Canada to Decriminalize Pot Possession

[muppet]

Well, we can't accuse Berzerker of inconsistency.
Even when Berz agrees with ya, he still disects the post!

[Proteus_MST]

He, so Canada is becoming the Netherlands of North America :thumpsup:

(For those who don´t know, the Netherlands [an european country ] have legalized Cannabis since the 70s and people are free to consume them in special Locations, called Coffee Shops [which are regularly controlled by the government]. This didn´t result in an exceptional high Cannabis Consume however and the Use of hard Drugs like Cocaine or Heroine is lower in the Netherlands than in other countries )

btw.
Here is a very interesting Report on several medical and societal Aspects of Cannabis and Cannabis Use from the dutch "Trimbos Institute for Medical Health and Addiction":

http://trimbos.nl/Downloads/English_General/Cannabis2002_Report.pdf

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Chill out guys, its not that big of a deal. 15 grams is half an ounce. Thats nothing. Average dealers will typically have like at least 50 times that on them, which is punishable under the old laws. So its not like its going to be any easier to buy, just less risky to smoke.

But honestly who, besides your dumbass 13 year old kid brother, actually gets caught smoking weed?

[MRT144]

Proteus, why would anyone want to use harder drugs when you have nice cheap weed?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by MRT144
Proteus, why would anyone want to use harder drugs when you have nice cheap weed?

Obviously most of the Dutchmen (at least those who consume cannabis) think likewise

[MRT144]

I can smoke to that!

[Sava]

this discussion got entertaining

I think it's ironic that pretty soon, it will be okay for me to own a military assault rifle, but yet, wrong for me to smoke a weed that grows naturally. Which is more dangerous?

The fact is... alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. This hypocritical legislation of prohibition needs to stop. If your goal as a moral person is to stop people from using substances (any kind) than prohibition is not the way to do it. Education and support for addiction is... not criminalization. Our justice system is severely flawed. It doesn't rehabilitate.

Frankly, I can't do much more than laugh at the people who demonize marijuana. REEFER MADNES oh please... these people have obviously never used the substance and never engaged in any kind of scientific study. Or even read any literature on the topic. It's a typical "boogey-man" response. Marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol.

Lincoln: You insult Europe citing pot-usage as the cause for mythical problems. But yet, in Europe, where pot is legal, usage is lower than in the US. Violent crime is lower. So maybe you need to look at the facts and stop prostelysizing a moral agenda that is fundamentally wrong.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

Nope, just that you work(ed) with addicts. Since you made it sound like it was your primary field, I took it to mean you did some kind of counselling work at a rehab.

I mentioned my profession last year when we were arguing over gun control laws. You forgot.

Btw, you haven't debated this issue with us much at all, you hop into a thread and post your arguments, then ignore the various rebuttals and disappear until the next drug thread. When you claim pot can cause murder by pointing to a pot smoker who murdered someone because he thought the victim stole his pot, you're ignoring cause and effect.

In the case in question the pot wasn't stolen, it had been smoked by the two together. The murderer shot the boy due to his paranoid belief that the boy had robbed him. The man had not been known to be mentally disturbed, but instead became disturbed while smoking.

When we've pointed that out in the past, you just disappear.

I work for a living, often when I post on these threads and go off to work my post and your reply gets buried behind several pages of posts.

If I murdered someone because I mistakenly believed they stole my money, would you conclude money caused the murder?

If you were under the influence of a substance well known to impair judgement I might consider the possibility that your state of mind was a big factor.
I believe you said that you doubted that I was a physician because of my "reefer madness" style arguments. I guess my pointing out that marijuana has well known effects on coordination, cognition, memory, and judgement must be what you were referring to. It would have been more productive if you had said so instead of descending into senseless hyperbole.

