Another victory for "freedom"

[Agamemnon]

Says me for the reasons I went on to state.

If a person has been stabbed, would you argue that they should be completely indifferent to whether they get stabbed 2 or 3 more times so long as none of them are any worst than the first? Of course not, that would be a stupid argument because (a) each one hurts, and (b) you have to look at the cumulative effect at being stabbed 4 times not just the individual severity of each wound in isolation.

Stab wounds are a bad thing... they are not good under _any_ circumstances. A beer after a long day on a hot patio is not a bad thing. You're claiming that alcohol/cigarette consumption in society are akin to 'stab-wounds' in a person. I don't see it that way at all. I consider them freedoms. It's up to the individual how they exercise these rights.

Also, again, this thread is not 'should people smoke marijuana' or 'is marijuana a bad thing'. Millions of people already do it. Are they all wrong and bad people? You'd have to be a pretty raging fundamentalist for your cause to believe that all marijuana-users are bad people.

If alcohol/cigarettes are like stab-wounds, why aren't you campaigning for their banning? Because it's too hard? Now _that's_ a weak argument.

Most of the rest of your post can be sumarized as the double standard or hypocracy argument.

Is it hypocritical for the government to say that you can increase your speed on the highway from 85-90, 90-95 or 95-100, but if you increase your speed from 100-105 you're liable to be pulled over and fined a couple hundred dollars? Each one is just an increase of 5 km/h.

???? I guess you're saying that the government draws the legal lines on substance abuse? That's pretty obvious, of course they do. They have a right to set that line. Does that mean that, because they have that right, that they are automatically correct at whereever they choose to put that line? I'm saying no. They've drawn it, and it's in the wrong place.

What if one highway had a speed limit of 100kph. And what if a more or less similar highway had a speed limit of 60kph. I might argue that they should be the same, either both 100, or both 60. Why does it make sense to have one so much slower than the other? I suppose you'd come along and say something like 'speed kills, we've already got one fast highway, why do you need another? Why can't you just be happy driving slow on one, and fast on another?'. This doesn't make sense to me.

It's _all_ about the double-standard. If you truly believe that marijuana is so awful, how does liquor consumption escape your ire?

Every society engages in line drawing, saying that society can go this far but no further. Our government decided that we'd be better off not allowing another 5km/h increase when we're already going 100km/h, and it decided that we'd be better off not allowing the use of one more harmful substance when we already allow the use of a bunch of others.

Like I say above, the equivalent is two highways that are fairly similar, with wildly different speed limits. For no apparent reason. You want both to be slow? Fair enough. As long as they're both the same, fast or slow, doesn't matter to me.

You don't like where the line was drawn? Fine, you're free to argue that the line should be moved, but relying on the argument that the line should be moved to allow pot just because it's no worse than alcohol is completely analagous to arguing that someone shouldn't care if they get stabbed a second time so long as it's no worse than the first.

Your comparison is bunk. When someone gets stabbed, they start to die. More stabbings = more dying. Society already uses _massive_ quantities of marijuana. I'm not arguing that society should 'get into' pot, I'm saying that penalties for posessing it should be on par with penalties for posessing liquor; none.

I guess, to continue with the inadequate comparison, society has already been 'stabbed' by marijuana... it's done, there's no going back. Maybe we should start trying to stanch the bleeding instead of comparing which wound is worse?

The only thing I'm crusading against are weak arguments. I'm still on the fence about whether pot (which I never chracterized as 'evil', only harmful) should be decriminalized or legalized. All someone would need to do is make a good argument for why the benefits of legalization would outweigh the cumulative effect of adding one more harmful substance.

I'm not a crusader against alcohol for that reason; because the effort and resources it would take to revove it and enforce a prohibition law just wouldn't be worth the benefit.

Well, I guess you've got to point out what the cumulative _bad_ effects are of adding one more harmful substance (which is already widely used).

You make a great point about not being a crusader against liquor consumption. Because it's too hard to enforce.

Just like marijuana consumption.

[CaramonLS]

Aga, do you seriously think that the government wouldn't outlaw Cigs/Alcohol if they could?

Honestly these things are ingrained in our society, which is the only real reason these 2 substances are allowed to be abused in the first place. You might think to yourself.. ooo the taxes the government loves that money.

But it is a cyclical effect, money from Cigs --> Health Care... Do you know how much of a burden Cig related health problems are on the health care system?

Do you think that Alcohol for all the pain and suffering it causes, especially with motor accidents would be legal if it wasn't for the long standing love affair with it? Isn't it something like 1/2 of Motor Vehicle accidents are Alcohol related? either that or deaths from Motor vehicle accidents.

