prescription medication being taken in North America. Why do you think it's been illegal for so long. The biggest corporations in the world have been trying to keep it status quo to maintain their profits.

So if it does all these wonderful things why wouldn't the companies just add it to there list of drugs they produce and sell? Wouldn't that add to there profits.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by peter12

Did you see the study that I posted?

That study is outlining even more reason that it should be legalized... You really don't have a clue peter.

Legalization means it will be harder for teens to access. Most teens are able to access weed easier than they are alcohol. This is a fact so don't bother debating it. This has been proven by states like Colorado who have seen marijuana use among teens drop.

This study is of the development of a teens brain being affected by weed. Nobody is advocating for teens to legally smoke it. These sames studies also don't hold true for adults.

Try again.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question.

"What is the harm in legalizing Marijuana?"

We know of the effects of Marijuana on the developing brain, but that's not any compelling factor in legalization. In fact, a very strong argument could be made that by better controlling the supply we may actually make an improvement in teen use

- It's pretty clear that the marijuana subculture - and growing corporate influence - want to market marijuana as a harmless, natural, recreational, and even medicinal, product. Maybe marijuana will be subject to the same branding, taxation, and restriction that cigarettes have? I don't know. But let's be clear that money matters, and legal distributors will have no incentive to promote the harmful effects of marijuana.

- Marijuana is a substance used primarily by the young. For a product that is so easy to grow, and distribute, what makes you think that a black market won't continue to exist to serve that sector?

[DFO]

There is just no evidence that legalization will all of a sudden lead to a greater number of kids smoking weed. Today you could give a random junior high student $200 and they would have an ounce before 1st period is over.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

- Marijuana is a substance used primarily by the young. For a product that is so easy to grow, and distribute, what makes you think that a black market won't continue to exist to serve that sector?

I don't know how accurate this is. Do you have evidence to support this? And what do you define as "young"? Under 18?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So if it does all these wonderful things why wouldn't the companies just add it to there list of drugs they produce and sell? Wouldn't that add to there profits.

Do you know how much these prescription drugs sell for? Much more than you can sell a plant for.

Do you have the ability to grow your own Tylenol?

Do corporations have the ability to patent and monopolize a plant?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

That study is outlining even more reason that it should be legalized... You really don't have a clue peter.

Legalization means it will be harder for teens to access. Most teens are able to access weed easier than they are alcohol. This is a fact so don't bother debating it. This has been proven by states like Colorado who have seen marijuana use among teens drop.

This study is of the development of a teens brain being affected by weed. Nobody is advocating for teens to legally smoke it. These sames studies also don't hold true for adults.

Try again.

Excuse me? Colorado now leads all 50 states in marijuana use by youth.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29...-by-youth-rise

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

It has been shown to cause profoundly serious mental illness in young people. Permanent effects that stay with them for the rest of their lives. Yet, it is treated as a soft drug.

I grant you that alcohol is wretched. I have experienced first-hand the awful, devastating effects it has on community, and family. So why introduce a second, normalized substance that will do the same?

People get it anyways. Kids get it anyways, and that's made easier by allowing criminals to sell whatever they want to whomever they want. Unless you parents had booze, how easy was it to get alcohol as a kid? You needed someone to boot for you, you needed fake ids, etc...

In order to attempt to keep it out of the hands of kids you need to legalize it and put an age limit on it, sell it through monitored stores with licenses, and prosecute anyone selling to underage people.

Alcohol isn't a strawman, if it is legal and the same logic above is used to make it so, why not for weed?

If you don't want it legal, fine. The argument about it's effect on kids goes against what you want though. All you need is logic to figure this out, I don't understand why people can't get to this point.

[peter12]

The insouciance and cynicism in this thread actually astounds me.

[nik-]

the moral panic astounds me

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

the moral panic astounds me

Another straw man.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you have your own thoughts or do you just go with kind of the progressive issue of the day?

Your position is clearly intractable and has seemingly been filled with more resolve the older you get.

