Canada to Decriminalize Pot Possession

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

Thanks for answering my question Berzeker. Is their anything that should be illegal -- should kids have access to anything they want?

I believe the issue is about adults, but yes. When all drugs were legal, we didn't see children getting involved with drugs anywhere near the extent we see now. Children could even buy morphine in stores. But banning drugs has only created a massive black market which has spilled over to get kids involved and created the taboo phenomenon without reducing drug use. If you really cared about "the children", you'd consider the possibility (in fact, the reality) that prohibition has only escalated drug use and involvement by minors.

I am afraid that you must not have any kids.

I do, and they've told me it's easier to get drugs in school than booze or tobacco which was my experience when I was in school.

And the "idiocy" comment comes from dealing with people who cannot seem to draw a line between liberty for themselves at the expense of their children.

Motives for insults aside, then booze, tobacco, guns, cars, war, and so much more should be banned, true? If you want to demagogue this issue by pointing to children, then why limit the demagoguery to just drugs you don't like?

As an adult I really do not care what you or other drug users choose to put in your mouth or veins. But I have dealt with these people's kids for about 25 years.

No, you've dealt with SOME people's kids. If a doctor has to treat a child for a gunshot wound or because a drunk parent beat them, do you demand all gunowners and alcohol users be punished?

I agee with Dr Strangelove. Of course my experience in various institutions means nothing to a libertarian who has no problem with the free availability of cocaine (and heroin I asume).

That's right, I believe in personal responsibility. I believe punishing the innocent for the behavior of the guilty is immoral. I'll bet you'd agree if it was you being put in a cage because someone else did something bad to others.

Almost all my foster kids smoked dope and most of the people I met in prison smoked dope. I have lived with addiction both psychological and physical. I told a drug dealer who came to my house trying to sell drugs to my kids once that if I ever saw him again on my property he would go to jail. Thank God for jails. These people who prey on the innocent deserve to be in "cages."

Does that include ALL alcohol and tobacco dealers regardless of whether or not they sell to kids?

Strangelove -

Hey Ming. Can we do something about this man's personal attacks?

When you advocate hurting millions of people based on what others have done, grow a thicker skin.

Yes, I have, pay attention. BTW, What are your credentials?

How was I supposed to pay attention when that's the first time I've actually seen you claim to be a doctor? The only other commentary I've seen from you about your medical experience has been your comments about working with addicts (which led me to believe you're in the counselling business). I don't read all your posts, you know. As for my credentials, I understand what is and what is not moral. That's the only credential I need, too bad that didn't come with your medical degree.

No, I'm not lying.

You have the same trouble reading as Boris? I said "lies OR falsehoods".

I seem to recall Berzerker strongly denouncing the use of "emotional arguments" when we were previously discussing libertarian type issues.

Hmm...I don't recall that. Can you quote me? "Emotional" arguments are in the eye of the beholder, and truthful arguments are to be desired, emotional or not.

Evidently what he meant was that anyone offering a different opinion should not have the audacity to offer emotional arguiments. He on the other hand has no qualms about such rhetorical manuevers on his own part.

I've pointed out the reality of what you advocate, that you want to punish millions of people based on what others have done. You, on the other hand, point to what a drug user has done and tell us we need to punish ALL drug users. So, if you consider my argument "emotional", at least I'm not using emotions to "justify" hurting the innocent because of the guilty.
"Remember the Maine" was an emotional argument to justify hurting the innocent too.

The hospital where I did my residency had a large drug and alcohol treatment center. For about one half of each of the three years of training I treated patients in this part of the hospital, in addition to other duties. Given the size of the ward I would estimate that during this time I would have treated more than 1500 addicts. Of course only a fraction of these were marijuana users, somewhere between half and one third, but that's plenty. I doubt that anyone else here can seriously make the claim that they have known that many marijuana users in their life.

And from that experience, you've concluded that millions of people need to be punished (to save them) for using pot even if they don't need your salvation. You can't see the immorality of that?

Boris -

Vindication is sweet.

How is that vindication? You said I was accusing Strangelove of lying based on your belief I knew he was a doctor. Vindication requires I knew he was a doctor and "implied" he was lying. Your vindication implies I'm lying, oh the irony.

So there it is. Berz, it's really low to attack someone personally and insinuate they're lying about who they are because they happen to disagree with you.

It's really low to attack someone personally? You did it in this thread and in other threads. Ted claimed Strangelove was a doctor, not Strangelove. So I asked Ted if he really believed what he was claiming.

You seem to think that someone disagreeing with your position = them insulting you.

Huh? Did I say that somewhere? Oh yeah, you're practicing your mind reading abilities...don't give up your day job.

That makes GP's Fezzing comment even more appropriate.

Citing someone who commonly posts insults shows how selective your outrage really is.

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.

Nonsense! You can't advocate caging millions of people and then claim you don't want to hurt them. And if their "aim" is to prevent harm, that sounds like "we had to destroy the village to save it".

