Author Topic Options
Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2599
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:53 pm
 


Hi Roy. Decriminalization is one thing, but legalization is another. The truth is, our federal budget is so immense that our treasury wouldn't be boosted that much from tax revenue anyway. We don't depend on tobacco taxes, and MANY more people smoke tobacco regularly than marijuana. If we want a productive society, we shouldn't be legally condoning the sale of a product that is universally known to destroy motivation, never mind lung cells.

It's one thing to deal with marijuana users humanely. That's fine. It's another to legalize pot, and have big corporations juicing it up (as with cigarettes) and pushing it on kids in pretty boxes at every convenience store at discounted prices. I for one would not condone that decision.



"True nations are united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory". -

-Patrick J. Buchanan


Offline

Forum Addict

Profile
Posts: 852
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:29 pm
 


Perturbed Say's:
"we shouldn't be legally condoning the sale of a product that is universally known to destroy motivation, never mind lung cells."

There's no data to support this. I know enough successful people here in this city who all own businesses. Actually one guy owns a Honda dealership, Pizza Hut and a Arby's. Yet this guy smokes marijuana regularly and has all of his life.

Many successful people around your area you probably don't even know it that they smoke marijuana. Your comment above "universally known to destroy motivation, never mind lung cells." Is not a fact.

There is no data that you can come up with that shows any major health risk with THC if one takes a certain dose and uses a vaporizer rather then burning the smoke. Burning it gives you allot of the same junk that is in tobacco like tar . But when its going through a vaporizer only the THC you get.

I'm not a pot smoker myself, but did smoke when I was younger. I just speak up against the people that oppose it cause in most cases the people are misinformed.

Kevin

---
"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.



Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:31 pm
 


If we want a productive society, we shouldn't be legally condoning the sale of a product that is universally known to destroy motivation, unfortunately not all strains of cannabis destroy motivation, hell like Dennis Leary said he had to quit doing drugs because he ran out of things to build

never mind lung cells - you're completing ignoring that cannabis can be consumed in other ways rather than combustion, one can eat it, one can use a vapourizer (no combustion) or use a waterpipe which reduces the toxics. Furthermore measuring the damage a spliff can do is rather impossible since there isn't a standard size for a spliff to be, unlike cigarettes, (which I can honestly say quitting them 18 months ago was one of the best things I have ever done). We normally smoke "pinners" (approximately .02 grams) as anything larger would be a waste, and yes I use it to relief the pain from arthritis, I also use it to control my diabetes.


Offline

Active Member

Profile
Posts: 142
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:28 pm
 


<a href='http://www.desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4780934/22410434.html'>Several United States consider it worthwhile collecting tax on marijuana; Iowa charges $5/g, $750/plant.</a> (The tax can be paid anonymously and the revnooers are not permitted to snitch.) And these are not archaic legal-era taxes never taken off the books; some are only 15 years old. <p>(So many arguing against slackening MJ laws point to what the US does; let' em chew on that. Nuther funny thing: they worry about the delays legalisation would cause at the border, but I never hear them arguing we should legalise handguns to reduce the inconvenience to their friends coming North...) <p>Why would it be the feds gaining from the tax? Ciggies and booze are taxed by the provinces; they obviously consider it worthwhile. Our Johnny Hammbone just hiked the baccy tax again (and is looking at building more likker stores), almost back up to where the Savage became the smugglers' friend. Why wouldn't a hemp tax work? <p>(I don't know why I'm in vernacular-spelling mode tonight.)





PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:47 pm
 


Robert,

I totally agree with you. I should also let you know that new research is actually showing vaporizer is better for you then waterpipes.

Kevin


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2599
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 6:31 pm
 


Like I said, I favour decriminalization, but suggesting that doing anything to make marijuana more visible and accessible would be beneficial in any way is mindless tripe, and you know know it. Marijuana can be consumed other ways, but most people smoke it. Marijuana smoke is unfiltered and is lossely packed, burning much hotter than cigarettes. Don't tell me it's harmless. If you legalized cannabis brownies, then you'd be legalizing joints, and that wouldn't help anyone.

