Canada to Decriminalize Pot Possession

[JCG]

Driving while high should be just as condemned as driving drunk...Anyways, they should decriminalize growth too, so they stop importing the stuff from other countries through illegal organizations...

Of course, this doesn't mean I approve the use of such crap (tobacco is crap too, if you ask me)...but it's the lesser evil.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

People who believe drug use should be illegal don't do so because they want to hurt drug users. On the contrary, their aim is to prevent them from harm. Accusations of trying to hurt them are just more slander.

This is probably true in a general sense, but varies widely depending on the individual. Marijuana prohibition started as an attack on Mexican-Americans and Hispanics for the most part, at the height of KKK involvement in American politics. Many of the Religious Right-Wingers seem to be pretty gleeful about the insane prison sentences that we hand out to drug addicts in this country. I'm no fan of drugs, I've seen several people lose their lives because of them and many more waste their lives. But I've also known people whose lives were ruined or severely negatively impacted by incarceration (two of my friends father's were imprisoned for a long time during their childhood). What we need is a system that deals with addicts rather than drugs.

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

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

Nope, you forgot to whom you mentioned your profession.

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.

The fact this happened once, if at all, tells me the story is either bogus or mis-represented by the media. If in all the world there was only one documented case of a drunk starting a fight in a bar, I wouldn't conclude booze can cause bar fights, but you've concluded pot can cause murder based on this one incident. That shows a mis-understanding of cause and effect.

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 just told you my state of mind in the scenario, there was no substances involved. Now, you didn't answer my question.

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.

Nope.

It would have been more productive if you had said so instead of descending into senseless hyperbole.

I told you why your arguments create doubt, that bit about some guy allegedly committing murder because of pot is just one example.

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.

The states began drug prohibition before the feds. Look at where the phrase "state" appears on that graph and you'll see it's right above that rise.

It's clear that murder rates were steadily rising before Prohibition or the Harrison Act.

See above.

The RATE of increase does not seem to rise, and may even be seen to decline a little.

WHAT?

Likewise it appears that murder had begun to dramatically increase prior to the Controlled Substances Act.

Prohibition did not begin with the CSA.

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?

Maybe if I have the time, I gave the link once before to Ted when he doubted me. It was an article by a judge. But why did you ignore the graph's salient point? Look at the homicide rate during alcohol prohibition and the rate after repeal. Then look at the rate over the last 35 years. After alcohol prohibition was repealed, the rate declined 13 years in a row and settled at ~half what it was during prohibition, then the new drug war was intensified under Nixon et al and the rate doubled again. Funny how you missed that...

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.

Does that mean you've never treated people for problems other than drugs? Is that the extent of your profession? Are you a psychologist or a medical doctor? Okay, have you ever treated someone who over dosed? Many over doses result from the lack of quality control because of prohibition, so maybe you have treated your victims after all.

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.

I didn't when I was in school. If we wanted booze we had to travel around the city looking for a store that would sell it to us. If we wanted pot, we bought it at school or from friends who lived nearby.

You missed my point here.

Then what was your point?

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

Which doesn't explain why prohibition hasn't reduced consumption.

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

There were at least 3 exits, one behind the bar, a side door some of the band members used to get out, and the main door. Now, you said the side exits were inaccessible, that isn't true.

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

*sigh* You asked me if the owners should be held responsible if they caused harm to the occupants and I said yes, what more do you want? You ask a question and then change it after I answer.

I just did.

No you didn't, you offered an "analogy" and didn't explain why the analogy is valid.

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

I don't need to be a doctor to see what alcohol can do. But you avoided my point about economists being more qualified than doctors to see what prohibition does within an economy, i.e., black markets.

So what are your other qualifications?

First, does that mean you've conceded the realm of morality to me since I claimed that as one of my qualifications? I understand some economics and the damage done by massive black markets, the Constitution, the nature of government and what freedom means, and I have plenty of personal experience with a wide variety of drugs. And the only reason you'd find me in your rehab (if I still used drugs) is because a court coerced me into "treatment".

And this matters because?

My GOD! You claim your medical credentials make you more qualified than me and then you don't know why the AMA's opinion matters.