Society has drawn a line, adding another drug to the market wont help the problems of society, only make them worse.

[Mike F]

Well you managed to completely miss the point of the analogy. I'm not saying that the two acts are the same, (i.e. using pot is the same as getting stabbed), I'm saying the two arguments are the same: If you already have harmful action/substance X, and Y on its own is no more harmful than X on its own then it makes no sense not to have both X and Y.

It ignores the fact that even though Y is no more harmful than X, you're still being hurt more when X and Y co-occur.

What if one highway had a speed limit of 100kph. And what if a more or less similar highway had a speed limit of 60kph. I might argue that they should be the same, either both 100, or both 60. Why does it make sense to have one so much slower than the other? I suppose you'd come along and say something like 'speed kills, we've already got one fast highway, why do you need another? Why can't you just be happy driving slow on one, and fast on another?'. This doesn't make sense to me.

Like I say above, the equivalent is two highways that are fairly similar, with wildly different speed limits. For no apparent reason. You want both to be slow? Fair enough. As long as they're both the same, fast or slow, doesn't matter to me.

That argument is completely irrelevant because there what happens on one highway has absolutely no influence on what happens on the other, and at the end of the day no one is driving faster than 100. Your highway argument is the equivalent of arguing that Canada should legalize pot because e.g. Holland legalized pot. It completely sidesteps the crucial aspect that the change doesn't just affect one 'highway' on its own.

Like it or not the equivalent is one highway whose speed is being increased. What we're talking about is looking at the effect of adding legalized marijuana to a society which already has a number of other substances legalized.

Society already uses _massive_ quantities of marijuana....

Well, I guess you've got to point out what the cumulative _bad_ effects are of adding one more harmful substance (which is already widely used).

Are you honestly saying that you don't think there would be an increase in regular pot use if it was completely legal and anyone could just stop off at 7-11 on the way home and pick up a carton of joints?

You make a great point about not being a crusader against liquor consumption. Because it's too hard to enforce.

Just like marijuana consumption.

There's a huge difference in what it would take to institute a new prohibition on one substance which is completely integrated in society and what it takes to keep enforcing a prohibition on another substance.

That being said, are the marijuana laws currently in force completely ineffective? I don't think so; as I implied in the previous paragraph I have little doubt that legalizing pot would lead to a pretty big increase in regular use. However, the fact that they may be moderately ineffective is definately worthy of consideration when evaluating whether the benefits of decriminalization outweigh the costs.

[Agamemnon]

Well you managed to completely miss the point of the analogy. I'm not saying that the two acts are the same, (i.e. using pot is the same as getting stabbed), I'm saying the two arguments are the same: If you already have harmful action/substance X, and Y on its own is no more harmful than X on its own then it makes no sense not to have both X and Y.

It ignores the fact that even though Y is no more harmful than X, you're still being hurt more when X and Y co-occur.

I don't think I missed it at all.

You equated liquor/cigarette/marijuana consumption in society with stab-wounds in a person. That comparison is _massively_ slanted, and basically presumes that, like being stabbed, these substances threaten the very fabric and life of society. I think that's overblowing it. A lot. Your comparison makes the instant assumption that these substances are 'bad', plain and simple. That's a pretty big value-call, especially when half of society (here) hits the patio after work on Friday's. I don't consider people relaxing and choosing what they want to eat/drink/smoke as 'negative' in the same fashion that stab-wounds obviously would be.

That argument is completely irrelevant because there what happens on one highway has absolutely no influence on what happens on the other, and at the end of the day no one is driving faster than 100. Your highway argument is the equivalent of arguing that Canada should legalize pot because e.g. Holland legalized pot. It completely sidesteps the crucial aspect that the change doesn't just affect one 'highway' on its own.

I think it's got everything to do with it. It's called 'standards'. Like the 'standard' that playground zones are 30km, everywhere. It's not 15 here, 40 there, arbitrarily different. It's been found that that's the appropriate speed in those circumstances, and, in Calgary, it's universally applied.

I don't know how you could look at two (basically) identical highways, see a 40kph speed limit difference, and not even think twice.

Double-standards, when no real reason has been given, aren't a good thing. Canada does not have to legalize pot 'just because Holland did it', otherwise we'd have to legalize the death penalty 'just because the US does it'.

I think the worst place for double-standards is in the legal system. If liquor/weed are so evil for society that they are compared to being stabbed in an individual, why is one encouraged, and the other forbidden? I still haven't heard anything on they 'why', just 'because that's the way it is'. Not really adequate.