From my research, ~1.3% of the population was addicted to what are now illegal drugs. And today? ~1.3% of the population is addicted to illegal drugs. We've had decades of the drug war and nothing to show for it except a bigger government controlling our lives. Do you have a link? I suggest you study this graph before extolling the results of prohibition:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm

A funny thing about that graph! It shows that murder rates were well on the rise before the enactment of legislation restricting access to drugs or alcohol. It's clear that murder rates were steadily rising before Prohibition or the Harrison Act. The RATE of increase does not seem to rise, and may even be seen to decline a little. Likewise it appears that murder had begun to dramatically increase prior to the Controlled Substances Act. With regards to your claim about the proportion of the population addicted before and after the Harrison Act, I couldn't find that. Would you kindly let me know where in the website this info is posted?

I'm sure, if you're a doctor, you've treated some of the people injured because of your drug war. Ironic, huh?

No, as a matter of fact I haven't. I used to work on a rehab ward, as I said before. Virtually all of the people who were admitted to this ward had thoroughly screwed up their lives, and often those of their families as well, due to the debilitaing effects of the substances they abused. There were some who were admitted to the ward in connection with criminal proceedings, but generally they were facing charges additional to drug violations.

What's silly is you didn't even respond to what I said. My kids tell me what I knew to be true, that illegal drugs were easier to get in school than alcohol and booze. I'm not talking about a few butts or a sip of booze. We don't see the Marlboro Man and his friend Bud walking around school campuses selling to kids, but we do see other drugs being sold in large quantities.

Yes, I did respond to what you said, and I was responding that I believe your asssertion to be in error. Your children may have told you this, but I see hundreds of kids every year, and I know for a fact that kids have easier access to tobacco and alcohol tha to marijuana.

So, you want to ban every product that a child can hurt themselves with? Tell us, Doc, how many people will be in jail when you're done with us?

You missed my point here.

Since I've already explained how "easy" access caused fewer problems in the past, it sure takes an active imagination to conclude the opposite. Now,you didn't answer my question.

Being able to come up with a hypothetical explanation doesn't make the explanation valid.

You have your "facts" wrong, the side exits were not blocked off. People used those exits to escape the fire but many of the people didn't know they were there and when the power went out people couldn't get out because of the lack of visibility.

Not true. One of the required exits was blocked off, and another did not have the legally required lighted "Exit" sign

As to your first question, if owners of a building cause harm to guests, they are responsible for the harm they caused.

Violations of safety codes are criminal acts, in some cases felonies, whether someone comes to harm or not

Now, would you care to explain why that is analogous to someone smoking pot in the privacy of their home (and don't add a bunch of caveats to change my question)?

I just did.

Oh, so now you equate hurting millions of people with people allegedly hurting themselves? Let me see, so if someone stubs their toe, you can punch them in the face too because they hurt themself first?

See above.

Then that would mean you have to concede your position is immoral. No, Doc, contrary to what you may think, the opinions of doctors on this matter are not more valid than everyone elses. Tell me why I need to be a doctor to have a valid opinion. I'd think economists are better suited than doctors since they understand what black markets are and how they can create crime and violence.

A doctor would be more qualified to judge a mental impairment and its potential effect on the impaired persons behavior.

No.

Good.

First, you didn't read what I typed and took your confusion as an accusation of deceit so I corrected you. I didn't say that was my only qualification, you were asking for medical qualifications.

So what are your other qualifications?

Now, since you think your position as a doctor makes you more qualified than non-doctors, what position did the AMA take on the proposed ban on pot back in 1937 and why did the AMA reverse it's position 2 years later? Once you answer that, we can discuss why your opinion is more valid than the AMA's opinion in 1937.

And this matters because? The AMA has changed postions on numerous health concerns over the years, invariably in response to new research data. Once upon a time it was not even in favor of pre-operative sterilization, the Salk vaccine, routine Pap smears, and the list goes on and on. I don't have access to whatever discussions were held by the AMA regarding marijuana legalization at that time, so I can't speak for the individuals on the committee that made those decisions.

Before relying on a bad argument too often, you should wait to see rebuttals. The proper analogy to your Rhode Island fire example would be to imprison ALL bar owners because of what happened in that bar. That is what you advocate for ALL pot smokers based on what SOME pot smokers have done to others.

In many areas the legal means to do exactly that exist if they fail to obey building safety codes.