The AMA has changed postions on numerous health concerns over the years, invariably in response to new research data.

But that's not why the AMA originally opposed the ban on pot in 1937 and reversed itself in 1939. The AMA changed it's position because federal bureaucrats were punishing AMA constituents for opposing the ban in the first place.

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.

All you need to know is that the AMA was pressured into changing it's position.

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

Your analogy and position requires that ALL bar owners be put in jail because of what happened in Rhode Island. If a pot smoker hurts someone, you don't advocate punishing that pot smoker, you advocate punishing ALL pot smokers.

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

What kind of doctor are you, exactly? I've never heard of a medical doctor who doesn't treat people for non-drug problems.
Maybe you just didn't elaborate on your profession, but working strictly in a rehab sounds like a counsellor or psychologist.

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.

And yet the AMA opposed banning pot in 1937 and only changed it's position after federal persecution. So I'm afraid any poll would be corrupted by fear of continued persecution. It's far safer to just mimic the government's line than stand out and risk attention. Link?

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.

Oh BS, you and Boris said I implied you were a liar because you didn't want to legalise drugs and I just explained why that's an idiotic assertion. So instead of addressing my explanation, you offer up more BS. Where did I say pot has absolutely no effect on people? So based on that BS you say I don't understand cause and effect?

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

You missed my point, we don't have a right to drive our cars on PUBLIC roads. That is a privilege and requires permission, permission that can be revoked. You can build a road on your property and not have any speed limit, do you see the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE property?

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

I did answer your question, private property is involved, it's always involved. Furthermore, since only governments produce plutonium, a private citizen holding an auction would be auctioning stolen goods.

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.

And what did I say? IF they had permission!!! That means permission from the building's owner and permission from the people who own the sidewalk.

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

Is that how you admit your analogy was illogical? There is inherent "endangerment" in almost everything, but we don't try to equate everything with driving 90 mph thru a school zone or dropping ball bearings off a skyscraper. Btw, "we don't need another legal intoxicant"? It's your position, not mine.

No. You haven't.

You want to punish millions of people for using drugs, but when you try to justify this punishment, you point to individual drug users and what they've done. That means there are millions of people being punished for what others have done. That means you're blaming the innocent for the actions of the guilty - a false accusation.

Not in the last election.

You said that already, and I said losing an election doesn't mean the losers have lost steam, it means they lost an election. We'll have to wait to see if the movement has lost steam.

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.

Geez, your side has been flooding the country with BS for decades and my side wins some elections and it's because your side wasn't prepared?

Ted -

Doc I apologize for bringing your name into this.

You have my gratitude, this, I believe, is the first time he stuck around and actually debated. Too bad Boris decided to run off instead of defending his insults.

[Dr Strangelove]

Debate? You've put up nothing of substance yet. I've got to go to work now. You debate like someone who has been told by his lawyer to say nothing incriminating!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

Nope, you forgot to whom you mentioned your profession.

Nope.

The fact this happened once, if at all, tells me the story is either bogus or mis-represented by the media. If in all the world there was only one documented case of a drunk starting a fight in a bar, I wouldn't conclude booze can cause bar fights, but you've concluded pot can cause murder based on this one incident. That shows a mis-understanding of cause and effect.

I heard the facts from my ex-boss, who was the county medical examiner at the time, so the case is neither bogus, nor a misrepresentation by the media. I did not relate this case not in response to a request for a statistical analysis of the involvement in marijuana in violent crime.

I just told you my state of mind in the scenario, there was no substances involved. Now, you didn't answer my question.

I belive that the scenario proposed was mine originally.

Nope.

Would you care to referrence what you were referring to then?

I told you why your arguments create doubt, that bit about some guy allegedly committing murder because of pot is just one example.

You made the remark about "reefer madness" before I had made any posts on this thread. What were you referring to? Was this just some off the cuff slander?

The states began drug prohibition before the feds. Look at where the phrase "state" appears on that graph and you'll see it's right above that rise.

Which states? One or two minor states wouldn't have made that big of a dent in the total national murder rate.

See above.

See my above.

WHAT?