Like it or not the equivalent is one highway whose speed is being increased. What we're talking about is looking at the effect of adding legalized marijuana to a society which already has a number of other substances legalized.

I don't think so. The highway analogy was used to represent various drugs. One highway represented liquor, the other marijuana. I've claimed they're more or less identical. You've said that that doesn't matter, that one highway is significantly different for speed limits than the other. You don't seem to really care if there's a legitimate reason for this, rather, you appear to say, 'thats the way it is, live with it'. Doesn't seem very rational to me.

Are you honestly saying that you don't think there would be an increase in regular pot use if it was completely legal and anyone could just stop off at 7-11 on the way home and pick up a carton of joints?

Who knows? Maybe there'd be a 30% increase in marijuana use, and a 80% decrease in cocaine use. By not providing the 'contact-point' for marijuana users to become involved in heavier drugs (the sketchy dealer who has more than just weed), I think you drastically reduce people 'sampling' hard drugs, because they're not offered them nearly as much. The guy at the Mac's is just selling weed, he doesn't have a stash of 'the better stuff' behind the counter.

I've seen no stats to say that weed use would skyrocket if it was legalized. Holland doesn't seem to be having a nation-wide marijuana problem.

There's a huge difference in what it would take to institute a new prohibition on one substance which is completely integrated in society and what it takes to keep enforcing a prohibition on another substance..

Right. A double-standard because it's too hard to enforce one, and not the other. I think you're _massively_ overestimating the effectiveness of pot's illegality. I presume the purpose of keeping in illegal is to prevent consumption? Well that's clearly, clearly not working, with millions of marijuana users in N. America alone. The purpose of this thread is to complain about completely hypocritical jail-sentences for marijuana posession.

I don't get how it's 'harder' to enforce a ban on liquor? Millions of people drink, millions smoke weed. In fact, it's easier to detect if people are drunk than stoned. How would it be harder to enforce one than the other? It looks to me like any kind of prevention mechanism in place for marijuana has failed, badly. You can get it on the street anywhere downtown (esp. if you've been to Vancouver). Most cops don't charge you with posession now, because it's not worth they're time. They take it away and give you a 2 minute lecture.

But not in the States. In the States, they send you to jail. That's what this thread was about.

That being said, are the marijuana laws currently in force completely ineffective? I don't think so; as I implied in the previous paragraph I have little doubt that legalizing pot would lead to a pretty big increase in regular use. However, the fact that they may be moderately ineffective is definately worthy of consideration when evaluating whether the benefits of decriminalization outweigh the costs.

Well, I guess that's your opinion. I believe that weed is already SO widespread that to think that consumption would rapidly increase if it was legalized ignores the current reality. I'd wager that a _minimum_ of %30 of Calgary has tried marijuana, and I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was higher. If you think it gets legalized, do you envision a world where 70-80% of Canadians are toking up everyday? Is that your opinion of people, that they should have no control over their choices because if they're offered a legal drug, everyone, everywhere will do it? Also, the people who are 'prime candidates' to start smoking marijuana if it was legalized are probably just getting wasted-drunk right now anyway. It's not like a bunch of sober tight-asses who don't even drink are going to start smoking a bunch of weed, not very likely.

I still have no idea where it's been justified that marijuana should be illegal, and liquor should be legal. It makes no sense, is an arbitrary double-standard, and is backwards. Either ban them both, or legalize both. The only arguments I've heard are 1. That more people will do it (bs, i think, it's already being done everywhere) 2. Another drug is not what society needs (and yet we pump out hundreds of prescription meds that people don't really need, to get high off of, not to mention caffeine, coughsyrup, alcohol, nicotine, etc. etc.).

I guess I'm just completely missing the points, but I don't see how/why one should be massively different than the other.

[Agamemnon]

Aga, do you seriously think that the government wouldn't outlaw Cigs/Alcohol if they could?

Can you believe it? I seriously do!

We live in a democracy. If 50%+1 of Canadians favoured the banning of alcohol/cigarettes, it would happen. Can you guess why it doesn't? Probably because nowhere close to %50 of Canadians believe in illegalizing them. Hands down. I don't see how the government has a choice.

Honestly these things are ingrained in our society, which is the only real reason these 2 substances are allowed to be abused in the first place. You might think to yourself.. ooo the taxes the government loves that money.

Marijuana is ingrained in our society, which is the only real reason it should be allowed to be abused. I don't think taxes are the issue here, I think criminal records and jail sentences are.