As I said earlier, don't treat people like assassins for smoking a joint, but condoning it legally is setting a bad example. I personally do know a couple of people from a high school I went to who did very well and smoked pot all the time.....I also know a bunch more who were straight-A students who started living the pot lifestyle and never graduated, and stopped caring completely. It's the government's job to consider those who wouldn't react well to the substance. I don't even favour confiscating or ticketing marijuana users, but legalizing something is saying you want it to become a bigger part of society. It's big enough already, in my opinion. Escapism is enjoyable, but.....



"True nations are united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory". -

-Patrick J. Buchanan





PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:35 pm
 


I think you're all sort of missing the boat here - it's obvious that marijuana should be legalised, and obvious that most Canadians support doing so - the question is, how can we run around calling ourselves a "democracy" when the wishes of the people on something like this (and many other things)are constantly ignored?


Offline

Forum Junkie

Profile
Posts: 585
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:07 am
 


Perturbed, the problem with allowing discreet drug use and not condoning it legally is that it allows too much police discretion. This discretionary and unnecessary power leads to police abuse.

At worst, pot is bad for the person who uses it. The risks to his/her psychological and physical health are disputable (and the physical ones, at least, are vastly exagerated when vaporizers are taken into consideration), but for the sake of argument lets say pot does a lot of damage to you. Why should someone who consumes a substance that harms no one else be subject to greater police leverage than someone who doesn't??

And think about the greater benefit of legalization to society. Imagine reducing the organized crime budgets by $7billion annually in BC alone. That's $7billion less of a reason to 'pop a cap...'. And instead of incarcerating people for marijuana use and dealing (since the dealing would be undermined by government suppliers), our jails could use the money saved to improve correctional services. And our police could use the budgetary savings to improve the training of police. Psychological tests should be done on police officers to see if they can handle positions of authority with responsibility.

That's without even touching on the taxation. An industry this size would obviously bring in huge financial benefits. And once the Americans realize that it isn't any more abundant here once its legalized, they'll quit whining and go back to business as usual. The funny thing about the US is that they're only righteous in their homeland and when it will make them money. Slowing trade with Canada will do neither for them. Most of those Canadian companies that will get hurt are owned by Americans anyways these days. Our economies are so intertwined that it will hurt them just as much as us to get over-zealously righteous over something so uninfluential as a bunch of hippies in the north smoking pot. THe idea won't seem infectious to them because most Americans still think we live in igloos up here anyways and don't really care to emulate us in any way ;)

And as for the corporate takeover of the industry: would you rather have corporations running pot, or organized crime? Tough decision really, but fortunately not one we have to make. You could have all sorts of laws limiting the methods of distribution in order to avoid corporate dominance of the market.

There really isn't a good argument against Marijuana legalisation. The laws are the result of racial discrimination about a century ago. It began with anti-Mexican sentiments in the southern US. Then marijuana use spread to the black blues/jazz scenes and the anti-marijuana movement grew as the minority to discriminate expanded from Mexicans to include Blacks as well.

These racist views were stoked by a very biased media baron's blatant lies about Reefer Madness making blacks into crazed white-woman-abuctors (and killers). The media baron, by the way, was also a forestry baron and lost a lot of land to Mexicans in a territorial conflict.

I don't feel like typing the rest of the history and how the laws spread to Canada, other than that they were lumped together with anti-opium laws and passed in the wake of an anti-asian riot in Vancouver in the early 1900's.

Look for the documentary 'Grass' for more info on this... marijuana prohibition is clearly a flawed and deeply biased concept though.

-KY

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes



Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes





PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:58 am
 


WHAT SOME PEOPLE DEEM AS THINKING IS MERELY THE REARANGING OF THEIR PREDJUSTICES.
Or
The War on SOME Drugs

Madame Justice Southin recently made the following pronouncement from her seat on the Court Bench

“The growing, trafficking in, and possession of (Marijuana) is the source of much work, not only for peace officers but also for lawyers and judges” wrote Justice Mary Southin “Whether that work contributes to peace, order and good government is another matter.” (Indeed it is!)
Madam Justice Southin further states, “I have not yet abandoned my conviction that Parliament has a constitutional right to be hoodwinked, as it was in the 1920’s and 1930’s by the propaganda against Marijuana, and REMAIN to be hoodwinked.”