I know they teach algebra in Kansas. Observe the slope of the curve.

Prohibition did not begin with the CSA.

Again, how many states, and which ones.

Maybe if I have the time, I gave the link once before to Ted when he doubted me.

To borrow from you: Riiiiiiigggghhhhttttt.

It was an article by a judge. But why did you ignore the graph's salient point? Look at the homicide rate during alcohol prohibition and the rate after repeal. Then look at the rate over the last 35 years. After alcohol prohibition was repealed, the rate declined 13 years in a row and settled at ~half what it was during prohibition, then the new drug war was intensified under Nixon et al and the rate doubled again. Funny how you missed that...

If your talking about state prohibition of recreational alcohol use, I'd have to point out that it began actually in the 19th century in certain heavily Baptist states in the South and in fact continued well after 1933 in those same states. I should know, Virginia and Tennessee were two of them. So if alcohol prohibition began in these areas well prior to the beginning of the rise of the rate, and continued well after the decline in the rate, then it would stand to reason that state prohibition was not a significant contributing factor.

Does that mean you've never treated people for problems other than drugs? Is that the extent of your profession? Are you a psychologist or a medical doctor? Okay, have you ever treated someone who over dosed? Many over doses result from the lack of quality control because of prohibition, so maybe you have treated your victims after all.

I've already stated on this thread that I'm a physician, and I've already stated that treatment of substance abusers was part of my training. Nowhere did I say that it was my sole practice. Yes I've treated overdoses. Many were suicide gestures, others were due to inappropriate mixing of recreational substances, others were due to youthful bravado (I can take more of these than you can) or over-enthusiasm (Hey, if 2 are good, 20 must be better).

I didn't when I was in school. If we wanted booze we had to travel around the city looking for a store that would sell it to us. If we wanted pot, we bought it at school or from friends who lived nearby.

You didn't know anyone older than you who could buy booze? No one in your family dranK? Both of these are rather uncommon. Heck, when was 11 the 5th grader next door was routinely raiding Dad's liquor.
Statistically more teens drink than use other drugs, so I just can't help but conclude that alcohol must be much more easily obtainable.

Then what was your point?

That it's sale to children exploits them, and there fore it's no better than kiddie porn.

Which doesn't explain why prohibition hasn't reduced consumption.

It wasn't meant to was it? In the 1930s marijuana was unknown to most Americans.

There were at least 3 exits, one behind the bar, a side door some of the band members used to get out, and the main door. Now, you said the side exits were inaccessible, that isn't true.

Safety codes require that emergency exits be clearly marked and easily accessible to the customers. Unmarked doors behind the bar, and the stage, which would not be visible to the crowd even in good light and would be obstructed at least to the extent that the bar abnd stage respectively would narrow access to the doors.

*sigh* You asked me if the owners should be held responsible if they caused harm to the occupants and I said yes, what more do you want? You ask a question and then change it after I answer.

My point is that violations of certain safety codes are criminal offenses even if they have yet caused injury.

No you didn't, you offered an "analogy" and didn't explain why the analogy is valid.

See above

I don't need to be a doctor to see what alcohol can do. But you avoided my point about economists being more qualified than doctors to see what prohibition does within an economy, i.e., black markets.

What point? The economic effects aren't an issue. The US doesn't need the income from gunja. We've done OK without it.

First, does that mean you've conceded the realm of morality to me since I claimed that as one of my qualifications?

I'm still waiting to see your credentials as a moralist

I understand some economics and the damage done by massive black markets, the Constitution, the nature of government and what freedom means, and I have plenty of personal experience with a wide variety of drugs. And the only reason you'd find me in your rehab (if I still used drugs) is because a court coerced me into "treatment".

Experience with drugs makes you an authority in economics, the Constitution, the nature of govertnment, and what freedom means? I don't buy that!

My GOD! You claim your medical credentials make you more qualified than me and then you don't know why the AMA's opinion matters.

Hmmmm. I think I said in this paragraph that the AMA often changesd its position as new research becomes available. Your charge of extortion is unsubstatiated.