But it is a cyclical effect, money from Cigs --> Health Care... Do you know how much of a burden Cig related health problems are on the health care system?

Do you think that Alcohol for all the pain and suffering it causes, especially with motor accidents would be legal if it wasn't for the long standing love affair with it? Isn't it something like 1/2 of Motor Vehicle accidents are Alcohol related? either that or deaths from Motor vehicle accidents.

Obviously Canadians believe that it's more important to be able to be unhealthy than to save money. Plain and simple. Does it say a lot about us as a society? Sure. But that's who we are, and what we've chosen.

As for the accidents, sure, drinking and driving is stupid. I presume the answer then, is banning liquor. I posted about a dozen sources above that claim drinking is _much_ worse when it comes to driving safety than marijuana. It sounds to me like you'd be in favour of legalizing weed and banning liquor, under those circumstances. One is certainly more safe to drive under the influence of, if one has to be completely irresponsible.

I presume then, that if you've had a drink in the past 12 months, that you are indulging in your 'love affair' with liquor? Shame, shame on you... bad man.

Society has drawn a line, adding another drug to the market wont help the problems of society, only make them worse.

'Adding another drug to the market'... again, this sentence shows a total misunderstanding of marijuana's current pervasiveness. It's already on the market. Everywhere. All the time. Society seems to be doing just fine... or totally horribly, but either way, marijuana is not the deciding factor of that.

For some reason a lot of anti-legalization posters seem to be under the impression that, because it's illegal, marijuana-use is not widespread. It is. In the States, you go to jail for possession of a joint. And yet, a large population down there do it, all the time. How do we explain this? I'd say because it's already generated a huge underground economy, that is impossible to stop. BC sells 6 billion worth of weed a year, they're second biggest industry.

I think it's already 'on the market'.

[CaptainCrunch]

ok, I was thinking about marijuana last night, and the issues of legalization, and I have to wonder if its been that thought through.

Its not like it would be for sale in 7-11, more than likely it would be for sale in liquor stores so that would remove it from the hands of anyone under the age of 18(which I'm all for).

If your caught giving it or sellling it to somebody under 18, your going to be charged with attributing to the delinquency of a minor, and right now with liquor its a fine, or up to a 5 year jail term. If the cops are called to a house party due to complaints, they're really going to have to take a hard look for it, then they're going to want to find out who supplied it, or where you bought it from, then they're going to go hard after the vendor.

If your caught with the odour of marijuana or a butt in your car, then its going to be considered like having an open container in your car, which means that your risking the loss of your license and major fines.

If your caught under the influence in your car, its a loss of your license, a heavy fine and under repeated offenses jail.

If you have an accident under the influence your looking at jail time and fines.

You can't sell it to anyone else just like its illegal to sell booze to anyone else if you don't have a liquor license.

I can't see how legalizing it would change anything. And to be honest I have a bad feeling about legalizing it and selling it in a 7-11, because the last thing that we need is someone smoking up and operating a vehicle or heavy machinery, or working stonned.

In fact, the way I see it, currently someone who's found with a small amount of dope in Canada, is pretty much winked at by the police because they don't have time to deal with it, but the minute that you legalize it and it becomes like booze in its implementation, your enforcement costs are going to go way up.

Just my 2 cents.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 29 2005, 04:27 PM
ok, I was thinking about marijuana last night, and the issues of legalization, and I have to wonder if its been that thought through.

Its not like it would be for sale in 7-11, more than likely it would be for sale in liquor stores so that would remove it from the hands of anyone under the age of 18(which I'm all for).

If your caught giving it or sellling it to somebody under 18, your going to be charged with attributing to the delinquency of a minor, and right now with liquor its a fine, or up to a 5 year jail term. If the cops are called to a house party due to complaints, they're really going to have to take a hard look for it, then they're going to want to find out who supplied it, or where you bought it from, then they're going to go hard after the vendor.

If your caught with the odour of marijuana or a butt in your car, then its going to be considered like having an open container in your car, which means that your risking the loss of your license and major fines.

If your caught under the influence in your car, its a loss of your license, a heavy fine and under repeated offenses jail.

If you have an accident under the influence your looking at jail time and fines.

You can't sell it to anyone else just like its illegal to sell booze to anyone else if you don't have a liquor license.

I can't see how legalizing it would change anything. And to be honest I have a bad feeling about legalizing it and selling it in a 7-11, because the last thing that we need is someone smoking up and operating a vehicle or heavy machinery, or working stonned.