Hoodwink is used as a verb. Verbs describe action or in this case a subterfuge.
Whoever perpetrated the marijuana hoodwink on parliamentarians, succeeded and by extension hoodwinked all Canadians who accepted, without question, the pronouncement of those who perpetrated the “hoodwink”

Justice Southin’s pronouncement is without doubt valid. Her observation regarding the hoodwinking of parliamentarians does indeed make of much work, work that pays quite well by the way, for lawyers, judges and peace officers. The Justice’s observations deserve our further considerations.

What were and are the motives for perpetuating this ‘Marijuana Hoodwink’ on legislators?
Why was and is it done?
Why the subterfuge?
Whose ox is being gored?
Whose agendas threatened?

Was the “hoodwink” put to use to create an altered state of conciseness also, a lower state of consciousness perhaps? It must be considered consciousness can be lowered as well as heightened, must it not? Is that not the argument supplied by Marijuana abolitionists?



Away back in 1972, 31 years ago Dr. Andrew Weil wrote “The Natural Mind, a new way of looking at drugs and the higher consciousness”. AND here we are, thirty some odd years later and the subjects is still debated from the same positions, and while doing so hundreds of lives have been ruined. Ruined not so much by the substances ingested as by system of laws based on emotionally charged argumentations and biases served up with a healthy dollop of junk science.

It is well noted in North American culture and perhaps world culture as well, that people use mind-altering behaviours and substances as a means of escape. I must strongly emphasis the word escape here. It really does not matter whether the means used is staring at mindless televised fluff, guzzling beer, sexing, or “comfort food” binges. The desire to shift ones conscious is pervasive.
Rarely considered are the possible *beneficial aspects* of perception change by the use of psychoactive substances deliberately used as a means to mind expansion.
There are also, and mostly unrecognised and ignored, myriad amounts of evidence in support of beneficial perceptual changes occurring while using mind-altering substances or practices.

Perception depends on ones perspective.

Here are two dramatic examples of diametrically opposed and polarized positions cited in Weil’s book-“The Natural Mind”

“When I was conducting human experiments with marihuana in Boston in 1968, a Federal Narcotics Bureau agent told me that no matter how my experiments came out, he would remain convinced that “marihuana makes people aggressive and violent.” My research had nothing to do with that possibility, but I asked him what his evidence was for his belief. He had one piece of evidence dating back from the early 1950s, when he had been seized by a curiosity to watch people smoke the drug. (His official duties were exclusively concerned with large-scale underworld heroin traffic and he had never come into contact with actual users of marihuana.) Accordingly, he had disguised himself as a beatnik and made his way to a Greenwich Village tea party. When he revealed himself as a Narcotic Bureau agent, “everyone there became aggressive and violent.” Most people laugh when I tell this story because the logical fallacy is obvious. But when I tried to point it out to this well-meaning man in Boston, he said, “That’s what I saw with my own eyes.”


“In February 1970 I attended a conference in California at which a young, radical sociologist presented data on drug use in American communes. He stated his belief that “marihuana often facilitates the development of communal life.” Asked to give evidence on this point, he explained that the question of who was going to wash the dishes was representative of problems encountered in making communes work. He said he had visited communes where the problem had been solved “by having everyone getting stoned on marihuana and make a game of dish washing,” and he added, “marihuana is known to aid in the performance of repetitive tasks.” When I objected to this last statement, he replied, “Well, that’s what I saw it with my own eyes.”

To continue with Weil’s observations –
“When you ask a question in research and the data comes back in this unhelpful way… you have asked the wrong questions.” Or make incorrect assumptions.
And so it is with the desire to alter ones consciousness.


A large part of the problem, as I see it, is in the use of such missives as absolutes, as in the expression ‘get high’. ‘Get high’ says nothing and has little positive charge to the listener whose perception is fixed in an assumed net loss of faculties. This now ‘fixed-in-belief’ attitude becomes unshakeable, or in other words “Right.” People who smoke pot become “drug users” and that label takes on a life of its own, one including all the intended negative aspects and suspicions of those who would make decisions on behalf of users of non-pharmaceutical drugs.
The “hoodwink” is now firmly fixed in consciousness.