Where did I say that? Your arguments raise doubts, but I don't know if you're a doctor any more than Boris knows.

Yeah, well I am, so get used to it.

You know of a poll consulting all the doctors in the country? You're addressing comments I made to Boris, so the context in which those comments were made matter. Boris said I implied you were lying because you don't agree with me. That's an assinine assertion and Boris should know better (not that anything he says surprises me now), that would mean I believe every doctor in the country agrees with me inspite of the fact there are obviously thousands of doctors on both sides of this issue.

it would be impossible to poll every doctor in the country, many would simply never respond. Various researchers and medical societies have surveyed groups of doctors, and it appears that most physicians do not want marijuana legalized.

That's assinine! According to that "logic", I must believe every doctor in the country who doesn't agree with me is lying about being a doctor, including the surgeon general. As I explained, I had my doubts, and still do frankly, because of your arguments, not your position. You don't understand cause and effect and I find that amazing for someone who went thru med school to become a doctor when medicine relies so heavily on cause and effect.

I believe that you said that you doubted that I could be a doctor based upon statements which you labeld as "reefer madness" style arguments. You did not indicate precisely which statements you considered to be reefer madness arguments. There have been a number of studies of the direct effects of marijuana on concentration, memory, cognition, coordination, judgement and thought processes. It is you who don't understand cause and effect, not I.

I wouldn't, I'd revoke his license. You know, the permission he obtained from the public to drive on public roads? Don't confuse your rationale for mine, motorists don't have a right to drive on public roads and if they violate the contract they agreed to then that permission may be withdrawn. Do you understand property rights? You've just equated public property with private property.

It's the law in a number of states. Certain traffic violations casn result in jail time.

If they are using someone else's property without permission, they'd be punished. Do you have the right to transport plutonium across other people's property? If not, why use them to justify hurting pot smokers?

Was there any mention of someone else's private property? You didn't answer the question!

If they have permission, I wouldn't. Are you getting this yet?

Skyscrapers are found in cities, they're surrounded by public sidewalks. A ball bearing dropped from a skyscraper would have the same effect as a rifle bullet if it hit someone. It is in fact a felony to do this in most cities whther you desire it or not.

Yeah, smoking pot is analogous to all those scenarios.

It's a situation with inherent endangerment to innocent people. So is alcohol. We just don't need another legal intoxicant.

Geez, I've specified the false accusation repeatedly. You want to cage millions of people for using drugs, not because of what they've done, but because of what others have done.

No. You haven't.

Wrong (and irrelevant). As more people become victims of your crusade, more people join.

Not in the last election. In previous years the opponents of legalization made the mistake of not taking your movement seriously, and they did not campaign. That mistake will not be made again.

So you like majority rule when you're in the majority, what else is new? This thread is about pot reform in Canada where the people are also speaking, do you support those reforms because the voice of the people is being heard up there? One election cycle doesn't mean the movement is running out of steam, it means a majority of the people who vote rejected a series of measures.

You wish.

[Ted Striker]

Doc I apologize for bringing your name into this.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava
this discussion got entertaining


The fact is... alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.

Maybe, but who cares? If we legalize marijuana are you personally going out there and convert the alcoholics to dope users? I don't think so. To be funny you might suggest that you would, but you know that you couldn't.

Frankly, I can't do much more than laugh at the people who demonize marijuana. REEFER MADNES oh please... these people have obviously never used the substance and never engaged in any kind of scientific study. Or even read any literature on the topic. It's a typical "boogey-man" response. Marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol.

"Reefer Madness" is 50 years old. Scientific standards have changed a lot since then. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that marijuana impairs a variety of mental processes. We just don't need another intoxicant.

Lincoln: You insult Europe citing pot-usage as the cause for mythical problems. But yet, in Europe, where pot is legal, usage is lower than in the US. Violent crime is lower. So maybe you need to look at the facts and stop prostelysizing a moral agenda that is fundamentally wrong.