In fact, the way I see it, currently someone who's found with a small amount of dope in Canada, is pretty much winked at by the police because they don't have time to deal with it, but the minute that you legalize it and it becomes like booze in its implementation, your enforcement costs are going to go way up.

Just my 2 cents.

Brilliant, I'm with you %100. Except for 'legalizing wouldn't change anything', it would change a lot of criminal records/jail sentences (esp. in the States).

And to be honest I have a bad feeling about legalizing it and selling it in a 7-11, because the last thing that we need is someone smoking up and operating a vehicle or heavy machinery, or working stonned.

Great points about weed having to be sold just like liquor, in a separate and dedicated location, outside the prying eyes of kiddies. However, I think that the (appropriate) worry about someone operating machinery stoned is present regardless of legalization. Joe-construction worker already has full access to marijuana (if he walks the streets ever), not to mention alcohol, so I think this worry is legitimate regardless of legalization, to the point where they're separate issues.

In fact, the way I see it, currently someone who's found with a small amount of dope in Canada, is pretty much winked at by the police because they don't have time to deal with it, but the minute that you legalize it and it becomes like booze in its implementation, your enforcement costs are going to go way up.

Well... I think this is a bit of a stretch. Legalizing it would mean _more_ enforcement? I don't really see how. The same crimes that are committed and illegal now would be committed and illegal after legalization (private growing, private selling). These issues are already under maximum prosecution. I think, in fact, you'd see a lot less private growing/distributing, just like liquor. People can distill their own booze (and many make wine), but there is not a massive underground market for homemade stuff, like there currently is for marijuana. I'd say you'd cut down on a hefty percent of 'crimes' just due to the fact that people don't _have_ to grow and sell it anymore, it's available through regulated channels.

But your points sound pretty rational to me.

[CaptainCrunch]

The only reason why I feel that there would be more enforcement would be due to the fact that marijuana for example would now be seen in the same limelight as booze.

Your right about the underground booze industry, but its still considered illegal to sell homemade wine, and I figure that if non storebought grass started showing up, the police would be obligated to come down extremely heavy on the perpetrator.

But back to the original point, the minute that you legalize dope and sell it out of a liquor store, your forced to enforce the rules with very little leeway on how its done and why its done. As oppossed to an illegal drug where you might not have the resources to go after the small guy very hard, because you want to focus on the dealers and the heavy users and distributors.

Cops would be forced to investigate people who's car smells like dope, or who has a spliff in the ashtray, just like they have to investigate a car that smells like beer or has open containers on the floor.

I just think the enforcement of a legalized drug (and don't misunderstand me, I'm not crazy about the idea of legalizing another controlled substance) would in the end be more costly and difficult that going after an illegal drug

Again just my 2 cents

[BlackEleven]

For me to determine whether its legalization is justified, I have to look at the costs vs. the benefits.

I'll start with the costs. Well, first, there's the argument that its use would increase. I can understand this to a certain extent, but I imagine a lot of people that want to use marijuana are already doing so despite the law. But, sure, someone who may be on the fence about whether to use it or not may consider doing so if its legalized. So, if we get increased use does this have a cost to society? Are cancer rates going to be on the rise due to an increase in people smoking it? I'm not totally convinced of that, to be honest. I think that people that avoid cigarettes would avoid marijuana use for the same reason. I think it may well cause some increased health problems in society, but I do not think it would have as dramatic of an effect as some would have you believe.

Perhaps some may argue that it would increase the crime rate, but I honestly think it would reduce it. Marijuana convictions would go away, obviously, and marijuana isn't one of those drugs that turns people into raving mad criminals going around stealing tvs to fund their habits. I can't really see any sort of criminal behaviour that would rise as a result of marijuana use.

There's also the "gateway" drug argument. Does marijuana use lead to heavier drug use? I think in order for this to happen the drug has to be pretty addictive. I think a meth addict (I don't think anyone would argue that meth is not a highly addictive drug) may not be able to get his fix from the drug anymore and seek something stronger. I read once that marijuna has about the same addictivness as caffiene, so I don't think most people would start seeking a bigger fix from marijuana use. I don't see caffiene addicts starting to smoke cigarettes because their coffees just aren't doing it for them anymore. It's addictivness could be a whole other debate, but I think most people would agree is not a highly addictive substance.

So onto the benefits...