Oh, and your comparison of my mentioning you is ludicrous, as the thread specifically asked which posters one wouldn't want to argue with, and I said you.

That makes a difference? You jumped into a thread to make a personal attack as a few others did. Why you did it is irrelevant. For all your complaining about personal attacks, I didn't jump into that thread to insult non-participants I don't like debating.

If you consider that an "attack," then again I point to your being ludicrously hypersensitive about what constitutes an "attack."

Oh right, like asking a Ted a question about a claim he made is a personal attack on Strangelove? You're the one with the (selective) hypersensitivity.

For the record, I happen to be pro-legalization of most drugs, so respectfully disagree with Doc S on this issue. No need to call him names, though.

Even though Strangelove makes false accusations about others to "justify" hurting them? Oh, he's so polite when demanding government throw millions of people in cages, so, by golly, no one, not even his victims, should call him a name.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
ANYBODY EVER HEARD OF REEFER MADNESS?!?!

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not since the '50s actually.

[Berzerker]

Not since the '50s actually.

Yup, that's when the same people who had claimed pot turned people into homicidal maniacs claimed pot was a communist plot to pacify Americans.

[Pekka]

I think this is a step into the right direction. I don't think all drugs should be legalized. The principal itself is fine by me, that they should, but I don't think it would work in the real world. As for marijuana, sure.. it's not like kids can drink alcohol either, right? If they want to smoke marjuana now, they can do it no problem. About mixed signals, well.. I don't know, but I don't think the state should be the one telling what is right and what is wrong. They can't drink alcohol until they are of age, right? Ok.. I wouldn't like my kids smoking marijuana.. but later, when they're older.. I don't know, I might live with the idea of them smoking every now and then. Sure, why not.

[Pekka]

But it's easy to say these things when I don't have kids. Maybe I'll change my mind when I become a parent. It's possible.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by GP
This thread has been Fezzed...err...I mean Berzed.

when i saw the first quotes in berzerkers post i was going to quote it and type "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

but then i decided your way was better.

[Ming]

Again... attack the arguments... NOT THE POSTERS...

[MRT144]

Ming with all due respect, the way that berzerker argues makes the debate irrelevant. You cant actually focus on the debate because of the way he slices and dices every little sentence. you wind up just debating sentences which wind up having no relevence to the initial arguement.

and as much as i agree with him on this issue it doesnt change the fact that whenever he enters a debate it just dissolves into uselessness.

[Lincoln]

I'm going to be late for word if I respond fully to Berzeker now but I hope to catch up on this later...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MRT144
Ming with all due respect, the way that berzerker argues makes the debate irrelevant. You cant actually focus on the debate because of the way he slices and dices every little sentence. you wind up just debating sentences which wind up having no relevence to the initial arguement.

and as much as i agree with him on this issue it doesnt change the fact that whenever he enters a debate it just dissolves into uselessness.

If you look back through the thread though you'll see that the slice and dice began with Berzerker refuting a series of ludicrous statements made by Ted (reefer madness etc). Unlike some here, I think it is appropriate to deal with each individual statement over which there is disagreement. After all, we cannot have a debate if we cant decide upon the basis of the debate. I agree, though, that when the basis for discussion cant be found, that slice and dice arguments tend to drift off topic. Usually, that drift is due to the effects of personal attacks rather than the debate style though.

Most of the current slice and dice originated from Berzerker questioning Ted whether he (Ted) believed strangelove was a doctor, and the attacks upon him (Berz) for saying so (personally, I believe strangelove is a physician, but I dont know if he's a doctor).

Its easy enough to just post your opinion or discuss around Berzerker if you feel its a problem. Sometimes it puts the debate back on track.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH


(personally, I believe strangelove is a physician, but I dont know if he's a doctor).

Physicians ARE doctors. There's no way around it. If you are a physician then you are by definition a doctor. Not all doctors are physicians obviously.

I've argued with Berz on many an occasion, and I am certain that I've mentioned my profession to him before. He forgot. Oh well.

[SpencerH]

There most certainly is a way around it. If you havent written a thesis, then had it tested and accepted by a group of scholars in the field and a recognized institution of higher learning, then one is not a 'Doctor'.

The essence of a doctorate is the discovery of something new. It is not the simple act of memorizing and regurgitating what is already known.

[Ted Striker]

So what exactly are you implying Spencer?

[Agathon]

For the record: right now, possessing under 30 grams of marijuana is not illegal in Ontario.

Due to some mix up over the medical marijuana issue Ontario no longer has a law prohibiting small amounts for personal use. This decision was upheld again by a judge this week. The original case was some kid who got caught cutting school and smoking up. His lawyer argued that Ontario no longer had a law, and the judge (and all judges since) agreed.

