Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

I stated earlier that I found our society's position on many harmful substances to be very hypocritical. Doesn't mean that we should do even worse, does it?

Depends on if you think the impacts are severe enough to hinder people's freedoms (that aren't actually being hindered anyways). We don't have concrete evidence enough to show that these impacts are more severe than anything else, or that they are even effecting each other at all.

If you want more conclusive research into this stuff before making a decision on it that's all good. I think a lot of people would like that, myself included. But you seem to have made up your mind about it already. If more research is done and the negative impacts turn out to be negligible (unlikely but who knows) would you be willing to accept it as a product that can enter the market?

I think a lot of people are coming from the view of "well, this isn't working, so maybe we should try something else." which isn't necessarily a wrong mindset.

I'll give an anecdote that I find interesting. We have a person living at our place from South Korea. There, getting caught with a joint is 2-3 years in prison. He says hardly anyone smokes and that even if his best friend had one, he would consider turning him in for fear of being prosecuted himself. So that's the extreme you have to go to wipe it's use out. Is that OK? Is it OK when combined with the allowing of substances that are worse in pretty much every category? Keep in mind that drinking in public is legal there and he says everyone is drunk all the time, like everywhere.

Since coming here and indulging a few times with us, he has completely changed his tune and says what they are told about weed is completely false. He would no longer turn in a friend and thinks it's stupid how harsh it is. He also works at a convenience store here and says the amount of people that buy rolling papers far exceeds people who buy cigarettes. Which I thought was interesting.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Only marijuana is being considered for legalization.

Proving how bad the other drugs are is irrelevant, they are illegal, and not being considered for legalization.

I didn't mean just illegal things. What are the potential side effects of Ritalin or Xanex vs a dose of THC? (A does, not a joint. There seems to be a disconnect between smoking the plant, and the actual chemical effects of the drug. These aren't the same thing). How many people with mental health issues involved in shootings were on some form of prescription drug? Why are we not looking at that correlation too?

[peter12]

]Depends on if you think the impacts are severe enough to hinder people's freedoms (that aren't actually being hindered anyways). We don't have concrete evidence enough to show that these impacts are more severe than anything else, or that they are even effecting each other at all.

If you are saying "more studies are needed before making a rash decision to legalize a substance that looks to be incredibly harmful to young people," then I would totally agree.

If you want more conclusive research into this stuff before making a decision on it that's all good. I think a lot of people would like that, myself included. But you seem to have made up your mind about it already. If more research is done and the negative impacts turn out to be negligible (unlikely but who knows) would you be willing to accept it as a product that can enter the market?

I posted a study completed by a reputable research team on a good sample, and published in a very reputable journal. I haven't made up my mind, but I am pretty certain as to where the evidence is leading. I also think there is strong circumstantial evidence that increasing availability tends to increase youth usage.

I'll give an anecdote that I find interesting. We have a person living at our place from South Korea. There, getting caught with a joint is 2-3 years in prison. He says hardly anyone smokes and that even if his best friend had one, he would consider turning him in for fear of being prosecuted himself. So that's the extreme you have to go to wipe it's use out. Is that OK? Is it OK when combined with the allowing of substances that are worse in pretty much every category?

So let's look a hybrid approach that doesn't rely solely on strict prison sentences. No one wants young people or people from minority populations to go to jail on the basis of small-time possession.

Keep in mind that drinking in public is legal there and he says everyone is drunk all the time, like everywhere.

A strong anecdote in favour of restriction. I saw the same when I lived in Denmark. Appalling public drunkenness.

Since coming here and indulging a few times with us, he has completely changed his tune and says what they are told about weed is completely false. He would no longer turn in a friend and thinks it's stupid how harsh it is. He also works at a convenience store here and says the amount of people that buy rolling papers far exceeds people who buy cigarettes. Which I thought was interesting.

Why is it that I am considered to have a biased perspective on this, and you aren't?

[Drak]

The goods news is, the few like Pete can argue his point till he's blue in the face and the cows come home. The false information deeply embedded by the reefer madness propaganda machine is finally dwindling into the dust and over the next few years it will be legal to purchase. Moving forward.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Drak

The goods news is, the few like Pete can argue his point till he's blue in the face and the cows come home. The false information deeply embedded by the reefer madness propaganda machine is finally dwindling into the dust and over the next few years it will be legal to purchase. Moving forward.