The biggest benefit I see is simply freedom of choice. I, personally, like living in a society that lets me choose what I want to do and deciding on the risk for myself. Is comsuming other legalized drugs (cigarettes, alcohol) beneficial for society? Is gambling? No, probably not. But I'm still allowed to do it anyway if I want to. Don't get me wrong here, I am not in favour of letting people decide on everything. Hard drugs (by that I mean cocaine, heroin, etc) should still be illegal, because they fail the arguments above.

So what my argument essentially boils down to is that I think marijuana is a drug that is safe _enough_ to allow people the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to use it or not.

[FlamesAddiction]

If you're someone who uses pot, you should be weary of legalization and government regulation. You know as soon as they do, the legalized product will only be a weak version of the stuff you can get relatively easily today.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 29 2005, 06:56 PM
If you're someone who uses pot, you should be weary of legalization and government regulation. You know as soon as they do, the legalized product will only be a weak version of the stuff you can get relatively easily today.

Then why bother legalizing it if its not going to remove the problems of illegal grow ops, and increased potentacy. If what your saying is true then making dope legal won't solve the problems of the illegal side of the business.

We'll still have to spend the cash and resources that we're spending now.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+May 29 2005, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ May 29 2005, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 29 2005, 06:56 PM
If you're someone who uses pot, you should be weary of legalization and government regulation. You know as soon as they do, the legalized product will only be a weak version of the stuff you can get relatively easily today.

Then why bother legalizing it if its not going to remove the problems of illegal grow ops, and increased potentacy. If what your saying is true then making dope legal won't solve the problems of the illegal side of the business.

We'll still have to spend the cash and resources that we're spending now. [/b][/quote]
So they can stop putting otherwise law abiding and productive people in jail for it.

So they (the government) can make money from it.


You can also be sure that it would still cut down the demand for it and have some impact on illegal operations. Just like legalized alcohol and tobacco doesn't completely stop the illegal trafficing of those substances, it still has an effect on it. Most people would still rather not break the law and settle for an inferior product- even dope fiends!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 29 2005, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 29 2005, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Then why bother legalizing it if its not going to remove the problems of illegal grow ops, and increased potentacy. If what your saying is true then making dope legal won't solve the problems of the illegal side of the business.

We'll still have to spend the cash and resources that we're spending now.

So they can stop putting otherwise law abiding and productive people in jail for it.

So they (the government) can make money from it.


You can also be sure that it would still cut down the demand for it and have some impact on illegal operations. Just like legalized alcohol and tobacco doesn't completely stop the illegal trafficing of those substances, it still has an effect on it. Most people would still rather not break the law and settle for an inferior product- even dope fiends! [/b][/quote]
but wait, your saying that the legal version of it if it was legalized wouldn't be used by the people who want the high from it that a government version would provide.

One thing about legalizing it would be to shut down the underground industry.

That would mean that people that are buying extra potent non legal drugs would still have to go through the justice system, the growers would have to go through the justice system, the dealers who sell it would still have to go through the justice system.

the only users that would be safe would be the folks who buy thier government manufactured and sold marijuana.

Otherwise there would be no point to legalizing it if its still going to encourage a criminal element.

If your going to legalize a controlled substance like grass, then its an all or nothing proposition.

Even booze manufacturers who want thier stuff to go to market have to go through a regulatory body and meet standards.

I'm just suddenly really confused by your argument fa.

[FlamesAddiction]

The reason why you are confused is because you must not have read what I wrote. Second time the charm I guess...

but wait, your saying that the legal version of it if it was legalized wouldn't be used by the people who want the high from it that a government version would provide.

I never said that at all. In fact, I implied the opposite. Most people would settle for the watered down legal version. They probably wouldn't be happy about it though, but given the choice of buying an inferior product legally, or risking their livelihood to purchase a more potent illegal version on the black market, I'm sure most people would choose the legal version.

One thing about legalizing it would be to shut down the underground industry.

That would mean that people that are buying extra potent non legal drugs would still have to go through the justice system, the growers would have to go through the justice system, the dealers who sell it would still have to go through the justice system.

No matter what you make legal, there will always be people who try to get around the legal system and start black markets for the product. Legalizing pot would be no different, but that doesn't mean there aren't other positives.

Take for example prescription medication. There is a huge black market for prescription medication. Making it legal ensures that people can still get them legally and that people can make money from it (legally), as well, it cuts down the number of people who would be clogging up the courts trying to get the drugs - just like legalizing marijuana would. But like the black markets for prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco; you will never completely eliminate the black market for marijuana. The best you could hope to do is decrease and marginalize it.

the only users that would be safe would be the folks who buy thier government manufactured and sold marijuana.

Otherwise there would be no point to legalizing it if its still going to encourage a criminal element.