Perhaps when the Stoners vocabulary advances beyond “ OH WOW” and “Far Out Man!” and he is able to describe the subtle nuance in his perceptual shifts, then those of the choose to limit perceptions might open their minds to views other than the ones they now hold.

And whether Madame Justice knows it, or not, she has exposed a very important point also addressed by Andrew Weil-

“The relative merits of straight versus stoned thinking are by far the most important of all of the garbled issues of the drug controversy, and it is the most anxiety-provoking. The anxiety arises entirely from ego-based consciousness because it concerns the deeply felt issue of self-esteem. When people who use drugs claim to have reached a higher consciousness or greater awareness, they automatically produce negative thoughts of lower levels of consciousness and lesser awareness in people who do not use drugs. Thus, these groups become polarized and begin to fight with each other symbolically, ritually, or even physically. When people are fighting they often fail to notice important things, such as the evidence that higher levels of consciousness exist and are available to all of us.”


In Roger Bacon's terms, the Middle Ages held argument to be the primary path to knowledge: argument from authority. Experience, the other mode of knowledge to which Bacon refers, was slowly beginning to make its way into Western life. We can get a feeling for the medieval mode of knowledge from the anecdote about the stable boy who heard the scholars arguing about how many teeth a horse had. The scholars consulted Aristotle concerning this weighty issue, while the stable boy went to the barn and counted the actual number of teeth a horse had. After reporting his findings to the learned gentlemen, the stable boy was, of course, summarily dismissed, because experience had nothing to do with knowledge. Knowledge was found in authority and system.

Is this description of knowledge and system the hoodwinkery to be found in the aforementioned “authority and system”?

Some and perhaps most of Humankind have developed intellect to the point that it believes the mind can know ultimate reality. But others are convinced that the mind has become the dupe of its own ideas and assumptions.
To be sure, there are subtleties in which a mind-absorbed or ego-obsessed consciousness is simply incapable of registering.
I use the following quote by the American philosopher William James to underline my point regarding the states of consciousness. Quite possibly there is a parallel line of reasoning similar to the one in linguistic thought that states- “It is not WHAT is said, but rather HOW it is said that directs the result.”
For states of consciousness might we not chose to consider not “WHAT is used”, but rather “HOW it is used” rather than attacking with a morality borne of fear of steeped in ignorance?
Pay strict attention to the words of William James the American philosopher
“…One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How to regard them is the question--for they are so discontinuous with ordinary consciousness. Yet they may determine attitudes though they cannot furnish formulas, and open a region though they fail to give a map. At any rate, they forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality. Looking back on my own experiences, they all converge toward a kind of insight to which I cannot help ascribing some metaphysical significance.”
At this time I present a radical and provocative departure from the status quo thinking of today-
Perhaps all this anti-drug hoopla has its purpose in holding society in a LOWER state of consciousness and hence hoodwinked, so it, society, and their thoughts are easier to manipulate using “hoodwinkery”. I underline my pondering with the following words from Dr. Norman Livergood, a man concerned with promoting Enlightened Thinking in all.
“Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the conspiracy to reduce consciousness to intellectual awareness of the physical world has been in evidence for at least five thousand years. Over the centuries the spiritual powers that Perennialist savants possess have been filtered out of most people, so that we now assume that our narrow, tightly bound consciousness is normal and natural. "Ordinary consciousness" is "normal" only in the strict sense of "statistically most frequent," not inherently "good" or "natural" as the term is sometimes misconstrued to mean. When contrasted with supernormal consciousness experienced by some people, our current rigid, intellect-based awareness is highly abnormal and unnatural.”
“Human beings possess a whole range of dormant, "hidden powers" of which they are usually unaware. Experience of these latent powers occurs accidentally or to those who learn the necessary procedures. These powers include inspiration, clairaudience, clairvoyance, psychometry, precognition, and telepathy. In his book, Beyond the Occult, Colin Wilson conjectures that we have gradually lost these powers “ . . . because we no longer need them." On the contrary, we have needed and continue to need such powers--for the completion of our potential and for participating in human evolution.