Violent crime and drug use has been lower in Europe ever since the last World War. The reasons for this are merely specualtive. Can you show me that marijuana legalization in Europe has lowered violence and drug usage?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Violent crime and drug use has been lower in Europe ever since the last World War. The reasons for this are merely specualtive. Can you show me that marijuana legalization in Europe has lowered violence and drug usage?

There are some numbers which point to the fact that the netherlands which have legalized Cannabis since the 70s have very low numbers of Marijuana-Users (lower than many of the european countries which have prohibited the use of cannabis)

At the same time the netherlands are among the european countries with the lowest percentage of Hard-Drugs abuse.

I might also point again to the link I posted above (in this posting) and which aside from alot of informations about the neurobiology of Cannabis also contains a lot of interesting statistics (it is a paper from the "Trimbos Institute for medical Health and Addiction" located within the Netherlands)

http://trimbos.nl/Downloads/English_General/Cannabis2002_Report.pdf

[Lincoln]

Cause and effect can be hard to determine. Do strict laws make more criminals or do more criminals require the passage of stricter laws? I know people who would never use drugs regardless of any law. I also know people who would use them regardless of any law. Does the seatbelt light on an airplane cause people to buckle up? Does the light do it or do people buckle their belts when they feel the turbulence themselves? In many areas of the US drugs are, in effect, legal because the laws are not enforced and everyone knows it. In other places they are strictly enforced. What goes on behind closed doors in both areas? Who knows. And what type of people inhabit a particular area that may lead to more or less enforcement? A college town or the tenderlaoin district in San Francisco is probably different than a rural neighborhood in Arkansas. Murders are committed more often in Washington DC than in Nashville TN. Do the stricter gun laws in Washington cause more murder, or is the lesser murder rate in Nashville the result of liberal enforcement? Cause and effect cannot be resolved with a few statistics.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


There are some numbers which point to the fact that the netherlands which have legalized Cannabis since the 70s have very low numbers of Marijuana-Users (lower than many of the european countries which have prohibited the use of cannabis)

At the same time the netherlands are among the european countries with the lowest percentage of Hard-Drugs abuse.

I might also point again to the link I posted above (in this posting) and which aside from alot of informations about the neurobiology of Cannabis also contains a lot of interesting statistics (it is a paper from the "Trimbos Institute for medical Health and Addiction" located within the Netherlands)

http://trimbos.nl/Downloads/English_...002_Report.pdf

Was use of marijuana ever very high in the Netherlands? Furthermore, in countries where marijuana is illegal the use of the substance can only be estimated, whereas in Netherlands the purchase of marijuana from special stores can be quantified directly. I might also inquire whether the blackmarket in marijuana has truly disappeared from the Netherlands, or is it now ignored because of the presnece of the open market.

According to Interpol the Netherlands has become the world's largest producer of Synthetics such as Ecstacy and LSD.

[SlowwHand]

Which are bad.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


I might also point again to the link I posted above (in this posting) and which aside from alot of informations about the neurobiology of Cannabis also contains a lot of interesting statistics (it is a paper from the "Trimbos Institute for medical Health and Addiction" located within the Netherlands)

http://trimbos.nl/Downloads/English_...002_Report.pdf

Try some of my links on for size:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA/Notes/NNVol11N1/Marijuana.html

and

http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/cannabi/index.htm

and

http://drugpolicy.org/library/bibliograhy/driving/

and

http://www.emcda.org/multimedia/project_reports/situation/drugsanddriving.report.pdf

The last URL has some interesting observations aabout the severe problems with field tests of the effects of marijuana on accidents. The author points out that since (until very recently) there has been no breath test for marijuana the test compliance rate for the marijuana test in most of the studies was much lower than for alcohol, 10% vs 70%. There is also the problem of poor correlation between blood levels and dose and between blood levels and effects. Marijuana is highly lipophilic. Once it gets into the blood stream it is rapidly taken up by fatty tissues, such as the brain, and consequently rapidly clears the blood even while significant amounts are present in the brain. It also should be asked with respect to those cases which studied the presence of intoxicants in the cadavers of accident victims, how long was the interval between the accident and death? If the victim lingered for a few awhile you'd expect that the blood concentration of the agentr would have decreased.