History is an unstoppable machine grinding people like me into dust?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why is it that I am considered to have a biased perspective on this, and you aren't?

Not sure where I claimed to have no bias. I think it's pretty obvious that I do and I haven't been hiding it. Having more experience with the product, it's effects, and being around people from pretty much every background that use it, I think gives me a better perspective on that side of it than someone such as yourself, but other than that my access to knowledge on the subject is that same as yours.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I didn't mean just illegal things. What are the potential side effects of Ritalin or Xanex vs a dose of THC? (A does, not a joint. There seems to be a disconnect between smoking the plant, and the actual chemical effects of the drug. These aren't the same thing). How many people with mental health issues involved in shootings were on some form of prescription drug? Why are we not looking at that correlation too?

Well, Ritalin and Xanax have strongly-documented therapeutic benefits.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

A strong anecdote in favour of restriction. I saw the same when I lived in Denmark. Appalling public drunkenness.

Really? The only really ridiculous public drunkenness I saw in Copenhagen was a buy barfing on the metro at 10 AM, but I've seen way worse in the Calgary downtown core at 7 AM.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Not sure where I claimed to have no bias. I think it's pretty obvious that I do and I haven't been hiding it. Having more experience with the product, it's effects, and being around people from pretty much every background that use it, I think gives me a better perspective on that side of it than someone such as yourself, but other than that my access to knowledge on the subject is that same as yours.

That is just subjective, and actually makes your position more biased than mine.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

History is an unstoppable machine grinding people like me into dust?

Pretty much, yup. Time marches on, civilizations advance, antiquated views fall out of favour. You nailed it!

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by peter12

History is an unstoppable machine grinding people like me into dust?

He's saying whether you like it or not, the truth will overcome whatever blind views the vocal minority may have.

It's just too bad it had to take 100 years.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I didn't mean just illegal things. What are the potential side effects of Ritalin or Xanex vs a dose of THC? (A does, not a joint. There seems to be a disconnect between smoking the plant, and the actual chemical effects of the drug. These aren't the same thing). How many people with mental health issues involved in shootings were on some form of prescription drug? Why are we not looking at that correlation too?

We absolutely should be, no argument there.

Like I've said before, I'm about increasing awareness.

If the impact that drugs like marijuana (psychotics) can have on mental health also begins to raise questions as to the safety of other drugs (prescription or otherwise), I'm all for that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really? The only really ridiculous public drunkenness I saw in Copenhagen was a buy barfing on the metro at 10 AM, but I've seen way worse in the Calgary downtown core at 7 AM.

It really depended upon the event. I went to a few music festivals out in Roskilde, and found a demonstrable difference.

I also attended a few nights where all the city's public buildings, and churches were open all night. It was a privilege to be able to enter in, and explore some of the most gorgeous buildings built in Christendom. I heard a 600 year old pipe organ played in Christian's Kirke. I was the youngest person in the Church by probably 25 years.

A great deal of the rest of the population under 25 took opportunity of the time to drink Carlsberg, and chuck their empties into the many gorgeous fountains in the city centre.

I was repulsed by the barbarism.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

He's saying whether you like it or not, the truth will overcome whatever blind views the vocal minority may have.

It's just too bad it had to take 100 years.

What about the vocal majority?

[FanIn80]

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is just subjective, and actually makes your position more biased than mine.

Yeah, again I haven't been hiding my bias. It doesn't necessarily make me wrong.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

What about the vocal majority?

This vocal majority?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle28944411/

The poll of 1,000 Canadians found that legalizing marijuana is supported or somewhat supported by 68 per cent of the population.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This vocal majority?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle28944411/

Sorry, I meant the shrill masses.

EDIT: That was my first conscious troll of the thread, FYI.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by peter12

What about the vocal majority?

If you were in the vocal majority, the discussion of legalization wouldn't be on the table, and Reefer Madness 2 would be upcoming.

[peter12]

The last stand of the scoundrel is democratic opinion.