Our psychic powers have become forgotten and atrophied from neglect because the vast conspiracy of the ideology of Mammon (material wealth as the highest value) has conditioned untold generations to believe that mind-bound consciousness of the physical world is all there is. Non-ordinary states were said to be "psychotic"--evil, abnormal and debilitating. Persons who even spoke of spiritual or psychic powers were classed as weird, insane, and perverse.

We have very little understanding of "consciousness," since it is by definition a nonmaterial quality or state of being aware. Scientists study only the physical correlates of consciousness, such as brain waves, not consciousness itself.
From their early experiments with LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline at Harvard, Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert discovered the importance of set and setting:
o "Set is a person's expectations of what a drug will do to him, considered in the context of his whole life."
o "Setting is the environment, both physical and social, in which a drug is taken." 2 The Natural Mind page 29 Andrew Weil- (disk 4)


Without the concepts of "set" and "setting" we're unable to explain why drugs vary so unpredictably in their physiological and psychological effects on various users.
"...the combined effects of set and setting can easily overshadow the pharmacological effects of a drug as stated in a pharmacology text. One can arrange set and setting so that a dose of an amphetamine will produce sedation or a dose of a barbiturate stimulation." 3 The Natural Mind Page 29, Andrew Weil
Thus it's absurd to speak of "the effect of marijuana," "the effect of meditation," and so on. The "effect" depends on what users expect and on the expectations of the social setting in which they take the psychedelic drug or carry out specific procedures. But federal and state governments have continued to oppose any use of psychedelic drugs, claiming that they're all bad under all circumstances. Our nation's leaders continue to push the mind-and body-destroying "official" drugs of alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, among many others created by a pharmaceutical industry that buys politicians in large economy quantities.

Mind-Altering Substances
With the proper set and setting, psychedelic drugs can produce an altered sense of reality. Such experiences of altered consciousness usually last from one hour to several days. Though alcohol is often used in a negative "setting" such as at a bar or a party, where the expectation is aggressive behavior, with the proper set and setting alcohol can promote a heightened state of awareness.


One of the great mysteries of human life, as Michael Pollan explains, is that "there are plants in the garden that manufacture molecules with the power to change the subjective experience of reality we call consciousness." 6

"In ancient times, people all over the world grew or gathered sacred plants (and fungi) with the power to inspire visions or conduct them on journeys to other worlds; some of these people, who are sometimes called shamans, returned with the kind of spiritual knowledge that underwrites whole religions."
At the beginning of most of the world's religions we find some kind of psychoactive plant or fungus: the peyote cactus, the Amanita muscaria and psilocybin mushrooms, the ergot fungus, the fermented grape, ayahuasca, and cannabis. Ancient people experimented with these psychotropic (mind-altering) substances to achieve a heightened state consciousness.

Some of the most important Greek thinkers--Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aeschylus, Euripides, and others--participated in the Mysteries of Eleusis. The Mysteries consisted of initiation rituals in which the participants ingested a powerful mind-altering potion--probably an alkaloid produced by a fungus (ergot) that closely resembles LSD in its chemical makeup and effects. The ecstatic ritual was so powerful that those who participated kept their vow never to reveal its nature.

Under the influence of psychotropic substances, humankind has invented or evolved new ideas and paradigms--new ways of viewing the world. The human mind, we have now discovered, has a built-in receptivity to a particular plant: marijuana. The evolution of this discovery is fascinating.

In the 1960s an Israeli neuroscientist named Raphael Mechoulam identified the chemical compound responsible for the mind-altering effects of marijuana. He named it delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, a module with a structure unlike any found in nature before or since.

Then in 1988 Allyn Howlett, a researcher at the St. Louis University Medical School, discovered a specific receptor for THC in the human brain--a kind of nerve cell that THC binds to as if it were a molecular key fitting into a lock. When this binding takes place, the nerve cell is activated.

The brain has a number of neuronal networks involving compounds such as dopamine, serotonin, and the endorphins, among others. Howlett discovered a new cannabinoid receptor network in the human brain which triggers mind-altering effects when THC is present.

Thirty years after his discovery of THC, Raphael Mechoulam--working with collaborator, William Devane--found that the brain produces its own THC-like substance which he named anandimide, from the Sanskrit word for "inner bliss."

