[bootlegga]

OnTheIce wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

We're way to far into the alcohol debate to turn back, same with cigarettes.

These vices already cost you and I billions a year more than we make in taxes so why bend on the weed issue? Haven't we learned from the others?

There's really much more downside to legalizing pot than upside. While stoners will be happy, the rest of us will be stuck with the billions in health care costs, etc, etc.

Well, maybe your province isn't doing all that well, but Alberta will take in more in gambling revenue than we'll take in from oil this year...part of that is because of lower oil prices, but nonetheless, it'll take in $1.5 billion from gambling, and $1 billion from oil.

http://ca.rss.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/0904 ... g_revenues

I'd be willing to bet that we'll take in a pretty big number from booze and cigarette sales too.

Yet there are many, many social costs associated with all of the above.

For example, an expert in the field of legal casinos (Earl Grinols) has said that for every $1 you've made in gambling revenue, it'll cost you $3.

Well the article I posted says Alberta will take in $1.5 billion, while spending less than $100 million for gdealing with gambling addiction. Sounds like a positive gain to me. There are societal costs that of course aren't included, but for the government, it makes far more on gambling than it costs to operate.

Cigarettes and booze I would agree are far different animals, that cost us more than we take in. However, the 'war on drugs' isn't cheap either.

[DerbyX]

Gunnair wrote:

You subscribe to the 'homosexuality' is a lifestyle choice?

Then your argument makes sense.

Otherwise it's nonsense.

Many people do consider their homosexuality as a choice. That alone renders your statement wrong. The fact is that simply saying "its illegal" is a piss-poor argument to make. I'm sure people who smoke and drink wouldn't simply accept it if their vices were made illegal. I'm sure gun owners wouldn't just sit back if all guns were made illegal.

Unjust laws deserved to be challenged.

[Lemmy]

Gunnair wrote:

Minority rights? What minority rights? There is no such thing as the minority right to break the law.

If it's a law that infringes on the rights of a minority group than it is an unjust law. We not only have the right, but the DUTY to disobey unjust laws.

Gunnair wrote:

Comparing the selfish desire to indulge in illegal marijuana is not even remotely in the same ballpark as homosexual rights. Nice that you assume it's nothing more than a lifestyle choice for homosexuals, by the way. Your ignorance is astounding.

Ad hominem...the logic of children. I don't debate children.

[romanP]

DerbyX wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

You subscribe to the 'homosexuality' is a lifestyle choice?

Then your argument makes sense.

Otherwise it's nonsense.

Many people do consider their homosexuality as a choice. That alone renders your statement wrong. The fact is that simply saying "its illegal" is a piss-poor argument to make. I'm sure people who smoke and drink wouldn't simply accept it if their vices were made illegal. I'm sure gun owners wouldn't just sit back if all guns were made illegal.

Unjust laws deserved to be challenged.

I have never met a gay person who considered their sexual preference to be a choice. The notion of it being a choice gives validity to the idea that homosexuality can be "cured", which it cannot and should not. It is not much different from saying that one makes a conscious decision to be left or right handed.

[Gunnair]

DerbyX wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

You subscribe to the 'homosexuality' is a lifestyle choice?

Then your argument makes sense.

Otherwise it's nonsense.

Many people do consider their homosexuality as a choice. That alone renders your statement wrong. The fact is that simply saying "its illegal" is a piss-poor argument to make. I'm sure people who smoke and drink wouldn't simply accept it if their vices were made illegal. I'm sure gun owners wouldn't just sit back if all guns were made illegal.

Unjust laws deserved to be challenged.

Many people do not consider their homosexuality as a choice. That alone renders your statement wrong. That fact is that simply saying "it should be legal" is a piss-poor argument to make. I'm sure people who do not smoke and drink would simply accept if those vices were made illegal. I'm sure those who do not want to own guns would sit back if all guns were made legal.

Kinda easy to make these arguments, Derby.

[DerbyX]

romanP wrote:

I have never met a gay person who considered their sexual preference to be a choice. The notion of it being a choice gives validity to the idea that homosexuality can be "cured", which it cannot and should not. It is not much different from saying that one makes a conscious decision to be left or right handed.

I have. They consider it important that people understand they are making a choice. 'nuff said.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Minority rights? What minority rights? There is no such thing as the minority right to break the law.

Quote:

If it's a law that infringes on the rights of a minority group than it is an unjust law. We not only have the right, but the DUTY to disobey unjust laws.

It's a "duty" to practise polygamy? Smoke crack? Hire prostitutes?

That's quite a crusade you've embarked on.

Quote:

Ad hominem...the logic of children. I don't debate children.

Ad hominem... the logic of childen. Hypcocrite

[Choban]

ridenrain wrote:

Did you read that section:

Quote:

more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution,
...Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession

That shoots down the straw man myth that getting caught smoking immediately leads to jail. The cops don't care about the basic users and want the people making the money.
If people grew their own pot for their own use, the cops wouldn't care and organized crime would lose a market.

None of that however mentions the problems of " a gateway drug" or the social and productivity problems.

I don't buy into the whole gateway drug talk, it's like saying beer will make you try whiskey, it just doesn't float with me, I have too many friends that smoke pot and don't do harder drugs (or have even tried them) to believe.
I'm sure the whole gateway drug claim only started because most people do try pot first so there is a common denominator
But because I smoke pot doe not make me chase that stronger high or want to try heroin.

[Choban]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

I'm having a hard time tracking down a list of the health concerns that are going to outweigh the cost of not arresting the 775,000 people cought for possession in the states last year.

Anyone have a stat on lung cancers, diseases, or other health issues that this article claims will cost us billions?

The fact is that when you burn something it creates carconagens that people are inhaling, so there are advers health effects, I don't believe anyone has actually studied the cancer rates among those that smoke pot vs cigarettes, but lets face it, most who smoke 1 smoke the other so....

[DerbyX]

Gunnair wrote:

Kinda easy to make these arguments, Derby.

Kinda easy to make a "because its illegal" argument too. Sorta like "because I said so" and I'm sure you wouldn't just accept it if the government said that to something you enjoy.

[Choban]

Brenda wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

If those lazy stoners got off their lazy asses and grew their own, this wouldn't be a problem.

The trouble with that is that's illegal too.

I think lots of potsmokers would love to do so, and I think a lot do.
But even 5 plants is illegal... (In Holland, it is not... )

I 5think (don't quote me) that you could realistically have 3 plants in your house and not face charges.
I have a friend that got busted with 4 and they tried to nail him as a trafficer, the judge dismissed the charges and fined my buddy $350

[Choban]

ASLplease wrote:

at the store, if my son asks for a second candy, I tell him to put the first candy back on the shelf.

I think pot smokers should have to give up a legal drug like alcohol or tobacco.

And this is fair to those that don't smoke pot?
It makes no sence, I'd prefer leagalization, I would also support simple decriminalization.

[ASLplease]

I don't think it will be all that simple to remove the criminals from the industry. Grow ops is an export industry. As long as it is an export industry, it will take a criminal to run and operate it. Who else wants to risk their livelyhood smuggling marijuana into the USA?

[Lemmy]

You can make it legal to possess and illegal to traffic, just like any prescription narcotic.

[ASLplease]

Lemmy wrote:

You can make it legal to possess and illegal to traffic, just like any prescription narcotic.

Sounds like a Liberal fascist scheme to secure and protect the market for a special interest corporation.