But that's not why the AMA originally opposed the ban on pot in 1937 and reversed itself in 1939. The AMA changed it's position because federal bureaucrats were punishing AMA constituents for opposing the ban in the first place.

Again, a slanderous claim without a shred of evidence.

All you need to know is that the AMA was pressured into changing it's position.

All I need to know is that the leaders of the AMA have far too much integrity to knuckle under to that sort of pressure. Do you have any idea how much power the AMA had in those days? It would be more likely that Mr Anslinger would have slid into oblivion if the AMA had been preturbed enough to give the word to the politicians it "supported".

Your analogy and position requires that ALL bar owners be put in jail because of what happened in Rhode Island. If a pot smoker hurts someone, you don't advocate punishing that pot smoker, you advocate punishing ALL pot smokers.

Again, I'm merely pointing out that the principle of proactive safety laws is well established.

What kind of doctor are you, exactly? I've never heard of a medical doctor who doesn't treat people for non-drug problems.
Maybe you just didn't elaborate on your profession, but working strictly in a rehab sounds like a counsellor or psychologist.

I'm not a substance abuse specialist, but there actually is such a thing. What do you do for a living?

And yet the AMA opposed banning pot in 1937 and only changed it's position after federal persecution. So I'm afraid any poll would be corrupted by fear of continued persecution. It's far safer to just mimic the government's line than stand out and risk attention. Link?

DO you have any proof that anyone ever put any pressure on the AMA? Do you have a link substantiating your claim about the number of physicians prosecuted for narcotics violations?

Oh BS, you and Boris said I implied you were a liar because you didn't want to legalise drugs and I just explained why that's an idiotic assertion. So instead of addressing my explanation, you offer up more BS. Where did I say pot has absolutely no effect on people? So based on that BS you say I don't understand cause and effect?

So, since you made the remark about "reefer madness arguments before I had made a post, what exactly were you referring to? Please provide a link. Where did I say that you don't understand cause and effect prior to your remark about my "reefer madness" arguments?

You missed my point, we don't have a right to drive our cars on PUBLIC roads. That is a privilege and requires permission, permission that can be revoked. You can build a road on your property and not have any speed limit, do you see the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE property?

There are thingsd you can't do on private property. Try this: Buy a house in downtown Topeka. Buy a gun. Fire it inside the privacy of your own home. Wait for the police.

I did answer your question, private property is involved, it's always involved. Furthermore, since only governments produce plutonium, a private citizen holding an auction would be auctioning stolen goods.

Nowhere in the original scenario that I proposed did I mention private property, nor did I suppose that the Plutonium was stolen. Maybe the sellor is some rich guy who manufactured it himself.

And what did I say? IF they had permission!!! That means permission from the building's owner and permission from the people who own the sidewalk.

No, I'm afraid that even with the owner's permission, the act would be illegal. It might be permissable with a special license from the local government.

Is that how you admit your analogy was illogical? There is inherent "endangerment" in almost everything, but we don't try to equate everything with driving 90 mph thru a school zone or dropping ball bearings off a skyscraper. Btw, "we don't need another legal intoxicant"? It's your position, not mine.

Well of course it's not your position.

You want to punish millions of people for using drugs, but when you try to justify this punishment, you point to individual drug users and what they've done. That means there are millions of people being punished for what others have done. That means you're blaming the innocent for the actions of the guilty - a false accusation.

Likewise there are restaurant and club owners being punished for failing to meet safety codes just because others owners who did so contributed to the deaths of some customers. People who shoot guns in their homes get punished just because somewhere some time someone did this and someone got hurt. There are a lot of laws like that around.

You said that already, and I said losing an election doesn't mean the losers have lost steam, it means they lost an election. We'll have to wait to see if the movement has lost steam.

Hmmm.... But losing absolutely EVERY referrendum is kind of impressive isn't it?

Geez, your side has been flooding the country with BS for decades and my side wins some elections and it's because your side wasn't prepared?

Que sera sera. Whatever will be will be. The futures not ours to see. Que sera sera.

Ted -
You have my gratitude, this, I believe, is the first time he stuck around and actually debated. Too bad Boris decided to run off instead of defending his insults.

This is debate?