We have to wonder why a plant such as marijuana evolved in exactly the way it has so that it produces an altered state of consciousness in humans. Among many other reasons is surely that this has resulted in humans having an intense and abiding interest in it, to make sure that it evolves in the direction of enhanced power to alter human mind states.

The government's hysterical, criminal warfare against marijuana involves taking away civil liberties through property confiscation. Along with its struggle to keep marijuana an illegal drug--so the power elite can reap huge profits from its sale on the black market, as in the example of “Guns, Drugs and the CIA” associated with the Iran/Contra fiasco in the USA. --there may also be a subliminal realization of the strange and powerful connection the human brain has to THC. As the number of people using marijuana continues to grow, the old, violence-prone ways of thinking may be challenged and replaced by more positive ways of viewing the world.
The important factor in all of these approaches is whether or not these techniques or substances assist us in achieving a positive altered state of consciousness, which provides an insight into deeper spiritual dimensions within us.
If so, I return to my opening set of questions-

What were and are the motives for perpetuating this ‘Marijuana Hoodwink’ on legislators and the electorate?
Why was and is it done?
Why the subterfuge?
Whose ox is being gored?
Whose agendas threatened?
©


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2234
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:55 am
 


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 0?v=glance

"Mile High" by the late Richard Condon is about (in part) a deliberate attempt to engineer Prohibition in the US in the 20's, knowing full well that the demand for booze would create a blackmarket that could be controlled.

Interesting parallel!

---
RickW



You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:49 pm
 


Very interesting. However to keep things simpler in order to lure large public attention, why don't we(people of Canada, for this matter!) simply push for a national vote on Marijuana as people of Quebec did for their sovereignty.


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 11
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:22 am
 


If you were to poll the same number of people, that IpsoReid uses for their election predictions, you would probably find that the majority would not be in favor of legalizing marijuana. The social stygma that has been place on marijuana, and it's useage, is long standing and will take considerable time to change. The general public believe it is illegal, and should stay so. But, if several of these polls' results should prove me wrong, then I would certainly agree to try and get it on a ballot.

D.Faulkner


---
Life is a one way trip, make it a good one.



Life is a one way trip, make it a good one.





PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:35 pm
 


I suspect the money made on the status quo market is part of why the government does not act more proactively towards ending the prohibition. It is hypocrisy to be growing it in government grow-ops and then sending other people to jail for the same thing. Even the current minor reforms won't address this paradox. Reminds me of the poppy boom in post-Taliban Afghanistan or the B.C. Liberal caught peddling coke -- all kinds of people will lose money when pot is finally legalized and not state or corporate controlled.





PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:25 am
 


I some pot my self and i should of have been charged many times but the cops just ask us to move along probaly because its just a waist of there time to do all the paper work. I think we should be more like Amsterdam with our pot laws. Its not realy a problem like crack or coke. they let people sell liqure and stuff like that...over perscribe ritalin for ADD and ADHD, which if memory serves well, is more addicting then coke and its easy to get. make pot legal and there wont be any problems, i promis.


Offline

Forum Addict

Profile
Posts: 852
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:53 pm
 


Before any conditioned conservative come here complaining about the decriminalization plans in fear of relations with the U.S. Remember that 11 states have lighter laws on marijuana then Canada. The state of Ohio has already decriminalized 25 grams of marijuana since 1997. The U.S has more legalization movement organizations then Canada.

I would like to also mention to those who all think marijuana makes people unmotivated. Like someone mentioned above there is different strains of marijuana. Sadly because of it being illegal and not regulated, it's harder to find or have the option of different strains. I know three guy's I work with who have been smoking since they were 15 years old, who are now in their late 40's. All three of these guy's have been working with this company since they were 17 years old. All three of them make 45 thousands a year plus bonuses and RSP's. They are not the unmotivated people you speak of. And they contribute to society I'm sure allot more then someone who drinks alcohol as much as these guy's smoke.

Someone asked why government hates marijuana so much? that's an easy question. Governments control through fear. Pot smokers are not going to be easily brainwashed by their fear mongering. Could a culture of fear exist if the majority of peopel consumed marijuana? I highly doubt it. (I say consumed and not smoked as I personally believe it wasn't meant to be smoked).

Kevin

---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie



Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.