Is there an echo in here? Did I not imply that?

If your going to legalize a controlled substance like grass, then its an all or nothing proposition.

Even booze manufacturers who want thier stuff to go to market have to go through a regulatory body and meet standards.

But you don't think that there is an illegal liquor black market too?

[CaptainCrunch]

now if your talking about decriminalization of small amounts, it dosen't change the fact that law enforcement will still have to go after the pushers and growers and other organizations that profit from the sale of a drug, so I don't see a great deal of cost savings there.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 29 2005, 10:54 PM
now if your talking about decriminalization of small amounts, it dosen't change the fact that law enforcement will still have to go after the pushers and growers and other organizations that profit from the sale of a drug, so I don't see a great deal of cost savings there.

The cost savings would be that regular pot users who opt for the legal version would no longer clog up the courts or go to jail. They can instead keep paying taxes and purchasing what would likely be an expensive product from the government.

The government can then focus on those who would still choose the black market and could use revenues from legalized pot to pay for it.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 29 2005, 04:40 PM


I presume then, that if you've had a drink in the past 12 months, that you are indulging in your 'love affair' with liquor? Shame, shame on you... bad man.

I haven't had a drink in over 3 years actually.


As for the accidents, sure, drinking and driving is stupid. I presume the answer then, is banning liquor. I posted about a dozen sources above that claim drinking is _much_ worse when it comes to driving safety than marijuana. It sounds to me like you'd be in favour of legalizing weed and banning liquor, under those circumstances. One is certainly more safe to drive under the influence of, if one has to be completely irresponsible.

There you go again, how would you even know that Pot is much safer to drive under the influence of?


Can you believe it? I seriously do!

We live in a democracy. If 50%+1 of Canadians favoured the banning of alcohol/cigarettes, it would happen. Can you guess why it doesn't? Probably because nowhere close to %50 of Canadians believe in illegalizing them. Hands down. I don't see how the government has a choice.


Checked the Polls on Gay Marriage lately?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...age-050410.html

[Mike F]

Seriously, I now see DFF's frustration with trying to argue with you; you simply read what you want into any argument to make it easier for you to try to knock down.

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 29 2005, 08:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 29 2005, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You equated liquor/cigarette/marijuana consumption in society with stab-wounds in a person.# That comparison is _massively_ slanted, and basically presumes that, like being stabbed, these substances threaten the very fabric and life of society.# I think that's overblowing it.# A lot.

If liquor/weed are so evil for society that they are compared to being stabbed in an individual, why is one encouraged, and the other forbidden? [/b]

I said this explicitely before and I'll say it again: I'M NOT EQUATING SMOKING POT WITH BEING STABBED, NOR AM I SAYING IT'S BAD OR EVIL, I'm just using it as an example of something that also causes harm, albeit much more, in order to show the flawed logic in the argument that if one activity is accepted any other equivalent activity should be automatically accepted as well.

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 29 2005, 08:33 AM
[b]<!--QuoteBegin-Mike F

I don't get how it's 'harder' to enforce a ban on liquor? Millions of people drink, millions smoke weed.

As I said, it's harder to take an activity that is currently legal and completely integrated into every aspect of our lives and make it illegal than it is the enforce a current law. Trying to equate the extent of pot use in Canada and the extent of alcohol use is laughable.

[Agamemnon]

As for the accidents, sure, drinking and driving is stupid. I presume the answer then, is banning liquor. I posted about a dozen sources above that claim drinking is _much_ worse when it comes to driving safety than marijuana. It sounds to me like you'd be in favour of legalizing weed and banning liquor, under those circumstances. One is certainly more safe to drive under the influence of, if one has to be completely irresponsible.

There you go again, how would you even know that Pot is much safer to drive under the influence of?

Well, I did quote like 9 scientific studies in this thread that say that... I also say that in the paragraph you quoted. Am I missing something?

We live in a democracy. If 50%+1 of Canadians favoured the banning of alcohol/cigarettes, it would happen. Can you guess why it doesn't? Probably because nowhere close to %50 of Canadians believe in illegalizing them. Hands down. I don't see how the government has a choice.


Checked the Polls on Gay Marriage lately?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...age-050410.html[/b]

I presume you're saying that even though a majority of Canadians are against Gay Marriage, that means that the majority does not rule? I don't see it that way. If 50%+1 of Canadians _truly_ believed that Gay Marriage was wrong, then we'd see these people turning out in droves at the next Federal Election, booting out the Libs, electing the Cons, and repealing the law.