So if the cops bust you and take your pot you can sue them for stealing from you.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lincoln -

I believe the issue is about adults, but yes. When all drugs were legal, we didn't see children getting involved with drugs anywhere near the extent we see now. Children could even buy morphine in stores. But banning drugs has only created a massive black market which has spilled over to get kids involved and created the taboo phenomenon without reducing drug use. If you really cared about "the children", you'd consider the possibility (in fact, the reality) that prohibition has only escalated drug use and involvement by minors.

At the time that the Harrison Act was enacted an estimated 10 million Americans used various forms of opiod regularily. Paregoric and Laudenum were the most common forms. Heroin, a chemical derivative opiod, was much more expensive and uncommonly used. The use of opiods and the death rate from overdosing dropped dramatically. [

I do, and they've told me it's easier to get drugs in school than booze or tobacco which was my experience when I was in school.

This is pretty silly don't you think? Snatching a few butts from Mom or siphoning off Dad's liquor supply can't be very difficult, can it?

Motives for insults aside, then booze, tobacco, guns, cars, war, and so much more should be banned, true?

Glad to see you coming around old man.

No, you've dealt with SOME people's kids. If a doctor has to treat a child for a gunshot wound or because a drunk parent beat them, do you demand all gunowners and alcohol users be punished?

To the extent of demanding that parents be required to stow weapons responsibly, sure. I'm no big fan of alcohol either. Glad to hear that you're beginning to recognise the consequences of easy access to this stuff.

That's right, I believe in personal responsibility. I believe punishing the innocent for the behavior of the guilty is immoral. I'll bet you'd agree if it was you being put in a cage because someone else did something bad to others.

How about building safety odes? Should a guy go to prison for blocking up ther side exits to his bar just because a few people fried at some cafe fire in Rhode Island?

When you advocate hurting millions of people based on what others have done, grow a thicker skin.

Has anyone ever been hurt by NOT smoking dope?

How was I supposed to pay attention when that's the first time I've actually seen you claim to be a doctor? The only other commentary I've seen from you about your medical experience has been your comments about working with addicts (which led me to believe you're in the counselling business). I don't read all your posts, you know. As for my credentials, I understand what is and what is not moral. That's the only credential I need, too bad that didn't come with your medical degree.

Oh good. Does this mean that hitherto you will concede arguments of fact to me since you will be restricting your arguments to your moral understanding? Does morality exist in the absence of fact?

You have the same trouble reading as Boris? I said "lies OR falsehoods".

But you just said that your only qualification was your moral understanding. In order to judge the truth of a statement you need facts. Therefore you are unable to judge whether my statements were "falsehoods" or lies.

Hmm...I don't recall that. Can you quote me? "Emotional" arguments are in the eye of the beholder, and truthful arguments are to be desired, emotional or not.

I think the topic was gun control

I've pointed out the reality of what you advocate, that you want to punish millions of people based on what others have done. You, on the other hand, point to what a drug user has done and tell us we need to punish ALL drug users. So, if you consider my argument "emotional", at least I'm not using emotions to "justify" hurting the innocent because of the guilty.

Again, I'll use the building safety code argument. The effects of marijuana on coordination, cognition, memory, thought processes and judgement are well established.

And from that experience, you've concluded that millions of people need to be punished (to save them) for using pot even if they don't need your salvation. You can't see the immorality of that?

See arguments above.

How is that vindication? You said I was accusing Strangelove of lying based on your belief I knew he was a doctor. Vindication requires I knew he was a doctor and "implied" he was lying. Your vindication implies I'm lying, oh the irony.

You did say that based on my arguments you felt that I could not be a doctor right? Surely you didn't say this based upon your knowledge of position statements of medical societies or of other physician's beliefs, because my statements aren't different from the majority of US physicians. The reason that you discounted the possibility that I was a physician was because disagree with you.

It's really low to attack someone personally? You did it in this thread and in other threads. Ted claimed Strangelove was a doctor, not Strangelove. So I asked Ted if he really believed what he was claiming.

See argument above

Huh? Did I say that somewhere? Oh yeah, you're practicing your mind reading abilities...don't give up your day job.

See argument above.

Nonsense! You can't advocate caging millions of people and then claim you don't want to hurt them. And if their "aim" is to prevent harm, that sounds like "we had to destroy the village to save it".

Why "cage" someone for driving 90 miles/hour through a school zone if he does so without hitting someone? Why cage someone for staging an open auction of weapons grade Plutonium on the internet? Why cage someone for dropping ball bearings off of a skyscraper if he doesn't hit someone?
We need another intoxicant legally available liek we need all of these things.

Oh right, like asking a Ted a question about a claim he made is a personal attack on Strangelove? You're the one with the (selective) hypersensitivity.

See arguments above.

Even though Strangelove makes false accusations about others to "justify" hurting them?

What false accusation? You haven't even specified what the false accusation was!

Oh, he's so polite when demanding government throw millions of people in cages, so, by golly, no one, not even his victims, should call him a name.

Oh well. The fact is that the marijana legalization movement in the US is running out of steam. In the last election each and every one of the pro-weed referrendums were resoundingly defeated. Looks like it's the voice of the people around here!