In 2010 you used the same argument ('I've smoked about 10 times') and were far less militant about the impact of the drug on an individual and society.

What's changed, peter?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by peter12

- Marijuana is a substance used primarily by the young.

Show me a study of that. I call bull####.

[polak]

Guys I think Peter is just trippin' out. Embrace it Peter.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by peter12

Excuse me? Colorado now leads all 50 states in marijuana use by youth.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29...-by-youth-rise

It's easy to pick and choose what source you want to post. In this case you posted half an article.

Here's the full article:

http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/12/2...rijuana/45367/

Colorado was already approaching #1 in the States prior to legalization.

Here's another article stating that kids are NOT smoking more pot than before (in fact it dropped the year after becoming legalized):

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articl...g-but-not-kids

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

Another straw man.

lol, you're going full Nage Waza peter, pull it back homie.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

As for your last sentence there...what do you mean treated more severely than alcohol? As in you support that? Or are questioning why others would support that? Because as far as I can tell there are no sensible reasons why it should be treated more severely than alcohol, either in terms of driving, using at work etc or the sale of it.

I agree that it should not be treated more severely than alcohol. I thought I made that clear.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

2) How do we treat the impairment of it in terms of operating motor vehicles and how do we check stop test for it. Does a cop waive a twinkie in front of your face and if you go feral your going to jail?

How do we treat impairment caused by the host of prescription (and over the counter) drugs that Canadians consume in massive quantities? Not every substance can and should be treated like alcohol. The degree of impairment from smoking pot does not come close to that from alcohol intoxication.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

5) If anyone thinks that the criminals that sell it now are just going to throw up their hands and vanish you're fooling yourself. They'll undercut the government pricing with taxation like they do with illegal cigarettes, or they'll up the potency, or push other drugs more heavily. I don't believe its as easy as just saying we're selling it, violent drug gangs and crimes will go away. They'll find a way to either compete with or change their product to replace the lost revenue.

I thought the myth of the pusher died back in the 80s. People don't use drugs because sinister villains push drugs on them. They use drugs because they want to get high. In fact, people who sell pot are often wary when strangers - especially minors - try to buy from them. It increases their risk.

No doubt there would still be an underground pot market if it were legalized. But it would be much smaller than it is today.

[CaptainCrunch]

Like I said, I think that this is years away no matter what the damn hippies want . I tend to think that they're going to have to create a fairly comprehensive frame work for this, and that frame work might really piss off a lot of people on the pro-grass side.

Things like workplace consumption, and driving rules, and distribution and growing and selling it among other things.

I would also think that the prudent thing would be to have a free vote in the house when this does come up without any party whipping.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How do we treat impairment caused by the host of prescription (and even non-prescription) drugs that Canadians consume in massive quantities? Not every substance and and should be treated like alcohol. The degree of impairment from smoking pot does not come close to that from alcohol intoxication.

To me the degrees are irrelevant in terms of impairment, its literally come down to next to zero tolerance for alcohol when it comes to operating a vehicle, should it not be similar for pot?

Same with workplaces

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I thought the myth of the pusher died back in the 80s. People don't use drugs because sinister villains push drugs on them. They use drugs because they want to get high. In fact, people who sell pot are often wary when strangers - especially minors - try to buy from them. It increases their risk.

No doubt there would still be an underground pot market if it were legalized. But it would be much smaller than it is today.

I think your wrong, look at the rise of customized drugs that are marketed and sold like a multinational corporation. Or the rise of drugs containing fentanyl (sp?)

On the grass side or things, what's the cost going to be and how much is it going to be taxed. I mean one of the major idea of legalizing pot is to cut down on the illegal trade of it and to reduce the cost of the war on drugs and create a new stream of tax revenues.

So you don't think that if some guy can go to the store and buy a pack or export A ultra heavy grass for $18.00 for example versus some guy who will sell you the same amount for lets say $15.00, almost like its tax free that the underground market isn't still going to be there and possibly expand?