I think this issue is also a little different. Alcohol consumption is fundamentally ingrained in our social recreational habits, and to ban alcohol would effect nearly eveeryone (except you, of course). I think people would be committed to protecting their opinion on this issue. Gay marriage does not affect nearly as many people (as most people aren't gay). I could see Canadians letting it go, even if many are against it, mostly because at the end of the day, it's a non-issue for joe-family living joe-life. Alcohol, however, is a big part of joe-family's life, like it or not.

It depends on the issue, and how much it affects each person.

[Agamemnon]

Seriously, I now see DFF's frustration with trying to argue with you; you simply read what you want into any argument to make it easier for you to try to knock down.

Maybe your arguments are easily misinterpreted.

QUOTE=Agamemnon,May 29 2005, 08:33 AM]You equated liquor/cigarette/marijuana consumption in society with stab-wounds in a person. That comparison is _massively_ slanted, and basically presumes that, like being stabbed, these substances threaten the very fabric and life of society. I think that's overblowing it. A lot.

If liquor/weed are so evil for society that they are compared to being stabbed in an individual, why is one encouraged, and the other forbidden?

I said this explicitely before and I'll say it again: I'M NOT EQUATING SMOKING POT WITH BEING STABBED, NOR AM I SAYING IT'S BAD OR EVIL, I'm just using it as an example of something that also causes harm, albeit much more, in order to show the flawed logic in the argument that if one activity is accepted any other equivalent activity should be automatically accepted as well.

Lovely exercise in semantics, but all you've done is replace the words 'bad or evil' with 'harm'. A negative connotation, as I was always saying. Maybe you're the one not hearing me, instead of vice versa. Or maybe you used a bad example.

Seriously, it's like you're trying to misunderstand me.

You seem to think that the only relevant question is whether there is symmetry in the laws. You're just standing with your hands in over your ears saying "Treat them the same, Treat them the same, Treat them the same" over and over again, refusing to address any further arguments.

But any responsible gov't has to go further than that and ask "What would be the effect of treating them the same?" and if the answer is "Society would be greatly harmed" then any responsible gov't will maintain the imbalance. It's not an arbitrary imbalance done 'just because', but a reasoned one.

That's where the Smoking & Asbestos argument is relevant.

Would you honestly go before Parliament and say, "If you're not going to make smoking illegal, then I demand you legalize the use of asbestos. Despite the fact that it will cause cancer, illness and death to many Canadians it is incumbent on you to allow its use in order to create symmetry in our laws!"?

I certainly hope you wouldn't, because it's an absolutely moronic and irresponsible demand. Legal symmetry doesn't trump the right to health and safety.

And again as I've said before, if you go on to apply that further consideration of the effect of legalizing pot I'm not sure where it comes out. It could be that the benefits of legalization resut in a net benefit to society. But the refusal to address it isn't going to aid the legalization argument.

I guess. I'd suggest it's pretty legitimate that, when making/deciding legal legislation, all other aspects of society be taken into account. It's great to try and isolate issues from reality to explore theories, but, at the end of the day, we live in reality. You can't separate related-issues from each other 'just because'. While I'm not suggesting that 'if A=1 then B MUST=1', I'm saying that, when assigning value to A, to completely ignore B is a mistake. B must be taken into context and examined.

Some people here bring up the health-costs of marijuana. Should we look at bringing up the health costs of every substance in society? Sugar? Fat? Tar? Should all of these be illegal, because marijuana is, ostensibly for health/addiction reasons? There are plenty of unhealthy/addictive substances in society.

Show me where and how this one is different. Show me why many, many 'harmful' substances are allowed, and this one, arbitrarily, isn't. 'Because one more vice will break the camel's back?'. I doubt it. Marijuana use is already prevalent.

As I said, it's harder to take an activity that is currently legal and completely integrated into every aspect of our lives and make it illegal than it is the enforce a current law. Trying to equate the extent of pot use in Canada and the extent of alcohol use is laughable.

I think marijuana is well on its way to becoming 'integrated into every aspect of our lives'. I think that, because of this, it is as impossible to enforce as you're claiming banning alcohol would be. In fact, since BC is already growing $6 billion a year's worth, retail, doesn't that mean that enforcement is a complete failure so far?

I think the comparisons between marijuana and alcohol are extremely apt. Alcohol would be impossible to ban, and marijuana, I believe, is proving to be the same. It will just take a matter of time before we realize that it's here to stay, and there's nothing we can do about it short of starting our own 'war on drugs'. But those haven't proven to work too well, so far.